Himalayan Glaciers

[Mr Sleet]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

IPCC mistake apparently

[Gray-Wolf]

As far as I can understand things the original 'quote' , back in 96' was "gone by 2235" and the Chinese whispers that seem to drive things (Gore's Arctic ice gone in 'blah' years etc) scrubbed to 200yrs bit.

I think they'd need to shed 4m+ per year to be gone by 2035 which ,even in my dire world view, is pushing it a bit! Maybe a Tunguska event over the top of them???

That said they are ,and will, melt if temps keep rising.

New info on the sensitivity monsoon winds show that it doesn't take much to upset it's workings (higher temps in the Indian Ocean will do it) then the cyclical precipitation over the plateau prior to the onset of the monsoon would be lost upsetting the mass balance somewhat.

Unlike Greenland and Antarctica even the lowest levels of the plateau are pretty darn high giving it some level of protection (unlike Greenland/Antarctica).

[Dartmoor_Matt]

As has been mentioned, many of the glaciers in the Himalaya are actually advancing rather than retreating.

The fact is the IPCC got the idea from a WWF report (which was more of a blog) who in turn got the idea from an obscure Indian scientist who came up with the idea, but never released a paper or had it peer reviewed, and the whole idea was gained from a 10minute telephone call.

[sunny starry skies]

As has been mentioned, many of the glaciers in the Himalaya are actually advancing rather than retreating.

The fact is the IPCC got the idea from a WWF report (which was more of a blog) who in turn got the idea from an obscure Indian scientist who came up with the idea, but never released a paper or had it peer reviewed, and the whole idea was gained from a 10minute telephone call.

Obviously a screw-up in relation to that part of the report. But it wasn't something in the technical summary, or summary for policymakers so did not affect the report's conclusions. It certainly does not affect the science in any way - most glaciers worldwide are clearly retreating (see WGMS). It actually would not change the general IPCC conclusions if all Himalayan glaciers were advancing (though it would be an interesting question as to why!).

BTW, do you have a reference for your speculative comment that "many of the glaciers in the Himalaya are actually advancing rather than retreating."? I was under the impression - and you can see evidence on Google Earth for yourself - that they were generally retreating...

sss

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Here ya go.

I perhaps should of used the word some rather than many but the case in point is roughly the same, especially in the scheme of them all melting by 2035,or not, as the case is.

BBC News

Also, while in New Zealand 2 years ago, I was fortunate to go for a hike up Franz Josef glacier and the guide there said that it, and Fox glacier were actually advancing to, which considering they go down through temperate rainforest is interesting, I think.

No doubt someone will tell me that its because of the amount of snow they receive in their terminal moraine, which is of course increasing because of climate change, thus ensuring that all bases are covered, climate change (warming) will cause glaciers to both retreat and advance.

[sunny starry skies]

Here ya go.

I perhaps should of used the word some rather than many but the case in point is roughly the same, especially in the scheme of them all melting by 2035,or not, as the case is.

BBC News

Also, while in New Zealand 2 years ago, I was fortunate to go for a hike up Franz Josef glacier and the guide there said that it, and Fox glacier were actually advancing to, which considering they go down through temperate rainforest is interesting, I think.

No doubt someone will tell me that its because of the amount of snow they receive in their terminal moraine, which is of course increasing because of climate change, thus ensuring that all bases are covered, climate change (warming) will cause glaciers to both retreat and advance.

Any glaciologist worth their salt will tell you that melting 100s of m of ice in 30 years is unrealistic. That's why it's a mistake in the report.

I see:

"Dozens of smaller, high altitude tributary glaciers have advanced including seven of Biafo Glacier and four of Panmah," he says. "It means climate change is happening here too, but with different consequences."[from the BBC report]. Note he's not refuting climate change, just saying that the consequences are different. In this case, if it's a semi-arid region perhaps it is increased precipitation or a change in precipitation patterns that's triggering the advance? It doesn't change the evidence for retreat further east in the Himalaya.

And it doesn't change the fact that most glaciers worldwide are retreating, as generally expected by AGW. And you can never cherry-pick a single glacier for its response to climate. For example Franz Josef, which has the spectacular Waiho Loop moraine as it's putative Younger Dryas terminus, is relatively unusual in showing a YD signal in the Southern Hemisphere (the strongest evidence is around the North Atlantic, just like the LIA and MWP). Some glaciers terminate in forest - if there is enough accumulation to drive them that fast and far down the mountains, and if they haven't advanced as far as that in recent times then they have even been observed to knock over mature trees. There is no question that if AGW causes sufficiently increased precipitation in the accumulation areas of Franz and Fox, then it may perfectly well be enough to offset ablation from warming temperatures. Glaciers are like that - they don't just respond to temperature but also to precipitation and other factors, and much like the rest of the climate system, if you're looking for a simplistic tabloid-like single solution (like every glacier retreating, or record temperatures every year), you'll never explain all events. If you understand the mechanisms and other drivers, then you have a better chance of getting the whole picture.

sss

Edited January 21, 2010 by sunny starry skies

[Iceberg]

I was going to post something up about this but got distracted.

Most people will know I am a strong supporter of the IPCC and it's conclusions, I remember reading the very first report from the IPCC and how ground breaking the whole concept for the IPCC is/was.

However I will say that I am extremely disappointed/angry at the response of some of the IPCC members and at the process violations that took place.

This was based on a WWF white paper (much like the paper comissioned by the Indian goverment on glaciers). This should NOT have happened.

The claim in AR4 once is blatently wrong and doesn't match what is tabled and written in that section of the report. This should have been picked up by the section reviewer.

IT should also have been picked up by the section contributors.

Finally I've read that this was pointed out to the section reviewer and declined to change it.

The above should not and cannot happen again. Regardless as to whether this has been used in the policy segement of the report.

The IPCC did a very good job to start with, however like all good things, it needs to change and update to continue it's usefulness and the above demonstrates this clearly.

To add I am not saying that the AR4 is a waste of time, it provides a very good coverage of the science and some very good conclusions.

So In my mind the following changes MUST take place.

The IPCC should be renamed the UNCCC. ( Changing from the intergovernmental panel on climate change to the United Nations Climate Change Committee.)

The science should not be government anything, it should just be that science.

Papers are published by the UNCCC roughly yearly for each section of AR4, giving a round up of the science, conclusions and estimates, with assocaited accuracy estimates.

These should only contain and be sourced by Peer Reviewed Science.

An independent body should review the UNCCC documents, as well as an expert climate change body.

Every 3 or 4 years a completely seperate policy document should be produced by governments and the UNCCC which is then also published (the political side of the AR4 report).

Their must be no conflict of interest, all scientists contributing should be vetted by the UNCCC to adhere to this.

All Science used must be open to the public in the means of reproducing the science.

Hopefully the above can restore the trust of the public which is vital in combatting AGW, but which has been brought into question by some of the going ons recently,, (I should add though that I think 80% of the public mistrust is down to deliberate dirt racking, manipulation of the data and sometimes out and out lieing that sections of the skeptic community take part in).

As for the Glaciers in India, exactly the wrong message is going out, They are not on mass growing, most of them are strinking (, most of them at a rapid rate) they are declining in size, mass and speed, except for a few exceptions. However just like with Global temperatures and arctic ice, they will not decline year on year on year but will TREND down and that is exactly what is happening.

Phew, finished. !

[VillagePlank]

Thanks for that Iceberg. It's exceptionally good to hear someone from the other side of the fence, as it were, face up to some crucial and critical issues.

All it does is increase the respect, particularly I have (if it means anything at all, of course), around here.

Once again. Thanks

[pottyprof]

Good post Iceberg. Goes to show that human error can occur at any stage of the process.

Totally agree with the changes needed.

[sunny starry skies]

Good points Iceberg. Given the attempts of the denialosphere to derail understanding of the issues by hurling mud through nitpicks such as this Himalayan glacier error, it's important that the review processes and data verification procedures of the IPCC (with truly independent checking) are as near to beyond reproach as they can be made. With crucial international policy riding on it we can't have petty nitpicks casting shadows on the core science, therefore affecting how goverments see the issue and assess their response.

sss

[Devonian]

I was going to post something up about this but got distracted.

....

Ice,

It's clear a concerted campaigng to discredit climate science has been going on - peaking (obviously) pre Copenhagen. That has probably impacted on public opinion (propaganda often does) and it might be necessary (for the reasons you give) to waste a load of taxpayers money re-naming the IPCC and going through all the hundreds and hundreds of pages of it's reports to find the odd error/mistake here and there. That might be the lasting legacy of climate scepticism's 2009/10 vintage...

But, it would a waste of money because, as we both know, the science within the IPCC reports is basically sound. So, I wouldn't, myself, be calling for what you do.

Spending money finding out about what we don't know (feedbacks, aerosols perhaps) rather than spending money sorting the odd error here and there would be my priority.