Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Of courseCunsiderthis wrote: »Can we not agree to disagree and move on?
I'm just really annoying and have to have the last word :pac: 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
In case of the Himalayan glaciers, precipitation patterns, especially snow precipitation and its intra-seasonal variations, seem to be an important parameter.[/B] Heavy late winter snow precipitation seems to improve the health of some glaciers in the Himalayas (Koul & Ganjoo Climatic Change 2009).
. . . . .
In summary, the glaciers in the Himalayas are retreating, but NOT any faster than other glaciers in the Arctic and elsewhere. The two large and most important glaciers of the Himalayas show very little retreat at this point in time. The primary reason for retreat of some of the other glaciers seems to be lack of adequate winter snow accumulation. This depletion of winter snow could be due many factors like inter-annual variability of winter precipitation or possible southward displacement of the sub-tropical jet stream which straddles the Himalayan Mountains over a long 1500 km path.
It is premature at this stage to link global warming to the deteriorating state of Himalayan glaciers at this time. The Indian Environment Minister MR Jairam Ramesh has correctly observed “let us not write an epitaph on Himalaya glaciers at this time”[/I]
In other words, such reduction in size of Himalayan glaciers as there is may in fact have nothing to do with rising temperature.He and other leading glaciologists pointed out at least five glaring errors in the relevant section.
It says the total area of Himalyan glaciers “will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035”. There are only 33,000 square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas.
A table below says that between 1845 and 1965, the Pindari Glacier shrank by 2,840m — a rate of 135.2m a year. The actual rate is only 23.5m a year.
The section says Himalayan glaciers are “receding faster than in any other part of the world” when many glaciologists say they are melting at about the same rate.
An entire paragraph is also attributed to the World Wildlife Fund, when only one sentence came from it, and the IPCC is not supposed to use such advocacy groups as sources.
The IPCC should be disbanded before it does any more damage.
However, glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise. The maximum rate of decline in thickness seen in glaciers at the moment is 2-3 feet a year and most are far lower.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece
Unless, I'm mistaken every claim you have made here is from the offending WWF related bit. The only other error you have identified is the pindauri rate per year figure which was a mathematical error and a blog that cited a paper from 2009 (Which isn't really fair now on a 2007 report is it?). Correct me if I'm wrong but you haven't really shown enough to demonstrate your claim that the entire section is counter factual. So I'll make it easier for you, by removing known errors that I've acknowledged.
Himalayan glaciers cover about three million hectares or 17%
of the mountain area as compared to 2.2% in the Swiss Alps.
They form the largest body of ice outside the polar caps and are
the source of water for the innumerable rivers that flow across
the Indo-Gangetic plains. Himalayan glacial snowfields store
about 12,000 km3 of freshwater. About 15,000 Himalayan
glaciers form a unique reservoir which supports perennial rivers
such as the Indus, Ganga and Brahmaputra which, in turn, are
the lifeline of millions of people in South Asian countries
(Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, India and Bangladesh). The Gangetic
basin alone is home to 500 million people, about 10% of the
total human population in the region.---<snip>
----
The receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers can be
attributed primarily to the global warming due to increase in
anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases. The relatively high
population density near these glaciers and consequent
deforestation and land-use changes have also adversely affected
these glaciers. The 30.2 km long Gangotri glacier has been
receding alarmingly in recent years (Figure 10.6). Between 1842
and 1935, the glacier was receding at an average of 7.3 m every
year; the average rate of recession between 1985 and 2001 is
about 23 m per year (Hasnain, 2002). The current trends of
glacial melts suggest that the Ganga, Indus, Brahmaputra and
other rivers that criss-cross the northern Indian plain could likely
become seasonal rivers in the near future as a consequence of
climate change and could likely affect the economies in the
region. Some other glaciers in Asia – such as glaciers shorter
than 4 km length in the Tibetan Plateau – are projected to
disappear and the glaciated areas located in the headwaters of
the Changjiang River will likely decrease in area by more than
60% (Shen et al., 2002).0 -
-
I'm not convinced...
1) If these glaciers are an important source of water for key rivers in the region, either there is enough annual snow/rainfall to support the river flow (as in the past) to keep the rivers flowing or there isn’t. (The glaciers need to be replenished to keep the rivers flowing). It makes no reference to changes in rainfall patterns – all it mentions is “warming”. The default position I would have thought is that if the earth warmed up precipitation would increase as a result of increase evaporation from the sea. Most high altitude areas of the world get huge amounts of rain/snow – though I am aware that some parts of the Himalayan Mountains have never had high precipitation levels. However that has been the case for decades/centuries. I accept that some areas may / will experience changes in rainfall patterns – but where is the information showing this trend in this region?
2) They don’t cite data on river flow rate changes to support their case.
3) They purport to quantify the recession in the Gangatori glacier – and give one the impression that this is happening all over. The Himalayas is a massive mountain range – 50% bigger than France. If there was a Carrauntoohil glacier experiencing a similar fate, would we believe that all the other glaciers in Ireland were suffering the same fate without further evidence. Even less so for a glacier in France – not to mention an area 50% larger with lots of different climates. An area the size of Carlow in this region could well have a weather forecast showing temperatures ranging from -40C to +15C with 100 mm of rain/snow to the north of the sub-region and dry elsewhere for tomorrow.
Good points.
1) The situation is inherently complicated and my knowledge of glaciers only began really from the this current charade i.e I don't know much . I do know though that under various circumstances glaciers can actually grow by Global Warming, not retreat; grow.
2) The cite a tiny bit of data, to be honest it's not a huge amount.
3) I don't think that was their intended impression to give. However, as you read it that way I can only say I read it a different way. It's written in the language of scientific inquiry so I don't think many scientists reading it will go adding on bits to it that it doesn't actually state. The key word, I think, being "Some". Then again they might not.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Unless, I'm mistaken every claim you have made here is from the offending WWF related bit.
You are mistaken.The only other error you have identified is the pindauri rate per year figure which was a mathematical error and a blog that cited a paper from 2009 (Which isn't really fair now on a 2007 report is it?).
The blog also cited a 2004 paper by Kaser et al. You've completely distorted the sense of the quote I took from the blog by excluding mention of this and by linking this sentence by the blog author to the 2009 paper when in fact its source is the 2004 paper:
In case of the Himalayan glaciers, precipitation patterns, especially snow precipitation and its intra-seasonal variations, seem to be an important parameter.
Georg Kaser, by the way, is the Austrian glaciologist who alerted the IPCC to the problems with this section of its report in 2007. However, the IPCC did nothing to correct the report for two years, allowing it to continue to mislead both the public and policy makers and causing itself irreparable reputational damage now that it has finally been brought to widespread public attention.About 15,000 Himalayan glaciers form a unique reservoir which supports perennial rivers such as the Indus, Ganga and Brahmaputra which, in turn, are the lifeline of millions of people in South Asian countries (Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, India and Bangladesh). The Gangetic basin alone is home to 500 million people, about 10% of the total human population in the region.
This passage contains another glaring arithmetical error. The Ganges basin does have about 500m inhabitants, but of what region is this 500 million 10% of the population? The five countries named in the passage have a combined population of about 1.5 billion. If one includes China, in which part of the Ganges basin lies, the combined population is about 2.8 billion. If one considers all of Asia as "the region", its combined population is about 4 billion - 500 million is still substantially more than 10% of its population. But what's 100 million people between friends?The receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers can be attributed primarily to the global warming due to increase in anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases.
As we have seen, this is a mere hypothesis which is very far from being the settled scientific consensus, but it's stated here as though it's an established fact.Correct me if I'm wrong but you haven't really shown enough to demonstrate your claim that the entire section is counter factual. So I'll make it easier for you, by removing known errors that I've acknowledged.
The known errors you've already removed include these:- The claim that Himalayan glaciers would very likely have entirely melted within 25 years - this is impossible;
- The claim that Himalayan glaciers are melting faster than anywhere else in the world - they are not;
- The overstatement of the total area of Himalayan glaciers by a factor of 15;
- The overstatement of the rate of melt of the Pindari glacier by a factor of 5.75;
All this in a three paragraph section of the report, which when printed takes up about three quarters of an A4 page . . .0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Cunsiderthis wrote: »If thats what you conclude from me saying "I'd say there is evidence to suggest a link", then that's what you conclude.
We really have to make up our own minds based on the available evidence, and we are all free to read what we will into the fact that Dr Pachuari has chosen not to provide the evidence of the application for grants which did prove successful in obtaining substantial cash grants for his company.
You are free to think he is as pure as the driven snow, if that's what you think, just as anyone else is free to conclude that there is a conflict of interest, and that there is a bad small about the whole business.
Fraud? Perhaps.
Correct me if I'm wrong but are you suggesting that somebody actually prove their innocence?
The blog also cited a 2004 paper by Kaser et al. You've completely distorted the sense of the quote I took from the blog by excluding mention of this and by linking this sentence by the blog author to the 2009 paper when in fact its source is the 2004 paper:
In case of the Himalayan glaciers, precipitation patterns, especially snow precipitation and its intra-seasonal variations, seem to be an important parameter.
Apologies for that, I didn't read the blog.:p
One more arithmetic error, and plausible question of global warming being responsible for glaciers retreating. Although changing precipitation patterns are kinda associated with GW. Thing is though, I'm lazy at the moment, so I'll let it go there...
Ok, we're now at..
Himalayan glaciers cover about three million hectares or 17%
of the mountain area as compared to 2.2% in the Swiss Alps.
They form the largest body of ice outside the polar caps and are
the source of water for the innumerable rivers that flow across
the Indo-Gangetic plains. Himalayan glacial snowfields store
about 12,000 km3 of freshwater. About 15,000 Himalayan
glaciers form a unique reservoir which supports perennial rivers
such as the Indus, Ganga and Brahmaputra which, in turn, are
the lifeline of millions of people in South Asian countries
(Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, India and Bangladesh). The Gangetic
basin alone is home to 500 million people, about 10% of the
total human population in the region.---<snip>
----
The receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers can be
attributed primarily to the global warming due to increase in
anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases. The relatively high
population density near these glaciers and consequent
deforestation and land-use changes have also adversely affected
these glaciers. The 30.2 km long Gangotri glacier has been
receding alarmingly in recent years (Figure 10.6). Between 1842
and 1935, the glacier was receding at an average of 7.3 m every
year; the average rate of recession between 1985 and 2001 is
about 23 m per year (Hasnain, 2002). The current trends of
glacial melts suggest that the Ganga, Indus, Brahmaputra and
other rivers that criss-cross the northern Indian plain could likely
become seasonal rivers in the near future as a consequence of
climate change and could likely affect the economies in the
region. Some other glaciers in Asia – such as glaciers shorter
than 4 km length in the Tibetan Plateau – are projected to
disappear and the glaciated areas located in the headwaters of
the Changjiang River will likely decrease in area by more than
60% (Shen et al., 2002).
Keep going...0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement