Himalayan Glacier Disappearance Overstated

A pair of researchers has published a new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) in which two out of three glaciers studied were disappearing. In a report that was edited by James Hansen, of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, it would appear that the glaciers of the Himalaya are melting rapidly, but that is not how the report ends. The authors state that poor selection of study sites have led to the widespread use of non-representative data. Moreover, the IPCC report and others overstate the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers.

Appearing in PNAS online, the report “Spatially heterogeneous wastage of Himalayan glaciers,” sounds like yet another claim of rapid glacial melting. Written by Koji Fujita and Takayuki Nuimura, both of the Graduate School of Environmental Studies at Nagoya University, its abstract stresses terms like “rapid wastage” and “accelerated wastage,” giving an impression that the Himalayan glaciers are quickly disappearing. Here is the full abstract:

We describe volumetric changes in three benchmark glaciers in the Nepal Himalayas on which observations have been made since the 1970s. Compared with the global mean of glacier mass balance, the Himalayan glaciers showed rapid wastage in the 1970s–1990s, but similar wastage in the last decade. In the last decade, a glacier in an arid climate showed negative but suppressed mass balance compared with the period 1970s–1990s, whereas two glaciers in a humid climate showed accelerated wastage. A mass balance model with downscaled gridded datasets depicts the fate of the observed glaciers. We also show a spatially heterogeneous distribution of glacier wastage in the Asian highlands, even under the present-day climate warming.

That seems a fairly grim report but note that the study included only three glaciers—two under humid conditions and one under arid conditions. Fujita & Nuimura describe volumetric changes in these three glaciers, located in the Nepal Himalayas, from which measurements have been taken since the 1970s. Based on changes in the elevations of the glacier surfaces, the researchers calculated mass balance and the equilibrium-line altitude (ELA) for the glaciers under study. Compared with the global mean glacier mass balance, the Himalayan glaciers showed rapid wastage in the 1970s–1990s, but similar wastage in the last decade. The results are shown below.

Study glacier locations and mass balances.

The ELA divides the glacier into areas of ablation (loss) and accumulation, while the mass balance weighs overall loss and gain. Over the last decade, the arid climate glacier showed negative but suppressed mass balance compared with the period 1970s–1990s, whereas the two humid climate glaciers showed accelerated wastage. A mass balance model was used to predict the fate of the observed glaciers. According to the authors, mass balance calculations indicate the arid environment glacier will survive under current climate conditions, while the other two glaciers, located in humid environments, are doomed to disappear over time.

What is not stated in the abstract is that the two humid environment glaciers are at lower altitudes than the arid environment glacier. The warmer temperatures at lower altitudes would naturally lead to more melting on the two humid environment glaciers. Moreover, the authors state that other humid environment glaciers with accumulation areas located at higher altitudes will not disappear. In fact, they conclude that there isn't enough data, spread across enough glaciers, to make any generalized predictions at all.

The disappearance of Himalayan glaciers was not only overstated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, but also asserted in a study based on analyses of a Himalayan ice core. Disappearance may be the fate of some glaciers located at lower altitudes, as indicated by the present results; however, the heterogeneous distribution of the ELA trend suggests that it is unwarranted to draw conclusions regarding the fate of all Himalayan glaciers based on a small number of examples, especially when the benchmark glaciers are chosen in part for their small size, small elevation range, and simple geometry.

Why have the previous reports gotten it so wrong? The fact that Fujita & Nuimura included only three glaciers in their study is a hint. “Available in situ data have generally been obtained for glaciers that afford relatively easy access,” the authors state. “Because such glaciers are located at lower altitudes and therefore tend to have higher melt rates, ground-based observational data are probably biased toward a negative mass balance compared with the regional mean under the present-day warming climate.”

Fujita & Nuimura's conclusions reinforce earlier work by Vijay Kumar Raina, formerly of the Geological Survey of India. That report, examined in “Himalayan Glaciers Not Melting,” attempted to correct widely spread claims that India's 10,000 or so Himalayan glaciers are shrinking rapidly in response to climate change. According to Raina, the rumors may have originated in the Asia chapter of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC's) 2007 Working Group II report. Evidently, the bogus claim was based on measurements from only a handful of glaciers—the same biased methodology denounced in the PNAS paper.

Basically, lazy scientists picked the low hanging fruit in terms of gathering field data and, by doing so, have biased the results. Further more, that bias is toward glacial melting, the result desired by climate change alarmists. Naturally, if researchers gets the result they want, they look no further. So despite a non-representative, too small sample set, the IPCC and its fellow warmists ran with the melting Himalayan glacier story anyway.

This should surprise no one, for it is the modus operandi of the entire climate change cabal: take biased, inconclusive, or even contradictory results and spin them into calamitous predictions to frighten the public. In just the last few months we have found that shrinking arctic ice coverage is not anywhere near record low levels for the Holocene, attempts to estimate climate sensitivity from paleodata and models cannot be reconciled and the measured amount of radiant energy leaving the Earth is higher than that used in climate models, meaning the models have been wrong for decades,.

Fujita & Nuimura are to be commend for telling it as it is—reports of the Himalayan glaciers' demise are unwarranted. As are all the other tales of eco-terror told by the global warming charlatans. When will the climate alarmists learn? Inconclusive science, presented as settled science, is actually bad science.

Be safe, enjoy the interglacial and stay skeptical.

NASA Satellite Debunks Melting Glacier Myth

For the latest update on the Himalayan glacier melting fiasco see "NASA Satellite Debunks Melting Glacier Myth". I'll give you a hint, the title tells the story.

Huffman (similar name !) blog

A couple of physicists who had earlier claimed that, on planet earth (as opposed to a real greenhouse), the greenhouse effect was not valid. These folks were treated as “kooks” because their claim flew in the face of the “consensus”, which was readily accepted by both the proponents of AGW and the skeptics. Unfortunately these physicists presented their case using sophisticated mathematics and physics , not likely to be understood by many climatologists, and even those who could would most likely conclude that it wasn’t worth the trouble since there was already a consensus (sound familiar?) on that issue.

But physicist Huffman’s theory is very clean.. and SIMPLE. I think that even I can explain it, (and attempt to do so below) but if, after reading my interpretation you believe that you have a rebuttal, first review what Huffman himself has written on his blog and direct your rebuttal to him at that site.


The proponents of greenhouse warming are very concerned that even a doubling of Co2 in our atmosphere will have significant consequences, so it doesn’t take much imagination to picture what should now be going on at Venus. (Earth atmosphere has a Co2 level of .04% whereas Venus’ level is 96.5%).

Venus is closer to the sun and gets proportionally more power from it than does Earth. On average, Earth is 93 million miles from the sun, and Venus 67.25 miles. The sun’s intensity varies as 1 over the square of the distance from it, so Venus receives (93/67.25)^2 = 1.91 times the power per unit that Earth receives.

According to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the radiating temperature of an isolated body in space varies as the fourth root of the power incident upon it. In this case the radiating temperature from Venus in comparison to the Earth’s radiation level should be the fourth root of 1.91 which = 1.176. (This derivation is based on bsolute temperature, degrees - Kelvin.)

The temperature at any given pressure level in the Venusian atmosphere, should therefore be 1.176 times the temp at the same pressure level in Earth’s atmosphere, independent of the different levels of infrared absorption on the two planets.

The actual temperature / pressure profile for both Venus and Earth between 1000 millibars (Earth sea level pressure) and 200 mb (top of earth’s atmosphere) is available, and it turns out that at every pressure level in that range the actual difference in the factor between the two planets' temperatures is 1.176. (temp readings and estimated average distances will introduce an error of 1 to 2%)

In other words, the data agrees with the very simple assumptions used in the analysis. The assumptions give no consideration to either the greenhouse effect or albedo, but only to the relative amount of power received by the two planets from the sun. Visible light may be scattered,(we see a blue sky) but infrared (across the range) is evidently absorbed by the atmosphere.

There is therefore no greenhouse effect. A revision of that “consensus” theory will have to take into consideration this available data and thus will require introduction of various actions, all of which must somehow cancel out in the 200 to 1000mb pressure level range.

Gentlemen: start your engines !


Simplicity is only a virtue when combined with correctness. This stuff is pure dreck. Its fools like this that give honest skeptics a bad name.

The post above

It would appear that Mr. Dale Huffman (in no way related to Dr. Hoffman) has published a number of books claiming to explain the "ancient mysteries" and set science straight. His central claim is that Earth was remade to follow the design of a creator. In other words, he is a creationist. I am letting this post stand because it is useful for those of us who are real scientists to familiarize our selves with this type of pseudo-scientific nonsense.


I am letting this post stand because it is useful for those of us who are real scientists to familiarize our selves with this type of pseudo-scientific nonsense.

and i thank you for this.

i actually enjoy reading such things, they make for great "what if" mental games to really hone what you think you know.

i really liked the part of the solar system "redoing" itself specifically for man around 15,000bc. like modern man didnt exist before then. always those little details that get in the way.. haha


Why do the numbers match? Is he using a trick? Do the other planets match? As an electrical engineer I know that light, electro-magnetic, and radiation energy decrease as the square of the distance. I do not have any of my physics or thermodynamics books any more but his statement about radiation sounds correct. (Took graduate level courses in Thermodynamics and one in Physics.) Several years ago I read that NASA had scrapped any use of GHE on the Moon as none of the readings from the surface of the Moon matched the numbers generated by the GHE equations. They only matched the equations used when there was no "fudge factor" for the so called GHE. What gives?

Black Body Radiation

First, remember that coincidence means little in the big wide Universe. The thing to note here is that the Stefan–Boltzmann law applies only to black bodies, and Venus and Earth are not black bodies by any stretch of the imagination. Here is the blurb from Wikipedia:

The law was deduced by Jožef Stefan (1835–1893) in 1879 on the basis of experimental measurements made by John Tyndall and was derived from theoretical considerations, using thermodynamics, by Ludwig Boltzmann (1844–1906) in 1884. Boltzmann considered a certain ideal heat engine with light as a working matter instead of gas. The law is valid only for ideal black objects, the perfect radiators, called black bodies. Stefan published this law in the article Über die Beziehung zwischen der Wärmestrahlung und der Temperatur (On the relationship between thermal radiation and temperature) in the Bulletins from the sessions of the Vienna Academy of Sciences.

Using Stefan–Boltzmannan, Earth has an effective temperature of 255 K (−18 °C), which can be found by adjusting for the Earth's albedo of around 0.3, meaning that 30 % of the solar radiation that hits the planet gets scattered back into space without absorption. But this result is for a perfect black body. In reality, a large fraction of long-wave radiation from the surface of the earth is absorbed or reflected in the atmosphere instead of being radiated away, by greenhouse gases (yes, the ill-named greenhouse effect is real). As a result, Earth's equilibrium temperature is higher than the simple black-body calculation estimates, about 288 K (14 °C). Good thing too, or we would not be here.

As for the mysteriously matching Earth/Venus temperatures at various atmospheric pressures, there have been some interesting and unexpected results found when measuring the Venusian atmosphere. Things do not match exactly as the author above claims, he probably got his information from this site, which also quotes Velikovsky (if you do not understand the reference, Goggle is your friend). For more accurate data regarding the anomalous temperatures in Venus' upper atmosphere see the ESA website.

This is always the way this crap works: they take some simple, scientifically based numbers and calculations and spin a semi-plausible explanation from them by misinterpretation and ignorance. The sad thing about much of this fringe science balderdash is that the people who publish it, almost always people untrained in real science, believe what they are saying is true and mainstream science is some kind of complex hoax. Well science is complex and it is hard to tell brilliance from bullshit at a glance.

If you follow the link provided above you will find that Mr. Huffman claims no advanced degrees and calls himself an "independent research physical scientist, author [of] "The End of the Mystery", and discoverer of the astounding world design behind all the ancient mysteries." At the heart of every good lie is a faint trace of plausibility, do not fall for Huffman's bait.