New Paper: Rapid Glacier Melt DECELERATION For High Mountain Asia…Now Nearly IN BALANCE

Glacier Retreat Has Been

Slowing During 2000-2016

A new satellite-based estimate of glacier mass change for High Mountain Asia (HMA), the world’s third largest glacier conglomeration after Antarctica and Greenland, reveals a relatively modest retreat rate for the first 17 years of the 21st century.

The results from Brun et al. (2017) indicate that HMA glaciers are nearly in balance for 2000-2016, contributing the equivalent of just 0.046 millimeters per year to sea level rise during this period.  This is a glacier-melt contribution rate of less than half a centimeter per century, which is “much smaller” and “in marked disagreement” with other recent estimations.

Previous model-based estimates have generated HMA glacier melt and sea level equivalent values nearly 4 times greater (-46 Gt yr-1, +0.13 mm yr-1).  The new study’s authors attribute the discrepancy to the historical “sparse spatial sampling” and “lack of direct measurements”, or extrapolating data from limited coverage areas to represent much larger areas.

In this study, for example, glaciers in the Kunlun and Karakoram regions of HMA have been observed to be in balance or even gaining mass.  The model-based studies indicate significant mass losses are occurring in these regions.

The high estimates of HMA glacier melt and sea level rise contribution are preferred (and thus “widely used in the literature”) by those advancing the position that modern glacier melt rates are unusual or unprecedented.  This study makes a strong case that past and present high glacier-melt values in this region are unsupported by comprehensive analyses from satellite observations.

Brun et al., 2017

‘Much Smaller’ Asian Glacier Retreat For 2000-2016 

•“We provide spatially resolved estimates for the potential contribution of HMA [High Mountain Asia] glaciers to SLR [sea level rise] and changes in the downstream hydrology, aggregated by major river basins.  We find a total sea level contribution of -16.3 ± 3.5 Gt yr−1 (14.6 ± 3.1 Gt yr−1 when including only the exorheic basins), corresponding to 0.046 ± 0.009 mm yr−1 sea level equivalent (SLE) (0.041 ± 0.009 mm yr−1 SLE when including only the exorheic basins).”     [-16.3 Gt yr is equivalent to +0.046 mm yr, or adding only 0.46 of a centimeter to sea levels in 100 years.]
•“This estimate is in marked disagreement with the total estimate of −46 ± 15 Gt yr−1 from Cogley, 2009 and Marzeion et al., 2015 commonly used in the sea level budget studies.”

Model-Based Estimates Of Glacier Retreat ‘Four Times Larger’ Due To ‘Lack Of Direct Measurements’

•“The model contribution estimates of  Cogley, 2009 and Marzeion et al., 2015  for the period 2000–2013 are nearly four times larger than our estimate for Central Asia (22 Gt yr−1 for the model versus 6 Gt yr−1 for this study) and over twice as large for South Asia East and South Asia West (14 Gt yr−1 for the model versus 6 Gt yr−1 for this study, and 9 Gt yr−1 for the model versus 4 Gt yr−1 for this study for the two regions respectively.”
•“These discrepancies can be explained by the lack of direct measurements to constrain both the interpolation method of Cogley, 2009 and the model tuning and/or the high temporal smoothness of atmospheric models of Marzeion et al., 2015.”
•“In particular, these estimates [Cogley, 2009 and Marzeion et al., 2015] attribute mass losses to Karakoram and Kunlun, two regions with a large glacierized area where we find only little mass loss or even mass gain.”
•“Our new estimate of HMA [High Mountain Asia] glacier contribution to SLR [sea level rise] for 2000–2016 (0.041 ± 0.009 mm yr−1 SLE [sea level equivalent], when excluding endorheic basins) is slightly smaller than the values of Kääb et al., 2015  (0.06 ± 0.01 mm yr−1 SLE) and Gardner et al., 2013 (0.07 ± 0.03 mm yr−1 SLE), but much smaller than the model-based estimate of  Cogley, 2009 and Marzeion et al., 2015 (0.13 ± 0.05 mm yr−1 SLE), although the latter are widely used in the literature.”

Shrinking Estimates Of Non-Polar Glacier Mass Loss

In a highly-regarded mass balance analysis (to date, nearly 550 citations) published in the journal Nature, Jacob et al. (2012) record a stark trend reversal and rapid deceleration of glacier retreat in the 21st century for the globe’s glaciers and ice caps (excluding the Greenland and Antarctica ice sheets).

A major reason why the glacier loss estimates have been shrinking in recent years is the effectively in-balance estimates for HMA glaciers, which “show a mass loss of only 4 ± 20 Gt yr−1 for 2003–2010, compared with 47–55 Gt yr−1 in previously published estimates“.

Considering aggregate estimates for non-polar glacier mass loss were 2 or 3 times greater  for the 1990s to early 2000s than in the more recent years, it would appear the trend reversal in glacier mass losses is more widespread than a few areas in High Mountain Asia.

IPCC, 2007 

“Mass loss of glaciers and ice caps is estimated to be 0.50 ± 0.18 mm yr–1 [-179 Gt yr-1] in sea level equivalent (SLE) between 1961 and 2004, and 0.77 ± 0.22 mm yr–1 SLE [-276 Gt yr-1] between 1991 and 2004.”

Cogley, 2009

“The small-glacier contribution to sea-level rise is now estimated at 1.12 ±0.14 mm yr–1 SLE (sea-level equivalent) for 2001–05 [-401 Gt yr-1], as against the 0.77 ± 0.15 mm a–1 SLE of Kaser and others (2006). These numbers exclude glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica.”

Jacob et al., 2012

“Here we show that GICs [glaciers and ice caps], excluding the Greenland and Antarctic peripheral GICs, lost mass at a rate of 148 ± 30 Gt yr−1 from January 2003 to December 2010, contributing 0.41 ± 0.08 mm yr−1 to sea level rise.”
The high mountains of Asia, in particular, show a mass loss of only 4 ± 20 Gt yr−1 for 2003–2010, compared with 47–55 Gt yr−1 in previously published estimates (Matsuo and Heki, 2010, Dyurgerov, 2010).”

7 responses to “New Paper: Rapid Glacier Melt DECELERATION For High Mountain Asia…Now Nearly IN BALANCE”

  1. Lasse

    Glaciers stay frozen but Merkels meltdown will drown us!
    Is that the message to take away?

  2. Kurt in Switzerland

    How very inconvenient (if not impertinent) of Brun et al.

    Isn’t there a proper gate keeper somewhere who could “redefine peer review” and get this paper buried? After all, reporting such measurements certainly won’t help “the cause” now, will it?

  3. RAH

    It’s not just in Asia. Tony at
    keeps an eye on the Peterman Glacier which is the probably the most studied glacier in Greenland. It is gaining ice which makes sense because the SMB of the Greenland ice sheet has been increasing at a near record rate for well over a year now.

  4. Bitter&twisted

    CO2 working its magic again, Sebastian?

  5. Michael Jones

    I assume the response to this paper will be a deafening silence.

    If I understand correctly, their method was to use stereo satellite images to measure the (almost) entire ice mass in 3D. Sounds sensible.

    I’ve not paid to download the whole paper but there is a reference in the snippet above to ‘bridging the gap between two previous methods’, one of which sounds as unsophisticated as taking spot measurements then doing some (probably rather dodgy) averaging. Perhaps the other is simple 2d satellite images…?

    Can anyone tell me what these conventional methods are and whether they are even credible in principle (i.e. before being…ahem…corrected)?

  6. Glacier Retreat Has Been Slowing During 2000-2016, Scientists Find | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

    […] Full post […]

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy