The BBC quotes Pachauri:

“What we did say about the glaciers was in substance not all that wrong – the glaciers are melting across the globe so that is something we stand by."

I wonder who is measuring all the glaciers around the globe?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24204323

Sep 26, 2013 at 6:45 PM | Skiphil

Plenty of signs of earlier retreat than that. Look at Glacier bay which retreated loads during the century prior to 1850. And what is the official explanation for that?

Just a heads up. At least one writer has tried to connect melting glaciers to this years flood disaster speculated to have claimed up to 6,000 lives. (missing presumed dead, a bit dodgy that)

http://theconversation.com/scientists-confess-the-attack-on-the-ipcc-that-went-terribly-wrong-18496

A lake is suspected to have given way and impacted one location, along with massive flooding already occurring. Any link of the disaster to climate change in particular is tenuous. My comment appears under the article.

Glaciers do melt, if not, the Ganges would be frozen. Choice only of emotive language from Patchy. The evidence for glacier retreat, both hemispheres, is where exactly?

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2001/07/glacierbaymap.gif&imgrefurl=http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2001/07/fieldwork2.html&h=458&w=420&sz=30&tbnid=kZ_k53ewaR5q1M:&tbnh=85&tbnw=78&zoom=1&usg=__1H8eqYK2sxSCD1e1gxGT_U9tiyY=&docid=ORwRZNZPeh-FKM&sa=X&ei=pqxGUs2JKKWq7Qb1tYHQAQ&ved=0CDwQ9QEwBA

A map showing the retreating glaciation in Glacier Bay in Alaska since the 18th Century

There's a lot of silly things said about glaciers.

Glaciers melt, obviously, when the weather is warm. In Nepal that is the monsoon season i.e. when rainfall is already causing mass flooding.

But once you've got your scary headline, it's all (un)academic

Skiphill, the concern is for the billion or more people who rely upon these glaciers. You say that their disappearance will take a long time and that during that time there will still be water in the rivers. But then what? When the glaciers are gone and the rivers are dry what do these people do for water?

Ten or more percent of humanity will indeed have to adapt to their rivers drying out. Trouble ahead...

I read it. Here's a piece:

"Nevertheless, the study concludes that climate change will reduce water supplies enough that by 2050, declines in irrigation water are likely to reduce the number of people the region's agriculture can support by about 60 million — 4.5% of the region's present population."

The texts refers to the situation in 37 years, before the glaciers are gone. Like I said, trouble ahead.

Chandra,

Lets see, if we assume the predictions are correct, and that is a huge assumption and not one I would be prepared to place any credence in, then the statement inherently implies a nominal 4.5 % reduction in water availability over a nominal 40 year period, lets say 0.1% per annum, if the human race cannot adapt to that kind of "glacial change rate" then we deserve to die-out. You must lead a miserable life seing doom and gloom on every turn.

OMG! We don't have a single glacier. Does that mean we all died of thirst years ago?

Thanks for that link Bish, I think I've got it. The models can't do a good job simulating global-warming; regional simulations are worse; and “Immerzeel notes 'that climate models don't fare well at simulating the effect of warming on Asian rainfall'. They don't fare well simulating rainfall anywhere. They are only just (2010) starting to include satellite data [which is claimed to improve it, but 'probably won't change anything'] on mapping the less-important-than-previously-surmised glaciers . And they are confident that agriculture will only be able to support 5% fewer people in 2050.

So their models are next to useless, but they are also experts on current and future agriculture, hydrology, and technology in foreign lands many thousands of miles away. I have little doubt that pressure on water resources will cause great problems in many parts of the world, but we knew that already and I can't see that this adds much helpful to the total sum of knowledge.

On the doom-and-gloom scenarios, I wonder if their models take account of the increased carbon-fixation and/or water-efficiency of plants as CO2 rises? Or if their agricultural predictions take account of the chances of success of the C4 Rice Project which could potentially hugely decrease the input requirements of the world's most important food crop, allowing more people to be fed with less?

With 'friends' like Greenpeace opposing GM technology, the world's hungry mouths don't need enemies. A government minister yesterday called them “wicked”. I don't think them wicked. I just think they are hopelessly misguided and ignorant, just like the campaign against carbon dioxide.