Heat melts ice. That’s a simple fact. If the globe is warming, glaciers will

RELATED ARTICLES World Bank cuts China growth forecast to 8.2 per cent India gets 46th spot in global trade logistics performance: WB Nepal plane crash kills 15, including 13 Indians India sees remittance inflows of $64b in 2011: World Bank

melt. The question is at what rate are they melting. Especially those in the Himalayas, or more narrowly, in Nepal. The prime minister and the environment ministry of Nepal say there is evidence that these glaciers are melting at the fastest rate in the world. They base their views on several commentaries by environmentalists and a few scientific studies, which physically looked at a few glaciers. Environ-mentalists have said that at the current rate of melt, glaciers in Nepal would vanish by 2035.

That’s not true, says Richarcd Armstrong, a glaciologist and associate professor of Geography at the University of Colorado, who completed a six-month study on Nepal’s 3,500 glaciers for the World Bank. “The glaciers of Nepal are retreating, but there is no evidence that they are retreating any faster than any of the other glaciers in the world,” he said.

Over two days on the sidelines of the Kathmandu to Copenhagen — first in an interaction with a small group of journalists and then the next days in interview with associate editor Hardev Sanotra – Armstrong said there is glacier melt at the lower elevations of up to 5,400 metres in Nepal. However, above this altitude, the glaciers of Nepal do not experience any melt at any time of the year. “It is our opinion that the glaciers will be around for many years to come and that predictions of their disappearance by mid-century cannot be substantiated,” Armstrong said. Excerpts from the interaction and interview

Had anyone studied the glaciers in Nepal before you?

When we started, we did a literature search and I was sure we would find some good work to build upon. But what we found was a lot of speculation and claims without any methodology. The bottom line from our study is that glacier-melt contribution to all rivers leaving Nepal is between 2 and 6 per cent or an average of 4 per cent.

But are they melting at higher rates?

The whole area is spread over 5,000 sq km of ice. And 50 per cent of glaciers are above the zero isotherm level, or 5,400 metres elevation, and they do not melt at all. This, of course, is counter intuitive to those who look at glaciers in Europe and North America where the zero isotherm level goes right to the top.

Why this exception?

Because of the altitude range and lower temperatures. It’s twice as high in Nepal as in Europe.

But temperatures at higher altitude are said to be rising at a higher rate?

Unfortunately, I cannot verify that. It is in the literature, though not in any peer reviewed literature. Even if it is true, the differences are hundredths of a degree and at that level measurements are not accurate.

Aren’t monsoon precipitation levels higher?

Contribution to rivers in non-monsoon months would be more except for five or six months from November to March, even at low flows they are not producing any melt at all.

Is it correct to say that glaciers are not retreating?

In most cases, they are retreating slowly. If someone says glaciers are retreating at 10 metres a year, it doesn’t mean anything much. But then someone comes along and says, ‘and they would be gone by 2035.’ Now that gets your attention. Except that it is wrong.

It’s impossible. In most of geological time, there was no ice at all on earth. In recent times, ice has been increasing and decreasing. Since 1850, which was the maximum push of the little ice age, glaciers have been retreating.

In Europe, glaciers are responding at 1,500 to 2,500 ft. But at that level in the Himalayas you have not even reached the glaciers. Eventually, if earth keeps on warming, all ice will disappear one day in geological terms. But even if we take the IPCC’s 3 degrees centigrade average rise in temperature by the end of the century, according to our calculations, 25 per cent of the glaciers in Nepal would still not see any melt at all, not one day.

So there’s no discernible effect of man-made changes on Himalayan surface?

There would be a very large lag time. There’s significant supply of cold ice still stored at higher areas in the Himalayas. If we say 2,500 sq km of area doesn’t melt at any time during the year, that’s significant source of ice.

Did you study the glaciers by visiting them?

No. That’s the whole point. You cannot get a regional perspective by measuring one glacier for a couple of summers. The glaciers that have been physically studied, are below the zero isotherm level and in no way representative of the Himalayas. They are studied because they are easily accessible. For a regional approach, you have to study satellite data and we did that from two satellites — Nasa shuttle mission and ASTER, mapping 3,500 glaciers. There are some mass balance studies at lower levels, but it can take from three years upwards for

such studies, and then too you would get the picture for only one glacier.

After your study, would you say that the statements made in IPCC (AR4) report were exaggerated?

There are some unfortunate quotes in there and I don’t know how they got there. It reached a stage where the world glacier monitoring service in Zurich had to issue a public statement that those comments were not justified. How those errors crept in, I don’t know. Hopefully, they would be corrected in the next report.

Could the World Bank or others try and create a consensus now?

The World Bank asked us to do the study after they got fed up of the contradictory or non-scientific data. There are six scientists in a task force who are preparing a report on glaciers from all over, including the Andes and the Alps, and briefing Al Gore. I attended a meeting in Norway in April advising foreign ministers of the Arctic region and we all briefed Al Gore the day before he was giving a talk and I know he was paying attention to what I said, because, when he got to the Himalayas during his talk, he said results from Himalaya are ‘more difficult to interpret.’ He did not fire me because I am still briefing him.

But he could gloss over your study?

I don’t know. Many glaciologists say there is a hidden agenda. If there was a hidden agenda, they say, it was a good way to get attention. But these things take on a life of their own. First, there was the figure of 10 per cent (retreat of glaciers), then, it became 40 per cent. I saw strange numbers floating around. Glaciology seems to have generated too many misconceptions.

Do you expect Al Gore to ignore your study?

I expect him to be scientific and honest. And he will be, because he is an objective scientist. I do not want to take away from his message. I have no hidden agenda and I want to be scientifically correct. I am not passing a value judgement. He is all about mitigation (on climate change), and I am totally supportive of that. But that does not mean I am going to fabricate science to support his position. And I don’t think we need to, because there’s plenty of other evidence. But to say glaciers are melting where glaciers are not is going against basic science.

What about the western Himalayas in India and Pakistan?

We would like to use our method-ology to study the Himalayan glaciers there. But it would depend on availability of funds.