http://www.wanderingeducators.com/best/traveling/crying-himalayan-meltdown.html

Am looking at some of these sources and find they raise questions themselves. Rees & Collins (the DFID report) state (without any supporting reference) (at p. 13/92 of pdf; p 1 of the Introduction section):

“Nowhere is this need greater than in the Indian subcontinent, where the snow and glaciers of the Hindu Kush and Himalayas provide up to 90% of the lowland dry-season flows of the Indus, Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers and their vast irrigation networks”.

This study also is an interesting trace back to the original 2035 date used in WGII. The DFID report is dated June 2004. At p. 17/92 (p. 5, s. 2.2), they state:

“Similar behaviour has been observed throughout the region, and this has led to speculation by some experts that Himalayan glaciers will disappear in the next 40 years (Down to Earth, 1999). In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission on Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated ‘glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by 2035 is very high’.”

Hmmm…now, does that sound familiar?

As for the material you quoted from p. 44, I think that these reflect the results from their modeling runs, rather than actual measurements.

I’d followed the trail from the Hansen (Dec 2009) paper, to Kehrwald, and from Kehrwald to the World Resources materials, but gave up in disgust when I couldn’t determine how they’d arrived at the figure cited (that being ~45% of the total river flow in the Indus, Gangnes and Brahmaputra comes from glacial melt). I find their citation system slack in the extreme: as part of the supplemental materials, they should have to include page references showing where their information has actually come from. (I find it interesting that the Hansen paper uses Kehrwald (amongst others) for the proposition that the glaciers in the Himalayas may melt by mid-century, when Kehrwald has nothing original on that point at all, but relies instead on WGII – and uses the clearly incorrect figures stating that the glacial area would decrease from 500,000 sq km to 100,000 sq km. (p. 5 of Kehrwald paper – final paragraph) And this from experts on the Himalayas??)

The following link… deserves another airing:
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/un-ipcc-rotting-from-the-head-down/

I particularly liked this:

As reported in the **peer-reviewed** Himalayan Journal of Sciences in 2005:

The Times of London (21 July 2003), reporting on an international meeting held at the University of Birmingham, noted that ‘Himalayan glaciers could vanish within 40 years because of global warming . . . 500 million people in countries like India could also be at increased risk of drought and starvation.’ Syed Hasnain is quoted as affirming that ‘the glaciers of the region [Central Indian Himalaya] could be gone by 2035’.

However, most interestingly, the above quote comes from a withering attack and exposure by Professor Jack D. Ives of the false claims being made by Hasnain about the Himalayan glaciers. Jack Ives is a foremost expert on mountains, especially the Himalayas. As Professor Emeritus, Environmental Science, University of California and Davis Honorary Research Professor, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ives is no obscure scientist, but a towering figure in the field…”

So they rejected the peer reviewed stuff and went with hearsay. Great science!

The author links to the paper, which is titled “Himalayan misconceptions and distortions: What are the facts? Himalayan Delusions: Who’s kidding who and why — Science at the service of media, politics and the development agencies.”

It’s detailed and devastating. The comments are interesting too

Either he claims to be an expert and is horribly misinformed, or
he does understand the science but chooses to present an alarmist view not supported by the facts.

I think you have misinterpreted this statement. When he says that negative mass balance results in 1.2% of runoff, he is referring solely to the “fossil water” being released by melting of ancient glacial ice that is NOT matched by accretion in the glacier of recent snowfall.

There is also a component of glacial melt of ancient water that is offset by recent snowfall turning into glacial ice.

Then of course the river flow also has large components of melting snow, both non-glacial areas of the glacial basin and also from on top of the glacier.

It is often hard to figure out which specific components are being referred to with any given number, and the ratio of source of water flow of course varies as one goes further downstream from the glaciers.

The best info I have found on the seasonal pattern of river flow and glacier/snow melt are figures 3 an d8 of
http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/3/443/2009/tcd-3-443-2009-print.pdf a paper by Thayyee and Gergan.

It shows that there are basically 3 climatic regions in the himalayas and shows the relative contribution to river flow from snow melt, monsoon/precipitation, an glacier melt. I note that many blog posts and some peer reviewed papers conflate snow and glacier melt. Even if snow falls on bare rock rather than a glacier, it will melt in much the same manner, delivering the same amount of water to the river at roughly the same time as before.

Thayyee and Gergan don’t attempt to determine the source of water in the rivers during the low flow period, and simply call that the “base flow”, which in hydrology basically just means subsurface water flowing into the river.

Another good reference source on Himalayan Glaciers is the study funded by the UK Dept for Int’l Development, “An assessment of the impacts of deglaciation on the water resources of the Himalaya; by Gwynn Rees and David N. Collins, June 2004. aka “Sagarmatha report”
http://www.nerc-wallingford.ac.uk/ih/www/research/SAGARMATHA/volume2.pdf .

Page 44 of the report (56 of pdf) reports:

“Changes in decadal mean winter flows, observed at two selected sites, are similar to the mean flow behaviour. Winter flows of the Indus at Partab Bridge mostly peak between 5% and 10% higher than the baseline winter flow in the first decade and then reduce to around -13% of baseline by decade 10, according to both the +0.03 and +0.06 C/year incremental temperature scenarios (Figure 4.9). For the Modi Khola at Kusma (Figure 4.15), decadal mean winter flows increase gradually throughout the 100-year model run, to a maximum of over +10% versus the baseline winter flow by decade 10, according to the +0.06 C/year scenario. While the relative changes are less in winter, any variation in water availability during this traditionally dry period could have serious impacts for water users”.