1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

The IPCC report blunders Himalayan glacier facts

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by radioprius1, Jan 20, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    155
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    Basically:

    1. The IPCC reports that "glaciers were receding faster than in any other part of the world and could disappear altogether by 2035 if not sooner"

    2. Jairam Ramesh, India's environment minister, released a report saying that was a lie: "There is no conclusive scientific evidence to link global warming with what is happening in the Himalayan glaciers." The minister added although some glaciers are receding they were doing so at a rate that was not "historically alarming".

    3. Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC (and a railroad engineer - LOL), told the Guardian: "We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don't know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement."

    (Notice how when the "skeptic" contradicts the "alarmist", the alarmist jumps directly to insults!)

    4. In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.

    5. Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: “If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments.â€

    6. Fred Pearce, a New Scientist journalist, said he rang Hasnain in India in 1999 after spotting his claims in an Indian magazine. Pearce said: “Hasnain told me then that he was bringing a report containing those numbers to Britain. The report had not been peer reviewed or formally published in a scientific journal and it had no formal status so I reported his work on that basis. Since then I have obtained a copy and it does not say what Hasnain said. In other words it does not mention 2035 as a date by which any Himalayan glaciers will melt. However, he did make clear that his comments related only to part of the Himalayan glaciers. not the whole massif.â€

    7. The New Scientist report was apparently forgotten until 2005 when WWF cited it in a report called An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China. The report credited Hasnain’s 1999 interview with the New Scientist. But it was a campaigning report rather than an academic paper so it was not subjected to any formal scientific review. Despite this it rapidly became a key source for the IPCC when Lal and his colleagues came to write the section on the Himalayas.

    8. When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was “very highâ€. The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90%. The report read: “Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.â€

    9. However, glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise. The maximum rate of decline in thickness seen in glaciers at the moment is 2-3 feet a year and most are far lower.

    10. Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as “voodoo scienceâ€. Last week the IPCC refused to comment so it has yet to explain how someone who admits to little expertise on glaciers was overseeing such a report. Perhaps its one consolation is that the blunder was spotted by climate scientists who quickly made it public.

    11. Pearce (the journalist) said the IPCC’s reliance on the WWF was “immensely lazy†and the organisation need to explain itself or back up its prediction with another scientific source. Hasnain could not be reached for comment.

    12. The revelation is the latest crack to appear in the scientific consensus over climate change. It follows the climate-gate scandal, where British scientists apparently tried to prevent other researchers from accessing key date. Last week another row broke out when the Met Office criticised suggestions that sea levels were likely to rise 1.9m by 2100, suggesting much lower increases were likely.

    The IPCC's press release on the matter:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf

    Other commentary:
    Told ya so…IPCC to retract claim on Himalayan Glacier Melt – Pachauri’s “arrogance” claim backfires Watts Up With That?

    World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown - Times Online

    United Nations' blunder on glaciers exposed | The Australian

    This is all straight fact. There you have it - the IPCC is not all "peer reviewed" material. Who knows what other skeletons are in their closet?

    If you got confused, here is a summary:

    [​IMG]

    WWF's statement:
    The glaciologist who supposedly made the claim denies it:
    Climate Resistance has a great story about Pearce, the journalist:
    Climate Resistance The IPCC and the Melting Glaciers Story
    What a corrupt, piece of garbage organization this is. Rajendra Pachauri should be removed from the head. He is a know nothing and has no business, as a railroad engineer, being the head of the IPCC. His financial conflicts of interest have been detailed:

    Pachauri used TERI email account to conduct official IPCC business Watts Up With That?

    UN IPCC chief Pachauri under fire in India for conflicts of interest Watts Up With That?

    Pachauri’s Carbon Choo-Choo off the rails Watts Up With That?

    What a joke. Oh man this whole thing is starting to come down :)
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    155
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    Yup, people are calling for Rajendra Pachauri's retirement. (I no longer will title him Dr., he doesn't deserve any professional respect.)
     
  3. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    155
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
  4. patsparks

    patsparks An Aussie perspective

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    10,664
    567
    0
    Location:
    Adelaide South Australia
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    How can you believe it is starting to come down?
    Climate science is a relatively new field in the life of the planet and this according to you has been going on since you joined PC.
    If 8 years of warmer weather is enough to poo poo 80 to 100 years of evidence of global warming then surely 2 months of climategate is enough to have made the house collapse already. Your work here is done, have a nice day.
     
  5. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    155
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    Did you mean 8 years of colder weather? Weather? Oh my god! How dare you say the W word! *Insert 10 page rant about not knowing the difference between climate and weather*
     
  6. chogan2

    chogan2 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    1,066
    756
    0
    Location:
    Virginia
    Vehicle:
    2021 Prius Prime
    Model:
    LE
    In the interest of fairness and balance, I think it's reasonable to post the IPCC's official response. That's all I'm going to say on this topic. The IPCC statement can be found here:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf


    IPCC statement on the melting of Himalayan glaciers


    The Synthesis Report, the concluding document of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (page 49) stated: “Climate change is expected to exacerbate current stresses on water resources from population growth and economic and land-use change, including urbanisation. On a regional scale, mountain snow pack, glaciers and small ice caps play a crucial role in freshwater availability. Widespread mass losses from glaciers and
    reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century, reducing water availability, hydropower potential, and changing seasonality of flows in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes), where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives.”

    This conclusion is robust, appropriate, and entirely consistent with the underlying science and the broader IPCC assessment.

    It has, however, recently come to our attention that a paragraph in the 938-page Working Group II contribution to the underlying assessment2 refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly.

    The Chair, Vice-Chairs, and Co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance. This episode demonstrates that the quality of the assessment depends on absolute adherence to the IPCC standards, including thorough review of “the quality and validity of each source before incorporating results from the source into an IPCC Report” 3. We reaffirm our strong commitment to ensuring this level of performance.
     
  7. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    155
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    Actually, posting the IPCC is not "fair and balanced", look closely at what they wrote:

    "Poorly substantiated", to me, implies that it was not based on very good evidence. The reality is that it was based on absolutely nothing. The person that supposedly said it has downright denied saying it. And this is supposed to be some huge, peer-reviewed effort.

    If anything, I would say the entire IPCC report is "poorly substantiated" and their monumental screwup on the Himalayan glacier was an "outright lie."
     
  8. KCobby

    KCobby Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    229
    74
    0
    Location:
    NYC area
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Advanced
    IPCC admitted the mistake - it was indeed poorly substantiated and unusually un-vetted. They admitted it and didn't try to avoid resposibility: to me that speaks to the strength of their process in which they fully admit when they are wrong - and do so publicly in the face of skeptics - when the evidence doesn't support the claim. This claim was NOT peer-reviewed, hence the problems.

    The overwhelming amount of other data has appropriate support. Whether you choose to believe that or not...that's up to you.
     
    4 people like this.
  9. patsparks

    patsparks An Aussie perspective

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    10,664
    567
    0
    Location:
    Adelaide South Australia
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Get over it, stop blowing smoke up our arses arguing semantics and answer some of our questions. Yes I meant colder weather, not climate.
     
  10. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    155
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    Re-read your post (and what I quoted from you.) It's not semantic to point out that you said warmer instead of colder. And it certainly isn't semantic to point out weather vs. climate - your own Icarus, and all of the rest of you alarmists jump all over everyone. How can you possibly debate anything if you don't know the difference between weather and climate?
     
  11. qbee42

    qbee42 My other car is a boat

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    18,058
    3,073
    7
    Location:
    Northern Michigan
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    This revelation is damning enough on its own merits. I don't see why anyone needs to fluff it up like a National Enquirer cover story. Radioprius1's approach damages his own credibility and diminishes the very point he is trying to make.

    Tom
     
    2 people like this.
  12. NevadaPrius

    NevadaPrius New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    216
    20
    0
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    V
    Please. If anything, it needs to be fluffed more. This is a document that is designed to convince legislators to bankrupt the worlds economy because of "global warming." And it's quoting a conversation that never took place as peer-reviewed literature?
     
  13. NevadaPrius

    NevadaPrius New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2009
    216
    20
    0
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    V
    P.S. You guys keep talking about credibility - who cares? What matters are the facts. Deal with the facts.
     
  14. icarus

    icarus Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2007
    4,884
    976
    0
    Location:
    earth
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Because past actions/past words have an effect on how much one is likely to be trusted to impart honest information.

    I believe it was you, (and it might have been someone else, but the point still stands) wrote a while back "Even if I am the biggest liar in the world, why don't you believe me WHEN I speak the truth?" (sic)

    EDIT: The proper quote in context is from RadioPrius1, 12/15/09 in the "climate change is natural: 100 reasons why,post # 8:

    "Icarus, if you want to change minds, you need to attack the reasons listed in the article and back them up with data. Attacking the source means nothing. Even if I was the biggest liar in the world, if I state a fact, it's still a fact."


    The answer lies in basic credibility. I am reminded of the boy who cried,,, oh well you all get the idea.
     
  15. KCobby

    KCobby Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2008
    229
    74
    0
    Location:
    NYC area
    Vehicle:
    2012 Prius Plug-in
    Model:
    Plug-in Advanced
    Amen...let's all deal with facts...
     
  16. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    155
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    Yup. And the FACTS are that this monumental mess up by these IPCC morons was not merely "poorly substantiated" - it was not created out of thing air! The person they are accusing of originally making the statement is completely denying it!
     
  17. Politburo

    Politburo Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    971
    208
    0
    Vehicle:
    2009 Prius
    This bit was not in the summary for policy makers. Surely you don't believe that legislators are reading the whole document...
     
  18. patsparks

    patsparks An Aussie perspective

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2007
    10,664
    567
    0
    Location:
    Adelaide South Australia
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    I do.
    And sorry I made a little faux pas, it was hard to say the weather was cooling when it was stinking bloody hot here.
    I did mean to write weather, just to stir you up. It is going to be hot today with some rain in the afternoon is weather. But Adelaide has a Mediterranean climate, it is hot and dry in summer and cool and wetter in winter. The climate has been changing, the summers are hotter while the winters are dryer.
     
  19. radioprius1

    radioprius1 Climate Conspirisist

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2009
    1,355
    155
    0
    Location:
    Iceland
    Vehicle:
    2010 Prius
    Model:
    II
    Really? Because the people on the same side of the argument as you would say it takes 30 years to notice any climate changing :)
     
  20. dg1014

    dg1014 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    63
    4
    0
    Location:
    WI
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.