It's been a bad week for Believers

there is no question there is a correlation; question is correlation btw what and what?

There was a study which found that rain forest growth rates are ridiculously small b/c of lack of sun exposure and very poor soils. Any rain forest study is further complicated as there is very little difference btw seasons and the trees grow without tree rings.

 

I found this video, but I didn't think this could possibly be what you are talking about, because nowhere in the Pachauri interview does the 2035 figure ever get mentioned. Nowhere does the interview say anything like, Dr Pachauri, can you defend the figure of 2035 mentioned in the IPCC report.

So this isn't about Patchauri defending that 2035 figure, in the face of the underlying data on the 2035 figure. He was never asked about 2035.

What is this interview actually about? Listen to the opening sentences: It's about a report, by the Indian government, claiming that Himalayan glaciers are growing. And how that contradicts the IPCC assertion that they are melting at a rapid rate.

Just look at the title: "Himalayan Glaciers: Bucking the Trend".

Host: "All this while we've believed Himalayan glaciers are receding, but a new report says that's not true. A new report by India's Environment Minister says that glaciers are actually expanding, findings in direct conflict with the doomsday predictions forecast by the IPCC. "

What is that report based on? A study of 12 glaciers.

Who published the report: The Indian Environment Ministry. Who did the science behind the report? Neither we nor Dr. Pachauri were told. How were the glaciers chosen? Neither we nor Dr. Pachauri were told.

Did Pachauri even get to read the report ahead of time? Doesn't sound like it. The Host clearly said "what is your initial reaction to this finding".

That's what Pachauri characterized as "voodoo science": Making a conclusion, which he noted runs opposite to all the other evidence on ice mass balance, based on 12 glaciers, chosen by the Indian government. That's what he said "get it peer-reviewed" to. That's what he characterized as simply feeding denialism. That's what he said "this is too complex a topic simply to have two people sit down and determine what is correct".

He "refused to sit down" with the Environment Minister on this issue, then went on to say that he and the Environment Minster are friends and meet regularly. He didn't say "we won't ever look at it", he said, if the report is good then get it peer-reviewed. What he refused to do, by his own characterization, was attempt to have two people sit down and try to decide the truth of a very complex topic. Based on a report by the Indian Government.

So here's how it looks, to me:

The topic of the interview was a brand-new report, by the Indian government, that (per the Host's characterization) said that Himalayan glaciers are growing, not shrinking. The interview was to get Pachauri's "initial reaction" to that. His reaction was: 12 glaciers, picked in some unknown fashion, with a finding that runs contrary to all the other changes we see occurring. Using that to overturn the IPCC report would be voodoo science and simply feed denialism. We aren't going to resolve this by two guys "sitting down", I meet with the Environment Minister all the time. If there's merit to that study, then let them publish it in a peer-reviewed journal.

So, I'll put the question back to you:

1) Should Pachauri have agreed to short-circuit the normal processes, fast-tracked this, and agree that Himalayan glaciers are growing, not receding, based on an Indian government study of 12 glaciers. On the fly, in a live interview.

2) Or, when confronted with that, should he have said, no, making that strong a conclusion running contrary to all the other changes, based on that small and selected sample size, that's voodoo science. I meet with the Environment Minister all the time, this isn't going to be resolved by my "sitting down" with him and pretending that two guys can make the correct inference on such a complex topic. If the study is any good, they should get it peer reviewed, then we'll look at it. But again, the finding of growing glaciers runs contrary to pretty much every other change we are observing.

Of course, the joker in the deck here is that he was set up by the Host. The Indian government study does not, in fact, say that the glaciers are growing. That would have been a difficult thing to have concluded. And that's where you get the "voodoo science" line from Pachuri. Because that conclusion -- the glaciers are growing, based on a study of 12 glaciers -- that is voodoo science. What the study appears to say, if you actually look at the detail provided in the video, is that, based on those 12, there is no detectable rate of recent acceleration of mass loss from those glaciers. Now that might be a reasonable conclusion, limited by the sample size. But that's clearly not what Pachauri was told -- just replay the opening of the video, or look at the title.

In particular, to be clear, he was not calling the original research, that was miscast as "2035", as "voodoo science". That research never came up. That research is not mentioned in this video at all. This video is about Pachauri's reaction to the conclusion that Himalayan glaciers are actually growing, based on a study of 12 glaciers.

 

Questioning man made global warming? Such heresy! This will be the excuse for the next Inquisition.

 

And here, it might be good to recount exactly what the IPCC says about the likelihood the current warming is natural.

I'll give you a hint. They don't say they are sure it's not natural. They don't deny the potential for the warming to be natural, not manmade.

Pretty funky, huh? All those folks out there trying to characterize the IPCC and similar as being dogmatic, inflexible, unwilling to listen to the other side. But, in fact, they've never even said that they are sure this is man-made. At least not officially.

A lot of people can't quite seem to keep straight that the strength of conclusions about whether or not the earth is warming are completely separate from the conclusions that man is the cause, or what portion if caused by man.

I mean, the main charge to the IPCC was to determine whether or not the warming is man-made, and they come out with this wishy-washy statement:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms2.html

"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.[7]"

To interpret that, you need to know that:
Very like = 90% confidence level. No more than 10% chance that this statement is wrong, and that most of the increase is natural.

So there you have it. The IPCC says there's up to a 10% chance that the recent warming is mostly natural. Does that make them heretics? If so, then what's the orthodoxy?

 

try this one too:
The American 'allergy' to global warming: Why? - San Jose Mercury News

 

I'll try to spell this out and amplify that.

Other than on truly cosmic timescales, the main thing that modulates GCR levels in the atmosphere is the strength of the solar wind. (e.g., High Energy Cosmic Rays, here: High Energy Cosmic Rays and the Sun (SLAC VVC)) As it goes up, GCR collisions with the atmosphere fall.

That's the problem. The charts that Mojo shows are proxies of solar activity plotted against proxies of (well, what was supposed to be temperature, but, in the case of the first one, clearly was not, based on the study that chart was taken from) temperature.

Mojo interprets that as the effects of cosmic rays. But that's a simple univariate correlation -- just two variables. Could be that there's something else that's correlated with both of them that is the real driver here.

So, what else is strongly correlated with proxies for solar activity?

Well, ... solar activity is. And that's the problem.

Mojo ignores the obvious interpretation in favor of the obscure one.

The obvious interpretation is that a warmer sun leads to warming. The physics there is pretty straightforward, the evidence is very strong, the quantitatively, the models of the atmosphere show that the observed fluctuations in incoming energy pretty well account for the observed fluctations in temperature.

And it's precisely because it's so straightforward that you see such a clear pattern of correlation.

The obscure interpretation is that that a more active sun leads to reduced GCRs, leading to reduced cloud formation, leading to lower earth albedo as well as complex changes in how heat is retained and re-radiated within the atmosphere, leading to warming. In a very roundabout way, with little in the way of solid evidence to suggest that the impact on cloud formation is anywhere near large enough, and so on.

I mean, I think there's no debate that a warmer sun leads to a warmer earth. There is serious scholarly debate as to whether GCR changes as seen over a solar cycle produce any material change in net cloud cover. Some say yes, based on a handful of one-off events where a short-term GCR decrease is observed, others say no, based on that same data, and on other data. (Cloud cover definitely changes over the solar cycle, but that's not direct evidence that it's a change in response to GCRs, because solar output changes as well.)

But the fact is, you don't need to appeal to clouds to understand the correlation between solar activity (proxies) and temperature (proxies). In fact, based on the best current science, if you really want to suggest that clouds are the driver of the temperature proxy, then you first must explain why a warmer sun does not lead to higher temperatures. Since I don't think you're ever going to see such an explanation, I don't think you're ever going to see mainstream science interpret the simple correlation between solar-induced changes in GCRs and temperature as evidence that GCRs have a large impact on climate. (Some impact, possible, large impact, you'd have to rewrite a lot of basic science in this area.)

And, of course, the elephant in the room: No trend in GCRs for the past 50 years, as posted above. It's really hard to posit GCRs as the source of a current warming trend in those circumstances.

Turns out there's an excellent summary of this just posted on Realclimate:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/09/cosmic-rays-and-clouds-potential-mechanisms/

Conclusion there is a lot terser than mine, and better informed:

"While reported observed correlations between cosmic rays and clouds are suggestive of effects of cosmic rays on clouds, cosmic rays rarely change without other inputs to the Earth system also changing (e.g. total solar irradiance or solar energetic particle events, both also driven by changes in the sun, but distinct from cosmic rays). Thus, we must understand the physical basis of how cosmic rays may affect clouds. However, it is clear that substantially more work needs to be done before we adequately understand these physical connections, and that no broad conclusions regarding the effect of cosmic rays on clouds and climate can (or should) be drawn from the first round of CLOUD results. Finally, there has been no significant trend in the cosmic ray flux over the 50 years, so while we cannot rule out cosmic-ray/cloud mechanisms being relevant for historical climate changes, they certainly have not been an important factor in recent climate change."

 

The controversy was exactly about the speed and completeness of the melt. Ofcourse Pachauri is defending the 2035 figure otherwise he would be open to review of the IPCC report. The report says some glaciers are growing some are stable and some are melting. The melting is not unprecedented as the IPCC claims, but the IPCC did not want this open to review.

Here you can see the minister over reaching, but with real science unlike the IPCC which used a fund raising pamphlet and was openly hostile to criticisms of the evidence.
India's environment minister under fire over glaciers - Environment - The Independent



J

Check my link above.

Some are expanding which is true.

IPCC was based on 2 with a huge math error on one. Should the IPCC have been open to criticism of its study instead of labeling the other scientists and calling them pratictioners of voodoo science? hmm I guess different rules for different folks.

Pachauri was ssying he was no one compared to the thousands at the IPCC that said India was doomed. The head researcher is Vijay Kumar Raina, and the fact was not hidden.

He refused to read the report until it was published and peer reviewed. I'm sure the reporters would have been happier if he read it and could discuss it instead of just attacking. Well maybe not, they get to replay the clip on tv and youtube.

All evidence? The minister said that IPCC did not check the ice ballance and the issue was complicated. NASA satelites have confirmed temperatures at many of the glaciers are cool enough not to melt. Pachauri said it must be global warming.because what else could it be, and definded science based on a fund raising brochure. That science obviously could not be questioned until the media showed it to be a sham.

Not at all the attitude. He refused to look into the alarmist predictions of the IPCC. This is a violation of peer review.

He was on the show because he was openly attacking the report without reading it. India did attack the IPCCs science, then instead of asking is it solid, he attacked those that criticized it. The source of the IPCC has turned out to be against 3 IPCC rules. I included this video to show the IPCC will attack scientist that don't agree with their predetermined outcomes, even if they have legitamate point of views. He did not say anything appropriate. He could have said I'll carefully look at the study after it is peer reviewed. I'll have the IPCC look into the data to see if it contradicts the conclusion. Instead he claimed thousands of scientists supported the IPCC claim, while I have heard not one glaciologist actually ever agreed it was good science.

So do you think the glacier report and dfense were innocent. If they were why don't you think the IPCC would take the peer reviewed comments into consideration?

No he should have been open to ballanced discussion instead of in attack mode. Then he would have quickly removed the bad science from the report instead of defending it. Some glaciers are growing He should have also fired those that put in non-peer reviewed politically motivated information into an ipcc report.

It is now accepted that some glaciers are growing, that the IPCC over estimated melt, and their research was not peer reviewed. The IPCC had concluded warming, why not read the research that contradicts the report and at least keep an open mind? Attack attack attack. Try to get other information suppressed. It backfired which gave the IPCC another black eye.

he used this stuff in print before. He had ample oportunity to listen but attacked the indian minister, again that is why it was on tv. The host brought him on to comment on the science.

Yes he was defending the science that said 2035, and calling the ministers its complicated but the glaciers will not melt anytime soon voodoo science. The big offense to IPCC is that the report said 2035 is false by a large measure. The second offense is the report said many of the glaciers are so high they are not melting because of temperature, then said some glaciers would not melt because of global warming. That last thing needs to be peer reviewed, but IPCC needs a new chief.

 

OK, this is my last comment on this.

Instead of interpreting what is there as one sees fit, maybe it would be better to start with what literally is there, then offer interpretation.

In the interview, Pachuri was asked to respond to a study. The host asked for "your initial reaction". To me, that suggests he had not seen the study before. Pachuri clearly several times says "whoever did the research". Again, that suggests that he did not know the author of the study.

The research was introduced, on the video, as saying that India's glaciers were growing. To me, at least, that's clearly what Pachauri was responding to. Several times he says (my paraphrase), ice is melting pretty much everywhere else, it would be unusual if somehow it were not melting, on net, here. Nowhere in the video is the question asked, Dr. Pachauri, how can you defend the 2035 figure published in your report.

So he tossed back the boilerplate response. We have 1000s of scientists, peer reviewed, several layers of internal review, and blah blah blah. Given how much crap he has to take from how many people, I think that if somebody threw a study at me, from an unknown author, with an unlikely conclusion, based on 12 selected glaciers, I'd have tried the boilerplate response myself. And the conclusion -- no, I'm not going to mess with this, let it get published first, seems like a reasonable response. At that time.

So, to me, that's what I just saw.

The "fund raising brochure" remark is another example of looking first at the data, then presenting the interpretation. You seem to say that the IPCC cited a WWF fund-raising brochure. The cited WWF study is here.
An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China | WWF Articles | WWF UK

At 70 pages, 202 references, 29 figures, 14 tables, it does not look to me like a fund-raising brochure. That paper, in turn, cited (incorrectly) the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology of the International Commission for Snow and Ice, presumably fairly authoritative source. Just take a look at it. On the surface, it's not quite the piece of ... fluff that "fund-raising brochure" suggests.

A more important question might have been, was there any other published projection of how rapidly the Himalayan glaciers were likely to melt, at the time the 2007 IPCC report was being published? If not, then, again, while this was wrong, it might have been the best source available to them at the time. I just pinged Google Scholar, and I could not find such a published projected available as of 2007, but I may have missed it. My point being, the paper looks pretty solid, it (incorrectly) cites a fairly reliable source, and may have been the only such projection available at the time. In the IPCC report (WG 2, Ch. 10, p493, 2007 IPCC TAR), it was clearly attributed to the World Wildlife Foundation. That's qualitatively different from citing a fund raising brochure in preference to peer-reviewed work.

 

I thought this was never a question at all: there are anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic components of warming. What has been questioned (or rather denied) the existence and influence of anthropogenic part.

 

You can keep spinning, but you keep seem to be trying to run away from my point.

There was a report contradicting calling the IPCC conclusion that the himilayian glaciers disappearing by 2035 alarmist and wrong. Instead of keeping an open mind, the head of the IPCC started name calling and poluting the waters. This was not a diplomatic I will wait for the report to be republished and peer reviewed but think it will turn out wrong. It was the oposite, they opose an IPCC conclusion. Who are they to do that! We are supported by numerous governments. They are practicing "voodoo science". He didn't even bother to ask glaciologists at the IPCC if they agreeed with the number. None that have commented on it have. That includes the original scientist that speculated on the rapid melt, but says the number is not his nor does he agree with it. The attitude to discount any dissent and name call is chilling to the scientific community. Science should be open to disent and peer review. This section of the IPCC was not a clerical error, it was a violation of the rules, and specifically disregarded comments that it was incorrect.

On the matter you are speculating on, you may believe this, and it is immaterial to my point. But the Government Report was not witheld from the IPCC, it was given to it. The question likely had to do with the clip that had just been shown on the television broadcast. He could have asked who the reasearcher was in his statement, and the interviewer would likely have told him. Instead he was using a form of rhetoric. But again, this does not matter to my argument.

I said it was a fund raising brochure, not a fluff piece. These advocacy pieces being used are specifically against IPCC rules for good reason. These groups have no obligation to fairly look at the issues. The piece was also not peer reviewed. This is a second violation of IPCC rules. Finally the IPCC was actively defending this, until the source was disclosed and the scientist involved commented that the number was not his and the tone was speculation. Others that had critisised the figure had their comments ignored. This is far from objective science, and IPCC has said they not do it again. There is no basis to defend the action.

 

From my chair, there are way too many publications on glacial dynamics to follow. but scholar.google.com can be your friend, if one has the interest.

If not, just wait. I anticipate that IPCC's AR5 will cover this literature extensively, not least because they got hammered after AR4.

We'll have to see if newer work alters the conclusions of Oerlemans, 2005. I'd nominate that as a reasonable starting point for budding glaciologists. Plus youse can download if for free from climate-skeptic.com. Read the paper, then read the spin (September 2008), a 2fer that can't be beat.

Have said before that Lonnie Thompson is my go-to glacier guy. There may be other nominations from PCers interested in this topic.

But the right way is also the hard way. Read the lit. Find out what makes glaciers tick. Temperature, surface albedo (see black carbon), water input, sublimation, and maybe another thing or two. But that is enough for starters.

 

There is with me

My big concern is if they will cover it in a more scientific manner, presenting only peer reviewed information taking into account those comments that are pertinent. I hope that will be the case, and we don't have anouther round of questionable research and lack of comments making the reports. Since I still think this is a possibility its best to educate ourselves.

Thompson is indeed one of the founders of the field. I find other work more compelling on kilamanjaro, but thompson shows most of his reasearch and has creasted musch in the field.

So on this himilayan matter I thought I would drop some words from thompson

This is similar to the indian science ministers statements that they are not faster than any other glaciers and won't disapear anytime soon, contradicting the now bogus claim. Thopeson does say there is a major net melt rate while the minister seemed to claim it was small. Given only 45000 more glaciers to check out there is a path to find out who is right. btw my money is on thompson.

The hard way is often the best way. I would add deforestation effects to humidity and percipitation too.

 

austin; while the state of Himalayan glaciers is a subject of very interesting scientific discussion, and while complete meltdown of those will have some regional impact it will have very little impact on global climate.

On other hand Arctic/Antarctic ice loss with potential thermohaline slowdown and permafrost melt with increased methane production may have devastating impact on global climate.

O'k suppose IPCC got it wrong; the glaciers in Himalayas will not melt by 2035; and they will not melt in National glacier park by 2020? Guess what? it is inconsequential.

Discussing this is like discussing whether the pinky toe was squished or stepped on during autopsy; obviously neither one was the cause.

 

Again the problem is the process, which was to include a passage that was clearly wrong amd from a bad source, then ignore imput, going as far as calling its critics names. The head of the orginization then used the fact of the number of sciencists working for it as somehow supporting this sensationistic concept. This is not good science nor an accident. I consider the likelihood that the himilayian glaciers disapeer by 2035 is about the same as zombies attacking london. The IPCC used language that said the chances were 90%, with no glaciologists agreeing with the figure. The report did tell a billion of people they may be doomed. I would like to see the IPCC reformed so that it does not happen again, instead of excused as a clerical error. This is in line with the anger to desenters by the APS saying a likely event is inconvertable, which means you are not allowed any doubt at all.

But the process is very consequental to getting the science right in the future. Part of the process needs to get rid of the name calling and the idea that it is acceptable to stop peer review since the peer may find a problem. We have peer review to find problems. Science has the hypothesis change or get rejected if the evidence shows something else.

IMHO the patient is still alive, but the doctor is an alcoholic and is making excuses for giving the patient dangerous drugs. He says it was a minor accident and the patient didn't die, but his main claim is that he went to medical school and can handle his booze.

 

Spending the last three weeks in Newfoundlandhas revealed a number of things to me, that only reenforce my feelings about the effect of climate change effecting high latitudes and sub polar regions, and how it will effect those areas worse and faster.

The first is the presence of ice bergs off the coast of Newfoundland. Ice bergs of course are not unusual,, but the timing is very different,, vast number of ice bergs in late September. Usually the last of the ice comes by by mid July. No one has ever seen ice this late, or this much anywhe near this late. The cause as I understand it is an acceleration of Greenland ice cap calving off. Earlier this summer, a chunk larger than Manhatten came off, and what we are seeing is the remnants of that calving.

The other observation was the near universal response of locals when asked about winter and ice now compared to years gone by. I tend to engage old folks, and ask questions like, "when you were a kid, could you walk to the other village (across the bay) on the ice most winters?". "can you do it most winters now?". The answer has universally been to the effect that there is never any more ice in the bays and coves. Sure, it is anecdotal, but when you hear it over and over, from folks that have been around the sea for 70 or 80 years, who have a connection to the land and the sea in ways that most of us can't begin to comprehend, when you hear it from the south coast in the gulf of St. Lawrence, to the north and the straights of Labrador, to the east and the north Atlantic, there is something there.

Icarus

 

I think it was about 18 months ago when glaciers came up here at PC. Would have to search back for my comments. One was a good introductory science tutorial that I did not save to disk. The other was a news item that China was vastly increasing the # of Himalayan glaciers it was monitoring. They don't call them Himalayan here but that's also OT

Anyway we are probably in a situation to acquire a lot more 'ground truth' on these glaciers. But the amount we know now about glaciers is substantial and it points towards melt.

As others may be quick to point out there are growing glaciers, and those are receiving more precip inputs. Use of such examples as 'proof against' warming is only possible if you set aside the basics of glaciology as I tried to outline previously.

Speaking of deforestation effects on the water cycle, AustinG if you like this stuff you really ought to read Van Der Ent 2010 in Water Resources Research."Origin and Fate of Moisture over Continents." I'll try to paste in the 'money graph' here. Blue colors means it all comes from the ocean. Red into brown means an increasing proportion of water recycled from vegetation (transpiration) "upwind". To pick one example, central Asia really relies upon transpiration from plants in southeast Asia. So deforestation there can have important effects downwind.

I can attempt to tie that back to climate change, at least to increasing CO2. Y'all have heard that plants transpire less water when there is more CO2 in the air, right? An intended consequence of CO2 fertilization, might say.

There is a lot of such inter connectedness in earth system science and I'll be looking for more of that (as well) in the upcoming AR5. That is, if they are allowed to prepare it

Because after all, it's been a bad week for believers.

PS: Thompson has done a lot of work at kilimanjaro but I think he'd agree that it is not the best choice for an exemplar continental ice mass. But Hemingway wrote the story, and there you go.

 

^^^ so basically there is no question that glaciers are melting, question is how fast they melt? to what extend increased air moisture % - snowfall counters ice loss?

 

Best to take that Q to the glaciologists, or take on the study yourself. With some degree of confidence I'll suggest that most higher-elevation glaciers are receding, and some lower-elevation ones are advancing. Not entirely unlike Antarctica where some areas are + and others are -. I think there may be + areas in Greenland, but not quite sure about that.

This situation compels the scientists to keep at it. It also offers cherries to be picked, if one is of a mind to do so. One of my favorite 'cherries' is Otzi the iceman, who melted out after 5000+ years. Clearly his glacier missed the memo on the Medieval Climate Anomaly. But mostly because I like the guy for some reason.

Glacier melt from Himalayas mostly supports riverflow during the dry season (winter). In summer the monsoon rains take over, and most years there is enough/more than enough. In years of monsoon failure, the glacial melt 'baseflow' is not enough to support all the agricultural demands.

With Himalaya glaciers as net negative (which appears to be the case, but more data = better), you get some number of years of more baseflow, followed by years with markedly less.

That's about as far as I can go on the subject. Someone else may feel prepared to disagree, or to take the topic further.