More Insidious than the Himalayan error
Guest post by: Indur M. Goklany
Jonathan Leake and Chris Hastings of the Times of London this weekend spotlighted an IPCC error of Himalayan proportions, namely, that, contrary to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, the Himalayan glaciers will not have melted away by 2035. This error, they attributed to a series of blunders, bad quality control and poor scholarship.
I want to spotlight another error in the IPCC report. This is an error, based not on blunders or poor scholarship but on selective reporting of results, where one side of the story is highlighted but the other side is buried in silence. In other words, it’s a sin of omission, that is, it results, literally, from being economical with the truth. It succeeds in conveying an erroneous impression of the issue — similar to what “hide the decline” did successfully (until Climategate opened and let the sunshine in).
I have written about this previously at WUWT in a post, How the IPCC Portrayed a Net Positive Impact of Climate Change as a Negative, and in a peer reviewed article on global warming and public health. Both pieces show how the IPCC Working Group II’s Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), which deals with the impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change, hid the projected decline in the future global population at risk of water shortage due to climate change. Not surprisingly, news outlets (e.g., here and here) routinely report that climate change could increase the population at risk of water shortage, despite the fact that studies show exactly the opposite regarding the net global population at risk of water shortage.
First, before getting into any details, let me note that just as the hockey stick was the poster child of the IPCC’s Third Assessment report, the designers of IPCC WGII’s Figure SPM.2 probably hoped that it would be the poster child for the Fourth Assessment Report. The following are excerpts from the earlier WUWT blog:
“Arguably the most influential graphic from the latest IPCC report is Figure SPM.2 from the IPCC WG 2’s Summary for Policy Makers (on the impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change). This figure, titled “Key impacts as a function of increasing global average temperature change”, also appears as Figure SPM.7 and Figure 3.6 of the IPCC Synthesis Report (available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf). Versions also appear as Table 20.8 of the WG 2 report, and Table TS.3 in the WG 2 Technical Summary. Yet other versions are also available from the IPCC WG2’s Graphics Presentations & Speeches, as well as in the WG 2’s ‘official’ Power Point presentations, e.g., the presentation at the UNFCCC in Bonn, May 2007 (available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/briefing-bonn-2007-05/overview-wg2-report.pdf).
“Notably the SPMs, Technical Summary, Synthesis Report, and the versions made available as presentations are primarily for consumption by policy makers and other intelligent lay persons. As such, they are meant to be jargon-free, easy to understand, and should be designed to shed light rather than to mislead even as they stay faithful to the science.
“Let’s focus on what Figure SPM.2 tells us about the impacts of climate change on water.
“The third statement in the panel devoted to water impacts states, “Hundreds of millions of people exposed to increased water stress.” If one traces from whence this statement came, one is led to Arnell (2004). [Figure SPM.2 misidentifies one of the sources as Table 3.3 of the IPCC WG 2 report. It ought to be Table 3.2. ]
“What is evident is that while this third statement is correct, Figure SPM.2 neglects to inform us that water stress could be reduced for many hundreds of millions more — see Table 10 from the original reference, Arnell (2004). As a result, the net global population at risk of water stress might actually be reduced. And, that is precisely what Table 9 from Arnell (2004) shows. In fact, by the 2080s the net global population at risk declines by up to 2.1 billion people (depending on which scenario one wants to emphasize)!
“And that is how a net positive impact of climate change is portrayed in Figure SPM.2 as a large negative impact. The recipe: provide numbers for the negative impact, but stay silent on the positive impact. That way no untruths are uttered, and only someone who has studied the original studies in depth will know what the true story is. It also reminds us as to why prior to testifying in court one swears to ‘tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.’
“Figure SPM.2 fails to tell us the whole truth.
“Hints of the whole truth, however, are buried in the body of the IPCC WG 2 Report …”
The entire piece can be read here.
The problem I have with what the IPCC WG II SPM did with the water impacts is best summarized by this excerpt from the US National Academy of Sciences’ book, On Being a Scientist, that I found on Professor Roger Pielke, Sr.’s website today:
“Researchers who manipulate their data in ways that deceive others, even if the manipulation seems insignificant at the time, are violating both the basic values and widely accepted professional standards of science. Researchers draw conclusions based on their observations of nature. If data are altered to present a case that is stronger than the data warrant, researchers fail to fulfill all three of the obligations described at the beginning of this guide. They mislead their colleagues and potentially impede progress in their field or research. They undermine their own authority and trustworthiness as researchers. And they introduce information into the scientific record that could cause harm to the broader society, as when the dangers of a medical treatment are understated.” [Hat tip to Professor Roger Pielke, Sr.]
As a long time science policy analyst, let me note that such conduct is reprehensible. Expert comments on the Second Order Draft of the SPM (see Items C and D on page 32 of linked document) had explicitly warned that: “It is disingenuous to report the population ‘new water stressed’ without also noting that as many, if not more, may no longer be water stressed (if Arnell’s analyses are to be trusted).” Despite that, the SPM chose to report the increase but ignored the decline.
This was clearly undertaken consciously, as opposed to being the result of a blunder. It is, therefore, more insidious than the Himalayan error.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
AGW.
When Models Attack.
There they go again. Hide the decline.
Is there anything connected with the IPCC and it’s parent organization that is NOT a lie? Anything at all? Anyone?
OT but consider this: I’ve not seen the “Warmists” described as a “cult” but that is an accurate description. The definition of “cult” can be found as:
“A system of religious or spiritual beliefs, especially an informal and transient belief system regarded by others as misguided, unorthodox, extremist, or false, and directed by a charismatic, authoritarian leader”
Now that we have a “peek behind the curtain” through the leaked/whistleblown CRU information, we can see the Warmists are indeed a cult:
Their views are transient, having started as a belief in the next ice age that morphed into something that is now the opposite, and could morph back based on something as fickle as the weather. The masses now believe in the concept without formal or precise training. They are misguided, their conclusions are unorthodox, and their assumptions, as well as some of their solutions, are certainly extremist or false. That they are lead by a charismatic, authoritarian leader (Gore comes to mind, but there are many others soaking up the lime light) completes the definition.
The Cult of Global Warming or, the Global Warming Cult.
I think it’s an accurate description of the movement.
But this happens all the time. Recently the science writer on the Sunraysia daily at Mildura, Victoria Australia listed 2009 as the equal warmest year with 2007.
He also listed rainfall and Murray river records etc.
I was able to write a letter to the editor and quote the real facts using the earlier Mildura post office record that showed Mildura from 1889 to 1949 to be a much warmer and dryer city.
He wasn’t lying but just chose to ignore the earlier record. This is small time in comparison to the above but is a proven way to alter opinion.
The omission of measured data on CO2, which shows levels (on ground and in upper atmosphere) around 1940 similar to present levels, in favour of local ice core proxies is a similar manipulation as the “hockey stick” temperature presentation.
The IPCC has no crediblity. False temperature construction, false CO2 information, false information on glaciers, false information on polar ice, false health information (particularly malaria), false information on sea levels, false information on fauna & floral extinctions, false information on ocean acidification, false information on coral bleaching and now false information on water resources.
Pachauri and some of the lead authors should be hauled in front of every court in UN member countries for providing false information and wasting money.
“Forms of scientific misconduct include:”
“Obfuscation – The Omission of critical data or results. Example: Only reporting positive outcomes and not adverse outcomes.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct
“In addition, some academics consider suppression–the failure to publish significant findings due to the results being adverse to the interests of the researcher or his/her sponsor(s)–to be a form of misconduct as well; this is discussed below.”
“In some cases, scientific misconduct may also constitute violations of the law, but not always. Being accused of the activities described in this article is a serious matter for a practicing scientist, with severe consequences should it be determined that a researcher intentionally or carelessly engaged in misconduct.”
Great detective work Dr(Mr?) Golkany. I agree that on another issue this story probably would have caused a great stir. But in the context of climate change it’s just a matter of ‘which version of the truth you choose to accept’.
Neville (20:44:37) : Maybe the science writer was referring to the ‘adjusted’ temperature record, and not the raw data. Although, I don’t know how they got the rainfall wrong.
To me, one of the most egregious examples was pointed out 12 years ago by Bjorn Lomborg, talking about the higher mortality rates during cold weather compared to warm. It’s really significant.
It’s also a bit of a red herring–many of those who die during a cold spell were just about ready to go in any case, but the same was true, for example, in France a few years back during the summer heat wave that killed so many. Most of them were also aged and infirm.
However, AGW activists only ever talk about the people who die from heat. And they talk about them a lot–with no comparison and no context.
But when AGW activists get on their horse, there’s no stopping ’em. All bad, all the time, don’t you love us?
Another great post Mr. Goklany !! Water is such an important issue. The money wasted on a non problem (MMCC) could go a long way to helping those who need it. A good idea is a good idea for example; http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/19117
How many people realize that the massive extinctions so often mentioned are all based on models and projections? No field data to support them.
It just is not happening or all of our field biologists have suddenly become computer-based, armchair biologists.
I am positively ill imagining the struggle of the people who depend on honest politicians to do their bidding.
I have not read the original Arnell (2004) paper, but this seems to be just another example of IPCC misrepresentation. One would intuitively think that if it got warmer, more moisture would be evaporated from the oceans and result in more rain on the land. That is if I have the hydrologic cycle remembered correctly. But perhaps AGW is more like what we used to refer to in the Mojave Desert as a “dry” heat, so it does not evaporate the oceans.
So, the results were “rectified” so as to pass only positive components like an electrical rectifyer. This is similar to the case of malaria, where only its possible increase was employed in the IPCC TAR even though models were predicting both increases and decreases depending on local precipitation changes.
This may show that humans are Maxwell’s demon.
My post was obviously tongue in cheek, but it seems that as the days go on, we find out that the IPCC stands for It’s Probably Concocted Crap.
The glaciers in the Himalayas, (Dr?) Golanky’s assessment of the economic models was pretty shocking, E.M. Smith points out that thermometers can migrate down from the mountains to more temperate altitudes, or down from Canada to more temperate latitudes, Mann finally admits to the MWP, the Hockey Cru was outed as collaborators to suppress scientific studies, Trenbreth’s travesty, then NOAA (or was it GISS?) admits that the cooling period was due to natural variation, which means that an amount of warming yet to be specified, due to lack of knowledge, has to be from natural variation, ultimately meaning that because climate models get the right answer with the wrong parameters, their output is pure junk. Oh yeah, and this thread too.
What legs are left to stand on? What case is there to be made that AGW is a real and viable concern? Because the January UAH anomaly says it is warm?
on top of this, hide-the decline and the glacier swindle, there is another, most significant IPCC chapter with massive manipulation, which every reader can verify for himself, even without climatescientific background.
http://climateaudit.org/2009/07/15/boundary-layer-clouds-ipcc-bowdlerizes-bony/
Recently in our small time local newspaper which like most of the MSM has a pro AGW slant – one of the main journalists wrote a story about Bhola Island in Bangladesh. He wrote how half the island has been lost to rising sea levels due to climate change. When I pointed out that even the IPCC has said that sea levels in the Indian Ocean are rising by only 1.8mm per year and the island is disapearing due to other factors such as erosion and that this is quite normal in a delta landsacpe. He did not retract the statement – I guess it’s like when a jury hears a statement and it is withdrawn, it has been said and must influence your belief.
Dr. Goklany is absolutely correct, not only about the omissions in the IPCC 4th, but about the potential impacts of possible (though unlikely) global warming. In general, net global warming would lead to increase evaporation and hence increased rainfall, as well as longer growing seasons, increased bio-productivity, expanded ranges for plants and animals, and increased biodiversity.
In contrast, global cooling will lead to increased drought, shorter growing seasons, and large scale extinctions.
The proof is circumstantial. First, precipitation, bio-productivity, and biodiversity are greatest near the Equator and diminish toward the poles. Second, during past glaciations plants and animals have been extirpated from vast regions of the Northern Hemisphere.
Other negatives noted in Fig. SPM.2. are also lacking in scientific probity, and are likely to be positives in the unlikely event that the globe warms significantly in the near future.
No one who has studied paleoclimatology would disagree that the Ice Ages are not over, and that another glaciation is virtually assured. Signs of neoglaciation are evident, as the globe has cooled over the last 6 to 8,000 years. Those signs include desertification, paludification, and southward shifting boreal tree limits.
Global cooling is the real long-term disaster facing the Earth, now, and for the next 100,000 years.
IPCC = Insidious Pachauri & Craps Contingent?
Curiousgeorge (20:33:52) :
Is there anything connected with the IPCC and it’s parent organization that is NOT a lie? Anything at all? Anyone?
I am not sure lie is the right word…. far too polite…. reading The big money story at http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/big-money.html makes me think of a lot of stronger words which are not so polite!
It’s becoming clear that the necessary actions to solve most of our world problems would require very little effort but will not happen for one reason. Politicians and organizations like the UN and IPCC don’t care. They rather focus on their lust for short term power than to fix ling term problems. Otherwise, the problems would have been fixed a long time ago.
As far as I can see, nothing of any positive outcome that may result from human activity is allowed to be reported, or included in science papers. No benefit to plants from higher CO2 levels, nothing.
This is all in line with what many of us have commented on. “All human activity bad. All nature good”. Warming bad (because it’s anthropogenic). In the 70s, cooling bad (because it’s anthropogenic).
This alone should be a clue to many that something is wrong with the entire AGW hypothesis.
A very good job with this. Thanks. I hope it gets wide readership.
Communities in many countries learned how to supply water and treat sewage and the necessity of doing so. It takes a functioning government and lots of money and is easier in new growing communities than in older ones developed before infrastructure. The money being wasted by politicians on dubious schemes ought to be redirected and properly managed. The UN is incapable of doing this and should be bypassed as should all the petty money-grubbing dictators around the world.
Manfred (22:08:32) :
Point taken. My tirade is amended to include the following phrase:
“and the issue of bony clouds…” 😉
“Mike D. (22:09:05) :
Global cooling is the real long-term disaster facing the Earth, now, and for the next 100,000 years.”
Indeed. Is there any demontrable proof that there was scientific concensus that an iace age was on it’s way in the 1970’s? I hear from alarmists that this is a myth.