Even though these clean cut dudes (by today’s standards) may be favorite sons of 60’s alarmism, at least they can add years correctly. Their signature song telling tales of doom in future years is pretty close to this issue, so it seemed appropriate.
John Nielsen-Gammon who is the state climatologist for Texas has found a serious error in the IPCC AR4.
Roger Pielke Sr. reports that “he has published an effective summary and further detailed analysis of the error Madhav Khandkkar reported on in a guest weblog Global Warming And Glacier Melt-Down Debate: A Tempest In A Teapot?” – A Guest Weblog By Madhav L Khandekar.”
The story from Nielsen-Gammon is on the Houston Chronicle website, and is titled By the way, there will still be glaciers in the Himalayas in 2035
It seems IPCC made a serious error in judgement, and violated their own rules. The mistake was relying on a flawed report from WWF for a key piece of information. This turns out to be a World Wildlife Fund project report (PDF) An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China that was not peer-reviewed.
This is a problem; the IPCC is supposed to rely only on the peer-reviewed literature. Gee, where have we heard that before?
The key error is in this sentence on page 29 of the WWF report:
“glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high”.
Remember that year, 2035, as you read on.
Excerpts:
“Lost amid the news coverage of Copenhagen and Climategate was the assertion that one of the more attention-grabbing statements of the IPCC AR4 was flat-out wrong: [the IPCC text is]
Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) 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. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005).”(IPCC AR4 WG2 Ch10, p. 493).”
“To recap, the available evidence indicates that the IPCC authors of this section relied upon a secondhand, unreferreed source which turned out to be unreliable, and failed to identify this source. As a result, the IPCC has predicted the likely loss of most or all of Himalaya’s glaciers by 2035 with apparently no peer-reviewed scientific studies to justify such a prediction and at least one scientific study (Kotlyakov) saying that such a disappearance is too fast by a factor of ten!”
To see how that year of 2035 figures in, read the complete report here: By the way, there will still be glaciers in the Himalayas in 2035
crosspatch (19:37:21) :
“I saw a commercial on TV today from the WWF that stated that the polar bears would all be dead by the time my kids were grown up.”
The ad I saw some time ago claimed “most will die in our children’s lifetime.” Parsing carefully . . . let’s see, my kids are in their 30s, polar bear life span in the wild is 15 – 18 years . . . yup, THESE bears will be dead. Their offspring? That’s just a distraction.
Couple weeks ago we received a brochure for National Geographic arctic tours. On the cover, polar bears and the subtitle, “It’s his world, we’re just in it.” How did that happen? Was there an election? Did the bears win? How did the seals vote?
“glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high”.
2035!!! I was told it was all over in 2012. I spent all my money.
Keith Minto (20:33:47) :
I had to go look at this picture. It’s not an armadillo, it’s an anteater! Armadillos and roaches will be fine and happy long after we’re gone!
“Mr Cogley says it is astonishing that none of the 10 authors of the 2007 IPCC report could spot the error and “misread 2350 as 2035″.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8387737.stm
What I’d like to know is how many peer reviewed papers have cited this non-peer reviewed reference?
One must have a working knowledge of algorean math to figure this one out.
Please follow:
First we must find the “discrepancy ratio” which is:
2035 / 2350 = .866
Next we find the time difference which is :
2350 – 2035 = 315 years
But since the discrepancy ratio is .866 so we must multiply 315 x .866 = 273 (rounded). This gives us the real time difference in years as 273 which we then subtract from the later date to give us the true date in error:
2350 – 273 = 2077
We now have a correction of 42 years (2077 – 2035 = 42) to which we must again apply the discrepancy ratio and get the actual correction as
42 x .866 = 36 years.
If we then subtract those 36 years from the original year in error (2035) we have:
2035 – 36 = 1999
And 1999 was the year of the original publication of the report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) so it all fits.
bikermailman (19:46:13) “This story reminds me of the game of ‘rumor’ we all played as children. Malintent? Possibly, given what we know of some advocacy groups. Possibly not. Either way, utterly irresponsible.”
In the sea of moral relativism where many of the environmental advocacy groups swim, there can not be mal-intent (at least on their part). Their intent is to save the planet and any and all means to that end are acceptable. It’s unbridled consequentialism by people that are nominally inspired by altruistic motives.
Spenc Canada (21:15:11) :
Why is this not front page news everywhere.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/23/2779498.htm?section=justin
The headline reads, “Eyewitness: How China Sabotaged Climate Talks”. The story is pretty meaty.
Dave F (21:23:30) :
Impossible! It was peer reviewed!
A hit! A palpable hit!
“59. Garhwal Himalayas, India — Glacial retreat at record pace. The Dokriani Barnak Glacier retreated 66 feet (20.1 m) in 1998 despite a severe winter. The Gangorti Glacier is retreating 98 feet per year. At this rate scientists predict the loss of all central and eastern Himalayan glaciers by 2035.
Reference: 1998. Himalayan glacier backing off. Science 281: 1277.”
http://www.climatehotmap.org/references.html
“kadaka (20:36:27) :
A dog is twice as bad as an SUV.
Pets are horrible things for the environment. They are destroying our planet. We should immediately get rid of them.
Notify the WWF, to save the planet the pandas and the polar bears at the zoos need to be put down!
And the koalas as well!”
It’s not just the domesticated ones. It’s the ones in the wild too.
If a domestic dog is bad, then what about wild dogs, or wild pigs, or deer, or any other mammal? It’s beginning to sound like these envirowhackos are not just self loathing human haters but maybe they are anti mammal or even anti animal, perhaps even anti-living organism.
It’s becoming apparent that they spend so much time saving the whales and baby seals to feed to the baby polar bears to co-opt new recruits into this self loathing human hater’s cult. Once they’re in, it must expand to a loathing for all life.
Bit of a shame we couldn’t have selective glacier melting. Could have left a couple of Km depth on top of Washington and London amongst other places. Why the love affair with ice? As far as life is concerned, ice is death.
SteveS (05:09:49) :
Notify the WWF, to save the planet the pandas and the polar bears at the zoos need to be put down!
And the koalas as well!
I’ll take care of it Steve. I’ll take out all the people and animals.
It will just be me and the Swedish bikini team left to
repopulate the world. Oh yeah, and all the beer.
crosspatch (19:37:21) :
I saw a commercial on TV today from the WWF that stated that the polar bears would all be dead by the time my kids were grown up. They claimed that the baby polar bears are starving to death and drowning from lack of strength to swim.
Peter of Sydney (22:16:28) :
It’s time to complain to TV stations for advertising lies.
Don’t know about Australia or wherever crosspatch lives but in the UK we have an Advertising Standards Authority which is supposed to deal with adverts which infringe the Advertising Codes.
Some extracts from the website of the ASA:
Advertising Codes
The Advertising Codes lay down rules for advertisers, agencies and media owners to follow. The Advertising Standards Codes are separated out into codes for TV, radio and all other types of ads (‘non-broadcast advertising’). There are also rules for Teletext ads, interactive ads and the scheduling of television ads.
(a) This Code (for television) applies to all the Ofcom licensees listed below1 and is designed
to inform advertisers and broadcasters of the standards expected in television
advertising. It is based on enduring principles; that advertising should not
mislead, cause deep or widespread offence or lead to harm, particularly to the
vulnerable.
The Codes contain wide-ranging rules designed to ensure that advertising does not mislead, harm or offend. Ads must also be socially responsible and prepared in line with the principles of fair competition. These broad principles apply regardless of the product being advertised.
In addition, the Codes contain specific rules for certain products and marketing techniques. These include rules for alcoholic drinks, health and beauty claims, children, medicines, financial products, environmental claims, gambling, direct marketing and prize promotions. These rules add an extra layer of consumer protection on top of consumer protection law and aim to ensure that UK advertising is responsible.
On the other hand the ASA website also states:
It’s not just the climate that is hotting up, so is the race to be seen as the greenest. A growing trend over recent years has seen more and more businesses beginning to tout their eco-friendly credentials. Being green is one thing but being seen to be green is fast becoming a key commercial battle ground.
So thy seems to have been taken in by the AGW crowd.
Maybe there is something similar in Australia and crosspatch’s country.
Cromagnum (21:33:27) :
A very good short article describing the Science issue: Laws vs Models
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/12/21/the_perverse_economics_of_climate_modeling_9755
Excellent — recommended.
Olle (20:41:36):
“In Svalbard where hunting is forbidden the population is growing.Notice that Svalbard is the icebear habitat that has “suffered” of the biggest “lost” of ice of all habitats.”
——-
“Polar bears ‘thriving as the Arctic WARMS up'”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1545036/Polar-bears-thriving-as-the-Arctic-warms-up.html
Wasn’t there some green organization that notoriously wanted to “off” the cute abandoned polar bear cob in the Berlin zoo? Was that WWF?
re yonason (22:31:47) / John Coleman video:
The page links to
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a
Thanks for the link, yonason, Coleman gives the most accurate and fastest rundown of the sceptics position i’ve seen yet. He runs rings around Al Gore as a speaker. Great stuff.
“Spenc Canada (21:15:11) :
Why is this not front page news everywhere. […]
The headline reads, “Eyewitness: How China Sabotaged Climate Talks”. The story is pretty meaty.
”
The story has hit german news outlets now. Very funny in my eyes, they’re talking about Merkel throwing her arms in the air in desperation when the chinese negotiator wouldn’t even allow the EU to express their own goals in the “accord”. I’m usually not a fan of an autocratic government but the chinese really did something right there.
But i guess it’s not about the form of government but about the stage of development a national economy is in. And for the Chinese, sabotaging the throttling of development was crucial. Same for the Indians.
Although the author of the original report claims that the WWF report was based on a New Scientist article, he’s not telling the whole truth. The WWF report is 70 pages long and has over 200 references, one of which is the New Scientist. It seems to be a synthesis report of the peer reviewed literature.
BTW NG wrote a paper on the film An Inconvenient Truth. His conclusion may surprise some of you: “AIT likewise is both effective and annoyingly misleading. For each statement in AIT that goes too far, there are perhaps ten other scientifically valid statements that could have been made but were left out in the interest of time or persuasiveness for a lay audience. The IPCC reports remain the best available comprehensive summary of the
scientific basis of global warming causes and effects.”
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/222/ait.pdf
****************
cba (06:36:44) :
“kadaka (20:36:27) :
A dog is twice as bad as an SUV.
***************
If a dog is worse than an SUV, Al “The Liar” Gore is a quadrillion times worse than a dog. He should be exiled to the Moon.
——-
Re: Tom in Florida (06:16:24) :
One must have a working knowledge of algorean math to figure this one out.
——–
Tom,
Brilliant!
– Bill
3X2,
Ice is good
in Scotch.
Ursus maritimus: “…..I’ve been wanting for a while to make a webpage that collects all of the bizarre predictions made about AGW…..”
Ursus-
Start with http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
IanM
SteveS (05:09:49) :
Thank you for bringing that to my attention,you wonderful person! I may well start an advocacy group for the elimination of pets after christmas.
Sorry, that is already being covered by PETA. Better dead than enslaved, eh?
cba (06:36:44) :
It’s not just the domesticated ones. It’s the ones in the wild too.
From the article:
“But despite the apocalyptic visions of domesticated animals’ environmental impact, solutions exist, including reducing pets’ protein-rich meat intake.
…
“Other potential positive steps include avoiding walking your dog in wildlife-rich areas and keeping your cat indoors at night when it has a particular thirst for other, smaller animals’ blood. ”
Looking solely at the carbon pawprint, it is better for the cat to have a manufactured product made with farmed ingredients that was transported, than for it to munch on a mouse it finds in nature? Wait, I thought living “naturally” was what they wanted as the ultimate in low-carbon living for humans. Now they say something with a measurable carbon impact is better than something just wandering around in nature?
Of course, these are the days when they market dog food with “healthy vegetables” mixed in. Ah, when I think of all the times I’ve caught a dog munching down on the pea pods in the garden for a snack, or calling a carrot or two its lunch…
Z and E actually nailed it. Much of what they described seems to be taking shape, in the debauched halls of Washington DC, and, in state subsidized “biotech” labs here in the SF Bay Area. How prophetic.