WUWT first reported on this issue on 11/11/2009 and again on 12/22/2009,with
Pachauri claims Indian scientific position “arrogant”
The head of the IPCC Dr. Rajenda Pachauri had said: India was ‘arrogant’ to deny global warming link to melting glaciers.From the Guardian article:
Two years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN agency which evaluates the risk from global warming, warned the glaciers were receding faster than in any other part of the world and could “disappear altogether by 2035 if not sooner”.
Today Ramesh denied any such risk existed: “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”.
However, Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, 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.”
We also reported on the finding of Texas state climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon
Texas State Climatologist: “IPCC AR4 was flat out wrong” – relied on flawed WWF report
Now who looks arrogant?
It’s now taken almost a month for the Times to catch up to this issue, and now it has made MSM news. Highlights in excerpts below are mine.
The Times, January 17, 2010
World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown
Jonathan Leake and Chris Hastings
A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.
Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
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.
It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.
Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.
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.”
The IPCC’s reliance on Hasnain’s 1999 interview has been highlighted by Fred Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview for the New Scientist. Pearce 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.”
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.
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 high”. 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.”
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.
…
Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as “voodoo science”. 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.
…
Pearce 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.
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.
Read the full article here: World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown
Sponsored IT training links:
We offer complete collection of 642-902 dumps including 642-813 study guide to help you pass N10-004 exam on first try.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What’s the sound of backing out quietly? ;->
Paul
“its that quiet sound you hear just before the stampede to the exits =) “
Steve K (09:55:22) :
” A review of the names indicates that some of those do not meet my defintion of scientist.
1. What exactly is your definition of a scientist?
Lets look at statistics:
Wikipedia:
“Statistics is the science of making effective use of numerical data relating to groups of individuals or experiments. It deals with all aspects of this, including not only the collection, analysis and interpretation of such data, but also the planning of the collection of data, in terms of the design of surveys and experiments.”
As an operational definition let’s say that one who does science is a scientist, just as one who does art is an artist and one who writes words is a writer and one who builds houses is a house builder. Now, one scientist may be a bad scientist just as an artist can be a bad artist and a builder can construct a bad house. Moving on, you write:
“For example, Steve McIntyre, does not have any formal training in climate science, so I wonder if you include him as part of your statement. ”
1. you seem to place a reliance on formal training.
2. you seem to think there is such a thing as “climate science,” that is something called “climate”
WRT formal training. Michael Mann by his own admission is not a statistician, yet he invents ( and gets wrong) statistical methods. When he uses methods devised by others ( decentering ) he gets it wrong at least according to the scientist who devised the method. He has no formal training in tree rings ( dendrochronology) or biology and uses trees (bristlecone pines) when they should be avoided. He has no formal training in the analysis of varves. And when he inverts a sediment series, an inversion explicitly prohibited by the expert who collected the data, he claims it doesn’t matter. With that same series he includes data that has been contaminated by human activity ( logging) which the original author and other experts argue should be excluded. Further the presence or absence of formal training tells you nothing about the science produced. The untrained and the trained can make mistakes. The untrained and the trained can make discoveries. The key point is does the science stand up to scrutiny? When others look at the data and the code, do they see the same thing. If people dont share code and data ( like mann and jones) then we get to question their science. period. we get to question it. In fact our doubt should be more severe if someone with formal training refuses to share the data and code since there is no scientific reason to withhold it.
WRT this thing you call “climate science.” From a strictly observational standpoint, from looking at what actually get done in “climate science”
from looking at where it exists at universities, from looking at the courses offered, “climate science” is an interdisciplinarian field with many specialities: modelling, statistics, atmosphere, sea, land processes, chemistry, physics, solar science, economics, the list goes on.
very simply. Steve Mcintyre has formal training in statistics. Statistics is a science, not an art, not a religion, not philosophy. Climate science as it is practiced employs scientists from many other sciences, geology, biology, physics, chemistry, and yes statistics. So, yes McIntyre is a climate scientist.
Alternatively, you could look at a problem like calculating the global world temperature and conclude this: Constructing the global world temperature requires the following skills:
1. Collection and preservation of historical records for around the world
( archive expert)
2. Organizing historical records into an efficient and traceable database
(database expert)
3. Adjusting the temperature series for inhomogeneous collection methods
( time series statistics)
4. Computing a global average from the individual stations
( geo statistics)
5. Presenting that data in a graphs and charts
( statistics)
Now, lets look at the job that somebody with “formal training” in climate science did: Phil Jones Box score:
1. Collection and preservation of historical records for around the world.
Jones in the mails and in responses to FOIA has variously claimed to
have lost data, not kept records of moves in china stations, lost confidentiality agreements, lost raw data. Grade? F
2. Organizing historical records into an efficient and traceable database
(database expert)
Jones and harry ( from the harry read me) has a horrible track record
at database management. In the FOIA process he argued that he had
not kept track of changes and did not keep confidential data separate
from non confidential as simple data security protocols would indicate.
Grade? F.
3. Adjusting the temperature series for inhomogeneous collection methods
The important thing here is keeping your raw data and showing the
stepwise changes to your final answer for every adjustment made to
the time series. Jones has not done this. Further it is important to carry
forward uncertainties created by the adjustment process. he didnt do
this. Finally, its critical to have these adjustments validated openly.
he didnt do that: Grade D-
4. Computing a global average from the individual stations
( geo statistics)
Jones does ok here. He area averages the data based on the spatial
distribution of the stations. His approach to grid cells which are
partially land and partially sea has some issues that need to be explored.
Grade? B+
5. Presenting that data in a graphs and charts
( statistics)
While Jones did not hide a decline in CRUTEMP, there was a glaring
error in the smoother that they used on the graphs they post. That error
was found and fixed. Grade: C.
I think the global temperature average is important. Put a better student on it.
“steven mosher (12:47:46) :
4. Computing a global average from the individual stations
( geo statistics)
Jones does ok here.”
I would not be so generous – yet. Clearly he does not want to show how he averaged them (by removing the raw data), and unless you keep the weighting the same, you skew the results. The truth is he should have an incomplete until he can produce the raw data to verify how the averaging and hence the trending of the averages was carried out.
re steven mosher (12:47:46)
I think a formal training in climate science means having run naked through a thunderstorm. Or is it something to do with a dodgy handshake?
Citations regarding the year 2035 claim from WWF, 2005: 2, 29):
Page 2:
‘The New Scientist magazine carried the article ‘Flooded Out – Retreating glaciers spell disaster for valley communities’ in their 5 June 1999 issue. It quoted Professor Syed Hasnain, then Chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice’s (ICSI) Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology, who said most of the glaciers in the Himalayan region ‘will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming’. The article also predicted that freshwater flow in rivers across South Asia will ‘eventually diminish, resulting in widespread water shortages’.”
Page 29:
“As discussed in the thematic introduction to this regional status review, there is particular concern at the alarming rate of retreat of Himalayan glaciers. In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for 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 livelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high”. Direct observation of a select few snout positions out of the thousands of Himalayan glaciers indicate that they have been in a general state of decline over, at least, the past 150 years.”
P
“Pachygate” now showing 31 results from Google, up from 26 yesterday, a 20% increase.
Could be another hockey stick in the making.
To err is human.
To really foul things up requires a computer.
To obfuscate things beyond any hope of reconciliation requires a zealot with a computer model and an eraser.
**************
Steve K (12:24:42) :
Jim (10:59:04) writes:
“Apparently you can’t understand simple English. ‘Here’s where the quote came from.’”
I can understand simple English, so please drop the ad hominem attacks. You’ve provided a quote, but the source provides no evidence for the assertion it contains. I’d like to know the names of the scientists it claims have changed their minds. As for your comments regarding Mann, Hansen, and McIntyre: if an individual wants to be regarded as a scientist, I typically draw the line that those credentials requires performing scientific research that is recognized as a contribution to science by his or her peers.
*******************
1. Peer review means nothing since the Hockey Team bastardized the process.
2. In my view McIntyre at least in part has redeemed science. As far as I’m concerned he is more a scientist that Mann, Jones, or Hansen because he is skeptical and honest. More than I can say for the so-called “climatologists”.
Folks,
I’m afraid Dave Kitchen (above) and others who claim there’s
“unprecedented melting of the Himalayan glaciers
are chock full of wild blueberry muffins. They haven’t read the original report from India’s MoEF which Mr. Pachauri
called “arrogant”.
Here’s the link to the Government of India’s Ministry of Environment and Forests Discussion Paper, “Himalayan Glaciers – A State-of-Art Review of Glacial Studies, Glacial Retreat and Climate Change” edited by V.K.Raina, the former Deputy Director of the Geological Survey of India:
http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/MoEF%20Discussion%20Paper%20_him.pdf
[Where] did this number 2035 (the year when glaciers could vanish) come from?
According to Prof Graham Cogley (Trent University, Ontario), a short article on the future of glaciers by a Russian scientist (Kotlyakov, V.M., 1996, The future of glaciers under the expected climate warming, 61-66, in Kotlyakov, V.M., ed., 1996, Variations of Snow and Ice in the Past and at Present on a Global and Regional Scale, Technical Documents in Hydrology, 1. UNESCO, Paris (IHP-IV Project H-4.1). 78p estimates 2350 as the year for disappearance of glaciers, but the IPCC authors misread 2350 as 2035 in the Official IPCC documents, WGII 2007 p. 493!
Steve K (07:41:57) :
David, in the brief time I have visited this website, I have discovered that the the philosophy of science for many here is that, if you’re wrong about one thing in the science, then everything else must be wrong.
No. Typical philosophy is fraudulent science in one context – destroys credibility in others.
Anthony,
I apologise for taking up space to advise contributors regarding who are the characters involved in the current Australian Government, but, some things just have to be corrected. The name of the current Australian Prime Minister is Mr Krudd.
This is totally consistent with the tripe that he turns out regarding climate change with the support of Ms Wrong, the subject of an earlier post.
Regards
“Ron DeWitt (16:25:19) :
What is “WWF”? World Wildlife Federation? That would be an odd source.”
Growing up in NC, I keep coming up with World Wrestling Federation.
Ron DeWitt,
Not so odd really.
Doesn’t the WWF acronym stand for Wild Woolly Facts?
***********
SteveK (14:50:43) :
Jim (13:43:52) :
1. Peer review means nothing since the Hockey Team bastardized the process.
The National Academies of Science disagree with you. What do you know that they don’t?
2. In my view McIntyre at least in part has redeemed science. As far as I’m concerned he is more a scientist that Mann, Jones, or Hansen because he is skeptical and honest. More than I can say for the so-called “climatologists”.
You’re entitled to your opinions. However, I’m looking for facts.
*********************
So you believe you will get “facts” from the Hockey Team? So you believe they are the “peers” whose word make each other “scientists?”
Yep, we can be certain Robin Hood isn’t a robber. After all, the Merry Men vouch for him!
***************
SteveK (15:06:04) :
If Mcintyre sincerely thinks Mann, et. al. are so wrong because of their methods, then he should write it up — and put his own research through the full rigors of the scientific process.
*****************
Yeah, right! We’ll contact Nature right away and invite Mann and Hansen to do the so-called peer review. That’s such a laugh.
MikeP (06:55:40) :
I thought the joke was two thows (sows) and 35 pigs stolen
I could be wrong.
DaveE.
Is there no Pachauri photo with a smiling face?
The standard ogreish face is not a good thing for kids…….
A follow up story in The Australian newspaper this morning (19 January 2010 – yes, we are in the future):
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/un-glacier-blunder-a-300-year-mix-up/story-e6frg6nf-1225821001387
It is on the front page of the online version as I type with shiny photo and all.
***************
SteveK (15:06:04) :
If Mcintyre sincerely thinks Mann, et. al. are so wrong because of their methods, then he should write it up — and put his own research through the full rigors of the scientific process.
*****************
Steve, No need. His analysis of the Hockey stick was peer reviewed. And confirmed.
Steve K (09:55:22) :
Steve Mc may not be a climate scientist, he has never claimed to be & limits his comment to his field of expertise, ie statistics! As most of climate science seems to be statistical manipulation, I would say he’s well qualified!
DaveE.
Is it just me or does Pachauri have a corrupt look about him? His face reminds me of photos of Rasputin – alleged lover and confidant of the last Russian czarina. Perhaps the skin really is the mirror of the soul?
SteveK (15:06:04) :
You made this statement here:
Maybe instead of making an inaccurate comment about wanting facts you should have done a little research instead. Since you were unable I’ll try and help you out.
First we have in Energy and Enviroment M&M 2003:
http://www.multi-science.co.uk/mcintyre-mckitrick.pdf
Then we have GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 32 M&M 2005(a):
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-grl-2005.pdf
Then in Energy and Enviroment we have M&M 2005 (b):
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/mcintyre-ee-2005.pdf
Which utimely led to a US Congress investigation and the Wegman report which had this:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf
So in short McIntyre did go through the “peer review” process and it ended up in a Congressional investigation that concluded that McIntyre was right and Mann was wrong in his methods.
Oh and another take home statement from the Wegman Report is this:
Andrew P (11:15:31)
Sorry, but the BBC did NOT report this story. They did acknowledge that the glaciers disappearing by 2035 was impossible, but the assumption that it should have been 2350 was also SPECULATION BY A SCIENTIST ON THE PHONE.
It still assumes AGW and only changes the timescale not the outcome.
The IPCC did not bother to check while they had the chance.
The current story shows how fiction became hard fact in a wonderfully farcical totally embarrassing way, which is why the BBC has not reported the updated version.
purple monkey dishwasher