But…there’s that word again, “robust” used in the context of error admission. Now all we need is an apology from Chairman Dr. Rajenda Pachauri for statements that claims that this error existed were “arrogant” and “voodoo science“. Will he give one? His track record suggests it is doubtful.
UPDATE: It seems Dr. Pachauri is getting a bit miffed over all the attention he’s getting over his ties to TERI and questions raised by Richard North and Christopher Booker in the UK telegraph. He’s threatening a lawsuit:
Angry Pachauri threatens to sue UK daily
This is the best thing that could happen, as it will mean independent discovery.
IPCC statement on the melting of Himalayan glaciers1
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.
===============================================
1 This statement is from the Chair and Vice-Chairs of the IPCC, and the Co-Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups.
2 The text in question is the second paragraph in section 10.6.2 of the Working Group II contribution and a repeat of part of the paragraph in Box TS.6. of the Working Group II Technical Summary of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
3 This is verbatim text from Annex 2 of Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work.
PDF of the announcement is here
h/t to WUWT reader Nigel Brereton
Why are so few people able to discuss the Himalayan glaciers paper
Mr. Pachauri called “arrogant” ? It seems few blog participants and
fewer MSM reporters have bothered to read:
http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/MoEF%20Discussion%20Paper%20_him.pdf
WUWT ?
I’d like to nominate Anthony Watts and Bjorn Lomborg to co-chair the new, improved IPCC. One climatologist, one economist, one American, one European, two sensible balanced views of what’s happening and what is really needed in terms of adapting to climate change.
REPLY: Thanks, but I don’t want the job, too much travel. – A
IPCC made a false attribution: Syed Hasnain
Glaciologist Syed Hasnain on Wednesday (January 20) alleged that the statement IPCC used to base its report on the Himalyan glaciers on is a false attribution to him. He added that he never pin pointed a certain date when the glaciers would disappear.
http://www.timesnow.tv/IPCC-made-a-false-attribution-Syed-Hasnain/videoshow/4336777.cms
Hasnain throws the ball back into Pachauri’s court…
Chris McDowell
We need to have a serious discussions about the political implications of the Himalayan glacier ‘blunder’. See my entry referring to the influential Failed States Index of 2009 which takes the IPCC prediction and centres it as the most likely cause of war in the region. http://chrismcdowell.wordpress.com/
I miss in that statement in what the “error” consists, ok w e know it.
Did IPCC realise it ?
Not more ?
Pachauri, is that that man living from air, love and water, who intend to reincarnate 6 times ( this one incarnation is too much) to eliminate his CO2 footprint, and never saw a peace of money ?
My live since today was an error, it seems.
this is also the kind of stuff the public will understand because public funds are often involved:
Unintended Consequence of Technology: New LED traffic lights can’t melt snow
Crews in St. Paul, Minnesota, use compressed air to keep their lights clean. In Green Bay,
Wisconsin, city workers brush the snow off by hand in a labor-intensive
process.
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/16/unintended-consequence-of-technology-new-led-traffic-lights-can/
20 Jan: LEDS Magazine: Momentum builds for LED street lighting, more traffic
lights converted too
Moving to traffic signals, LED traffic lights were in the news a few weeks
back because of safety concerns focused on snow blocking LED bulbs with
winter storms ravaging the US. In the past few days, however, cities across
the US have moved forward with more aggressive LED-traffic-light-deployment
plans.
Just this past week, for instance, Texas comptroller Susan Combs announced
that 15 Texas cities would receive $6 million in federal grants for traffic
signal projects. The grants are specified for signal upgrades to LEDs, but
that will be a prime use of the funds. For example, the Brownsville Herald
reports that the money received by that city will go to LED signals
http://www.ledsmagazine.com/news/7/1/16
LED advantages outweigh potential snow hazards in traffic signals
Colorado, meanwhile has satisfactorily deployed the aforementioned Snow
Scoop Tunnel Visor. McCain VP of Manufacturing Greg Johnson describes the
visor “like an air scoop on a hot rod.” ..
It turns out that the new visor offers a very economical solution to the
problem. The Snow Scoop can be added to most existing traffic signals and
cost around $20.
(READERS COMMENT: The slot as a wind louver seems a great idea, until the
Sun comes out. Signals facing East or West will exhibit “sun-phantom” when
the Sun’s angle matches up with the louver slot. Reducing sun phantom is the
purpose of the visor in the first place. Just use caution with the
application)
http://www.ledsmagazine.com/news/7/1/4
CNET: A tale of solar panels, snow, and roof rakes
But the white stuff delivered an unexpected hit to the electric output of
the solar panels I had installed last spring. It’s hard to calculate a
precise impact, but my December electric bill offers a clue: it’s more than
twice the previous month…
A week earlier, I had bought a snow rake. (These are hot items this year
given all the snow and problems with ice dams.) A snow rake–the one I
bought was about $75–is just a flat aluminum plate with a long handle. Run
it down your roof and the snow comes off.
When I mentioned what the rake was for, the guy at the hardware store
cleverly recommended I attach a squeegee-like strip on the bottom so I
didn’t risk damaging the expensive panels.
My roof rake allows me to reach about 20 feet up. In practice, that means I
can only clean off the bottom of the panels; the ones near the roof ridge
remain stubbornly beyond my reach. (Be careful of mini avalanches if you try
this.)
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10156471-54.moves
UK Tele: Wind farms produced ‘practically no electricity’ during Britain’s
cold snap
The cold weather has been accompanied by high pressure and a lack of wind,
which meant that only 0.2pc of a possible 5pc of the UK’s energy was
generated by wind turbines over the last few days…
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/6957501/Wind-farms-produced-practically-no-electricity-during-Britains-cold-snap.html
Germany 2003: RISK ANALYSIS OF ICE THROW FROM WIND TURBINES
Especially in the mountainous sites or in the northern areas icing may occur
frequently and any
exposed structure – also wind turbines – will be covered by ice under
special meteorological
conditions. This is also true if today’s Multi Megawatt turbines with
heights from ground to the
top rotor blade tip of more than 150 m can easily reach lower clouds with
supercooled rain in
the cold season, causing icing if it hits the leading edge.
If a wind turbine operates in icing conditions which are described in [1],
two types of risks
may occur if the rotor blades collect ice. The fragments from the rotor are
thrown off from the
operating turbine due to aerodynamic and centrifugal forces or they fall
down from the turbine
when it is shut down or idling without power production…
Ice
sensors and also ice detection by using power curve plausibilisation or two
anemometers – one
heated, one unheated – is not reliable enough at the moment and needs to be
improved.
There is still a lot of information required from operators after icing
events in their wind farms.
Observation of the turbines and especially the blades by web cameras proved
to be a suited,
but time consuming method in the Tauernwind project…
As a general recommendation it can be stated that wind farm developers
should be very careful
at ice endangered sites in the planning phase and take ice throw into
account as a safety issue.
Each incident or accident caused by ice throw is an unnecessary event and
will decrease the
public acceptance of wind energy.
http://web1.msue.msu.edu/cdnr/icethrowseifertb.pdf
Michigan: Tribe moves forward with wind energy and biodiesel projects
According to Rachel Smolinski, environmental services director for the
tribe, these projects will be initially funded by its recent stimulus
funding, which was provided through the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy
Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant program.
Three other communities within the state also received grant funding,
including Wayne County ($4,914,200), the city of Grand Blanc ($143,600) and
Little River Band of Ottawa Indians ($54,400).
http://www.petoskeynews.com/news/article_f6d584a4-05c4-11df-abc8-001cc4c03286.html
Only one flaw?
They’re really keeping up at CP.
“In all that work, I suppose it’s good that only one flaw like this has been has been found”
http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/18/science-ipcc-melting-ice-himalayan-glaciers-2035-sea-level-rise/#comments
“Memo to IPCC: Please reanalyze ALL of your conclusions about melting ice and sea level rise”
carrot eater says:
January 18, 2010 at 4:15 pm
You can emphasize the big picture, but one should also address the specific flaw. It is just weird that a reference to a non-peer reviewed work ended up in there. In all that work, I suppose it’s good that only one flaw like this has been found, but it still really should have been caught at the time.
In a positive light, we do see that errors are acknowledged and fixed when actual errors are found.”
Veronica (12:46:15) :
How many more of these glitches are there in the pro-AGW “dataset”?
Enough to keep them twisting and squirming from now until the next ice age.
It’s interesting that the “Synthesis Report” doesn’t rely on its “underlying assessments” for its robustness. It does rather beg the question, what were the working groups for, if not to form the conclusion?
“The Chair, Vice-Chairs, and Co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance”.
That’s my kind of prof; you don’t even have to hand in a paper and you still get a C.
Has anyone gone back to read the famous little case study? I have my doubts that this sentence (from p. 493 of 938), means what they think it means:
“The Gangetic basin alone is home to 500 million people, about 10% of the total human population in the region.”
Ooops…well, I guess it depends on how one defines “region”. This “region of the solar system”, perhaps…
This old BBC article describes the begin of the reign of the Great Pachauri. It reads rather funny. As if The Great Pachauri was installed by Big Oil himself.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1940117.stm
(I call him The Great Pachauri because important circus artists often have such bynames as “The Great”)
Wait a minute. Did I miss something?
Where does it list the False Claim that they made, so that people can know
they were duped and stop using the claim?
They pat themselves on the back for generalized blather.
But the key glacier scare claim that has been trumpeted around the world
many times regarding the date of complete melting isn’t listed at all?
There must be another page that makes the false claim clear, no?
How can you claim an error without ever specifically stating the error
and then stating how the correction should now read?
What am I missing here?
From the cited “carrot eater” post, “It is just weird that a reference to a non-peer reviewed work ended up in there”.
If you look a bit more closely, you’ll find several other instances of non-peer reviewed WWF work finding its way into WGII’s document. Check out chapter 8 (which cites the same WWF 2005), and Chapters 11, 12 & 13. In some cases, the only source cited is a work by the WWF. I would bet there are other examples to be found in the compendious 4AR.
Veronica (14:58:35) : I’d like to nominate Anthony Watts and Bjorn Lomborg to co-chair the new, improved IPCC.
A better idea would be to split IPCC into two competing parts, one focusing on AGW and another focusing on natural climate change.
BTW. Keep Lomborg and other non-scientists out of the business. We do not need another absurd farce with lawyers, politicians, economists talking nonsense about matters they do not understand. People that cannot explain, for example, the laws of thermodynamics in great detail with all the subtle partial differential equations involved should not be allowed to attend.
Dr Pachauri is threatening legal action hey? People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
The IPCC says “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…”
Unless a glacier melts, there is no fresh water available from it. I have to assume that if we were all “saved” from global warming, snow would accumulate, less would melt, and fresh water supplies would drop.
Even if there were no snow, but just rain, the population could build a dam and reservoir to catch the water, just like every place that does not have a snow-capped peak nearby.
So, if water is the problem, it isn’t the appearance or disappearance of a glacier that counts, but total precipitation. I think they are studying the wrong thing, if their concern if fresh water.
…and entirely consistent with all the other imaginary threats.
I wonder what was the state of the Himalayan Glacier during the Medieval Warming Period, which was 2C warmer that the peak of the present Modern Warm Period?
These people will NEVER give up! They were flat out wrong on this and they minimize it to one paragraph. ha! they have been caught red handed LYING! what is it going to take to get them to shut up and go away? to slink away humiliated and embarrassed? to never have jobs in any scientific field ever again?
/ i can dream, can’t i?
By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein, Ap Science Writer – 57 mins ago
“However, a number of scientists, including some critics of the IPCC, said the mistakes do not invalidate the main conclusion that global warming is without a doubt man-made and a threat.” [my bold]
They state that their standards were not followed, but they are NOT altering the report. They also managed to refer to it by number without describing exactly what was wrong in the section.
AlexB (15:36:36) :
“Dr Pachauri is threatening legal action hey? People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”
Neither should people in greenhouses…
The link from Seth:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/sci_un_climate_change;_ylt=AhtuQAasCLgeUrUO4u9FmhGs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNwZXEwcHIwBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMTIwL3NjaV91bl9jbGltYXRlX2NoYW5nZQRjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzkEcG9zAzYEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawN1bmNsaW1hdGVyZXA-
I reread the story but couldn’t find the names of the scientists (and critics) that said
“global warming is without a doubt man-made and a threat.”
,blockquote>Veronica (14:58:35) :
I’d like to nominate Anthony Watts and Bjorn Lomborg to co-chair the new, improved IPCC. One climatologist, one economist, one American, one European, two sensible balanced views of what’s happening and what is really needed in terms of adapting to climate change.
REPLY: Thanks, but I don’t want the job, too much travel. – A
OK – so let’s have the new improved IPCC do all it’s work by video conferencing?!
Oh bother! My first attempt at a blockquote and I screw it up.
Mike D. (13:44:56) :
I get the impression that whatever Rajendra is smoking is pretty robust.
LOL. I nominate that for the next quote of the week.