It’s worse than we thought! Now the IPCC has been citing magazine articles, like this one from Climbing Magazine, issue 208, shown at left. We’ve heard the title before, according to their index: “Canaries in a Coal Mine,” – Feature on global loss of glaciers. But wait there’s more! If you think that’s crazy, we also learn that IPCC Chairman Pachauri has penned a “smutty” romance novel! Bizarre, but true.
The Telegraph reports on the magazine issue:
The United Nations’ expert panel on climate change based claims about ice disappearing from the world’s mountain tops on a student’s dissertation and an article in a mountaineering magazine.
The revelation will cause fresh embarrassment for the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which had to issue a humiliating apology earlier this month over inaccurate statements about global warming.
The IPCC’s remit is to provide an authoritative assessment of scientific evidence on climate change.
In its most recent report, it stated that observed reductions in mountain ice in the Andes, Alps and Africa was being caused by global warming, citing two papers as the source of the information.
However, it can be revealed that one of the sources quoted was a feature article published in a popular magazine for climbers which was based on anecdotal evidence from mountaineers about the changes they were witnessing on the mountainsides around them.
The other was a dissertation written by a geography student, studying for the equivalent of a master’s degree, at the University of Berne in Switzerland that quoted interviews with mountain guides in the Alps.
The revelations, uncovered by The Sunday Telegraph, have raised fresh questions about the quality of the information contained in the report, which was published in 2007.
It comes after officials for the panel were forced earlier this month to retract inaccurate claims in the IPCC’s report about the melting of Himalayan glaciers.
Sceptics have seized upon the mistakes to cast doubt over the validity of the IPCC and have called for the panel to be disbanded.
This week scientists from around the world leapt to the defence of the IPCC, insisting that despite the errors, which they describe as minor, the majority of the science presented in the IPCC report is sound and its conclusions are unaffected.
But some researchers have expressed exasperation at the IPCC’s use of unsubstantiated claims and sources outside of the scientific literature.
Professor Richard Tol, one of the report’s authors who is based at the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, Ireland, said: “These are essentially a collection of anecdotes.
“Why did they do this? It is quite astounding. Although there have probably been no policy decisions made on the basis of this, it is illustrative of how sloppy Working Group Two (the panel of experts within the IPCC responsible for drawing up this section of the report) has been.
“There is no way current climbers and mountain guides can give anecdotal evidence back to the 1900s, so what they claim is complete nonsense.”
The IPCC report, which is published every six years, is used by government’s worldwide to inform policy decisions that affect billions of people.
The claims about disappearing mountain ice were contained within a table entitled “Selected observed effects due to changes in the cryosphere produced by warming”.
It states that reductions in mountain ice have been observed from the loss of ice climbs in the Andes, Alps and in Africa between 1900 and 2000.
The report also states that the section is intended to “assess studies that have been published since the TAR (Third Assessment Report) of observed changes and their effects”.
But neither the dissertation or the magazine article cited as sources for this information were ever subject to the rigorous scientific review process that research published in scientific journals must undergo.
The magazine article, which was written by Mark Bowen, a climber and author of two books on climate change, appeared in Climbing magazine in 2002. It quoted anecdotal evidence from climbers of retreating glaciers and the loss of ice from climbs since the 1970s.
Mr Bowen said: “I am surprised that they have cited an article from a climbing magazine, but there is no reason why anecdotal evidence from climbers should be disregarded as they are spending a great deal of time in places that other people rarely go and so notice the changes.”
The dissertation paper, written by professional mountain guide and climate change campaigner Dario-Andri Schworer while he was studying for a geography degree, quotes observations from interviews with around 80 mountain guides in the Bernina region of the Swiss Alps.
read the complete article at the Telegraph
Sponsored IT training links:
Pass 642-642 exam fast using self paced 640-822 prep tools including 640-863 dumps and other study resources.
Pamela Gray (07:33:15) made possibly the most important comment of the day:
This is the second time I have responded to your post. Of course her hair gives it away, but the bigger point is this (perhaps you were referring to this bigger point, you devil, you): Even the magazines the IPCC authors refer to play fast and loose with the truth!
Re: Anecdotal Evidence
Long before “global warming” was invented, Edward Whymper (of the ill-fated first ascent of the Matterhorn) stated in his book; “Scrambles Amongst the Alps”
that reductions in snow and ice were making it more difficult to cross cols. His “anecdotal” contribution to science, however, was in the field of geomorphology wherein he disputed the new theory of the effect of glaciers on topography. His book is worth reading for those of you interested in the geology of the Alps.
There is an important difference between anecdotial evidence that is factually based and that which is simply opinion based. Thus the anecdote about Amundsen sailing through the NW passage in 03 and 05 is factual and whilst it does not contain empirical data on the extent of ice, it establishes that the passage was open and navigable in those years. This should be contratsed with a climber who saimply says I think there is less ice now than there was when I climbed 10 years ago.
The shoals on which all such plans eventually run aground.
richard verney (08:40:51) said:
Actually, I disagree. We already have quite a bit of evidence for glacier retreat and recent warming (by what, perhaps 0.5K over the last century or so, but so what), and that evidence has uncovered evidence that this has happened before.
The climber’s anecdotal evidence, especially when confirmed by other climbers and other evidence is only evidence of short-term events. It says nothing about any underlying trend and we would expect that underlying trend to be downward as we head into the next ice age (based on very good scientific evidence).
I personally do not think that anyone has presented credible evidence that the underlying long-term trend is as we would expect, given where we are in the current interglacial.
Richard Sharpe (09:02:44) said:
Correction. It should read:
I personally do not think that anyone has presented credible evidence that the underlying long-term trend is not as we would expect, given where we are in the current interglacial. (That is, has negative slope.)
Edward,
Climbers on Mt Rainier have claimed twice in the last 3 years evidence of ‘unprecedented melting’ and the claims have gotten global attention.
Unfortunately for them, meticulous records have been kept since 1931 and they were debunked by the actual records.
There is a known natural ‘weather cycle’ of 60 years. The melting on Mt Rainier that occurred in the 1990’s was no worse then the melting that occurred in the 1930’s.
Records less then 60 years long merely chart ‘weather’. A hikers observations over 20 or 30 years merely describe weather.
I have a cousin who has a Ph.D. in astrophysics. He read the whole darned thing, apparently, because when I expressed skepticism the last time we met, he threatened to go out to his car and get his copy. I figure anyone crazed enough to carry that tome around might do something really unhinged, so I changed the subject.
Hey, when people are in love they can never see flaws in the object of their affection.
As a Climber I can tell you that photo cover is not “photoshopped” or tilted. Her left foot is out for balance ( flagging ) and she is moving upwards and to the right for a hold for her right hand.
Lisa Rands is one of the top climbers in the world. Check out her site http://www.lisarands.com/photos.asp.
Select Huecos and scroll through some of the shots. There is an almost identical shot from opposite angle and you can see her spotter standing below her.
I do agree however on the conclusion that climbers recollection should not be used for whether or not the ice has changed. If the guides have 20-30 years experience then yes things have changed, it might be a little warmer than it was 25-30 years ago. Rememeber we were approaching an ice age back then. But Ice conditions are different every year. That is what makes climbing areas fun, it’s always changing.
DocRock117 (09:51:06) says:
Then why is her hair defying gravity and not hanging straight down? There is something not kosher about that photo.
DocRock117 (09:51:06) said:
As a Climber I can tell you that photo cover is not “photoshopped” or tilted. Her left foot is out for balance ( flagging ) and she is moving upwards and to the right for a hold for her right hand.
Based on the aspect ratio of the photo and the line of the rock face, it looks like it is about 60 degrees from horizontal, or about 30 degrees from vertical. However, her hair make about a 10 degree angle from vertical (where it should be), so it looks to me like the magazine tilted the photo by about 10 degrees to make the photo more impressive than it already was.
One wonders what discoveries were delayed or abandoned
based on anecdotal tails.
THERE BE MONSTERS HERE! (borrowed from a previous post.)
http://historic-cities.huji.ac.il/miscellaneous/sea_monsters.jpg
“Richard Sharpe (09:58:45) :
[…]
Then why is her hair defying gravity and not hanging straight down? ”
My hair often defies gravity and i’m not even a climber. It’s the same mysterious force that sometimes makes huge propellers erected in the german countryside rotate. BTW it’s an invisible force.
References
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter1.pdf
p. 86 table 1.2.
Bowen 2002 (Climbing News)
Schwörer 1997 (master diploma).
D. King (10:09:31) :
tales
Sorry.
Richard Sharpe (10:07:28) said:
Never attribute overt intent when …
It is, of course, also possible that the photographer took the shot with his/her camera slightly (10 degrees) off vertical, and the photo looked so impressive that the magazine ran with it as their cover photo without anyone noticing that there are problems with the photo.
There is not another good way to receive excellent mark than to create the book reports referring to this good post but this is, likewise, reasonable to opt for the United States essay paper from the the best essay writing service.
DirkH (10:12:23) says:
Hmmm, having looked at the photo again, there does not seem to be evidence of rotation in the vegetation, but the line of her hair looks weird, in that it follows the line of her back until towards the end, at which point it seems more in line with the slope.
I would expect (but have no direct experience) that a wind that was pushing her hair against her back would also spread it out some more, but I am only speculating. So, it seems possible that the wind is a factor.
However, I would also have to ask why she is not wearing eye protection if there was such a strong down draught so close to the rock face? I would also have to ask why accept one more distraction in such a dangerous looking place? However, again, I am not a rock climber, so it might be something that is acceptable to top level competitors in the sport. I do, however, take defensive pistol shooting courses, where safety is of paramount importance, and so distractions must be eliminated.
So, these questions create doubt in my mind that the photo is real. Still, with enough evidence I will change my mind.
DocRock117 (09:51:06) says:
Are you referring to the third photo here: http://www.lisarands.com/hueco.htm
If so, can you please look again and tell me several differences between the two shots? Note particularly what she is wearing and the orientation of her hair.
In addition, I do not think it is even the same rock face, as there is no evidence of the fracture-line or whatever in the magazine cover that is in the photo you refer to.
I must say that that woman is amazing. If anything, the third photo in that set is rotated slightly to understate her ability (look at the angle that her trainer/handler is shown at). Of course, it would not be suitable for a magazine cover in today’s PC environment. The rotation might be cause by the camera holder also being in a difficult position.
Richard Sharpe,
Yes, the third photo in particular. Sorry did not mean to imply it was the same bouldering problem. It is a similar problem. Notice her hair is”defying” gravity again while it is clear her spotter is directly beneath her standing on the ground with his arms raised staright up to guide her if she falls.
It also appears in the cover photo that the vegetation is in the correct orientation so I feeling is that it’s a legit photo. I have seen some climbers appear to defy gravity.
Here is a youtube video of her on another bouldering problem. Understand she is probably one of if not the top female bouldering climber in the world.
Milliband defends climate science (by denying the facts and attacking skeptics)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8490251.stm
Thanx!
{omnologos (02:28:59) :
could anybody please check there is no reference in the IPCC AR4 to “People” or “News of the World”?}
Now I get to spend the next couple of hours cleaning my keyboard!
Nick – {… know when ice coverage changes permanently.}
Thanx for the tip, but be careful using the word permanent. Even the big boys of GW warn that it could afflict extreme weather in the opposite direction. SO if this winters amazing snowfall in Europe “increases” glaciers, thne your permanent remark will come back to bite you.
Otherwise thanx for your counterpoint, I appreciate it.
Steve In Tulsa (07:17:31) :
“I sent NASA an email this morning…..”
You described the situation very well, Steve!
Only, socialists never liked NASA spending money in space. They’ve been against it for 40 years now.
Obama is just doing what they’ve had wet dreams about since 1970, really. (I remember their arguments back then)
Hansen did a remarkable job undermining NASA, indeed.
He will most likely be top dog in NASA now…..
Is the British Government conspiring not to prosecute?
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/politics-propaganda/6249-climategate-is-the-british-government-conspiring-not-to-prosecute