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.
“The claims about disappearing mountain ice were contained within a table entitled “Selected observed effects due to changes in the cryosphere produced by warming”.
Can anyone tell me the section in which this appeared?
@Kevin Kilty / John Whitman
Most scientists would know where the bodies are buried in the part of the IPCC that reports on their specialisation. Many would prefer to discuss this in private with their peers. After all, the IPCC summarises the research for policy. The IPCC does not really affect the research.
Furthermore, until a few weeks ago, no newspaper would print a story critical of the IPCC.
Millepede The Younger fights on!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247459/Ed-Miliband-declares-war-climate-change-sceptics.html
Mooloo:
“Science works by fact, not anecdote.”
Actually science starts with observations. The word “anecdote” seems to be used by some people as a perjorative term for “observation.” We would not have aspirin or quinine if it weren’t for doctors and chemists who were prepared to give anecdotal evidence serious consideration.
DirkH:
“If there were evidence for AGW, i’d accept it. I don’t accept spurious comments by climbers in the alps as evidence for AGW.”
It is utterly riduclous to dismiss what the climbers said as “spurious comments.” People’s lives, and the lives of the guides themselves, depend on their awareness of conditions in the mountains. That does not mean that any definitive conclusions can be drawn from what the climbers say but it does mean that they should be given a respectful hearing.
Also, if you had read my two posts before replying, you would have noticed that I did not say anything about my own views on AGW. Evidence from guides is interesting but is rather limited both in terms of temporal and geographical coverage. In my opinion most important things about article in the Climbing Magazine and the dissertation are not their conclusions, which may well be wrong, but the attention they draw to a possible additional source of information about climate change, namely observations by climbers.
In the case of the Matterhorn it might be possible to compare descriptions going back to 1865 when Edward Whymper made the first ascent of the mountain. As Sierra Sam pointed out Whymper presented “anecdotal” evidence that the climate was warming even then – which is good news for sceptics.
In other mountainous areas it may not be possible to find accounts going back that far but as Mark Bowen pointed out, mountaineers get to places other people cannot reach and therefore observations from those places are worth considering.
It could be the case that there is not sufficient information from previous mountaineering expeditions to draw any useful conclusions about climate change, but, unless somebody tries to find out what is available we won’t know.
I would have thought that any reasonable reader of this blog would find the idea of a possible new source of evidence to be interesting. However it seems that before some people are open to suggestions they have to be convidenced that any new evidence would support their existing views.
DocRock117 (11:32:10) says:
kwik (12:25:23) says:
Yes, it wouldn’t do for any taxable and controllable subjects to escape the assylum and provide more headaches for socialists.
Based the discussions above, the IPCC can completely restore credibility for AR4 by proving that the mountain climber on the cover is actually defying gravity. Thus, the picture wasn’t altered or taken at a misleading angle and therefore the opinion of a few mountain guides about the world’s glaciers over the last 100 years must be true. To save IPCC I may contact NASA about doing some antigravity research at this rock.
The reason anecdotal evidence cannot be relied upon is because it is subjective and not quantitative. Just read all the comments on the climber. If the mountain guides had made measurements as others have done glaciers and reported the data as a distance and direction of movement, then at least where the measurements were made the numbers would stand as a record that could be examined. However, even then a dishonest scientist could fudge the data as has been revealed lately in climate science. If it was important to IPCC to claim that the glaciers in major mountain ranges of the globe are all receding over the last 50 years, they should have sought out all of the sources that have made measurements over that time period. Apparently, the only evidence available was from these two sources, or ,,,,,
Ron de Haan (12:32:59) :
LOL, I was just coming here to post that very link. Bottom line, they don’t care that they no longer have the AGW crutch, probably because they no longer need it. And that’s the most worrisome part.
Have you got this one?
http://www.climategate.com/the-dynamic-duo-james-delingpole-and-alex-jones
looks like Horsetooth to me. My personal experience is that when you are on location to do something big, for one reason or another, or multiple reasons, your ability to provide anecdotal evidence or any other evidence, including photographic, is severely compromised by the shrooms.
One thing that really gets my goat about all this. The Telegraph article is reporting on how the IPCC has relied on non-scientific literature and political activist reports. Yet still for some reason they are still perpetuating that the two sides to this debate are the sceptics and the scientists. I mean you can really tell how engrained the dogma is when the words in your article say one thing but the way in which you write it still betrays remnants of the dogmatic misconception that you are reporting on.
“Royinsouthwest (13:15:01) :
[…]
DirkH:
“If there were evidence for AGW, i’d accept it. I don’t accept spurious comments by climbers in the alps as evidence for AGW.”
It is utterly riduclous to dismiss what the climbers said as “spurious comments.” People’s lives, and the lives of the guides themselves,
”
Sorry. I meant to say fragmentary or incomplete, unsystematic. Spurious was the wrong word, i have to apologize. I didn’t want to assume dishonesty. My bad.
Ricahrd Sharpe,
“However, we are not talking about the climber defying gravity, only her hair, which suggests that something is amiss with the magazine cover.”
If you watch the video you can see her ponytail moving all over the place, swaying back and forth. This magazine cover is not of her hanging static on the wall motionless. She is in mid movement as again can be seen by her left foot only providing balance and her right hand moving upward and her hair consequently swinging as she moves up and over to the right.
I think you are all making toomuch out of this photo. The fact is that they should not be using climbers/guides as experts on climactic conditions, maybe as proxies but again you are talking only about 20-30 years at best for most guides and that’s for ones who started while very young.
DirkH:
[…]
“Sorry. I meant to say fragmentary or incomplete, unsystematic. Spurious was the wrong word, i have to apologize. I didn’t want to assume dishonesty. My bad.”
Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you that the climbers’ accounts don’t prove anything, but in principle climbers are a possibly useful source of information about what is or has been going on in relatively inaccessible places.
There may, as you suggested, be problems with their reports and even if they are accurate and reliable there may be problems with interpreting the evidence. However, it is just possible that climbers will provide a piece of the jigsaw puzzle which helps us to see where some of the other pieces fit.
There’s an interesting parallel with this, in an impassioned piece by an Alpinist here on the glaciers in New Zealnd.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/01/19/melting-glaciers-the-canary-in-the-mine-shaft-of-global-warming/
Of course he doesn’t question that it’s being caused by CO2, because, well it:-
‘fits’ the rising concentrations of CO2 ‘.
It’s hard not to admire the passion with which he writes about them ‘though and his decrying of the damage being done by the IPCC.
Richard Sharpe (10:07:28) :
Richard Sharpe (10:48:58) :
Did you read my comments and links to similar photos? Especially Ric Werme (19:19:16)
Perhaps you need to get out to a bouldering area and see them tackled in 3-D. Even then, don’t be surprised if you see someone climb the face and don’t quite believe it was possible. Climbers are climbing things they thought were impossible a couple decades ago.
From the pistol shooting I’ve done, the main concern arguing for eye protection is to protect from spent cartridges from your gun or one next to you. When rock climbing open faces the main concern, other than falling, is from rocks coming from overhead, and that’s why people wear helmets. For bouldering, especially high end stuff like this with overhangs, falling rock isn’t much of an issue so eye protection isn’t a big concern. The biggest risk of falling is usually the first move, and ropes don’t help much with that, so spotters and mats make more sense.
In general shooting ranges make safety paramount. One reason is if you make a mistake, it’s usually someone else at greatest risk of injury. In rock climbing, if you make a mistake, you are generally the only one to take the brunt of the injury.
This is so funny. I’m a climber, and have said (before I became an AGW sceptic) “I’ve seen glacial retreat in Canada, Bolivia and Pakistan”. I could have written this in ‘Climbing’ magazine, and the global warming establishment would have taken it seriously! Of course, my anecdotes were worthless. How could I have been so unscientific? Never again!
Kevin Kilty (09:38:52) :
Arguing the IPCC report is east, I recommend reading,
Independent Summary for Policymakers: IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (PDF) (The Fraser Institute)
Critical Topics in Global Warming: Supplementary Analysis of the Independent Summary for Policymakers (PDF) (The Fraser Institute)
Re:Harry (09:29:46) :
Re:”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’. ”
Yes… Fourier analysis of temperature & proxies does indeed show a periodicity of ~60 years:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/01/fourier-analysis-of-climate.html
Ric Werme (18:05:37) said:
Ummm, Rick, I am surprised that you suggest that I don’t think the climb is possible, or that she is not capable of such climbs. I have said in subsequent posts that I think one shot understates her climbing ability.
While I had not see your earlier comment or links, my concern is with what is happening to her hair, and one of the photos you link to shows much more disarray than the shot from the magazine does.
Now that I look at it again, I notice that one of the bushes at the bottom of the photo has an off vertical trunk/main stem, and it is leaning much the same way that her hair is. One of the photos on her site also shows a slight lean, and I suspect that the photographers have to put themselves into some difficult positions to get such shots such that they cannot always hold the camera axis to align horizontal etc.
In addition, my comments about safety were generic with respect to dangerous sports. If there was a down-draft (as suggested by others) holding her hair against her body, I would be concerned about dust and so forth getting in her eyes and her eyes drying out, both dangerous distractions when she is doing something dangerous. This suggests to me that there was no such strong downdraft on that day.
I must say that I no longer think that there were any intentional changes to the photo and I apologize to the magazine for the suggestion that there was.
I do however think that there is a possibility that there is a difference between the actual vertical in that scene and the vertical suggested by the photo. However, the shot might have been taken when she had just rapidly turned her head upwards, although the configuration of her hair would still seem to be different.
However, none of that is relevant to the real issue, which is the IPCC’s quoting practices.
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.
(11:32:10) :
Amazing video. Hope the climber is around to see 50, 60…
Being an old f*rt comes with certain perks, among them (as I understand it) discounts on state parks passes and half-priced camping.
Now that newspapers are looking for bodies, I dearly hope that some of this in-group discussion emerges from behind closed doors, because I suspect there are more bodies buried there. In particular, I’d really love for evidence to emerge that Lal was aware of the 2035 howler long ‘ere now, or at least that it was common knowledge among IPCC-connected insiders. Lal’s denial that he received Kaser’s letter and his claim that the Daily Mail misquoted him sound suspiciously like Choo-Choo’s similar (debunked) “I knew nothing” statements. It would be nice to have resolution on this matter. I should think there would be e-mails in various mailboxes and archives that would provide better-than-anecdotal evidence on this matter.
These 100 year old mounaineers have obviously had a lot of experience & carry their wisdom to us from the 1900’s. Anyone who has watched the snow up there for that long & made copious notes (despite frostbitten fingers) is OK by me.
These 100 year old mountaineers have obviously had a lot of experience & carry their wisdom to us from the 1900’s. Anyone who has watched the snow up there for that long & made copious notes (despite frostbitten fingers) is OK by me.