Recycled: 2035 Himalayan Glacier Claim

Himalayas

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Alarmists are busy recycling old debunked climate claims, in a desperate effort to build up momentum for the upcoming Paris climate conference.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald;

Glaciers in the Everest region could shrink at least 70 per cent or even disappear entirely by the end of the century as a result of climate change.

Researchers in Nepal, the Netherlands and France have studied weather patterns on the roof of the world and then created a model of conditions on Everest to determine the future impact of rising temperatures on its glaciers.

“The worst-case scenario shows a 99 per cent loss in glacial mass … but even if we start to slow down emissions somewhat, we may still see a 70 per cent reduction,” said Joseph Shea, who led the study.

The IPCC, a group of scientists convened by the United Nations to warn governments around the world about the effects of climate change, was forced to apologise in 2009 for claiming that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/scientists-warn-everest-glaciers-at-risk-from-climate-change-20150527-ghb8nf.html

The 2035 Glacier claim was presented, then hastily withdrawn by former IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri, who recently stepped down after being accused of sexual harassment.

The the fact that the rather transient IPCC position on glaciers was too silly even for the über green Guardian to defend, has not stopped other green journalist advocates from throwing it into the mix of absurd glacier claims, in the hope that something, anything, convinces the general public to care about climate change.

Advertisements

104 thoughts on “Recycled: 2035 Himalayan Glacier Claim

  1. Now, who was it who discovered that the 2035 claim was an error?

    Your good self, perhaps? Your spiritual leader, the great Monckton? Viscount Ridley, probably the best science writer in the world (copyright R. Murdoch)?

    Why not give the whole exciting story of this triumph?

  2. Colossally Stupendous Bunk. Awkwardly presented, wanly voiced, hopelessly dependent on models…sodden with desperation, and devoid of genuine enthusiasm.

  3. It is as if once it`s out there on the net, it can never be taken away, it will always resurface at some point, whether debunked or not…

  4. You would be in a better position here if you would offer some criticism of the actual science. If you don’t believe the claim, then say why. And don’t just use the well-worn refrain of “it’s a model result and therefore worthless”.

    Have you read the paper? Do you have a scientific critique to offer? If not, then one might say you yourself are guilty of recycling – recycling a knee-jerk reaction.

    • You’re right, of course, just blaming the assumption that a model-based paper will be invalid purely because of the use of and reference to models. The real problem is that, on the face of it, they assume that the models’ output is DATA (from which projections/predictions can be made), which, of course, is not true. To quote Mosher, “… models can be useful” but use with caution. Empirical data is better!

    • What science? Assumptions and what-if scenarios constitutes nothing but pseudoscience.

    • You need to catch up with the rest of the people here cgs. The Himalayan glacier fraud was thoroughly debunked years ago.

      http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2010/01/melting-himalayan-glaciers-another-fraud-by-agw-proponents/
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html
      http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/himalayan-glaciers-not-melting

      The alarmists are hoping to deceive people just like you who obviously haven’t verified these claims for themselves.

      • I think you need to catch up with the fact that this is new research. You do realize that if your attitude of, “debunked in 2010, no need to investigate further”, prevailed generally among scientists, then no one would be taking a second look at Lindzen’s Iris theory since that was supposedly put to rest a decade ago.

      • The original paper said 2350, not 2035. Which is why Pachuri immediately backed down when the error was pointed out.
        I find it fascinating the way some people leap to defend any lie, so long as it supports their ideology.

    • You would be in a better position here if you would just thoroughly research the coverage of a given topic here before blasting away in defence of something that’s already been discussed roughly 5yrs ago, when exactly the information your requesting was presented.

      Have you read the post?…do you have a scientific rebuttal to that post to offer?…if not, then one might say you yourself are guilty of being grossly underprepared to criticize the site, which would then qualify as being a knee-jerk reaction.

      Sorry…but around here, people will always swing at the fast balls that are right over the center of the plate :)

      • First, nothing in my post says that I am defending the paper. Second, there is no information on what I am requesting, since what I am requesting is a scientific critique of the current paper. Mr. Worrall’s post concerns a paper that was published this month and has conclusions that appear to be different from the IPCC statement made years ago.

        Yet, he basically takes the stance that these results are worthless without the slightest evidence to support that claim.

        Show me in the post above where he indicates a knowledge of what the authors have attempted to do, and then shows where he thinks, scientifically, the flaws in this approach are.

        So, since that was a strike, care to take another swing?

      • Only a [strike] in your ball game. You seem to have missed the entire point, twice, so maybe you should step out of the batters box for a deep breath.

      • cgs;
        You are requesting a scientific rebuttal of a science paper based on a newspaper article. It is the Sidney Morning Herald piece that should be refuted as that is what this article is about. As to the model, it obviously assumes a higher climate sensitivity to CO2 than has been empirically established.

    • I love it when newbies drop in and pretend to know what they are talking about.
      The 2035 number was never the result of a model. The actual paper said 2350, but somewhere along the line the number got transposed.

      • CGS
        I don’t have to offer alternative science or a critique. I just know that empirical evidence tells me that there has been no global warming for 19 years, so why should I believe that this situation will not prevail for the next 50 years or more? Just look at the real facts and you will understand. You are believing in a model result and is therefore worthless.

      • These newbs are internet refuges migrating over from the waste land inaptly known as skepticalscience.

    • Why don’t you visit the Mahalangur region and report back to us on the climate conditions there. Good luck.

    • There is no actual “science” in the paper.

      It takes the hottest models, which have already been shown ludicrously wrong by the now almost 20 year-old plateau (at best) in warming, then based upon unfounded assertions, extrapolates what might happen should the presumed warming occur. But the highest warming by the end of the century isn’t going to happen, since it would take very rapid warming to make up for the continuing flat to declining temperatures.

    • According to the “press release” THE STUDY looked at one valley about 155 sq miles then using data from local weather for 50 years pumped 8 scenarios into their model that assumed projected warming to the year 2100, and viola, it gave exactly the result they guessed. WOW Science in action

    • What will melt the Himalayan glaciers – the heat that is hidden at the bottom of the oceans?
      Do they NOW have a model for when that heat will be released to the atmosphere? Or will the ocean heat heat up the magma under the continental plate, and then transfer, and go heat up the continental plate elsewhere, and that heat will somehow rise up the mountains to the mountain peaks without first being dispersed across the rest of the continental plate?

  5. Got back from my annual spring pilgrimage to my homeland of Switzerland a few weeks ago. Most all the glaciers above Zermatt have been expanding over the last few years. We crossed the border and Mt. Blanc’s primary glaciers are at or near their long term average, both for extent and mass. Most of the local folks will tell you that it was dirty diesel soot that was the culprit in any melting over the last few decades, as that has worked its way through the system things are back to good.

    • Interesting. I was on the Zermatt glaciers in the mid 80’s (climbed the Matterhorn in 1985, then again, with my father,in 1986) and in the last decade (took my daughter skiing), but the conditions on the more recent trip were not conducive to doing a comparison. I’m happy to hear they have stopped receding, that is one of my favorite places on this earth.

      • If I recall the years correctly I think things were pretty rough around 2007, but this year the big snowfield on the North Side of Mt Blanc looked pretty fat and happy, and in Zermatt the crazy 7000 vertical foot race used the full course. I always enjoy watching the participants about 1/2 way down when they realize that it’s impossible to maintain any semblance of the classic egg-shaped tuck.

      • And congrats on making the summit, no small feat. I’ve only been as far up as Hornilhutte.

  6. Dear all alpine Thermageddonists (if anyone of you still dares to stick your bent neck out),

    please also reconsider “Telehiv’s Law of Climate Cognition”:

    “The CO2 sensitivity is at any given time inversely proportional to the fact sensitivity”

  7. To the tune of “It’s A Small World”

    It’s a Green World after all
    It’s a Green World after all
    It’s a Green World after all
    It’s a Green, Green World!

    It’s a world of models, a world of lies
    It’s a wonder how little a billion dollars buys
    They say it’s too late
    We’re gonna fry, it’s our fate
    It’s a green world after all!

    There is just one moon and one golden sun
    But carbon pollution will kill everyone
    The oceans will rise
    We should say our goodbyes
    It’s a green world after all!

    China’s cutting back a hundred percent
    If you believe that your brain’s for rent
    You say the science is clear
    The end of all is so near
    It’s a green world after all!

    Cut the use of carbon by flying ‘round the world
    When I saw that I very nearly hurled
    They fly to Paris
    And expose their bias
    It’s a green world after all!

    Many ugly windmills down by the shore
    They chop up migrating birds galore
    Your solar panels have wires
    To produce deadly fires
    It’s a green world after all!

    You want me to join, no thanks I will pass
    I don’t believe you, you can kiss my gas
    You say it’s a Cause
    But it’s run aground on the Pause
    It’s a green world after all!

    No polar bears on the Arctic ice
    They’ve all moved too Cleveland because the weather’s nice
    They see through your Trick
    And ate your hockey stick
    It’s a green world after all!

    You say there’s a hot spot but it’s not there
    You hide the decline almost everywhere
    The data you fudge
    But the truth will not budge
    It’s a green world after all!

    The heat’s in the ocean, it’s more than a trace
    And it’s all the fault of the human race
    You got your Nobel
    By saying we’re going to hell
    It’s a green world after all!

    You say the Truth is inconvenient
    But you emit more than a volcanic vent
    It’s getting green everywhere
    Because CO2’s in the air
    It’s a green world after all!

    You have honors, cash and many other things
    It’s amazing what you can buy with a few tree rings
    The media’s under your spell
    But we’re not so easy a sell
    It’s a green world after all!

    You say temps are going up to infinity
    “Give us all your money and we’ll fix it for free”
    But we are not quite so dumb
    We prefer our freedom
    It’s a green world after all!

    You say what you do is for humanity
    But it’s really for your pride and your vanity
    Yes, you do have a brain
    Too bad it’s insane
    It’s a green world after all!

    They all loved your movie where you blew up kids
    But we thought your careers really hit the skids
    Did you go to school
    So you could act like a fool
    It’s a green world after all!

    You lie and you steal and fudge the facts
    Now it’s getting close to the final act
    Your ruse it will fold
    When the AMO goes cold
    It’s a green world after all!

    Eventually this will end with a raft of cheers
    And people will see you’ve been peddling fears
    Though it may be quite crass
    We will kick your bias
    It’s a green world after all!

    It’s a Green World after all
    It’s a Green World after all
    It’s a Green World after all
    It’s a Green, Green World!

    • From what I’ve heard, that should be the Theme Song to the new Disney movie, “Tomorrowland”.

      • You have read wrong. Global warming was mentioned twice, both times during a litany of the problems plaguing our world.

    • That is extremely creative and funny. I recommend you copyright it, hire a band to record it and then market it to those of us who would play it from our blaring car stereos as we crash their green tree hugging rallies.

  8. The “melt by 2035” claim stemmed from an unqualified comment in a climbing magazine, IIRC, and was the Himalaya’s melting. This one is limited in scope, has, at least some basis in studies, attempts to calibrate and validate a simple model. The fail is more likely from limited data making the model too simple for the task and using IPCC climate change scenarios. The authors included a number of caveats but not one of them was input temperature data.

    For light reading the link to the article is below.
    http://www.the-cryosphere.net/9/1105/2015/tc-9-1105-2015.pdf

    • The cryosphere paper says debris covered glacier portions have a 200 to 500 year response time. Other parts not covered in debris have a 20 to 50 year lifetime(so its claimed). Some of the data used to validate the data is unpublished. Its not at all a reprise of the original “the Himalaya glacier is melting” tabloid piece picked up by the IPCC.

      I’m suprised at how few commenters have taken the trouble to hunt up the cryosphere paper and address its merits. Its an incredibly dense paper.

      I suspect its been wildly hyped by the propaganda-driven MSM.

  9. I was once wrangling with some twit and he finally said…
    ‘well I hope you and all your racist buddies are still laughing when all the dark skinned people start flooding in here fleeing starvation and sea level rise…it will serve you right’.

    no kidding, a Warmist once wrote that comment to me.

    • One constant with most leftists, is that they assume that anyone who disagrees with them is evil.

      • MarkW

        One constant with MarkW, is that be asserts anyone who disagrees with his prejudices is a leftist.

        Richard

      • You seem to have a problem with logic so let me spell it out for you, while not all leftists are warmists, almost all warmists are leftists.
        Sorry if the truth hurts.

      • By an amazing coincidence nearly everyone who disagrees with me is a Leftist as well. Maybe Leftists are just naturally disagreeable. <_<

      • MarKW

        You do have a problem with logic so let me spell it out for you, while not all leftists are warmists, warmists are mostly of the right except in the USA.
        Sorry that the truth hurts.

        Richard

  10. “Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”
    “Of all the offspring of Time, Error is the most ancient, and is so old and familiar an acquaintance, that Truth, when discovered, comes upon most of us like an intruder, and meets the intruder’s welcome.”
    “We find that whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object, and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first.”

    • “it will be seen that they go mad in herds”

      Sounds a lot like the Minbari, except they recover their senses as a herd as well.

    • MarkW –

      For the next ten years, one question would obsess a hundred worlds, “Why did the Minbari surrender at the Battle of the Line, on the very eve of victory?”. The answer to that question would change the galaxy forever.

      It was a very near thing for us.

    • Great quotes – poster worthy for twitter since they won’t all fit in one tweet – source?

      • From that epic Space soap opera “Babylon 5”, This one is by Ambasador Mollari, from the second “feature length presentation” titled “In The Beginning”.
        Another favorite quote I find useful both at work and at play, also by Ambasador Mollari, from the same episode.
        “Ahh, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you.”

  11. the cryosphere today chart for 25th of May is wrong. It shows that the snow coverage is similar to February.

  12. former IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri
    ==========
    the originator of “voodoo science”, now we have “zombie science”. No matter how many times you kill it, it will spring back to life on it unholy quest to suck the brains out of the living.

  13. It couldn’t be a coincidence that this newspaper article was timed to appear on the eve of the first ascent of Everest 60 years ago on May 29th 1953, could it?
    It couldn’t be a pitiful attempt to piggy-back this anniversary to try and get us to pay attention to the CO2 scare again?
    Perhaps we should ask someone who’s actually climbed Everest for an account of what it’s really like, and whether as a result of what they’ve experienced they think the glaciers are all going to disappear?

    • I haven’t climbed Everest, but I climbed an 8000 meter peak nearby, close enough that I could see Everest. While I think climbers will have more than average interest in the subject, that interest doesn’t, by itself, qualify them to have an expert opinion on when the glaciers will disappear.

  14. Alarmists, whether peddling religious apocalypse or scientific doom, implicitly depend on recycling their clap trap. The alarmists disrespect the public so much they believe no one will notice.

  15. Just a few weeks ago, the Toronto Star published another doom and gloom story about climate. I thought it sounded very familiar, so I hit The Google and sure enough, two years ago they posted a near-identical piece. Same (model-based) prediction, same (not really when you looked at them closely) scary numbers, very similar Chicken Little quote from the same PR hack posing as a working scientist spinning for more grant money.

    When politicians do it, its call “re-announcing”. When the MSM does it, its called “responsible journalism” (their words) and “lazy hack writing” (by the some of us).

  16. Shouldn’t the Google truthiness al-gore-rithym (model) be used to validate this?
    /sarc

  17. I take it that 99%- 70% of Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2350 or 2035 is only going to happen either if “the pause” ends, or the Laws of Thermodynamics are wrong and the “missing heat” miraculously pops out of the oceans and decides to climb Everest.

  18. Even the Guardian admits it won’t be by 2035.
    They now say 2100.
    Still with no understanding of the energy required to melt ice.

    • I love it when the greenies start whining about the Greenland glaciers melting. Even if the numbers being touted were actually correct, at those rates it would take over 10,000 years to melt the Greenland glaciers.

  19. I think they should ship all alarmists over there until the predictions come true. Same goes for all who make predictions about the poles melting. Ship them there until they melt.

  20. Glaciers recede. Glaciers grow. Which is more worthy of worry?

    Between 1774 and 1916, the glacier that filled Glacier Bay receded 60 miles. There’s often an assumption that the glacier had extended to the Pacific Ocean for a long time prior to its recession, but that’s not the case.

    According to Huna Tlinglit legend (corroborated with geologic evidence) there was an earlier period when the glaciated area was a wide, grassy valley with a river running through it. Thanks to a young woman’s breakage of a tribal taboo, the weather turned cold and the glacier began to advance “faster than a running dog.” The melt-fed river dwindled, game and fish became scarce, and the Tlinglit had to move. (Huna Tlingit Responses to Rapid Glacial Advance and Retreat in Glacier Bay, Alaska, by Wayne Howell et al)

    Imagine what will happen in India and Bangladesh when Himalayan glaciers start rapidly growing and meltwater dwindles. And it may be that all it will take is one Hindu eating a burger.

    • Ah, meltwater. The authors of the recent paper (thanks Bob Greene) who say:

      The RCP8.5 warm/dry scenario (+3.1°C, -2.8% Precip by 2050) is the worst-case realization, in which glaciers below 6500m are essentially eliminated by 2100 (Fig. 17c).

      used a very complex and highly error prone scheme to model the glaciers, piling uncertainty on uncertainty until they achieved the desired result which is not that these Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2100 but that the bits of them below 6,500 meters would essentially be gone.

      Instead of trying to model both precipitation (very sparse data available) and ablation (few direct measurements) of the glaciers maybe they simply should have measured the meltwater stream flow in the relevant drainage from the glaciers. This would reduce the modeling required by half.

      Maybe that’s not the name of the game

      • Ooops forgot to end the bold after ‘not’.

        [Reply Fixed. WP added an extra b flag after your /b. It does that some times. -ModE ]

      • An interesting article, with a reasonable contribution from Peter Gleick:
        http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059955346

        It appears that speculation of disastrous impacts from retreating glaciers is often just another exercise in fear mongering propaganda.

        I read elsewhere that as glaciers feeding the Ganges have retreated, the flow has increased. Let’s hope that’s a trend. Without the Ganges, how would the millions living along the river bathe and wash their clothing in the holy water that transports their raw sewage and rotting carcasses into the Indian Ocean?

  21. Lets say they’re right.
    What to do?
    Build some dams and catch that freshwater before it goes into the oceans and people can still use it. (Duh)

    • Got my vote.
      +1
      Why are obvious solutions to some problems so easy for most people.
      I can only guess why we’ve allowed these maroons to take control.
      I don’t think we’re that stupid…we’re just that lazy.

  22. The standard laps rate for temperate with altitude is 15C at sealevel and -09C at 8000feet when do you think a glacier above that altitude at 35S or 35N is going to melt?

  23. From the SMH article:

    As with Kim Jong-un’s North Korea, photoshop is clearly an important alarmist promotion tool.

  24. The 2035 error was not a typo. The guy who exposed this error, a New Scientist journalist named Pearce who printed Hasnain’s claim initially after interviewing him, first suspected the mistake was the result of a typo from 2350 in a Russian report, and printed that. But a few weeks later he discovered, from tracking down the reference in the IPCC report to its ultimate source, that it had come, via New Scientist and the WWF, from an Indian scientist’s speculation, or horseback diagnosis. So his first guess, that it was due to a typo, has been superseded. Not even the IPCC uses that as an excuse.

    Pachauri didn’t immediately retract the error when informed of it, despite what some comments near the top say.

    Here’s a summary of the situation I posted here 3 or 4 years ago:

    Pierrehumbert said:

    “Note that the IPCC blunder on Himalayan glaciers — something that really did reveal problems (though not fatal ones) in IPCC procedures — was outed first by professional glaciologists, both within and outside the IPCC. i.e. REAL SCIENTISTS, not noisemakers.”

    It was noticed first, but it was ignored for years, not only by the IPCC’s officials, but by the climatological community and environmental journalists. If it hadn’t been for the threat of online critics & a renegade journalist truly “outing” the situation (into the larger world), the coverup might (IMO) have continued. (See the boldfaced phrase below.) Therefore, the IPCC’s behavior was worse than a blunder–it was a crime. I.e., a bad-faith suppressio veri effort.

    So Pierrehumbert’s characterization of it as a mere blunder is spin—at best. Below is a summary of the background of the situation that I posted (in separate comments) on WUWT at the time.
    ============

    Wakefield: “The authors of the IPCC report in this regard have admitted the error and did so before the blogosphere got wind of it,”

    It’s true that the error was dug out by Cogley, an IPCC accomplice, and by Fred Pearce, a red-hot warmist journalist who wrote for New Scientist, rather than by a blogger. However, saying the IPCC acted before the blogosphere put them up to it incorrectly hints that the IPCC would have taken action if it hadn’t feared that Pearce or Cogley would go public, perhaps via the bloggers, if a correction wasn’t made. The IPCC’s record prior to that point was one of denial and coverup as long as it thought it could get away with it:

    1. Haisnain, the WWF, and I presume other IPCCers in attendance, ignored glacier expert Gwyn Rees’s 2004 UK-government-funded debunking of rapid-melting claims and his speech warning that Haisnan’s 2035 date was ridiculous. He forced New Scientist to publish a retraction in 2004 after it had published Haisnan’s claim that Rees’s study was alarmist about the melting rate, so this was widely known:

    From The Sunday Times — January 31, 2010
    Panel ignored warnings on glacier error
    Jonathan Leake

    Another warning came from Gwyn Rees, a British hydrologist who oversaw a £300,000 study funded by the UK government in 2001 to assess the claims about rapid melt.

    His findings were published in 2004 — three years before the IPCC report — and also showed there was no risk of rapid melt.

    Rees said: “The sheer size and altitude of these glaciers made it highly unlikely they would melt by 2035.”

    The new revelations follow a report in The Sunday Times this month which forced the IPCC to retract its claim that the glaciers in the Himalayas might be gone by 2035.

    They raise more questions about why the IPCC ever took the claim seriously. It means the UN panel ignored scientific publications rejecting the rapid-melt theory in favour of claims that had been reported only in the non-scientific media and in a report by WWF, a conservation pressure group.

    The saga began with Syed Hasnain, the Indian glaciologist who issued the first warnings about rapid glacier melt in media interviews in 1999. He now works for The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) in Delhi, which is run by Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC.

    It was those claims that prompted Britain to fund the study by Rees — who recruited Hasnain to help lead it.

    Rees, a water resource scientist at the Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, a government research centre, said Hasnain had signed up to the study’s conclusions. These stated that any suggestions the region’s glaciers might soon melt “would seem unfounded”.

    Hasnain was also in the audience at a seminar sponsored by the EU in 2004 where Rees gave a presentation suggesting there would be some glacial melt, but nothing on the scale suggested by Hasnain. His closing slide read: “It is unlikely that all glaciers will vanish by 2035!”

    That same audience also included representatives from WWF who were compiling their own report on glacier melt. Despite Rees’s warnings, they later decided to include Hasnain’s claims in their report, published in 2005, from where they were picked up by the IPCC.

    In 2004, Rees had assumed the rapid-melt claims would not be repeated, but in May that year Hasnain gave an interview to New Scientist suggesting the UK-funded study had confirmed his claims of rapid glacier melt.

    In it he said: “Global warming has already increased glacier melting by up to 30%. After 40 years, most glaciers will be wiped out and we will have severe water problems.”

    A furious Rees made the magazine publish a retraction in its letters page, describing Hasnain’s comments as a “gross misrepresentation”.

    This weekend it emerged that the leaders of the IPCC had known for weeks and probably months about the error and had even convened private conferences to discuss it.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009707.ece

    2. Raised-eyebrow comments during the review process from Japan and others about the source etc. of 2035 were dealt with perfunctorily. Only a citation of the WWF article was added.

    New Documents Show IPCC Ignored Doubts About Himalayan Glacier Scare
    Sunday, 24 January 2010

    The contentious 2035 date appears in the paragraph from lines 13 to 17 on page 46 of the second order draft of Working Group II. The only changes to the draft text in the finally published text are the removal of a short redundant sentence and the addition the reference to (WWF, 2005).

    David Saltz, of the Desert Research Institute, Ben Gurion University made three comments on this short paragraph including one upon the obvious inconsistency of saying first that the likelihood is very high that Himalayan glaciers will “disappear” by 2035 if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate, and then stating “Its total area will shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035”. The Lead Author’s response to the comment on inconsistency was:

    “Missed to clarify this one”.

    The Government of Japan commented rather more critically:

    “This seems to be a very important statement, possibly should be in the SPM, but is buried in the middle of this chapter. What is the confidence level/certainty? (i.e.“the likelihood of the glaciers disappearing is very high” is at which level of likelihood? (ref. to Box TS-1, “Description of Likelihood”). Also in this paragraph, the use of “will” is ambiguous and should be replaced with appropriate likelihood/confidence level terminology.”

    The Lead Authors’ response to Government of Japan was:

    “Appropriate revisions and editing made”.

    From what I can see the Lead Authors found none appropriate.

    The paragraph, following the 2035 claim and table 10.10, begins:

    “The receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers can be attributed primarily to the global warming due to increase in anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases.”

    Hayley Fowler from Newcastle University commented with citations:

    “I am not sure that this is true for the very large Karakoram glaciers in the western Himalaya. Hewitt (2005) suggests from measurements that these are expanding – and this would certainly be explained by climatic change in preciptiation and temperature trends seen in the Karakoram region (Fowler and Archer, J Climate in press; Archer and Fowler, 2004) You need to quote Barnett et al.’s 2005 Nature paper here – this seems very similar to what they said.”

    The Lead Authors responded:

    “Was unable to get hold of the suggested references will consider in the final version”

    The Government of Japan again noted the lack of any reference and commented rather critically:

    “This statement lacks any reference. Also, the reader wonders, are “global warming” and “climate change” interchangeable? Are we still using “global warming”? Clarification of this would be appreciated.”

    “The use of “will” (again) is ambiguous. The confidence level using IPCC terminology should be stated.”

    The Lead Author’s response to Government of Japan was once again:

    “Appropriate revisions and editing made”.

    But once again none were made either in response to Hayley Fowler or the Government of Japan.

    For the IPCC TSU, Clare Hanson commented that there was only one reference for the whole section. This was Hasnain, 2002. To Clare Hanson the Lead Authors’ response was:

    “More references added”.

    So far as I can tell only Shen et al., 2002 and WWF, 2005 were added.

    http://www.thegwpf.org/international-news/459-new-documents-show-ipcc-ignored-doubts-about-himalayan-glacier-scare.html

    3. Lead Author Georg Kaser’s e-mail to the IPCC’s technical support team prior to publication about 2035 was ignored.

    Roger Pielke, Jr. — 18 January 2010
    Stranger and Stranger

    The fallout from the IPCC Himalayan glacier situation gets stranger and stranger. Now an IPCC lead author has stepped forward claiming that the error has been known by the IPCC all along. From Agence France-Presse:

    A top scientist said Monday he had warned in 2006 that a prediction of catastrophic loss of Himalayan glaciers, published months later by the UN’s Nobel-winning climate panel, was badly wrong.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report said in 2007 it was “very likely” that the glaciers, which supply water to more than a billion people across Asia, would vanish by 2035 if global warming trends continued.

    “This number is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude,” said Georg Kaser, an expert in tropical glaciology at the University of Innsbruck in Austria.

    “It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing,” he told AFP in an interview.
    …………

    Kaser said some of the scientists from other regional groups took heed of suggestions, and made corrections ahead of final publication in April 2007.

    But the Asia group did not. “I pointed it out,” he said of the implausible prediction on the glaciers.

    “For a reason I do not know, they did not react.”

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/stranger-and-stranger.html

    Here’s the IPCC’s excuse for how it dropped the ball:

    January 25, 2010, 6:02 pm

    Explanation Offered for Error in U.N. Climate Report
    By JAMES KANTER

    The official, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, a vice chairman of the climate change panel, said that a glaciologist, Georg Kaser at the University of Innsbruck, in Austria, had sought to correct the information about the glaciers before it was published by the panel but that the correction came too late and never reached the people who could fix the statement.

    “It’s very unfortunate,” Dr. van Ypersele said, because Dr. Kaser “actually provided the correct information, but not to the correct person.”

    The lead authors “didn’t, from my understanding, get the caveats that would have been useful,” Dr. van Ypersele said.

    He added that he had examined records of e-mail messages and found that the authors had never received the pertinent message from Dr. Kaser. Furthermore, Dr. Kaser’s “most pointed criticism” of the findings on glacial melting came after the contents of the report had been completed, Dr. van Ypersele said.

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/explanation-offered-for-error-in-un-climate-report/

    4. Lead Author Georg Kaser’s letter to Asia group head Dr. Lal was ignored. (Lal said in response that he never got it. A “likely story,” IMO.)

    Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn’t been verified
    By David Rose
    Last updated at 12:54 AM on 24th January 2010

    Last week, Professor Georg Kaser, a glacier expert from Austria, who was lead author of a different chapter in the IPCC report, said when he became aware of the 2035 claim a few months before the report was published, he wrote to Dr Lal, urging him to withdraw it as patently untrue.

    Dr Lal claimed he never received this letter. ‘He didn’t contact me or any of the other authors of the chapter,’ he said.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#

    5. In early November ChooChoo scornfully dismissed the correction in the report issued by VK Raina of India’s Geological Survey, calling it voodoo science. Here’s WUWT’s thread on the matter then:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/11/pachauri-claims-indian-scientific-position-arrogant/

    6. Later in November ChooChoo was informed about the error by Pavlia Bagla but he took no action. This is in line with the IPCC’s hear-no-evil precedents described above. Here’s a story by Andrew Bolt summarizing the matter:

    Pachauri lied about Himalayan warning
    Andrew Bolt — Saturday, January 30, 2010

    Rajendra Pachauri, head of the increasingly suspect IPCC, is caught out lying and now must surely go:

    Rajendra Pachauri was told that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 was wrong, but he waited two months to correct it…

    Dr Pachauri … told The [London] Times on January 22 that he had only known about the error for a few days. He said: “I became aware of this when it was reported in the media about ten days ago. Before that, it was really not made known. Nobody brought it to my attention. There were statements, but we never looked at this 2035 number.”

    Asked whether he had deliberately kept silent about the error to avoid embarrassment at (his IPCC) Copenhagen (summit last December), he said: “That’s ridiculous. It never came to my attention before the Copenhagen summit…”

    However, a prominent science journalist said that he had asked Dr Pachauri about the 2035 error last November. Pallava Bagla, who writes for Science journal, said he had asked Dr Pachauri about the error…

    Dr Pachauri had previously dismissed a report by the Indian Government which said that glaciers might not be melting as much as had been feared. He described the report, which did not mention the 2035 error, as “voodoo science”.

    Mr Bagla said he had informed Dr Pachauri that Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University and a leading glaciologist, had dismissed the 2035 date as being wrong by at least 300 years. Professor Cogley believed the IPCC had misread the date in a 1996 report which said the glaciers could melt significantly by 2350. [This was his first guess at the source of the error. later he realized it came from Haisnan.–RK]

    Mr Pallava interviewed Dr Pachauri again this week for Science… In the taped interview, Mr Pallava asked: “I pointed it out [the error] to you in several e-mails, several discussions, yet you decided to overlook it. Was that so that you did not want to destabilise what was happening in Copenhagen?”

    As I wrote last week, more telling than even the IPCC’s bizarre Himalayan error has been Pachauri’s instinctive reaction to deny and abuse those pointing out such mistakes.

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/pachauri_lied_about_himalayan_warning#66326

    PS: Don’t forget that the IPCC not only printed the wrong date, but backed it up by rating the likelihood of the glaciers disappearing as “very high”—i.e., more than 90 per cent.

    Further, although all the experts except Kaser failed to try to get this corrected afterwards (too good a story to spoil?), this was not something that others overlooked:

    that error has been regurgitated ad nauseam. Although Professor Cogley did not notice it, when the 2007 IPCC report was published, the 2035 date was dutifully reported by newspapers all over the world, and became the subject of much Jeffrey Simpson-style brow-knitting.

    http://www.nationalpost.com/related/links/story.html?id=2461595&p=2
    …………….

    The 2035 date was an alarming, attention-grabbing finding — and many journalists, including Stephan Faris last year in Foreign Policy, cited it as evidence that global warming is an urgent crisis.

    http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/09/inside_the_climate_bunker?page=full

    Incidentally, the passage above continues with some interesting background material:

    But, after the Indian government released its own report with conflicting glacier-melt data last fall, glacier scientists went back to the IPCC report and began to raise questions about the 2035 date. The chatter among experts was picked up in Science magazine last year, before spilling into the mainstream media ….

    *****

    PPS: Here is a piece of a letter to the London Times. It contradicts Wakefield’s proxy claim that the IPCC made a good-faith error:

    Sir, Dr Vicky Pope’s defence of the robustness of “the science” of climate change is too comprehensive (Commentary, Jan 28).
    ………………
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s “mistakes” that Dr Pope refers to are no ordinary errors. They show a deliberate disregard for the principles of scientific objectivity. The IPCC had every reason to know that its account of the Himalayan glacier melting was misleading, just as it had every reason to know that its predictions of hurricane frequency and intensity were both unsubstantiated and implausible.

    Lord Leach of Fairford
    London EC3

    Here’s another comment, on dot.earth, that indicates the great usefulness this 2035 “error” had for the alarmist cause:

    Barry Youngerman

    The big question has always been, is the danger so immediate that we must “do something right now.” For me, that bogus 2035 date is not a minor matter; it gets to the heart of the issue.

    And here’s a WUWT comment that’s another indication that it was “no accident” that the IPCC made the 2035 “error”:

    ScientistForTruth (15:15:06) :

    I demonstrate conclusively that the scientific community knew about these Glaciergate errors by their being exposed in a peer-reviewed journal in 2005, which was essentially the substance of a chapter from a book published in 2004 by an authority on the Himalayas. Syed Hasnain’s pronouncements are shown to be myths, and worse. The paper appeared in Himalayan Journal of Sciences, entitled

    “Himalayan misconceptions and distortions: What are the facts? Himalayan Delusions: Who’s kidding who and why — Science at the service of media, politics and the development agencies.”

    In light of that, I find it almost certain that Pachauri and a lot of others knew that these were lies years before AR4 was published.

    http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/un-ipcc-rotting-from-the-head-down

    ******

    PPPS: Here’s more background info., from an earlier WUWTer:

    R.S.Brown (00:54:37) :

    Anthony,

    Mr. Rajendra Pachauri was dumping on a paper that utilized data drawn from numerous University, College Departmental studies, Institute reports, and colloquiums done over the years. There are 18 citations toward the end, most of them peer-reviewed (but not by the IPCC “Team”) and written by the folks who have been studying the Himalayan glaciers up close and personally for years.

    Here’s the difficult-to-find 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
    Raga on. \ / Ray Brown

    More criticism of the good-faith-error defense:

    Economic Times, India: IPCC imperialism on Indian glaciers
    by Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar

    It speaks volumes for the huge biases within IPCC that it took two years for this hoax to be exposed. Any hoax opposing the global warming thesis would be exposed in ten seconds flat. The IPCC is willing to swallow unexamined what it finds convenient, while raising a thousand technical objections to anything inconvenient. This is religious crusading, not objective science. The tactics being used to discredit and destroy heretics is reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition.

    The Indian panel, headed by V K Raina, looked at 150 years of data gathered by the Geological Survey of India from 25 Himalayan glaciers. It was the first comprehensive study of the region. It concluded that while Himalayan glaciers had long been retreating, there was no recent acceleration of the trend, and nothing to suggest that the glaciers would disappear. In short, the IPCC had perpetrated an alarmist hoax without scientific foundation.
    …..

    Raina said that the mistake made by western scientists “was to apply the rate of glacial loss from other parts of the world to the Himalayas… In the United States the highest glaciers in Alaska are still below the lowest level of Himalayan glaciers. Our 9,500 glaciers are located at very high altitudes. It is a completely different system.”

    http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/columnists/swaminathan-s-a-aiyar/IPCC-imperialism-on-Indian-glaciers/articleshow/5478293.cms

    =========

    bubbagyro says:
    June 18, 2011 at 12:50 pm

    To sum up what Roger said, in a nutshell, it is the cover-up that attests to the seriousness of the crime.

    D. Patterson says:
    June 18, 2011 at 2:16 pm

    Roger Knights says:
    June 18, 2011 at 11:08 am

    That’s quite a summary. Thank you for presenting it.

    • Thanks for that extensive summary.

      I had done my own research at the time the 2035 claims was being discussed, searched back to the cites, which was tougher than it should have been, stumbled across the 2350 article, thought I found the smoking gun, but looked further and concluded that the 2350 was a weird coincidence. That article exists, but did not seem to be the source for the claim.

      Had it simply been a typo, they might have recanted more quickly, albeit red-faced, but it took them some time, because it wasn’t simply a typo, it was “supported” albeit by papers that didn’t stand up to scrutiny.

      Eventually, they had to recant, but it took time, probably because they realized how much they had hanging on this claim.

  25. IPCC AR4 concluded that Himalayan Glaciers will melt by 2035. Then we wrote to the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India countering this statement/conclusion based on the data — Geological Survey of India monitoring the Himalayan Glaciers says no melting and in the case of Gangotri due to fault zone disturbance it started melting/destruction and later it started recovering. On this Pachauri the then IPCC Chairman issued a note saying it is a voo-doo science. With mounting pressure at Copenhagen Summit in December 2009, IPCC with drew this conclusion and expressed regret for inclusion of such un-verified information finding a place in the report. Same was the case with Al Gore’s Greenland ice melt by five years. Unfortunately both received noble prize in 2008 for such poor quality reports and after withdrawal they did not return their award.

    Dr. S. Jeevananada Reddy

    • Dr. Reddy,

      Please write this up and send it to Anthony Watts using submit story.

      Given that alarmists are recycling silly glacier claims, an authoritative insider account of events surrounding the 2035 glacier claim would be very interesting to readers.

      Thanks,
      Eric Worrall

  26. This is NOT a recycled claim about 2035. The study, and the newspaper report about, make it very clear that the forecast is for the end of the century NOT for 2035. A lot can happen in 65 years. Did Worrall even read the article before posting this, or just see the “the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035”. At least read the whole article, then maybe try reading the paper.

    • Sorry, Sir every body knows the article prediction is for 2100 and not 2035 but the issue is not when but the issue is “scientific evidence”. See the observational data by Geological Survey of India. In the past few years several such reports were released to media. And received heavy snow fall.

      Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

  27. I myself have remained rather mystified by what came to be known as Glaciergate. How could world-class scientists possibly think it was OK to base any factual claim – never mind one this dramatic – on nothing more than a report written by activists?

    Now things make a bit more sense. Chapter 10 may have had twice as many coordinating lead authors as the usual IPCC chapter (four rather than two), but even then it had less than half the brains. This is because two of its four top people have a cozy relationship with the WWF. They are members of its parallel panel.

    Since coordinating lead authors Hideo Harasawa (from Japan) and Murari Lal (from India) were predisposed to view the WWF in a positive and benign light, it apparently wasn’t a big leap for them to regard anything that organization sets down in black-and-white as gospel.

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/09/29/glaciergates-other-wwf-connection/

  28. Giant space moths could gobble the moon and vomit green goo all over the IPCC in 2020 due to AGW according to models.

  29. Jbird May 28, 2015 at 5:10 am
    They’re throwing anything they can grab at the wall and hoping something will stick. All of the current furor is obvious desperation.

    Reply
    Snowsnake May 28, 2015 at 6:10 am
    Hopefully not their underwear?

    ****
    LOLZ I know it’s off topic, but I first heard that phrase from a sorority girl I was dating waaaay back in the Early Jurassic.

    If your underpants stuck after being thrown against the wall, it meant you had just returned from a very good date.

  30. According to Bahuguna et al (april 2014) Are the Himalyan glaciers retreating?
    from 2018 glaciers
    1752 are stable,
    248 are retreating and
    18 are advancing

Comments are closed.