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.
The 2035 Glacier claim was presented, then hastily withdrawn by former IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri, who recently stepped down after being accused of sexual harassment.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.
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?
Wow, you really stepped in it with this loony comment. So you weren’t paying any attention at the time the original claim fell apart? The person who “discovered” the error was the first person who read the source material and compared it to what serial sex-molester Pachouri was saying.
The source material claimed that Himalayan glaciers would disapear by 2350. (And let’s save the issue about whether predictions made 350 years out mean anything at all)
Some intern somewhere made a synopsis of this paper, and presented it to the “right people”, but he made a typo in copying it over and wrote 2035 instead of 2350. Pachouri saw this and got all excited, and the 2035 claim started to be trumpeted all over.
And of course, neither Pachouri nor anyone on his staff thought it worth their time to actually read the original paper to see if that is what it really said. They just accepted the synopsis with the typo in it as Gospel Truth. Well, no one likes to question their deeply held religious beliefs – if you do, you get called nasty things like “skeptic” and worse.
Aren’t you glad you brought this issue up?
@Gubulgaria
Please reply to the challenge made by wws. Thank you in advance.
You may like to read the full facts about the 2035 claim, which actually goes back to 1999. There was no typo. You will find extensive references proving the point in the links below.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/glacier-show-comedy-in-many-parts.html
http://eureferendum.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/glaciergate-still-long-way-from-truth.html
@dennisambler
So what’s you take?
Well it wasn’t the 97% of scientists or the IPCC, was it?
This guy maybe?
https://www.trentu.ca/geography/faculty_cogley.php
He’s not 97%, but me be one of them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8387737.stm
[“may be” one of them? .mod]
Ah no, I’m probably wrong.
It was reported before that. It probably was an Indian report mentioned here:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/nov/09/india-pachauri-climate-glaciers
Also scientists pointing out obvious errors.
@.mod, yes, thanks for pointing out. ‘may’ was meant instead of ‘me’. Auto-correct has probably been playing tricks on me again.
And the peer reviewed source:
http://rockyhigh66.org/stuff/climbing_magazine_issue_208.jpg
This should cover it for you in 13 seconds, Gubulgaria https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-f_DPrSEOEo
Colossally Stupendous Bunk. Awkwardly presented, wanly voiced, hopelessly dependent on models…sodden with desperation, and devoid of genuine enthusiasm.
Yeah, but apart from that…
They’re throwing anything they can grab at the wall and hoping something will stick. All of the current furor is obvious desperation.
Hopefully not their underwear?
Possibly the models had the sun going supernova in 2098.
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…
I agree, and this is precisely their intention.
It keeps swirling and swirling, and not going away…
plunger please.
Kind of like the hockey stick and the 97% consensus claims.
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.
Follow the 2010 link above. This is old nonsense.
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.
‘The net loss in 10,250.68 sq. km area of the 2018 glaciers put together was found to be 20.94 sq. km or 0.2% (+/- 2.5 % of 20.94 sq. km).’
http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/106/07/1008.pdf
Sorry remove square bracket at start of link
[Reply: Fixed. ModE ]
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.
A proven lie, does not become true, just because it is repeated 5 years later.
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?
Re-cycle the debunkings, with dates. They don’t like hard facts.
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.
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”
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!
Bravo Mr Rick K! Stupendous!
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.
Greenpeace caught in a lie about disappearing ice.
The BBC doing its job for once?
They know which way the wind is now blowing.
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.
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.
They are mentally ill.
No, I disagree with that. Mental illness is very different having suffered myself. These people are simply wrong. No if’s, no but’s, just wrong!
No, they are insane.
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
“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.”
the cryosphere today chart for 25th of May is wrong. It shows that the snow coverage is similar to February.
Is it?
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.
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.
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.
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).
Shouldn’t the Google truthiness al-gore-rithym (model) be used to validate this?
/sarc
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.
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.
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.
The future isn’t what it used to be.
Again.
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?
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.
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?
Think of the Yetis. Baby Yetis won’t know what ice looks like…
From the SMH article:
http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/images/g/h/b/8/q/2/image.related.articleLeadwide.620×349.ghb8nf.png/1432770846728.jpg
As with Kim Jong-un’s North Korea, photoshop is clearly an important alarmist promotion tool.
That’s just a meltwater pond on top of a load of moraine covered ice. They can be very long lived features. There’s a circular one on the Gornergletscher above Zermatt in Switzerland that’s been there so long it’s on the maps:
http://www.panoramio.com/photo_explorer#view=photo&position=108&with_photo_id=1953050&order=date_desc&user=183535
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:
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.
============
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:
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.
3. Lead Author Georg Kaser’s e-mail to the IPCC’s technical support team prior to publication about 2035 was ignored.
Here’s the IPCC’s excuse for how it dropped the ball:
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.)
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:
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:
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:
Incidentally, the passage above continues with some interesting background material:
*****
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:
Here’s another comment, on dot.earth, that indicates the great usefulness this 2035 “error” had for the alarmist cause:
And here’s a WUWT comment that’s another indication that it was “no accident” that the IPCC made the 2035 “error”:
******
PPPS: Here’s more background info., from an earlier WUWTer:
More criticism of the good-faith-error defense:
=========
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.
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
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
Amazing. This claim was totally debunked, yet the Green Cultists are pushing it again. They must think the public has the memory capacity of an ant, or something.
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
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/
Giant space moths could gobble the moon and vomit green goo all over the IPCC in 2020 due to AGW according to models.
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.
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
I am just back from a 3 week tour of Peru. Everywhere we went, the guides were telling is about glaciers melting, reducing water for agriculture and hydroelectricity (BBS story below). Does anyone know if this is true?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30359091