Bishop Hill GuardianEco loses the plot
Nov 18, 2011 Climate: IPCC Climate: Pachauri Climate: WG2 Guardian Eco publishes an interview with Raj Pachauri, which very surprisingly returns to the subject of the melting of Himalayan glaciers.
The [IPCC] report included an estimate that "if the present rate [of melting] continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high (IPCC-speak for 90 percent-plus likely) if the earth keeps warming at the current rate." This prediction came from a 1999 magazine interview with India's leading glaciologist, Syad Iqbal Hasnain, not an article in a peer-reviewed journal.
So, yes, a small lapse, and within 24 hours the IPCC had acknowledged it. But how significant was the error? It happened that I had interviewed Hasnain in New Delhi in 2009; he told me that he had slightly modified his projections on the basis of new data compiled over the intervening decade. What he said now was, "If the current trends continue, within 30 to 40 years most of the glaciers will melt out." It was hard to be more precise, he said, because so much of the affected region in India, Pakistan, and Tibet is off-limits to researchers for national security reasons. So most of the glaciers are very likely to be gone by 2040 to 2050, rather than all the glaciers are very likely to be gone by 2035.
If I were one of the 1.5 billion Asians whose future survival depends on meltwater from the Himalayas, I'm not sure I'd grasp the fine distinction.
Now, my understanding is that even on the inflated IPCC estimates, the correct figure is 2350, not 2040 or 2050. If so, then the Guardian's decision to publish this is...astonishing.
Reader Comments (59)
That report Pachauri was rushing off to revise, found its way into the hands of our friend Richard Black:
'For almost a week, government delegates will pore over the summary of the IPCC's latest report on extreme weather, with the lead scientific authors there as well. They're scheduled to emerge on Friday with an agreed document. The draft, which has found its way into my possession, contains a lot more unknowns than knowns.'
Black has actually cooked up and served a vaguely edible hors d'oevre for once. Even he probably choked on his organic breakfast muesli reading the Guardian Pachauri interview.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15698183
And of course we know what IPCC scientist Richard Tol thinks of Pachauri
' I think the starting point should be to dump Pachauri, who is nothing but an embarrassment, and to stop telling fibs.'
http://ipccar5wg2ch10.blogspot.com/
Agreed Pharos, it's a start but the cuts don't want to end with Pachauri, the whole shebang [IPCC] is a zombiefied joke and so compromised it just cannot go limping on much longer - nor should it be allowed to.
The Himalayan glacier melt causing water shortages claim is based on simple ignorance of the fact Himalayan rivers flood in summer due to the monsoon. The contribution of glacier melt to these river's flow is tiny.
Were the contribution significant it would be a good thing as it would reduce monsoon flooding, far and away the biggest cause of natural disasters on the subcontinent.
I could go on, but it doesn't matter whether the glacier melt happens or not, because the claim of significant numbers adversely affected is baseless.
"In Bengal, the first thing to be aware of is that it is assumed that the majority of gurus are false, and are trying to support themselves and gain social status by pretending to have knowledge they do not possess."
Choosing a Guru; http://www.om-guru.com/html/saints/choosinggurus.html
If Himalayan Glaciers are still such a serious problem (though with delayed impacts) why do they not appear on the new table of climate change impacts? Along with disappearing extinctions and the lack of rising sea levels, and the no mention of the impact of worsening hurricanes, they are absent from that latest table of impacts proposed for AR5. Has the leader of the IPCC failed to keep up with the latest science?
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/10/3/more-climate-change-committee.html
"Agreed Pharos, it's a start but the cuts don't want to end with Pachauri, the whole shebang [IPCC] is a zombiefied joke and so compromised it just cannot go limping on much longer - nor should it be allowed to."--Athelstan
For those who aren't familiar with zombies, see this excellent zombie-recognition training film:
http://www.blinkx.com/watch-video/funniest-movie-line-ever/mt_HJ2mH_qCA-OdRoYr2EA
This "90% likely" is pure BS as well.
The number 90 is not the result of a calculation of any sort it's just an invented number to scare people.
Last week I browsed a 'National Geographic' of September 2004. At page 14, "The famed slopes of Kilimanjaro have melted more than 80% since 1912 ... Himalayan glaciers could virtually disappear by 2035".
Surely the Editors of such notable Journals have a responsibility to corect errors when all concerned concede that they are errors.
In the same 2004 NG we have the usual suspects.
* Sea level rise "A continuation or acceleration of that trend has the potential to cause striking changes in the world's coastlines."
* On the reverse of p 19 is the straightest handle to a hockey stick that I've seen, starting year 1,000 and staying between 57.6 and 57.8 deg F to year 1850.
* "The future beakdown of the thermohaline circulation remains a disturbing possibility". p. 27.
* "More than half of that region's frog species also declined or vanished. As Earth's temperatures rise, scientists are exploring climate's role in a worldwide amphibian decline". (Costa Rica, p. 34.)
* p. 42 "In 1998 the world's coral suffered its worst year on record, which left 16% bleached or dead."
There are many more examples that are contradicted, in part or full, by events since these writings in 2004.
How about a correction, NG?
How about a correction to some of those earlier TV warm and furries, BBC?