Society/Culture UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters

[bit_pattern]

And just because I know I have to do this at least half a dozen time to get through to your people, I'll post this for the second time (and counting)

So, how can we find out what went wrong with the editing of the IPCC report? Fortunately the drafts and review comments are available on-line. In the second draft the offending passage states:

Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in other any part of the world (see Table 10.10 below) and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps getting warmer at the current rate. The glaciers will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates. Its total area will shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035.
​

There was no cite at all for the claim and more than one reviewer noted that a citation was needed. If the chapter authors had followed this comment, all would have been well:

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 precipitation 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. (Hayley Fowler, Newcastle University)
​

But the response was this:

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

Instead the authors added to a cite to this WWF report, which says

"In 1999, a report by the Working Group on Himalayan Glaciology (WGHG) of the International Commission for Snow and Ice (ICSI) stated: "glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the livelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 is very high".
​

And here we see the perils of lazy citing. The IPCC report should have cited the WGHG/ICSI report, but the authors weren't able to get hold of it. If they had, they would have found that it doesn't say anything about the glaciers disappearing by 2035. The WWF report authors hadn't seen the WGHG report either, but relied on this New Scientist story, by a reporter that hadn't seen the report either, but had talked to the author of the WGHG report.

 

[medusala]

The whole basis for the Times' article is that claims of melting Himalayan glaciers are "bogus", this is simply not true.

Only out by a factor of 25. Just a rounding error one assumes.

Pachauri didn't make the 2035 claim

Just employed the guy associated with it. No connection at all.

Plimer (claims to, at least) wrote his own book, he knew the graph he'd included was bogus, he thought he could get away with using a bogus graph by sloppily referencing it. COmpletely different situation.

No it's not. Plenty knew the claim was wrong.

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...raction-of-himalayan-proportions-1876420.html

But the prediction, made by the Nobel Prize-winning body charged with overseeing global climate science, also managed to astonish the scientists who actually knew about Himalayan glaciers.

Hasnain has since told Pearce the claim was "speculative.

 

[medusala]

And just because I know I have to do this at least half a dozen time to get through to your people, I'll post this for the second time (and counting)

Get through what exactly?

That the IPCC used non peer reviewed literature to make outlandish claims?

Have you not had a huge amount to say on this in the past?

Surely this is not another example of AGW advocates and hypocrisy?

 

[bit_pattern]

Only out by a factor of 25. Just a rounding error one assumes.

You just don't get it at all. The 2035 claim was not central to anything the IPCC had to say on Himalayan glaciers, it was a single comment buried deep in the WG2 report (impacts, adaption and vulnerability) that, while it shouldn't have been there, does not in any way reflect on what was said in the science (Synthesis Report & WG1) and most certainly wasn't included in the Summary for Policymakers, and had no impact on policy makers as The Times try to suggest. The fact of the matter is that the Himalayan glaciers are melting at an alarming rate, something The Times glossed over by lumping all claims about them as "bogus", that is an outright lie and is the foundation of their baseless and scurrilous attacks on Dr. Pachauri.

 

[bit_pattern]

Get through what exactly?

That the IPCC used non peer reviewed literature to make outlandish claims?

Have you not had a huge amount to say on this in the past?

Surely this is not another example of AGW advocates and hypocrisy?

The IPCC were quite clear that WG2 relied on "grey" literature, so it is hardly misleading, the authors just got sloppy with the citations. Minor oversights happen with large, multidisciplinary endeavours.

 

[medusala]

You just don't get it at all. The 2035 claim was not central to anything the IPCC had to say on Himalayan glaciers, it was a single comment buried deep in the WG2 report (impacts, adaption and vulnerability) that, while it shouldn't have been there, does not in any way reflect on what was said in the science (Synthesis Report & WG1) and most certainly wasn't included in the Summary for Policymakers, and had no impact on policy makers as The Times try to suggest.

Who does not get what?

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...raction-of-himalayan-proportions-1876420.html

However, the Working Group II report was quite unequivocal in its statement: "Glaciers in the Himalaya [sic] are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square km by the year 2035."

Minor oversights happen with large, multidisciplinary endeavours.

Referencing non peer reviewed literature from a hard line environmental lobby group that all and sundry knew was wrong is just a minor oversight?

OK.

I see peer review doesnt mean much any more.

Bit of change of tune for you is it not?

Is there no error that you won't defend?

 

[medusala]

Re the IPCC and climate disasters

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/01/castles-built-on-sand.html

So to summarize: Contrary to its procedures the IPCC chose to emphasize a paper that was not peer reviewed to support claims that were contrary to all of the peer reviewed literature on this topic. The IPCC created (or had others create) a graph that appeared nowhere in the literature and was highly misleading. When the paper was eventually published several years later as a book chapter, it was revised in such a substantial fashion so as to eliminate unambiguously any basis for the claims that had been made by the IPCC justified by the earlier version of the paper.

The claims made by the IPCC about the relationship of disasters and climate change, expressed most clearly in the figure above, were not simply made in violation of IPCC procedures. The claims were not just wrong. The claims were based on knowledge that just doesn't exist. Again, not good

 

[bit_pattern]

Who does not get what?

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...raction-of-himalayan-proportions-1876420.html

However, the Working Group II report was quite unequivocal in its statement: "Glaciers in the Himalaya [sic] are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate. Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square km by the year 2035."

Yes, and more than a few reviewers pickd up on it and noted that it needed citation, the authors couldn't find the WGHG/ICSI report (which would have alerted them that the claim was untenable) and instead relied on the NS article, which unfortunately survived the final drafting process. Sloppy? Yes. Unfortunate? Definitely. Fraudulent? Not in the slightest.

You see, this is what I mean about having to repeat myself over and over before it finally sinks in.

Referencing non peer reviewed literature from a hard line environmental lobby group that all and sundry knew was wrong is just a minor oversight?

OK.

I see peer review doesnt mean much any more.

Bit of change of tune for you is it not?

Is there no error that you won't defend?

How many times do I have to say it - the IPCC made no secret of the fact that WG2 used "grey" (ie. non reviewed) literature. The WWF report should never have been used, the authors couldn't get their hands on the report it was citing and left the WWF reference in, this sloppy oversight unfortunately made it through the final drafting process. Not cool but hardly the scandal it is being made out to be. It certainly isn't reflective of any of the peer reviewed literature in WG1.

 

[HarryTiger]

They aren't going to melt by 2035 but you should still be concerned because at their current melt rate they will disappear in a few centuries and 100s of millions of people depend on the river systems they feed. (ZOMG)

It was said before they were going to melt by 2035, only 3 decades away, but that didn't matter because it was a small reference buried in a very large report. (Nothing to see here)

It only takes me 4 words to say "the world ends tomorrow", that doesn't make it an inconsequential statement. Telling us they will melt in short time obviously adds to the urgency to act on warming.

Not buried away in IPCC reports
http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/38627
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/10/05/himalayas.glacier.conflict/index.html

 

[medusala]

You see, this is what I mean about having to repeat myself over and over before it finally sinks in.

You keep repeating apologist nonsense. You can't have it both ways (ie attack Plimer / defend IPCC over similar things)

They knew it was wrong.

Just as it was known the section re climate and natural disasters was wrong.

Just as the IPCC reference WWF material and all and sundry know that was wrong.

The WWF report should never have been used, the authors couldn't get their hands on the report it was citing and left the WWF reference in, this sloppy oversight unfortunately made it through the final drafting process.

Was this a one off or are there multiples examples of this happening?

What if there were multiple examples?

It certainly isn't reflective of any of the peer reviewed literature in WG1

What is the point of WG2 then?

Can we deduce from this it is just nonsense that should be disregarded?

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

What if there were multiple examples?

The way that this stuff is being scrutinised by deniers there is no doubt that other discrepancies would have been highlighted by now.
Your continual banging on about what is, a miniscule oversight in the big scheme of things, is tiresome in the extreme.

 

[medusala]

The way that this stuff is being scrutinised by deniers there is no doubt that other discrepancies would have been highlighted by now.

Plenty of errors have already been pointed out. I meant with respect to use of dodgy non peer reviewed papers

Your continual banging on about what is, a miniscule oversight in the big scheme of things, is tiresome in the extreme.

It is a series of mistakes. It is not hard to claim that these last couple of errors were known about and still included.

The continual apologism over blatant mistakes is not just tiresome its pathetic.

It is also blatantly hypocritical.

For an extensive list of alleged dodgy papers sited by the IPCC see below

http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-dodgy-citations-in-nobel-winning.html

 

[bit_pattern]

This leads to an important question: what does the peer reviewed science say about Himalayan glaciers? The ice mass over the Himalayas is the third-largest on earth, after the Arctic/Greenland and Antarctic regions (Barnett 2005). There are approximately 15,000 glaciers in the Himalayas. Each summer, these glaciers release meltwater into the Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra Rivers. Approximately 500 million people depend upon water from these three rivers (Kehrwald 2008). In China, 23% of the population lives in the western regions, where glacial melt is the principal water source during dry season (Barnett 2005).
On-site measurement of glacier terminus position and ice core records have found many glaciers on the south slope of the central Himalaya have been retreating at an accelerating rate (Ren 2006). Similarly, ice cores amd accumulation stakes on the Naimona'nyi Glacier have observed it's losing mass, a surprising result due to its high altitude (it is now the highest glacier in the world losing mass) (Kehrwald 2008).
While on-site measurements cover only a small range of the Himalayas, broader coverage is achieved through remote sensing satellites and Geographic Information System methods. They've found that over 80% of glaciers in western China have retreated in the past 50 years, losing 4.5% of their combined areal coverage (Ding 2006). This retreat is accelerating across much of the Tibetan plateau (Yao 2007).
The IPCC error on the 2035 prediction was unfortunate and it's important that such mistakes are avoided in future publications through more rigorous review. But the central message of the Synthesis Report, the concluding document of the IPCC AR4, is confirmed by the peer reviewed literature. The Himalayan glaciers are of vital importance to half a billion people. Most of this crucial resource is disappearing at an accelerating rate.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-2035-prediction-Himalayan-glaciers.html

And for Meds, regarding WG2 (read the whole post)

So, the issue is in the news because of the 2350 / 2035 kerfuffle, and links to Brian's other question, "What do you think of WG II?" I'll answer that one first, because I can think of a cutting answer, which is "I don't". Oh, cruel. But true: when I was in the game, I was interested in WG I stuff, which is to say, the physical basis. Someone has to be interested in impacts and adaption, of course: but not me.
As I wrote off in Planet 3.0 recently,

Everyone knows that the WGII and WGIII reports are nowhere near as good as WGI. In fact, taking this further, everyone knows that releasing the WGI, II and III reports at the same time is silly. WGI is supposed to provide the physical science, which should be an input into the other reports. But II and III don't want to miss the limelight and get released a year later, as they should be.​

That is a touch over-harsh, but only a touch. WG I would never have made the mistake WG II made over this 2350 / 2035 stuff, for two reasons. Firstly, they are subject to line-by-line scrutiny because people actually *care*. And second they just do a better job with better people. The only even vaguely comparable issue I can think of is fig 7.1.c in IPCC '90, and the skeptics rather dislike drawing the obvious moral over that. Before you mistake me, I'm not saying that WG II is rubbish, or valueless: not at all. It's just not as good as WG I.

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/01/ipcc_use_of_non-peer_reviewed.php

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

Plenty of errors have already been pointed out. I meant with respect to use of dodgy non peer reviewed papers



It is a series of mistakes. It is not hard to claim that these last couple of errors were known about and still included.

The continual apologism over blatant mistakes is not just tiresome its pathetic.

It is also blatantly hypocritical.

For an extensive list of alleged dodgy papers sited by the IPCC see below

http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-dodgy-citations-in-nobel-winning.html

*sigh*
I am damn sure, but cbf checking, that the same amount of falicies, furphies and outright fraudulent assertions could be found on the deniers scientific claims. Imperfect science ring a bell?
The fact is that these annomalies that you highlight, go in no way to debunking the real meat and bones of the IPCC report and are merely posturing and chipping away at the edges.

 

[bit_pattern]

This leads to an important question: what does the peer reviewed science say about Himalayan glaciers? The ice mass over the Himalayas is the third-largest on earth, after the Arctic/Greenland and Antarctic regions (Barnett 2005). There are approximately 15,000 glaciers in the Himalayas. Each summer, these glaciers release meltwater into the Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra Rivers. Approximately 500 million people depend upon water from these three rivers (Kehrwald 2008). In China, 23% of the population lives in the western regions, where glacial melt is the principal water source during dry season (Barnett 2005).
On-site measurement of glacier terminus position and ice core records have found many glaciers on the south slope of the central Himalaya have been retreating at an accelerating rate (Ren 2006). Similarly, ice cores amd accumulation stakes on the Naimona'nyi Glacier have observed it's losing mass, a surprising result due to its high altitude (it is now the highest glacier in the world losing mass) (Kehrwald 2008).
While on-site measurements cover only a small range of the Himalayas, broader coverage is achieved through remote sensing satellites and Geographic Information System methods. They've found that over 80% of glaciers in western China have retreated in the past 50 years, losing 4.5% of their combined areal coverage (Ding 2006). This retreat is accelerating across much of the Tibetan plateau (Yao 2007).
The IPCC error on the 2035 prediction was unfortunate and it's important that such mistakes are avoided in future publications through more rigorous review. But the central message of the Synthesis Report, the concluding document of the IPCC AR4, is confirmed by the peer reviewed literature. The Himalayan glaciers are of vital importance to half a billion people. Most of this crucial resource is disappearing at an accelerating rate.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-2035-prediction-Himalayan-glaciers.html

And for Meds, regarding WG2 (read the whole post)

So, the issue is in the news because of the 2350 / 2035 kerfuffle, and links to Brian's other question, "What do you think of WG II?" I'll answer that one first, because I can think of a cutting answer, which is "I don't". Oh, cruel. But true: when I was in the game, I was interested in WG I stuff, which is to say, the physical basis. Someone has to be interested in impacts and adaption, of course: but not me.
As I wrote off in Planet 3.0 recently,

Everyone knows that the WGII and WGIII reports are nowhere near as good as WGI. In fact, taking this further, everyone knows that releasing the WGI, II and III reports at the same time is silly. WGI is supposed to provide the physical science, which should be an input into the other reports. But II and III don't want to miss the limelight and get released a year later, as they should be.​

That is a touch over-harsh, but only a touch. WG I would never have made the mistake WG II made over this 2350 / 2035 stuff, for two reasons. Firstly, they are subject to line-by-line scrutiny because people actually *care*. And second they just do a better job with better people. The only even vaguely comparable issue I can think of is fig 7.1.c in IPCC '90, and the skeptics rather dislike drawing the obvious moral over that. Before you mistake me, I'm not saying that WG II is rubbish, or valueless: not at all. It's just not as good as WG I.

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/01/ipcc_use_of_non-peer_reviewed.php

 

[bit_pattern]

*sigh*
I am damn sure, but cbf checking, that the same amount of falicies, furphies and outright fraudulent assertions could be found on the deniers scientific claims.

Ah, much, much more, believe me!

The fact is that these annomalies that you highlight, go in no way to debunking the real meat and bones of the IPCC report and are merely posturing and chipping away at the edges.

Yup, you could find minor errors in any field of science that received the sort of political scrutiny that climate science does.

 

[medusala]

*sigh*
I am damn sure, but cbf checking, that the same amount of falicies, furphies and outright fraudulent assertions could be found on the deniers scientific claims. Imperfect science ring a bell?

So you have no idea but you are damn sure? OK

You may as well say that because there are plenty of neo nazis and red necks out there that we should accept all govt claims re the benefits of immigration.

It is not a logical position to take.

The fact is that these annomalies that you highlight, go in no way to debunking the real meat and bones of the IPCC report and are merely posturing and chipping away at the edges

Sure they do. It has been shown claims have been included that they knew were wrong and were from a source which should never have been utilised.

Further there are huge questions over the conduct of the chairman

 

[HarryTiger]

If you look at the details you see the glacier claim was refuted long ago. A change in tide has now allowed the popular press to pick these things up when before they would have been guilty of something tantamount to giving holocaust deniers a voice.

We can play a game now and predict what will be next.

I've got short odds on the coral reef devastation being outed as the next crock. But there's got to be a few more.

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

So you have no idea but you are damn sure? OK

You may as well say that because there are plenty of neo nazis and red necks out there that we should accept all govt claims re the benefits of immigration.

It is not a logical position to take.

What unfiltered pig s**t!
It is a more than logical position to take.
Are you seriously saying that the deniers scientific accusations are beyond reproach?
Come on. Cut the crap!

Sure they do. It has been shown claims have been included that they knew were wrong and were from a source which should never have been utilised.

Do you whittle as a hobby?
Maybe scrimshaw?
Come on. Be real please.
There is yet to be one deniers claim that cuts to the heart of this debate.
All you, and your fellow deniers, are doing is sandpapering the edges of a very robust structure.

Further there are huge questions over the conduct of the chairman

Grassy knoll stuff or is he a Freemason?

 

[medusala]

What unfiltered pig s**t!

Obviously the substance of the debate is beyond you.

It is a more than logical position to take.

Your logic is that because some "deniers" are fruitloops no dissent must be tolerated.

That is not logic. That is stupidity personified.

Are you seriously saying that the deniers scientific accusations are beyond reproach?

The IPCC has admitted the error. Hansen had to admit mistakes. The HS was shown to be wrong. The Stern Report has been adjusted to acknowledge mistakes re hurricanes. The SRES use of MER is universally acknowledged to be wrong. Al Gore has shown to be wrong over a host of claim.

Grassy knoll stuff or is he a Freemason?

And you wonder why people are turning away from the AGW alarmist claims.

It is people like you who are apologists for any claim no matter how far fetched that destroy the credibility of the argument.

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

Obviously the substance of the debate is beyond you.

Come on meds. you are better than that.

Your logic is that because some "deniers" are fruitloops no dissent must be tolerated.

That is not logic. That is stupidity personified.

No my logic is based on the fact that both sides have got facts wrong. Some deliberately and some accidentally. Something that you conveniently skipped to suit your argument..

The IPCC has admitted the error. Hansen had to admit mistakes. The HS was shown to be wrong. The Stern Report has been adjusted to acknowledge mistakes re hurricanes. The SRES use of MER is universally acknowledged to be wrong. Al Gore has shown to be wrong over a host of claim.

And this, in your mind at least, makes every single claim of the deniers correct, and every single claim of the IPCC scientists incorrect.
Are you noticing a pattern yet?

And you wonder why people are turning away from the AGW alarmist claims.

No. I fully understand how constant denial and obfusification can confuse and convince the punter in the street that there is nothing to worry about.
Personally I ponder your true motives.

It is people like you who are apologists for any claim no matter how far fetched that destroy the credibility of the argument.

You really do need a very large mirror.

 

[medusala]

And this, in your mind at least, makes every single claim of the deniers correct, and every single claim of the IPCC scientists incorrect.
Are you noticing a pattern yet?

Why would you even type that? You have no evidence to support this. I have never claimed this. Nor have I ever stated every claim re the IPCC etc was wrong.

By definition every single claim of the "deniers" can not be correct because many conflict with each other.

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

Why would you even type that? You have no evidence to support this. I have never claimed this. Nor have I ever stated every claim re the IPCC etc was wrong.

Give us a post where you proclaim that the IPCC claims are correct.

 

[medusala]

Give us a post where you proclaim that the IPCC claims are correct.

They make many. Do you expect a line by line review?

Nowhere have I said they are all wrong. I have no idea if many of them are or not

What can be said with certainty is that a number are.

 

[WCEforeverman]

There is yet to be one deniers claim that cuts to the heart of this debate.
All you, and your fellow deniers, are doing is sandpapering the edges of a very robust structure.

If thats what you believe, then why are you posting on this thread?

Just sit back.