Climate Science Blunders

[halplm]

Well, now we know how some of the nonsense gets thrown into what the "consensus" says is truth.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e ... 991177.ece

It's good to know the latest and most detailed research can be done over short telephone interviews.

[N.E. Brigand]

Oops. Fortunately:

This claim did not make it into the summary for policy makers, nor the overall synthesis report, and so cannot be described as a ‘central claim’ of the IPCC.

But unfortunately:

It is therefore obvious that this error should be corrected (via some kind of corrigendum to the WG2 report perhaps), but it is important to realise that this doesn’t mean that Himalayan glaciers are doing just fine. They aren’t, and there may be serious consequences for water resources as the retreat continues.

Pictures at the link!

[halplm]

Ah Realclimate, run by the people that made the mistake trying to explain it away as unimportant.

Are they actually claiming "the glaciers are all going to melt into nothing" has not been a MAJOR claim for all policy makers on this issue for a long time?

This is the global body saying Man Made Global Warming is going to doom us all, and you're ok with this kind of stuff making it into what they say is the global consensus?

[Primula Baggins]

Does it ever occur to you that something you don't want to be true might actually be true?

[River]

The glaciers are melting down as we sit and indulge in this back and forth. That's what the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are. The mistake with the Himalayas is immaterial to that, though in general the equatorial peaks are losing their ice at a rapid rate. Take a look at the photos of Kilimanjaro sometime.

Actually, I saw some of the nubbins left of the glaciers on Kili. I couldn't get on them or even go near them, but I could look. Surreal would say it best. They were up near the summit, about the size of large buildings, with the sides rippled in these vertical ridges. The dawn light playing on them was pretty. And it took me a few minutes to understand what I was looking at, because they looked so wrong to me and, anyway, my brain doesn't work so good at 19K.

I went to Ecuador in 2001. There were peaks down there, completely bare, that had been covered when people in their 30's were children. And the locals will tell you that, that they remember. I went to Bolivia in 2004 as well and heard more about disappearing ice I'm going back to Ecuador again (hopefully, we'll see how my dad's leg is doing) next week. It'll be interesting to see what's happened.

I am not sure how to describe the sheer volume of ice that makes up even a smallish mountain glacier. You pretty much have to stand on the ice to understand how much water is packed up in there. Losing them is going to suck in both the short term (flood risk) and long term (water shortages). Losing them is also going to suck for climbers - it's easier to ascend ice and snow than talus and scree.

[N.E. Brigand]

1. Ah Real Climate, run by the people that made the mistake trying to explain it away as unimportant.
2. Are they actually claiming "the glaciers are all going to melt into nothing" has not been a major claim for all policy makers on this issue for a long time?
3. This is the global body saying Man-made Global Warming is going to doom us all, and you're OK with this kind of stuff making it into what they say is the global consensus?

[Numbers added for reference.]

1. The IPCC folks encompass rather more than people than the crew that runs Real Climate.

2. They're not making that claim: they're claiming that this particular unsourced item is not very important in the report. But the glaciers probably are all going to melt anyway.

3a. I believe the report is the size of a long book, with different sections requiring different specialties from different experts. Even books written carefully by just one person will often include some incidental errors. Ask Voronwë! But such books could still be, on the whole, good works whose central points are correct. (One occasional contributor to these boards might be said to disagree as to the merits of V's conclusions. But then I lately noticed that even a book that person edited, ten years ago, includes an error that is repeated a few times in a part of the book on which he is not a specialist. It still remains a fine book.)

3b. The report is also supposed to be more inclusive than not: thus some of those bad papers that the East Anglia e-mails wished could be simply omitted from the report actually are discussed there.

[halplm]

Oh, the glaciers are probably all going to melt anyway... that's a scientific analysis if I ever saw one.

When you decide the outcome and find "evidence" to support it (or as is mostly the case with climate science, make it up yourself), you're perpetuating a fraud.

Prim, there are many things that are true that I wish weren't, but happily, in the case of climate science, there's plenty of evidence the whole fraud is perpetuated by political motivations, so I can happily point out the untruths as they are shown.

It's a shame the untruth has grown so comfortable people are happy to explain away blatant lies so that their doomsday warnings still feel safe and secure.

[Primula Baggins]

You're doing the intellectual equivalent here of saying the Lord of the Rings is a worthless piece of trash because there's a misplaced comma on page 111 of FotR.

<shrug>

[halplm]

You're doing the intellectual equivalent here of saying the Lord of the Rings is a worthless piece of trash because there's a misplaced comma on page 111 of FotR.

<shrug>

Not really. A more accurate parallel would be saying that PJ's LOTR was an abysmal attempt at showing what Middle Earth was, because PJ didn't care about the truth, he just wanted to show HIS middle earth, and took bits and pieces from the truth, and made the rest up on his own.

However, in this case, the Man Made Global Warming apocalypse crowd maintains that their backed up by the total consensus of Scientists who only speak absolute truth so we have to listen to them.

I would expect people to be very alarmed to find out their precious science is invented out of nothing as was the case here. Instead we get excuses and statements saying "that part didn't really matter, the rest of it is pure truth." This was the same reaction to the email scandal of course.

It's sad to see.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

Oh, the glaciers are probably all going to melt anyway... that's a scientific analysis if I ever saw one.

I went to Ecuador in 2001. There were peaks down there, completely bare, that had been covered when people in their 30's were children.

So an eye witness account by someone on this very board doesn't count as scientific evidence?

Fingers in ears and going Na Na Na I can't hear you?

[halplm]

Oh, the glaciers are probably all going to melt anyway... that's a scientific analysis if I ever saw one.

I went to Ecuador in 2001. There were peaks down there, completely bare, that had been covered when people in their 30's were children.

So an eye witness account by someone on this very board doesn't count as scientific evidence?

Fingers in ears and going Na Na Na I can't hear you?

evidence of what? That climate changes, that ice melts, that the environment will change given 30 years?

None of that is in dispute.

[River]

Those glaciers were there before men first came to the Andes. And then they weren't. That sort of makes you wonder about this climate "cycle".

[halplm]

Those glaciers were there before men first came to the Andes. And then they weren't. That sort of makes you wonder about this climate "cycle".

Oh really, what historical record are you referencing to your assertion that they were there before men came there?

After that, what scientific extrapolation are you referencing for yoru assertion?

After that, what "climate cycle" are you referencing to say this is abnormal in any way?

Or do you want to say it's industrialization that is to blame, and will do whatever it takes to blame man made global warming for whatever catastrophe you're saying is happening?

[JewelSong]

will do whatever it takes to blame man made global warming for whatever catastrophe you're saying is happening?

As you will do whatever it takes to absolve man from any blame, I suppose.

[halplm]

will do whatever it takes to blame man made global warming for whatever catastrophe you're saying is happening?

As you will do whatever it takes to absolve man from any blame, I suppose.

Not necessarily. I just prefer to face actual problems and challenges rather than assume mankind is horribly at fault, and condemn mankind to 3rd world status to "protect the planet" when it is unnecessary.

[JewelSong]

I just prefer to face actual problems and challenges rather than assume mankind is horribly at fault, and condemn mankind to 3rd world status to "protect the planet" when it is unnecessary.

Of course you do. I doubt any evidence would convince you that humankind might need to change its ways and heaven forbid you have to give up some of your comforts to keep the planet healthy.

I think God himself could paint a sign across the sky and you'd still say it wasn't enough evidence and changes weren't "necessary."

Mankind has trashed this planet, Hal. Horribly. The amount of waste is staggering. Our landfills are overflowing. We throw plastic bottles around and they fill the rivers and oceans. We use up resources at an alarming rate. We tear down forests and fill in lakes and take and take and take without any thought to our children's or grandchildren's future.

We've screwed ourselves...but YOU don't have to worry because YOU will be long gone when the chickens come home to roost. And hey - you don't even HAVE any children!

I find such a selfish short-sighted attitude repugnant.

[halplm]

I just prefer to face actual problems and challenges rather than assume mankind is horribly at fault, and condemn mankind to 3rd world status to "protect the planet" when it is unnecessary.

Of course you do. I doubt any evidence would convince you that humankind might need to change its ways and heaven forbid you have to give up some of your comforts to keep the planet healthy.

I think God himself could paint a sign across the sky and you'd still say it wasn't enough evidence and changes weren't "necessary."

Mankind has trashed this planet, Hal. Horribly. The amount of waste is staggering. Our landfills are overflowing. We throw plastic bottles around and they fill the rivers and oceans. We use up resources at an alarming rate. We tear down forests and fill in lakes and take and take and take without any thought to our children's or grandchildren's future.

We've screwed ourselves...but YOU don't have to worry because YOU will be long gone when the chickens come home to roost. And hey - you don't even HAVE any children!

I find such a selfish short-sighted attitude repugnant.

And absolutely NONE Of that has anything to do with Carbon Dioxide emissions, which is the current left wing rallying cry for what will cause the apocalypse.

I have not ever opposed any environmental reform issues that address any of the issues you are putting forth.

All I have opposed is the asinine opinion that mankind has produced some unfathomable amount of C02 that has doomed the planet to destruction. The science is fabricated, and is entirely purpetuated on a theory that the planet would be better off if humanity stayed in the dark ages with respect to technology.

Keeping the environment clean has NOTHING to do with CO2 emissions, and the only reason the green police has moved there is that they are all against all industrialization because the liberal elite want energy to only be affordable for the rich, as they think only THEY should decide what anyone else has available to them.

You want to prevent plastic bottles from overflowing the landfills, I'm right there with you, but don't try to tell me burning a little coal to keep me cool in the hottest summer, or warm in the coldest winter is going to cause an apocalypse.

[JewelSong]

only reason the green police has moved there is that they are all against all industrialization because the liberal elite want energy to only be affordable for the rich, as they think only THEY should decide what anyone else has available to them.

Yes! Blame the liberals. We want to keep all the energy for ourselves! We hate for people to be comfortable! We want to DECIDE EVERYTHING!

BURN COAL! Lots of it! No WAY could it POSSIBLY have ANY effect on the atmosphere! And keep drilling for it! Sure, eventually we'll run out of it, but why look for a renewable resource NOW? When we've drilled the h*ll out of every place on earth and spewed fumes into the air and used up all the oil...hey, THEN we can worry about it. Why work to make things better NOW?

theory that the planet would be better off if humanity stayed in the dark ages with respect to technology.

What kind of malarkey is this? When has anyone ever stated anything remotely like this "theory???" What does reducing CO2 have to do with "living in the dark ages?"

But keep it coming...we are "ALL" against "ALL" industrialization. We are "ALL" this and that. Keep on coming with those blatant generalizations and blanket statements. They are SO effective in making whatever point you are trying to make.

And you wonder why people "misinterpret" you...

[Primula Baggins]

Let's watch the sarcasm, people.

[River]

Those glaciers were there before men first came to the Andes. And then they weren't. That sort of makes you wonder about this climate "cycle".

Oh really, what historical record are you referencing to your assertion that they were there before men came there?

After that, what scientific extrapolation are you referencing for yoru assertion?

After that, what "climate cycle" are you referencing to say this is abnormal in any way?

Or do you want to say it's industrialization that is to blame, and will do whatever it takes to blame man made global warming for whatever catastrophe you're saying is happening?

The rocks in the moraines and sediments date to the beginning of the Holocene (~11K years ago) and some even earlier - I just read that the glacial maximum in some areas was reached ~22000 years ago and then the glacier retreated. Rocks in moraines are left behind by glacial retreat, so if you see a moraine, you know there was a glacier and sediments are carried by meltwater, as well as deposited by retreating glacier. In this case, the moraines were laid bare when the ice age that predated the Holocene ended, indicating that the glaciers formed and advanced during the ice age. Since the beginning of the Holocene, they advanced and retreated and advanced and retreated....until they withered up completely. Men made it to the Americas ~15000 years ago, towards the end of that ice age.

You can read about this. Though if you're a young earth creationistic type you won't accept it.