0
CanuckInUSA

UN: Himalayan glaciers warning not backed up

By CanuckInUSA, in Speakers Corner

Recommended Posts

CanuckInUSA    0

CanuckInUSA
from the Associated Press (Jan 20, 7:30 AM EST):

Quote


GENEVA (AP) -- A U.N. warning that Himalayan glaciers were melting faster than any other place in the world and may be gone by 2035, was not backed up by science, U.N. climate experts said Wednesday - an admission that could energize climate change critics.

In a 2007 report, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the Himalayan glaciers are very likely to disappear within three decades if the present melting rate continues. But a statement from the panel now says there is not enough scientific evidence to back up those claim.

The warning in the report "refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers," the IPCC said. "In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly.".

The Himalayan glacier claim, made in the group's voluminous, Nobel-winning report, was little noticed until The Sunday Times said the projection seemed to be based on a news report.

The leaders of the U.N. panel are investigating how the forecast got into the report, Chris Field, director of the ecology department at the Washington-based Carneige Institution for Science, told The Associated Press.

The U.N. panel did not give a new estimate of when Himalayan glaciers might melt away, but said "widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century."

This will reduce the availability of water and change the seasonal water flows in major mountain rangers, including the Himalayas, it said.

India's Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh on Tuesday repeated his previous criticism of the panel's initial assessment of the Himalayan glaciers.

"The health of the glaciers is a cause of grave concern, but the IPCC's alarmist position that they would melt by 2035 was not based on an iota of scientific evidence," Ramesh was quoted as saying by The Times of India.

The IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report of 2007 said the Himalayan glaciers were receding faster than any other place in the world. "The likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate," it said.

But, in a confusing note, the report added the glacier's total area "will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers (193,000 to 36,000 sq. miles) by the year 2035."

The U.N. climate change panel said "the chair, vice-chairs, and co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance."




Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

CanuckInUSA    0

CanuckInUSA
Quote


So the IPCC has good quality control procedures in place and corrects errors.

That's good news.



Come on professor, that is piss poor QA.

I have been working as a software developer for 25 years now. In the business, it is well known that the sooner you find problems the cheaper they are to fix. It is better to find problems in conception and in the design phase. Also, finding problems in the development phase is better than finding them in QA. But once something is released to market, it is bad mojo and a poor sign that QA did not do a thorough enough job when problems are discovered in production and fixing problems in production can be very expensive.

What happened here is the equivalent to releasing a product to the world, letting it sit out there for several years having it do it's damage and only once the public realized that there was a goal by the IPCC to deceive them, the product was recalled. If you call this good QA, maybe you should stay in school a little longer. I know where I work (in the real world), you lose your job if you perform poorly, you lose your job if you are caught purposely deceiving the customer. I would not stay in business very long if I continued to operate in the same manner that the IPCC has operated.

This is just yet another blow to the credibility of the IPCC. A bunch of scientists who refused to do their scientific jobs all because they have a new "Climate Change" religious doctrine to follow.


Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

VTmotoMike08    0

VTmotoMike08
Here's a summary:

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/energy/24689/

and the important part:
Quote


...and the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers was only one of the reasons, and indeed not even the main reason cited by the people I talked to. The potential for drought, species extinction, ocean acidification and rising sea levels were their top concerns.



Of course, the deniers who latch on to every skeptical news headline as gospel will jump on this and cry about how the whole thing is a scam. Very poor QA? Certainly! Maybe fire someone.

The facts remain:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. In environmental engineering, it is very difficult to coordinate precise causes and effects when so many variables are at play. Several meta-studies have shown that the vast majority of evidence points to human induced climate change that we will have to deal with sooner or later, and the precise timing of certain events is less important than the fact that we can't go on with business as usual forever.

Or, you can keep your head in the sand, read only the information that aggrees with your current views and ignore any that doesn't while crying that Al Gore is evil and just wants to take all your money.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

CanuckInUSA    0

CanuckInUSA
There is a big thing in the sky that is approximately 93 million miles away from this planet. It is more powerful that anything humans will ever know. In fact Mother Nature always has and always will be more powerful than humans.

What is the matter? Do you not believe in evolution? Has your new "Climate Change" religious beliefs taken over all rational thought that life on this planet will not continue to adapt to an ever changing world like it always has since that interesting object 93 million miles from us came into existence billions and billions of years ago?

CO2 ... one molecule of carbon and two molecules of oxygen.
Hardly a toxic combination of elements. In fact it is vital for life to be sustained on this planet.

The IPCC is a political organization.
The IPCC gave up on science the moment it decided doctor it's data.
The IPCC is out to deceive the world for it's own political reasons.


Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

kelpdiver    2

kelpdiver
Quote


Or, you can keep your head in the sand, read only the information that aggrees with your current views and ignore any that doesn't while crying that Al Gore is evil and just wants to take all your money.



Those people are certainly going to bury their heads even deeper if you continually try to lie to them.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

lawrocket    3

lawrocket
Quote


So the IPCC has good quality control procedures in place and corrects errors.

That's good news.



No. Good quality control doesn't allow an error to be corrected years later. When a news article points it out, that's a sign of poor quality control. One would think that peer review would have discovered it.

I'm glad they came out and retracted it, though. Even they characterized the erroneous statement as alarmist.

It does not necessitate a full review. However, the fact that it took two years is troublesome. I wonder what policies were already in place that resulted from this error?


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

lawrocket    3

lawrocket
Quote


...and the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers was only one of the reasons, and indeed not even the main reason cited by the people I talked to. The potential for drought, species extinction, ocean acidification and rising sea levels were their top concerns.



Sure. One of the reasons was wrong. The other reason was the "potential" for these terrible, horrible, no good, very bad things.

We went to war in Iraw because Hussein potentially had WMD's. Right...

[Reply]Of course, the deniers who latch on to every skeptical news headline as gospel will jump on this and cry about how the whole thing is a scam.



Some will. Cynics like me would wonder what would motivate one or more scientists to put something in that was not scientifically supportable. It's bad science to include it but very good politics.

[Reply] Very poor QA? Certainly!



Apparently, some people think this was a sign of good quality control.

[Reply] Maybe fire someone.

doubtful whether there is accountability in this.

[Reply]The facts remain:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.



Yes.

[Reply]In environmental engineering, it is very difficult to coordinate precise causes and effects when so many variables are at play.



So you are a contrarian, too? You sound just like one here.

[Reply]Several meta-studies have shown that the vast majority of evidence points to human induced climate change



That's nice. Correlation and causation are separate things. I also have plenty of experience in knowing that when two sides are disagreeing, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.


[Reply]that we will have to deal with sooner or later, and the precise timing of certain events is less important than the fact that we can't go on with business as usual forever.



So what you are saying is that the earth's climate must be engineered for our comfort. Okay. I can see that perspective. Completely anti-environmental but I see some reasons for why it would be viewed as good.


[Reply]Or, you can keep your head in the sand, read only the information that aggrees with your current views and ignore any that doesn't while crying that Al Gore is evil and just wants to take all your money.



Naw. I prefer to keep myself informed. I don't need Al Gore to tell me anything.


My wife is hotter than your wife.