The IPCC report blunders Himalayan glacier facts

Basically:

1. The IPCC reports that "glaciers were receding faster than in any other part of the world and could disappear altogether by 2035 if not sooner"

2. Jairam Ramesh, India's environment minister, released a report saying that was a lie: "There is no conclusive scientific evidence to link global warming with what is happening in the Himalayan glaciers." The minister added although some glaciers are receding they were doing so at a rate that was not "historically alarming".

3. Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC (and a railroad engineer - LOL), told the Guardian: "We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don't know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement."

(Notice how when the "skeptic" contradicts the "alarmist", the alarmist jumps directly to insults!)

4. 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.

5. Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: “If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments.â€

6. Fred Pearce, a New Scientist journalist, said he rang Hasnain in India in 1999 after spotting his claims in an Indian magazine. Pearce said: “Hasnain told me then that he was bringing a report containing those numbers to Britain. The report had not been peer reviewed or formally published in a scientific journal and it had no formal status so I reported his work on that basis. Since then I have obtained a copy and it does not say what Hasnain said. In other words it does not mention 2035 as a date by which any Himalayan glaciers will melt. However, he did make clear that his comments related only to part of the Himalayan glaciers. not the whole massif.â€

7. The New Scientist report was apparently forgotten until 2005 when WWF cited it in a report called An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China. The report credited Hasnain’s 1999 interview with the New Scientist. But it was a campaigning report rather than an academic paper so it was not subjected to any formal scientific review. Despite this it rapidly became a key source for the IPCC when Lal and his colleagues came to write the section on the Himalayas.

8. When finally published, the IPCC report did give its source as the WWF study but went further, suggesting the likelihood of the glaciers melting was “very highâ€. The IPCC defines this as having a probability of greater than 90%. The report read: “Glaciers in the Himalaya 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.â€

9. However, glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise. The maximum rate of decline in thickness seen in glaciers at the moment is 2-3 feet a year and most are far lower.

10. Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, has previously dismissed criticism of the Himalayas claim as “voodoo scienceâ€. Last week the IPCC refused to comment so it has yet to explain how someone who admits to little expertise on glaciers was overseeing such a report. Perhaps its one consolation is that the blunder was spotted by climate scientists who quickly made it public.

11. Pearce (the journalist) said the IPCC’s reliance on the WWF was “immensely lazy†and the organisation need to explain itself or back up its prediction with another scientific source. Hasnain could not be reached for comment.

12. The revelation is the latest crack to appear in the scientific consensus over climate change. It follows the climate-gate scandal, where British scientists apparently tried to prevent other researchers from accessing key date. Last week another row broke out when the Met Office criticised suggestions that sea levels were likely to rise 1.9m by 2100, suggesting much lower increases were likely.

The IPCC's press release on the matter:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf

Other commentary:
Told ya so…IPCC to retract claim on Himalayan Glacier Melt – Pachauri’s “arrogance” claim backfires Watts Up With That?

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown - Times Online

United Nations' blunder on glaciers exposed | The Australian

This is all straight fact. There you have it - the IPCC is not all "peer reviewed" material. Who knows what other skeletons are in their closet?

If you got confused, here is a summary:



WWF's statement:

The glaciologist who supposedly made the claim denies it:

Climate Resistance has a great story about Pearce, the journalist:
Climate Resistance The IPCC and the Melting Glaciers Story

What a corrupt, piece of garbage organization this is. Rajendra Pachauri should be removed from the head. He is a know nothing and has no business, as a railroad engineer, being the head of the IPCC. His financial conflicts of interest have been detailed:

Pachauri used TERI email account to conduct official IPCC business Watts Up With That?

UN IPCC chief Pachauri under fire in India for conflicts of interest Watts Up With That?

Pachauri’s Carbon Choo-Choo off the rails Watts Up With That?

What a joke. Oh man this whole thing is starting to come down

 

Yup, people are calling for Rajendra Pachauri's retirement. (I no longer will title him Dr., he doesn't deserve any professional respect.)

 

IPCC admits the error:

IPCC admits error on Himalayan glacier melt fiasco Watts Up With That?

And "Old Patchy" is now threatening lawsuits. This is typical of the ClimateGate morons. Anytime it's revealed they are up to fraud they threaten lawsuits. What a bunch of idiots.

Angry Pachauri threatens to sue UK daily- TIMESNOW.tv - Latest Breaking News, Big News Stories, News Videos

 

Did you mean 8 years of colder weather? Weather? Oh my god! How dare you say the W word! *Insert 10 page rant about not knowing the difference between climate and weather*

 

Actually, posting the IPCC is not "fair and balanced", look closely at what they wrote:

"Poorly substantiated", to me, implies that it was not based on very good evidence. The reality is that it was based on absolutely nothing. The person that supposedly said it has downright denied saying it. And this is supposed to be some huge, peer-reviewed effort.

If anything, I would say the entire IPCC report is "poorly substantiated" and their monumental screwup on the Himalayan glacier was an "outright lie."

 

Re-read your post (and what I quoted from you.) It's not semantic to point out that you said warmer instead of colder. And it certainly isn't semantic to point out weather vs. climate - your own Icarus, and all of the rest of you alarmists jump all over everyone. How can you possibly debate anything if you don't know the difference between weather and climate?

 

Yup. And the FACTS are that this monumental mess up by these IPCC morons was not merely "poorly substantiated" - it was not created out of thing air! The person they are accusing of originally making the statement is completely denying it!

 

Really? Because the people on the same side of the argument as you would say it takes 30 years to notice any climate changing