Potential Energy

Correction to Geoengineering Gambit Feature

The claim that Himalayan glaciers will disappear in 25 years is unsubstantiated.

Kevin Bullis 01/20/2010

  • 6 Comments

In the past couple of weeks I've been looking into a comment from one of the people who read my recent feature on geoengineering, "The Geoengineering Gambit." The comment had to do with the first paragraph of the feature, which says that glaciers in the Himalayas are in danger of disappearing in just 25 years, threatening the water supply for people in India, China and other Asian countries. That statement was based on a report by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC), which states:

Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world (see Table 10.9) 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.

A reader pointed out that in recent months there has been speculation that the number 2035 was in error, and that the original source estimated the glaciers would disappear by 2350. I've since contacted the IPCC and read the relevant sources. It's still unclear whether the original date was indeed 2350, although there is, I believe, a strong case that it was, and that the IPCC was therefore off by about 300 years.

What is clear is that the IPCC got this date, not from peer-reviewed literature, but from an article in the magazine New Scientist. The IPCC report does not cite the New Scientist in the report, so there was no way of knowing that the organization, in this case, decided not to rely on peer-reviewed literature. Today the IPCC issued an official statement saying the information was from "poorly substantiated sources" and that "the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly."

In other words, there is no solid source for the statement that the glaciers will disappear in 25 years, and I regret that this statement was included in the feature. We'll print a correction in the next issue, but I also wanted to call reader's attention to this error here.

The main point of the feature isn't affected by this mistake. Scientists are concerned enough about rapid climate change to recommend the study of geoengineering methods for rapidly cooling down the earth, 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.

A story about the IPCC error, and how it occurred, and what it means for the credibility of that organization, will appear tomorrow on our website.

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

kstauff

130 Comments

  • 754 Days Ago
  • 01/20/2010

Good show!

Kevin:

I commend this effort to ensure clarity on the TR site, and by the IPCC to correct the mistake that was made recently regarding the Himalayan glaciers.  Of course, I remain unconvinced that any significant warming can be measurably attributed to man-made sources, and thus disagree with your conclusion that such techniques of geoengineering would be necessary. 

But I am heartened to see at least one case in which TR is correcting a mistake.  Now I only hope TR can provide balanced coverage of skeptical scientists like Dr. Lindzen instead of waiting for the IPCC to issue a retraction to find an opportunity to contradict the general alarmism in the AGW community.

Reply

Kevin Bullis

178 Comments

  • 754 Days Ago
  • 01/20/2010

kstauff,

Thank you.  I was very frustrated to learn about what amounts to a very clumsy error by the IPCC. Ideally, I hope that every reader who read the feature will see this correction. Actually, I hope more people see it than even read the original article. Apparently the 2035 error has been repeated far and wide, and glaciologists are getting really tired of trying to correct it every time it pops up.

Just to be clear--it's not actually my conclusion that we need geoengineering.  The point of the article is just that some mainstream scientists are now saying we've got to take it seriously. It doesn't necessarily conclude that they're right. In fact, it points out the potentially very significant dangers of geoengineering.

Reply

tmcmurph

36 Comments

  • 753 Days Ago
  • 01/21/2010

Congrats

Congratulations on being honest! It is sad day when we actually have to thank those who strive for accuracy rather than just "moving on" and trying to forget and hope everyone else does but you are a rarity. Even when caught red handed most still try to lie and rationalize their way out.

By the way don't worry about "global warming" and how to stop it. The scientists would be better off planning on how to stop the next ice age! We are due and mother nature doesn't care about AWG theories.

My choice would be a series of pumps to keep the ocean's warm tropical water heading north. Nice thing is that they can be shut down quickly if needed. I don't like any geo-engineering that can't be shut off in minutes.

Reply

Elroch

56 Comments

  • 751 Days Ago
  • 01/23/2010

Phew!

I am more pleased that such a devastating environmental problem is not imminent than that I am dismayed that such careless sourcing should have been accepted so widely.

Reply

rjplano

2 Comments

  • 749 Days Ago
  • 01/25/2010

It's worse than that...

"The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders." (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html)

Certainly makes one wonder what else the IPCC has included in its reports over the years in order to apply 'political pressure'.

-RJP

Reply

rjplano

2 Comments

  • 749 Days Ago
  • 01/25/2010

Another day, another IPCC retraction

Well, this sounds familiar:
"It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report's own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough."

So says the TimesOnline (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece) concerning the IPCC claim that global warming can be blamed for "an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods". Which IPCC claim will have to be retracted tomorrow? Drought, species extinction?

What exactly will it take for people to stop taking the IPCC seriously when it comes to science?

-RJP

Reply

Bio

Kevin Bullis is Technology Review’s energy editor.

Subscribe to the Potential Energy RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement