Still there: The Khumbu glacier, in front of Mount Everest, is one of the longest glaciers in the world. Though the Himalayan glaciers are being affected by global warming, they won’t disappear in 25 years, as the authors of a recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change incorrectly predicted.
Subel Bhandari/AFP/Getty Images
The use of news reports as sources calls a key finding into question.
One of the most alarming conclusions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a widely respected organization established by the United Nations, is that glaciers in the Himalayas could be gone 25 years from now, eliminating a primary source of water for hundreds of millions of people. But a number of glaciologists have argued that this conclusion is wrong, and now the IPCC admits that the conclusion is largely unsubstantiated, based on news reports rather than published, peer-reviewed scientific studies.
In a statement released on Wednesday, the IPCC admitted that the Working Group II report, "Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability," published in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), contains a claim that "refers to poorly substantiated estimates. " The statement also said "the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedure, were not applied properly." The statement did not quote the error, but it did cite the section of the report that refers to Himalayan glaciers. Christopher Field, director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology, who is now in charge of Working Group II, confirms that the error was related to the claim that the glaciers could disappear by 2035.
The disappearance of the glaciers would require temperatures far higher than those predicted in even the most dire global warming scenarios, says Georg Kaser, professor at the Institut für Geographie der Universität, Innsbruck. The Himalayas would have to heat up by 18 degrees Celsius and stay there for the highest glaciers to melt--most climate change scenarios expect only a few degrees of warming over the next century.
The mistake has called into question the credibility of the IPCC, which has been considered an authoritative source for information about climate change because of its policy of carefully reviewing and analyzing hundreds and even thousands of published, peer-reviewed scientific studies. But the scientists who uncovered the error say that the mistake, and the reliance on news reports and unpublished studies, is rare. "I don't think it ought to affect the credibility of the edifice as a whole," says J. Graham Cogley, professor of geography at Trent University, who was key to identifying the original sources of the information in the IPCC report.
The error has been traced to the fact that the IPCC permits the citation of non-peer-reviewed sources, called "grey literature," in cases where peer-reviewed data is not available. It requires that these sources be carefully scrutinized, but that didn't happen in this case. The process has "gone spectacularly wrong in this particular instance," Cogley says.
Can a garden hose to the stratosphere really keep the planet cool?
For years, radical thinkers have proposed risky technologies that they say could rapidly cool the earth and offset global warming. Now a growing number of mainstream climate scientists say we may have to consider extreme action despite the dangers.
Better models are rapidly defining the uncertainties ahead, says leading climate scientist Ronald Prinn.
Just as they did their best to ignore the gross errors emanating from East Anglia CRU
You know how much this hurt TR to report this, given their complete lack of intellectual curiosity, and complete dismissal of MIT professor Richard Lindzen's work, with regard to the religion of anthropological global warming.
This fraudulent pronouncement would have been discovered YEARS ago if the mainstream science media had not been accepting every alarmist climate change prediction without question or scrutiny.
But here's the thing--it was actually mainstream scientists, scientists who were involved with the IPCC, who discovered and reported the problem and have been taking great pains to try to get the word out.
True, but coming so soon after the email scandal, it appears to be damage control. Many alarmist scientists now seem to be reviewing their skewed data to "announce" errors before others find them. They never bothered to before. So how about an article on MIT Prof. Richard Lindzen's work. I think it would be of interest to TR readers. One might think you're be boycotting him, as he frequently publishes elsewhere (see recent article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html)
Guest (Gblaze43)
Actually I think it shows great integrity on TR to publish this. Publications will get their data wrong at times, it happens. Not all publications will admit they were wrong though.
I agree. The major error in the mainstream fascination with man-made global warming is the reluctance to allow argument and report errors when they happen. Kudos not only to Kevin Bullis for a great article, but also to Tech Review for posting it as a feature headliner. Doubtless both face criticism because they chose to do the right thing.
If you are interested in a balanced discussion on the Climate and other matters of the day? Most of you know of Jerry Pournelle? A "peer-reviewed" scientist in his own right; google his name, find his daybook (which has been active since the days of BIX and Genie. Oh!, I am old).
I am very happy that TR did not hold this back, but I would be more impressed if they did not constantly and blithely insert comments about the importance of carbon reduction in virtually every article that has anything to do with energy or environment. it is simply dishonest to continually refer to the "need to reduce our carbon footprinit" when that is far from a proven requirement.
The IPCC work mentioned in this article is an example of a review study confusing primary data (peer-reviewed experimental science) with secondary data (newspaper articles). I have seen this type of error frequently. For example, government-funded consulting reports are often based, in part, on interviews with "expert sources". On the face of it, these interviews would be considered primary data, whereas document review is secondary data. In reality, "primary data" collected from expert sources may include a lot opinions and second-hand facts which the experts picked up reading various publications, including trade magazine editorials and newspaper articles. When this type of information finds its way into government-sponsored reports, it becomes elevated in stature. If you apply a political bias across the process, you have the potential for some major “decision-based fact making”, which supports the political agenda of the funding organizations. Given the trillions of dollars and welfare of hundreds of millions of lives at stake in the global warming issue, tax payers should insist that the best quality practices are used in publicly funded work on global warming. Until this happens, my advice is reader beware.
The peer-reviewed article stated 2350. New Scientist reported (and IPCC accepted) 2035. Am I the only person who can see the obvious? Nobody bothered to read the primary source document.
Another mistake from the IPCC made is their definition of "Radiative Forcing". The result is a much weaker impact from CO2 then reported. See Leave CO2 Alone
Some interesting content here...
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner
A little too late, in my opinion. This is coming out now because things have gotten very ugly for the global warming alarmist camp since climategate. It's called damage control.
What is missing from this article is the almost criminal actions of IPCC's Chairman, Rajendra Pachauri. This nonsense about the glaciers has been known for quite some time but here is how Pachauri reacted to Indian government's criticism about the glacier melting scare:
Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has described the Indian government report that criticized the claim by IPCC over the faster than expected melting of Himalayan glaciers, as “voodoo science”.
Source:http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/health/pachauri-calls-indian-govt-report-on-melting-himalayan-glaciers-as-voodoo-science_100301232.html
Pachauri is now keeping a very low profile. East Asian and Indian media are full of front page stories about the shenanigans of Pachauri and the IPCC to the point where they are close to calling the IPCC a criminal organization. That the IPCC got a Nobel prize is suspicious, to say the least. Some may call it scandalous. At any rate, it does not bode well for the future prestige of the Nobel Prize, that's for sure.
Re: IPCC Chairman and Vood Science
The unprofessional, and very
sloppy approach, adopted by the
chairman of IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri,
when alarms sounded on both
the veracity and validity of
scientific claims that underlied
some sections of the report on
climate change,but instead,
turned around and characterized
such challenges as 'voodoo
science', is very serious
enough for him to resign
for the dignity, integrity
and respect of sound science
and face saving.
He failed in leadership role here,
administrative role, and both,in
capacity as a scientist and a
representative of the scientific
community,and no longer deserve
the chairperson's position at IPCC.
Where, the chairman fails to resign
on his own, the United Nations
moves ahead to replace him.
What is very troubling is the
time factor it took the intellectual
community to move this matter to
this point.
Not only, was the Nobel prize given
to IPCC, very disturbing, the role
of politics on matters that are
purely scientific, leaves
much to be desired.
Unless, voices of good minded
professionals begin to sound louder,
and very loudest too, the design,
conduct, experimental
or empirical data,results,
conclusions and reports
from research activity in
science, will continue to
be compromised.
Additionally, a more strategic
approach,sandwiched with
verifications of scientific
claims and results leading to
public pronouncement of a
'break through' must be
developed and enforced to
eliminate bogus claims.
Afterall, the media would
not have altered experimental
data in well minded research
works as to convey such a
magnitude of disparity
that characterized the
old and new reports on
climate change.
Martin Atayo,
Washington,DC
Another negative suprise, but the process works
I was shocked to learn that some more politically minded people in the IPCC allowed IPCC Reports to contain data from so called "gray literature" sources. But scientists are trained to report, rather than suppress, errors (because they know that the truth always comes out) and that is what happened here. So imagine my surprise when many western-hemisphere news sources reported the latest fiasco from the point of view "look what we newshounds dug up about those evil scientists" rather than the truth which was "the IPCC scientists calling a press conference to explain the error so science can continue to move forward". Question: What's the big difference between "true science" vs. "cuckoo science" vs. "science deniers"? Answer: "True science" is self correcting and has no problem admitting errors. The scientific method still works properly as we all have just observed.
Re: Another negative suprise, but the process works
The comment about science being self correcting is true, over the long term. Nature (not the journal) provides the main impetus, though humans often help.
Of course 'climate science' is a special sort of science. It has no underpinning theory: there is no theory of global warming, just a lot of observations, a lot of dubious hypothesis, and a large number of computer models which don't agree with each other, let alone observation.
Above all, climate science has become the holy of holy: you can't question any part of it without being bad mouthed.
For example, you might want to question if a tree, or a group of trees in Siberia or the US have a 'magic radio' which permits us to learn, via tree ring data, whether the summer of 1786 was globally colder or warmer than the summer of 1929. Since many factors go in to tree growth, you might want to question wether or that tree says anything about its own temperature history, let alone that of the entire world. But if you do question that 'fact' you are told 'the science is settled and only climate deiners refuse to accept it'.
The data is proprietary (let us remember that successful and allegedly criminal attempts at blocking UK FOI requests are at the heart of Climategate). So if a group of scientist with no qualifications in advanced statistics write a flawed paper, itself reviewed by people with undergraduate statistical expertise, that data, their algoritms, etc., are not available for independent critical review.
Thats a pretty unique branch - a science with no theoretical underpinning (find me a testable 'theory of global warming') which cannot be questioned, where the methodologies cannot be questioned, where the data is proprietary (and therefore cannot be questioned), where the conclusions are drawn from models which have no demonstrated predictive skill, and which is, above all, overseen by a political body, which is what the IPCC is. And its not just the IPCC: anybody looking for research money knows there is an awful lot more money in research with a climate angle than anything else these days. And the problem with science these days is, you get the answers you pay for.
There is no other branch of science that comes close to climate science in terms of shoddiness of theory or purposeful obfuscation of the underlying data.
And yet climate science dominates public policy like no other branch of science.
Re: Another negative suprise, but the process works
You state this very well. Thank you.
Re: Another negative suprise, but the process works
Sir, you are incorrect and it is due to the large lengths of time involved. In this light, Climate Science is a lot like Evolution Science. (Concepts involving large blocks of time pose problems for humans who evolved only dealing with quick problems/solutions involving survival). In the case of Evolution Science, Darwin's hypothesis (originally published in 1859) was primarily based upon the fossil record although more data kept adding to the body of knowledge. Because of the time frames involved, there is no laboratory experiment that will satisfy everyone one although the discovery of DNA's double helix in 1953 is proof enough for most people with any form of scientific training. (and yet, many people today still disagree with the hypothesis and theory of evolution).
Getting back to Climate Science, scientists have been working on this ever since Joseph Black discovered "fixed air" (CO2) and William Herschel held a thermometer under a prism to discover Infra-red radiation. In 1957-8 (the International Geophysical Year) many scientists installed equipment to measure what was really going on with the planet. This is where humanity began to learn about things like the Keeling Curve. Lots of theories were developed by people including Milankovitch but these were forgotten until the study of Ice Cores (starting in 1970) revealed that Milankovitch Cycles were part of the science with greenhouse gases (CO2, methane gases, water vapor, etc.) acting as feedbacks. To many people including me, the ice core science (which, like fossils, provides an historical record) only adds to the existing body of knowledge.
So here is the "Coles Notes" version of climate science: Milankovitch Cycles set us up for moving in and out of ice ages every 120,000 years or so with feedbacks (ocean currents, albedo of ice vs. water, greenhouse gases) flipping the switch in one direction or the other. The current warming trend started 11,600 years ago with the beginning of the Holocene. This warming trend allowed us to grow to a population of 6.9 billion. If we don't step up to control our environment now, many people will starve as food production shrinks while disease expands. When the next Milankovitch takes us into the next ice age, humanity will need to take control again to minimize that natural event. Think of is as a cosmic survival test.
Re: Another negative suprise, but the process works
Well, hang on a moment. Darwin did not use use computer models and base conclusions upon the outcome of those models. Darwin put forth an hypothesis which has been widely debated and, most importantly, tested by skeptical scientists of the time. And it is observable (though not predictable in any real sense), and it dovetails with all relevant scientific knowledge.
With respect to the reliance fossil record (I *seem* to recall a voyage of the Beagle in my version) fossils themselves are subject to careful interpretation and everybody is careful to point out that a particular fossil gives us information about that fossil, within the context of other fossils.
On the other hand, ice cores and tree rings are seen to have magic properties which tell us about the planet rather than their immediate surrounding. Oddly enough, a thermometer, which is a pretty good way of telling temperature (and yet which often disagrees with tree rings and ice cores) is never assumed to convey information about the global climate. Nobody looks at my theremometer and decides they can impute the temperature in LadySmith - something you can do with tree rings and ice cores apparently.
But, above all, setting aside the lack of disclosure, incestuous peer review, etc., etc., it is the use of models which shows climate science for the sham it is. Anybody with any academic knowledge of computer models knows they tell you nothing about nature. This is especially true if you are talking about modeling a poorly understood chaotic system with 4,000 cubic kilometer cells. Even if you could model a few thousand times finer, your outputs would depend entirely on your input assumptions, which themselves remain highly uncertain.
So, lets spend out time and money fixing real, solvable problems instead at tilting at windmills. Imagine how many lives could be saved today - NOW - if we spent the billions of dollars on malaria treatments, or diarrhea, or giving clean water to people, instead of worrying about an unpredictable future arising from an untestable theory.
Re: Another negative suprise, but the process works
OK. Nicely put, but here is the test of your scientific mettle: apply exactly what you just said to the differentiation of species via evolution. You should arrive at the same result. Please note that I do not debate change within species via evolution, nor do I claim that there is some reality to the Creation myth. I do claim that evolution (writ large) is a non-verifiable theoretical construct which only poorly conforms to observed reality. A better theory should be developed, rather than the slavish, near-religious insistence on a theory with too little observable fact to form its basis.
Is is just me, or just the fact that this is a UN organization immediately makes me want to look on anything they have done, or will do as politically motivated garbage?
No matter how noble or high sounding UN pronouncements are, they have a long track record of just being a bunch of politically appointed hacks who are riding the gravy train.
With all the money that has been given to the over the last decades, I see very little positive results forthcoming.
And why is the UN spending money on this? Why have a Climate Change Authority? There is a tremendousness amount of work being done on the national level.
Having all of that work summarized by a bunch of politically appointed people is a recipe for what we see here.....
This article mentions only 1 of the many errors in just this one section of the IPCC report.
1. Table 10.9 has a basic math error that results in the average retreat rate for the Pindari glacier being listed as 135.2 m/yr from 1845 to 1966. The actual numbers are 27m/yr 1847-1906; 20m/yr 1906-1958, and current rate of 10m/yr. It appears that IPCC took the 2840 meter retreat from 1845 to 1966 and divided by 21 rather than 121.
2. The IPCC and even this article in Technology Review seesm to make the assumption that the loss of the glacier means a dried up river. The total average annual water flow depends upon precipitation. The glacier does smooth out the seasonal flow variations, but much less than is commonly assumed. Even without glaciers, the snowpack will provide much the same summer flow.
Think about it a bit and you will see why the very first sentence of this article is incorrect: "One of the most alarming conclusions ... is that glaciers in the Himalayas could be gone 25 years from now, eliminating a primary source of water for hundreds of millions of people."
3. In the same section on Himalayan glaciers, the IPCC makes a claim about Himalayan glacial area declining from 500k sq km down to 100k sq km by 2035. The problem is is 500k sq km is the total GLOBAL area of extrapolar glaciers. The Himalayan glaciers are about 33k sq km. Another very basic error, that the IPCC fails to acknowledge. (I have personally e-mailed the IPCC on this error and the Pindari glacier error and have not recieved acknowledgement or response. If you want to review the data, agree with my findings, and wish to submit your comments to the IPCC, you will undoubtably have the same lack of response. At some point, perhaps enough attention will be drawn to the errors to get them acknowledged like the IPCC finally acknowledged the 2035 error after 2 years).
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
RD
211 Comments
comment
Excellent article Kevin but I doubt the major papers will report this.
Reply
Kevin Bullis
177 Comments
Re: comment
Thanks, RD. Actually, a few papers have picked up some of this story--the New York Times included.
Reply
erbium
337 Comments
In the end is irrelevant
this date is the supposed date that 'all' glaciers will be gone.
Massive effects on human populations will be / are occurring when glaciers are a fraction of their present sizes, long before the last little patch of ice on a north slope of the Himalayas at 22,000 feet melts.
Reply