World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown

Sandvich

I read the report, and I don't see any glaring flaws with it.

However it doesn't say that "These glaciers are not melting abnormally; therefore there is no global warming". It says that the behaviour of glaciers is too chaotic and contains too many factors to be used reliably in some cases, such as this one. It even makes reference to other glaciers having an observed abnormal change, and states that the Indian Himalayan glaciers are not like this; implying the issue here is local.

This whole thing is just depressing, because it's the skeptics argument down to a T, let's pick out the bits that look like they agree with us and ignore the research as a whole.

Glaciers, in the Himalayas, although shrinking in
volume and constantly showing a retreating front,
have not in any way exhibited, especially in recent
years, an abnormal annual retreat, of the order that
some glaciers in Alaska and Greenland are reported
to be showing. One has to realise that the snouts
of the glaciers in Alaska and Greenland are close
to the sea level where as that of the glaciers in the
Himalayas, on an average, are around 4,000m.a.s.l.
In fact, if we go by ‘the topographic theory’ that
maintains that because the temperature decreases
with the altitude, mountain uplift causes glaciation,
Himalayas should always retain glaciers in one form
or the other.

gullon

Sandvich wrote: »

I read the report, and I don't see any glaring flaws with it.

However it doesn't say that "These glaciers are not melting abnormally; therefore there is no global warming".

But they did state:

It is premature to make a statement that glaciers in the Himalayas are retreating abnormally because of the global warming.

gullon

Sandvich wrote: »

I read the report, and I don't see any glaring flaws with it.

However it doesn't say that "These glaciers are not melting abnormally; therefore there is no global warming".

Maybe the glaciers are melting abnormally due to brown cloud pollution and not global warming!

http://www-cirrus.ucsd.edu/personnel/vram/publications/Ram_etal_Nature2007.pdf

Sandvich

gullon wrote: »

Maybe the glaciers are melting abnormally due to brown cloud pollution and not global warming!

http://www-cirrus.ucsd.edu/personnel/vram/publications/Ram_etal_Nature2007.pdf

First sentence of that report.

Atmospheric brown clouds are mostly the result of biomass burning
and fossil fuel consumption1.

It's times like this I wish this forum had a facepalm emote. :facepalm:

gullon

Sandvich wrote: »

First sentence of that report.



It's times like this I wish this forum had a facepalm emote. :facepalm:

Did you read beyond the first sentence?

How much of the abnormal Himalayan glacier retreat can be attributed to carbon dioxide induced global warming?

Sandvich

Why are you continuing to fixate on the same issue as if it disproves climate change?

I'm not a glacier researcher or a climatologist, so I can't tell you. I do know bits and bobs of the subject at hand but given the glacier incident is "recent" I haven't had time to read up on it.

Turtwig

gullon wrote: »

I have serious issue with the IPCC when they dismiss peer reviewed science on Hmilayan glaciers as “voodoo science” and intend to scare the life out off me with dramatic and attention grabbing headlines from “grey literature” in WG II from NGO’s, which was incorrect. (and that was after 6000 scientists reviewed the IPCC report!)

You need to be careful here. Many of the claims levelled against the IPCC aren't really true. The IPCC didn't dismiss peer review. Pachauri dismissed a paper by Indian Geological Survey because it lacked citations and wasn't peer reviewed. The intention to scare the life out of you? Really, have you read the review comments? It seems to me like too much trust was put in the WWF. A lazy citation error. Nothing more, really.

Turtwig

gullon wrote: »

Did you read beyond the first sentence?

How much of the abnormal Himalayan glacier retreat can be attributed to carbon dioxide induced global warming?

Glacial retreat typically depends on precipitation factors over a region. As precipitation is hard to model is it really unclear as to how many glaciers melting can be attributed to warming in the certain areas of himalayas. Glaciers growing in some areas can be attributed to warming too, sometimes it can't. Like Sandvich I don't really much about them to be honest. However if you are going to insist on this iota I'd ask you what your views on what exactly effects the glaciers are, that way we can start from some level or footing.

Turtwig

gullon wrote: »

Did you read beyond the first sentence?

How much of the abnormal Himalayan glacier retreat can be attributed to carbon dioxide induced global warming?

??????????????????????????????????
Anthropogenic isn't just C02.

gullon

Malty_T wrote: »

??????????????????????????????????
Anthropogenic isn't just C02.

To the average man in the street anthropogenic = carbon dioxide = global warming. The public is told that our carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for the melting of worldwide glaciers.

Yes, anthropogenic isn't just about carbon dioxide, but we the public are led to believe it is.

gullon

Malty_T wrote: »

Glacial retreat typically depends on precipitation factors over a region. As precipitation is hard to model is it really unclear as to how many glaciers melting can be attributed to warming in the certain areas of himalayas. Glaciers growing in some areas can be attributed to warming too, sometimes it can't. Like Sandvich I don't really much about them to be honest. However if you are going to insist on this iota I'd ask you what your views on what exactly effects the glaciers are, that way we can start from some level or footing.

I was led to believe in my old age that himalayan glacier retreat was due to global warming ( I should stop reading the Guardian). Nobody reported that some are growing some are retreating and some not changing at all over the years.

The same is reported for other glacial systems, but I am constantly being told "The world glaciers are retreating beacuse of global warming"

I have digressed from the original thread which is about the IPCC and Dr Pachuri calling peer reviewed science "voodoo" science".

If he really believes it is voodoo science he should resign.

gullon

Malty_T wrote: »

You need to be careful here. Many of the claims levelled against the IPCC aren't really true. The IPCC didn't dismiss peer review. Pachauri dismissed a paper by Indian Geological Survey because it lacked citations and wasn't peer reviewed. The intention to scare the life out of you? Really, have you read the review comments? It seems to me like too much trust was put in the WWF. A lazy citation error. Nothing more, really.

The report to the indian government did have citations. Are you referring to the report itself as not being peer reviewed.

In a previous comment I referred to Dr Pachauri if he was acting in a private capcacity or as chairman of the IPCC when he made the comments. Either way he should resign

gullon

Sandvich wrote: »

Why are you continuing to fixate on the same issue as if it disproves climate change?

I'm not a glacier researcher or a climatologist, so I can't tell you. I do know bits and bobs of the subject at hand but given the glacier incident is "recent" I haven't had time to read up on it.

I have a fixation here because you stated "what about the retreating glaciers" as if that proves global warming!

I responded with the question "what about the expanding glaciers and what about the ones which are not changing at all"

I am still awaiting an answer!

djpbarry

gullon wrote: »

The report to the indian government did have citations.

It wasn’t properly referenced though. For example, I’ve just glanced through the introduction, which contains several ‘factual’ statements, yet none of them are referenced. Listing a few sources at the end of the document is not much good if the sources for specific claims cannot be clearly identified.

gullon wrote: »

Are you referring to the report itself as not being peer reviewed.

Correct. But that’s not necessarily all that important in and of itself, since WGII frequently relies upon so-called ‘grey’ literature.

Sandvich

gullon wrote: »

I have a fixation here because you stated "what about the retreating glaciers" as if that proves global warming!

No, there are several things that "prove" global warming. It's just particularly irritating that you overfocus on one area of glaciers.

Cunsiderthis

Sandvich wrote: »

No, there are several things that "prove" global warming. It's just particularly irritating that you overfocus on one area of glaciers.

The only think which "proves" global warming are thermometers. I agree that to overfocus on any other area seems pointless.

gullon

Sandvich wrote: »

No, there are several things that "prove" global warming. It's just particularly irritating that you overfocus on one area of glaciers.

Ok in order to stop being irritating to you for commenting on Himalayan glaciers in a Himalayan glacier thread. I will again ask you why is the net mass balance change for European glaciers since the 90's close to zero?

gullon

Sandvich wrote: »

And what about all the other Glaciers that are shrinking just as we expected them?

I guess those don't count.

You're right glaciers have retreated globally, but can you explian why the retreat commenced in the early 1800's?

Turtwig

gullon wrote: »

You're right glaciers have retreated globally, but can you explian why the retreat commenced in the early 1800's?

The Earth began to emerge from the period known as the little Ice Age. I'm not sure what relevance this has though to the recent trend of warming that's attributed to AGW. Glaciers respond to changes in climate, they retreat and they grow; climate in turn is influenced by a plethora of other factors. What matters is how rapidly the glaciers have been retreating. And. yes, like everything such as science's spelling there are exceptions to a trend or given rule.

Cunsiderthis

Malty_T wrote: »

The Earth began to emerge from the period known as the little Ice Age. I'm not sure what relevance this has though to the recent trend of warming that's attributed to AGW. Glaciers respond to changes in climate, they retreat and they grow; climate in turn is influenced by a plethora of other factors. What matters is how rapidly the glaciers have been retreating. And. yes, like everything such as science's spelling there are exceptions to a trend or given rule.

I'd read somewhere that credulouists refuse to acknowledge the existence of either the little ice age or the medevil warm period as both suggest that extremes of temperature happened before man came along burning fossil fuels and before the term "carbon footprint" was dreamed up.

Macha

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I'd read somewhere that credulouists refuse to acknowledge the existence of either the little ice age or the medevil warm period as both suggest that extremes of temperature happened before man came along burning fossil fuels and before the term "carbon footprint" was dreamed up.

Where did you read that?

Cunsiderthis

taconnol wrote: »

Where did you read that?

I'm not at all sure, but certainly I've read it. Are you saying that the LIA and MWP is accepted by most credulouists?

Macha

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I'm not at all sure, but certainly I've read it. Are you saying that the LIA and MWP is accepted by most credulouists?

I can't speak on behalf of the entire scientific community but I daresay there are very, very few that don't acknowledge the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Period.

From RealClimate.org, a well-respected blog by a group of climate scientists:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/little-ice-age-lia/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/medieval-warm-period-mwp/

It would be nice if you could give us a source for your claim.

Turtwig

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I'd read somewhere that credulouists refuse to acknowledge the existence of either the little ice age or the medevil warm period as both suggest that extremes of temperature happened before man came along burning fossil fuels and before the term "carbon footprint" was dreamed up.

Rather depressingly, I think you are right here. (Though I can't recall where either.) Then again there's all sorts of people out there, all our arguments with folks over any given topic would be easy if we just focused on the extremes and in people who believed the bizarre. No publishing scientist in the area of Climate Science denies these periods happened. That really is all that matters.

Sandvich

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I'd read somewhere that credulouists refuse to acknowledge the existence of either the little ice age or the medevil warm period as both suggest that extremes of temperature happened before man came along burning fossil fuels and before the term "carbon footprint" was dreamed up.

You read this on some nutty right wing blog or in the Daily Mail. It's pretty far from the truth. Unlike some of the skeptics, the "warmists" generally like to take these these head on. There's the idea thrown out there by the media that a lot of climatologists like to dodge all these points when in reality they deal with a lot of them fairly head on.

Medieval warm period was localised warming, for example.

Cunsiderthis

Sandvich wrote: »

You read this on some nutty right wing blog or in the Daily Mail. It's pretty far from the truth.

As I've never read the daily mail, I think it unlikely to have read it there. As for your "nutty right wing blog" I presume you mean right wing as a term of abuse.

djpbarry

Handbags away please folks.

Sandvich,

Stick to discussing the content of posts rather than casting aspersions on posters. You’ve been warned about this once already – next offence results in a ban.

gizmo555

Robert Watson, a former chairman of the IPCC, says what has been obvious to many of us for a some time - that there is an apparent bias towards exaggerating the effects of climate change in the IPCC's reports.

Professor Watson, currently chief scientific adviser to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said that if the errors had just been innocent mistakes, as has been claimed by the current chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, some would probably have understated the impact of climate change.

More here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026932.ece

It is as clear as day that the IPCC has for some time gone beyond being a neutral reporter on the best available science on climate change to become a campaiging organisation with all the associated bias that that entails. For it to regain any credibility, it needs at a minimum to replace Pachauri ASAP.

Cunsiderthis

We've often been assured that there is an overwhelming consensus amongst "scientists" that the IPCC pronouncements are right, and this is another link in the chain suggesting that that claim is, in itself, false.

I also remember being assured that the IPCC only uses "peer reviewed" literature on which to base it's claims, and the recent announcements by the discredited Dr Pachuari seems also to disagree with that claim also.

Professor Jones also has been quoted as now saying there has been no actual warming since 1995, so it's not clear what is happening.

djpbarry

gizmo555 wrote: »

It is as clear as day that the IPCC has for some time gone beyond being a neutral reporter on the best available science on climate change to become a campaiging organisation with all the associated bias that that entails.

You don’t think that’s blowing things out of proportion ever so slightly? If that were the case, wouldn’t their ‘Summary for Policy Makers’ be littered with exaggerations?

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

We've often been assured that there is an overwhelming consensus amongst "scientists" that the IPCC pronouncements are right, and this is another link in the chain suggesting that that claim is, in itself, false.

How so? Has Prof. Watson dismissed the substance of the IPCC reports?

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

I also remember being assured that the IPCC only uses "peer reviewed" literature on which to base it's claims...

Assured by who?

Cunsiderthis wrote: »

Professor Jones also has been quoted as now saying there has been no actual warming since 1995....

Probably because 15 years is too short a period of time from which to derive a statistically significant result? Or is there some other point you wanted to make by repeating this statement in separate threads?