Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown
Comments
-
-
The claims the IPCC made about ice disappearing from mountain tops seems to have been based on a student's dissertation and an article in a popular mountaineering magazine. This article was based on anecdotes from climbers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html0 -
Apologies for that, I didn't read the blog.:p
Evidently you didn't read this thread either, since the reference to Kaser's 2004 paper is in it.Thing is though, I'm lazy at the moment
Yes, that is apparent.Ok, we're now at..
Himalayan glaciers cover about three million hectares or 17%
of the mountain area as compared to 2.2% in the Swiss Alps.
They form the largest body of ice outside the polar caps and are
the source of water for the innumerable rivers that flow across
the Indo-Gangetic plains. Himalayan glacial snowfields store
about 12,000 km3 of freshwater. About 15,000 Himalayan
glaciers form a unique reservoir which supports perennial rivers
such as the Indus, Ganga and Brahmaputra which, in turn, are
the lifeline of millions of people in South Asian countries
(Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, India and Bangladesh).
Given the gross errors already identified one could reasonably hesitate to take any of the figures in this passage at face value. Nevertheless, it would be fair to accept its overall thrust, i.e., that if the Himalayan glaciers were to disappear, it would be A Very Bad Thing. However, we have separately established that the probability of this happening for the foreseeable future is essentially nil.The relatively high population density near these glaciers and consequent deforestation and land-use changes have also adversely affected these glaciers.
No basis for these conclusions is cited, but even if we accept they are correct, they have nothing to do with AGW.The 30.2 km long Gangotri glacier has been receding alarmingly in recent years (Figure 10.6). Between 1842 and 1935, the glacier was receding at an average of 7.3 m every year; the average rate of recession between 1985 and 2001 is about 23 m per year (Hasnain, 2002). The current trends of glacial melts suggest that the Ganga, Indus, Brahmaputra and other rivers that criss-cross the northern Indian plain could likely become seasonal rivers in the near future as a consequence of climate change and could likely affect the economies in the region.
Presumably these figures are cited to corroborate the claim that Himalayan glaciers are "very likely" to disappear by 2035. But as we have seen elsewhere other Himalayan glaciers are stable and still others are growing and as Khandekar says "The two large and most important glaciers of the Himalayas show very little retreat at this point in time." So what we have here is selective use of rates for glacier retreat to bolster a point we already know to be absolutely false.
As an aside, this passage and the associated table of figures for glacier retreat contain yet another arithmetic error. Figures for average retreat rates are quoted to a spurious level of precision, 10cm, given that overall retreat figures are quoted in metres. Now, you might consider this to be nitpicking, but the use of spuriously precise figures such as these is a very common way of trying to give the impression of greater accuracy than is actually possible from the underlying data and an error that the report writers should have known to avoid. To relate this to physical terms, does anyone seriously believe is is possible to measure the location of the snout of a 30.2km - that is, 3,020,000cm - glacier to a precision of 10cm or 0.00033%? That is the implied precision of these figures. Add to this Raina's description of the difficulty in accurately identifying the precise location of a glacier snout at high altitude, and you have retreat rates being quoted to a precision several orders of magnitude greater than is possible.Some other glaciers in Asia – such as glaciers shorter than 4 km length in the Tibetan Plateau – are projected to disappear and the glaciated areas located in the headwaters of the Changjiang River will likely decrease in area by more than 60% (Shen et al., 2002).
Given what we already know about the cherrypicking of figures for Himalayan glacier retreat, and the fact that the Tibetan Plateau is four times the size of France, I would eat my hat if on looking into it one didn't find that, as in the Himalayas, "some other" glaciers there are stable and others are growing.Keep going...
There's nothing left. If this section of the IPCC report was a undergraduate essay, it would merit an F.0 -
This doesn’t really tell us anything we don’t know already. The IPCC website states that WGII includes so-called ‘grey literature’ in their assessments:The claims the IPCC made about ice disappearing from mountain tops seems to have been based on a student's dissertation and an article in a popular mountaineering magazine. This article was based on anecdotes from climbers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/tssts-1.htmlipcc.ch wrote:The Working Group II Fourth Assessment, in common with all IPCC reports, has been produced through an open and peer-reviewed process. It builds upon past assessments and IPCC Special Reports, and incorporates the results of the past 5 years of climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability research. Each chapter presents a balanced assessment of the literature which has appeared since the Third Assessment Report (TAR), including non-English language and, where appropriate, ‘grey’ literature.0 -
It seems that the IPCC allows any form of baseless claims that support their notion about climate change damaging the planet's ecosystem.This doesn’t really tell us anything we don’t know already. The IPCC website states that WGII includes so-called ‘grey literature’ in their assessments:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/tssts-1.html
One claim was that 40% of the Amazon rainforest will be gone due to climate change, this claim was done by people with very little experience in this science.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009705.ece
So can you tell me why they keep peer reviewed skeptic articles out but they take in any baseless claim that has been made about the effects of so called climate change?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Well that's just it isn't it? They don't keep skeptic articles out.From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
Mike,
Only have it in the pdf form. FYI ONLY - don't pass on. Relevant paras are the last
2 in section 4 on p13. As I said it is worded carefully due to Adrian knowing Eugenia
for years. He knows the're wrong, but he succumbed to her almost pleading with him
to tone it down as it might affect her proposals in the future !
I didn't say any of this, so be careful how you use it - if at all. Keep quiet also
that you have the pdf.
The attachment is a very good paper - I've been pushing Adrian over the last weeks
to get it submitted to JGR or J. Climate. The main results are great for CRU and also
for ERA-40. The basic message is clear - you have to put enough surface and sonde
obs into a model to produce Reanalyses. The jumps when the data input change stand
out so clearly. NCEP does many odd things also around sea ice and over snow and ice.
The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also
losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see
it.
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them
out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil
Mike,
For your interest, there is an ECMWF ERA-40 Report coming out soon, which
shows that Kalnay and Cai are wrong. It isn't that strongly worded as the first author
is a personal friend of Eugenia. The result is rather hidden in the middle of the report.
It isn't peer review, but a slimmed down version will go to a journal. KC are wrong
because
the difference between NCEP and real surface temps (CRU) over eastern N. America doesn't
happen with ERA-40. ERA-40 assimilates surface temps (which NCEP didn't) and doing
this makes the agreement with CRU better. Also ERA-40's trends in the lower atmosphere
are all physically consistent where NCEP's are not - over eastern US.
I can send if you want, but it won't be out as a report for a couple of months.
Cheers
Phil
they do their damm hardest.0 -
Mahatma coat wrote: »they do their damm hardest.
Rubbish papers shouldn't be published. Simple as. This was publically known at the time. Peer Review isn't perfect and reform is definitely needed. Conflicts of interest (on both sides) should be clearly stated up front for one as well.
Also, Pielke, isn't against AGW. Funny that they'd keep out a paper on their own side.0 -
So you have a copy of this Paper so we can make a decision as to whether or not its Rubbish?
It didnt stop them publishing Rubbish about the Himalyas meltin in the next 25 years tho.
so
Unfounded Bollox that Furthers the Agenda == Grey Research, and is acceptable
Peer reviewed Reports that Disagree with the Agenda == Rubbish, and Should be ignored.
Seriously, Come on Over to the CT Forum and take that Stance, you will be torn to Shreds0 -
Mahatma coat wrote: »It didnt stop them publishing Rubbish about the Himalyas meltin in the next 25 years tho.
Unfounded Bollox that Furthers the Agenda == Grey Research, and is acceptable
Peer reviewed Reports that Disagree with the Agenda == Rubbish, and Should be ignored.
Ok First of all the IPCC still mentioned and discussed the papers in their report. Also, I've noted in a few emails that some prominent skeptics are actually paid compliments: These skeptics were showing a better understanding of Solar Forcing.
Secondly, grey literature is being phased out. It is a huge report afterall!
I do, but I really don't think we should go there.So you have a copy of this Paper so we can make a decision as to whether or not its Rubbish?
MM showed that the statistical basis behind Mann's data analyses was flawed. No one disputes that. Yet he didn't stop there though and that's where things begin to fall asunder. I could go on, but it's discussed in the literature and absolutely torn apart. (Nature rejected his paper for a reason.) As I mentioned before in several other threads and posts there are unbiased skeptics out there. McIntyre however is giving me the impression (especially from his blog) that this quotation is apt :
I believe that our community should no longer tolerate the behavior of
Mr. McIntyre and his cronies. McIntyre has no interest in improving our
scientific understanding of the nature and causes of climate change. He
has no interest in rational scientific discourse. He deals in the
currency of threats and intimidation. We should be able to conduct our
scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven
McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we
send to our scientific colleagues.
(Entire Email is worth a read.)
Do you honestly think that a scientist who argues an opinion as fact when he has been clearly shown otherwise is not following an agenda? MacIntyres paper is done and past, yet he still continues to whine about as if it's right without even producing a shred of rational discourse that suggests so. Instead his latest paper that I'm aware of resorts to the exact same tactic. Why can't he do the same for papers that do support his view. Like Mann and Jones have been known to do?0 -
Advertisement
-
So, without resorting to an Ad Homenim can you show where Mcintyre is wrong?
You've already said that he Proved Mann Wrong, regardless of whatever else he said this bit alone should stand up by itself.0 -
Let's keep the email quotes in the relevant thread please.0
-
FFS The Emails ARE Relevant to this discussion.0
-
How exactly?Mahatma coat wrote: »FFS The Emails ARE Relevant to this discussion.
EDIT: To be more specific…
There are two issues here. The first is the erroneous claims contained in IPCC’s Working Group II report of 2007, which is being discussed in this thread. The second is the email 'leak' from the CRU, which is being discussed in the ‘Climategate’ thread. As far as I am concerned, they are two separate issues. If you want to claim that they are related, go for it, but I expect a more cogent argument than simply reproducing an email and highlighting a section in a big, bold font.0 -
A LEADING British government scientist has warned the United Nations’ climate panel to tackle its blunders or lose all credibility.
Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the environment ministry, who chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1997 to 2002, was speaking after more potential inaccuracies emerged in the IPCC’s 2007 benchmark report on global warming.
The most important is a claim that global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short time for such a dramatic change. The claim has been quoted in speeches by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, and by Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general.
This weekend Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC’s climate impacts team, told The Sunday Times that he could find nothing in the report to support the claim. The revelation follows the IPCC’s retraction of a claim that the Himalayan glaciers might all melt by 2035.
The African claims could be even more embarrassing for the IPCC because they appear not only in its report on climate change impacts but, unlike the glaciers claim, are also repeated in its Synthesis Report.
This report is the IPCC’s most politically sensitive publication, distilling its most important science into a form accessible to politicians and policy makers. Its lead authors include Pachauri himself.
In it he wrote: “By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%. Agricultural production, including access to food, in many African countries is projected to be severely compromised.” The same claims have since been cited in speeches to world leaders by Pachauri and Ban.
Speaking at the 2008 global climate talks in Poznan, Poland, Pachauri said: “In some countries of Africa, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by 50% by 2020.” In a speech last July, Ban said: “Yields from rain-fed agriculture could fall by half in some African countries over the next 10 years.”
Speaking this weekend, Field said: “I was not an author on the Synthesis Report but on reading it I cannot find support for the statement about African crop yield declines.”
Watson said such claims should be based on hard evidence. “Any such projection should be based on peer-reviewed literature from computer modelling of how agricultural yields would respond to climate change. I can see no such data supporting the IPCC report,” he said.
The claims in the Synthesis Report go back to the IPCC’s report on the global impacts of climate change. It warns that all Africa faces a long-term threat from farmland turning to desert and then says of north Africa, “additional risks that could be exacerbated by climate change include greater erosion, deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000-20 period, and reductions in crop growth period (Agoumi, 2003)”.
“Agoumi” refers to a 2003 policy paper written for the International Institute for Sustainable Development, a Canadian think tank. The paper was not peer-reviewed.
Its author was Professor Ali Agoumi, a Moroccan climate expert who looked at the potential impacts of climate change on Tunisia, Morocco and Algeria. His report refers to the risk of “deficient yields from rain-based agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000–20 period”.
These claims refer to other reports prepared by civil servants in each of the three countries as submissions to the UN. These do not appear to have been peer-reviewed either.
The IPCC is also facing criticism over its reports on how sea level rise might affect Holland. Dutch ministers have demanded that it correct a claim that more than half of the Netherlands lies below sea level when, in reality, it is about a quarter.
The errors seem likely to bring about change at the IPCC. Field said: “The IPCC needs to investigate a more sophisticated approach for dealing with emerging errors.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7017907.ece0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
gizmo555, please read the charter, which states that you must comment on a video or story, not just link to it or paste it.0 -
gizmo555, please read the charter, which states that you must comment on a video or story, not just link to it or paste it.
In my opinion, I did comment on it, first by the title I gave the post and secondly, by highlighting what I see as the most important parts of the article.
The facts outlined are so egregious, and speak for themselves so eloquently, that I would have thought further comment was unnecessary.
For what it's worth though, it seems to me there is a pattern emerging that some of the most sensational claims made by the IPCC of potential near and medium term consequences of AGW are based on the so-called "grey" literature and have no scientific basis.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
In my opinion, I did comment on it, first by the title I gave the post and secondly, by highlighting what I see as the most important parts of the article.
The facts outlined are so egregious, and speak for themselves so eloquently, that I would have thought further comment was unnecessary.
No in-thread discussion of moderation.0 -
I suppose what's interesting is that we seem to see more and more scientists, with specialist knowledge in a number of fields, appearing to express concern at both some of the content contained in the IPCC's reports and the quality of the content of the IPCC reports.
It'ss be interesting to see where this goes over the coming months.0 -
Cunsiderthis wrote: »I suppose what's interesting is that we seem to see more and more scientists, with specialist knowledge in a number of fields, appearing to express concern at both some of the content contained in the IPCC's reports and the quality of the content of the IPCC reports.
It'ss be interesting to see where this goes over the coming months.
I'd say there are a lot more worms still to come out of this can. In just a few weeks, we've already had the glacier fiasco, the spurious claims regarding the Amazon rainforest and now this - it starts to appear that the more sensational and scary the claim, the less evidence the IPCC require to support it. Ultimately, it could however be of benefit to the IPCC, if it brings them to a realisation that they have to able to stand up the claims they make in their reports.0 -
Advertisement
-
A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.
Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
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.
It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.
.....
The IPCC's reliance on Hasnain's 1999 interview has been highlighted by Fred Pearce, the journalist who carried out the original interview for the New Scientist. Pearce 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."
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.
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 high". 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."
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.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece
And what about all the other Glaciers that are shrinking just as we expected them?
I guess those don't count.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/agl/2009/00000050/00000050/art00015
They overestimated something in a report. That's it. They're also underestimated things in the past, but to acknolwedge that would mean climate change is happening, so I guess the "skeptics" mentally blocked that one.0 -
ConsiderThis wrote: »A sceptic, we have to remember, is someone who does not believe something without evidence.
A believer is someone who believes it without the necessity for evidence
A cynic is someone who will not believe even when faced with evidence.
All scientists should be sceptics, and any scientists who are not sceptics should be treated with suspicion.
Global Warming Skeptics are not real sceptics though. I think you missed the memo on that one. Scepticism normally involved some degree of critical thought.0 -
Cunsiderthis wrote: »Perhaps none of us is best qualified to judge the impression we give of ourselves to others.
While not wanting to labour the point, I would have to agree that the impression you give, from the evidence of your posts, is that you support the IPCC through thick and thin and won't tolerate a word of criticism.
This is probably the line of argument that's annoyed me the most through the thread.
First off, there's an unbelievable amount of bull**** being directed at the IPCC at the moment, and many of the remarks made in this thread have been shown to have no basis. They are not "criticism". They're just baseless slander.
Just because there happens to be a lot of baseless slander, does not mean he has to "accept" criticism. This seems to be the way your brain works. It's all over the papers sure; it must be fact. Look at this gobbo who can't admit the IPCC are a bunch of ****ehawks!
It seems that the "Skeptic" side can't take any real criticism. Any time a point is disproven, the evidence against them is suddenly "Misinformation" and they just move on and make another crappy point.0 -
...They're just baseless slander.
Just because there happens to be a lot of baseless slander, does not mean he has to "accept" criticism. This seems to be the way your brain works. It's all over the papers sure; it must be fact. Look at this gobbo who can't admit the IPCC are a bunch of ****ehawks!
It seems that the "Skeptic" side can't take any real criticism. Any time a point is disproven, the evidence against them is suddenly "Misinformation" and they just move on and make another crappy point...
Slander if the spoken word, libel is the written word.0 -
And what about all the other Glaciers that are shrinking just as we expected them?
I guess those don't count.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/agl/2009/00000050/00000050/art00015
They overestimated something in a report. That's it. They're also underestimated things in the past, but to acknolwedge that would mean climate change is happening, so I guess the "skeptics" mentally blocked that one.
Whose the “we”
What about the glaciers that have expanded? I guess they don't count either.
Since I have no access to the reference that you have quoted and can’t afford the $31 they want for the report, can you explain to me how many glaciers have shrunk/ expanded due to natural processes and how many have shrunk due to carbon dioxide driven global warming.
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!)
According to IPCC WG I Ch 4, glaciers tongues have being decreasing since the 1800!0 -
Whose the “we”
What about the glaciers that have expanded? I guess they don't count either.
Since I have no access to the reference that you have quoted and can’t afford the $31 they want for the report, can you explain to me how many glaciers have shrunk/ expanded due to natural processes and how many have shrunk due to carbon dioxide driven global warming.
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!)
According to IPCC WG I Ch 4, glaciers tongues have being decreasing since the 1800!
What peer reviewed science have they dismissed?
There's a pretty good explanation as to how the Himalayan Glaciers error made it into the report - it was never a central point to begin with. That's why it makes it all the more dishonest that the vicious little "Skeptics" are making a big deal of it.
Check the World Glacier Monitoring Service's site for the data - http://www.wgms.ch/
Unless of course they're also part of the bull**** conspiracy none of the skeps can prove.0 -
Less of the personal remarks please.Just because there happens to be a lot of baseless slander, does not mean he has to "accept" criticism. This seems to be the way your brain works. It's all over the papers sure; it must be fact. Look at this gobbo who can't admit the IPCC are a bunch of ****ehawks!
You might also try and address the expletive-littered, rant-like nature of your posts – it may give your argument more credibility.0 -
http://moef.nic.in/downloads/public-information/MoEF%20Discussion%20Paper%20_him.pdfWhat peer reviewed science have they dismissed?
As the chairman of the IPCC. Dr Rajendra K Pachauri represents the opinion and views of the IPCC. Unless he made these very public comments in a private capacity!
Auden, J.B. (1937): The snout of the Gangotri glacier, Tehri Garhwal, Rec. Geol. Surv. Ind., 72(2), pp.135
Bhandari N., Nijampurkar, V.N., Shukla, P.N. and Puri, V.M.K. (1982): Deposition of Chinese Nuclear debris in Changme Khangpu glacier, Current Science, Vol. 51`, No. 8, pp.416-418.
Bose, R.N., Dutta, N.P. and Lahri, S.M. (1971): Refraction seismic investigation at Zemu glacier, Sikkim, Jour. Glaciology. Vol. 10, pp.113-119.
Ganjoo, R.K. (2007): Glaciers and Global Warming. Eternal India 1(3), 139-149. Ganjoo, R.K. & Koul, M.K. (2009) Is the Siachen glacier melting? Current Science, Vol. 97, No. 3, Scientifi c Correspondence.
Glaciology of the Indian Himalaya (2001): GSI Special Publication No. 63 . Hayden, H.H. (1907): Notes on certain glaciers in North West Kashmir, Rec. Geol. Surv. Ind.,35, pp.127-137.
Kaul. M.K. (1999): Inventory of Himalaya glaciers. GSI Special Publication. No.34. Kulkarni, A.V., Bahuguna, M, Rathore, B.P. & Singh, S.K. ( 2007) : Glacial retreat in Himalaya using Indian Remote Sensing satellite data, Current Science, Vol. 92, No. 1.
Neve, A. (1911): Journeys in the Himalayas and Some Factors of Himalayan Erosion Geographical Journal, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 345-355.
Singh, Pratap and Ramasastri, K.S. (2003): Monitoring and Modelling of melt water run off from Gangotri glacier, NIH, R
Proceedings (2001): Symposium on Snow, Ice, Glaciers- A Himalayan Perspective. GSI Special Publication No. 53.
Proceedings (2004): Workshop on Gangotri glacier. GSI Special Publication No. 80.
Proceedings (2008): International Workshop on Snow, Ice, Glaciers and Avalanches, Centre of Studies in Resource Engineering, IIT-Bombay, Mumbai.
Proceedings (2008): National Snow Science Workshop, SASE, Chandigarh. Raina, V.K. (2005): Status of glacier studies in India, Himalayan Geology, Vol. 26(1), pp 285-293.
Raina, V.K. and Sangewar, C. V. (2007): Siachen Glacier of Karakoram Mountains, Ladakh - Its Secular Retreat. Vol.70, pp11-16, Jour. Geol. Society of India, Bangalore.
Raina, V.K. & Srivastava, Deepak (2008): Glacier Atlas of India, Geological Society of India, Bangalore. Walker, H. and Pascoe, Sir, E.H. (1907): Notes on certain glaciers in Lahaul, Rec. Geol.Surv. Ind., 35(4), pp 139-147.[There's a pretty good explanation as to how the Himalayan Glaciers error made it into the report - it was never a central point to begin with. That's why it makes it all the more dishonest that the vicious little "Skeptics" are making a big deal of it.
It is disappointing that a error of this nature would make into a report which carries great weight. Especially when the ordinary Joe Soap has been told that the report has been reviewed by thousands of scientists
Have done a quick scan. Its more a fact and figures report rather than a scientific discussion and it only has the more recent figures and yes to me it is a bit slanted. The IPCC WG I Ch 4 report is far more balanced and worth a read .
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch04.pdf0 -
It is disappointing that a error of this nature would make into a report which carries great weight. Especially when the ordinary Joe Soap has been told that the report has been reviewed by thousands of scientists
It's disappointing that people act like it's proof AGW is fake and ignore all the other evidence in the report. You make this mistake too as your post focuses ENTIRELY on the Himilayan glaciers and not other evidence.
How can you expect everything to be 100% right all the time? People make mistakes. And unlike the pseudosceptics, the IPCC are at least able to acknowledge their mistakes. This is the big divider in terms of maturity.
Also, I don't know why people are expecting climatologists to always keep their calm with the sheer amount of nonsense that's thrown at them these days. They're only human, so not all of their comments are going to be squeeky clean. The sceptics come off as something between trolls and bullies, made harassing remarks towards climatologists then throwing a fit whenever they bite back.
Science is not a schoolyard fight.0 -
Advertisement
-
It's disappointing that people act like it's proof AGW is fake and ignore all the other evidence in the report. You make this mistake too as your post focuses ENTIRELY on the Himilayan glaciers and not other evidence.
How can you expect everything to be 100% right all the time? People make mistakes. And unlike the pseudosceptics, the IPCC are at least able to acknowledge their mistakes. This is the big divider in terms of maturity.
Also, I don't know why people are expecting climatologists to always keep their calm with the sheer amount of nonsense that's thrown at them these days. They're only human, so not all of their comments are going to be squeeky clean. The sceptics come off as something between trolls and bullies, made harassing remarks towards climatologists then throwing a fit whenever they bite back.
Science is not a schoolyard fight.
Well the thread is related to the Himalayan glaciers
OK I digress. The net mass balance change for Euorpean glaciers is nearly zero!!!!!!!!0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement