originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: beezzer
So it is yours (and others) contention that CO2 is being deliberately pumped into the environment in order to affect climate change?
c'mon Beez - is that even a real question?
I'll give you more credit than you apparently give yourself
All we've accomplished is called progress - we are very clever beasties after all
Some of the results of our cleverness are causing us harm. We can come up with solutions to our problems if we face them head on. If - we quit playing games and give up the politics and greed...this is a real problem - not a work of fiction
Why does everything have to be part of some devious, nefarious plan?
(I mean of course - outside of ATS)
Here we go again. The latest IPCC report, the US National Climate Assessment report, and a report published by US military researchers all recently warned us yet again about the risks associated with human-caused climate change. While the planet continues to warm, ice continues to melt, and sea levels continue to rise, the conservative media are trying to distract everyone from these scientific realities with a shiny quarter named Lennart Bengtsson.
Bengtsson is a meteorologist at the University of Reading, who recently decided to join a charity, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). The GWPF is known for downplaying the risks posed by human-caused global warming with shoddy scientific arguments, then arguing against taking any meaningful action to address the problem.
The GWPF has called the IPCC a "deeply discredited organisation" and worse, and has accused climate scientists of being delusional or liars. The group also recently set up a new campaigning arm, which would be free from charity regulations requiring that any information they put out is fair and as accurate as possible.
Thus it was not surprising when Bengtsson's scientific colleagues were unhappy with him joining this organization. Some of those colleagues allegedly told Bengtsson that they did not want to publish research with him due to his association with this political group, which seems entirely understandable. However, in response to these alleged reactions from his colleagues (Bengtsson did not respond to requests for additional details), Bengtsson wrote in his resignation letter to the GWPF,
"I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy."
To be clear, this situation bears no resemblance to McCarthyism in the United States, which involved aggressive government investigations and questioning of people suspected of having ties to Communism. For more accurate parallels in climate science today, look instead at Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's witch-hunt of Michael Mann or the Climategate inquiries directed at Phil Jones. A few colleagues withdrawing support and co-authorship with Bengtsson pales in comparison.
A few days later, Bengtsson told Rupert Murdoch's The Times that a peer-reviewer comment recommending rejection of a paper he co-authored mentioned how the 'skeptic' media would react to the study. The Murdoch media and other conservatively biased news outlets went berserk, with stories in Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The Mail Online, The Telegraph, The Times again, The Mail on Sunday, The Australian, and Drudge, inventing conspiracy theories involving censorship of 'inconvenient research'.
Bengtsson's submitted paper had made the case that the Earth's climate sensitivity to the increased greenhouse effect is relatively low by comparing the results of several previous studies, but had not made the case well. The journal in question, Environmental Research Letterspublished the full comments from the reviewer in question, showing that the recommendation to reject the paper was because,
"The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low ... The paper does not make any significant attempt at explaining or understanding the differences, it rather puts out a very simplistic negative message giving at least the implicit impression of "errors" being made within and between these assessments,"
Comments from a second reviewer were even more brutal. This is precisely the purpose of peer-review – to filter out papers that aren't sufficiently accurate or don't add anything significant to our scientific understanding. Environmental Research Letters is a high-quality scientific journal with a 65% rejection rate. For examples of innovative research in this area, see our discussions of recent papers by NASA'sDrew Shindell and Texas A&M's Kummer & Dessler.
This report provides a comprehensive account of the status of glaciers of Nepal in approximately 1980, 1990,
2000, and 2010 based on a semi-automatic standardized analysis of satellite images with post-processing database
management in ArcGIS. The methodology is an improved version of methods developed by global initiatives like the
World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS), Global Land Ice Measurement from Space (GLIMS), and GlobGlacier.
The customized methodology of semi-automatic glacier mapping provides a rapid delivery of glacier attributes. The
semi-automatically derived glacier outlines from 2010 were overlain separately on the images used to approximate
1980, 1990, and 2000, and the glacier outlines were modified manually for the respective years and used for
change analysis. Clean-ice and debris-covered glaciers were mapped separately for 2010 to support studies of
water resources assessment and climate change impact. In an additional case study, glacier outlines for the four
decades in the Langtang sub-basin in central Nepal and Imja sub-basin in eastern Nepal were analysed and
compared with decadal temperature change.
The inventory is a much-needed follow up to the inventory of glaciers and glacial lakes in Nepal published in 2001,
which used a variety of data sources with considerable temporal differences, including Indian Survey topographic
maps (1962–1975), aerial photos (1957–1959), and field survey findings, and must thus be considered essentially
as indicative. The present single country inventory complements the survey published in 2011 of glaciers in the
individual river basins of the Hindu Kush Himalayan region, which was based on data from a single source (Landsat
images) with a short temporal range (2005±3 years) and also analysed semi-automatically.
The inventory for Nepal was supplemented by a case study in Langtang valley in central Nepal and Imja valley
in eastern Nepal showing the changes over 30 years in individual glaciers. The changes were compared with the
changes in temperature recorded at nearby hydrometeorological stations; the loss of glacier area was paralleled
by a steady increase in average annual temperature, and especially average minimum temperature. Changes in
rainfall patterns over 20 years were also analysed.
The results provide information on the change in glacial extent over the past decade and quantitative data to
support discussion of climate change impacts in the Nepal Himalayas. The major findings were as follows:
In 2010, a total of 3,808 glaciers were identified with a total area of 3,902km2 and estimated ice reserves of 312km3. The average area of individual glaciers was 1km2. The Ngojumba glacier in the Dudh Koshi sub-basin was the largest single glacier with an area of 79 km2.
About 90% of the glacier area lay between 4,500 and 6,500masl; with 65% between 5,000 and 6,000masl.
The contribution of estimated ice reserves is higher for a large glacier than for the same cumulative area from
a number of smaller ones. Thus the estimated ice reserves were higher in basins with larger glaciers and larger
glaciers are the most important reserves of freshwater.
The total glacier area decreased by 24% between 1977 and 2010, and the estimated ice reserves by 29%
(129km3). The number of glaciers increased by 11%, a result of fragmentation following shrinkage. The lowest
losses of glacier area (and in some cases gains) were observed from glaciers with a north or northwest aspect (of
which there were very few) and slopes of less than 20°. Mountain basin type and valley glaciers also showed a lower
proportional loss of area.
The glaciers receded on average by 38km2 per year. The rate of loss of glacial area between ~1980 and 1990 was almost twice that in the subsequent two decades (1990–2000 and 2000–2010). Further study is needed to determine whether this reflects a slowing in the rate of change or an anomalous situation in the first period.
The average annual mean temperature in the Langtang and Imja (Khumbu) sub-basins rose at an average rate of
0.12°C/year and 0.09°C/year, respectively, between 1988 and 2008. Moving average analysis showed that the
rate of increase in average mean minimum temperature was significant and higher than the increase in average
mean maximum temperature.
but within the bureaucracy dissent is not tolerated.