World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown , page 1
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 82 times
Topic started on 17-1-2010 @ 08:14 AM by Iamonlyhuman

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown


www.timesonline.co.uk
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.
(visit the link for the full news article)

Mod Edit: Review This Link: Instructions for the Breaking News Forums: Copy The Exact Headline

[edit on 1/17/2010 by semperfortis]


reply posted on 17-1-2010 @ 08:14 AM by Iamonlyhuman
The latest and most detailed scientific research = ... wait for it... a google search? AND, they didn't even check the background (or maybe they did but included it anyway).

To me, this is even more damning than the email fiasco. The whole basis for the IPCC, IN THE FIRST PLACE, is that they were to be reporting peer reviewed research - not someone's admitted "speculation" that admittedly was NEVER backed by ANY formal research yet was reported as formal research.

We demand better references than that on ATS!!

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.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.






www.timesonline.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Mod Edit: Review This Link: Instructions for the Breaking News Forums: Copy The Exact Headline



[edit on 17/1/2010 by Iamonlyhuman]


reply posted on 17-1-2010 @ 10:09 AM by MrVertigo
This is really embarrassing for the IPCC

New Scientists, who originally published the story, are even trying to wash their hand of this thing by demanding an explanation from the IPCC:



www.climategate.com...


But there is some confusion as to the origins of the claim. New Scientist seems to believe that their 1999 article was the original source, but apparently it originates from a 1996 study that claims the glaciers would be gone by 2350



Mr Cogley says it is astonishing that none of the 10 authors of the 2007 IPCC report could spot the error and "misread 2350 as 2035".


Source: news.bbc.co.uk...

The question then becomes who "misread" 2350 as 2035?

The most likely explanation seems to be the "leading Indian Glaciologist" who is the source for the New Scientist article:


The article quoted Syed I Hasnain, the then chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice's (ICSI) Working group on Himalayan glaciology, as saying that most glaciers in the Himalayan region "will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming"



Boy, this just keeps getting better


reply posted on 17-1-2010 @ 10:32 AM by Ferris.Bueller.II
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman



So, truthfully, is anyone surprised that the IPCC bases their 'scientific' conclusions on speculations and not facts? Anybody?


reply posted on 17-1-2010 @ 01:43 PM by mlmijyd
Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
reply to
post by Iamonlyhuman



So, truthfully, is anyone surprised that the IPCC bases their 'scientific' conclusions on speculations and not facts? Anybody?


Come on, the last real scientific discoveries were back in the 1800's. There is no independant science/media/government/............NOTHING not even our minds!


reply posted on 17-1-2010 @ 02:37 PM by jdub297
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman

I posted the New Scientist link last week in a couple of "Ice Age" threads in response to a well-known ATS AGW "preistess."
New Scientist:Debate Heats Up Over IPCC Melting-glaciers Claim

Who needs the "leaked emails" when the IPCC lead author on glaciology says they use "grey literature" (not peer-reviewed), and "absolutely rejected" the truth about the 100% false "scientific consensus" the IPCC published as fact?

Chapter 10 of the report says: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world."
The inclusion of this statement has angered many glaciologists, who regard it as unjustified.


Not just unjustified, but created in the face of controverting facts.

... [T]he lead author of the IPCC chapter, Indian glaciologist Murari Lal, told New Scientist he "outright rejected" the notion that the IPCC was off the mark on Himalayan glaciers. "The IPCC authors did exactly what was expected from them," he says.
"We relied rather heavily on grey [not peer-reviewed] literature, including the WWF report," Lal says. "The error, if any, lies with Dr Hasnain's assertion and not with the IPCC authors."


Except, Dr. Hasnain, never published any such conclusion.

Hasnain rejects that. He blames the IPCC for misusing a remark he made to a journalist. "The magic number of 2035 has not [been] mentioned in any research papers written by me, as no peer-reviewed journal will accept speculative figures," he told New Scientist. "It is not proper for IPCC to include references from popular magazines or newspapers," Hasnain adds.


He gave an interview to New Scientist that was "spun" by the WWF, and used by the IPCC. It is now part of the "scientific consensus" and "settled science" of AGW faithful.

Deny ignorance

jw

[edit on 17-1-2010 by jdub297]



reply posted on 17-1-2010 @ 03:18 PM by loam
I also posted this article as an update here.

As I said there, what is the point in reading anything anymore?

I suppose one positive thing on this particular subject is that it isn't true after all. It's nice to know that the impending doom is not so impending.

[edit on 17-1-2010 by loam]


reply posted on 17-1-2010 @ 05:59 PM by downisreallyup
When I was 16 years old I visited Juneau Alaska and walked on the Mendenhall Glacier. That was 33 years ago. In that time, the glacier has receded a small amount compared to its entire length. Here is a Google map showing how little it has moved:

Glacier Retreat

I believe that this small retreat is because of the normal warming trend we have been following since the "Little Ice Age." This trend is normal for the planet, and glaciers most obviously retreat, otherwise the entire earth would be completely covered in ice by now. Think of the vast ice fields going across northern America, above the terminal murrain. Aren't you glad that ice retreated? Well, I would imagine that the people in Canada, Ohio, Michigan, etc. are glad
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4  >>    ^^TOP^^



Russian scientists reach buried Antarctic Lake Vostok
  Posted 7 days ago with 83 member flags
Renowned Geophysicist Says Strange Sky Sounds Are Real
  Posted 2 days ago with 74 member flags
Monsanto quits as GM results announced (EUROPE)
  Posted 8 days ago with 72 member flags
Ayatollah: Kill all Jews, annihilate Israel
  Posted 7 days ago with 49 member flags
Is it morally wrong to take a life? Not really, say bioethicists
  Posted 14 days ago with 37 member flags