Comments on: Setting the science straight on the IPCC’s Himalayan glacier error http://earthsky.org/earth/setting-the-science-straight-on-the-ipccs-mistakes-welcome-to-change A Clear Voice for Science Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:27:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Latoya R. Pham http://earthsky.org/earth/setting-the-science-straight-on-the-ipccs-mistakes-welcome-to-change/comment-page-1#comment-160439 Latoya R. Pham Fri, 15 Oct 2010 07:43:51 +0000 http://earthsky.org/?p=32538#comment-160439 I hope you will keep updating your post . Thank for sharing. I hope you will keep updating your post . Thank for sharing.

]]> By: Systemic Failure: Invasion of the Drama Queens « NoFrakkingConsensus http://earthsky.org/earth/setting-the-science-straight-on-the-ipccs-mistakes-welcome-to-change/comment-page-1#comment-70527 Systemic Failure: Invasion of the Drama Queens « NoFrakkingConsensus Fri, 20 Aug 2010 18:42:45 +0000 http://earthsky.org/?p=32538#comment-70527 [...] would disappear by the 2030s. According to Jeffrey Kargel, at the University of Arizona, this statement “was just so wrong it wasn’t worth discussing.” Surely the question needs to be [...] [...] would disappear by the 2030s. According to Jeffrey Kargel, at the University of Arizona, this statement “was just so wrong it wasn’t worth discussing.” Surely the question needs to be [...]

]]> By: Benjamin Napier http://earthsky.org/earth/setting-the-science-straight-on-the-ipccs-mistakes-welcome-to-change/comment-page-1#comment-15531 Benjamin Napier Sun, 07 Feb 2010 12:55:17 +0000 http://earthsky.org/?p=32538#comment-15531 There was no "error". The IPCC is a part of the UN. The UN is a socialsit organization dedicated to world rule and the imposition of socialism on all humans. It is bent on this. The IPCC is a tool being used to frighten folks into compliance. There is no AGW. The term "climate change" is the proof of that. This is about stealing your money and your sovereignty. Pure and simple. ALweys, follow the money. Follow the "need" for power. There was no “error”. The IPCC is a part of the UN. The UN is a socialsit organization dedicated to world rule and the imposition of socialism on all humans. It is bent on this. The IPCC is a tool being used to frighten folks into compliance.

There is no AGW. The term “climate change” is the proof of that. This is about stealing your money and your sovereignty. Pure and simple.

ALweys, follow the money. Follow the “need” for power.

]]> By: Jeffrey Kargel http://earthsky.org/earth/setting-the-science-straight-on-the-ipccs-mistakes-welcome-to-change/comment-page-1#comment-15511 Jeffrey Kargel Fri, 05 Feb 2010 15:54:20 +0000 http://earthsky.org/?p=32538#comment-15511 Dan and Deborah: Dan has it exactly right in every word mentioned; except I hesitate on the excellence of the report; it\'s just a rough stab at helping the public understand what the reality is, as best we know it; and to point out that much is not known. Yes, Himalayan glaciers for the most part will be much smaller in 2110 than they are now; but the current big ones will probably not have yet disappeared. We need to know a LOT more before we can say when they WILL disappear. And when projecting out as far as 2110 and beyond, the world depends on what carbon emissions scenario the world follows, and on all the myriad uncertainties about how climate warming and changes in precipitation will track the CO2 content of the atmosphere. It\'s a lot easier to make definitive statements about the fact that these big glaciers will still be around (some of them much changed) in 2035 than to say they will disappear by year 2XYZ. I am a little bit puzzled about where all the climate denialists are on this site. It\'s a welcome breath of fresh air to have this particular puzzle, and to respond to people who are actually wanting to learn. Sadly, glaciologists don\'t have as many answers as we\'d like to be able to provide. I will soon update the background presentation to explain, at least partly, why it is that research has been so difficult in the Himalaya, and also why changes of even small glaciers can be very important to people; whereas some of the importance has also been exaggerated. Maybe it will be upgraded by Monday, so check back if you\'re interested. Dan and Deborah: Dan has it exactly right in every word mentioned; except I hesitate on the excellence of the report; it\’s just a rough stab at helping the public understand what the reality is, as best we know it; and to point out that much is not known. Yes, Himalayan glaciers for the most part will be much smaller in 2110 than they are now; but the current big ones will probably not have yet disappeared. We need to know a LOT more before we can say when they WILL disappear. And when projecting out as far as 2110 and beyond, the world depends on what carbon emissions scenario the world follows, and on all the myriad uncertainties about how climate warming and changes in precipitation will track the CO2 content of the atmosphere. It\’s a lot easier to make definitive statements about the fact that these big glaciers will still be around (some of them much changed) in 2035 than to say they will disappear by year 2XYZ.

I am a little bit puzzled about where all the climate denialists are on this site. It\’s a welcome breath of fresh air to have this particular puzzle, and to respond to people who are actually wanting to learn. Sadly, glaciologists don\’t have as many answers as we\’d like to be able to provide. I will soon update the background presentation to explain, at least partly, why it is that research has been so difficult in the Himalaya, and also why changes of even small glaciers can be very important to people; whereas some of the importance has also been exaggerated. Maybe it will be upgraded by Monday, so check back if you\’re interested.

]]> By: Dan Kulpinski http://earthsky.org/earth/setting-the-science-straight-on-the-ipccs-mistakes-welcome-to-change/comment-page-1#comment-15478 Dan Kulpinski Thu, 04 Feb 2010 10:23:55 +0000 http://earthsky.org/?p=32538#comment-15478 I was also wondering if the glaciologists have an estimate to replace 2035, or if they eschew using specific dates at all. None of the news reports has mentioned if, and when, the researchers predict the Himalayan glaciers are likely to disappear if the planet continues to warm at its current rate. So, I read Dr. Kargel's "backgrounder" report on glacial changes in High Asia, including the Himalayas. It's an excellent, detailed report. If I were to summarize the main takeaway for a paragraph in a news story, I'd say that Kargel and his colleagues note that various glaciers in the High Asia region (Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, Nepal, Tibet, Bhutan) behave differently. Glaciers are melting rapidly in some areas, such as the Eastern Himalaya; however, glaciers respond differntly to climate change in other areas of the region. Some glaciers are stagnant, some are surging in growth. In the Eastern Himalaya, observations over the past 100 years suggest that the next 100 years will involve mostly retreat. So, some glaciers will likely retreat a lot by 2110. Thanks Lindsay and Dr. Kargel for clarifying the record on this issue. I was also wondering if the glaciologists have an estimate to replace 2035, or if they eschew using specific dates at all. None of the news reports has mentioned if, and when, the researchers predict the Himalayan glaciers are likely to disappear if the planet continues to warm at its current rate.

So, I read Dr. Kargel’s “backgrounder” report on glacial changes in High Asia, including the Himalayas. It’s an excellent, detailed report. If I were to summarize the main takeaway for a paragraph in a news story, I’d say that Kargel and his colleagues note that various glaciers in the High Asia region (Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, Nepal, Tibet, Bhutan) behave differently. Glaciers are melting rapidly in some areas, such as the Eastern Himalaya; however, glaciers respond differntly to climate change in other areas of the region. Some glaciers are stagnant, some are surging in growth. In the Eastern Himalaya, observations over the past 100 years suggest that the next 100 years will involve mostly retreat.

So, some glaciers will likely retreat a lot by 2110.

Thanks Lindsay and Dr. Kargel for clarifying the record on this issue.

]]> By: Jeffrey Kargel http://earthsky.org/earth/setting-the-science-straight-on-the-ipccs-mistakes-welcome-to-change/comment-page-1#comment-15458 Jeffrey Kargel Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:41:10 +0000 http://earthsky.org/?p=32538#comment-15458 This article does justice to part of the story behind the story of why I and my colleagues investigated and reported the 2035 error. I am pleased that the IPCC has taken responsibility and corrective action, and I am confident that the IPCC's Fifth Assessment will be an improvement, as each successive assessment has been. This is a natural progression of knowledge and improved recognition of what IPCC is about. I am also hopeful that the media reporting environment will be much more cautious and fact-based, and less prone to rampant repetition of things they've heard or read, no matter what the authority of the source. Hopefully the irresponsible or simply uninformed conspiracy blogging about "Glaciergate" and "Climategate" will diminish, because those writers do as much harm as sensationalized exaggerated reporting does; in fact, it's the same mentality at work-- just make a shocking story and forget the facts. Climate change issues and attendant matters such as glacier changes are too important--too significant for everybody-- not to get the stories straight. I should make a few factual corrections to the EarthSky article. Raina's report made an unsubstantiated and completely untenable claim that alpine glaciers in the Himalaya may respond to climate shifts occurring on timescales of 6000 to 15000 years, which for humanly significant issues in front of us means that they effectively don't respond at all to climate change. This is of course ridiculous and conflicts with much evidence as well as well-grounded physical theory pointing to a range of much faster response times (ranging from very rapid responses to as much as possibly a couple centuries, but not longer than that.) In fact, it os physically not possible for the response times of Himalayan glaciers to be as slow as 6000 years, much less 15000 years. The current version of the backgrounder presentation, publicly available, has 17 signed authors. It is a dynamic and growing document, and authorship as well as content is gradually increasing. We will be seeking formal publication of aspects of the document. As for the article's claim of a billion people dependent on Himalayan glaciers, there is a misunderstanding--very widely disseminated-- about that as well. There are certainly over 500 million people who receive some of their water from melting Himalayan glaciers. But far fewer receive MOST of their water from the negative mass balance (gradual diminishment) of Himalayan glaciers. Many more--but not half a billion-- have much of their water supplies regulated seasonally by the storage of snow and ice during the accumulation season and release of water during the ablation season; in some places, this natural regulation means that they have much more water available during the driest season than they otherwise would have. This article does justice to part of the story behind the story of why I and my colleagues investigated and reported the 2035 error. I am pleased that the IPCC has taken responsibility and corrective action, and I am confident that the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment will be an improvement, as each successive assessment has been. This is a natural progression of knowledge and improved recognition of what IPCC is about. I am also hopeful that the media reporting environment will be much more cautious and fact-based, and less prone to rampant repetition of things they’ve heard or read, no matter what the authority of the source. Hopefully the irresponsible or simply uninformed conspiracy blogging about “Glaciergate” and “Climategate” will diminish, because those writers do as much harm as sensationalized exaggerated reporting does; in fact, it’s the same mentality at work– just make a shocking story and forget the facts. Climate change issues and attendant matters such as glacier changes are too important–too significant for everybody– not to get the stories straight. I should make a few factual corrections to the EarthSky article. Raina’s report made an unsubstantiated and completely untenable claim that alpine glaciers in the Himalaya may respond to climate shifts occurring on timescales of 6000 to 15000 years, which for humanly significant issues in front of us means that they effectively don’t respond at all to climate change. This is of course ridiculous and conflicts with much evidence as well as well-grounded physical theory pointing to a range of much faster response times (ranging from very rapid responses to as much as possibly a couple centuries, but not longer than that.) In fact, it os physically not possible for the response times of Himalayan glaciers to be as slow as 6000 years, much less 15000 years. The current version of the backgrounder presentation, publicly available, has 17 signed authors. It is a dynamic and growing document, and authorship as well as content is gradually increasing. We will be seeking formal publication of aspects of the document. As for the article’s claim of a billion people dependent on Himalayan glaciers, there is a misunderstanding–very widely disseminated– about that as well. There are certainly over 500 million people who receive some of their water from melting Himalayan glaciers. But far fewer receive MOST of their water from the negative mass balance (gradual diminishment) of Himalayan glaciers. Many more–but not half a billion– have much of their water supplies regulated seasonally by the storage of snow and ice during the accumulation season and release of water during the ablation season; in some places, this natural regulation means that they have much more water available during the driest season than they otherwise would have.

]]> By: Deborah Byrd http://earthsky.org/earth/setting-the-science-straight-on-the-ipccs-mistakes-welcome-to-change/comment-page-1#comment-15463 Deborah Byrd Wed, 03 Feb 2010 14:47:00 +0000 http://earthsky.org/?p=32538#comment-15463 Dr. Kargel, thank you for this clarification. May I ask a question? If the Himalayan glaciers are not expected to be gone by 2035 ... when ARE they expected to be gone? All the best, Deborah Byrd Dr. Kargel, thank you for this clarification. May I ask a question? If the Himalayan glaciers are not expected to be gone by 2035 … when ARE they expected to be gone?

All the best,

Deborah Byrd

]]> By: jeffrey Kargel http://earthsky.org/earth/setting-the-science-straight-on-the-ipccs-mistakes-welcome-to-change/comment-page-1#comment-15461 jeffrey Kargel Wed, 03 Feb 2010 12:31:46 +0000 http://earthsky.org/?p=32538#comment-15461 One of my colleagues pointed out something in the article that needs a comment; and I should also shine a light on a very poor word choice of mine (we all make stupid errors). In the article, it says that I asserted that the NASA press activity at last Fall\'s AGU \"would reproduce and reinforce\" [the 2035 error]. As it turned out, NASA was very responsive to issues I raised, and their press activity focused on the new science (intriguing indications that particulate air pollution--largely soot and smog; also mineral dust-- can and does affect Himalayan and Tibetan climate); NASA, as it turned out, did not reproduce or reinforce the 2035 error. In fact, the press interaction gave an opportunity to help remedy the IPCC\'s citation of faulty ideas. OK, now my error: I used a poor word choice in the interview. The \"Bible\" analogy was a phrasing I used, and I should not have. First, for the believers in the Bible as God\'s direct words, obviously the IPCC reports are nothing like that; they are science: falsifiable work of observations and logic, using the most advanced observing and computing systems and some of the best intellectual power among our planet\'s 6 billion people. It is not God-given, and it is not taken by scientists as a matter of faith, but as a source of insight and data and knowledge upon which further work can be based, or which can be supplanted as better information is obtained. Like other scientific reports, the Fourth Assessment\'s data, methods, and conclusions are falsifiable, meaning confirmable and verifiable, or able to be proven wrong if it is wrong or modified if needing amendment. (Readers be wary: there are alternate and some incorrect word definitions out there; I give you mine here.) And so, in that bit of history now so well documented and still as incredible as the day it was tracked down, \"2035\" crept in the the Fourth Assessment, where it didn\'t belong. And the scientific system found it to be errant and reported it as errant; it was not the smooth process we normally undertake, but the fact is, science is self correcting. There is nothing \"Biblical\" about it. My poor word usage. Sorry. One of my colleagues pointed out something in the article that needs a comment; and I should also shine a light on a very poor word choice of mine (we all make stupid errors). In the article, it says that I asserted that the NASA press activity at last Fall\’s AGU \”would reproduce and reinforce\” [the 2035 error]. As it turned out, NASA was very responsive to issues I raised, and their press activity focused on the new science (intriguing indications that particulate air pollution–largely soot and smog; also mineral dust– can and does affect Himalayan and Tibetan climate); NASA, as it turned out, did not reproduce or reinforce the 2035 error. In fact, the press interaction gave an opportunity to help remedy the IPCC\’s citation of faulty ideas. OK, now my error: I used a poor word choice in the interview. The \”Bible\” analogy was a phrasing I used, and I should not have. First, for the believers in the Bible as God\’s direct words, obviously the IPCC reports are nothing like that; they are science: falsifiable work of observations and logic, using the most advanced observing and computing systems and some of the best intellectual power among our planet\’s 6 billion people. It is not God-given, and it is not taken by scientists as a matter of faith, but as a source of insight and data and knowledge upon which further work can be based, or which can be supplanted as better information is obtained. Like other scientific reports, the Fourth Assessment\’s data, methods, and conclusions are falsifiable, meaning confirmable and verifiable, or able to be proven wrong if it is wrong or modified if needing amendment. (Readers be wary: there are alternate and some incorrect word definitions out there; I give you mine here.) And so, in that bit of history now so well documented and still as incredible as the day it was tracked down, \”2035\” crept in the the Fourth Assessment, where it didn\’t belong. And the scientific system found it to be errant and reported it as errant; it was not the smooth process we normally undertake, but the fact is, science is self correcting. There is nothing \”Biblical\” about it. My poor word usage. Sorry.

]]>