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.
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.
Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: "If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments"...
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.
Since this report comes from a British news source, allow me to quote from a song by Queen:
(beat beat beat)
Another one bites the dust.
(beat beat beat)
Another one bites the dust.
11 comments:
It's the pollution, for me.
I'm not thinking about polar bears or glacier research - I'm thinking about my lungs. And, if there is a 1% chance that any of the global warming warnings are accurate, then we'd be fools not to seek a myriad of ways to end the burning of fossil fuels.
It's that simple - all the other stuff is academic and ideological debates that don't matter much in the grand scheme of things. I know there are many who argued that Clean Air and Clean Water legislation was going to drive companies out of business and destroy capitalism.
That was really secondary to the fact that the Cuyahoga River caught on fire five times in two weeks.
Think practically. If your map doesn't agree with the ground, your map is wrong.
Mazenko, I can't imagine anyone is "pro-pollution". But you and I both know that isn't the impetus behind the AGW. If it were, they'd be all in favor of nuclear power.
Can we harness the power of backpedaling as a source of green energy? If so would that be redundant or ironic?
Glaciers are melting at 2-3ft a year.
At least Mike's retrenching. That's as close as most Heroes for the Planet are willing to come to admitting they were wrong putting their faith, whatever that's worth in a scientific debate, in the number of cubic yards of climate scientists that nod in unison whenever the phrase "anthropogenic global warming" is uttered.
The global warming issue's starting to remind me of The Great Homelessness Crisis of the 1980's.
It became a major cause celebre but turned out to be based on a lie. When the lie was revealed the issue collapsed - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_Snyder#Controversies - but not without plenty of people insisting that even if the issue was based on a lie it was a well-intentioned lie or retrenching in some other, transparent, fashion.
You know that's a false dichotomy - it's not like nuclear doesn't have serious environmental concerns.
That said, I do support more nuclear plants ... in California. :-)
Not "pollution" and "greenhouse gases" concerns--and nuclear waste hasn't caused a single emergency (yet).
I'd love to have a few more nuclear power plants in California. I'd like it even more if we could store the waste in Yucca Mountain, Nevada (very near the California border).
Hate to say it Darren but the French do it better. Nuclear energy that is.
The French get 75% of its electricity from reactors. It recycles its fuel and all of its waste is stored in one location (Troyesv), guarded by the French Army. The French have built 56 reactors since 1973 because they don’t want to held hostage to the Middle East. They export electricity to Europe
What do we do? We let our policy get screwed up because of a movie called The China Syndrome. We let groups sue to stop or delay nuclear plants. We let idiots like Harry Reid stop construction of a central waste storage facility in a desert, complicating storage plans and increasing costs.
What we need to do (besides shot Harry Reid, but different letter for different day) is strip groups like Earth First of any legal standing to sue on behalf of “the people”, pass enabling legislation for Yucca Mountain (including using use of Eminent Domain if needed…this is what it’s for, not letting a developer build an marina) and specifically state in the legislation it’s not subject to federal judiciary review.
With B Hussein Obama and his ilk in office I don’t see that anytime soon…but we can dream.
BTY manezko if you want to complain about cars (or school buses for that matter) polluting I take it you don’t have one? You take the bus or a bike?
Because my in-laws live in Vegas, I've followed the Yucca Mountain issue for years. The reality is that no one wants nuclear waste on their land or near their groundwater. You might like more plants in California, but Nevada doesn't want the waste. That's the NIMBY reality.
But I do support more nuclear power.
MikeAT, I am so surprised - you are praising socialist energy production and government run companies as better and more efficient than America? And you are arguing for the federal government overriding states' rights? Wow, we might be making progress.
And, no, I don't have a car. As I have long noted, I walk to work and to the store.
“MikeAT, I am so surprised - you are praising socialist energy production and government run companies as better and more efficient than America? And you are arguing for the federal government overriding states' rights? Wow, we might be making progress.”
mazenko, as usual, you grab the wrong end of the stick. I am praising the way the French handle their energy. They build nuclear power plants to provide the majority of their electricity. They have not allowed Earth First or other groups from using their judicial system to stop their nuclear construction. Their judges have not given groups legal standing to sue on behalf of “the people” to stop things the people want. If only we had that kind of control on our federal judiciary.
Also, something I gotta learn ya! States don’t have rights. Rights are endowed to people by their Creator, including Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. I know I’ve heard that somewhere.
Now as far as “overriding states' rights?” let me quote myself:
“What we need to do (besides shoot Harry Reid, but different letter for different day) is strip groups like Earth First of any legal standing to sue on behalf of 'the people', pass enabling legislation for Yucca Mountain (including using use of Eminent Domain if needed…this is what it’s for, not letting a developer build an marina) and specifically state in the legislation it’s not subject to federal judiciary review. “
In order, I’m calling for reversing an abuse of power of federal judges and congresses in giving these groups standing to sue in the name of the general public; Use of a specifically delegated power of the federal government (Eminent Domain) to expedite a critical national need (a central long term nuclear waste storage facility) and: Use the power of the Congress to strip this act from federal judicial review, authority Article 3, US Constitution.
“And, no, I don't have a car. As I have long noted, I walk to work and to the store.”
I don’t recall you writing that but I will take your word. At least you’re not the pure hypocrite that ALGORE is. I’ll keep going with my F-150 and Harley Davidson Road King.
BTY, your progress looks like regression. I’ll pass.
Post a Comment