Silly Little Country

IPCC Science on Himalyan Glaciers

And science is meant in the sarcastic sense it deserves in the above context.
To quote the IPCC:

Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other
part of the world (see Table 10.9) 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. Its total area will likely shrink from the present
500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2035 (WWF, 2005)." (IPCC AR4 WG2 Ch10, p. 493)

I have since heard this reported in the press, accompanied by a concern about the Ganges drying up. I began to feel really sorry for the Indians, as I pictured the trickling Ganges.
As it turns out essentially NOTHING about this is supported by an facts.
It appears in fact that instead:

• The rate of retreat of one Himalayan glacier was enhanced by calculating it by dividing the total retreat over 121 years by the number 21 to get an annual rate.
  
• The year 2035 is a mis-transcription of 2350.
  
• The numbers 500,000 and 100,000 refer to the extent of all extrapolar glaciers
  
• The Ganges depends marginally on glacial runoff and is fed almost totally by monsoon rain (this part is not directly IPCC-related).
  

John Nielsen-Gammon and Barry Lefer detail this farce in this article, and do something the IPCC never seems to have bothered to do - look closely at primary sources. This observation from their article gives a clear indication how committed the IPCC executive are to the truth, and how willing they are to defend it with ad hominem attacks and arrant nonsense.

The Indian environment ministry released a report in November by Vijay Kumar Raina that concluded that Himalayan glaciers on the whole were retreating, but not at an alarming rate or any faster than glaciers on the rest of the globe. According to The Guardian, countryman Rajenda Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, was furious.

Pachauri dismissed the report saying it was not "peer reviewed" and had few "scientific citations".

With the greatest of respect this guy retired years ago and I find it totally baffling that he comes out and throws out everything that has been established years ago.

Given the nature of the peer review and scientific citations in the IPCC report, we have here a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

This would be funny if it were funny.

Labels: climate, duplicity, IPCC

posted by Alan Adamson @ 1:15 PM