Glaciergate? IPCC Claims That Himalayan Glaciers Will Disappear By 2035 Are Melting Away
Published on: January 16, 2010
show comments
  • The error traces back to a misprint of the year 2350 in a 1996 report by Kotlyakov: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.128.751&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    “The degradation of the extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be apparent in rising ocean level already by the year 2050, and there will be a drastic rise of the ocean thereafter caused by the deglaciation-derived runoff (see Table 11 ). This period will last from 200 to 300 years. The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates— its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 km2 by the year 2350. Glaciers will survive only in the mountains of inner Alaska, on some Arctic archipelagos, within Patagonian ice sheets, in the Karakoram Mountains, in the Himalayas, in some regions of Tibet and on the highest mountain peaks in the temperature latitudes.”

  • Pingback: Instapundit » Blog Archive » “GLACIERGATE?” IPCC Claims That Himalayan Glaciers Will Disappear By 2035 Are Melting Away. Anoth…()

  • mbabbitt

    Yes, you would have to work a bit (but not that hard) not to find a more egregious example of scientific incompetence and public scaremongering than this issue shows. It is emblematic of the IPCC’s credibility or lack thereof. And the topper that the date was really written as 2350 not 2035 (as the WWF reported) is the icing on that corruptocake. Knock, knock; is anyone sane at home?

  • Luke, the Chronicle article seems to be even more damning then you are.

    “Both Khandekar and Cogley seem to blame the error on a misreading by the IPCC authors, but I think this is incorrect. The truth is quite a bit more interesting, and the evidence is in the written documents. Let’s have a look.”

    Read the whole article.

  • jeanneb

    “Heads should roll”.

    Yeah, they’ll fire the guy who oversaw the glacier section in the IPCC report.

    But, who appointed him? Were there any safeguards, or were they simply overlooked? Were other sections of the report handled as carelessly? Why wasn’t there any review of this non-expert’s “findings”?

    The entire IPCC panel should resign or be fired. But I predict they’ll get away with simply transferring the non-glacier-expert guy to another job…worse, they’ll probably promote him out.

  • Jackie

    The IPCC knew the data was faked from the beginning but kept using it to promote the global warming propaganda. No fear, no panic.

    It is time for the US to abandon the IPCC and create an independent climate audit commission where all climate science research is allowed to be peer reviewed. At the head of the commission we need people like Steve McIntyre and Anthony Watts, people who put science facts first.

    As days go by the public mistrust of science and in particular climate science is growing and until such time as truth returns to the scientific process the image of scientists and their work will continue to denigrate.

  • David Becker, Michigan

    And, of course, any “scientist” that makes predictions 350 years into the future is a fraud. Even the original, corrected, concept is idiotic.

  • I’ve just wasted my morning, but if you trace the genealogy of the IPCC reports and how they are repaired, you are lead back to their first report (Climate Change, Cambridge U. Press, 1991) which unfortunately is not online. In the preface to that 1st report, which I have a copy of, the editors acknowledge that they have built on a previous report, SCOPE 29 (The Greenhouse Effect, John Wiley & Sons,1986), which, in turn, was built on 28 previous SCOPE reports, none of which are online (SCOPE, btw, is short for Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment). The first SCOPE report, which I also have, was published in 1971 (!) by MIT Press and is entitled Inadvertent Climate Change: Report of the Study of Man’s Impact on Climate (SMIC), hereafter referred to simply as SMIC. (Incidentally, Stephen Schneider, a now well-known climate alarmist, was on the two-man “Research Staff” for that SMIC report and may have been responsible for writing it, in which case this would have been his earliest publication.)

    Be that as it may, the SMIC report was based on a meeting of “thirty scientists from fourteen countries” during the previous year and opens with a Sanskrit Prayer (Oh, Mother earth, ocean-girdled and mountain-breasted, pardon me for trampling on you). It then proceeds to lay out its goals and the methodology, from which I quote:

    The stated goal was to provide “an international scientific consensus on what we know and do not know” about climate science [it being assumed such a consensus existed] and to supply that consensus “as input into planning for the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment and for numerous other national and international activities.”

    As for the methodology, it is substantially identical to the one followed by the IPCC to this day. The technical findings were arrived at through an intensive three-week discussion among the scientists themselves working in 5 Work Groups “as well as discussion and careful consideration by all participants,” including presumably by Stephen Schneider himself. I now quote from the Preface:

    “This Report represents the consensus of all of the SMIC participants. Each participant concurs with the substantive presentation, but everyone did not have time to review the final wording of all the chapters. . . . Some editing was done in the weeks following SMIC. . . .Because the major objective of SMIC was to raise the level of informed public and scientific discussion and action on global and regional climate problems, this Report was published as quickly as possible.”

    Notice the sense of urgency and the fact that the scientists themselves do not have the final word in how their findings are summarized and presented to the public. The only innovation since then is that the summaries are now published by the IPCC several months before the scientific findings themselves.

    Luke

  • Pingback: Relax, Gangotri is not going away, after all! – The global warming hoax and the Himalayan glacier scare. « India Unfinished()

  • I am just recovering from a bender.While there,I had a great idea!To keep the world from being flooded due to the melting of the glaciers”in our lifetime:BUILD A THREE ROW LINE OF EVAPORATORS ALONG THE COASTS OF THE ENTIRE LAND MASS OF OUR WORLD!That would save the planet, provide pure drinking water and for other purposes like a shot and a beer.Where to store all that water?Why build dams at all the canyons!!

  • Pingback: Gee... That's a Hard One()

  • Scott

    I guess if the IPCC have reported on something then the best course of action would be to think the exact opposite.
    The shrill alarmism from this mob and the berating of anyone opposing them, just ask Martin Durkin, highlights the veracity of their so called ‘Science’.
    The ‘alarmists’ as the IPCC call them are yet to make such grandious blunders or miss calculations. The IPCC on the other hand are yet to get a prediction even remotely correct.
    What do the boys at East Anglia have to say on this…lol

  • Pingback: ICE REMAINS, IPCC MELTS « An Honest Climate Debate()

  • Pingback: Will Garnaut and Rudd retract? « catallaxy files()

  • Keith

    The Nobel peace prize has now been destroyed, having been awarded to two smooth talking conmen – Gore and Pachauri.
    Nobel Committee – retract this prize from the conmen now, otherwise future awards may be considered a slur on the winner’s integrity.

  • Pingback: Glaciers Grow - Walter Russell Mead's Blog - The American Interest()

  • Pingback: Global Warming Hoax Weekly Round-Up, March 11th 2010 « The Daily Bayonet()

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.