Ahahahahaha

Himalayan glaciers are actually advancing rather than retreating, claims the first major study since a controversial UN report said they would be melted within quarter of a century.

Note that it\’s actually some are advancing rather than shrinking, not as the headline makes out, all.

And the amusment comes, not from whatever change this might make to climate science. I, as you know, don\’t regard myself as competent to comment upon the details of something I know so little about.

No, the amusement comes from this:

Dr Pachauri, head of the Nobel prize-winning UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has remained silent on the matter since he was forced to admit his report\’s claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was an error and had not been sourced from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It came from a World Wildlife Fund report.

He angered India\’s environment minister and the country\’s leading glaciologist when he attacked those who questioned his claim as purveyors of \”voodoo science\”.

The environment Minister Jairam Ramesh had cited research indicating some Himalayan glaciers were advancing in the face of the UN\’s claim.

It\’s always nice to see an international bureaucrat with egg on his face.

11 comments on “Ahahahahaha

  1. Just one more of the myriad ‘errors’, massaging of figures, outright lies, shoddy and sensationalist reporting that characterises the warmist alarmists.

    Superficial and self-serving are words that come to mind. Actually I believe it is worse than that, but time will tell.

    One thing that is 100% sure. Anyone who says the science is settled is a liar or probably more simply hasn’t read beyond the popular press. More and more scientists are coming forward with MAJOR complaints. 42 in the Royal Society just recently.

    What is happening with the climate is far more complex than we are being told at a mainstream level. Get into the science and the whole thing becomes more complicated.

    So far every scare that should be visible by now isn’t. Doesn’t make for a whole lot of credibility and my faith?, lost it a year ago.

  2. Ha ha, throwing more red meat to your readers? It seems (on a sample of one) that they like it. Alas, you’re wrong.

    The Indian report that RP dismissed as voodoo (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/11/india_arrogant_to_deny_global.php) was indeed voodoo. And no, it wasn’t published as a correct to the 2035/2350 error: that is all backspin.

    That some glaciers are advancing isn’t news either; its in IPCC 2007, if you can be bothered to read it (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch4s4-5-3.html): Whereas glaciers in the Asian high mountains have generally shrunk at varying rates (Su and Shi, 2002; Ren et al., 2004; Solomina et al., 2004; Dyurgerov and Meier, 2005), several high glaciers in the central Karakoram are reported to have advanced and/or thickened at their tongues (Hewitt, 2005), probably due to enhanced precipitation.

  3. William,

    Why is it that news that climate change isn’t quite as bad as supposed always turns out to have been known already, whereas negative stories are always presented as, ‘worse than we thought’?

    For the Karakoram, you quote the IPCC, “several high glaciers in the central Karakoram are reported to have advanced and/or thickened …”, whereas this new report says, “… more than 50 per cent of observed glaciers in the Karakoram region in the northwestern Himalaya are advancing or stable.”

    ‘Several’ is the same as ‘more than 50 per cent’? Nothing new here?

  4. Mr P: you don’t know what the new report says. You’re relying on the Telegraph to have accurately reported it, which is extremely unwise – not the confusion between “advancing” and “stable or advancing”. Note that Timmy’s headline quote – “Himalayan glaciers are actually advancing rather than retreating” is wrong; this study deals only with the Karakoram.

    What fraction of monitoried glaciers in the Karakoram is covered by several? Is it all of them, 50% of them, or 1% of them? You have no idea. Are the two reports covering comparable time periods? Ditto.

    You can read the actual report at http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1068.html – well, at least the abstract. If you’re prepared to look at a picture from the paper you can, see http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/carousel/ngeo1068-f1.jpg which shows… oh yes: they are mostly retreating. How unexpected.

  5. William,

    I noted the difference between ‘advancing’ and ‘advancing/stable’. Did you note it when you jumped in to claim this was old news?

    You say I am relying on the newspaper article and link me to the abstract, yet the quote I took from the paper is also there in the abstract, “In contrast, more than 50% of observed glaciers in the westerlies-influenced Karakoram region in the northwestern Himalaya are advancing or stable.”

    It seems to me neither of us know the exact details, yet you are still happy to claim this is nothing new.

  6. Sorry, missed this paragraph:

    “What fraction of monitoried glaciers in the Karakoram is covered by several? Is it all of them, 50% of them, or 1% of them? You have no idea. Are the two reports covering comparable time periods? Ditto.”

    Sorry, are you suggesting that the word several may be used to mean “50% of”?

    As for the time periods, that’s irrelevant. I’m saying this is news, you’re saying it’s not. Whether the situation has changed or the original report is wrong, it’s still new and interesting information.

  7. I’m saying several things.

    Firstly, that its clear from the figure in the paper (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/carousel/ngeo1068-f1.jpg) that the bulk of the glaciers are retreating. Selecting just one of the areas (that just by coincidence no doubt, happens to have the most advancing) is cherry picking.

    So I don’t think your “Why is it that news that climate change isn’t quite as bad as supposed always turns out to have been known already” is supportable.

    Secondly, that Tim’s quote from the Torygraph and the voodoo is wrong, as I’ve said already.

    Thirdly, that the actual story here (as far as I can tell; I’ve only read the abstract) is “research paper released has more detail on glacial response in the Himalayas. Nothing desperately exciting discovered; no great changes to anyone’s theories required”. That wouldn’t sell too well, so the abstract has chosen the 2035 stuff as a peg to hang sex on. The Torygraph have used it, and Tim have used it, to promote their own ends.

    And you wonder why people don’t understand science? Because irresponsible people continually misrepresent it.

  8. William M. Connolley – “And you wonder why people don’t understand science? Because irresponsible people continually misrepresent it.”

    You can bang this drum for as long as you like. But the reality is everyone knows the Warmists are our equivalent of Lysenko. Irresponsible people have misrepresented the science. And got very nice jobs at NASA out of it.

    Although I find it hard to believe that glaciers in the Himalayas are not retreating because of soot particles from India landing on them and warming them up.

  9. William M. Connolley -”of *anything* other than the obvious. Yawn. Argument from personal incredulity is void.”

    It was not an argument you pretentious little twat. It was an observation about what I believe.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>