Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Earth
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
The village of Brep in Pakistan doesn't exist in the same place anymore. That's because a torrential flood forced the community to move after a lake formed by glacial meltwater burst its bounds and leveled the town.
Glacial lake outbursts have become a yearly occurrence across the high mountain region stretching from Afghanistan to Bhutan sometimes called the Roof of the World.
Such floods are now common because temperatures in this high mountain region are rising even faster than those at lower elevations. A rise in altitude of 2,000 meters equals a tripling in the increase of average temperatures. As a result, many Himalayan, Hindu Kush and Karakoram glaciers are dwindling.
Yet, predictions of the glaciers imminent demise may have been premature. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change famously predicted they could disappear as soon as 2035. It turns out that guesstimate was based on misquoting a researcher in a 1999 news article—not a result from any kind of peer-reviewed scientific study.
The incident reflects a breakdown in the IPCC process but it doesn't undercut the reality that glacier loss, particularly in what are technically tropical regions such as the Andes and Himalayas, continues to accelerate in the 21st century. Though they likely won't disappear entirely for centuries, losing the glaciers will eventually be bad news for the billions around the world who rely on meltwater to survive.
—David Biello
See what we're tweeting about
27 Comments
Add CommentClimate change is not a perfectly linear or predictable science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever this does not make the scientific evidence any less overwhelming.
So much for the vaunted peer review process underpinning the AGW theory. Really - a transcription error from a 1999 news article? I thought this IPCC report was the gold standard.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut don't worry! It was just a "breakdown in the IPCC process" and shouldn't cause anyone to doubt the rest of it, since it was all peer reviewed (well, except for the part we just found out wasn't)!
First, it was only estimates that were off. The evidence of what is happening is true. Secondly, the IPCC found the mistake and is publishing the mistake made, because these things happen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf something turns out to be wrong it doesn't mean the system failed or is wrong as a whole, seeing as if that were the case we wouldn't have much of anything in the way of techonological progress. Soccerdad, stop fearmongering and hate spreading.
Candide---LOL...how can any reasonable person make your comment? If the "evidence" of the degree of glacial melting was completely wrong.......how can you say :
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever this does not make the scientific evidence any less overwhelming.
Obviously, the evidence is much less overwhelming when it is proven that the initially reported evidence does not exsist.
Any reasonable reviewer would now reasonably doubt other so called evidence until it is reviewed further and verified.
This is not to say there is no evidence of any global warming.....just not to dire situation that some AGW zealots like to state
For anyone really more about the topic, here is a link with very good information and links.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/06/q-with-tom-fuller.html
"The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change goofs in predicting total meltdown by 2035. But the roof of the world is still losing its icy coat."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--------------------
Ohhh....the sheer emotion of the skeptics can already be seen, even though this was merely a flawed prediction, which will always be skeptical by some. Nobody wants to hear dire predictions like melting polar regions and glaciers which obviously will raise sea level, but this is a fact of 21st century life and has been occurring for quite some time.
While the Himalayan glaciers will most likely not disappear completely this century, they still have a net loss of mass -- melting faster in the summer and having less snowfall in the winter to keep up with the dramatic melting. They just happen to be located in the world's tallest mountain range, so will continue to exist far beyond those like at Glacier Nat'l Park, which will more than likely be gone before 2035.
Sisko:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"For anyone really more about the topic..."
-------------------
Thanks for more religious denialist BLOGS, more than likely bought-and-paid-for by those very nice fossil fuel interests, funding the manufactured doubt industry.
Please, please sisko, give us more BLOGS about global cooling and the dropping sea level due to more snow & ice on a warming planet! You're entirely too much, but certainly lay in wait on places like Scientific American, to continuously spew more of your anti-science propaganda and silly rhetoric!
Sisko:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...when it is proven that the initially reported evidence does not exsist."
------------
WRONG! The evidence of global warming and rapidly receding glaciers worldwide still certainly exists, and it is merely the PREDICTION of how long it will take for them to completely disappear that is the question. Obviously, the anti-science naysayers and religious denialists have a huge need to twist and spin the actual science.
Any more BLOGS or lord monckton rants today?
2035 - that's 25 years. As of two years ago the Asian glaciers had been reportedly melting at a rate of 7% per year. !00 divided by 7 = 14 something. Which proves the 2035 prediction wrong. They'll be completely gone well before then. Wake up world, this thing is closing in on us with a head of steam more powerful than 1,000, out of control, freight trains and carbon footprint reduction will no affect at all - even if the whole world reduced their footprint to zero - tomorrow.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe histrionics of the global warming faithful is always good for a laugh. Particularly when they accuse the heathen unbeliever of being religious bigots. There's nothing more delicious than a little irony to start the day.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMaybe the glaciers are melting slower than predicted. They're still melting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr would soccerdad and shoshin have us believe that towns being destroyed are also a facet of the science conspiracy to strip average Joes of their hard-earned dollars?
Ah, the regular cast of dimwits come swooping in whenever there's an article on global warming. They love to nitpick the minor mistakes while overlooking the big picture. That's probably because their brains are too small to SEE a big picture.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOops, I just issued a series of ad hominems, that must mean AGW is false! Alert the media! Al Gore was wrong! Evidence be damned, people are making fun of stupid people who have learned the names of a couple of logical fallacies in a failed attempt to keep up with the conversation!
Note: I don't have to be nice to you, I don't want to be nice to you, I have no interest in trying to convince you of how wrong you are because no amount of evidence could EVER convince you of how wrong you are. I would much rather make fun of you until you scurry away back to your caves. You're not a skeptic, you're a denier and you're everything that's wrong with the world right now.
Hey you global warming religous zealots. Your entire argument has been that the global warming proponents published results were rigorously peer reviewed. Well either they are or they aren't. These mistakes undermine your entire claim, not just parts of it. There were many other errors pointed out today for the same IPCC report:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this• The claim "Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world." Cogley and Michael Zemp of the World Glacier Monitoring System said Himalayan glaciers are melting at about the same rate as other glaciers.
• It says that if the Earth continues to warm, the "likelihood of them disappearing by the 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high." Nowhere in peer-reviewed science literature is 2035 mentioned. However, there is a study from Russia that says glaciers could come close to disappearing by 2350.
• The paragraph says: "Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometers by the year 2035." Cogley said there are only 33,000 square kilometers of glaciers in the Himalayas.
• The entire paragraph is attributed to the World Wildlife Fund, when only one sentence came from the WWF, Cogley said. And further, the IPCC likes to brag that it is based on peer-reviewed science, not advocacy group reports. Cogley said the WWF cited the popular science press as its source.
• A table says that between 1845 and 1965, the Pindari Glacier shrank by 2,840 meters. Then comes a math mistake: It says that's a rate of 135.2 meters a year, when it really is only 23.5 meters a year.
Lakota- I'll try this again with you. Your continually stupid statements combined with half credible science is damaging to your own case.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. You continually call anyone who does not agree with AGW a religious denialist. WHY???? The generalization is obviously incorrect, offensive and does nothing to support your perspective. Many people of different religious perspectives and many who think religion is superstition do not believe the dire future you and other AGW zealots predict.
2. Quoting people's opinions about a future "dire situation" is not science. Even the quote you posed states there is minimal evidence.
"Right now the evidence of significant global climate change is minimal, said Pimentel, a professor of ecology and of entomology in Cornell's College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.
So in spite of virtually no evidence to support some the quotes you post.....you continue to post them
3. The website you like to quote from Columbia University absolutely did use modelling for the estimated sea levels they assumed. The following are quotes from that site:
11,500-11,000 years ago, when sea level may have jumped by 28 m according to Fairbanks, although subsequent studies indicate it may have been much less.
Although the meltwater was previously believed to have come chiefly from Antarctica, a recent reconstruction by Tarasov and Peltier of ice sheet retreat using a glacial model calibrated by a variety of data points instead to a largely North American source.
The sea level data I posted was not based upon computer modelling and was from two independent sources. The Exxon sea level curve (which you prejudicially reject because Exxon is in the name (although it has more data supporting some of your claims), and the Hallam Curve. Both of these curves show that we are near to all time low sea levels. Both sets of data have been extensively reviewed and accepted based upon actual measurements.
http://jgs.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/138/6/735
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/272/5265/1097
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea-level_curve
What is unfortunate is that on many of the related issues on energy production I would agree you have some vaild points, but those get lost due to your rants.
Spoonman-- So your position seems to be that everyone should agree with your beliefs regardless of any facts. Many people who do not agree with the AGW zealots like you, accept that our climate is changing. We simply do not think it is the dire crisis that you believe. When those supporting the position claiming that it is a dire emergency are found to have faulty data supporting their analysis and that their conclusions were wrong......then rational people should revaluate their position.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTry being rational........it will be a change for you, but you may come to enjoy the experience. LOL
On one of the other blogs someone posted an offer of a bet with any of the AGW zealots. Let the AGW zealot make a prediction of some future dire situation, and then bet money on whether it happens or not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat could actually be interesting. Any of you with dire predictions for the future want to make any specific predictions of the world 10 years from now that you will be willing to be on??? I kind of doubt it.
Lakota- One of the web pages I posted is a link to a page by Roger Pielke. His biography is shown below.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisProfessor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Has an appointment as a Senior Visiting Fellow at the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University and as a Senior Fellow of The Breakthrough Institute, a progressive think tank.
He seems to be a highly creditable scientist specializing in climate. (I base this on actually reading what he has written) What is it that drives you to claim he is a religious denialist.
@Sisko. I bet $100 that IPCCs forecast of 4.5 C increase in global temp. in 2100 is wrong. You can collect it in 2100 if Im wrong. LOL
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDenialists wake up! Climate change is real. The world is cooling. The Big Freeze is coming according to National Geographic. The melting of glaciers, which act as natural dams, will bring fresh water to the oceans and shut down the ocean thermal conveyor that warms the land masses. This will bring back the Ice Age. When this happens, perhaps increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can mitigate the Big Freeze and warm us a bit.
All for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
Fear mongering and hate spreading? Please point out the specific words in my post which support your conclusion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOr, perhaps your post has been peer reviewed, and is therefore immune from scrutiny.
Soccerdad:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Hey you global warming religous zealots."
"The claim "Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world." .......the World Glacier Monitoring System said Himalayan glaciers are melting at about the same rate as other glaciers.
------------------------
Right back at ya, global warming religious DENIALISTS!
By reviewing the World Glacier Monitoring System website at
http://www.geo.unizh.ch/wgms/mbb/sum08.html
"The average mass balance of the glaciers with available long-term observation series around the world continues to decrease, with tentative figures indicating a further thickness reduction of 0.5 metres water equivalent (m w.e.) during the hydrological year 2007/08. The new data continues the global trend in strong ice loss over the past few decades and brings the cumulative average thickness loss of the reference glaciers since 1980 at about 12 m w.e. "
By close observation to their list of worldwide glaciers, I fail to see any located in the Himalayas, so just where are they getting their information from to make their claims?
Besides, how can their statement of "The new data continues the global trend in strong ice loss over the past few decades," be a comforting thought?
What exactly do you not understand about "strong ice loss"?
The IPCC's 2035 prediction about Himalayan glaciers
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe IPCC Fourth Assessment Report contains a mistake. This is not the first inaccuracy to be found in the AR4 - there have been several papers demonstrating where IPCC predictions have underestimated the climate response to CO2 emissions. However, this time the climate response has been overestimated.
-----
The moral of the story seems clear - stick to the peer reviewed scientific literature. This is not to say peer review is infallible. But as a source for climate science, there is no higher standard than rigorous research based on empirical data, conducted by scientific experts and reviewed by other experts in the field.
This leads to an important question: what does the peer reviewed science say about Himalayan glaciers? The ice mass over the Himalayas is the third-largest on earth, after the Arctic/Greenland and Antarctic regions (Barnett 2005). There are approximately 15,000 glaciers in the Himalayas. Each summer, these glaciers release meltwater into the Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra Rivers. Approximately 500 million people depend upon water from these three rivers (Kehrwald 2008). In China, 23% of the population lives in the western regions, where glacial melt is the principal water source during dry season (Barnett 2005).
On-site measurement of glacier terminus position and ice core records have found many glaciers on the south slope of the central Himalaya have been retreating at an accelerating rate (Ren 2006). Similarly, ice cores amd accumulation stakes on the Naimona'nyi Glacier have observed it's losing mass, a surprising result due to its high altitude (it is now the highest glacier in the world losing mass) (Kehrwald 2008).
While on-site measurements cover only a small range of the Himalayas, broader coverage is achieved through remote sensing satellites and Geographic Information System methods. They've found that over 80% of glaciers in western China have retreated in the past 50 years, losing 4.5% of their combined areal coverage (Ding 2006). This retreat is accelerating across much of the Tibetan plateau (Yao 2007).
The IPCC error on the 2035 prediction was unfortunate and it's important that such mistakes are avoided in future publications through more rigorous review. But the central message of the Synthesis Report, the concluding document of the IPCC AR4, is confirmed by the peer reviewed literature. The Himalayan glaciers are of vital importance to half a billion people. Most of this crucial resource is disappearing at an accelerating rate.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-2035-prediction-Himalayan-glaciers.html
Sisko:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Any of you with dire predictions for the future want to make any specific predictions of the world 10 years from now that you will be willing to be on?"
-----------------------
From DurangoBill@
http://www.durangobill.com/RogerCohen.html
Some examples of other publicity bets by the “Deniers”:
“Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/aug/19/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment
“Betting on Climate Change - It's time to put up or shut up - Ronald Bailey | June 8, 2005”
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34976.html
“A professor at the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School of business has challenged Al Gore to a bet over global temperatures. The bet is for $10,000”
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/06/global_warming_bet/
“If you think it's a no-brainer that humans are causing catastrophic global warming, here's your opportunity to earn an easy US $150,000.00!”
http://www.junkscience.com/videos.html (alternately http://ultimateglobalwarmingchallenge.com/ )
“Richard Lindzen's "Climate Bet"”
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/betting.html
Typically these bets are rigged by the “Deniers” to give themselves a huge advantage. For example, Richard Lindzen (above) wants 50 to 1 odds on the amount for his bet. As for the “junkscience.com” bet,
“JunkScience.com, in its sole discretion, will determine the winner, if any, from UGWC entries. All determinations made by JunkScience.com are final.”
They of course will keep the $15 you as the “sucker” forked over in order to enter the rigged bet. Then the “Deniers” claim that they must be right as no one accepted their rigged bets.
OK “Deniers”. How about a bet on a 100 year time interval? Let’s use the 100 year span from 1909 vs. 2009 as measured by the NASA GISS Land - Ocean Index. And to make the stakes interesting, how about an even odds bet for let’s say $1,000,000?
(Note: The above “proposed bet” is presented as a parody. However, if Mr. Cohen would really like to go out on a limb, and if a reliable third party would like to run the operation, then the possibilities for a real bet exist.)
Sisko:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Lakota- I'll try this again with you."
---------------------
Please don't bother, since your constant ad hominem attacks while repetitiously posting the same silly religious denialist propaganda, will never convince anyone of your parallel world, divorced from the reality the rest of us live in. Your utter arrogance accusing everyone not buying into your religious denialism, of not being rational, surely questions the sanity of the one making absurd attacks like you. You're a waste of everyone's time here.
Spoonman:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Ah, the regular cast of dimwits come swooping in whenever there's an article on global warming. They love to nitpick the minor mistakes while overlooking the big picture."
-------------------------
Very interesting how they indeed swoop in continuously attacking the science as well as Scientific American, and anyone agreeing with the consensus of scientists and the physical proof showing a constantly warming Earth.
pokerplyer:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I also am one of those who doesn't even understand the "religious denier" label..."
-----------------------
Sure you do, and simply by denying understanding the religious denialist label, means you don't have a clue to why some keep calling others "AGW zealots" or spewing "the religion of global warming."
If denialism is the assertion of a position using analytical and rhetorical tricks to undermine a position based on overwhelming evidence, then it is apt in this case.
One possible reason that global-warming denialism is more prevalent in the U.S. than elsewhere is that more Americans than Europeans are Biblical literalists, thus the label "religious denialist" is relevant as a general description.
Look at the people who push global warming denialism: Fox News (enough said), The Telegraph (enough said), The Spectator (enough said), The National Post (enough said)....calling them ‘denialists’ is being too kind: they should be abused at every instance for the stupidity they churn out. They should be ridiculed, parodied, cussed, and constantly called out for the idiots they are because they deserve it.
Let the scientists do the science. But outside that world is a media full of B.S. artists who have vested interests in promoting ’skepticism’.
Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to expand their knowledge and improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens in global warming skepticism. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet eagerly, even blindly embrace any argument, op-ed piece, blog or study that refutes global warming.
Thus, I must call these so-called "skeptics" exactly what they appear -- religious denialists instead of skeptics.
Good post lakota 2012. It is unfortunate that so many are unable to see with their own own eyes the evidence of global warming and definitive climate change. Many are still unable to grasp the truth of evolution so I suppose their is no need to be surprised.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStill as the point of no return actually approaches it is somehow tragic that their is little the individual can do to support the planet and in someway maintain its livability for an ever-increasing human population.
As I have lived in the far north for a number of years I have no need of extensive studies to comprehend just what is happening and how the speed of change increases on a yearly basis. The more vulnerable areas of the planet including the north polar region, the whole of Australia & mountainous areas throughout the world are the places to actually observe just what is occurring.
It seems to me that many are no longer in touch in any way with the outdoors and the Earth itself.
Good post lakota 2012. It is unfortunate that so many are unable to see with their own own eyes the evidence of global warming and definitive climate change. Many are still unable to grasp the truth of evolution so I suppose their is no need to be surprised.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStill as the point of no return actually approaches it is somehow tragic that their is little the individual can do to support the planet and in someway maintain its livability for an ever-increasing human population.
As I have lived in the far north for a number of years I have no need of extensive studies to comprehend just what is happening and how the speed of change increases on a yearly basis. The more vulnerable areas of the planet including the north polar region, the whole of Australia & mountainous areas throughout the world are the places to actually observe just what is occurring.
It seems to me that many are no longer in touch in any way with the outdoors and the Earth itself.