Like all human endeavours, the IPCC is not perfect. Despite the enormous efforts devoted to producing its reports with the multiple levels of peer review, some errors will sneak through. Most of these will be minor and inconsequential, but sometimes they might be more substantive. As many people are aware (and as John Nieslen-Gammon outlined in a post last month and Rick Piltz goes over today), there is a statement in the second volume of the IPCC (WG2), concerning the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are receding that is not correct and not properly referenced.
The statement, in a chapter on climate impacts in Asia, was that the likelihood of the Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035” was “very high” if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate (WG 2, Ch. 10, p493), and was referenced to a World Wildlife Fund 2005 report. Examining the drafts and comments (available here), indicates that the statement was barely commented in the reviews, and that the WWF (2005) reference seems to have been a last minute addition (it does not appear in the First- or Second- Order Drafts). This claim did not make it into the summary for policy makers, nor the overall synthesis report, and so cannot be described as a ‘central claim’ of the IPCC. However, the statement has had some press attention since the report particularly in the Indian press, at least according to Google News, even though it was not familiar to us before last month.
It is therefore obvious that this error should be corrected (via some kind of corrigendum to the WG2 report perhaps), but it is important to realise that this doesn’t mean that Himalayan glaciers are doing just fine. They aren’t, and there may be serious consequences for water resources as the retreat continues. See also this review paper (Ren et al, 2006) on a subset of these glaciers.
East Rongbuk glacier just below Mt. Everest has lost 3-400 ft of ice in this area since 1921.
More generally, peer-review works to make the IPCC reports credible because many different eyes with different perspectives and knowledge look over the same text. This tends to make the resulting product reflect more than just the opinion of a single author. In this case, it appears that not enough people with relevant experience saw this text, or if they saw it, did not comment publicly. This might be related to the fact that this text was in the Working Group 2 report on impacts, which does not get the same amount of attention from the physical science community than does the higher profile WG 1 report (which is what people associated with RC generally look at). In WG1, the statements about continued glacier retreat are much more general and the rules on citation of non-peer reviewed literature was much more closely adhered to. However, in general, the science of climate impacts is less clear than the physical basis for climate change, and the literature is thinner, so there is necessarily more ambiguity in WG 2 statements.
In future reports (and the organisation for AR5 in 2013 is now underway), extra efforts will be needed to make sure that the links between WG1 and the other two reports are stronger, and that the physical science community should be encouraged to be more active in the other groups.
In summary, the measure of an organisation is not determined by the mere existence of errors, but in how it deals with them when they crop up. The current discussion about Himalayan glaciers is therefore a good opportunity for the IPCC to further improve their procedures and think more about what the IPCC should be doing in the times between the main reports.
Update: This backgrounder presented by Kargel et al AGU this December is the best summary of the current state of the Himalayas and the various sources of misinformation that are floating around. It covers this issue, the Raina report and the recent Lau et al paper.
Can anybody explain exactly how this narrative is coherent?
“Kamel analysed the temperature records from weather stations in part of southern Siberia, around Lake Baikal. He claimed to find much less warming than Jones, despite analysing much the same data.
Kamel told the Guardian: “Siberia is a test case, because it is supposed to be the land area with most warming in the 20th century.” The finding sounded important, but his paper was rejected by Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) that year.
Kamel was leaving academic science and never tried to publish it elsewhere. But the draft seen by the Guardian asserts that the difference between his findings on Siberia temperatures and that of Jones is “probably because the CRU compilation contains too little correction for urban warming.” He does not, however, justify that conclusion with any data or analysis.Kamel says he no longer has a copy of the anonymous referee judgments on the paper, so we don’t know why it was rejected. The paper could be criticised for being slight and for not revealing details about its methods of analysis. A reviewer such as Jones would certainly have been aware of Kamel’s views about mainstream climate research, which he had called “pseudo-science”. He would also have known that its publication in a journal like GRL would have attracted the attention of professional climate sceptics. Nonetheless, the paper raised important questions about the quality of CRU’s Siberian data, and was a rare example of someone trying to replicate Jones’s analysis. On those grounds alone, some would have recommended its publication.”
In sum:
–Kamel “analysed the temperature records”,
–Kamel “claimed to find much less warming”,
–Kamel “does not, however, justify that conclusion with any data or analysis”.
Yet we’re supposed to believe something wrong has happened here?
This is a singularly strange article, including the apparent haste with which it was written, including as it does a number of typos. Bizarre.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review
As astounding as AxelD’s posts are, they do beg the question: How do we persuade people who will flat out say that evidence is irrelevant.
I mean, that there pretty much precludes a scientific argument since evidence is all science has to work with. It would appear we have stumbled up against humanity’s vaunted ability to look reality in the face and deny it.
And there’s this kind of stuff out there — more argument for open process:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18466-are-stem-cell-scientists-sabotaging-rivals-work.html
Ray said: “How do we persuade people who will flat out say that evidence is irrelevant.”
I think we act in spite of them. But this is politics, not science. This is why we use representative democracy.
@1128 AxelD writes: “Or do you want to cling to your “adjusted” data sets…”
I see we’re getting into the tried and proven “liar, liar, pants on fire” argument from sceptics.
Another article where, as the Monty Python skit goes, “A minute passed, during which nothing happened, then another minute.”
Read the cases carefully. Did anything bad actually happen? Was scientific progress diminished? Apparently not.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review
Did somebody unwittingly insult Pearce? Forget to pick up the tab for a beer? What? Why the rehash, all of a sudden? Why go through the laundry hamper looking for ring-around-the-collar?
Jack: “You might be right. But I hope not.”
It is.
The only way to win is not to play.
If the science goes the way of the PR spinning of the denialists then the science has been lost.
If enough people stymie all the things that need doing, then these things that need doing will be stymied. But that is a big IF.
And it’s not all that certain such is needed.
But if science starts that way, then it will have lost and it’s unlikely that it will win that way either, since the denialists have no shame and they’re already used to it.
Doug: “Completely Fed Up says: 2 February 2010 at 12:53 PM
“But the only way to counter the PR spin machine is to forget about the science completely and merely do as the denialists are doing and brainwash people…”
No, no, no. There is research– real scientific findings not some kind of marketing rubbish– showing how to better reach people with facts,”
Keep reading, Doug.
I say this IS NOT the way to go.
But Jake wants us to counter the PR and “win the battle amongst the masses”. And that can only be won in the face of denialists brainwashing PR spin and puffery by entering into it.
I say: DO NOT PLAY.
You can’t win. Trying to win pollster results by countering the denialist puffery would require playing the same game.
DO NOT PLAY.
Play the game of doing your job, showing the results and being honest in a scientific way.
Even if you don’t “win” the PR vote, you win yourself by doing the RIGHT thing and not letting the pig get you wrestling in mud.
That’s mostly good, but — nitpick — CANDU reactors typically get 590000 MJ/(kg U). And a more substantial nit: very good uranium ores now-a-days contain 200000 ppU. Thus, the (Canadian) McArthur River mine is bigger in energetic terms (although much smaller in financial ones) than the whole Alberta tar patch.
(How fire can be domesticated)
Gilles proves his inadequacy: “I like the “offsetting” . How does the CO2 knows it has been “offset” when it absorbs infrared ? ”
It doesn’t.
But a CO2 molecule doesn’t absorb IR if it’s in a tree.
Septic Matthew says: “In their self-promotional speeches and writings IPCC claim that their reliance on only peer-reviewed literature is one of their strengths; this claim was repeated by global warming advocates in testimony to the EPA and Congress.”
And the climate science section is based 100% on peer-reviewed literature. However, when discussing consequences, you are now entering the realm of engineering and other risk mitigation disciplines. Here, there are not that many peer-reviewed journals–and what really matters is producing a bounding estimate of damage so that resources can be allocated effectively to maximize mitigation. The bound can be refined as more data are gathered.
Don’t confuse different topics–the science behind the case for anthropogenic causation is rock solid. Understanding the consequences remains a work in progress.
Gilles “and can you give me the price he pays for “offsetting” its carbon? it would indicate the cost he estimates for the damage produced by CO2. Interesting parameter.”
So you’re admitting you lost that bet?
So how lucky do you think your bet on AGW not being a huge problem is going to go?
PS Have a look at the various plans out there for using the market to mitigate AGW and internalise the costs of cleanup.
They are likely taken from more than just one guy’s strategies.
“So you think all the problems of the world can be solved by solar panels and cell phones ?”
Who said they’d solve all our problems? Want some more straw to pack in there, kid?
Here’s one problem both those solved:
1) Solar power now used to run a satellite link to a school in Eritrea. That link is used to download books that are then copied on to an OLPC machine that runs off solar power or wind-up power. Rather than having a limited set of books for the class and all out of date, they have the latest texts and have the texts to themselves. Having solar power, the children can go home and see in the dark and work on their education.
And education helps the country get out of the poverty trap.
Solar power.
2) Farmers are able to text each other about prices for foodstuffs at market without having to travel all the way to that one market to sell goods. The market is more efficient, so not only are the farmers getting more money for their goods, they are getting to the places that need them most.
Cell phones.
Tell me how a coal fired power station and a $40M IMF lo an would have helped there.
PS Gilles: “just for kidding : try to build solar panels without anything made with fossils.”
Why? Why not instead use the fossil fuels we have NOW to produce them, then when we have enough solar panels to produce 30% of our needs, we have 30% of the power for solar panes coming from solar panels. If we increase it to 60%, then 60% is coming from solar panels. Then 90%. Then we don’t need fossil fuels any more.
This requires that we PLAN AHEAD, rather than wait until we see the whites of its eyes before checking to see if we remembered to pack the elephant gun.
Ray Ladbury says: 2 February 2010 at 5:03 PM
“As astounding as AxelD’s posts are, they do beg the question: How do we persuade people who will flat out say that evidence is irrelevant.”
You find and focus on communicating the biggest, fattest, most bulky and immovable pieces of evidence you can. If those are unfriendly to being communicated directly, you analogize them, truthfully, proportionally.
By so doing you will strip away all but the quasi-religious percentage referred to by Jack Kelly, whom you will never reach unless the Bible or “Atlas Shrugged” refers to 3.5 degrees per doubling.
If the instrumentation or other data source is not present to do that and you cannot present an airtight historical substitute for actual data, bad news, you’re going to be relying on a plethora of lesser proxies producing an indistinct, noisy signal subject to myriad misinterpretations both benign and malign.
Parrot time, skrawwwk: The obvious candidate here is total heat content of the ocean-atmosphere system but unfortunately the instrumentation for producing a hermetic data-driven real signal seems to be lacking; the big number is in the ocean but it’s apparently not measured adequately. Bummer. Too much money spent on cosmetics, geosynchronous “American Idol” repeaters, Hummers, political television commercials, more powerful laptops to keep up with bloatware business models, rarely used power tools, anti-science public relations drives, etc. Plenty of money, not enough curiosity.
Obviously I’m not an expert but I sure can’t find a really good measure of ocean heat content.
Completely Fed Up says: 2 February 2010 at 5:42 PM
“You can’t win. Trying to win pollster results by countering the denialist puffery would require playing the same game.”
No, not necessarily. Although he’s a PR person himself, James Hoggan in his recent book “Climate Cover-Up” explains how PR can be conducted fair and square, leaving a public that not only is more inclined to do what you want them to do but is actually better informed as a result. What he writes mostly comports with formal research into risk communication. Definitely worth a look.
Helps to remember, people like us hanging out here are really pretty odd, to say the least. We share that in common with the denizens of WUWT, etc. Conveying important messages about climate change to more “normal” people requires a way of telling the story simply and in terms that relate to “normal” lives, it really does. We can’t let liars monopolize that observation. For liars, it’s so easy: “What’s the temperature right now, where you are?” For us, not so easy but still doable.
James Hoggan rather requires that the other person have at least some connection with honesty.
Look at how the Dems are being castrated in the polls by the Reps.
Because the Democrats see themselves as the good guys and dirty tricks isn’t what the good guys do.
The Republicans see the democrats as the enemy, and anything you do to the enemy is OK in a “ends justifies the means” way.
The ***scientists*** shouldn’t be trying to play the ball the denialists are.
Trying to “fix” the IPCC won’t work because you’re doing what those who consider the IPCC the enemy want. But that won’t stop them considering the IPCC no longer the enemy. They’ll see that as vindication that their process works.
DO NOT PLAY.
It’s the only way to win.
I can play because I’m not a scientist and my job will continue if I get hounded because it doesn’t have anything to do with climate. Phil Jones is being vilified because he can be seen to sort of do some of the milder things that the denialists do trenchantly. But his job is one with the enemy, so there will be no mercy. Even if nothing is found, no mercy. Because he’s still working for the Enemy at the CRU.
I don’t have that problem.
Partly because my job has nothing to do with climate and partly because since I’m no climatoligist, my professional future doesn’t require me to state who I am and I can remain anonymous.
The result of this is that James’ work is fine.
But if it doesn’t work, so what? He tried his best. That someone else flung dirt around until people couldn’t see a thing isn’t his fault, it’s someone else’s actions, not his.
His work works, fine.
If it doesn’t? So what?
Doug Bostrom (1165) — You are aware of
Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems
S. Levitus et al.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GL037155.shtml
1145 Doug Bostrom: ” Don Shor says: 2 February 2010 at 12:49 PMHey, Don, I see the -newspaper- said that, but do you have the quote where an actual UN person said the same thing?”
No! BPL has cited this statistic a couple of times, as with the text below. I have googled the organization, the executive secretary’s name, and various other things. I have found several places where this exact AFP article has been cited. But I can not find anything that supports the “70% by 2025.”
BPL said (1104)
“2. In 1970, 12% of the world’s land surface was in drought. By 2002 that figure was 30%. Some UN bodies estimate 70% by 2025. …
UN warns of 70 percent desertification by 2025 Published by Jim on Monday, October 5, 2009 at 4:15 PM
BUENOS AIRES (AFP) — Drought could parch close to 70 percent of the planet’s soil by 2025 unless countries implement policies to slow desertification, a senior United Nations official has warned. “If we cannot find a solution to this problem… in 2025, close to 70 percent could be affected,” Luc Gnacadja, executive secretary of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, said Friday.
Drought currently affects at least 41 percent of the planet and environmental degradation has caused it to spike by 15 to 25 percent since 1990, according to a global climate report. “There will not be global security without food security” in dry regions, Gnacadja said at the start of the ninth UN conference on the convention in the Argentine capital.”
Having discovered how easily journalists may be led around with exciting FOIA narratives, the
AmericanCompetitive Enterprise Institute (that’s right, they’re so -enterprising- but on the other hand their fundamental lack of faith in their country leaves me wondering about the “American” part) are launching salvos of requests hither and thither.http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/climate-information-wants-to-be-free/?hp
A win-win for CEI, no matter what happens. Later these bozos can complain about wasted taxpayer dollars. If you’re wondering what I mean, look at the FOIA request from CEI:
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B88iFXWgVKt-Y2VjMTdlNTQtMmJjNy00ZjhkLTkyYTItMzA1Yzc2OTZkYmFi&hl=en
I just wish in the interest of fairness we could view exactly how CEI and friends may worked together to salt the ground with advance prep work, making sure to double the time and money wasted.
In a few months they’ll have pushed this button until it’s broken off or jammed, then what? Something uglier and more stupid, no doubt. They’ve a lot of money to throw at this, more incentive.
And who’s the first to complain about politicizing science?
My sympathies.
Gosh, this is hard work. I’ve obviously completely underestimated how insulated from the real world the ivory-towered scientist can be …
Ray Ladbury asks rhetorically: “How do we persuade people who will flat out say that evidence is irrelevant?” Wrong question. What you should now be asking yourselves is: “How do we persuade people who’ve heard more than a decade of “evidence” that it is actually relevant?” Because that’s where we are today – people have heard what you have to say, over and over again, and decided that it’s not actually relevant. For reasons which make perfect sense to them.
And it’s not right-wing swivel-eyed columnists that they’re hearing now – it’s serious opinion-forming journalists in respectable newspapers. And the Guardian.
One last try, with the narrative (UK biased) stripped to the bare essentials:
1. The public and press have been exposed to evidence (mainly apocalyptic scare stories) for more than a decade. Apocalypse is now apparently receding.
2. For many reasons (too well known to rehearse again here) the media have now decided that the whole AGW story is a busted flush, it becomes fair game, and most of the public consequently lose what little interest they had left.
3. Politicians, acutely aware of what will and won’t wash with the public (with the exception of the odd Middle East war), back quietly away from the issue. It drops to the bottom of the agenda.
That’s the problem, and it’s not the fault of the messenger. The solution? There’s a lot of talk here of presenting the “evidence”, as though that will sway a public that is almost completely science-illiterate. What sort of new evidence do you want to try after all these years? As I’ve said before, you have to regain the public’s and media’s trust in climate science, which has evaporated. You may not like my solution (previous posts), but it’s far more likely to achieve results than yet more of the same old “evidence”. Puhleeeze!
Re:1142
David B. Benson says:
2 February 2010 at 3:19 PM
“Tim Jones (1127) — WMP? Chops? Anyway, here are some links which may help.”
WMP? egad! a typo! my bad. The acronym should have been MWP for Medieval Warm Period.
“Chops” = technical skill, meaning in this sense knowing how to access arcane scientific knowledge unlikely to be obtained by mere mortals such as myself.
Specifically, I’m looking for climatic conditions leading up to the MWP, and, similarities or dissimilarities yielding drought conditions in North America.
This graph is illustrative:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol306/issue5698/images/large/306_1015_F2.jpeg
The MWP in Europe also occurred between the years 900 and 1400.
The scenario is this:
Person A says: “We are about to enter a period of unending exceptional drought unless we curtail GHG emissions enough to seriously slow down global warming.
Person B says “A drought of this nature is part of natural variability. Prolonged droughts, enough to starve out the Anasazi Indian civilization in the American Southwest occurred during the MWP. Why should we go to the trouble of trying to forestall something when we can’t do anything about it anyway?
Person A replies, Partly true, but conditions leading up to the MWP droughts were X, Y, & Z. Conditions leading up to
the current American droughts are A, B, & C. A, B, can be mitigated if we curtail CO2 and other GHG emissions.
We have to make it clear that bad things can be kept from happening, that dangerous global warming isn’t inevitable,
that just because natural variability has yielded similar conditions in the past, in this case there is something we can do about it.
To me, having the idea based on sound science is critical. Thus we need to know what happened then so we know what we can change now, as well as what we can’t.
Thanks for the links.
I’m willing to purchase subscriptions to well recommended climate publications to help resolve this. These droughts are happening on my land. It looked pretty grim last summer.
I have to think that campaigns such as CEI is mounting will have a direct impact on the prospects for GISS to successfully hire recruits, as well as a negative impact on retention prospects.
If you look at this latest FOIA request– which is a meta-request in that it is mostly about previous FOIA requests plus some other arguable legal harassment– and contemplate the impact it will have on what is the typically overcrowded schedule of a practicing scientist, the takeaway message is “get out of Dodge.” Loud and clear. Most scientist are not interested in this sort of drama, as opposed to hired legal sharks; ransacking old email does not promote scientific inquiry.
About the only thing of real significance I learned from the EAU thing was that researchers have been bombarded with FOIA requests and it is seriously distracting and demoralizing. If other scientists see the risk that CEI and others will create for them if they should do the “wrong” kind of of science, many will find other avenues for pursuing their muse.
This is yet another case of projection, where those who accuse mainstream scientists of “suppression” have found a nifty way to perform suppression of inconvenient research themselves.
Scorched earth. Burn the academy, who cares, we’ve got fuel to sell.
Disgusting, really Shame has a price, the people paying for FOIA legal work and all the rest are willing to take on shame if they can see a profit in trade for their integrity.
AxelD,
You claim to have heard a decades worth of evidence. So how is it then that you remain utterly ignorant of the science? But then, you have told us that evidence is irrelevant to you, so I suppose it is not surprising you are incapable of learning.
I can only hope for the sake of humanity that you represent only a tiny, pathological minority among our species.
Tim Jones (1172) — Aha. I suggest beginning by reading Brain Sumner’s “The Long Summer” and his more recent book just on MWP. You’ll find that enlightening from the archaeological perspective. As for causes of droughts around that time, I suggest you also read climatologist W.F. Ruddiman’s popular “Plows, Plagues and Petroluem”. He continues to defend, abley, his hypothesis of early anthropogenic causation in his papers available on his web site, quite accessible to amateurs such as I am.
But it becomes much more difficult, at least for me, to continue to pinpoint causes. For example, there was quite a change in ENSO about 1200 years ago and then changes subsequently.
Variability of El Niño/Southern Oscillation activity at millennial timescales during the Holocene epoch
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v420/n6912/full/nature01194.html
So you might do better just to observe that expanding Hadley cells, push the arid zones further north in the northern hemisphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_cell
Or even just refer to “studies” such as
What Would Failure to Combat Climate Change Quickly Mean?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-policy-analysis-goals-long-mid-term
Otherwise you may find you are simply studying more and more details, without an integrative focus. I find that a distinct hazard in attempting to understand a little bit about climate.
> 1145, 1169
The reference is to a press interview with Luc Gnacadja, executive secretary,
at the 9th UN Conference on the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, held in Argentina. Some searching might find a transcript.
ASIAONE.com / NEWS / ASIAONE NEWS / WORLD / STORY
UN warns of 70% drought by 2025
Mon, Oct 05, 2009
Excerpt:
If we cannot find a solution to this problem… in 2025, close to 70 percent could be affected,” Luc Gnacadja, executive secretary of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, said Friday…. at the start of the ninth UN conference on the convention in the Argentine capital.
UNCCD — science page here: http://www.unccd.int/science/menu.php
That seems to have a lot of the drought information from that conference, from which the interview occurred.
From the UNCCD main home page, some of the English-language pages I looked for came up blank; German, Spanish and French pages were there. I emailed their press link, the only contact I could find that might be relevant.
I find it strange that when the IPCC dramatically underestimated key impacts such as sea level rise and Arctic ice melt (see the Copenhagen Diagnosis), virtually none of the mainstream media outlets covered it……but a mistake in one sentence of one of three parts of the fourth edition of a report hundreds of pages long, and every major newspaper in the world covers it.
I am not a climate scientist, but rather an environmental scientist. I am quite certain my assertions are not unique. But as I read through many of these posts, it seems hauntingly familiar. “The evidence is sketchy at best! The vast majority of the public does not believe in Global Warming!”
I have seen similar arguments put forth about the Theory of Evolution. “It has no strength because it is not a law,” or “creation design should be taught alongside evolution.” And even, “we should re-open the debate, because this one study disproves many evolutionary arguments.” I wonder when I read these arguments, have the folks making them actually taken the time to read the research papers, or do they simply get all their talking points from equally scientifically-illiterate media personalities.
I will not stop teaching about evolution, because to do so would put the teachers I teach at a distinct disadvantage. Similarly, ignoring the evidence about AGW would seem to put us at a distinct disadvantage – one where today’s tough economic times would comparatively be kids play to what we may face.
In both cases, the evidence is overwhelming, at least in the several dozen papers I have read. Both arguments also make me gravely concerned because of the complete utter lack of scientific literacy in this country. It scares the crap out of me what my six-year-old might face. Not only because of a complete ignoring of the evidence, but because a world that ignores overwhelming science has a very frightening future. So am I completely off-base, or do you two see the similarities in arguments of “there is no AGW” and “evolution is not sound science?”
When was the last expansion of the Himalayan glaciers that are now melting? Do we know?
[Response: Very good question. Not certain of the answer for that particular mountain range, but in other parts of the world the stuff being unearthed from retreating glaciers is (depending on regions) 1000, 3000, or 5000 yrs old. Indeed, if you include the Larsen B iceshelf, the last time that didn’t exist was something like 10,000 years ago. – gavin]
1177 Re: UNCCD
Thanks Hank,
I do find frequent references on that site that “70 percent of the world’s drylands used for agriculture are already degraded.”
I’m sure that can be attributed to overgrazing and other land management issues, and that warming temperatures could exacerbate existing and future degradation. Some statistics take on a life of their own, so I’m curious how the year 2025 came into this. Meanwhile, there is much of interest to read at that site.
Steve, my take on it (just an ordinary reader, not a scientist) is that first off, most people who can’t believe in evolution also won’t be able to take climate change seriously. After all it relies on paleo studies! So that’s half the US right there. I think though a closer analogy is the other areas where science threatens business interests directly. Asbestos; lead; hormone mimics; tobacco. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/tobacco-and-oil-pay-for-climate-conference-790474.html
> 1145, 1169, 1176
Can’t find it again now, but I recently saw mention of that desertification figure as something like this: of the 40% of the world now in drought conditions, 70% faces risk of desertification – meaning ~28% of the planet rather than the 70% of the planet it morphed into via “media sound bites”
#1179 @ Steve Eshbaugh
I think the USA is unique in the creation vs evolution issue, but in my part of the world there are quite a number of people who seem to have a very strong belief that AGW is a hoax.
I don’t think it’s a large number who think that way down in Australia, going by recent polls on the matter. But there is a very vocal minority who seem to have adopted an anti-AGW stance as if it’s a religion or a cause to go to war over. Some otherwise apparently docile people get extremely upset or disturbed by the notion – they could all be a bit disturbed of course, I really don’t know. I guess the sort of future some are envisaging is enough to make some people go out of their mind or at least get totally stressed out. So rather than face their fears they deny them and become (verbally) violent with anyone who talks about the matter.
Hi Gavin:
Nothing more recent? Do we know whether the LIA affected the Himalayan glaciers?
Re post 1183:
Here is something I don’t understand: if we accept that warming will lead to increased evaporation, where will the resultant precipitation fall to make it possible for an additional 28% of the landmass to become desert? Over the oceans? On the poles? We would have to assume that it is going to rain somewhere, no? And if there is more of it, doesn’t seem strange that we would see increased desertification?
[Response: 1 Picture= 1 Mword – gavin]
IPCC flooded by criticism
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100202/full/463596a.html
Nature
February 2010 doi:10.1038/463596a
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has always been a target for climate-change sceptics. In recent weeks, however, criticism has mounted and the panel admitted to a glaring error in its last comprehensive report, released in 2007, which says that Himalayan glaciers are likely to melt completely by 2035 (see Nature 463, 276–277; 2010). On top of that, its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, is under pressure to resign because the institute he directs, the Energy and Resources Institute in New Delhi, has ties with companies that could benefit from climate policies.
[…]
Didactylos says:
“The problem with you producing huge numbers and pretending they mean something is that they have no context. You say “one million square kilometers of solar panels every 20 years”, and I raise you “8 gigatonnes of coal mined every year“.
Big numbers, no context. If you want to talk meaningfully, provide numbers in per capita terms.
It’s funny how few people are prepared to discuss provision of clean energy through a mix of sources. We don’t need that impossibly large amount of solar power. We have wind, nuclear, hydro, geothermal, wave…..
And we need them all.”
Since you want numbers within context, you can dig out the total energy consumption, how it is distributed by source, then multiply that by a factor of 6-7 to get the energy consumption 50 years from now after the projected growth of population and affluence has happened, then think about whether it is realistic to expect that amount of energy to be harvested from renewables, given the amount of time and raw materials required to build infrastructure of that scale.
Don’t get me wrong, I am all of renewables, and technology development, but in the same time techno-cornucopianism of the kind that acknowledges that there is a problem but assumes that we’re going to solve it with a little bit of technology is often just as bad as denialism, because both are completely detached from reality. We have no other choice than switching to renewables, because we are running out of fossil fuels anyway, but switching to renewables will mean end of growth and living within limits; there is only as much sunlight reaching us and it is spread very thin over the surface of the planet. However, since we refuse to accept that there are limits, I don’t see us making the transition
“Gilles “and can you give me the price he pays for “offsetting” its carbon? it would indicate the cost he estimates for the damage produced by CO2. Interesting parameter.”
So you’re admitting you lost that bet?
”
Of course not. I said produced, I don’t care about offsetting. Offsetting is a hoax. You don’t know what the French state makes with my money – you don’t know either. And if it were possible to “offset” the whole consumption of carbon in the world, then it wouldn’t be necessary to reduce it. Be consistent, please.
“PS Have a look at the various plans out there for using the market to mitigate AGW and internalise the costs of cleanup.
They are likely taken from more than just one guy’s strategies.”
Have a look on their efficiency. What has been effective to reduce global CO2 emission – apart from recession ?
“PS Gilles: “just for kidding : try to build solar panels without anything made with fossils.”
Why? Why not instead use the fossil fuels we have NOW to produce them, then when we have enough solar panels to produce 30% of our needs, we have 30% of the power for solar panes coming from solar panels. If we increase it to 60%, then 60% is coming from solar panels. Then 90%. Then we don’t need fossil fuels any more.
”
Fed Up , solar panel produce only electrical power, so it should be very easy to produce them already only with electrical power. The source of power is immaterial. So ask a metallurgist if he can reduce iron ore or silicium without fossils. Will probably laugh. And then have a look at what a solar panel factory looks like, and try to build it without fossils.
http://www.solarpanelsplus.com/images/SPP-factory.png
Don:
“I’m sure that can be attributed to overgrazing and other land management issues, and that warming temperatures could exacerbate existing and future degradation”
Why are you sure?
And if they don’t overgraze, they starve today and if exacerbating the problem happens, then that must mean the grazing they can get away with before starving has reduced, so I fail to see how this makes AGW not a cause of starvation.
But please show some working about why you’re sure of that attribution. Maybe you can point to the goat that was eating too much…?
Hank :”I think though a closer analogy is the other areas where science threatens business interests directly. Asbestos; lead; hormone mimics; tobacco.”
Hank,the comparison is totally misleading. None of these things is really necessary to the standard of living, and it is only a question a small cost to replace them. It is disingenuous to say that this is the same with fossils. There is absolutely no evidence that we can suppress them entirely without affecting strongly the way we are living – just hypes.
[Response: ??? But you are confusing energy with fossil energy, and since you live in France and have frequently noted how much nuclear energy is produced there, your point makes no sense. People can have a good standard of living while using much less fossil fuel – so the issue is only one of how quickly can this be achieved on a wider basis. And note too that ‘suppress them entirely’ is unnecessary – the target is a 60-70% reduction in emissions (not even use). Statements to the contrary are ‘just hypes’. – gavin]
“And it’s not right-wing swivel-eyed columnists that they’re hearing now – it’s serious opinion-forming journalists in respectable newspapers. And the Guardian.”
AxelD, so what makes them serious opinion-forming journalists? Because they’re in respectable newspapers?
Economist is a respectable newspaper, but they sell to the free market believers, so a message of “your money is going to go down because there may be global warming” is not going to sell. Unless it’s a scare story followed by a piece about how this is an unfounded and mendacious lie cause by hippy-hate of the “professionals”.
PS Glenn Beck has moved to CBS IIRC. Does this mean he’s now respectable, or has some other paper taken on this moron yet left the moron within?
Oh, Ray, are you only capable of understanding what’s written in a scientific paper? Can you not understand what’s relevant in a political and social context, and adapt your approach to that? You insist on returning every argument to your understanding of what the science is, and claim that I’m “utterly ignorant of the science” when I try to show how you’re missng a vital part of the campaign. Are you incapable of seeing a bigger picture?
For your information I have a degree in physics from a university you’ll undoubtedly recognize, and I’ve even done some computer modelling, though obviously not in climate science. So I feel qualified to make my own risk assessments. And, like many much more qualified than I am – and than most of you are too – I’ve decided that the case is certainly not proven for AGW and, in fact, is rather unlikely.
[Response: But what do you base that on? And given that it is diametrically opposed to every assessment that’s been done by any of the relevant societies, bodies or National Academies, aren’t you in the least bit concerned you may be wrong? You are in fact, wrong. – gavin]
But it seems impossible to help you see the bigger picture. All I can do is quote your own words back at you: “I can only hope for the sake of humanity that you represent only a tiny minority among our climate scientists.”
Completely Fed Up 1167 wrote:
(loving the War Games reference: “the only way to Win is not to play”)
Ah, OK – I think that perhaps we’re in agreement. I totally agree that the research scientists shouldn’t be tasked with communicating the science to the general population (for a variety of reasons). I agree that it needs come from individuals who aren’t connected with climate science and, ideally, have no financial involvement in any renewable energy projects or any other “conflicts” of interest.
(Although now would be a good time to repeat that Real Climate is absolutely vital for communicating the science to – um – the science communicators.)
And just to emphasise again: I’m absolutely not suggesting that anyone should play dirty tactics or use slimy PR techniques to distract / mislead. What I’m saying is that the public are getting only one side of the story at the moment. And I think AxeID does provide some valid insight when he says that the public have been exposed to a decade of frightening headlines and now it’s those headlines which are being ripped apart. For those of us who have been exposure to the big picture of climate science, it’s clear that the current media froth is pretty inconsequential to the central arguments of AGW. But the public don’t know that because they’ve only been exposed to prior headlines without gaining a full-bodied picture of AGW. In other words: the public are living in a world made of straw (as far as AGW goes) so it’s all too easy for the media to put a match to that straw. The key task now is to try to communicate the “big picture” and the robustness of the evidence behind the big picture.
OK, let me try to sketch out how a 1hour TV documentary might go. Perhaps it would be broken down into three sections: 1) Has the world warmed since the industrial revolution? 2) What are the most likely causes for that warming? 3) What projections can we make about the future?
An absolutely crucial notion to express is that climate science is not a “house of cards” or “flimsy science”. Every important aspect of AGW is supported by multiple, independent lines of evidence and some of that evidence has been collected over a hundred years ago. For example: even IF we ignored the temperature records based on the land surface measurements (HadCRUT3, GISTEMP) then we can still be extremely confident that the planet has warmed significantly (satellite temperature measurements, ocean thermal expansion, melting of the cryosphere, changing animal migration patterns, changing patters of plant blooming, etc etc). Likewise, even if you were able to completely destroy paleoclimate reconstructions based on tree rings, that wouldn’t “break” the whole of AGW.
A different, slightly more dangerous idea for a TV program would be to travel around with James Delingpole as he interviews climate scientists!
ref 116 Ray Ladbury
In one of your responses to another “commenter” you made a statement along the lines of “public opinion is irrelevant when it is contradicted by the evidence”.
I think this statement highlights your astonishing naivety.
You are clearly very clever, very learned, passionate and concerned – and totally devoid of any worldliness!
The IPCC has had a 10 year free run at the public. The press, governments and the public were on board. Then, the IPCC associated itself with the likes of Al Gore and moved from science to “spin” and from being an independent panel to becoming a campaigning organisation. Apocalyptic headlines followed, every ill in the world was put down to AGW and we end up with a build up to Copenhagen with slogans like “we have 20, 19, 18 days to save the world.
The IPCC never publicly disassociated itself from the apocalyptic headlines or try to temper them. Issues such as the Himalayan Glaciers claim get into the report as a result of “shoddy procedures”. People then start looking for other issues and we find (to my discomfort) that there are lots of references to non-peer-reviewed reports produced by WWF and Greenpeace – written by people that have no scientific credibility.
This is not what the public were led to believe. They were told that everything was peer reviewed and everything was agreed by 2500 scientists. Now, as is plain to see, the IPCC is “on the back foot”. They are now saying one “mistake” doesn’t mean that everything else is suspect.
The press, tv and radio news are full of it (here in the UK). The names of Peter Jones, Michael Mann, Pachauri, Lord Monckton, Steve McIntyre etc are increasingly becoming more known to the general public. The problem is PJ, MM and Pachauri’s public images are portrayed as “suspect” whereas the likes of Monckton and McIntyre are increasingly portrayed as the Davids fighting the Goliaths.
Couple all this with a basic human desire to believe that everything is going to be OK and the general public, logically and intelligently, start to put the IPCC in the same bag as politicians i.e. not necessarily to be trusted.
The IPCC chose to go with “the science is settled” line and portrayed dissenters as “denialists” and “flat-earthers”. No debate was allowed, no open discussions where all parties argue their case politely, rationally (in their view) in public. You, and the IPCC use the term “denialist” with venom and contempt. You deliver it, and mean it, as an insult. If people don’t agree with you – then they are idiots and you are happy to tell them as much.
You have had a go at me – not because I am a “denialist” – but because I haven’t towed the party line above. I have dared to suggest that have been screw-ups and that these screw-ups are responsible for the negative national news headlines.
The solution is going to be long and painful I’m afraid. I fear the situation will get worse before it can get better. The British government has appointed a committee to investigate many of the matters that are currently in the headlines. The historic global temperature graphs will be central to these investigations and will include “evidence” from all parties with respect to the Hockey stick, proxies and weather station sitings, UHI, etc.
On Channel 4 news last night (a serious national news broadcaster in the UK) they spent 5 minutes on the Chinese weather station data and UHI in the context of Peter Jones. They made the point that there is now “much debate” with respect to the contribution of UHI on weather stations – they didn’t say “the science is settled”. They also made the point that much of the data relevant to these stations is “no longer available”.
This will continue and McIntyre, Watts, et al will doubtless get their chance to say their piece on these issues. Whatever you think McIntyre is – he certainly isn’t an idiot. He doesn’t have horns and a forked tail. He doesn’t want his grandchildren to fry just so he can tweak your tail for a bit of fun. He is a highly intelligent individual that will, using his understanding of statistics, ask questions about methods and assumptions employed in the production of the charts that are currently the “settled science”.
The CRU and UEA will be included and, doubtless the context of some of the leaked/hacked emails will also be investigated.
It is my view, that only when all of this process has been completed, will the IPCC then be able to regain ground here in the UK.
Now, based upon your previous comments, all of this will send you into apoplexy.
You will rail at the unfairness and injustice of it all. You will disrespect me for my views and you will carry on just as you are complaining that the whole world is out of step – except you.
Jack: “I agree that it needs come from individuals who aren’t connected with climate science and, ideally, have no financial involvement in any renewable energy projects or any other “conflicts” of interest.”
That isn’t possible. If they have investments, then they are either in renewables (“conflict of interest!!!11one!one!1”) or not (“Put your money where your mouth is!”/”See, even they don’t believe it!!!”).
Again, you aren’t going to win by letting the denialists decide who is going to be your spokesman.
It’s playing their game and they have no shame, so they’ll win that.
It’s also false to say that such connections are damaging to spokesmen: Plimers’ three FF directorships haven’t affected his stature in the media where you want the IPCC to play. Nor McIntyre’s several jobs in FF industry as consultant. Or Monckton’s pay packet from the NIPCC to preach to the converted around the world.
Gilles:”Fed Up , solar panel produce only electrical power”
So this is different from a coal fired power station HOW? In that it produces CO2?
What process demands CO2 production?
“So ask a metallurgist if he can reduce iron ore or silicium without fossils.”
The Queen of England has a present in her collection of a ring made of Aluminium. Cheap, yeah? No, not at the time, at that time refining Aluminium was EXPENSIVE. That ring was more costly than platinum.
But guess what? Scientists, engineers and other smart people didn’t go “well, it’s too expensive to make aluminium things, so let’s stick with steel cans”.
But you have them unable to break away from fossil fuels.
Why do you consider the current crop of scientists and engineers so braindead stupid all of a sudden?
Gilles: “”So you’re admitting you lost that bet?
”
Of course not. I said produced, I don’t care about offsetting.”
Why not? Your exhalations are not a global warming problem because the CO2 you exhale is offset by the stored carbon in the carbohydrates you eat.
[edit – politeness]
“1185
SFTor says:
3 February 2010 at 12:04 AM
Hi Gavin:
Nothing more recent? Do we know whether the LIA affected the Himalayan glaciers?”
Well, it’s BOUND to have affected them, since temperatures affect glaciers. Then again, what are you hoping to learn by any response to that? The one I just gave is right, but worthless.
Be more specific.