UN climate body admits 'mistake' on Himalayan glaciers

[demoleft]

Source: bbc

The vice-chairman of the UN's climate science panel admits that it made a mistake in asserting that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) included the date in its 2007 assessment of climate impacts.

A number of scientists have recently disputed the 2035 figure, and Jean-Pascal van Ypersele told BBC News that it was an error and would be reviewed.

But he said it did not change the broad picture of man-made climate change.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8468358.stm

---

ooops.

[tabatha]

1. Uncovering and admitting an error

is to be recommended.

[marshall]

48. They've been doing a lot to be recommended for lately

Everyday it's something new.

[ixion]

2. yes, and while we quibble over dates

we continue further on past the point of no return. :(

[PeanutsarePoison]

7. the more this kind of stuff comes to light

the more I start to question the people telling us about points of no return

[ixion]

11. 6 billion+ organisms pumping crap into the ecosystem...

yeah, keep questioning that point, eventually we reach it.

That is my point, as it were.

[PeanutsarePoison]

12. the actual number of organisms is much higher than 6 billion

and always has been

[ixion]

15. always pumping as much garbage as we pump now?

No, sir, I think not. Not a chance.

[PeanutsarePoison]

16. We don't pump enough garbage into the atmosphere as a single large volcano

volcanic eruptions can actually affect the global temperature by a full degree in the same year in which they occur. meanwhile, we're supposed to be frightened at the prospect of man EVENTUALLY raising the earth's temperature at some point?

When we can predict the temperature next week, I'll worry about predictions next decade

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. Define 'garbage'

I presume you're not talking about CO2, because:

INFLUENCE ON THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT:

Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. T.M.Gerlach (1991, American Geophysical Union) notes that human-made CO2 exceeds the estimated global release of CO2 from volcanoes by at least 150 times. The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect). Greenhouse warming of the earth has been particularly evident since 1980. Without the cooling influence of such eruptions as El Chichon (1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991), described below, greenhouse warming would have been more pronounced.

INFLUENCE ON THE HAZE EFFECT:

Volcanic eruptions enhance the haze effect to a greater extent than the greenhouse effect, and thus they can lower mean global temperatures. It was thought for many years that the greatest volcanic contribution of the haze effect was from the suspended ash particles in the upper atmosphere that would block out solar radiation. However, these ideas changed in the 1982 after the eruption of the Mexican volcano, El Chichon. Although the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens lowered global temperatures by 0.1OC, the much smaller eruption of El Chichon lowered global temperatures three to five times as much. Although the Mt. St. Helens blast emitted a greater amount of ash in the stratosphere, the El Chichon eruption emitted a much greater volume of sulfur-rich gases (40x more). It appears that the volume of pyroclastic debris emitted during a blast is not the best criteria to measure its effects on the atmosphere. The amount of sulfur-rich gases appears to be more important. Sulfur combines with water vapor in the stratosphere to form dense clouds of tiny sulfuric acid droplets. These droplets take several years to settle out and they are capable to decreasing the troposphere temperatures because they absorb solar radiation and scatter it back to space.

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html

Um, yeah, we are already affecting the global tempertature. Upwards. The effects of coolling by volcanoes are temporary, and they've always been happening.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rasputin1952]

24. You fail to understand the most basic concept...

if a volcano puts 50 million tons of say CO2 into the atmosphere, and we put 20 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, all we have done is add to the 50 mil tons and made it 70 million tons in the atmosphere. Multiply this by say 50, and we have added a billion tons to an already saturated atmosphere...it is called exponential and the "deniers" of climate change ignore it all the time.

When one adds the volatile compounds that mankind spews into the atmosphere, (and many can be controlled, but the "cost" is prohibitive), we have done severe damage to a planet that had evolved to accept certain levels,. When those levels are exceeded, catastrophe is the result. The earth cannot evolve fast enough to cope with all that is going on. If things get much warmer, and the cold water from the poles rolls into the Gulf Stream and the vast "conveyor" system of current that exists now, the entire climate will change to the point where even the best guesses, much less science, can't come up with a scenario of where food will grow and where desertification will exceed mankind's ability to grow food.

We are talking major global climate change...a change most will not survive.

[golfguru]

41. What caused the global warming 12,000 years ago

which melted several miles thick glaciers in mid-west and formed the
great lakes? No one has answered that question to my satisfaction.
To melt 3 mile thick glacier where Chicago now stands requires very
powerful climate warming. Was it the sun, volcanoes, cave man,...who?

[Quixote1818]

47. The earth's tilt takes us in and out of ice ages

The earth bobbles slightly like a top. We should be headed toward another ice age over a thousands of years but instead we are warming extremely quickly.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/050330_earth_tilt.html

[time_has_come]

38. Human emisions and land use change has ALREADY changed the temperature

and weather is not the same as climate.

If you can't even grasp that simple reality then you should probably avoid topics about climate change.

Your comment about volcanic eruptions further shows you need education.

[hatrack]

46. Invalid comparison - volcanic eruptions big enough to temporarily change climate don't run 24/7

We do.

[Bill McBlueState]

49. oh, right, volcanoes.

I can't believe nobody thought of those.

[Turborama]

31. Your post reminded me of this...

'Call of Life' Facing the Mass Extinction

The video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbOXUza9ZeE

I posted it here last March: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x281267

Apparently the documenatry has been completed but it's hard to find out how to get a copy: http://www.speciesalliance.org/video.php

[Turborama]

34. Found a good synposis

From http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1002965/plotsummary">IMDB

Call of Life

The first feature-length documentary film to fully investigate the growing threat to Earth's life-support systems from the loss of biodiversity. If current trends continue, scientists warn that half or more of all plant and animal species on Earth will become extinct within the next few decades. Call of Life investigates the scope, the causes, and the predicted effects of this unprecedented loss of life, but also looks deeper, at the ways in which both culture and psychology have helped to create and perpetuate the situation. The film not only tells the story of a crisis in nature, but also in human nature, a crisis more complex and threatening than anything human beings have ever faced before.

[ixion]

35. very interesting...

thanks! :hi:

I haven't seen this one yet, but I'll keep an eye out for it. Thanks for sharing. :)

[Turborama]

44. Thanks for raising the issue in the 1st place

If you manage to get a copy, please let me know how. :hi:

[Delphinus]

36. Thanks!

I'll check it out later today.

[Turborama]

43. My pleasure

I'd be interest to hear your thoughts when you get a chance to see it.

[Delphinus]

45. Just watched.

I'd love to see the entire thing.

I looked at their events but don't see that it's making the rounds. Do you know if there's a way to get it into movie houses?

[superconnected]

27. So all that oil money going into propaganda is working.

[fascisthunter]

26. it's crazy isn't it?

[TheIdiot]

3. Is anyone else as un-surprised at this as am I...?

I've said it B4, i'll say it again - we should be spending our time and $ on preparing for the inevitable instead of the absurd notion that we could ever possibly reduce let alone reverse climate change. Move people and structures away from the coasts, denying insurance to those who resist; allow nuclear desalinization; mandate xeriscape and xerogardening; impose draconian power and water conservation... and that's just a start.

[old mark]

4. Thanks - I wish I could rec your reply. The pols will play around with this

and make tons of money from the corporations and of course there will be nothing done to prepare for this. Then, it will all come as a "surprise".

Rec the OP.
Oh, yeah- welcome to DU!
mark

[HeresyLives]

5. When your starting position is 'just give up',

you won't get very far.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ixion]

13. oh yeah... those mandates will go over just swimmingly

:eyes:

Mandates are not the solution.

[time_has_come]

37. So, why conserve power if we can't reduce climate change, as you say?

You've got an either/or notion going on in your head...as in there's no time to prepare and fight.

But then, you call it an "absurd notion" that we could reduce climate change. You don't explain why it's so absurd though.

[totodeinhere]

8. That doesn't change the fact that an overwhelming majority of scientists believe that global...

warming is real and a threat. Yes, it's an inexact science, and we can't reasonably expect all data to be completely accurate all the time. But that doesn't change the grim reality that this planet is facing if we don't do something about it.

[SkyDaddy7]

9. In America today...

...With almost any issue I feel like we are running with a herd of ignorant buffalo toward a cliff...Nothing anyone says will matter as it is cool to be an ignorant fool in America today. So, off the cliff we will go and where we land no one knows. That is if we survive the fall.

[totodeinhere]

10. Get out your parachute my friend. n/t

[Javaman]

14. Oh dear, forgot to carry the one. nt

[wuushew]

17. I doubt your leftist cred

what is your goal here? I will say nothing more least I violate DU rules.

[demoleft]

20. my goal? sharing news on LBN, where DUers come to read news and comment.

are you sure you are asking me and/or are on the right thread?

i do not catch your comment.

[SsevenN]

21. He's implying that

You are a conservative spy, because you know, posting news articles that challenge a typically leftist and hot button issue is a no-no.

[demoleft]

22. i'm not even agreeing or disagreeing - just shared news. imagine the odds! n/t

[Rubble]

32. breaking false paradigms

Just because a stance is linked to either the left or the right, does not mean that either group has thinking people contained within its false boundaries cannot come to see that what is being pushed by the supposed leaders is false in and of itself. Furthermore, many times, in this case global warming, the actually outcome of what is being proposed (cap and trade, for instance-which, BTW is supported by big oil) will not only fail to do anything about the supposed problem, but will crush any development by the 3rd world, deal body-blows to the West in terms of basic income and job formation, and ultimately simply enrich the global banking system. I despise the neo-cons, but also fear that to many on the left are all too willing to participate in programmes that are simply police-state tactics. Here in Sweden, we have a unique form of communitarian social democracy, but unfortunately for the USA, and others, it is not exportable, due to a myriad of cultural layers and corruptions endemic in the governmental meta-system that has arisen in the States. I welcome all who refuse to give the corrupting influences of the Republicans AND the Democratic Party in the USA any further traction. The world needs your strength to resist.

[rayofreason]

23. What are the facts?

Earth has warmed over the past century - yes
We have pumped a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere - yes
There is an anthropogenic signal in the warming - yes, but....

And it is the "but" where things get interesting. The AGW crowd claims that the IPCC report is the bedrock of science and that demands interventions costing trillions of dollars that promise a more meager standard of living for the industrialized world and no chance for prosperity for the developing world. <sarcasm>All this would be managed by governments and the ruling elites who have done so well in managing other things, like the economy, and by international organizations that are transparent and free of corruption.</sarcasm>

Now we see that some things that were in the IPCC report are BS. Before this, Pachuri had called those who questioned the Himalaya scare to be practitioners of "voodoo science" , this the same Pachuri, head of the IPCC, railroad engineer (not climatologist!), who has such a big financial stake in all kinds of green, anti-global-warming enterprises. What other problems lie among the predictions of the IPCC?

But wait, there is more -

The Climategate emails made reference to the "travesty" of not being able to explain the current cooling trend. Sure there is the NAO, and the reverse ENSO cooling things down, but there is also a deep and unusual solar minimum. Maybe the Sun has a lot more to do with this than the AGW folks and their financial backers want to admit.

So color me skeptical, but I think the predictions of gloom and doom are a bunch of horse shit. I think that the AGW bandwagon has financially benefited many, so they play the tune louder. But beggaring the world in order to let a few skim the profits off of trading carbon credits (Gorenomics) or get the next research grant is not something I am willing support.

Want to cut the emission of greenhouse gasses? Get out of the way of industry and let the economy expand to provide the resources needed to make the transition away from fossil fuels instead of burdening it with unproductive use of resources. Build lots of nukes that will provide plenty of carbon-free power. And let the energy market develop without wrong-headed government intervention. In 25 years we will be mostly solar-powered (read Ray Kurzweil) if you just keep the idiot bureaucrats from mucking up progress.

[beardown]

25. The fact is that the admission kills two deniers claims

I'm a bit confused. The deniers are always saying that the climate scientists are all in a plot to trick the world into becoming a global communist commune and that they don't allow any dissent.

It's kind of lousy plot if the plotters come out and slam their own plot. They're not very good at suppressing dissent if one of the most visible research groups issues the dissent.

Now that they come out and say the statement was wrong the deniers are in full force and yet time and time again the deniers drag out claims to support their side that have been shown to be wrong.

"And let the energy market develop without wrong-headed government intervention."
Written as only a person who is ignorant that they have been breathing clean air and drinking clean water rescued from being poisoned by the toxins that the free market was dumping by government intervention could write. So you want to let the same guys and thinking that brought us "Enron" to be responsible for keeping the Earth from plunging into the next great extinction? You shifted from a position of ignorance to stupidity as easily as a denier jumping from one discredited anti-global warming claim to another. Bravo.

[scipan]

33. +++. n/t.

[VermeerLives]

40. Well said! (n/t)

[fascisthunter]

28. I see this being used by righties to discredit Global Warming as being "just a hoax"

real bizarre conspiracy theory... the hoax is on the deniers, them being tools for big polluters who are presently responsible for raising doubt and making this into political football when we should be doing something now to prevent the severity of global warming's repercussions. But no...

I only wish that when the time comes, those who were openly in denial of Global Warming and man's responsibility, be publicly judged for actually harming our chances of survival. This political game is no game at all, for people will pay the price for it. For those who think they won't, trust me, we all will unless you have a planet we don't know about.

[demoleft]

29. that this news would have been used to deny GW was fatal. but it's instrumental, everybody sees it.

i remember an old discussion i had some 3 years ago on the BBC "have your say" - i was even accused of using my laptop while complaining about GW and polluters.
it gives you the idea of how instrumental the deniers' positions are.

i do not talk to scientists. i talk to fishermen and farmers from down here. and their perception is that they worry about GW as a matter of fact.

[Turborama]

30. The real Himalayan scandal

What's really shocking about research into the glaciers of the Himalayas is how little there has been

Isabel Hilton
The Guardian, Wednesday 20 January 2010

After the University of East Anglia's email scandal, climate sceptics now believe they have another cause for celebration. Some British papers claimed this week that climate change "theories" are in doubt because of the retraction of an unfounded claim in an Intergovernmental Panel on ­Climate Change report from 2007.

=snip=

However, what is really worrying about the report is how little it has to say about the future of the Himalayas-Hindu Kush, a region on which nearly 40% of the world's population depends for water. There was a striking lack of useful data on the possible fate of the largest store of fresh water outside the poles – and no available fieldwork, it would appear, on glaciers that feed all the major river systems of Asia.

There is a further worrying unknown: what impact might the loss of the Himalayan glaciers have on the monsoon, on which food security in south Asia depends? When the report was under preparation, it seems that the science of this region – one of the world's most sensitive and volatile – was a black hole.

There are reasons for this lack of data. There are tens of thousands of glaciers that are difficult and expensive to get to. They are scattered across three major weather systems and countless microclimates. The countries in which they lie are not good neighbours and have little history of scientific co-operation.

Continues: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/jan/20/real-scandal-himalayas

[M155Y_A1CH]

39. Great addition to this thread

Thanks for posting the link. :hi:

[Turborama]

42. You're most welcome

Glad you found it interesting. :hi: