IPCC's Himalayan Glacier 'Mistake' No Accident

Reader Comments
Back to article

I am a skeptic. In January in southern Minnesota, I doubted "Global Warming". I did a rough global estimate of my own using a 1989 Atlas for ocean and land mass areas. Given over 70 percent of the earth's surface as water, I was close to scoffing. By March, I found myself raking leaves - a first time event for my lifetime. March is usually the time for the state basketball tournament blizzard. I'm 66. That seems unusual enough to warrant further investigation. Global warming got a further foothold when visiting colleges that my second son is considering for his major of physics. St. Olaf in Northfield had us in touch with a head of the physics department who claimed to have been on expeditions to Antarctica towing a scientific gizmo sled around getting measurements about the ice thickness and condition. He confirmed Gore's esimate of ocean rise in "An Inconvenient Truth", and upped the ante, saying that Antarctica alone would increase ocean levels by 65 meters, if memory serves. Greenland alone would account for the 20 feet suggested by the Gore DVD. Two miles of ice thickness, I'm told, on Greenland. I haven't checked the data with my Atlas yet. Either one exaggeration was topped by another or we are in for some serious problems in population relocation and seaport restructuring. Glacial melt of water supplies for India, Pakistan, and China puts three asian nations with nuclear weapons in close enough proximity to make a war for fresh water access within the realm of possibility, given the population of those areas. And, to the best of my knowledge, none of them have pledged to reduce or eliminate their nuclear arsenals. Perhaps all three are still involved in expansion of the arsenals or at minimum, force modernization projects. So, as I see it, this is a serious problem for future generations, and a sad inheritance passed on to them by people my age. I'm still skeptical, but I'm open to education on the topic. I've wondered how much melt of the Arctic ice may be caused by heat sources beneath the surface that may be threatening our collective future due to the military loss of nuclear submarines in the area. Both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. had at least one such loss. Are those reactors still functioning? Did they carry weapons with nuclear warheads? How many years does it take for the nuclear reactor to wear down if it is resting on the bottom of the ocean? Manmade melt may have many causes. I see steam rising from nuclear power plants whenever I pass them. Population increase for humans and our organic food sources creates more radient heat too.... lots to think about.

Charles T. SMit of MN 6:24PM May 12, 2010

According to this article: http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/25/un-scientist-refutes-daily-mail-claim-himalayan-glacier-2035-ipcc-mistake-not-politically-motivated/
Apparently, the scientist in question claims that he never said the things he is reported to have said. Wonder if US NEWS and WORLD REPORT will have a retraction out?

Jeremy of OK 9:01PM February 22, 2010

The very idea of fighting climate change is so absurd, I can't believe there's a debate at all. It ranks right up there with stopping plate tectonics. If you want to save the planet, try putting some of that energy and money into cleaning up the plastic island (the size of Texas) floating in the pacific. Try stopping the dumping of toxic waste. Even the carbon tax advocates admit that it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Stop letting yourself be distracted from the real problems that we can solve. WE CAN NOT STOP CLIMATE CHANGE!

Bill of CA 7:53AM February 15, 2010

UK is the main sponsor of climate change.
Another evil move from a country that brought us slavery and colonialism.
They will cripple industrialization of developing economies.
The bankers will profit by carbon taxation.

orama of AK 6:01PM February 09, 2010

I believe the IPCC has lost its credibility and it wasn't in healthy shape before this latest faux pas.

Robert R. Reynolds of AZ 2:16PM February 02, 2010

Where is the correction/update stating that Lal has vehemntly denied the quote in question and Rose's inferences (as seen at ClimateProgress and DotEarth)?

Deep Climate 4:06PM February 01, 2010

Ms Raloff states that non-peer-reviewed conclusions [could] undermine – perhaps disastrously – the credibility of IPCC and climatology generally. I think that train done left the station!

AMA_FRIEND of TX 10:38PM January 26, 2010

Sciencenews wrote a story about David Rose.
Focus on the real questions; some good pointers are found at:
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/01/ipcc_use_of_non-peer_reviewed.php
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/01/himalayan_glaciers_to_disappea.php

Hank Roberts of CA 2:52PM January 26, 2010

Janet Raloff, you wrote a good article, then make the mistake of saying "made a sport of challenging solid climate science". Janet, it isn't solid science!
First, aerosol and carbon soot pollutants are causing over 50% of the glacier melting. That is independent of CO2, and the solutions are different. That was understated by the IPCC.
Second, growing food for fuel, actually increases agriculutual irrigation of tens of millions of acres, and overall water vapor in the air. Water vapor is the biggest GWG, not CO2. This same food to fuel increases N2O emissions (298X worse than CO2) from the fertilizer.
A new study from the Weizmann Institute "found that desertification, instead of hastening global warming, as is commonly thought, has actually mitigated it."
North America has been cooler than normal for the past decade, and the oceans haven't shown the warming the IPCC projected.
In fact, the IPCC projections have been grossly overestimated in nearly every category. This demonstrates that number of required data inputs for climate science is increasing. We don't really know what is happening or will happen. And governments are making bad policy based upon very incomplete knowledge.
The Nobel Committee should demand the prize back!

Randy Dutton of WA 2:25PM January 26, 2010

Lee, this only recently happened with the very same outlet misrepresenting another scientist, who then had to spend time on damage control: http://bit.ly/84nbop
The more interesting question is when the disappearance of such glaciers (many of which used to be seasonally-replenished) will become all but inevitable, considering inertial lag and long-term amplifying effects in the climate system. But I really wish people would stop taking accusations of malfeasance seriously without digging a little deeper/doing a source check (even a multi-level one). That's supposed to be a key element of journalism.

Ryan T of OR 11:18PM January 25, 2010