IPCC admits Himalayan glacier error

IPCC admits Himalayan glacier error
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene..._glacier_error

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change acknowledged today that it
had erred in projecting the rate and impacts of retreating Himalayan
glaciers in a 2007 report.

"The faulty information appears in one paragraph of a 900-plus page
Working Group II report".

"In fact, glaciologist Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University said
this afternoon, Himalayan glaciers are thinning and retreating at a
rapid pace, but not at a demonstrably faster rate than in many other
parts of the world".

"In fact, he said, it’s hard to fully understand how the Himalayas are
responding to Earth’s warming because only about 600 of some 46,000
glaciers in that region are being monitored. Of those, 95 percent are in
retreat".

"Current rates of glacial melting do no fall within the natural range of
variation that has typically been witnessed in recorded history.
Thompson’s data show that some tropical glaciers are uncovering land
that has not been icefree in more than 5,000 years".

“Glaciers do not have any political agenda," he says. "They just sum up
what is going on in their environment — and react to that.”

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
IPCC admits Himalayan glacier error
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene..._glacier_error

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change acknowledged today that it
had erred in projecting the rate and impacts of retreating Himalayan
glaciers in a 2007 report.

"The faulty information appears in one paragraph of a 900-plus page
Working Group II report".

"In fact, glaciologist Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University said this
afternoon, Himalayan glaciers are thinning and retreating at a rapid pace,
but not at a demonstrably faster rate than in many other parts of the
world".

"In fact, he said, it’s hard to fully understand how the Himalayas are
responding to Earth’s warming because only about 600 of some 46,000
glaciers in that region are being monitored. Of those, 95 percent are in
retreat".

"Current rates of glacial melting do no fall within the natural range of
variation that has typically been witnessed in recorded history. Thompson’s
data show that some tropical glaciers are uncovering land that has not
been icefree in more than 5,000 years".

“Glaciers do not have any political agenda," he says. "They just sum up
what is going on in their environment — and react to that.”


WHERE IS THE RAW DATA ???

On 1/21/10 9:21 AM, mary wrote:
"Sam wrote in message
...
IPCC admits Himalayan glacier error
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene..._glacier_error

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change acknowledged today that it
had erred in projecting the rate and impacts of retreating Himalayan
glaciers in a 2007 report.

"The faulty information appears in one paragraph of a 900-plus page
Working Group II report".

"In fact, glaciologist Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University said this
afternoon, Himalayan glaciers are thinning and retreating at a rapid pace,
but not at a demonstrably faster rate than in many other parts of the
world".

"In fact, he said, it’s hard to fully understand how the Himalayas are
responding to Earth’s warming because only about 600 of some 46,000
glaciers in that region are being monitored. Of those, 95 percent are in
retreat".

"Current rates of glacial melting do no fall within the natural range of
variation that has typically been witnessed in recorded history. Thompson’s
data show that some tropical glaciers are uncovering land that has not
been icefree in more than 5,000 years".

“Glaciers do not have any political agenda," he says. "They just sum up
what is going on in their environment — and react to that.”


WHERE IS THE RAW DATA ???



http://www.ipcc-data.org/

On Jan 21, 9:14*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
IPCC admits Himalayan glacier errorhttp://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/55455/title/IPCC_admits_Hi...

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change acknowledged today that it
had erred in projecting the rate and impacts of retreating Himalayan
glaciers in a 2007 report.

"The faulty information appears in one paragraph of a 900-plus page
Working Group II report".

"In fact, glaciologist Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University said
this afternoon, Himalayan glaciers are thinning and retreating at a
rapid pace, but not at a demonstrably faster rate than in many other
parts of the world".

"In fact, he said, it’s hard to fully understand how the Himalayas are
responding to Earth’s warming because only about 600 of some 46,000
glaciers in that region are being monitored. Of those, 95 percent are in
retreat".

"Current rates of glacial melting do no fall within the natural range of
variation that has typically been witnessed in recorded history.
Thompson’s data show that some tropical glaciers are uncovering land
that has not been icefree in more than 5,000 years".

“Glaciers do not have any political agenda," he says. "They just sum up
what is going on in their environment — and react to that.”

"some tropical glaciers are uncovering land that has not been icefree
in more than 5,000 years"

So... 5000 years ago, what happened. Did the cavemen invent and drive
SUVs back then? Did cavemen cause CO2 levels to go up?

What a joke.

On Jan 21, 10:14*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
IPCC admits Himalayan glacier errorhttp://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/55455/title/IPCC_admits_Hi...
[snip]

Flashback to Monday 9 November 2009
"However, Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, told the
Guardian: "We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don't
know why [Jairam Ramesh, India's environment ] minister is supporting
this unsubstantiated research. [Note: the research in question states
that there is "no evidence climate change has caused "abnormal"
shrinking of Himalayan glaciers"] It is an extremely arrogant
statement.""
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...imate-glaciers

-------------------

Flash forward to 20 Jan 2010
http://www.timesnow.tv/Angry-Pachaur...ow/4336695.cms
"Pachuari has asked the newspaper to publish his letter within a week
hinting that if they do not do so, he might pursue legal action.

Soon after RK Pachauri sent out this letter, Dr Richard North - the
journalist who co-authored the article on Pachauri appeared on the
NEWSHOUR and defended his article, saying that there's absolutely no
inaccuracy in what has been said. "

--Mike Jr.

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
On 1/21/10 9:21 AM, mary wrote:
"Sam wrote in message
...
IPCC admits Himalayan glacier error
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene..._glacier_error

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change acknowledged today that it
had erred in projecting the rate and impacts of retreating Himalayan
glaciers in a 2007 report.

"The faulty information appears in one paragraph of a 900-plus page
Working Group II report".

"In fact, glaciologist Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University said
this
afternoon, Himalayan glaciers are thinning and retreating at a rapid
pace,
but not at a demonstrably faster rate than in many other parts of the
world".

"In fact, he said, it’s hard to fully understand how the Himalayas are
responding to Earth’s warming because only about 600 of some 46,000
glaciers in that region are being monitored. Of those, 95 percent are in
retreat".

"Current rates of glacial melting do no fall within the natural range of
variation that has typically been witnessed in recorded history.
Thompson’s
data show that some tropical glaciers are uncovering land that has not
been icefree in more than 5,000 years".

“Glaciers do not have any political agenda," he says. "They just sum up
what is going on in their environment — and react to that.”


WHERE IS THE RAW DATA ???



http://www.ipcc-data.org/


that has been processed, and modeled. all outputs
I need input data, what They used in their models

and just what use is it to you? You wouldn't understand it !




WHERE IS THE RAW DATA ???

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
...
IPCC admits Himalayan glacier error
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene..._glacier_error

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change acknowledged today that it
had erred in projecting the rate and impacts of retreating Himalayan
glaciers in a 2007 report.

"The faulty information appears in one paragraph of a 900-plus page
Working Group II report".

"In fact, glaciologist Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University said this
afternoon, Himalayan glaciers are thinning and retreating at a rapid pace,
but not at a demonstrably faster rate than in many other parts of the
world".

"In fact, he said, it’s hard to fully understand how the Himalayas are
responding to Earth’s warming because only about 600 of some 46,000
glaciers in that region are being monitored. Of those, 95 percent are in
retreat".

"Current rates of glacial melting do no fall within the natural range of
variation that has typically been witnessed in recorded history. Thompson’s
data show that some tropical glaciers are uncovering land that has not
been icefree in more than 5,000 years".

“Glaciers do not have any political agenda," he says. "They just sum up
what is going on in their environment — and react to that.”


errors (chuckle) riddle the whole picture...one must wonder whether these
"errors" are that or is it actually fruad....

lets look at some more "errors"

Let us look at the quality of the US temp. data and more specifically at the
ignored problems with the measurement sites ...

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...t_spring09.pdf

and

http://www.surfacestations.org/


excerpt:

"In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations - nearly 9 of every 10 -
fail to meet the National Weather Service's own siting requirements that
stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial
heating or radiating/reflecting heat source.

In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising
temperatures because they are badly sited."


here are two examples...the first from a site that does meet the guidelines
(100 years worth of data each)

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gi..._ neighbors=1

and the second from a site that does not:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gi..._ neighbors=1

now one would think that The "scientists " would recognise the problems
using such data ...but no it "confirmed" their theories so it must be
correct....

GIGO

On 1/21/10 10:26 AM, mary wrote:
"Sam wrote in message
...
On 1/21/10 9:21 AM, mary wrote:
"Sam wrote in message
...
IPCC admits Himalayan glacier error
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/gene..._glacier_error

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change acknowledged today that it
had erred in projecting the rate and impacts of retreating Himalayan
glaciers in a 2007 report.

"The faulty information appears in one paragraph of a 900-plus page
Working Group II report".

"In fact, glaciologist Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University said
this
afternoon, Himalayan glaciers are thinning and retreating at a rapid
pace,
but not at a demonstrably faster rate than in many other parts of the
world".

"In fact, he said, it’s hard to fully understand how the Himalayas are
responding to Earth’s warming because only about 600 of some 46,000
glaciers in that region are being monitored. Of those, 95 percent are in
retreat".

"Current rates of glacial melting do no fall within the natural range of
variation that has typically been witnessed in recorded history.
Thompson’s
data show that some tropical glaciers are uncovering land that has not
been icefree in more than 5,000 years".

“Glaciers do not have any political agenda," he says. "They just sum up
what is going on in their environment — and react to that.”


WHERE IS THE RAW DATA ???



http://www.ipcc-data.org/


that has been processed, and modeled. all outputs
I need input data, what They used in their models


In what way is that Himalayan data "processed"?

I want to verify their conclusions.
Yet all they do is publish graphs *without* the supporting data so it can be
peer reviewed.

This lack of disclosure indicates biased findings and they are afraid they
will get caught.



"Mr. Jackami" wrote in message
newsx%5n.60440$Db2.26047@edtnps83...
and just what use is it to you? You wouldn't understand it !




WHERE IS THE RAW DATA ???