The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) conceded last night that it made a mistake two years ago in predicting that glaciers in the Himalayas were melting faster than in any other part of the world and would likely disappear by 2035.
At the time the IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007--a document that was partly responsible for the organization receiving a Nobel Peace Prize--officials there claimed that information about the Himalayan glaciers was based on carefully researched scientific data. Apparently not.
In a statement released today, the IPCC now says that the report "refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly."
The statement goes on to say that IPCC officials "regret the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance. This episode demonstrates that the quality of the assessment depends on absolute adherence to the IPCC standards, including thorough review of 'the quality and validity of each source before incorporating results from the source into an IPCC Report.'"
How Did the Mistake Happen?
The Associated Press reports that IPCC officials are still investigating how the erroneous claim ended up in the final report, but other news sources have tracked the sequence of events that led to publication of the false information.
According to a report in The Telegraph, for example, the IPCC admits that the prediction was based on an article in the New Scientist. Fred Pearce, the journalist who wrote the article, interviewed Dr. Syed Hasnain in 1999 after seeing his claims about the rapidly melting glaciers in an Indian magazine. Hasnain repeated the claim during the interview with Pearce, but admitted it was not based on peer-reviewed research.
The article was later cited in a WWF report from 2005 called, "An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China." The IPCC report cited the WWF as its source, but went further in claiming that the likelihood of the Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035 was "very high." In scientific parlance, "very high" is understood to mean a probability of greater than 90 percent.
The final IPCC report read: "Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."
How Was the Mistake Discovered?
The prediction had already been questioned by glaciologists (scientists who study glaciers), who noted that the Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and that glaciers worldwide are melting only a few feet per year, so that it would take much longer than 2035 for the glaciers to disappear.
The Sunday Times broke the story about the IPCC error on January 17 [2010] after Graham Cogley, a geographer at Trent University in Ontario, Canada, tracked the prediction in the IPCC report back to the article in the New Scientist and contacted journalist Fred Pearce to find out where and how he got his information.
This crack in the IPCC's credibility has led to other revelations that are equally disturbing. Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, told The Sunday Times that he knows very little about glaciers.
"I am not an expert on glaciers and I have not visited the region, so I have to rely on credible published research," Lal told The Sunday Times. "The comments in the WWF report were made by a respected Indian scientist and it was reasonable to assume he knew what he was talking about."
But apparently nobody at the IPCC actually checked, or ever bothered to trace the prediction to its true source.
What Does the Mistake Really Mean?
Climate skeptics are rushing to claim that this mistake by the IPCC, and the sloppy methodology that led to it, discredit the entire IPCC assessment and, for that matter, the IPCC as a scientific body as well as any and all claims of global warming. Meanwhile, the IPCC is trying to do damage control.
IPCC Vice Chairman Jean-Pascal van Ypersele told the BBC: "I don't see how one mistake in a 3,000-page report can damage the credibility of the overall report.
"Some people will attempt to use it to damage the credibility of the IPCC; but if we can uncover it, and explain it and change it, it should strengthen the IPCC's credibility, showing that we are ready to learn from our mistakes."
Climate skeptics may be dancing in the streets, overjoyed by what they see as a victory for their argument and justification for their skepticism about climate change, but the IPCC's error in publishing one piece of unsubstantiated speculation as a research finding does not invalidate years of work by thousands of conscientious and qualified scientists around the world. Glaciologists and other scientists who have criticized the IPCC for its mistake about the Himalayan glaciers have also been quick to point out that it doesn't alter the fact that the vast majority of the world's glaciers are melting at an alarming rate. The IPCC was wrong about the speed at which the glaciers are melting, but not about the underlying science.
On the other hand, now that the IPCC has issued its mea culpa statement and tried to spin the story to make it appear less damaging, it needs to take a hard look at this issue and acknowledge that where there is one careless mistake there could be others. IPCC officials have already pledged to recommit the organization to rigorous scientific procedure. At the very least, however, the IPCC should thoroughly review the 2007 report to re-examine and verify any findings that either look questionable or have been challenged by reputable scientists.
Also Read:
Comments
Rather than gloat over yet another piece of evidence suggesting the IPCC has erroneously presented evidence for its case about AGW, we all should use this as an opportunity to divest ourselves of the religion of GW and begin to treat it as scientists again: always remain skeptical of any evidence or explanations presented by anyone. Make them prove their point and have the work checked again by someone else. Always examine alternative explanations.
As I’ve said here before, there is NO experimental evidence that the concept of “GHG” is even true- it’s just a proposed mechanism based on mis-interpreted, early work in thermodynamics that doesn’t hold up to close scrutiny of the basic physics.
Satisfy yourselves of this by re-examining the concept of “specific heat” or “heat capacity.” The GHGs actually HOLD more heat WITHOUT allowing a rise in temperature. Then examine Kirchow’s Law & the concept of resonance. It will become clear then that GHGs don’t work the way they claim.
Guido your science is a little off
The greenhouse effect is fact. Earth’s climate is proof of it. Simply look at the difference in the climate of the moon as proof. (the moon has no atmosphere). strike 1
Kirchoff’s Law: at thermal equilibrium, emissivity equals absorbtivity. This does not disprove global warming. CO2 has a higher specific heat than O2 or N2 and does indeed absorb more solar radiation than O2 or N2, but it also takes longer to release that energy back into space which keeps more heat in the atmosphere when night falls. This is the greenhouse effect, and all atmospheric gases act in this way, but some are better at retaining heat than others. Strike 2.
If CO2 doesn’t allow for a rise in temperature then why is Venus the hottest planet in the Solar System even though it is not closest to the Sun? Reason: extreme greenhouse effect. strike 3
You’re out. Better luck next time with your war on science.
The report did not say there weren’t melting Guido, it said there weren’t melting as fast as was said.
I have stood at the foot of Alpine glaciers and actually seen and had demonstrated to me the amount they have shrunk over the last 100 or so years of the industrial age, photos and writings of the period prove this.
I too will always check on what I am told, but the evidence of one’s own eyes is irrefutable.