. Earth Science News .
UN climate panel admits Himalaya glacier data "poorly substantiated"

Indian scientist denies UN glacier melt date
New Delhi (AFP) Jan 20, 2010 - An Indian scientist at the centre of a new climate science storm denied on Wednesday saying that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 -- an alarming date used by the UN's top global warming body. But Syed Hasnain did acknowledge making comments suggesting that many of the glaciers could disappear by the middle of this century. The controversy focuses on a reference by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to the probability of glaciers in the Himalayas "disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high." In a landmark 2007 report, the IPCC sourced the date to green campaign group WWF, which in turn took the prediction from an interview given by Hasnain to the New Scientist magazine in 1999.

The IPCC has said it is reviewing the figure and looks set to retract the assertion -- an embarrassing climbdown and a blow to its credibility as the reliable authority on global climate science. There is no evidence that the 2035 claim was published in a peer-reviewed journal, a cornerstone of scientific research. Hasnain issued a statement on the comments he made to the New Scientist, saying the 2035 date was "a journalistic substitution" which had been made without his knowledge or approval. "I have not given any date or year on the likely disappearance of Himalayan glaciers -- neither in any interview nor in any of my publications," he said. However, he added that in 1999 "a scientific postulation was made that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear in the next 40 to 50 years at their present rate of decline."

Hasnain said he and other experts were the victims of "a concentrated campaign to denigrate scientists who have established the impact of climate change." The Indian scientist is now a glaciologist with the New Delhi-based The Energy and Resources Institute, which is headed by IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri. Pachauri defended the Nobel-winning panel's work on Tuesday, telling reporters at the World Future Energy Summit in Abu Dhabi that even if the 2035 prediction was wrong, the effects of global warming were undeniable. "Theoretically, let's say we slipped up on one number, I don't think it takes anything away from the overwhelming scientific evidence of what's happening with the climate of this earth," he said. Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh -- often sceptical of the exact link between global warming and melting glaciers -- has said the IPCC panel "has to do a lot of answering on how it reached the 2035 figure."
by Staff Writers
Geneva (AFP) Jan 20, 2010
The UN's climate science panel acknowledged on Wednesday that a grim prediction on the fate of Himalayan glaciers that featured in a benchmark report on global warming had been "poorly substantiated" and was a lapse in standards.

Charges that the reference was highly inaccurate or overblown have stoked pressure on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), already assailed in a separate affair involving hacked email exchanges.

The new row focuses on a paragraph in the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, a 938-page opus whose warning in 2007 that climate change was on the march spurred politicians around the world to vow action.

The paragraph notably declared the probability of glaciers in the Himalayas "disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high."

The IPCC said in a statement that the paragraph "refers to poorly substantiated rates 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 panel admitted.

It added: "The Chair, Vice Chair and Co Chairs of the IPCC 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 in an IPCC report'."

The statement noted that the reference was not repeated in an important "synthesis report" of the 2007 assessment, and stressed the IPCC's "strong commitment" to thorough, accurate review of scientific data.

The IPCC co-won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for bringing climate change to the world's attention through a reputation for rigour, caution and fact-checking. Under this process, data are peer reviewed by other scientists and are then meant to be double-checked by editors.

In an exceptional move, the lapses came under public attack from four prominent glaciologists and hydrologists in a letter to the prestigious US journal Science.

They said the paragraph's mistakes derived from a report by green group WWF which picked up a news report based on an unpublished study, compounded by the accidental inversion of a date -- 2035 instead of 2350 -- in a Russian paper published in 1996.

"These errors could have been avoided had the norms of scientific publication, including peer review and concentration upon peer-reviewed work, been respected," according to the letter, which Science released on Wednesday, two days ahead of scheduled publication.

One of the letter's authors was Austrian specialist Georg Kaser, who contributed to a different section of the 2007 report.

He told AFP on Monday that the mistake was enormous and that he had notified IPCC colleagues of it months before publication.

Despite the controversy, the IPCC stood by the overall conclusions about glacier loss this century in major mountain ranges, including the Himalayas.

The report concluded that "widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century."

That would reduce "water availability, hydropower potential, and changing seasonality of flows in regions supplied by meltwater from major mountain ranges (e.g. Hindu-Kush, Himalaya, Andes), where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives," it added.

IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri on Tuesday defended the panel's overall work, a position shared by other scientists, who say the core conclusions about climate change are incontrovertible.

"Theoretically, let's say we slipped up on one number, I don't think it takes anything away from the overwhelming scientific evidence of what's happening with the climate of this Earth," Pachauri said.

Skeptics have already attacked the panel over so-called "Climategate," entailing stolen email exchanges among IPCC experts which they say reflected attempts to skew the evidence for global warming.

The row came as the UN panel began the marathon process of drafting its Fifth Assessment Reports, inviting scientists to lead its work.

The reports, due out in 2013 and 2014, will focus on sea level changes, the influence of periodic climate patterns like the monsoon season and El Nino, and forge a more precise picture of the regional effects of climate change.



Share This Article With Planet Earth
del.icio.usdel.icio.us DiggDigg RedditReddit
YahooMyWebYahooMyWeb GoogleGoogle FacebookFacebook



Related Links
Beyond the Ice Age



Memory Foam Mattress Review
Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily
XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News


Indian minister slams UN body on glacier research
New Delhi (AFP) Jan 19, 2010
India's environment minister slammed the UN's top climate body in comments published Tuesday, claiming its doomsday warning about Himalayan glaciers was not based on "scientific evidence." The controversy focuses on a reference in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) landmark 2007 report that said the chances of Himalayan glaciers "disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high." "The IPCC claim that glaciers will vanish by 2035 was not based on an iota of scientific evidence," minister Jairam Ramesh told the Hindustan Times. ... read more







The content herein, unless otherwise known to be public domain, are Copyright 1995-2009 - SpaceDaily. AFP and UPI Wire Stories are copyright Agence France-Presse and United Press International. ESA Portal Reports are copyright European Space Agency. All NASA sourced material is public domain. Additional copyrights may apply in whole or part to other bona fide parties. Advertising does not imply endorsement,agreement or approval of any opinions, statements or information provided by SpaceDaily on any Web page published or hosted by SpaceDaily. Privacy Statement