AFTER CLIMATEGATE - GLACIERGATE !

[marchesarosa]

Times On-Line story here

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece

In the comments:

Eddy Aruda wrote:

"The IPCC is the intergovernmental panel, not the scientific panel. Anything the politicians didn't like was removed from the IPCC Report. Anthropogenic global warming is a scam put together by a small cabal of scientists who were willing to subvert the peer review process, fraudulently alter data to fit their preconceived ideas and theories and bilk the taxpayers for billions."

I go along with that assessment.

And I think it is damning of the clique of celebrity scientists at CRU plus Michael Mann, Hansen et al. These people did not practise science in good faith, they spun it to a pre-arranged result. They do not deserve either our respect nor our pity for their current uncomfortable predicament. Pachauri has been the first to get what was coming to him. Let's hope the others get theirs soon.

[marchesarosa]

More evidence of NASA's warm bias?

A tip about NASA.

Up until earlier today they had a page on their website climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ saying:

“Mountain glaciers and snow cover have declined on average in both hemispheres, and may disappear altogether in certain regions of our planet, such as the Himalayas, by 2030″

Now, without comment they have amended it to “Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa”

Not only did they get it wrong, they got it very wrong. Then to hide embarrassment they changed their story without any comment at all. No public admission of error, just a simple rewriting of history.

What faith can you have in NASA to be objective if they act in such an unscientific manner and without accountability or responsibility?

20 Jan 2010
wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/19/new-goes-p-weather-satellite-getting-prepped-for-launch/


The disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers by 2030 seems to have assumed a status amongst alarmists of an uncritically accepted urban myth.

Oh, how the pigs are coming home to roost!

[marchesarosa]

A glacier in equilibrium releases as much water as it receives from precipitation. Release is in the form of runoff, infiltration or evaporation. If precipitation does not change, and warming causes the total disappearance of a glacier (which may happen only in relatively low altitude glaciers), the difference would be in the seasonality of runoff, not the amount. And the reduction is not linear: if 20% has disappeared in 20 years, it does not mean the rest would disappear in another 80 years or so: the receding occurs at the lower parts, but predicted warming would not melt ice at high altitudes, usually too cold for melting even if warmed a few degrees. On the other hand, if precipitation is reduced, less water per year would be available, no matter if the glacier is melting or not, except that during the warming/melting process there would actually be increased runoff due to increased summer melting.

climateaudit.org/2010/01/24/glaciers-and-sunday-in-england/#comments

[marchesarosa]

Steve McIntyre
Posted Jan 24, 2010 at 5:22 PM

I agree with the points about melt versus precipitation. If melting glaciers are a material contributor to water supply, then society is in effect depleting a sort of reservoir. And stabilizing the glacier (reservoir) would cause the same decrease in water supply.

My understanding of the true situation is that glacier depletion would only account for a few percentage points (at most) of total runoff. The water supply issue would be whether warming would cause less precipitation. Since a warmer ocean causes more evaporation, perhaps someone can direct me to a reference claiming that precipitation in the Himalayas would decrease in a warmer world.

[marchesarosa]

I don't know whether to place this on the Pachauri thread or on the glacier thread!





And apparently all the money of High Noon wasn’t enough to find one single HONEST ice specialist to point out that the cliams were way beyond physically impossible. The same lies were repeated to the EU commission, guess who was a keynote speaker.

First the IPCC lets through a comment which has no basis in science, organizations are formed and nobody bothers to check a paper before the millions are spent? And the very same people who put the bogus comment in the IPCC report get the payout. It’s a damned lie!! A scientist specializing in glaciers who doesn’t bother to read the literature……

After Climategate we have Glaciergate!


More here

noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/2634/#more-7656

[marchesarosa]

The detail is accumulating!



The IPCC ignored review comments on the glaciers:

For example, Hayley Fowler of Newcastle University, suggested that their draft did not mention that Himalayan glaciers in the Karakoram range are growing rapidly, citing a paper published in the influential journal Nature.

In their response, the IPCC authors said, bizarrely, that they were ‘unable to get hold of the suggested references’, but would ‘consider’ this in their final version. They failed to do so.

The Japanese government commented that the draft did not clarify what it meant by stating that the likelihood of the glaciers disappearing by 2035 was ‘very high’. ‘What is the confidence level?’ it asked.

The authors’ response said ‘appropriate revisions and editing made’. But the final version was identical to their draft.


www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html