October - 3rd coldest on record for nation

Pretty shows how incompetent the IPCC is and that it's not about science but a policy they're trying to enforce in the name of politics. Nothing more.
 
Key phrase that's a dead give away on how they still trying to push the global warming as caused by man agenda by calling people "climate denial" as part of that industry. Use of ad homenim attacks do not inspire confidence in a science debate.

Hmm...MNN? No wonder.
 
In a January 20, 2010 (today) letter from the IPCC on the melting of Himalayan glaciers:

The Synthesis Report, the concluding document of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (page 49) stated: “Climate change is expected to exacerbate current stresses on water resources from population growth and economic and land-use change, including urbanisation. On a regional scale, mountain snow pack, glaciers and small ice caps play a crucial role in freshwater availability. Widespread mass losses from glaciers and reductions in snow cover over recent decades are projected to accelerate throughout the 21st century, reducing 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.”

This conclusion is robust, appropriate, and entirely consistent with the underlying science and the broader IPCC assessment.

It has, however, recently come to our attention that a paragraph in the 938-page Working Group II contribution to the underlying assessment2 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 Chair, Vice-Chairs, 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 into an IPCC Report” 3. We reaffirm our strong commitment to ensuring this level of performance.

The Chair, Vice-Chairs, 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 into an IPCC Report” 3. We reaffirm our strong commitment to ensuring this level of performance.
Click to expand...

A classic cya (cover yer ass) moment.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf
 
World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown - Times Online

However, glaciologists find such figures inherently ludicrous, pointing out that most Himalayan glaciers are hundreds of feet thick and could not melt fast enough to vanish by 2035 unless there was a huge global temperature rise. The maximum rate of decline in thickness seen in glaciers at the moment is 2-3 feet a year and most are far lower.
Click to expand...

And by 2035 glaciers, if they continue to melt and retreat from now til 2035, would've retreated 50 to 75 feet. Yeah....gone, poof! In 25 years. Assuming by then we're still warming up but by all indication we have not warmed up over the last 11 years.
 
"cover your ass?" You're so cynical.

Also, you failed to grasp that it was JUST ONE paragraph OUT Of 938-pages!!! It shows how extremely biased and warped your mentality is. Anything that contains a minor error or mistake, you blow it out of proportion.

I don't like people who make a mountain out of a mole. They got issues.
 
netrox said:
"cover your ass?" You're so cynical.

Also, you failed to grasp that it was JUST ONE paragraph OUT Of 938-pages!!! It shows how extremely biased and warped your mentality is. Anything that contains a minor error or mistake, you blow it out of proportion.

I don't like people who make a mountain out of a mole. They got issues.
Click to expand...

You don't understand. This was a *central claim* of the IPCC that the world’s glaciers were melting so fast and used the Himalayas glaciers as "proof" that they could vanish by 2035.

All this was based on a news story in the New Scientist published just eight years ago before the IPCC’s 2007 report. And we learned that this was based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. It was just a claim based on “speculation” and not supported by any formal research. The IPCC had to retract that statement only because others discovered this glaring error and made it public.

So much for "scientific consensus" when not using proper scientific protocols.
 
kokonut said:
You don't understand. This was a *central claim* of the IPCC that the world’s glaciers were melting so fast and used the Himalayas glaciers as "proof" that they could vanish by 2035.
Click to expand...

IPCC still stands by its conclusion, you decided that one error in one paragraph out of 900+ pages invalidates the conclusion.

In other words, you're telling us that IPCC realized that the glaciers aren't melting and retracted the whole conclusion. That's incorrect. IPCC is STILL concluding that the glaciers are melting.
 
UN abandons climate change deadline


The timetable to reach a global deal to tackle climate change lay in tatters on Wednesday after the UN waived the first deadline of the process laid out at last month’s fractious Copenhagen summit.

Nations agreed then to declare their emissions reduction targets by the end of this month. Developed countries would state their intended cuts by 2020: developing countries would outline how they would curb emissions growth.

But Yvo de Boer, the UN’s senior climate change official, admitted that the deadline had in effect been shelved.
Click to expand...

FT.com / Global Economy - UN abandons climate change deadline

Global warming claim continues to crater. If it's such a dire thing coming down the road why it is shelved? Because the whole thing is nonsense.
 
Why cares about climate? climate is climate, period.
 
netrox said:
IPCC still stands by its conclusion, you decided that one error in one paragraph out of 900+ pages invalidates the conclusion.

In other words, you're telling us that IPCC realized that the glaciers aren't melting and retracted the whole conclusion. That's incorrect. IPCC is STILL concluding that the glaciers are melting.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between melting and disappearing. Not all glaciers are melting. Many continue to gain grounds. Even one glacier inside a famous volcano continues to grow!

As for the Himalayas glaciers?
Himalayan Glaciers Seem to Be Growing
In the Western Himalayas, a group of some 230 glaciers are bucking the global warming trend.
Click to expand...
Himalayan Glaciers Seem to Be Growing : Discovery News

Yeah, sure looks like they're melting alright. IPCC needs glasses.
 
kokonut said:
UN abandons climate change deadline

Global warming claim continues to crater. If it's such a dire thing coming down the road why it is shelved? Because the whole thing is nonsense.
Click to expand...

It's the economy, stupid!

When you're broke, you don't give a damn.
 
Nah, because they knew it was all hokey stuff and tried to push this voodoo stuff on people because Earth was gonna boil over or something. No emergency here. It was all fake and they knew it. They needed an excuse.
 
netrox said:
IPCC still stands by its conclusion, you decided that one error in one paragraph out of 900+ pages invalidates the conclusion.

In other words, you're telling us that IPCC realized that the glaciers aren't melting and retracted the whole conclusion. That's incorrect. IPCC is STILL concluding that the glaciers are melting.
Click to expand...

More errors found.

The Indian head of the UN climate change panel defended his position yesterday even as further errors were identified in the panel's assessment of Himalayan glaciers.
.
.
But he admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible.
Click to expand...


A table below says that between 1845 and 1965, the Pindari Glacier shrank by 2,840m — a rate of 135.2m a year. The actual rate is only 23.5m a year.

The section says Himalayan glaciers are “receding faster than in any other part of the world” when many glaciologists say they are melting at about the same rate.

An entire paragraph is also attributed to the World Wildlife Fund, when only one sentence came from it, and the IPCC is not supposed to use such advocacy groups as sources.
Click to expand...

“It was a collective failure by a number of people,” he said. “I need to consider what action to take, but that will take several weeks. It’s best to think with a cool head, rather than shoot from the hip.”
Click to expand...

UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report - Times Online

Think with a "cool head"? And not "shoot from the hip"? Kind of like calling people "deniers" while knowing full well IPCC's own glacier report is nothing more than a hoax?

Yeah. Keep up with the ad hominem attacks rather than argue purely on the basis of science and its accepted methodologies and protocols that come with it.
 
hmmm..... more glaciers growing in various parts of the world.

12 more glaciers that haven?t heard the news about global warming | IHatetheMedia


hmmm....another lie or disinformation from the IPCC about the Amazon forest?

Here’s the latest development, courtesy of Dr Richard North – and it’s a cracker. It seems that, not content with having lied to us about shrinking glaciers, increasing hurricanes, and rising sea levels, the IPCC’s latest assessment report also told us a complete load of porkies about the danger posed by climate change to the Amazon rainforest.

This is to be found in Chapter 13 of the Working Group II report, the same part of the IPCC fourth assessment report in which the “Glaciergate” claims are made. There, is the startling claim that:

“Up to 40%of theAmazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation (Rowell and Moore, 2000). It is more probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems that have more resistance to multiple stresses caused by temperature increase, droughts and fires, such as tropical savannas.”

At first sight, the reference looks kosher enough but, following it through, one sees:
Rowell, A. and P.F. Moore, 2000: Global Review of Forest Fires. WWF/IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland, 66 pp. http://www.iucn.org/themes/fcp/publications

/files/global_review_forest_fires.pdf.
This, then appears to be another WWF report, carried out in conjunction with the IUCN – The International Union for Conservation of Nature.
Click to expand...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...gate-pachaurigate-and-glaciergate-amazongate/

The WWF is not a university or research center. It is the World Wildlife Fund, an environmentalist advocacy group. Dr. Rowell is a policy analysis, not research. Where are the peer-reviewed, legitimate research by professional scientists that the IPCC espoused so much that are lacking in their own reports?

The implosion continues for the IPCC's masterful climate muck ups to try and fool people.
 
kokonut said:
That weather changes....:wave:

But don't stop there...in Eastern Europe temperatures have been among the coldest with incredible amounts of snow. I guess you didn't hear that sub-zero temperatures swept across Europe in this year's winter?
Click to expand...
Of course. They can have it!
 
Back
Top