IPCC : Even More Incompetent Than We Thought

58 percent of glaciers examined in the westerly Karakoram range of the Himalayas were stable or advancing


About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to IPCC : Even More Incompetent Than We Thought

  1. Puckster says:

    I’ll have to admit….I’m a little confused.

    I had read that one reason the glaciers were “really” retreating was soot from the African continent was settling onto the Himalayans.

    The soot absorbed sunlight and trapped heat, ergo, melting.

    Is a dust and rock layer any different? I mean, there maybe some absorbtion difference between carbon soot and dust/rocks, however, that much?

    It actually insulates? “Some” glaciers?

    • Nick says:

      If the layer of debris is deep and continuous enough then it insulates. Different from thin dark dust layers which simply absorb sunlight and radiate. The glacier still needs to have a positive accumulation zone above the debris fields to maintain size or grow.

      • Paul H says:

        Do we know if there is more dust than before and if so how it got there?

        It sounds to me as if they are clutching at straws. Anything to avoid having to admit maybe the area is not warming after all.

  2. Dave N says:

    It’s obvious: the disappearing Arctic ice and the ice-free Hudson are causing those glaciers to advance.

    AGW causes glaciers to retreat, advance, stay still, roll over, play dead.. the same applies to floods, drought, heatwaves, heavy snow, cold snaps etc etc.

  3. Tony Duncan says:


    An oversight surely but you forgot to put in the very next sentence.

    “Elsewhere in the Himalayas “more than 65 percent of the monsoon-influenced glaciers … are retreating,” they wrote in the journal Nature Geoscience of the satellite study from 2000 to 2008. Some glaciers that were stable in length were covered by a thick layer of rocky debris… Overall in the Himalayas, the glaciers are retreating,” Dirk Scherler, the lead author at the University of Potsdam in Germany, told Reuters.

  4. Puckster says:

    Yeah, here it is:


    Now, the article keeps mentioning that this involves climate change…..but, it’s really pollution. Okay, soot is a solid form of CO2, right? So, it, in itself, isn’t causing climate change.

    This linked article details the various regions of the Himalayan mountain range with various decadal, man made soot, not CO2 forcing, causitive reason for the melting.

    This study covers most of all the regions. It’s a more expansive study.

  5. latitude says:

    Tony, you need to really read this propaganda…

    58% of glaciers “in one area” are advancing, not all glaciers just the ones in that area

    65% of the “monsoon-influenced glaciers” are retreating, not all glaciers just the ones influenced by monsoons, which is a very small number

    No where do they give real numbers

    • Tony Duncan says:


      Now if Steve had written what you just wrote, I would have had no reason to comment at all, now would I?

      • Robb says:


        I think we’ve been pretty resonable with each other, and I get what you’re tring to do, but the headline and sub-head clearly state that it’s a portion of the glaciers that are advancing.

        Yes, Steve excluded the parts about the glaciers that are retreating, but there is no way a resonable person could get the “erroneous impression that himalayan glaciers are expanding or stable.” (to quote you) with the text 58 percent of glaciers examined …, Some Himalayan…” & “…despite an overall retreat…” being displayed in bold/large typfaces.

        Your post is disingenious at best

      • Tony Duncan says:


        I agree that we have been reasonable, and I don’t think I am being disingenuous. I was just pointing out that Steve cut off the article right before the point where it describes glaciers retreating. In rereading I see that the sub headline DOES say overall retreat, so the post is not ignoring that and I did not acknowledge that in my rush to judgement!
        What prompted my initial comment was his headline that says “IPCC :Even more incompetent than we thought”. He nowhere quotes any IPCC article or comment that says “All glaciers in the Himalayas are retreating” so I don’t see how this article supports that headline.

      • Robb says:

        Resonable enough…But I think you’ve been here long enough to understand that STeve is just countering the “media bias” with posts like this. Yes, we here all know thw IPPC retracted the “Himalayan glaciers gone by 2035” statement, but I do remember hearing (and seeing) a lot about the original statement in the press. Regarding the retraction, not so much.

        The “average climate Joe” still thinks the Himalayan glaciers are disappearing at an alarming rate.

      • Tony Duncan says:

        I am not sure what the average joe thinks. I have been reading over and over again about the retraction, so I am clearly not a good model.
        And Yes, the vast majority of people have no clue about what is going on or what is understood regarding climate change. Most people I know that believe in ACC have a cartoon knowledge that is pretty worthless, which is why I try to let people know about the actual science.
        A big reason I monitor this site is because I do get info that I might not from other sources. But I do not support countering a media bias by only posting information that supports one conclusion

      • suyts says:

        Tony, that’s why guys like you are here.

      • Robb says:


        I’ve never seen you protest once to the “ information that supports one conclusion” over at places like Real Climate or Grist. Maybe I missed it and you could point me to a post where you corrected them for only presenting one side of the science. I know every time I’ve tried, I never even made it through moderation.

        So why is it that I’ve not seen your critical comments in Pro AGW places?

      • suyts says:

        lol, Robb, you and several thousands posts are stuck in moderation. Even if Tony would write a critical post, you and I would never see it.

      • Tony Duncan says:


        You have never seen a critical post at realclimate because I don’t know that I have ever posted there. I just found out about Grist from this site, so have had no opportunity to comment there.

        in looking at realclimate there I AM seeing critical comments, and I notice that they say they have started a specific section for comments they deem worthless, as well as those they consider off topic. Considering they apparently get hundreds of comments that they DO post, I am not surprised.

        I also have seen them acknowledge science that does indicate influences on Climate change that would either lead to smaller climate sensitivity or evidence of warming. Two recent ones are Dessler post on Clouds, and Schmidt and Mann’s discussion of McShane and Wyner.

  6. Michael says:

    Some right, some wrong, and some playing in the wrong ballpark. For starters look up “Climatic flip-flop”. It’s been a “hot” topic for 12-15 years.
    Global warming doesn’t refer to a local region. If it’s 3 degrees warmer in the tropics there’s a lot more evaporation, i.e. more global humidity. That means that where weather patterns and altitude are propitious, snow pack may accumulate (glaciers); but where they aren’t, existing glaciers may melt. There may be a glacier advancing in one valley or slope and one retreating in the next Or whole continental patterns shift.
    If cold fresh water from the melting arctic prevents the Gulf Stream from reaching Northern Europe, potentially, you could get another ice-age.
    Beware of simple answers and definitive projections. The situation is in flux and flow, and all bets are on the table.

  7. Andy Weiss says:

    The whole problem is that no one really knows what either increasing or decreasing CO2 will do in the long run. There are always going to be unanticipated and unintended consequences. For all we know, increasing CO2 might be preventing another Ice Age.

  8. PhilJourdan says:

    Tony Duncan says:
    January 24, 2011 at 6:38 am

    you of course voiced your concern about the outright falsehood written into the AR4 about Himalayan glaciers as soon as it was published. Sent a letter directly to pachauri? Mind posting it here? it seems that one made a point about parts of the Himalayas, and the other just made a complete falsehood. And you pick the nits.

    • Tony Duncan says:


      being as i did not read the report from cover to cover, i am guilty of not doing anything about it. However as soon as I DID read about it, I immediately thought that it was crazy, as did every climate scientist that I saw who commented on it.
      I didn’t PICK anything. Steve did and I pointed out that he ignored the very next sentence form what he posted. But as Robb pointed out, what he did post did give the general conclusion that Himalayan glaciers are generally retreating, so I acknowledge being overly critical . Although as I pointed out, his headline had no basis in fact.

      • sunsettommy says:


        still the same Tony Duncan.

        The famous irrelevant fact nitpicker.

      • PhilJourdan says:

        Tony, you are simply wrong. If YOU GOT the wrong impression, that is your fault, not that of the author. He stated clearly what was retreating, and did not infer farther. You appear to have done so, which is your perogative. but do not blame him for your lack of reading comprehension.

        Mis-reading a fact does not invalidate the fact.

    • Tony Duncan says:


      You lost me. What exactly are you referring to. The author of the article, or Steve?
      What fact am I misreading?

      • PhilJourdan says:

        Alas, I am sorry for your lack of comprehension in following threads. My statement is a response to yours, and needs no further clarification to those fluent in the English Language.

      • Tony Duncan says:


        I must bow to your superiority and my stupidity. I have reread this thread and am still at a loss. I thought I responded clearly to your comment. Although you attributing some inference on my part is consistent with people here inventing beliefs for me.

        All I said in my original comment was that Steve had cut off the article right before it discussed decreasing glaciers. I acknowledged that I had mischaracterized Steve’s post, and I apologize for that. It was unfair of me to do so.
        I still see no support for the contention on his headline, But there are plenty of those, so I am still waiting for some documentation of something the IPCC has published or any scientists that validates that headline.
        All the links I see posted here that are from scientists seem quite reasonable and are an improvement in the science. Exactly what one would expect when money is being given to research a complicated question.

      • PhilJourdan says:

        Your sarcasm is misdirected, as is your false praise. I offered no evidence of superiority or stupidity. You responded clearly in saying

      • PhilJourdan says:

        (continued – sorry) that I lost you. Given that my comments were not meant to be oblique or misdirecting, I have no other way of explaining it to you other than to offer my condolences at not being able to follow the thesis, question, answer format of a thread.

        I am attributing nothing to you other than your written word, and not commenting on your links or their relevance in this matter. Again, I made a statement referring to your original contention, and that is where you seem to have lost the thread (although from your posting to mine a good deal of time elapsed).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s