Ipcc Report On Climate Change And Extreme Weather Events

[VillagePlank]

*Sigh*

The frequency of weather events might or might not increase over a given time period. But over what period of time do you measure? This sort of pseudo-intellectual garbage is just the same as expecting six throws of the dice to show 1,2,3,4,5 and 6, and not 6,6,61,2,2 (or similar) Do you believe that six throws of the dice produce six different numbers? Do you believe in a giant teapot orbiting the Earth controlling human affairs?

Edited December 1, 2011 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[Methuselah]

*Sigh*

The frequency of weather events might or might not increase over a given time period. But over what period of time do you measure? This sort of pseudo-intellectual garbage is just the same as expecting six throws of the dice to show 1,2,3,4,5 and 6, and not 6,6,61,2,2 (or similar) Do you believe that six throws of the dice produce six different numbers? Do you believe in a giant teapot orbiting the Earth controlling human affairs?

When scientists produce reports, in scientific language and with scientific evaluations of probability etc., our beloved politicians always turn it all into a pile of vacuous rhetoric. So yes, in a way, there could well be a 'giant teapot' involved??

[VillagePlank]

The thing is, Pete, I'm not so sure some scientists are sufficiently well trained in probability let alone the readers! How many times have we seen statistical errors (which is, effectively, applied probability) in scientific papers? In some extreme cases as far as I can tell, experiments are done, figures are stuck inside MATLAB, results come out, and if it's above 95% certainty (that the result is not down to chance) the experiment is published.

Edited December 1, 2011 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[BornFromTheVoid]

*Sigh*

The frequency of weather events might or might not increase over a given time period. But over what period of time do you measure? This sort of pseudo-intellectual garbage is just the same as expecting six throws of the dice to show 1,2,3,4,5 and 6, and not 6,6,61,2,2 (or similar) Do you believe that six throws of the dice produce six different numbers? Do you believe in a giant teapot orbiting the Earth controlling human affairs?

Are those questions actually aimed at somebody?

Your just as likely to get 6,6,6,6,6,6 as 1,2,3,4,5,6. I'm not a believer of the giant teapot, I'm more of a Pastafarian to be honest, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is more believable to me personally. My choice thus affects my global warming beliefs

[VillagePlank]

I'd always thought that it was down to the Pirates- perhaps it's the reduction in fishy flatulence? Cap'n Jack Sparrow has a lot to answer for. I think he lives in that teapot.

(Yes, aimed at Village - sorry for not making it clear)

Edited December 1, 2011 by Boar Wrinklestorm

[Methuselah]

The thing is, Pete, I'm not so sure some scientists are sufficiently well trained in probability let alone the readers! How many times have we seen statistical errors (which is, effectively, applied probability) in scientific papers? In some extreme cases as far as I can tell, experiments are done, figures are stuck inside MATLAB, results come out, and if it's above 95% certainty (that the result is not down to chance) the experiment is published.

True, I guess. But some arbitrary estimate of probability must be used, surely? If not 95% then what?

[VillagePlank]

Interesting discussion, here - I suspect most of us are guilty of following the legal and more intuitive definition of statistical significance. I know that I have in the past, and most likely, in the future

[Village]

That graph yet again is deliberately ended eleven years ago.....why is it selected that way?

Pirates are more common now are they not?

[Village]

Well I still maintain that statistics are designed for man by man and are absolutely not a representation of the real world.

Its no good talking averages, balances, norms, mediums etc because this is a completely different language to the natural order.

[keithlucky]

Debate heats up over IPCC melting glaciers claim

• Updated 17:21 11 January 2010 by Fred Pearce
  
• For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide
  

Glaciologists are this week arguing over how a highly contentious claim about the speed at which glaciers are melting came to be included in the latest report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In 1999 New Scientist reported a comment by the leading Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, who said in an email interview with this author that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035.

Hasnain, of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, who was then chairman of the International Commission on Snow and Ice's working group on Himalayan glaciology, has never repeated the prediction in a peer-reviewed journal. He now says the comment was "speculative".

Despite the 10-year-old New Scientist report being the only source, the claim found its way into the IPCC fourth assessment report published in 2007. Moreover the claim was extrapolated to include all glaciers in the Himalayas.

High probability

Chapter 10 of the report says: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world."

The inclusion of this statement has angered many glaciologists, who regard it as unjustified. Vijay Raina, a leading Indian glaciologist, wrote in a discussion paper published by the Indian government in November that there is no sign of "abnormal" retreat in Himalayan glaciers. India's environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, accused the IPCC of being "alarmist".

The IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, has hit back, denouncing the Indian government report as "voodoo science" lacking peer review. He adds that "we have a very clear idea of what is happening" in the Himalayas.

'Disturbing' prediction

The IPCC report sources the prediction to a document published by the environment group WWF in 2005; this document quotes the New Scientist article as its source. The WWF report describes the prediction as "disturbing", without specifically endorsing it.

Nonetheless, the IPCC report goes further, concluding without citing further evidence that the prediction is "very likely" – a term that it says means a likelihood of greater than 90 per cent.

Graham Cogley, a geographer from Trent University in Peterborough, Ontario, Canada, says the 2035 date is extremely unlikely. "At current melting rates it might take up to 10 times longer," he says.

Grey literature

However, the lead author of the IPCC chapter, Indian glaciologist Murari Lal, told New Scientist he "outright rejected" the notion that the IPCC was off the mark on Himalayan glaciers. "The IPCC authors did exactly what was expected from them," he says.

"We relied rather heavily on grey [not peer-reviewed] literature, including the WWF report," Lal says. "The error, if any, lies with Dr Hasnain's assertion and not with the IPCC authors."

But Hasnain rejects that. He blames the IPCC for misusing a remark he made to a journalist. "The magic number of 2035 has not [been] mentioned in any research papers written by me, as no peer-reviewed journal will accept speculative figures," he told New Scientist.

"It is not proper for IPCC to include references from popular magazines or newspapers," Hasnain adds.

As we know infact the Himalayan glaciers are growing between 0.11and o.22 per year since 2005.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18363-debate-heats-up-over-ipcc-melting-glaciers-claim.html

Edited April 18, 2012 by pottyprof
Any chance you could take the time to place a link to the article in future Keith? It is polite after all....