Nature magazine has given us an article by a Jane Qiu interviewing glaciologist Qin Dahe which provides a preview of the upcoming AR5 report. The article is a piece of triple A rated, (alarmist, advocate, activist) – of course – but it confirms our suspicion that the reasonable critiques of the alarmism are having no appreciable impact on the “science” or the cloak under which it is performed. Whle Qiu, spoke generally, he said it doesn’t mater if Himalayan glaciers melt in 20 or 200 years. I wonder if the ‘actual’ projection of 350 years matters to him as a glaciologist. The projection that far out is insane anyway but that is another matter. This paragraph contained a unique quote which I wonder how true it will turn out to be. My bold in the reply to the question below.
What can we expect from the fifth assessment report in 2013?
There will be more data on changes in glacial volume as well as other components of the cryosphere, such as permafrost and snow cover. There is encouraging progress in the IPCC climate-modelling studies, with smaller gaps between observed and modelled global average temperature and carbon-dioxide concentration. We will be tackling questions such as whether climate change is accelerating, whether the Greenland ice sheet is stable, what roles clouds and aerosols have in climate forcing, and whether there will be more extreme climate events, such as droughts, floods, typhoons and hurricanes.
I wonder, did they change the models, the data or the interpretation. Perhaps all three but it doesn’t sound like McKitrick, McIntyre, Herman will be front and center in the modeling section.
the Air Vent 
For a humorous look at a very, very serious problem [e.g., loss of citizens’ right to self-government], see Donna Laframboise’s new book exposing the UN’s IPCC:
“The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert: An Expose of the IPCC.”
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/10/13/a-book-is-born/
We have been richly blessed with the old curse, “May you live in interesting times!”
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Click to access Summary_of_Career.pdf
Heh, this report’s coming out under a cloud.
=====================
Their jugement has been clouded.
Mark
The last report AR4 in 2007 was released at a media orgy, there were 200 reporters there in a big auditorium, speaking in mutiple languages. The IPCC people were there answering questions and saying that it was now unequivocal, humans were the cause, it was time for action. I downloaded the report and was stunned, it was the most wishy washy equivocated scientific report I had ever read. There was no way they could support the claim that it was unequivocal based on the AR4 report, the report itself did not make that claim, only the IPCC people made that claim in front of the cameras. I don’t think any journalists actually read it. This was the beginning of my journey to the denier side.
The IPCC has little credibility anymore, this AR5 report will be released to little fanfare and little media attention. It will be the last gasp for anthropogenic claimte change. Just watch.
The article is by Jane Qiu
REPLY: Thanks fixed…
Qin:
With AR5 leaders like this, why do I get the impression that the answers to questions such as “whether climate change is accelerating” are fore-ordained?
The Trend to significant decreases in the AR report quality continues.
Brian H:
It’s worse than we thought.
So they admit there are gabs between observed and modelled global average temperatures?
Uhmmm gaps…
Its that time of year again as we enter the warm up for the annual bun fest, this time in Durban. This “leak” and other publications are making the pages. The UK papers have joined in, this being one of the gems, it is mass migration time again, do they not learn. 🙂 This time the date is safely tucked away at 50 years hence.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8836567/Major-migration-challenge-by-2060-experts-warn.html
Maybe they are planning on using the new Berkeley Temp series to decrease the gap some more??
Those aren’t ‘gaps’, they are ‘gasps’.
===============
“lock-in” — The process whereby an idea or a model becomes the basis for subsequent development, so that its flaws cannot be remedied without dismantling the entire system that is built upon it.
In an article about financial models, but …
There is no doubt that Dr. Qin Dahe is a “hands on” (“feet-on”?) glacier expert (see
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/cv-ipcc-new-bureau/cv-qin-dahe.pdf ) . He does seem a bit flipant about the speed of glacier retreat. He is a past author with Dr. Lonnie Thompson and clearly shares many of his perspectives.
There is evidence of glacier retreat in many locations, but it does seem to be true that a relatively small percentages of glaciers have actually been measured, (less than 1000 out of 10,000 in India for example) and so for many of them there is no historical baseline of direct measurement of length, mass precipitation and surface temperatures.
The key question is – what has caused the glacier retreat? Looking at one of Dr. Qin’s recent papers ( see http://www.springerlink.com/content/v856122gp8878261/ , available for free download) there is a discussion of increasing temperatures in the Dasuopu region of the Tibetan Himalayas since the 1850s (but notes that precipitation is important for glacier growth or retreat, which is turn dependent on northeast Indian monsoon precipitation).
In their study of nine glaciers, they present that they have been in a decreasing trend for the past century, with a rapid decrease in the 1960’s and a “relatively steady low value afterwards”. In the discussion, the paper discusses time lags for glacier response to climate of 10-130 years. So the retreat in the 1960’s would seem to be from climatic changes that took place in the 1820-1950 period.
Is there any calculation that shows that CO2 emissions should have had any impact in that period?
Not to belabor the point, but in a 2004 review, Prof. Liu and colleagues discuss their glacier inventory compilation indicating “46,342 modern glaciers with a total area and volume of 59415 km2 and 5601 km3 respectively in China”. They say “research shows that glaciers in China have been retreating since the Little Ice Age and the mass wastage was accelerated during the past 30 to 40 years”. It does not appear that a high percentage of the glaciers have been studied for long. Again I don’t see any calculation dividing any glacial retreat into presumed anthropogenic or natural.
(see http://www.springerlink.com/content/8208492162040431/ , abstract).
Harold W quotes above from IPCC (was it?) “Despite uncertainties, one thing is absolutely clear: global warming is real and poses a significant threat to civilizations worldwide, and reducing emissions of greenhouse gases can mitigate the problem. The process of climate negotiation has been frustratingly slow, but it’s encouraging that the world has committed to a goal of keeping temperature increases to less than 2 ºC”
The BEST land report on temperatures shows almost 2 deg C rise in the period analysed starting about 1800. The 2 deg C increase has already happened, if you believe the figures. So what did that 2 deg C do, if anything? Melted an odd glacier faster than normal, maybe? Did Man make the 2 deg or did Nature?
Why are you still giving the IPCC undue attention they do not deserve?
It should be abolished and buried.And give the scientists back their freedom to do honest research.Without having purse strings or political overtones around to inject undue bias.
Really why not go back to the less organized and harder to corrupt science research we used to have?
The existing purse is so big and fat compared to previous ones, and especially compared to what will be on offer after AGW implodes, that their self-interest counsels them prudently to hold on tight.
I’m sure that someone will be sending Prof. Qin a copy of the new report in Scientific American, “New Research Casts Doubt on Doomsday Water Shortage Predictions”
(see http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=research-casts-doubt-doomsday-water-shortage-predictions )
I’m actually gobsmacked that this appeared in SciAm. Given the depth to which they sink heresy against AGW, this is likely the tiny tip of a huge submerged iceberg of skeptical submissions they’ve been getting.
Geoff Sherrington (#17) –
Just to be clear, the quotation in #6 is from Qin Dahe, who is co-chair of AR5 WG1, not the IPCC per se. Source is the interview linked in the original post.
Re: HaroldW (Oct 20 13:29),
Committed? Lip service is more like it. Let’s see what he says after the near certain failure of the Durban Climate Change Conference this November to achieve anything substantive. Comments coming out of Europe indicate that even they are about to give up their carbon trading scheme. Everyone else is on record that they won’t do anything unless China and India do something significant, which isn’t going to happen.