Banner ad

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

One way to accelerate the decline: reverse a zero

Charles Martin highlights a hilarious mistake by the IPCC. The head of the IPCC has been trumpeting the imminent melting of the Himalayan glaciers. In fact, if we don't do something fast, the IPCC claims that the glaciers will have melted away by 2035.
IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri reacted angrily citing the IPCC 2007 climate change reports which asserted that the (Himalayan) glaciers are receding faster than in any other part of the world and if the present rate (of melting) continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps even sooner is very high if the earth keeps warming at the current rate.
Wow! The Himalayans to melt away in just 26 years! That's amazing!

Except that this apocalyptic prediction is the result of a typo! The IPCC inserted an extra zero to read the original prediction as 2035 instead of what was actually estimated as occuring in 2350. They're off by over 300 years.

These guys and their models couldn't predict the last ten years of cooling that we've experienced and they think that they can estimate the climate three centuries from now? I guess it's a lot easier to do that if you just reverse the position of the zero.


Pat Patterson said...

Is this the IPCC's version of the Stonehenge model for Spinal Tap?

tfhr said...

Pat Patterson,

Could be but I was thinking that the "imminent" figure was due to data drawn from all of those newly discovered Congressional districts that gave yield to all those new and saved jobs.

LarryD said...

We'll probably never know the truth, but anyone want to guesstimate the odds that it wasn't a typo, but a deliberate lie?

Michael said...

For want of a zero the Himalayas were saved, or was it lost? I'm confused. How much time do I have before we all need to get on the starship?

Joking aside, I trust that reasonable people who have been following the debate do not simply dismiss all of the new information about mistakes and malfeasance on the part of the IPCC and the CRU as outlier data points.

The Mighty Quinn said...

Hide the Decline.

Bob said...

Honestly, I find the typo they made (which, regardless, was pretty awful), is nothing compared to the lie that there has been ten years of cooling up to now. Part of a cycle and unrelated to human activity, or related to human activity, or insignificant, or important to consider, it is completely false no matter how you want to interpret it. I completely understand if you call them a bunch of crazy doomsayers pulling destruction out of small changes in temperature, but flat out using false information to make a point is troublesome in a debate that requires science and facts to decide, instead of dismissing the data gathered by all the scientists that don't agree with you.

Pat Patterson said...

But isn't the problem with a disagreement on interpreting the facts somewhat difficult when one side appears to have fudged its facts. How can there be reasonable disagreement based on false and continually asserted facts? Much like the claim, even today, that Pres Bush delivered a plastic turkey to the troops in Iraq a few years ago. There simply can't be a rational discussion when the case was disproved and their counter arguments about no cooling over the last decade is somewhat problematic if based on the CRU figures.