Yet more dodgy data

"If you think about the thicknesses of the ice – 200-300m thicknesses, in some cases up to 400m thick – and if you're losing ice at the rate of a metre a year, or let's say double it to two metres a year, you're not going to get rid of 200m of ice in a quarter of a century."

.

So the Himalayan glaciers won't be disappearing by 2035, it's more likely to be by 2350.

Not because the climate in the Himalayas isn't rapidly changing, but because the ice is so f#*king thick.

Excellent…………. I feel a whole lot better now.

cool! so now not in our lifetime… not worth worrying about then! 🙂

My life wouldn't be worth living without those Himalayan glaciers. They help me through the day….

If you over hype things, expect a backlash.

If you over hype things, expect a backlash.

What's an "over hype" ?

When you misread a number…….like 2350 instead of 2035 ?

I'm constantly doing that at work……. I don't expect a backlash though.

.

If the Climate Change Deniers are going to use this error to dismiss the realities of climate change, then it just shows how desperate the poor buggers are.

Perhaps they could build their whole case on the discovery of "spelling mistakes" ?

Hmm, yes, obviously putting numbers the wrong way round is _just_ like a spelling mistake. Do that when you're writing cheques do you?

Anyway Ernie you miss my point – green activists do the science no service by over egging the pudding – it invites skepticism.

green activists do the science no service by over egging the pudding

I'm not sure whether it's fair to describe the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as "green activists"

.

Or was this just a case of you "over egging the pudding" ?

I'm not sure whether it's fair to describe the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as "green activists"

Read the link. They cut and paste a figure from a WWF report, in turn lifted from a New Scientist interview.

I'm still wondering how confusing a date 25 years from now with one 340 years from now is like a spelling mistake. It smacks of a typo being reproduced several times by people who should have had the common sense to spot jarring nonsense when they see it. The point is the IPCC should not be taking stuff fed to them by pressure groups on face value without thinking about it.

Let's take a similar example… suppose some other official body had lifted a figure from an unchecked source and used it in a a report used to inform policy… say, like, oh I dunno, re-arrange the words 'Iraq', 'WMD' and '45 minutes'.

When you misread a number…….like 2350 instead of 2035 ?

I'm constantly doing that at work……. I don't expect a backlash though.

If a scientist, engineer, builder, accountant or doctor made such mistakes with numbers on a regular basis, I would certainly expect some form of backlash… loss of job, buildings not standing up, fraud investigations, deaths, that kind of thing.

Read the link. They cut and paste a figure from a WWF report, in turn lifted from a New Scientist interview.

Can't be bothered to give this non-story anything more than a cursory glance. Are the World Wildlife Fund and New Scientist "green activists" then ?

I'm still wondering how confusing a date 25 years from now with one 340 years from now is like a spelling mistake.

Who said it was "like a spelling mistake" ? I certainly didn't. I just helpfully suggested that if the Climate Change Deniers want to dismiss climate change evidence on the basis of an anagram of a number, then perhaps they could exploit any spelling mistakes too.

buildings not standing up

My buildings stand up, despite the fact that I have been known (like everyone else) to occasionally misread my tape measure. You know the sort of stuff ……2350 millimetres instead of 2035 millimetres.

So anyway, all this "global warming" stuff is a load of bollox is it……because the ice in the Himalayan glaciers is so thick, that it will take 340 years for all of it to melt ?

cool! so now not in our lifetime… not worth worrying about then!

Well I'm sure your Children will be grateful for that, that is if you are unfortunately a parent. 😀

2350 millimetres instead of 2035 millimetres.

Christ, you leave one foot gaps in walls? Jeez.

you leave one foot gaps in walls?

No. Because mistakes become very quickly apparent. Everyone occasionally misreads things.
There is no such thing as the person who never misreads.

Obviously you never knew that, so take it as a valuable lesson which you have learnt today.

Have you given smee/Goan /troll zoo your log in?Hundreds of pages thousands of claims being pured over by deniers and they find one error /exageration/mistake about the rate of decline suggests to em that the peer review process semms robust rather than infallible
Or one error about rate of decline means all global warming is b0llocks.
Each to their own but it does not even suggest global warming is not occuring just that one thing will change slower.

Meanwhile, in an interview with the news agency AFP, Georg Kaser from the University of Innsbruck in Austria – who led a different portion of the AR4 process – said he had warned that the 2035 figure was wrong in 2006, before AR4's publication.

"It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing," he told AFP in an interview.

He said that people working on the Asia chapter "did not react".

So – this "mistake" was included even after another expert pointed out the error. That seems a bit more wilful than simple transposition of numbers.

We've extstensively covered this topic here!

Meanwhile, in an interview with the news agency AFP, Georg Kaser from the University of Innsbruck in Austria – who led a different portion of the AR4 process – said he had warned that the 2035 figure was wrong in 2006, before AR4's publication.

"It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing," he told AFP in an interview.

He said that people working on the Asia chapter "did not react".

So you agree with all that do you onion ?

Including the bit about, "It is so wrong that it is not even worth discussing"

So why bother posting a thread about it then ?

And btw, do you also agree with the other bit which Georg Kaser said, but you forgot to include in your copy n paste:"But its overall conclusion that global warming is "unequivocal" remains beyond reproach"