27 January 2010 | Luca Del Buono
Carbon, Climate Change, Water, Asia

 

An egregious error was found in the IPCC's (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 2007 that report that asserted the Himalayan glaciers could recede by the year 2035 or sooner.

This is nearly 300 years off of the generally accepted, but still debatabed figure of 2350. In this unprecedented climate crisis, errors are bound to happen.

Scholars and scientists are human too. Blame will ultimately be placed at the top of the Nobel-peace prizewinning committee on Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri who will not resign. Why should he?

While it is unfortunate that a committee comprised of what should be the twelve most brilliant scientists in the world did not get their facts right, it would be unreasonable to expect Dr. Pachauri or the committee to want him to resign.

"I was re-elected by acclamation, essentially - I imagine - because everyone was satisfied with my performance on the fourth assessment report.

I am now charged with producing the fifth assessment report, which I will do faithfully and to the best of my abilities," Pauchuri stated in a recent interview.

Critics argue the error might discredit the entire IPCC report. But the fact that other scholars were able to find and amend the error is a good thing. This is a daunting and complicated problem and scepticism is healthy.

We are bound to hit roadblocks along the way as we begin to face the climate crisis head on. Dr. Pachauri stated, "This does not in any way detract from the fact that the glaciers are melting, and this is a problem that we need to be deeply concerned about."

The Himalayan glaciers feed the Ganges, the Indus, the Brahmaputra rivers. In a separate interview Vice-Chairmen of the committee Dr. van Ypersele said added, "I don't see how one mistake in a 3,000-page report can damage the credibility of the overall report."

The error was possibly derived from a WWF report in 2005 or from a misreading of New Scientist magazine's interview with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, published in New Scientist magazine in 1999.

Dr. van Ypersele stated, "Some people will attempt to use it to damage the credibility of the IPCC; but if we can uncover it, and explain it and change it, it should strengthen the IPCC's credibility."

Likely as a result, a UK Sunday Times article recently challenged another assertion made by the report, which links global warming to increasing severity of natural disasters. The article is in the minority.

The IPCC issued a statement describing the article "meaningless and baseless." Dr. Pauchuri and the IPCC serve as an excellent example on how to react to challenges.

As we face this problem, we will commit errors, but we cannot shrink from them; it is imperative that we learn from mistakes and amend them. The IPCC's next landmark assessment is due 2013. We will learn. We have to.

 

Author: Michael Good | Climate Change

Images Provided By: mckaysavage | Flickr; World Economic Forum | Flickr
 

blog comments powered by Disqus