Anthony Watts about those Himalayan Glaciers

A character I'm familiar with dropped in for a moment to brag about Anthony Watts attacking the National Geographic magazine yet again with his August 31, 2014 blog post "National Geographic's Warming Warning - 10 Years Later".

Anthony's has a big list claiming National Geographic failed miserably in projecting into the future, but even a first reading indicates a few games of misrepresentation being played.  Weirdest was when Anthony was tossing down the gauntlet: "To the Editor of National Geographic, we are a third of that way to that very different world and many can’t pick the difference yet." Anthony apparently doesn't notice any changes in the world around him, an incomprehensible statement that can only be made by someone deliberately ignoring Earth observations and other global news.

For starters I wanted to look at this Himalayan glacier mistake, since the echo-chamber has been bouncing around the news that Himalayan glacier melt rate seems to be reduced recently - as though a reduction in melt rate means global warming is not happening.

This post is for those who want more information at hand when confronting the crazy-makers like Anthony Watts so I'll be sharing links to a few informative reports examining this question of IPCC's 2035/2350 error and various aspects of how a warming world has impacted the Himalayan Mountain region.  

National Geographic’s Warming Warning – 10 Years Later

Anthony Watts / August 31, 2014

Geoff Sherrington writes: National Geographic Magazine had a Global Warming issue in September 2004. New instruments have given new data. By planning now, NatGeo can make a revised issue 10 years later, in September 2014.

The 2014 edition should aim to correct what is now known to be wrong or questionable in the 2004 edition. We can help. Here are some quotes that need attention. The first three have some commentary, as is suggested for the remainder.

~ ~ ~

2. “… researchers believe that most central and eastern Himalayan glaciers could virtually disappear by 2035.” P.14 

This arose from a brochure from India to the World Wide Fund for Nature, not peer reviewed, which eventuated in year 2350 being replaced by 2035 in the IPCC 2007 report – and missed by the peer-review process. The correction process by the IPCC was tortuous and lamentably acrimonious when a single direct statement should have sufficed."

OK, the IPCC made a big mistake, one that needed to be examined, explained and avoided in the future.  Still, I wish there was more awareness that the mistake was made by social scientists in Working Group 2, Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability - 

Not by the Earth and climate scientists of Working Group 1, the ones who study and explain the science of climate change, or global warming if you will!

No serious errors have been found in Working Group 1's section on glaciers and the state of that geophysical science.   Below are some papers and articles relating to the 2035/2350 mistake, but more importantly I conclude with other articles that are looking at new studies, including "State and Fate of Himalayan Glaciers" which some tout as if it were another 'nail in the coffin' of global warming, though it's no such thing, just another piece of the learning process
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

I'll begin with, IPCC's admittedly inadequate public statement:  

IPCC statement on the melting of Himalayan glaciers

Geneva, 20 January 2010

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/himalaya-statement-20january2010.pdf