Himalyan Glaciers Won't Melt by 2035?
January 22, 2010 at 08:40AM Glaciers and the IPCC Off-base -- A mistaken claim about glaciers raises questions about the UN’s climate panel -- Maybe not as much as Implied?
Jan 21st 2010 From The Economist print edition
THE idea that the Himalaya could lose its glaciers by 2035—glaciers which feed rivers across South and East Asia—is a dramatic and apocalyptic one. After the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said such an outcome was very likely in the assessment of the state of climate science that it made in 2007, onlookers (including this newspaper) repeated the claim with alarm. In fact, there is no reason to believe it to be true. This is good news (within limits) for Indian farmers—and bad news for the IPCC. . . .
S-2030 Comment:
The generation of knowledge is not a perfect process. This article clearly illustrates the magnitude of the undertaking of the IPCC process, and some of the cracks through which errors can fall. Given the extensiveness of the IPCC effort, errors such as this could be expected in limited quantity and should not undermine the value and path-breaking effort of the larger program.
An error in a point estimate like this should not lead to dismissivness over the particluar issue or the larger import of global warming (read burning) for future generations. If the issue is simply when the glaciers will melt, or when existing water regimes in asia will change dramatically enough to extensively undermine local economies (some would say they already have), then the larger, apocalyptic issue remains. There is no substitute for the water regime of the himalyas--at least for the populations that depend on it (including humans!).
It does not really matter when it happens for the generations that will suffer. If the date is further out, that just adds more pressure to act now, when costs are less and probabilities for success are higher.
There is no alternative to a lightening-fast transition to a sustainble economy and society (non-carbon, renewable energy, organic agriculture, compact vibrant cities, etc.) that will produce durable economic prosperity and security at higher levels than our business-as-usual, 7+ degree global burning societal suicide scenario ever has or could--whether the date for himalya glacier melt is 2035 or 2350.
Even if we can orchestrate a soft landing on a 2-degree or less global warming scenario, reversing those effects is a 200-300 year mitigation program assuming peak CO2 by 2015-2020, dramatic decreases in CO2 levels ASAP, going negative with high-tech solutions out in 2050, and maintaining the lower levels for the 200-300 years it will take for the lagged effects to restore pre-1990 clmiate conditions of 350 ppm CO2 or less to the normal range of historical variation.
Whining about an error, even of this magnitude, or expecting perfect knowledge from path-breaking work on events at the frontier of human experience and history is a ridiculous unhelpful cheap shot. Identifying the error and fixing the process that generated it, as illuminated by the Economist article, is exceptionally important work, the role of the press, etc. Thank you for your work on this point.
