What is the significance of the IPCC's bungle over the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are melting?

 

In 2007 the IPCC reported that glaciers in the Himalayas could vanish in 30 years.  The British Sunday Times claimed that was based on a conversation between a New Scientist journalist and a single Indian scientist a decade ago and was never published as peer-reviewed research.  An alternative explanation is that it was a miscopying of the date 2350 as 2035.  Either way, the consensus is now that:

  • The Himalayan glaciers are not, on average, retreating faster than glaciers generally.
  • Some are advancing.
  • Changes in glacier length are more to do with precipitation and winds than temperature, and GW will affect these variously.

How does this affect the GW debate?  It ought not affect it much:

  • There is a huge delay between what we do and the effect on the climate.  We have to act now to avoid consequences in 300 years.
  • Rising temperatures will alter wind and weather in ways we are still unable to predict accurately, so a risk of suddenly retreating glaciers - anywhere - remains. 
  • Glacier retreat is only one of many dangers from GW.

But of course, it is fodder for the denialists, so expect an avalanche of criticism for the IPCC.

References:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/12/01/global-warming-and-glacier-melt-down-debate-a-tempest-in-a-teapot/

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080317154235.htm

http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/220-himalayan-glacier-melt-timetable-qmistakeq.html

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Himalayan-melting-by-2035-Scientists-just-assumed-so/articleshow/5459848.cms