2010年1月25日月曜日

IPCC ヒマラヤ氷河予測誤報で陳謝

IPCCがヒマラヤ氷河予測誤報で陳謝した。
 IPCCが出した第4次評価報告書で、ヒマラヤの氷河が「このまま地球温暖
化が続くと、消失する可能性が非常に高い」とした記述について科学的根
拠がなかったと報じた。

経緯
・インドの科学者が「憶測だった」ことを認めた。
 1999年インド Vijay Kumar Rainaが記事を発表
 2006年オーストリア Georg Kaserが2035年予測を否定
 2007年IPCC 第4次評価報告書公表

・IPCCのパチャウリ議長が、排出量取引等で利益を上げる銀行の顧問を
 務め、報酬はパチャウリ氏が理事長を務める団体に渡る。

2500人が3000頁の報告書を書き上げたが、懐疑派が2年かけて見つけた
間違いは一ヵ所と冷ややかな目の報道もある。
「蟻の一穴」と言うことわざが示すとおり、気候温暖化の工作(間違い)は
二つ目となった。擁護派さえ、報告書全ての項目を確認できていないと
報道もあるが、政治に興味がない科学者は次第に転換することになると
思う。


---ヒマラヤの氷河消失、報告書は誤りと陳謝---
2010年1月21日10時22分 読売新聞
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/eco/news/20100121-OYT1T00347.htm

 【ワシントン=山田哲朗】国連の気候変動に関する政府間パネル(IPCC)は20日、声明を発表し、2007年の第4次報告書で「ヒマラヤの氷河が2035年までに解けてなくなる可能性が非常に高い」とした記述は科学的根拠がなく誤りだったと陳謝した。
 世界中の科学者が協力して作成した報告書は信頼性が高く、IPCCはアル・ゴア元米副大統領と2007年にノーベル平和賞を受賞したが、地球温暖化の懐疑派は「報告書の信頼は揺らいだ」と攻勢を強めている。
 欧米の気象学者らが20日、独自に発表した分析によると、報告書は問題の部分を世界自然保護基金(WWF)のリポートから引用した。WWFは英国の一般向け科学雑誌ニュー・サイエンティストが1999年に掲載したインド人研究者についての記事を引用した。しかし、この研究者の論文は未公表で、氷河消失の時期も予想していなかった。
 「2035年」という時期は、別の文献の「2350年」を写し間違えた可能性があるという。分析は「査読を経た論文を基礎に置くという科学の基本を守れば回避できた間違い」と指摘している。


---UN Climate Change panel under fire after Himalayan glacier claim---
January 21, 2010
Ben Webster, Environment Editor
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6995890.ece

It has been a bleak winter for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The credibility of the UN body came under attack days before the opening of the Copenhagen climate summit in December, when leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia appeared to show manipulation of temperature data used by the panel. Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, was forced to spend much of his time at the conference defending the integrity of the science contained in the panel’s reports.

Now it has been forced to apologise for including a highly alarmist claim in its most recent report that Himalayan glaciers were very likely to vanish by 2035.

Most glaciologists believe the melting would take hundreds of years and some doubt that it will ever happen, pointing to evidence of glaciers advancing in the neighbouring Karakoram mountain range.

The IPCC reports underpin every country’s decisions about climate change. If the panel cannot be trusted, it becomes much more difficult to justify the global effort to cut greenhouse gases. That is why it is vital to place the allegations against the IPCC in context. While it is alarming that none of the 2,500 scientists who contributed to its 2007 report spotted the error, this is explained partly by it appearing in a single sentence on page 493.

Climate sceptics around the world have spent two years scrutinising every claim made by the panel. So far they have identified one serious error; it seems unlikely that they will find many more. The IPCC should now re-check all the sources of statements in its report, but this process will not alter its conclusion that man-made emissions are very likely to be the main cause of global warming.


---IPCC officials admit mistake over melting Himalayan glaciers---
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 20 January 2010 14.26 GMT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake

Senior members of the UN's climate science body admit a claim that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 was unfounded

The UN's climate science body has admitted that a claim made in its 2007 report - that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035 - was unfounded.

The admission today followed a New Scientist article last week that revealed the source of the claim made in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was not peer-reviewed scientific literature - but a media interview with a scientist conducted in 1999. Several senior scientists have now said the claim was unrealistic and that the large Himalayan glaciers could not melt in a few decades.

In a statement (pdf), the IPCC said the paragraph "refers to poorly substantiated estimates of rate of recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers. In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly."

It added: "The IPCC regrets the poor application of well-established IPCC procedures in this instance." But the statement calls for no action beyond stating a need for absolute adherence to IPCC quality control processes. "We reaffirm our strong commitment to ensuring this level of performance," the statement said.

The IPCC says the broader conclusion of the report is unaffected: that glaciers have melted significantly, that this will accelerate and affect the supply of water from major mountain ranges "where more than one-sixth of the world population currently lives".

Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chair of the IPCC, added that the mistake did nothing to undermine the large body of evidence that showed the climate was warming and that human activity was largely to blame. He told BBC News: "I don't see how one mistake in a 3,000-page report can damage the credibility of the overall report. "

The Indian environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, said earlier in the week: "The [glaciers] are indeed receding and the rate is cause for great concern … [but the claim is] not based on an iota of scientific evidence."

The Indian government criticised the IPCC's glaciers claim in November at the launch of its own discussion paper, written by geologist Vijay Kumar Raina, which admitted that while some glaciers in the Himalayas were retreating, it was "nothing out of the ordinary. Nothing to suggest as some have said that they will disappear."

At the time, the chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, dismissed the report as not peer-reviewed and said: "With the greatest of respect this guy retired years ago and I find it totally baffling that he comes out and throws out everything that has been established years ago."

Georg Kaser, an expert in tropical glaciology at the University of Innsbruck in Austria and a lead author for the IPCC, said he had warned that the 2035 prediction was clearly wrong in 2006, months before the report was published. "This [date] is not just a little bit wrong, but far out of any order of magnitude," he said.

"All the responsible people are aware of this weakness in the fourth assessment. All are aware of the mistakes made," he said. "If it had not been the focus of so much public opinion, we would have said 'we will do better next time'. It is clear now that working group II has to be restructured."

The reports of the IPCC collate the work of thousands of scientists and are assessed through a process of peer-review and then approved by the 192 governments who are members of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Its work is seen as the most comprehensive account of global warming.

The chair of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, has made no personal comment on the glacier claim: But yesterday, at an energy conference in Abu Dhabi, he responded to British newspaper articles criticising his chairmanship of the IPCC. "They can't attack the science so they attack the chairman. But they won't sink me. I am the unsinkable Molly Brown. In fact, I will float much higher," he told the Guardian.

The row centres on the IPCC's "fourth assessment" report in 2007, which said "glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate." The claim appears in the full report, but not in the more widely read "Summary for policymakers".

The claim was attributed to a report by the campaign group WWF, but in the New Scientist article, Guardian writer Fred Pearce noted that WWF had cited a 1999 interview in the magazine with Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain as the source of the claim. Hasnain told the magazine last week that "it is not proper for IPCC to include references from popular magazines or newspapers".

Additional reporting: Ian Wylie


---「25年後にヒマラヤ氷河消失」根拠なし? 英紙が報道---
2010年1月19日14時30分
http://www.asahi.com/science/update/0119/TKY201001190203.html

 【ワシントン=勝田敏彦】国連の気候変動に関する政府間パネル(IPCC)が2007年に出した第4次評価報告書で、ヒマラヤの氷河が「このまま地球温暖化が続くと、2035年までに消失する可能性が非常に高い」とした記述について科学的根拠がなかったと、英紙サンデー・タイムズが17日付で報じた。
 IPCC報告書は世界の一線の研究者約1千人が学術雑誌に掲載された論文やデータなどを元に作成しており、これだけで報告書の結論が揺らぐものではないが、地球温暖化懐疑派の攻撃材料がまた一つ増えることになる。
 同紙によると、報告書のこの記述は、一般向け英科学誌「ニューサイエンティスト」が1999年に掲載したインドの科学者への電話インタビューが根拠だったが、この科学者が「憶測だった」ことを認めたという。この記述は、世界自然保護基金(WWF)が05年に作成した報告書のデータにも使われ、第4次報告書はWWFの報告書を参考文献にしていた。
 世界気象機関(WMO)と国連環境計画(UNEP)の呼びかけで89年に設立されたIPCCの影響力は大きく、07年にはノーベル平和賞をゴア米元副大統領と共同受賞している。
 英紙テレグラフは、IPCCのパチャウリ議長が、温室効果ガスの排出量取引などでもうけている銀行の顧問なども務め、その報酬はパチャウリ氏が理事長を務める団体に振り込まれていると報じている。同紙はパチャウリ氏のIPCC議長としての活動が、団体の活動拡大につながった可能性を示唆。「利益相反」の疑いに言及している。
 IPCC報告書に関しては昨年11月にも、基礎になった気温データで温暖化を誇張したとも受け取れる研究者間の電子メールのやりとりが盗み出される騒ぎ「クライメートゲート」が発覚している。

0 コメント: