Or this one?

No apology from IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri for glacier fallacy

Head of UN climate change body 'not at fault' for false claim Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035.

The embattled chief of the UN's climate change body has hit out at his critics and refused to resign or apologize for a ­damaging mistake in a landmark 2007 report on global warming.

Pachauri spoke as the second day of the Guardian's investigation into the emails stolen from the University of East Anglia reveals how climate scientists acted to keep research papers they did not like out of academic journals.
The emails also reveal that one of the most influential data sets in climate science – the "hockey stick" graph of temperature over the past 1,000 years – was controversial not just with skeptics but among climate scientists themselves.

www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/...-glaciers?intcmp=239

Perhaps this means that the Guardian writers/editors have not drank the Kool-Aide.
HF

Well, climate science is evolving! It does look like that article had a few technical mistakes that made their estimate (which was on the low side) in doubt.

Instead of worrying about the call for an apology - in a one year old news clip - for two mistakes in a 1000 page report, you just might want to turn your attention to the thousands of things they got right. Actually I don't even think that glacier mistake was in the report on the Climate Science, but rather in one of the other working group reports.

As these studies have come out since 2006 and data are augmented or revised the IPCC sealevel projections seem to be holding up quite well. And the main message of global glacier retreat is more compelling than ever with continued massive losses in glacier mass.

Amount and timing of permafrost carbon release in response to climate warming

ABSTRACT
The thaw and release of carbon currently frozen in permafrost will increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations and amplify surface warming to initiate a positive permafrost carbon feedback (PCF) on climate. We use surface weather from three global climate models based on the moderate warming, A1B Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emissions scenario and the SiBCASA land surface model to estimate the strength and timing of the PCF and associated uncertainty. By 2200, we predict a 29–59% decrease in permafrost area and a 53–97 cm increase in active layer thickness. By 2200, the PCF strength in terms of cumulative permafrost carbon flux to the atmosphere is 190 ± 64 Gt C. This estimate may be low because it does not account for amplified surface warming due to the PCF itself and excludes some discontinuous permafrost regions where SiBCASA did not simulate permafrost. We predict that the PCF will change the arctic from a carbon sink to a source after the mid-2020s and is strong enough to cancel 42–88% of the total global land sink. The thaw and decay of permafrost carbon is irreversible and accounting for the PCF will require larger reductions in fossil fuel emissions to reach a target atmospheric CO2 concentration.



onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.16...8F798F3C91D31.d03t04

February Arctic ice extent ties 2005 for record low; extensive snow cover persists

Arctic sea ice extent for February 2011 tied with February 2005 as the lowest recorded in the satellite record. Sea ice extent was particularly low in the Labrador Sea and Gulf of St. Lawrence. In contrast, winter snow cover remained extensive in many parts of the Northern Hemisphere.



nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Occam wrote:


Umm, where did 2005 end up?


And that means what?

Was it also a joke when IPCC said “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms”?

The great part of a hypothesis that can't be falsified is no matter what happens, it never fails


The AMO is at or near peak. It is the last index with the greatest influence on weather/climate, so we can expect the 60-70 year cycle to reverse just as it always has. Arctic warming is not accelerating, and there is zero direct evidence that CO2 has anything to do with it.

Occam wrote:


Yes, those climate models are spot on....
tinyurl.com/6k6uz3p

And so are climate "scientists"

news.google.com/newspapers?nid=71XFh8zZw...p;printsec=frontpage



The internet is not your friend.

Occam wrote:


History began in 1980? Wow!

Freshwater Content of Upper Arctic Ocean Increased 20 Percent Since 1990s, Large-Scale Assessment Finds


ScienceDaily (Mar. 25, 2011) — The freshwater content of the upper Arctic Ocean has increased by about 20 percent since the 1990s, according to a new large-scale assessment. This corresponds to a rise of approximately 8,400 cubic kilometres and has the same magnitude as the volume of freshwater annually exported on average from this marine region in liquid or frozen form.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110325111901.htm

An assessment of Arctic Ocean freshwater content changes from the 1990s to the 2006–2008 period. Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers, 2011; 58 (2): 173 DOI: 10.1016/j.dsr.2010.12.002

Rising sea levels trigger disasters in China

Gradually rising sea levels caused by global warming over the past 30 years have contributed to a growing number of disasters along China's coast, state news agency Xinhua said on Wednesday.


www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?i...g-sea-levels-trigger