1  2  3  Next

Comments 1 to 25 out of 69:

1. Riccardo at 08:12 AM on 21 June, 2010
   Just for info, the Sunday Times retracted his piece by Jonathan Leake. RealClimate has the story.
2. Willis Eschenbach at 07:00 AM on 27 June, 2010
   Two of your links go nowhere. The third says nothing about "up to 40% of the Brazilian forest". How is this supposed to convince anyone?
3. Doug Bostrom at 07:03 AM on 27 June, 2010
   Welcome to Skeptical Science, Willis. Do you have anything more substantial to offer other than pointing out expired links?
4. Riccardo at 07:58 AM on 27 June, 2010
   For the lazy readers, here's the Global Review of Forrest Fires, Nepstad 2004, Nepstad 2007 and Philips 2009. And should the webmaster at WHRC decide to move their pages again, we won't let them hide anything: Nepstad, D., P. Lefebvre, U. Lopes da Silva, J. Tomasella, P. Schlesinger, L. Solórzano, P. Moutinho, D. Ray, and J. Guerreira Benito. 2004. Amazon drought and its implications for forest flammability and tree growth: a basin-wide analysis. Global Change Biology 10(5):704-717. Nepstad, D.C., I.M. Tohver, D. Ray, P. Moutinho, and G. Cardinot. 2007. Mortality of large trees and lianas following experimental drought in an Amazon Forest. Ecology 88(9):2259-2269. John, you might want to update your link and delete this comment.
5. Willis Eschenbach at 09:38 AM on 27 June, 2010
   Riccardo, thanks for the links. The WWF document cites the Nature document (Nepstad 1999) as their source for the statement that

   "Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation".

   I don't find that. The nearest I could find is a quote in the 1994 paper that supports the statement referred to in the head post:

   "A 1994 paper estimated that around half of the Amazonian forests lost large portions of their available soil moisture during drought."

   Yes, forests lose soil moisture during a drought. That is a very different statement from saying that the Amazon could "react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation." In fact, the 1994 paper says that in 2001, half of the Amazon suffered a 50% loss in soil water ... but it says nothing about that causing a "drastic reaction". I find nothing in the cited document that makes the 40% claim. This website says that the WWF citation is incorrect, that they really were relying on a 1994 document, Nepstad 1994. It is unknown how this website came to that conclusion ... but the practice of randomly substituting one citation for another hardly inspires confidence. Now, it's possible they were relying on the 1994 document (although we have only this website's word for it). But I find nothing in that document that makes the 40% claim either ... perhaps someone could quote where in the 1994 document the 40% claim was made. Now, I am not saying that the claim is wrong. I do not know whether it is or not. I do think, however, that for the IPCC to rely on a WWF document whose cited reference for a claim does not support what the WWF document says is ... well, it is far away from Pachauri's claim that the IPCC depends 100% on peer reviewed science. This is not even second-hand peer reviewed science, the citation doesn't support the claim. And for this website to say that the WWF document is really referring to a totally different paper (and one which does not contain the 40% claim either) is Monday morning quarterbacking. You present no evidence at all that the WWF was referring to the 1994 paper. Now that you know that the 1994 paper does not contain anything even remotely similar to the claim that "Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation", I suppose that you could come up with some other citation that kinda supports the claim if you squint at it in the right way ... but that's not the point. The point is that the IPCC relied on a WWF paper which was not peer-reviewed, and the citation listed for that WWF claim did not back up the claim ... Finally, you say:

   However, the 40% figure comes from several other papers by the same author that the WWF failed to cite. ... In 2004, new rainfall data showed that half of the forest area of the Amazon Basin had either fallen below, or was very close to, the critical level of soil moisture below which trees begin to die (Nepstad 2004).

   Sorry, not possible. The WWF paper is not dated, but the most recent citation is from 2000, and it refers to 2001 as "the future", viz:

   So when will the next El Niño occur? Scientists at the American Climate Prediction Centre believe that La Niña conditions will prevail globally until March 2000 and it is too early to say when the next El Niño will be. However, the Eighth ASEAN Ministerial meeting on Haze in August concluded that as “La Niña is expected to weaken by the end of this year, meteorological experts have predicted a likely recurrence of dry conditions associated with the El Niño phenomenon next year or by 2001”.

   So unless WWF has invented time travel, the idea that the WWF "failed to cite" a 2004 document is simply not possible ...
6. Doug Bostrom at 10:24 AM on 27 June, 2010
   Resurrecting "Amazongate?" Now, I am not saying that the claim is wrong. I do not know whether it is or not. But you'll bring it up because it's handy rhetoric. IPCC has something like a "four nines" reliability record with cites, so dredging up this silliness is only going to continue playing badly for those using it for impressionist art purposes. Read what Nepstad himself had to say. Senior Scientist Daniel Nepstad endorses the correctness of the IPCC’s (AR4) statement on Amazon forest susceptibility to rainfall reduction: "The IPCC statement on the Amazon is correct, but the citations listed in the Rowell and Moore report were incomplete. (The authors of this report interviewed several researchers, including the author of this note, and had originally cited the IPAM website where the statement was made that 30 to 40% of the forests of the Amazon were susceptible to small changes in rainfall). Our 1999 article (Nepstad et al. 1999) estimated that 630,000 km2 of forests were severely drought stressed in 1998, as Rowell and Moore correctly state, but this forest area is only 15% of the total area of forest in the Brazilian Amazon. In another article published in Nature, in 1994, we used less conservative assumptions to estimate that approximately half of the forests of the Amazon depleted large portions of their available soil moisture during seasonal or episodic drought (Nepstad et al. 1994). After the Rowell and Moore report was released in 2000, and prior to the publication of the IPCC AR4, new evidence of the full extent of severe drought in the Amazon was available. In 2004, we estimated that half of the forest area of the Amazon Basin had either fallen below, or was very close to, the critical level of soil moisture below which trees begin to die in 1998. This estimate incorporated new rainfall data and results from an experimental reduction of rainfall in an Amazon forest that we had conducted with funding from the US National Science Foundation (Nepstad et al. 2004). Field evidence of the soil moisture critical threshold is presented in Nepstad et al. 2007. In sum, the IPCC statement on the Amazon was correct. The report that is cited in support of the IPCC statement (Rowell and Moore 2000) omitted some citations in support of the 40% value statement.
7. Willis Eschenbach at 17:01 PM on 27 June, 2010
   doug_bostrom at 10:24 AM on 27 June, 2010

   Resurrecting "Amazongate?"

   Now, I am not saying that the claim is wrong. I do not know whether it is or not.

   But you'll bring it up because it's handy rhetoric.

   Nope. I bring it up to show that the IPCC did not follow its own guidelines, and that there was nothing at the end of the citation trail that supported the 40% number.
8. Doug Bostrom at 17:16 PM on 27 June, 2010
   Willis, the problem here is that you're so keen on your impressionist artwork, you're painting a picture that does not resemble reality. Your claim: Now, it's possible they were relying on the 1994 document (although we have only this website's word for it). But I find nothing in that document that makes the 40% claim either ... perhaps someone could quote where in the 1994 document the 40% claim was made. Original author of the Amazon study in question Nepstad: In sum, the IPCC statement on the Amazon was correct. The report that is cited in support of the IPCC statement (Rowell and Moore 2000) omitted some citations in support of the 40% value statement. So it's your impressionism versus the ultimate authority on the matter, the fellow who actually did the research to which the citation trail was supposed to lead, in other words reality. As I say, you're resurrecting this trivia because it's useful rhetoric, if nobody bothers to correct you. I've read some of your stuff on WUWT, you're capable of producing much original and entertaining pieces so it's baffling that you'd resort to such a stale technique.
9. Willis Eschenbach at 19:56 PM on 27 June, 2010
   doug_bostrom at 17:16 PM on 27 June, 2010 I had said:

   ... Now, it's possible they were relying on the 1994 document (although we have only this website's word for it). But I find nothing in that document that makes the 40% claim either ... perhaps someone could quote where in the 1994 document the 40% claim was made.

   You replied:

   Original author of the Amazon study in question Nepstad:

   In sum, the IPCC statement on the Amazon was correct. The report that is cited in support of the IPCC statement (Rowell and Moore 2000) omitted some citations in support of the 40% value statement.

   So it's your impressionism versus the ultimate authority on the matter, the fellow who actually did the research to which the citation trail was supposed to lead, in other words reality.

   In other words, you can't find anything in the 1994 document that supports the 40% claim ... and neither can Nepstad. He gives no citation, he only repeats the claim that it was correct, and says that Rowell and Moore "omitted some citations". Well ... yes. It is those "omitted citations", that neither you nor Nepstad have provided, that I am asking for. Where did the "40%" claim come from? Nepstad says that the WWF authors

   ... had originally cited the IPAM website where the statement was made that 30 to 40% of the forests of the Amazon were susceptible to small changes in rainfall.

   Again, this sounds good. But my search of the IPAM website doesn't reveal any citations to the 40% figure there either. So where did it come from? Finally, whether the IPCC relies on un-referenced puff pieces from the WWF is hardly "trivia" as you say ... it goes directly to their claims of scientific credibility, and is the reason that this website is trying so hard to make folks think that the IPCC is blameless in this matter.
10. Riccardo at 20:01 PM on 27 June, 2010
    If we care about the form more than the substance, we should also check the ortography in the IPCC reports. After all, if one cannot write in good english how could he ever claim to know the science?
11. Riccardo at 20:32 PM on 27 June, 2010
    By the way, the IPCC procedure does not exclude the use of non peer-reviewed papers. Though, I agree thet it's not a good choice to use them, in particular when the proper peer reviewed papers are available. Definitely it should be avoided. But I'm way more interested in the science (the substance) than in the formal procedures, and the former looks correct and supported by proper scientific papers.
12. Doug Bostrom at 22:36 PM on 27 June, 2010
    ...is the reason that this website is trying so hard to make folks think that the IPCC is blameless in this matter. More unfounded speculations, daubs of paint flung on a canvas to make an impression. What, are you not only a rhetorical artiste but telepathic? A mind-reader? Meanwhile, back in reality, aren't you becoming just a wee bit self-conscious about what a strange impression you convey when you're so obsessed with the image you're trying to portray here, and what odd little bits of arcana you're trumpeting as some sort of triumphant evidence of defect? Bottom line is that the IPCC has justifiable and clearly stated policies about what sort of expertise and publications quality they draw on to construct synthesis reports. Out of many thousands of such dependencies they have apparently flubbed less than a handful. In the case of the error here it was completely immaterial because it had no actual effect on the conclusion and the reason you must bring it up is because there's only known material error, the Himalaya matter, which you can discuss elsewhere here if you're rooted in the past. As I say Willis, you're definitely capable of better work than this and you ought not to waste your time on lunatic-fringe arcana. Finally, whether the IPCC relies on un-referenced puff pieces from the WWF is hardly "trivia" as you say ... It is -so- strange that you're so desperate to leave a final note in the air here that you'd keep repeating this. One more time, hopefully, unless you're absolutely intractable: Original author of the Amazon study in question, Nepstad: In sum, the IPCC statement on the Amazon was correct. The report that is cited in support of the IPCC statement (Rowell and Moore 2000) omitted some citations in support of the 40% value statement.
13. Doug Bostrom at 23:39 PM on 27 June, 2010
    I should amend my earlier remarks to Willis. Willis, the reason I'm probably coming off as a bemused-to-irritated on this is for the very reason that you're clearly capable of spending your effort on more useful activities that dragging up done-to-death issues such as this one. On WUWT you've performed some noteworthy service and in fact have stuck your neck out to help set some of the more resistant folks there straight on some science basics. You've corrected the record on C02 attribution, you've assisted WUWT readers in understanding that there is in fact a phenomenon called anthropogenic warming, you've traced the path of anthropogenic pH change in the ocean. You've taken a bit of flack for that, no surprise. Despite all your unusually pragmatic work at WUWT, here you are regressed to grinding on IPCC process minutia of no actual significance. I don't understand it, it does not seem in character and when I read your post to Riccardo here I honestly wondered, "is this really Willis Eschenbach?" Maybe your effort at WUWT is about getting folks to understand they should now be touting adaptation but I don't really know, only you can say. What I can say with more confidence is that focusing on one miss out of thousands of accurate hits is to miss a major point, namely that the IPCC WG1 synthesis is overwhelmingly useful in bringing together a multitude of inputs to help understand a novel situation we've accidentally created on our planet. If adaptation is the new mode for people discomfited with the unfortunate facts we're creating on the ground, maybe it would be better to focus on sections of the synthesis other than WG1. The more into policy one goes the more there is to argue about, meanwhile the fundamental science portion is a pretty futile subject of discussion at this point, as you've been pointing out.
14. Doug Bostrom at 23:44 PM on 27 June, 2010
    Oops, meant to say WG1 &WG2. WG3 is where things become really debatable.
15. Berényi Péter at 04:43 AM on 28 June, 2010
    What are we talking about? Precipitation is hardly decreasing in Amazonia, at least not since 1920. I have downloaded v2.prcp.Z from the GHCN v2 ftp server. Then selected GHCN stations in Amazonia, in the rectangular region between 50°30'W - 74°30'W and 3°N - 13°S. This 24°×16° rectangle covers Amazonia pretty well (spherical distortion is negligible close to the equator). There are 284 GHCN stations there, geographical distribution looks like this: I have calculated average monthly precipitation for each 1°×1° cell where data were available. Then using these values average was obtained for 2°×2° cells, and so on up to 8°×8°. There are 6 such cells in the region, their average is the monthly signal for Amazonia. From this, one can get annual precipitation sums. I have chosen to sum up June-May data and assigned it to the starting year. This way I could use all the data available up to May 2010 (and didn't have to cut wet seasons in half). The procedure followed is meant to compensate for possible uneven distribution of GHCN stations. There is one caveat. In 1997 coverage of the region in GHCN started to deteriorate rapidly. Until 2003 stations are only getting sparse, but overall coverage is preserved more or less. After that even this is not enirely true. To see the possible effect of gradual station dropout I show you the entire record between 1892-2009. Data before 1920 are clearly unusable. If Amazonia would have been that dry, it must have been an epic event. The problem is station distribution prior to 1920 is not representative at all. People do not like too much rain, so they started to settle in drier parts of the region. It is a bit better with recent station dropout, because it is not based on preferences of settlers, but on God-knows-what, probably unrelated to rain. However, considering the central role GHCN plays in climate science and in all those expensive policy decisions based on it, the reckless way this database is handled is stunning.
16. Doug Bostrom at 05:04 AM on 28 June, 2010
    Great work, BP, but the topic here is what's been learned from past interannual drought, experimentally created drought (Nepstad 2004: Mortality of Large Trees and Lianas Following Experimental Drought in an Amazon Forest), expectations of what those lessons foretell. BTW, cool that the 1998 drought appears to be visible in your graphs.
17. johnd at 06:54 AM on 28 June, 2010
    Berényi Péter at 04:43 AM, the precipitation graph doesn't seem to indicate any exceptional deviations that could account for 2 specific events mentioned in the lead post, namely "severely drought stressed in 1998" and "the intense 2005 drought". Would it be the definition of "drought"? In tropical areas a drought could be 3 months without significant rain which disappears in the records when the followup rains return the annual precipitation to near normal levels. Or would it be that the drought conditions were localised to certain parts of the basin? How much variation was there across all of the cells, and was there any groupings of cells that were significantly different to the overall average?
18. Berényi Péter at 07:00 AM on 28 June, 2010
    #16 doug_bostrom at 05:04 AM on 28 June, 2010 the 1998 drought appears to be visible in your graphs Somewhat. Assigned to 1997 by the method I have applied. 1992 appears to be worse. However, if you are interested in how a really severe drought looks like there, read this paper: Acta Amazonica Print version ISSN 0044-5967 Acta Amaz. vol.35 no.2 Manaus April/June 2005 doi: 10.1590/S0044-59672005000200013 The drought of the century in the Amazon Basin: an analysis of the regional variation of rainfall in South America in 1926 Williams at al. The rain forest has managed to survive, somehow. At least it has not turned into savanna. BTW the drought of 1912 was also severe.
19. Doug Bostrom at 07:07 AM on 28 June, 2010
    Yeah, looking at the graph again was a nice example of "confirmation bias," I suppose. Once I looked at the rest of it I see routine boom and bust. Apparently there's concern that the forest's resiliency has been degraded due to thoughtless treatment by various people trying to scrape out a living in the region, also to keep the flow of hamburgers steady. GScholar "Amazon deforestation" for details. We're already the equivalent of an existentially threatening disaster.
20. Willis Eschenbach at 07:19 AM on 28 June, 2010
    doug_bostrom at 23:39 PM on 27 June, 2010 >> ...Despite all your unusually pragmatic work at WUWT, here you are regressed to grinding on IPCC process minutia of no actual significance. >> Doug, thanks for your thoughts. This is not "process minutia". When the IPCC relies, as it has done far too often, on WWF and Greenpeace propaganda pieces, and newspaper articles, and the like, it shows that the IPCC is a political rather than a scientific organization. Since many people claim that "the science is in" and "the IPCC has spoken, no one can dissent" and the like, this is very important. If this were trivial as you claim ... then why does it get its own page on this very site? Finally, in addition to the IPCC question, the science is at issue as well. I have yet to see anyone link to a peer-reviewed article showing any evidence that 40% of the Amazon is at risk due to reduced rainfall due to warming ... particularly when the Amazonian rainfall has not reduced during the last century of overall warming.
21. Doug Bostrom at 07:36 AM on 28 June, 2010
    When the IPCC relies, as it has done far too often, on WWF and Greenpeace propaganda pieces, and newspaper articles, and the like... Willis if you quantify that assertion you'll be moving closer to joining the realist school of critique, moving away from applying your brush to impressionist strokes like that one. What are the statistics? If this were trivial as you claim ... then why does it get its own page on this very site? Good question. Why have journalists following Paris Hilton caused forests of pulp trees to fall when she's unarguably so inconsequential? The topic of the Amazon non-scandal appears here because all the overblown hype on this issue has left the public confused about what actual relevance this story had, which turns out to be little indeed. Finally, in addition to the IPCC question, the science is at issue as well. I have yet to see anyone link to a peer-reviewed article showing any evidence that 40% of the Amazon is at risk due to reduced rainfall due to warming ... Thank you for affording me the opportunity once again to quote the authority on the subject, Nepstad, whose work this vapid brouhaha was all about: In sum, the IPCC statement on the Amazon was correct. The report that is cited in support of the IPCC statement (Rowell and Moore 2000) omitted some citations in support of the 40% value statement. Senior Scientist Daniel Nepstad endorses the correctness of the IPCC’s (AR4) statement on Amazon forest susceptibility to rainfall reduction ...particularly when the Amazonian rainfall has not reduced during the last century of overall warming. As you well know even though you are sitting behind the easel of an impressionist, the subject whose portrait you are interpreting did not refer to past times. Here's what the subject did say: Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation.
22. johnd at 08:12 AM on 28 June, 2010
    Berényi Péter at 07:00 AM, thanks for posting the link to the Acta Amazonica paper, I found it very interesting, not only for the subject under discussion, but how it relates to events in other parts of the world. Firstly, in Australia the years 1925 to 1930 saw widespread drought and below average rains across much of Australia, as did the years 1911 to 1916. In fact dry conditions across much of Australia were a fact of life for the entire first half of the 1900's with wetter conditions becoming more frequent post WW2. Anecdotal evidence is that the 1800's were also more prone to below average rains and droughts similar to the early 1900's. Secondly, the reference to the three prominent 'chimney' regions of convective upwelling, South America, Africa and the Maritime Continent is also of interest. Research in recent years has identified the IOD, the Indian Ocean Dipole, and this ties together the weather and climatic conditions of all those regions bounding the IO, Africa, India, Indonesia and Australia. It appears the the IOD has it's own cycles that at times, at least for Australia, either complements or offsets some of the ENSO effects. Droughts in Indonesia seem to correlate with droughts in Australia, with the major recent forest fires in Indonesia, 1982 and 1998 coinciding with dry conditions over much of Australia as well as those other dry periods in the Amazon basin as indicated by you. However, having said that, there is more often than not drought conditions somewhere in Australia, and perhaps the same might apply to other large areas such as South America and Africa.
23. Berényi Péter at 08:20 AM on 28 June, 2010
    #19 doug_bostrom at 07:07 AM on 28 June, 2010 We're already the equivalent of an existentially threatening disaster In Amazonica, yes. Not "we", neither "the people", but irresponsible government and business practices. Including the biofuel craziness promoted by the AGW scare. The bottom line is that neither AGW nor CO₂ has anything to do with the ongoing deforestation in the Amazon basin, therefore including it in the IPCC report has no point other than to provide some absolution for those who need it. It is imperative to keep in touch with reality. the encyclopedia of the earth Deforestation in Amazonia Lead Author: Philip M. Fearnside Last Updated: March 30, 2007 See also: Terra Preta de Indio by Johannes Lehmann
24. Doug Bostrom at 08:52 AM on 28 June, 2010
    BP it seems we're in rare conjunction on the insult being delivered to the Amazon forest region. And I agree, the philosophy of biofuels is substantially porous in all directions. Where we diverge is the point of th IPCC report, which calls our attention to another folly on a massive scale, also laid at the feet of anachronisms. A scare? No more so than if I were to drop an anchor off the side of a boat with my feet standing in a loop of anchor chain and then, knowing this, not hop aside. More scary drowning that not. I've almost drowned twice, it was upsetting but the long-lasting regret has been reviewing how I put myself in the position of confronting breathing water when a little common sense would have made the exercise unnecessary.
25. Doug Bostrom at 08:58 AM on 28 June, 2010
    OT but I should add, where I live "we" are the government and are too ignorant and shortsighted to run our affairs properly and meanwhile "we" tell businesses what they should sell us by buying their products. The hysterical whining and finger-poiting over the BP cost-cutting fiasco here makes me puke; we're the people insisting they sell us oil, we're the people who are too complacent to get educated, to vote. Talk about "look in the mirror." Ridiculous.

1  2  3  Next

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.