13 replies to this topic

[Rogerdodger]

UN climate change claims on rainforests were wrong, study suggests
The United Nations' climate change panel is facing fresh criticism after new research contradicted the organisation's claims about the devastating effect climate change could have on the Amazon rainforest.
A new study, funded by Nasa, has found that the most serious drought in the Amazon for more than a century had little impact on the rainforest's vegetation.

The findings appear to disprove claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that up to 40% of the Amazon rainforest could react drastically to even a small reduction in rainfall and could see the trees replaced by tropical grassland.
"The way the WWF report calculated this 40% was totally wrong, while (the new) calculations are by far more reliable and correct."

The new study, conducted by researchers at Boston University and published in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters, used satellite data of the Amazon rainforest to study the effects of a major drought in 2005 when rainfall fell to the lowest level in living memory.
The drought saw rivers and lakes dry up, causing towns and cities that rely upon water flowing out of the rainforest to suffer severe water shortages.

But the researchers found no major changes in the levels of vegetation and greenery in the forests despite the drought.

They claim this contradicts the statements made in the IPCC's 2007 assessment report on climate change.

It said: "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.

"It is more probably that forests will be replaced by ecosystems that have more resistance to multiple stresses caused by temperature increase, droughts and fires, such as tropical savannahs."

Professor Ranga Myneni, from the climate and vegitation research group at Boston University who was the senior researcher in the study, said criticised the IPCC’s claim that a “even a slight reduction in precipitation” would cause drastic changes in the rainforest.

He said: “There was more than a slight reduction in precipitation during the drought of 2005. It is that particular claim of the IPCC that our analysis rejects.”

Sangram Ganguly, a scientist from the Bay Area Environmental Research Institute in California and one of the researchers who conducted the new study, said: "Our results certainly do not indicate such extreme sensitivity to reductions in rainfall."
Dr Arindam Samanta, the lead author of the study, said: "We found no big differences in the greenness levels of these forests between drought and non-drought years, which suggests that these forests may be more tolerant of droughts than we previously thought."

The IPCC has been left embarrassed after it emerged the panel had quoted unsubstantiated and erroneous claims about the melting of glaciers in the Himalayas and had also used information from student dissertations and magazine articles to compile its report.
The chair of the panel, Rajendra Pachauri has come under mounting pressure to resign following the scandal and questions over his ability to lead the organisation.

No one was available to respond at the IPCC yesterday.


So much for the devastation of the "butterfly effect."
I contend that extremes in weather is not a bad thing as it helps produce more varieties of plants and animals and often can strengthen species.

[OEXCHAOS]

Over and over again, the WWF keeps showing up as either a non-peer reviewed source, or just very sloppy advocacy masquerading as science. This is a pity, because the WWF and similar are turning the scientifically responsible environmental movement into an untrustworthy, quasi-socialist agenda driven propaganda engine. There are REAL environmental issues out there that need to be addressed and won't be because of this shameful AGW advocacy. M

[Rogerdodger]

Shouldn't that be changed from AGW to AGC?
Since the warming paused and cooling began they call it "Change" now rather than "Warming".
With "Change" they will never be wrong and will still be able to tax us on stopping the "change".



STILL AT IT: Gore points toward weather events as evidence of 'climate change'; Strategy conference call...
If there's a drought – it's global warming. When there's a hurricane – it's global warming. If there are heavy snows or even blizzards – it's somehow global warming. And amazingly, the latest round of rainy and windy weather in the Northeast, well that's consistent with this phenomenon as well, so says former Vice President Al Gore.
Gore's remarks are consistent with the media view of the issue. Journalists have repeatedly preferred the alarmist view on the climate over any opposition even when the weather is inconveniently different than predicted.
How are those "millions of new green jobs" working out?

Edited by Rogerdodger, 16 March 2010 - 10:13 AM.

[maineman]

Is that smoke I smell , Nero? mm

[mdszj]

Shouldn't that be changed from AGW to AGC?
Since the warming paused and cooling began they call it "Change" now rather than "Warming".
With "Change" they will never be wrong and will still be able to tax us on stopping the "change".



STILL AT IT: Gore points toward weather events as evidence of 'climate change'; Strategy conference call...
If there's a drought – it's global warming. When there's a hurricane – it's global warming. If there are heavy snows or even blizzards – it's somehow global warming. And amazingly, the latest round of rainy and windy weather in the Northeast, well that's consistent with this phenomenon as well, so says former Vice President Al Gore.
Gore's remarks are consistent with the media view of the issue. Journalists have repeatedly preferred the alarmist view on the climate over any opposition even when the weather is inconveniently different than predicted.
How are those "millions of new green jobs" working out?

I think the best thing these numbskulls could do for themselves and their case is to hire a couple statisticians to review their data and make sure they can withstand review examination before they release any of their "research" results - seems like their credibility is sinking fast. ALternatively if they do not, then the opposition should!

[OEXCHAOS]

Is that smoke I smell , Nero?

mm

I believe that's the AGW industry's house of cards going up in smoke.

M

[maineman]

Portland, Maine has had its rainiest winter ever. Least snow. Strongest winds ever recorded, higher than in any hurricanes. It was the 7th warmest winter ever recorded. Records go back to the mid 1800s. All normal, right? Its 55 degress today and there's no snow on the ground. I've been here 22 years and cannot remember there being no snow on the ground in March. Just some observations. mm

[salsabob]

Some pretty fast news-driven trigger fingers on this forum

http://news.mongabay...amazongate.html

A claim published in the Sunday Times over the veracity of a statement published in an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report may land the British newspaper in hot water.

On Sunday, Jonathan Leake, Science & Environment Editor of the Sunday Times, accused the IPCC of making a "bogus rainforest claim" when it cited a report warning that up to 40 percent of the Amazon could be "drastically" affected by climate change. Climate change skeptics immediately seized on "Amazongate" as further evidence to discredit the IPCC just two weeks after it was found to be using shoddy glacier data in its 2007 climate assessment.

Leake's criticism was that the IPCC cited a report published in 2000 by WWF, an environmental lobby group, rather than a scientific study. He noted the report was authored by "two green activists" who presumably had an incentive to overstate the impacts of climate change on the planet's biggest rainforest.

But Leake either overlooked or failed to comprehend the research upon which the WWF report is based. That data clearly supports both the WWF report and the IPCC report. Leake was actually warned of this oversight, before publishing his column, by the scientist who conducted the original drought research in the Amazon: Daniel Nepstad, now of the Woods Hole Research Institute.

Nepstad provided mongabay.com with a copy of the message he sent Leake after the Sunday Times editor contacted him for background information on the effect of drought on tree mortality in the Amazon rainforest. Nepstad explained to Leake that his rainfall exclusion experiments in the Amazon showed trees began dying suddenly after three years of well-below average rainfall. The research estimated that "approximately half of the forests of the Brazilian Amazon were periodically exposed to severe drought and soil moisture depletion" and 31 percent reached a "critical level of drought."

So how does drought in the Amazon related to climate change? Subsequent studies, published after the now-controversial WWF report, have linked drought in the Amazon to warming sea temperatures in the tropical Atlantic. Previously it was thought that el Ni˜e was the primary driver of drought in the region, but the Amazon's worst dry spell—which ran from 2005 through 2006—did not sync with el Ni˜o.

But Leake's apparent dismissal of Nepstad's data isn't what may get him into trouble. Instead it's his breach of the Editors' Code of Practice which requires editors to allow "a fair opportunity for reply." Andrew Rowell, the lead author of the WWF report who was criticized by Leake, was never contacted by the Sunday Times.

Still Leake has a point in criticizing the IPCC for citing a NGO report—generally a summary of existing research—rather than a peer-reviewed scientific paper.

"The IPCC could have picked a better citation than the WWF report, but the data were there, published in a few places to support their statement," Nepstad told mongabay.com. "The latest attack on the IPCC is bizarre and unfounded."

Leake did not respond to the request for comment.

For those still open-minded agnostics, a more balance look at the issue -

http://news.mongabay...on_drought.html

Amazon confusion: new research shows forest is resilient to drought, but is this the whole picture?

Obviously not as quick on the trigger as others here, so belatedly, an overlooked item to just provide a tad in forum balance -

http://news.aaas.org...219post-9.shtml

Science Community Stands Behind Evidence for Climate Change, Top Scientists Say at AAAS
…"There has been no change in the scientific community, no change whatsoever," in the consensus that global average temperatures have been steadily climbing since the mid-20th century, "said Jerry North, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University.

In addition to North, the panel included: Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academies of Science and chair of the National Research Council; Lord Martin Rees, president of the Royal Society in the U.K.; James J. McCarthy, chairman of the AAAS Board and Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard University; and Philip Sharp; a Nobel laureate and professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Sure, top-notch, but obviously evil, scientists, ey?

[OEXCHAOS]

Portland, Maine has had its rainiest winter ever. Least snow. Strongest winds ever recorded, higher than in any hurricanes. It was the 7th warmest winter ever recorded. Records go back to the mid 1800s. All normal, right?

Its 55 degress today and there's no snow on the ground. I've been here 22 years and cannot remember there being no snow on the ground in March. Just some observations.

mm

I just posted an article that on it's face calls into question your assertion of the 7th warmest winter on record.

Regardless, it's weather not climate. Certainly not science.

[maineman]

I'm happy being "wrong" about this climate stuff. I'm happy supporting green technology and innovation. I'm happy leaving as small a footprint as I can. I'm happy recycling. Buying local produce. Boycotting wasteful industries. Walking, biking more and driving less. I'm happy to support higher gas taxes. Incentives for greener industrial products. I'm happy to support nuclear technology and push back against coal. I'm a simple minded guy, mind you, so it doesn't take much to make me happy. Having spent my entire life since High School as a biology major, doing research at the Rockefeller Institute in NYC and then off to medical school, I consider myself a critical thinker and analyzer of scientific data. But, I could be wrong. In fact, I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken. I also believe in evolution. mm