Josh 23 - the battle of Amazongate

More cartoons by Josh here.

Comments

[Dung]

Ten quid on Delingpole.

[Hector M.]

Regarding the Amazongate claims, my views are in my recent (and still unpublished) paper on "Facts and debates on the future of the Amazon forest" (available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1509603). Several alarming forecasts have been circulating in recent years, including the prospect of a rapid "savannisation" of that rainforest as soon as 2030. Those fears are unfounded, even taking IPCC climate projections to the letter. The specific claim that is the object of "Amazongate" is pointless, since (1) the IPCC predicts an increase in precipitation over the Amazon as a result of climate change; and (2) most areas supposedly sensitive to decreases in precipitation are at the borders of the Amazon basin, covered mostly with bush or open forest (or already converted into farmland),, and not at the vast rainforest core where precipitation is extremely high and there is no dry season.

[Pharos]

'Sorry lads- there's a hitch. Everyone we've asked to referee turns out to have blogged as a troll on one or other blog'

[Paul]

Richard North in his January 26th 2010 clarification puts a very fine line on the issue just one day after his original post:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/corruption-of-science.html

____________________________
the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group II – Chapter 13, which states:

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 (Rowell and Moore, 2000).

That is referenced to Rowell, A. and P.F. Moore, 2000: Global Review of Forest Fires. WWF/IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 66 pp – with two links found, here and here. The relevant passage states:

Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall. In the 1998 dry season, some 270,000 sq. km of forest became vulnerable to fire, due to completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil. A further 360,000 sq. km of forest had only 250 mm of plant-available soil water left.

Now, looking for support for that assertion, we go to the Nature paper, where the relevant sections appear to be:

Although logging and forest surface fires usually do not kill all trees, they severely damage forests. Logging companies in Amazonia kill or damage 10-40% of the living biomass of forests through the harvest process. Logging also increases forest flammability by reducing forest leaf canopy coverage by 14-50%, allowing sunlight to penetrate to the forest floor, where it dries out the organic debris created by the logging.

and ...

ENSO-related drought can desiccate large areas of Amazonian forest, creating the potential for large-scale forest fires. Because of the severe drought of 1997 and 1998, we calculate that approximately 270,000 km2 of Amazonian forest had completely depleted plant-available water stored in the upper five metres of soil by the end of the 1998 dry season. In addition, 360,000 km2 of forest had less than 250mm of plant-available soil water left by this time (Fig. 1b). By comparison, only 28,000 km2 of forests in Roraima had depleted soil water to 5m depth at the peak of the Roraima forest fires.

Thus, from an assertion (IPCC) that "up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation", we see this relying on a statement (Rowell & Moore) that "up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall." But that seems to rely solely on the assertion that: "Logging companies in Amazonia kill or damage 10-40% of the living biomass of forests through the harvest process."

Turning this round and starting at the Nature end, we have "Logging companies in Amazonia kill or damage 10-40% of the living biomass of forests through the harvest process," turn into, "up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall," which then becomes "up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation".

And that is what Jean-Pascal van Ypersele calls, "assessing the quality information about climate change issues in all its dimensions."
____________________________________________

Moonbat feels that Amazongate is irrelevant because a peer review article stating logging companies can allow the underbrush in the Amazon to dry out and be more susceptible to forest fires, and this somehow vindicates the IPCC claim that anthropogenic CO2 emissions could cause up to 40% of the Amazonian forests to react drastically even a slight reduction in precipitation?

Where is the connection?

Where is Monbiot's gotcha?

The IPCC compiling 10lbs of disaster papers and appending the phrase "and we 'believe' it is 'likely' that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the cause" still doesn't fly with me.

[Shub Niggurath]

Monbiot has expressed sympathy with Jonathan Leake when his own paper mavens let him down.

But....But...Monbiot does not have a 'gotcha'. More details will emerge soon.

[Allen McMahon]

The Rowell & Moore claim was originally linked to a 1999 paper by Nepstad but when it was pointed out that paper only put 15% of the Brazilian forests at risk Nepstad then refereed back to a 1994 paper to support the claim. One would have expected the latter work to be more accurate but obviously climate science works backwards in the Amazon as Nepstad in 2007 publication for the WWF places 55% at risk by 2030 without climate change in the equation.

[Don Pablo de la Sierra]

James Delingpole as he wrote in the Telegraph.co.uk (see link in //www.cartoonsbyjosh.com/)

"There’s only one thing more satisfying than being right. That’s when a shrill buffoon you utterly despise dedicates an entire column in a newspaper you loathe to accusing you of being wrong, working himself up into an almost masturbatory lather of slobbering indignation, macheting himself to ever greater heights of ecstatic fervour like some Shi’ite penitent during Ashura, giggling at his jokes, crowing at his own cleverness, earning all sorts of smarmy plaudits from his coterie of sorry eco-fascist brown-nosers – and it turns out, after all that, you’re still entirely right and the buffoon – let’s call him Moonbat – has emerged looking an even bigger prat than ever."

Talk about run-on-and-on-and-on sentences. However, justifiable in this case. I had to post it as it is going to be a classic of British put down. Absolutely brilliant. I to recommend it. Find it

HERE

Josh Congratulations at getting posted in a newspaper. Maybe you will make it big in the political cartoon world. I hope so.

[geronimo]

George is a serial premature ejaculator, he has a 30 second response to most issues and seldom checks his facts, other than googling amazon 40%. It's not the first time that he's led with his mouth when careful thought would have helped and it won't be the last. His response to climategate was instant and dramatic, faster than most sceptics, but I bet he's now wishing he'd have waited for the whitewashes and people like Oxburgh playing blinders.

[John Silver]

Monobot and Sir Paul must have attended the same School of Illogic.

[Arthur Dent]

With regard to the statements made by the former Beatle, I very much liked the comment by C Horner who asked "was Posh Spice unavailable?"

[Don Pablo de la Sierra]

John Silver

Agreed. However, Sir Paul can be excused because of all the years he spent living in a Yellow Submarine. And he does not have a strong academic back ground. I believe he did attend a grammar school with George Harrison, but never went further. But at least he gave me and many others my age (which is just about the same as his) a really great childhood with his music and the Beatles pulling on the noises of our parents. So I will forgive him his dotage.

George Monbiot, on the other hand, was born to wealth, raised in a large country house in Henley-on-Thames in South Oxfordshire, went to Stowe School, a private school in Buckinghamshire and then on to Brasenose College, Oxford.

Now his education was obviously wasted.

geronimo

George is a serial premature ejaculator

Assuming the Victorian use of the verb "to ejaculate" meaning "To utter suddenly and passionately; exclaim", I agree completely. I also agree completely if you meant one of the other meanings instead.

[Roger D.]

I am very late on this story, and it's hard to catch up. From what I read at the various sites, Moonbat maybe had a point. There was a reference to a peer reviewed paper eventually. But I feel I am missing some subtleties. Could someone give me a pointer? Is the point that the original Nature letter was about logging? Even then, it doesn't necessarily negate the point the IPCC report was making, does it?

[Bishop Hill]

Roger

Try this:

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/06/moonbat-too-far.html