Editorials Response to George Monbiot: Why 'Amazongate' matters
|
29 July 2010
In what has become the long-running saga of the unsubstantiated claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) about the potential effects of global warming on the Amazon rainforest, the fact that George Monbiot has weighed in so heavily to the "Amazongate" issue is perhaps a measure of its importance.
One cannot help but enjoy the irony of Monbiot's apology for troubling his readers over an issue which he claims is "trivial", then spending so much time and effort exploring it.
But the one thing Monbiot has not told us, in his torrent of excoriating verbiage, is quite why "Amazongate" – the name given to the "outing" of the IPCC - is so important. In his rush to condemn those who pointed out the error of the IPCC's ways, and me in particular, he somehow glosses over this essential point.
And that essential point is that the IPCC got it wrong, not once but in several different ways, in making a key assertion about the Amazon rainforests which, when the chips are down, is entirely without foundation. Let us count the errors of its ways.
Firstly, we have the offending claim, which asserts that up to 40% of the entire rainforest could turn to savannah, given even a slight reduction in rainfall (which we can assume is the result of climate change).
For such a startling assertion, one would of course expect the IPCC to have good evidence and, in the very essential nature of its report, to cite that evidence to support its claim. This is the very basis on any reputable reporting – the fundamental requirement to disclose the sources. So what do we have?
Well, the referenced source of the claim is a review, the lead publisher of which is the advocacy group the WWF. The lead author is an unqualified freelance journalist and green activist. He relies, we are told by the WWF, on a claim made by the "respected" Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (IPAM - The Amazon Institute of Environmental Research).
By some error, we are told by the WWF, the reference to the work of the "respected" institute is missing from the review. But, we are assured, the original does make the claim, and it is "supported" by peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Come what may, this is enough to support the charge against the IPCC. It has referenced an important claim to so-called "grey" literature which is not the originator of the work on which the claim is supposedly based. That work in turn has omitted the reference. Then, through the writing process and the three-layer review process, which assures quality control, the IPCC has failed to notice this error and correct it.
Already, this is more than a referencing problem, as some assert. It is a major system failure on the part of the IPCC, a real failure in quality control.
But it does not stop there. While the WWF refers to this mysterious IPAM "report", it does not supply the missing reference. And somehow it has omitted to tell us that the source is actually an educational website entry, put up by the Brazilian institute in 1999 and removed in 2003.
Thus is the final source of the IPCC claim. It is not even a report. It is not a research document. The author is not identified. It is neither referenced nor peer-reviewed. And neither, as Monbiot later admits, is there peer-reviewed scientific literature which supports the specific claim.
That he claims that there is research which supports the general thesis, is not the point. Apart from the fact that its meaning and value is arguable, the fact is that Working Group II of the IPCC did not refer to this work and did not call it in aid of its claim
By any measure, my original assertion that the IPCC claim is unsubstantiated stands up. Yet Monbiot, rather than follow the trail of evidence, chooses to use the inexplicable and unexplained retraction of the "Amazongate" story in the Sunday Times as evidence that the IPCC has been vindicated.
And, on that slender basis, he asserts that its accusers – "North first among them" – are exposed for "peddling inaccuracy, misrepresentation and falsehood."
It is a fascinating reflection of the mindset of Monbiot that, when the Sunday Times first printed the story in January, it is somehow not credible. Yet, when the newspaper retracts the story, it acquires such great authority that this one action is taken to vindicate the IPCC. The source, it seems, it is not the issue. It is whether the source says what Monbiot want to hear.
However, the fact is that the IPCC has been caught out. And instead of admitting its error – by no means the first, as we know from its claims on Himalayan glaciers –it retreats behind a wall of bluster and obfuscation.
That is really why "Amazongate" matters. We have in the IPCC an organisation which purports to offer the best that science has to offer on the state of the climate. To err is human, and it is not surprising that there are errors in its report – although the basic nature of this system failure should raise eyebrows. But a failure to investigate and then to correct its errors is unpardonable.
An honest commentator would be joining us to ensure that the unsubstantiated claim by the IPCC is removed. But Mr Monbiot has instead resorted to ad hominem abuse which he – or his employers – justify as "fair comment".
Rather, he should be concerned, even if for entirely different reasons, that the response of the IPCC to a proven and egregious error has not been healthy. And an organisation which cannot admit error and deal with it is one that cannot be trusted.
The same might also be said of its supporters who, instead of dealing with the entirely justified criticisms, seek to attack the critics. By their deeds shall we know them and, in respect of his particular deeds in relation to "Amazongate", we have come to know Monbiot quite well.
We are not enriched by the experience.
Comments
www.whrc.org/resources/essays/pdf/2010-02-Nepstad_Amazon.pdf
And then off course we have the papers by Cox and Betts which are cited throughout the AR4. They do not say 40% though, that is correct - their results are far mor pessimistic than that.
The press release merely asserts that Amazon rainforests deplete significant amounts of moisture under conditions of drought. I would suggest that this is rue of most trees,
We have no proof that the Amazon would turn permanently into grassland, and no proof that this would be a catastrophe or that it is controllable.
It would be like saying that the former Oklahoma dustbowl would revert to a dustbowl given the weather of the 1930s.
If, as some researchers suggest, "gobal warming" leads to increased rainfall and tropical conditions, would the improved condition of the Amazon rainforest be a trump card on behalf of its champions in supporting effort to warm the globe?
"Discussion
This study points to the widespread effect of drought on Amazon forests, and the vulnerability of Amazon forests to small declines in rainfall or increases in ET [EvapoTranspiration, that is evaporation + transpiration, my comment]. Rainfall and ET are nearly equal across the Amazon during most years, with total rainfall falling below ET during years of severe drought. Such droughts may become more common if ENSO events continue to be frequent and severe, if rainfall is inhibited by deforestation or smoke, and if warming trends continue. Increases in ET of only 15% or similar reductions in rainfall can lead to severe soil moisture deficits over roughly half of the Amazon (Fig. 9)."
Further, this paper and the others mentioned in the previous document explains the link between minor droughts and increased burning, which in turn explains why a small decrease in rainfall may have substential effects on the vegetation cover in the Amazon specifically (as the most important stress factor there is burning and logging).
The claim in the amazongate confusion is that the statement in AR4 WG2 is unsupported, or sometimes that the supporting peer-reviewed papers "cannot be found", which it is simply not true. I would even like to claim that the never ending parroting of these untrue claims is part of a deliberate effort to undermine the credibility of the IPCC and the scientists involved. Weather the science itself in the peer-review journals is correct or not, or weather the loss of the Amazon is a catastrophy or not, are completely separate issues.
As far as I know there is nothing in the scientific literature that indicates that rainfall would be likely to increase in the amazon region in a future of climate warming. Further to the north - yes, but over the Amazon basin -no.
Finally, no, we have no proof that Amazon will die in the near future, what would a proof look like? The only proof is if we can look out the window from an airplane in year 20XX and say 'Look - the amazon is gone since YY years, and it doesn't seem to be coming back!' At that time someone will probably insist that the link AGW - Amazon die-back cannot be proven (just like some people still claim the link between cancer and smoking is not proven). My point here being that somewhere along the transect between "Scientifically unsupported claim that Amazon will die" and "Proof availible" we need to find the cut-off point where it is time to take action. Finding that cut-off point is not made easier by constant misreperesentation of science, as the blogpost above is an example of.
ftp.whrc.org/resources/published_literature/pdf/NepstadetalGCB.04.pdf
The paper was about the predictability of forest fires. It states that the Amazon Rainforests are susceptible to drought and forest fires if logging or smoke from burning are excessive. It does not support the the IPCC statement.
RSS feed for comments to this post