There’s been lots of whooping and celebrating by the warmist crowd lately over the retraction by the Sunday Times Jonathan Leake story about Amazongate.
The claim was that the sensitivity to rainfall reduction was based on peer reviewed literature. I’m here to tell you that claim is totally unsupportable, I’ll even go so far as to call the claim “bogus”, it is that bad. The proof lies in the screencap below:
Excerpts from what Christopher Booker writes in his latest Telegraph Column:
Last week, after six months of evasions, obfuscation, denials and retractions, a story which has preoccupied this column on and off since January came to a startling conclusion. It turns out that one of the most widely publicised statements in the 2007 report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – a claim on which tens of billions of dollars could hang – was not based on peer-reviewed science, as repeatedly claimed, but originated solely from anonymous propaganda published on the website of a small Brazilian environmental advocacy group.
The ramifications of this discovery stretch in many directions. First, it seems to show that the IPCC – whose reports governments rely on to justify presenting mankind with the largest bill in history – has been in serious breach of its own rules.
…
The document cited by the WWF (World Wildlife Fund), which it later described, after a full internal inquiry, as a “report”, proved remarkably difficult to track down. Since then, both the WWF and Dr Nepstad have cited other papers in support of their claim – but none of these provided any support for the specific claim about the impact of climate change made by the IPCC.
…
The original read: “Probably 30-40 per cent of the forests of the Brazilian Amazon are sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall.” This was hyped up in the final drafting of the IPCC report, to claim that “up to 40 per cent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation”. “Brazilian Amazon” – only around half the total rainforest area – was changed to include the entire forest. The word “sensitive” was changed to “react drastically”. And the original IPAM note had made no mention at all of climate change.
Please visit Booker’s article, to read the full story and to show support.
The Sunday Times piece (now retracted) was originally headlined “UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim”, though this headline was later changed on the website version. It said the 40% destruction figure was based on an “unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise”.
That headline and claim has been borne out by facts. The Sunday Times should put the story back up, and retract their retraction. Leake had it right and the editors simply caved to pressure without doing a thorough investigation to see if his claim was supportable. It took bloggers like Dr. Richard North to do the job the Sunday Times would not do, even to save their own credibility.
The screencap above showing the proof of source to the IPCC claim via the WWF report was located by Dr. Richard North of the EU Referendum (with the help of commenter Gareth on that blog), thanks to the “Wayback Machine“, an archive of Internet web pages. I won’t provide the link here for the old IPAM web page, as I don’t want to overload the service, but you can see the IPAM web pages archived in the Wayback Machine search results page below:
North writes:
As it stands, this is the only known source of this sentence. There is no author identified, the provenance of the web page is not identified and not in any possible way could this be considered “peer reviewed”. It has no academic or scientific merit – yet it is this on which the WWF and IPCC apparently rely.
What is also particularly important is that the IPCC uses the sentence, which it modifies slightly, to argue: “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.”
Meanwhile, real peer reviewed literature, published just this week, supports the idea that the Amazon is not all that sensitive to rainfall reduction:
Press Release from the Max Planck Institute
“We were surprised to find that the primary production in the tropics is not so strongly dependent on the amount of rain,” says Markus Reichstein. “Here, too, we therefore need to critically scrutinize the forecasts of some climate models which predict the Amazon will die as the world gets drier.”
Read all about it here:
CO2 field experiment likely to cause “do-over” for climate models
As for the sorry state of incompetence at the IPCC and their claims using WWF literature, Shub Niggurath suggested last week that no peer reviewed science references on the issue existed in first and second order IPCC drafts:
More importantly, contrary to what many have suggested, it does not seem, that a statement was formulated assessing all available literature at the time. The sentence in question remained virtually unchanged through the drafts (except for the ‘drastic’ addition), it referred to the same WWF report through three different versions.
Well worth a visit to his site.
The WWF, in my view, is a poison pill for respectable science. They should be avoided for any references in peer reviewed papers and in journalism.
This whole complaint forcing the Sunday Times into a retraction is a made up crisis, and it’s CYA bullshit of the highest order. Readers know that I don’t use that term in posts often, or lightly. In fact, I can’t recall the last time I used it in a story.
WUWT readers should make this IPCC folly known at other websites in comments. They wanted a debate, they wanted a retraction, well they got it. Now it is time for them to admit they supported a flawed premise based on shoddy activist driven “science”.
Sponsored IT training links:
If planning to take on RH202 exam then try out 642-446 dumps and 70-648 practice test prepared to provide quick success.
Phil Clarke writes:
“Hi Theo – The IPCC models
1. Are Physical models.”
I don’t suppose you could state the physical hypotheses in English? Select some climate phenomenon, say El Nino for example. What are the phsyical hypotheses that are used to describe the natural regularities that make up the phenomenon and enable scienttists to predict its occurrence and its qualities.
If you have physical hypotheses, why do you call them a model? They are hypotheses. Models are another thing entirely.
Phil Clarke writes:
“As it was not known in 1990 how emissions would develop they were run against a series of diferent emissions scenarios, in the event since then the scenario that best fits the actual emissions is A1F1.”
Now you are talking model language. There were several runs and one of them had the “best fit.” Having a best fit is not prediction. The “fitting” was done by folks comparing model runs, not by folks checking predicted observations against actual observations. Hypotheses do not have a “best fit.” They imply statements that, in the future, are determined to describe the facts, in which case they are true and the hypotheses are partially confirmed, or not to describe the facts, in which case they are false and the hypotheses are disconfirmed. Neither hypotheses nor observation statements require “fitting.”
Maybe what you mean by a physical model is that it is a model whose runs are “fitted” to physical reality.
Pascvaks says:
July 11, 2010 at 10:20 am
…”That headline and claim has been borne out by facts. The Sunday Times should put the story back up, and retract their retraction.”…
______________________________
One retraction for The Times is a major miracle, two would be impossible to think of. They’ll go out of business before they’ll ever retract a retraction.
If it’s all about saving face, then all they’d really have to do is offer a clarification on the original retraction indicating that the editorial staff had been mislead regarding the complaint which lead to the retraction, and then simply reinstate the article with the caveat that the original IPCC document did indeed way overstate the case, and that’s indeed the point of the retracted article.
Phil Clarke says:
July 11, 2010 at 12:39 pm
[–snip–] The salient bits being ‘minor’ and ‘no consequences’. The poor referencing has been conceded by Napsted, by Simon Lewis and by the WWF. However the number quoted has widespread support in the literature. It really is that simple.
Really now? That simple?
Do tell: Would that be ‘consensually speaking,’ or scientifically speaking?
If the former, then it’s essentially worthless, and if the latter, please DO provide the references which scientifically support your contentions, i.e., provide proof positive that CO2 actually causes so-called CAGW/CC.
Further, and you never got back: IF CO2 is supposed to be any kind of so-called ‘global warming agent,’ then why –what with all that CO2 locked-up in the polar ice matrices, and all that CO2 floating in adjacent the air above, and all that CO2 in the adjacent waters– has not the ice melted, the water flashed into a steaming, seething cauldron, and the air turned to lot of us lobster red?
Phil Clarke says:
July 12, 2010 at 6:20 am
Actually, Richard, if you look at the MEI index, the strong ENSOs 1990-1998 would tend to reduce the slope. A cherry-pick involves discarding data – I used all the data since 1990. But, if you like, calculating the slope to 2009, to remove the recent, rather moderate El Nino gives practically the same result.
NO Phil, I said you need to take the slope between similar situations. Anything else is UNSCIENTIFIC. Your attempt to hide the decline is nothing more than pure FUD. Here’s the chart I asked for:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/mean:3/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2010/trend/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2010/trend
It’s easy to cherry pick a date and come up with support for almost any hypothesis. It won’t work here.
Phil Clarke says:
July 11, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Shub,
Please describe a means of predicting the future that does not involve a model of some description.
thanks.
Phil,
Please provide an accurate means of a computing future absolutes, when nothing at all is known about that future.
Thanks.
Richard,
Actually Richard, as I was testing the IPCC projections, and they start in 1990, I thought, in my wild and reckless way that I would look at actual temperatures starting in the same year. Now you have convinced me that this was a sheer, unscientific cherrypick and the correct scientific procedure is to move the start date for observations forward 8 years, ignoring the El Ninos of 1991-1992, 1993, 1994 to begin my comprison 40% of the way through the period at the start of the strongest El Nino of the last century, Obvious really.
LOL!
Btw if you’re so keen on comparing like-for-like, why truncate your linear fit at the end of 2009? Hiding the incline? 😉
Phil Clarke says:
July 12, 2010 at 12:16 am
Heh. All models are wrong, some models are useful. They cannot predict, but they can project. The models used by the IPCC projected that, for emissions scenario A1F1 the global temp would rise by 0.32C between 1990 and 2010, a linear trend of +0.16C. Using the satellite data from UAH, the linear trend 1990-2010 was indeed +0.16C. Just lucky I guess.
Oh now, we’re getting into ‘projection,’ are we?
Well, isn’t that the VERY SAME THING as prediction?
Here, from the American Heritage English Dictionary:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
pro·jec·tion
n.
4. A prediction or an estimate of something in the future, based on present data or trends.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hey! How about that, eh?
Weasel words are your forte, aren’t they, Phil?
When losing an argument, why just resort to synonyms, right, Phil?
Confuse the opponent just long enough to change the subject and pretend that you’ve chalked-up another score, when in fact you’ve done no such thing.
Phil Clarke, I didn’t truncate anything. What are you looking at?
It seems I hit a nerve as I should have. You may not have started out trying to cherry pick but that is exactly what you did. If it was unintentional then it’s even worse. It shows you have no idea what you are doing.
Theo Goodwin says:
July 11, 2010 at 8:55 pm
[–snip for brevity–] Science consists of systems of hypotheses and carefully studied sets of factual conditions. Models are not.
I would dispute that contention, for this reason only: A good model is a theoretical construct which itself depends upon certain rational criteria, themselves which are based upon referable holdings.
Ergo, a ‘good’ model may be an accurate scientific basis for making a prognostication, but ONLY if it may lay claim to indisputable facts otherwise.
Thus far, the CAGW/CC community have not produced anything of verifiable substance, and have instead resorted to machinations, deceptions, and just plain contrivances, hoping beyond hope to fool the hoi polloi.
And that’s really what they have going for them, isn’t it? If one may manage to deceive the average voter on the street, it really doesn’t matter how many other scientists might jump up and declare FRAUD!!!
In the end, if the dummy falls for the trick, then that’s what happens, and the truth be damned.
Phil Clarke says:
July 12, 2010 at 3:37 pm
Richard,
Actually Richard, as I was testing the IPCC projections, and they start in 1990, I thought, in my wild and reckless way that I would look at actual temperatures starting in the same year. Now you have convinced me that this was a sheer, unscientific cherrypick and the correct scientific procedure is to move the start date for observations forward 8 years, ignoring the El Ninos of 1991-1992, 1993, 1994 to begin my comprison 40% of the way through the period at the start of the strongest El Nino of the last century, Obvious really.
LOL!
Btw if you’re so keen on comparing like-for-like, why truncate your linear fit at the end of 2009? Hiding the incline? 😉
Yeah, Phil, why haven’t YOU addressed WHY it is that Mr. Mann used tree rings to ‘illustrate’ climate all the way up to the late 20th Century, but then –without notice to anyone, save his butt buddy ‘peers’– changed over to temperature measurement devices to ‘HIDE THE DECLINE.’
You know: “Mike’s nature trick.”
Go ahead, Phil, tell us all about that.
You’ll be doing just that, won’t you, Phil? 🙂
Can’t WAIT to read of it!!! 🙂
899 said on July 12, 2010 at 7:29 pm:
I suspect that we can do without such statements here.
Richard Sharpe says:
July 12, 2010 at 7:40 pm
899 said on July 12, 2010 at 7:29 pm:
Yeah, Phil, why haven’t YOU addressed WHY it is that Mr. Mann used tree rings to ‘illustrate’ climate all the way up to the late 20th Century, but then –without notice to anyone, save his butt buddy ‘peers’– changed over to temperature measurement devices to ‘HIDE THE DECLINE.
I suspect that we can do without such statements here.
Truth hurts, doesn’t it?
899 writes:
“I would dispute that contention, for this reason only: A good model is a theoretical construct which itself depends upon certain rational criteria, themselves which are based upon referable holdings.”
You are suggesting that there is such a thing as a model that is growing into a system of hypotheses. That cannot be. Theoretical terms occur in theoretical sentences that are either true or false in virtue of their contribution to a system of hypotheses and the factual statements that they imply. If you have a partially confirmed set of hypotheses, then you have a theoretic formulation that is worthy of the name science. Models are systems of mathematical equations. They contain no hypotheses at all. The principles that govern model solutions are principles of computation and some ideas about what counts as a solution for the program being used. For example, in a linear programming model, one normally programs for a “least cost” solution, but “least cost” has no meaning apart from the program.
Theoretic formulations of science contain terms that refer to the real world. Models contain variables, not terms, and the variables are assigned values from the model; that is, the variables refer to objects specified in the model and not the real world.
Theo Goodwin says:
July 13, 2010 at 7:25 am
899 writes:
“I would dispute that contention, for this reason only: A good model is a theoretical construct which itself depends upon certain rational criteria, themselves which are based upon referable holdings.”
You are suggesting that there is such a thing as a model that is growing into a system of hypotheses. That cannot be. Theoretical terms occur in theoretical sentences that are either true or false in virtue of their contribution to a system of hypotheses and the factual statements that they imply. If you have a partially confirmed set of hypotheses, then you have a theoretic formulation that is worthy of the name science. Models are systems of mathematical equations. They contain no hypotheses at all. The principles that govern model solutions are principles of computation and some ideas about what counts as a solution for the program being used. For example, in a linear programming model, one normally programs for a “least cost” solution, but “least cost” has no meaning apart from the program.
Theoretic formulations of science contain terms that refer to the real world. Models contain variables, not terms, and the variables are assigned values from the model; that is, the variables refer to objects specified in the model and not the real world.
Theo,
All I’m saying is this: With well-defined criteria, themselves having been scientifically proven, the proper application of them in a predictive model would be an entirely scientific endeavor, given the proviso that all related elements be included in that model rather than at present being selectively included and/or excluded.
If I may employ a computer program to design an electronic circuit, and achieve predictive results by closely following the mathematical rules which define component behavior under various conditions, then the same thing may be achieved with a global model of the Earth’s weather. Granted: An electronic circuit is far simpler to predict behavior-wise than the Earth’s weather/climate, but it is possible.
Please note that I said ‘may” and not will, or can.
From the very beginning of this matter, it has been my contention that the so-called ‘climate modelers’ have been engaging in both extreme selectivity and exclusion of the basic elements of the Earth’s geophysical processes, in order to bypass certain aspects in the hope of achieving some kind of believable outcome. Their acts are tantamount to chicanery.
Where they are going completely wrong is that they hope to short circuit the entire range of necessary elements and go directly for a result which can’t support their contentions, no matter how hard they try, for the simple reason that all the elements interact with each other, and excluding one –or several– destroys the ability of the model to present any kind of accurate picture.
What they are engaging in is the essence of trying to design an amplifier without employing a nonlinear circuit element. That nonlinear element has its own rules of behavior, and of necessity those must –in and of themselves– be factored into the design equation which defines the overall behavior of the circuit, given a certain set of conditions/influences.
That then, is the gist and thrust of my argument. I hope it clarifies my initial statement.
899,
Let me explain with a simple example. The CERN physicists have the world’s most complicated and rich physical theory. They needed to connect its high-level statements to the world. To do this, they created the CERN particle accelerator. That machine promises to create for them some experiences that will tie their highest level theoretical statements to some events in the world.
They could convert their theory into a model. They could translate their theoretical statements into the standard language of symbolic logic and program them into a computer. When the statements are typed in, they are syntax only. There are theorem provers that work on syntax and the physicists might use such software just to check what their theory implies. To go beyond syntax, they must interpret the model and that is a matter of assigning values to the variables. Of course, one assigns a range of values to each variable in each statement. For example, the physicists might hold the educated guess that the sought after “Ultimate Particle” spins at a speed of 3.71 x 10-to-13th centimeters per second. (My example is made up, obviously.) But they want their model to have some flexibility as it is solved, so they assign a range of values from 10-to-9th to 10-to-15. As the model solves, depending on its solution design, it will assign some value in the range to the variable for spin speed, though things can get more complicated with multiple assignments based on what is happening elsewhere as the model solves. The big point here is that what we call the model is the complete set of assignment ranges for all variables in all statements. A specific set of assignments is one solution in that model. Some people speak loosely and call a solution a run and some call it a model.
In the form described above, when the program is fired up on a few supercomputers all the lights in France will dim and the solution will be complete in just a few weeks. For that reason, programmers take over and everything that can be converted to a simple mathematical form is converted. What remains of the physicist’s theory is the list of fundamental predicates and the variables that each predicate takes. That is what I mean by saying that it is mathematical equations that can be solved. Now the programmers’ art takes over because the programmers are the geniuses of how to get these things to solve.
But back to our model. When you have a solution, which might be a very complicated set of statements, every constant in those statements refers to the model. None of them refer to the real world. In other words, the range of values that you, the physicist, specified for each variable is what the solutions refer to. See, models do not refer to the real world.
You might use your model to create several solutions. And you might study differences among those solutions and compare them to real world phenomena. By doing so, you can get some really good ideas and some fantastic hints. When you have a purely practical task, such as modelling lowest cost transportation routes for a nationwide beer manufacturer, these practical differences can be of immense value. But as regards science, I hope you see that this is not science because my solution does not refer to the world but to the model that I created.
The great advantage of the physicist is that he has actual hypotheses which imply sentences that describe obsevable events. All of the sentences in his theory purport to describe the world and will prove to be true or false depending on what the collider reveals. If an implied observation turns out false, that is great! That is blood, a wound, now you know you are in reality. You can start revising. You will soon learn the actual values of your variables.
The poor climategater has years of work ahead of him before he can have a physical theory that will support the claims that climategaters make today. Climategaters might have in their models a well organized set of values for the statements that they have created and that they program in their computers to represent the natural regularities that make up some phenomenon such as El Nino, but all their solutions refer only to their models, not to actual ocean currents. (Here you can say GIGO: garbage in garbage out.) To have a physical theory that would support climategaters claims they must come up with physical hypotheses that actually describe the oceans. They must have actual values for their variables, not a set of values that comes from the educated imagination. Then they can chooses values for their variables on the basis of real world phenomena and they will have theories that refer to the world. No number of model runs can substitute for the physical hypotheses, and that is because that all model runs refer only to the models and not the real world.
Sophisticated scientists know what I am talking about. If climategaters are sophisticated scientists and they have the needed physical hypotheses describing El Nino, you can bet the bank that they would have published them a thousand times. They do not have them. They are stuck in the pre-science of models.
Theo Goodwin says:
July 13, 2010 at 7:55 pm
A nice expanded missive of what I thought I’d said to begin with!
899,
Yes. I endorse everything you said. I thought it would be helpful to show the fundamentals of the differences between a theory and a model, not for you but for the casual reader.