Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Comparing what the IPCC and peer-reviewed science say about Amazonian forests

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate
The IPCC statement on Amazon rainforests was correct, and was incorrectly reported in some media.

Climate Myth...

IPCC were wrong about Amazon rainforests
"The IPCC also made false predictions on the Amazon rain forests, referenced to a non peer-reviewed paper produced by an advocacy group working with the WWF. This time though, the claim made is not even supported by the report and seems to be a complete fabrication." (EU Referendum)

An article in a British newspaper claimed that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published wrong information about the Amazon Rainforest in their 2007 report. The issue centred on the statement that about 40% of the Amazon was susceptible to the effects of drought, or more specifically "slight reductions in rainfall".

The Amazon is the world's largest tropical rainforest, and due to its immense size, has a global effect on the Earth's climate. Despite being well adapted and resilient to wet and dry periods which occur throughout the year, the rainforest is vulnerable to extended periods of drought. Any major decline in the health of the Amazon rainforest is likely to impact the world climate.

The skeptic claims relate to section 13.4.1 of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007) which made the statement: '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)

The reference is to a non-peer reviewed report prepared by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) which itself cites an original peer reviewed study (Nepstad 1999) as the basis for the claim. The citations in the WWF and IPCC reports are not complete, Nepstad 1994, Nepstad 1999 and Nepstad 2004 support the claim that up to half the Amazon rainforest were severely affected by drought. Further studies, carried out since the 2007 IPCC report, reinforce the Amazon's susceptibilty to long term reductions in rainfall .

The IPCC could have avoided confusion by simply citing the peer reviewed studies themselves, rather than the WWF report and perhaps "slight reduction" should have been better defined or qualified. Despite the error in citation, the statement made by the IPCC is factually correct. Maybe the last word should go to the lead author of the papers upon which the statements were based, Daniel Nepstad, who made a public press release to clear up the mainstream media confusion over the subject. Nepstad concludes:

"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.

Last updated on 30 October 2010 by Rob Painting.

Printable Version  |  Offline PDF Version  |  Link to this page

Further reading

Daniel Nepstad, the scientist who wrote the papers cited (and erroneously not cited) in the WWF report, endorses the correctness of the IPCC’s (AR4) statement on Amazon forest susceptibility to rainfall reduction.

Comments

1  2  Next

Comments 1 to 50 out of 68:

  1. Just for info, the Sunday Times retracted his piece by Jonathan Leake. RealClimate has the story.
  2. 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. Welcome to Skeptical Science, Willis. Do you have anything more substantial to offer other than pointing out expired links?
  4. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. ...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. 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. Oops, meant to say WG1 &WG2. WG3 is where things become really debatable.
  15. 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. 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. 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. #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. 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. 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. 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. 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. #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. 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. 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.
  26. 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?>>

    Glad to. Pachauri said repeatedly that the IPCC was based 100% on peer reviewed science. As a result, one is too many ... and the Amazon claim is certainly one.

    >>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. >>

    I begin to despair. You do understand what "peer-reviewed" means, don't you? It is not simply the opinion of Nepstad or anyone else. Where is the peer-reviewed source document for the IPCC claims? That's what I keep asking for, and what you have not provided no matter how much handwaving you have done.
  27. Willis Eschenbach wrote :

    "Pachauri said repeatedly that the IPCC was based 100% on peer reviewed science. As a result, one is too many ... and the Amazon claim is certainly one."


    Well, since you love to demand citations (especially in front of an adoring crowd at WUWT), perhaps you could do so here and give links to Pachauri's 'repeated' claims ?

    Then, give the stats which show the "far too often" IPCC reliance on "propaganda pieces", etc - as you have already been asked.

    Then, tell why you believe Pachauri and the IPCC are one and the same, so that what he says is what the IPCC says. Do you have links to official IPCC paperwork, etc. which has statements by him claiming things like the IPCC 100% assertion you are so obsessed with ?


    Anyway, you have already been shown where to look to see all the answers, by a Phil Clarke, on the WUWT thread you wrote recently.

    But you seem to have ignored it, preferring to have a handbag fight with Richard North over who said what and when. Some of the posters on there were very upset at that - two of their so-called skeptic heroes not getting on ! Egos are such a pain, aren't they ?

    Here is another version of the link that you were given over at WUWT but ignored.
  28. Willis, you may repeat yourself often enough to create some statistics of your own but you've offered no factual evidence to back up the impression of the IPCC you're trying to convey. You said When the IPCC relies, as it has done far too often, on WWF and Greenpeace propaganda pieces, and newspaper articles, and the like... and when asked to back up that remark with statistics more fully describing "far too often" you rejoin with remarks by Pachauri, not an analysis of the IPCC's actual work product, suggesting you have little more than an impression to offer.

    W/regard to Nepstad, I found it surprising that your seemingly exhaustive "fog" item at WUWT somehow failed to mention that the author behind the work in question w/regard to the Amazon endorsed the IPCC's conclusions, explaining exactly how the citation trail failed while emphasizing that the IPCC remarks on the Amazon were factually correct. Nepstad's words on the matter are easy to find. Omitting that key information degrades your credibility.

    If you're genuinely concerned with IPCC process you should compose some statistics and then show how the lessons of those statistics demonstrate some material effect on the IPCC work product by poor sourcing. If you're more concerned with impressionism then of course you should continue with selective narration and rhetorical artifices of the type including such statements as "When the IPCC relies, as it has done far too often, on WWF and Greenpeace propaganda..." without bothering to lend any factual support to that claim.
  29. doug_bostrom at 01:16 AM on 3 July, 2010
    Willis, you may repeat yourself often enough to create some statistics of your own...


    I take all of that as meaning that you have no peer reviewed evidence to support the IPCC claim regarding the Amazon. You seem to think that what is at issue is what I say. It is not. It is what the IPCC says. However, let me answer your questions. You say:

    You said When the IPCC relies, as it has done far too often, on WWF and Greenpeace propaganda pieces, and newspaper articles, and the like... and when asked to back up that remark with statistics more fully describing "far too often" you rejoin with remarks by Pachauri, not an analysis of the IPCC's actual work product, suggesting you have little more than an impression to offer.

    and JMurphy says:

    "Pachauri said repeatedly that the IPCC was based 100% on peer reviewed science. As a result, one is too many ... and the Amazon claim is certainly one."

    Well, since you love to demand citations (especially in front of an adoring crowd at WUWT), perhaps you could do so here and give links to Pachauri's 'repeated' claims ?

    Then, give the stats which show the "far too often" IPCC reliance on "propaganda pieces", etc - as you have already been asked.


    Pacharui's claims are important, as they have shaped the high regard in which the IPCC is (in my opinion wrongly) held. And the IPCC has relied on non-peer-reviewed claims far too often, as I said. So hang on, this is only a partial list, but it is long.

    Regarding Pachauri's repeated claim about how it was all 100% peer reviewed science, we have (emphasis mine):

    "People can have confidence in the IPCC's conclusions…Given that it is all on the basis of peer-reviewed literature." - Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2008

    and

    "The IPCC doesn't do any research itself. We only develop our assessments on the basis of peer-reviewed literature." - Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2007


    and

    "This is based on peer-reviewed literature. That’s the manner in which the IPCC functions. We don’t pick up a newspaper article and, based on that, come up with our findings." - Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman, June 2008

    and

    As IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri recently stated: 'IPCC relies entirely on peer reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment...'" - US Environmental Protection Agency, December 2009 (bottom of PDF's page 7)

    and

    "When asked if the discussion paper could be taken into consideration...[Pachauri] said, 'IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin.'" - Times of India, November 2009

    Regarding the IPCC relying on non-peer-reviewed sources, there are far, far too many for me to list. Let me pick a few. We could start with the very claim we are discussing here, which was based on a WWF paper (non peer-reviewed), which in turn relied on another non peer-reviewed document. Then we have an IPCC citation to my favorite peer reviewed journal:

    Gwynne, P., 1975: The cooling world. Newsweek, April 28, 64.

    With respect to climate change in Ontario, the IPCC used the noted journals "Leisure" and "Event Management":

    Jones, B. and D. Scott, 2007: Implications of climate change to Ontario’s provincial parks. Leisure, (in press)

    Jones, B., D. Scott and H. Abi Khaled, 2006: Implications of climate change for outdoor event planning: a case study of three special events in Canada’s National Capital region. Event Management, 10, 63-76


    With respect to the IPCC's erroneous claims on African agriculture, they were based on

    Agoumi, A., 2003: Vulnerability of North African countries to climatic changes: adaptation and implementation strategies for climatic change. Developing Perspectives on Climate Change: Issues and Analysis from Developing Countries and Countries with Economies in Transition. IISD/Climate Change Knowledge Network, 14 pp.

    Again, not peer reviewed. The IPCC claims on Canadian wildfires were based on a couple of newspapers and a tourism publication:

    Associated Press, 2002: Rough year for rafters. September 3, 2002.

    Butler, A., 2002: Tourism burned: visits to parks down drastically, even away from flames. Rocky Mountain News. July 15, 2002.

    BC Stats, 2003: Tourism Sector Monitor – November 2003, British Columbia Ministry of Management Services, Victoria, 11 pp.

    Want more? Well, of course we have the claim about the Himalayan glacier melt, famously built on a scientist's mis-represented comment to a newspaper. Or we could look at the use of the non peer-reviewed Master's thesis in the IPCC:

    Shibru, M., 2001: Pastoralism and cattle marketing: a case study of the Borana of southern Ethiopia, Unpublished Masters Thesis, Egerton University.

    Wahab, H.M., 2005: The impact of geographical information system on environmental development, unpublished MSc Thesis, Faculty of Agriculture, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, 148 pp.

    Gray, K.N., 1999: The impacts of drought on Yakima Valley irrigated agriculture and Seattle municipal and industrial water supply. Masters Thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, 102 pp.

    Schwörer, D.A., 1997: Bergführer und Klimaänderung: eine Untersuchung im Berninagebiet über mögliche Auswirkungen einer Klimaänderung auf den Bergführerberuf (Mountain guides and climate change: an inquiry into possible effects of climatic change on the mountain guide trade in the Bernina region, Switzerland). Diplomarbeit der philosophisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät der Universität Bern.

    That's from just one Working Group. Or, if you would prefer non peer-reviewed PhD theses, we have:

    Crooks, S., 2004: Solar Influence On Climate. PhD Thesis, University of Oxford.

    Foster, S.S., 2004: Reconstruction of Solar Irradiance Variations for use in Studies of Global Climate Change: Application of Recent SOHO Observations with Historic Data from the Greenwich Observatory. PhD Thesis, University of Southampton, Faculty of Science, Southampton, 231 p.

    Oram, D.E., 1999: Trends of Long-Lived Anthropogenic Halocarbons in the Southern Hemisphere and Model Calculations of Global Emissions. PhD Thesis, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, 249 pp.

    Eyer, M., 2004: Highly Resolved δ13C Measurements on CO2 in Air from Antarctic Ice Cores. PhD Thesis, University of Bern, 113 pp.

    Foster, S., 2004: Reconstruction of Solar Irradiance Variations for Use in Studies of Global Climate Change: Application of Recent SOHO Observations with Historic Data from the Greenwich Observatory. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.

    Driesschaert, E., 2005: Climate Change over the Next Millennia Using LOVECLIM, a New Earth System Model Including Polar Ice Sheets. PhD Thesis, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium, 214 pp, http://edoc.bib.ucl.ac.be:81/ETD-db/collection/available/BelnUcetd-10172005-185914/

    Harder, M., 1996: Dynamik, Rauhigkeit und Alter des Meereises in der Arktis. PhD Thesis, Alfred-Wegener-Institut für Polar und Meeresforschung, Bremerhaven, Germany, 124 pp

    Jiang, Y.D., 2005: The Northward Shift of Climatic Belts in China during the Last 50 Years, and the Possible Future Changes. PhD Thesis, Institute of Atmospheric Physics, China Academy of Science, Beijing, 137 pp.

    Somot, S., 2005: Modélisation Climatique du Bassin Méditerranéen: Variabilité et Scénarios de Changement Climatique. PhD Thesis, Université Paul Sabatier, Toulouse, France, 333 pp.

    Vérant, S., 2004: Etude des Dépressions sur l’Europe de l’Ouest : Climat Actuel et Changement Climatique. PhD thesis

    ... and that's just the PhD theses from Working Group 1 ...

    Regarding the use of non peer-reviewed documents from Greenpeace, we have:

    Aringhoff, R., C. Aubrey, G. Brakmann, and S. Teske, 2003: Solar thermal power 2020, Greenpeace International/European Solar Thermal Power Industry Association, Netherlands

    ESTIA, 2004: Exploiting the heat from the sun to combat climate change. European Solar Thermal Industry Association and Greenpeace, Solar Thermal Power 2020, UK

    Greenpeace, 2004: http://www.greenpeace.org.ar/cop10ing/SolarGeneration.pdf accessed 05/06/07

    Greenpeace, 2006: Solar generation. K. McDonald (ed.), Greenpeace International, Amsterdam

    GWEC, 2006: Global wind energy outlook. Global Wind Energy Council, Bruxelles and Greenpeace, Amsterdam, September, 56 pp., accessed 05/06/07

    Hoegh-Guldberg, O., H. Hoegh-Guldberg, H. Cesar and A. Timmerman, 2000: Pacific in peril: biological, economic and social impacts of climate change on Pacific coral reefs. Greenpeace, 72 pp.

    Lazarus, M., L. Greber, J. Hall, C. Bartels, S. Bernow, E. Hansen, P. Raskin, and D. Von Hippel, 1993: Towards a fossil free energy future: the next energy transition. Stockholm Environment Institute, Boston Center, Boston. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam.

    Wind Force 12, 2005: Global Wind Energy Council and Greenpeace, http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=8, accessed 03/07/07

    And regarding non peer-reviewed documents from the WWF, the IPCC used:

    Allianz and World Wildlife Fund, 2006: Climate change and the financial sector: an agenda for action, 59 pp.

    Austin, G., A. Williams, G. Morris, R. Spalding-Feche, and R. Worthington, 2003: Employment potential of renewable energy in South Africa. Earthlife Africa, Johannesburg and World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Denmark, November, 104 pp.

    Baker, T., 2005: Vulnerability Assessment of the North-East Atlantic Shelf Marine Ecoregion to Climate Change, Workshop Project Report, WWF, Godalming, Surrey, 79 pp.

    Coleman, T., O. Hoegh-Guldberg, D. Karoly, I. Lowe, T. McMichael, C.D. Mitchell, G.I. Pearman, P. Scaife and J. Reynolds, 2004: Climate Change: Solutions for Australia. Australian Climate Group, 35 pp.

    Dlugolecki, A. and S. Lafeld, 2005: Climate change – agenda for action: the financial sector’s perspective. Allianz Group and WWF, Munich

    Fritsche, U.R., K. Hünecke, A. Hermann, F. Schulze, and K. Wiegmann, 2006: Sustainability standards for bioenergy. Öko-Institut e.V., Darmstadt, WWF Germany, Frankfurt am Main, November

    Giannakopoulos, C., M. Bindi, M. Moriondo, P. LeSager and T. Tin, 2005: Climate Change Impacts in the Mediterranean Resulting from a 2oC Global Temperature Rise. WWF report, Gland Switzerland.

    Hansen, L.J., J.L. Biringer and J.R. Hoffmann, 2003: Buying Time: A User’s Manual for Building Resistance and Resilience to Climate Change in Natural Systems. WWF Climate Change Program, Berlin, 246 pp.

    Lechtenbohmer, S., V. Grimm, D. Mitze, S. Thomas, M. Wissner, 2005: Target 2020: Policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. WWF European Policy Office, Wuppertal

    Malcolm, J.R., C. Liu, L. Miller, T. Allnut and L. Hansen, Eds., 2002a: Habitats at Risk: Global Warming and Species Loss in Globally Significant Terrestrial Ecosystems. WWF World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, 40 pp.

    Rowell, A. and P.F. Moore, 2000: Global Review of Forest Fires. WWF/IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 66 pp.

    WWF, 2004: Deforestation threatens the cradle of reef diversity. World Wide Fund for Nature, 2 December 2004.

    WWF, 2004: Living Planet Report 2004. WWF- World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund), Gland, Switzerland, 44 pp.

    WWF (World Wildlife Fund), 2005: An overview of glaciers, glacier retreat, and subsequent impacts in Nepal, India and China. World Wildlife Fund, Nepal Programme, 79 pp.

    Zarsky, L. and K. Gallagher, 2003: Searching for the Holy Grail? Making FDI Work for Sustainable Development. Analytical Paper, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Switzerland



    I could go on and on, but that will suffice for now. Finally, you have asked for the exact statistics on the use of non-peer reviewed studies in the IPCC report. They are here.
  30. Willis Eschenbach,
    as noted before, the IPCC rules state that non peer review article may be used. Your is only a personal attack against Pachauri and of no much interest for the science.
    It's a well known and clearly political motivated tactics used way too often by various brands of skeptics. In my views it's unacceptable.
  31. Pachauri's remarks are irrelevant to your claim, Willis. You brought 'em up secondary to your original remarks, why I don't know because Pachauri's remarks subsequent to the IPCC 2007 synthesis are of course not part of the synthesis.

    We know the IPCC is quite open about using "grey" literature in the impacts and mitigation sections. Ignoring professional output from agronomists, biologists and a plethora of other professions working for private, governmental and not-for-profits entities with particular skills in impact and mitigation matters would frankly be insane. This is an issue that's been trotted out already so your seemingly impressive list of statistics is already pretty dull as a palette knife for creating works of impressionism.

    I'm particularly surprised you think a PhD dissertation is some sort of badge of incompetence or unreliability. I'm not sure what your problem with PhD dissertations is. Perhaps your gallery visitors don't know but presumably you are aware that doctoral theses are typically not only subjected to intensive criticism by a doctoral candidate's own dissertation committee but then are exposed to intense scrutiny by others outside of the committee and are almost invariably defended in oral presentation, the "defense." They are more scrupulously reviewed than any journal article you'll likely find. Nice impressionism but you're laying on the paint with a trowel and it's peeling off the canvas before it can dry.

    I apologize for being insufficiently specific, the particular term that caught my eye was "propaganda pieces." You apparently consider Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Federation to be a trump card in any discussion but that's a sloppy habit and of course is more or less believable depending on your political bent. In point of fact, however, nobody has established that publications by these organizations are axiomatically "propaganda" in the sense that most people understand the word. In fact I suspect that relying on a facile rhetorical crutch equating such publications with "propaganda" is a sign of weakness.

    It is a fact that advocacy organizations publish work that by -some- definitions of the word may be considered "propaganda." Here's a reasonable definition: "A concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people."

    So you know what? I think you're right, when the IPCC uses cites from Greenpeace or WWF, in the very loosest sense of the word they may arguably be said to be drawing on fragments of what taken as a whole are propaganda efforts by those organizations. This is not really a good idea from the perspective of an organization that is a lightning rod for political attacks, but on the other hand funding for science is always short, advocacy organizations commission much original work that is valid and useful, the persons authoring this work are (as you've shown) professionals with reputations to protect and so to dismiss all such publications is to ignore a sizable body of work for purely political reasons.

    How bad is this purported "propganda" problem, what material weight does it carry in the IPCC report?

    Let's assume for a moment that your source for statistics is correct, though I'm already worried by the confusion over dissertations; if the same lack of discrimination is applied throughout the so-called "audit" you cite I wonder about its utility.

    Working with the data you've supplied, your "audit" source reveals that about 4/100ths of 1% of IPCC cites originate with Greenpeace, apparently, and some 7/100ths of 1% of IPCC cites are from WWF, apparently all of these concentrated in the WGII and WGIII sections and thus not material to the science describing how anthropogenic global warming is instantiated. This says nothing of course about the utility of those cites, instead just finally gets to the statistic you refused to produce, describing exactly what is meant when you say the ...IPCC relies, as it has done far too often, on WWF and Greenpeace propaganda pieces...

    Are numbers representing well less than 1/10th of 1% suitable for the term "so often?" I don't know, it's sort of an impressionist thing.

    By the way, the page from the "audit" site mixing politics with science-- the "freedom" part-- reads as though it's taken straight from GOP consultant Luntz's work, except with a touch of rabid froth. I use the numbers from that site with some compunction; who knows if the politics have bled into the "audit?" When an organization equates folks with a concern for the environment with murderous Stalinists, is that a sign that we should depend on them for impartial judgment? Quoting: "People who claim to be making the world a better place have often delivered misery. The Soviets, for example, said they were building a more equal society. Instead, they murdered tens of millions."

    Finally, I see that once again you have chosen to ignore what Nepstad-- the fellow who authored the work intended to be cited by IPCC regarding the Amazon-- said of the IPCC's claim in relation to his own work. Maintaining the wrong impression on this matters apparently absolutely key for you but of course you're not Nepsted so you don't really know what you're talking about compared to him. Here's what Nepstad (again, the author of the work in question) said:

    In sum, the IPCC statement on the Amazon was correct.
  32. doug_bostrom at 15:57 PM on 3 July, 2010
    Pachauri's remarks are irrelevant to your claim, Willis. You brought 'em up secondary to your original remarks, why I don't know because Pachauri's remarks subsequent to the IPCC 2007 synthesis are of course not part of the synthesis.


    Pachauri's remarks are central to the question. The IPCC holds itself out as a review of the science, the whole science, and nothing but the science. Pachauri says that very specifically.

    Which is why the question of peer review is important, because we have been told over and over that the IPCC considers nothing but peer reviewed documents. Not only that, it has an entire procedure that has been applied to keep out non-peer reviewed documents, and even to keep out peer-reviewed documents published after the cutoff date. (They haven't followed their own procedures, and have let things in like the Jesus paper, but that's a separate discussion.)

    This mania for peer review has infected the entire discussion, with many important ideas being discarded or derided because they are not peer reviewed. I have received this dismissal many times, that my ideas are worthless because they are not peer reviewed.

    So why should I care what Nepstad says in answer to a question by a reporter? What he said is no more peer reviewed than what I say. If it were, how come nobody can provide us with a citation to the study?

    I didn't set up that bar, I didn't establish that guideline. I think it's a dumb way to judge what is worthwhile. Peer review is a joke these days.

    But that's the bar that the IPCC itself set up, and that it has pushed over and over as the reason we should believe the IPCC, so it has to live or die by it. It can't just ignore it when it is inconvenient, as you conveniently advocate.

    I am not ignoring what Nepstad said. He may or may not be right. I am just pointing out that the IPCC said that its Amazon claims, along with all of its other claims, were based on peer reviewed science. You have not been able to provide such backing for the claim. You say his was the "work intended to be cited" (although we have no evidence of that) ... but his work doesn't contain that claim either. In fact, the claim was altered (to make it more alarmist) during the IPCC review process, and over the objections of a reviewer.

    So if you think that the claim rests on peer reviewed science, please give us the link to the study and we can discuss it.

    Finally, the same thing applies to Masters or PhD theses. Yes, as you point out they may well be right ... but they are not peer reviewed. Like I said, I think it's a dumb way to judge science, but you guys proposed it, you guys are the ones who have been pushing it, you guys are the ones who bust what I say for not being peer reviewed, so you have to follow your own rules.
  33. "The problem is that 71.3% of what passes as peer reviewed climate science is simply junk science, as false as the percentage cited in this sentence."

    So, discussing science and peer review with Willis Eschenbach appears to be really pointless.
  34. Since you objected to my list of non-peer-reviewed Masters and PhD theses, here's a list of working papers cited by the IPCC. Not peer-reviewed studies, not non peer-reviewed Masters theses, not even finished documents, just working papers:

    Working Group 2, Chapter 1
    Hamilton, J.M., 2003a: Climate and the destination choice of German tourists, Working Paper FNU-15 (revised), Centre for Marine and Climate Research, University of Hamburg, 36 pp.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch1s1-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch1s1-3-9-2.html

    Working Group 2, Chapter 2
    Heslop-Thomas, C.,W. Bailey, D. Amarakoon, A. Chen, S. Rawlins, D. Chadee, R. Crosbourne, A. Owino, K. Polson, C. Rhoden, R. Stennett and M. Taylor, 2006: Vulnerability to dengue fever in Jamaica. AIACC Working Paper No. 27, Assessment of Impacts and Adaptation to Climate Change in Multiple Regions and Sectors Program, Washington, DC, 40 pp.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch2s2-references.html

    Relevant paragraphs at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch2s2-4-4.html and
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch2s2-4-6-4.html

    Ionescu, C., R.J.T. Klein, J. Hinkel, K.S. Kavi Kumar and R. Klein, 2005: Towards a formal framework of vulnerability to climate change. NeWater Working Paper 2, 24 pp. Accessed from http://www.newater.info. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch2s2-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch2s2-2-4.html
    Pulhin, J., R.J.J. Peras, R.V.O. Cruz, R.D. Lasco, F. Pulhin and M.A. Tapia, 2006: Vulnerability of communities to climate variability and extremes: the Pantabangan-Carranglan watershed in the Philippines. AIACC Working Paper No. 44, Assessment of Impacts and Adaptation to Climate Change in Multiple Regions and Sectors Program, Washington, DC, 56 pp.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch2s2-references.html

    Relevant paragraphs at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch2s2-2-4.html and
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch2s2-4-6-4.html

    Working Group 2, Chapter 5
    Toulmin, C., 1986: Livestock losses and post-drought rehabilitation in sub-Saharan Africa: policy options and issues. Livestock Policy Unit Working Paper No. 9, International Livestock Centre for Africa, Addis Ababa.http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch5s5-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch5s5-2.html#5-2-1
    (in table 5.1)
    Working Group 2, Chapter 6
    Barros, V., A. Menéndez, C. Natenzon, R.R. Kokot, J.O. Codignotto, M. Re, P. Bronstein, I. Camilloni and Co-authors, 2006: Vulnerability to floods in the metropolitan region of Buenos Aires under future climate change. Working Paper 26. Assessments of Impacts and Adaptations to Climate Change (AIACC), 36 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch6s6-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch6s6-5-2.html

    Working Group 2, Chapter 7
    Black, R., 2001: Environmental refugees: myth or reality? New Issues in Refugee Research Working Paper 34, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Geneva, 20 pp.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch7s7-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch7s7-4-1.html (in box 7.1)

    Working Group 2, Chapter 9
    Osman-Elasha, B., N. Goutbi, E. Spanger-Siegfried,W. Dougherty,A. Hanafi, S. Zakieldeen, A. Sanjak, H. Abdel Atti and H.M. Elhassan, 2006: Adaptation strategies to increase human resilience against climate variability and change: lessons from the arid regions of Sudan. Working Paper 42, AIACC, 44 pp.http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-5-1.html (in the first paragraph, as well as in Table 9.2)

    Ziervogel, G.,A.O. Nyong, B. Osman, C. Conde, S. Cortés and T. Downing, 2006: Climate variability and change: implications for household food security. AIACC Working Paper No. 20, 25 pp. http://www.aiaccproject.org/working_papers/Working Papers/AIACC_WP_20_Ziervogel.pdf.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-6.html#9-6-1
    Working Group 2, Chapter 10
    Batima, P., L. Natsagdorj, P. Gombluudev and B. Erdenetsetseg, 2005a: Observed climate change in Mongolia. AIACC Working Paper, 13, 25 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-references.html

    Relevant paragraphs at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-2-3.html (in table 10.3) and http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch10s10-2-2.html (in table 10.2)
    Working Group 2, Chapter 11
    Packman, D., D. Ponter and T. Tutua-Nathan, 2001: Maori issues. Climate Change Working Paper, New Zealand Climate Change Office, Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, 18 pp. http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/resources/. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-4-8.html

    Working Group 2, Chapter 13
    Nagy, G.J.,M. Bidegain, R.M. Caffera, J.J. Lagomarsino,W. Norbis,A. Ponce and G. Sención, 2006b: Adaptive capacity for responding to climate variability and change in estuarine fisheries of the Rio de la Plata. AIACC Working Paper No. 36, 16 pp. http://www.aiaccproject.org/
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-2-5-3.html

    Nagy, G.J., M. Bidegain, F. Blixen, R.M. Caffera, G. Ferrari, J.J. Lagomarsino, C.H. López,W. Norbis and co-authors, 2006c: Assessing vulnerability to climate variability and change for estuarine waters and coastal fisheries of the Rio de la Plata. AIACC Working Paper No. 22, 44 pp. http://www.aiaccproject.org/ http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-4-4.html

    Orlove, B.S., S. Joshua and L. Tosteson, 1999: The application of seasonal to interannual climate forecasts based on El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events: lessons from Australia, Brazil, Ethiopia, Peru and Zimbabwe. Berkeley Workshop on Environmental Politics, Working Paper 99-3, Institute of International Studies, University of Califórnia, Berkeley, 67 pp.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-2-5.html

    Travasso, M.I., G.O. Magrin, W.E. Baethgen, J.P. Castaño, G.R. Rodriguez, J.L. Pires,A. Gimenez, G. Cunha and M. Fernandes, 2006: Adaptation measures for maize and soybean in south eastern South America. AIACC Working Paper No. 28, 38 pp. http://www.aiaccproject.org/working_papers/working_papers.html
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-5-1-2.html

    Wehbe,M., H. Eakin, R. Seiler,M.Vinocur, C. Ávila and C.Marutto, 2006: Local perspectives on adaptation to climate change: lessons from Mexico and Argentina. AIACC Working Paper No. 39, 39 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-2-5-1.html
    Working Group 2, Chapter 17
    Lasco, R., R. Cruz, J. Pulhin and F. Pulhin, 2006: Tradeoff analysis of adaptation strategies for natural resources, water resources and local institutions in the Philippines. AIACC Working Paper No. 32, International START Secretariat, Washington, District of Columbia, 31 pp.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-references.html
    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-2-2.html (in table 17.1)

    Leary, N., J. and Co-authors, 2006: For Whom the Bell Tolls: Vulnerabilities in a Changing Climate. AIACC Working Paper No. 30, International START Secretariat, Washington, District of Columbia, 31 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-references.html

    Relevant paragraphs at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-1.html and
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-4-2-1.html

    Taylor, M., A. Chen, S. Rawlins, C. Heslop-Thomas, A. Amarakoon,W. Bailey, D. Chadee, S. Huntley, C. Rhoden and R. Stennett, 2006: Adapting to dengue risk – what to do? AIACC Working Paper No. 33, International START Secretariat, Washington, District of Columbia, 31 pp.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-4-2-3.html

    Working Group 2, Chapter 18
    Downing, T.E. and G. Ziervogel, 2005: Food system scenarios: exploring global/local linkages. Working Paper, SEI Poverty and Vulnerability Report. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, 35 pp http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch18s18-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch18s18-8.html

    Goklany, I.M., 2000b: Applying the Precautionary Principle to Global Warming. Weidenbaum Center Working Paper, PS 158.Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch18s18-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch18s18-4-1.html

    Working Group 3, Chapter 5
    Riedy, C., 2003: Subsidies that encourage fossil fuel use in Australia. Working paper CR2003/01, Institute for sustainable futures, Sydney,Australia, 39 pp.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch5s5-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch5s5-5-3.html

    Working Group 3, Chapter 7
    Delmas, M. and A. Terlaak, 2000: Voluntary agreements for the environment: Innovation and transaction costs. CAVA Working Paper 00/02/13 February.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch7s7-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch7s7-9-2.html
    Gupta, K., 2002: The urban informal sector and environmental pollution: A theoretical analysis. Working Paper No. 02-006. Center for Environment and Development Economics, University of York, York, UK. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch7s7-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch7s7-1-1.html


    Next, a list of newspaper and magazine articles cited by the IPCC:

    Dey, P., 2006: Climate change devastating Latin America frogs. University of Alberta. http://www.expressnews.ualberta.ca/article.cfm?id=7247.

    Butler, A., 2002: Tourism burned: visits to parks down drastically, even away from flames. Rocky Mountain News. July 15, 2002.

    Kesmodel, D., 2002: Low and dry: Drought chokes off Durango rafting business. Rocky Mountain News, 25 June 2002.

    Wilgoren, J. and K.R. Roane, 1999: Cold Showers, Rotting Food, the Lights, Then Dancing. New York Times, A1. July 8, 1999.

    Welch, C., 2006: Sweeping change reshapes Arctic. The Seattle Times. Jan. 1 2006. [Accessed 12.02.07: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/ 2002714404_arctic01main.html]

    Marris, E., 2005: First tests show flood waters high in bacteria and lead. News@Nature, 437, 301-301.

    Stiger, R.W., 2001: Alaska DOT deals with permafrost
    thaws. Better Roads. June, 30-31. [Accessed 12.02.07: http://obr.gcnpublishing.com/articles/brjun01c.htm]

    Business Week, 2005: A Second Look at Katrina's Cost. Business Week.
    September 13, 2005. [Accessed 09.02.07: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/sep2005/nf20050913_8975_db082.htm]

    Associated Press, 2002: Rough year for rafters. September 3, 2002.

    Colombia Trade News, 2006: Illegal crops damage Colombia’s environmental resources. Colombian Government Trade Bureau. http://www.coltrade.org/ about/envt_index.asp#top.

    FAO, 2004b: La participación de las comunidades en la gestión forestal es decisiva para reducir los incendios (Involving local communities to prevent and control forest fires). FAO Newsroom. http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2004 /48709/index.html.

    FAO, 2005: Cattle ranching is encroaching on forests in Latin America. FAO Newsroom. http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2005/102924/index.html

    Environment News Service, 2002: Hungry Cambodians at the mercy of climate change. Phnom Penh, 26 November 2002. Accessed 16.05.07: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/nov2002/2002-11-26-02.asp.

    Balint-Kurti, D., 2005: Tin trade fuels Congo War. News24, 07/03/2005. http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/Features/0,,2-11-37_1672558,00.html.

    FAO, 2004: Locust crisis to hit northwest Africa again: situation deteriorating in the Sahel. FAO News Release, 17 September 2004. http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2004/50609/.

    Bowen, N., 2002: Canary in a coalmine. Climbing News, 208, 90-97, 138-139.

    Sparks, T.H., H. Heyen, O. Braslavska and E. Lehikoinen, 1999: Are European birds migrating earlier? BTO News, 223, 8.

    Benedick, R., 2001: Striking a new deal on climate change. Science and Technology Online, Fall 2001. http://www.issues.org/18.1/benedick.html

    Schelling, T.C., 2002: What makes greenhouse sense? Foreign Affairs, May/June COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2005)6 32. http://www.colorado.edu/economics/morey/4545/global/schelling-ghsense.pdf

    Schelling, T.C., 1997: The cost of combating global warming, facing the tradeoffs. Foreign Affairs, November/December http://www.colorado.edu/Economics/morey/4545/global/schelling-cost.pdf

    Cowan, J., E. Eidinow, Laura Likely, 2000: A scenario-planning process for the new millennium. Deeper News, 9(1).

    The Economist, 2000: Sins of the secular missionaries. January 29, 2000.

    Speth, J.G., 2002: Recycling Environmentalism. Foreign Policy, July/August, pp. 74-76. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2002/07/01/recycling_environmentalism

    Shashank, J., 2004: Energy conservation in the industrial sector: A special report on energy conservation day. New Delhi, Economic Times.

    Nippon Steel, 2002: Advanced technology of Nippon Steel contributes to ULSAB-AVC Program. Nippon Steel News, 295, September 2002.

    Shorrock, T., 2002: Enron’s Asia misadventure. Asia Times 29 January, accessed 02/07/07.

    ISNA, 2004: From wood to coal in an effort to stop deforestation. Inter Services news agency (IPS), Rome, accessed 02/07/07.

    IRIN, 2004: Angola: frustration as oil windfall spending neglects the poor. United Nations Integrated Regional Information Networks, accessed 02/07/07.

    Nuclear News, 2005: WNA report forecasts three scenarios for nuclear’s growth. Nuclear News, November 2005: pp. 60-62, 69.


    Next, a list of press releases cited by the IPCC:

    Working Group 2, Chapter 5
    COPA COGECA, 2003a: Committee of Agricultural Organisations in the European Union General Committee for Agricultural Cooperation in the European Union, CDP 03 61 1, Press release, Brussels. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch5s5-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch5s5-2.html

    Working Group 2, Chapter 9
    FAO, 2004: Locust crisis to hit northwest Africa again: situation deteriorating in the Sahel. FAO News Release, 17 September 2004. http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2004/50609/

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-references.html

    Working Group2, Chapter 11
    Premier of Victoria, 2006: Ballarat’s future water supplies secured by major Bracks government action plan. Media release, 17 October 2006. http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/newsroom/news_item.asp?id=978. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-2-5.html

    Working Group 2 - Cross Chapter Studies
    COPA COGECA, 2003b: Committee of Agricultural Organisations in the European Union General Committee for Agricultural Cooperation in the European Union, CDP 03 61 1, Press release, Brussels http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-xccc.pdf Reference at p. 848.

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-xccc.pdf Note: paragraph at p. 846

    Working Group 2, Chapter 13
    World Bank, 2002a: Desarrollo en riesgo debido a la degradación ambiental: Comunicado de prensa (Development at risk from environmental degradation: News release), No. 2002/112/S. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-2-5-1.html http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch13s13-4-2.html

    Working Group 3, Chapter 4
    Snow, T., White House Press Briefing, 2006: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061031-8.html http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061031-8.html# accessed 31 October 2006. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch4s4-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch4s4-2-2.html

    World Bank, 2005: An open letter to the Catholic Relief Services and bank information centre in response to the report ‘Chad’s Oil: Miracle or Mirage for the poor?’. News release no: 2005/366/AFR, Washington D.C. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch4s4-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch4s4-5-4-2.html

    Working Group 3, Chapter 5
    Power System, 2005: Press release 2005.6.27. Development of High Power and High Energy Density Capacitor (in Japanese). accessed 30/05/07. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch5s5-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch5s5-3-1-3.html


    Here's a list of discussion papers cited by the IPCC. Remember that Pachauri said:

    "When asked if the discussion paper could be taken into consideration...[Pachauri] said, 'IPCC studies only peer-review science. Let someone publish the data in a decent credible publication. I am sure IPCC would then accept it, otherwise we can just throw it into the dustbin.'" - Times of India, November 2009.

    So here are the non-peer reviewed, not finished documents, not even working papers, but discussion papers cited by the IPCC.

    Working Group 2 Chapter 4
    Banzhaf, S. and J. Boyd, 2005: The architecture and measurement of an ecosystem services index. Discussion paper RFF DP 05-22, Resources for the Future, Washington, District of Columbia, 57 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch4s4-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch4s4-5.html

    Working Group 2, Chapter 5
    Sedjo, R.A. and K.S. Lyon, 1996: Timber supply model 96: a global timber supply model with a pulpwood component. Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 96-15. [Accessed 21.03.07: http://www.rff.org/rff/Documents/RFF-DP-96-15.pdf] http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch5s5-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch5s5-3-2-2.html

    Working Group 2, Chapter 9
    Kurukulasuriya, P. and R. Mendelsohn, 2006a: A Ricardian analysis of the impact of climate change on African cropland. Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy in Africa (CEEPA) Discussion Paper No. 8. University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 58 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-4-4.html

    Kurukulasuriya, P. and R. Mendelsohn, 2006b: Crop selection: adapting to climate change in Africa. Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy inAfrica (CEEPA) Discussion Paper No. 26. University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 28 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-5-1.html

    Seo, S.N. and R. Mendelsohn, 2006a: Climate change impacts on animal husbandry inAfrica: a Ricardian analysis. Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy in Africa (CEEPA) Discussion Paper No. 9, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 42 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch9s9-4-4.html

    Working Group 2, Chapter 11
    Altman, J., 2000: The economic status of Indigenous Australians. Discussion Paper #193, Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University, 18 pp. http://eprints.anu.edu.au/archive/00001001/. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-4-8.html

    Mulrennan, M., 1992: Coastal management: challenges and changes in the Torres Strait islands. Australian National University, North Australia Research Unit, Discussion Paper 5, 40 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch11s11-4-8.html

    Working Group 2 Chapter 17
    Christoplos, I, 2006: The Elusive Window of Opportunity for Risk Reduction in Post-Disaster Recovery. Discussion Paper ProVention Consortium Forum 2006 - Strengthening global collaboration in disaster risk reduction, Bangkok, February 2-3, 4 pp. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter17.pdf
    (in box 17.7 on page 733)

    FAO, 2004: Drought impact mitigation and prevention in the Limpopo River Basin, A situation analysis. Land and Water Discussion Paper 4, FAO, Rome, 160 pp.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter17.pdf
    (in table 17.1 on page 722)

    Sperling, F. and F. Szekely, 2005: Disaster Risk Management in a Changing Climate. Informal Discussion Paper prepared for the World Conference on Disaster Reduction on behalf of the Vulnerability and Adaptation Resource Group (VARG). Washington, District of Columbia, 42 pp.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch17s17-2-2.html

    Working Group 2, Chapter 18
    Newell, R.G. and W.A. Pizer, 2000: Regulating stock externalities under uncertainty. Discussion Paper 99-10-REV. Resources for the Future, Washington, District of Columbia.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch18s18-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/ch18s18-3-2.html

    Working Group 3, Chapter 7
    PCA, 2002: Common elements among advanced greenhouse gas management programs: A discussion paper. New York, Partnership for Climate Action, , accessed 31/05/07.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch7s7-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch7s7-9-2-2.html

    Working Group 3, Chapter 9
    Palmer, K. and R. Newell, K. Gillingham, 2004: Retrospective Examination of Demand-side Energy-efficiency Policies, Discussion Papers dp-04-19, Resources for the Future. accessed 06/07/07.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch12s12-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch12s12-2-4-1.html

    Wagner, M. and G. Müller-Fürstenberg, 2004: The Carbon Kuznets Curve: A cloudy picture emitted by lousy econometrics? Discussion Paper 04-18. University of Bern, 36 pp.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch12s12-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch12s12-2-2.html

    Working Group 3 Chapter 13
    Assunção, L., and Z.X. Zhang, 2002: Domestic climate policies and the WTO. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, Discussion Paper No. 164.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter13.pdf
    (box 13.7 on page 782)

    Baer, P., J. Harte, B. Haya, A.V. Herzog, J. Holdren, N.E. Hultman, D.M. Kammen, R.B. Norgaard, and L. Raymond, 2000: Equity and greenhouse gas responsibility. Science, 289 (2287.12 Discussion paper 2003-2).http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter13.pdf
    (in table 13.2, on page 770)

    Beierle, T.C., 2004: The benefits and costs of environmental information disclosure: What do we know about right-to-know? RFF Discussion Paper 03-05, March
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-2-1-7.html

    Betz, R. and I. MacGill, 2005: Emissions trading for Australia: Design, transition and linking options. CEEM Discussion Paper, DP_050815. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-4-4.html

    Blok, K., G.J.M. Phylipsen, and J.W. Bode, 1997: The Triptych Approach, burden sharing differentiation of CO2 emissions reduction among EU Member States. Discussion paper for the informal workshop for the European Union Ad Hoc Group on Climate, Zeist, the Netherlands, January 16-17, 1997, Dept. of Science, Technology and Society, Utrecht University, Utrecht, 1997 (9740).
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter13.pdf
    (table 13.2 on page 770)

    Burtraw, D., K. Palmer, A. Paul, R. Bharvirkar, 2001b: The effect of allowance allocation on the cost of carbon emissions trading. RFF Discussion Paper 01-30.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-2-1-3.html

    Burtraw, D., A. Krupnick, K. Palmer, A. Paul, M. Toman, and C. Bloyd, 2001a: Ancillary benefits of reduced air pollution in the United States from moderate greenhouse gas mitigation policies in the electricity sector. RFF Discussion Paper 01-61.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-1-2-1.html

    Fischer, C., 2001: Rebating environmental policy revenues: Output-based allocations and tradable performance standards. RFF Discussion Paper, 01-22.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-2-1-3.html

    Fischer, C., S. Hoffman, and Y. Yoshino, 2002: Multilateral trade agreements and market-based environmental policies. RFF Discussion Paper, May. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter13.pdf
    (box 13.7 on page 782)

    Fisher, C. and R. Newell, 2004: Environmental and technology policies for climate change and renewable energy, resources for the future. Discussion paper 04-05, April 2004.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

    Relevant paragraphs at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-2-1-6.html
    and http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-2-2.html

    Newell, R. and N. Wilson, 2005: Technology prizes for Climate Change Mitigation, Resources for the future. Discussion paper 05-33, June, 2005, Washington, D.C.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter13.pdf
    (table 13.2 on page 772)

    Oates, W.E., 2001: A Reconsideration of Environmental Federalism, Resources for the Future. Discussion Paper 01-54, November, 2001.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at:http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-4.html#13-4-1

    OECD, 1999: Conference on foreign direct investment & environment, The Hague, 28-29 January 1999, BIAC Discussion Paper. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-3-3-5.html
    (figure 13.5)

    Pezzey, J.C.V. and M.A. Toman, 2002: The economics of sustainability: A review of journal articles. Discussion Paper 02-03, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-1-2-3.html
    (footnote number 3)

    Pizer, W.A. and K. Tamura, 2004: Climate Policy in the U.S. and Japan: A Workshop Summary, Resources for the Future Discussion Paper. 04- 22, March, 2004.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-4.html#13-4-1

    Pizer, W.A., 2005a: Climate policy design under uncertainty. Discussion Paper 05-44, Resources for the Future. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-2-1-3.html

    Stavins, R.N., 2001: Economic analysis of global climate change policy: A primer. Climate Change: Science, Strategies, and Solutions. E. Claussen, V.A. Cochran, and D.P. Davis. Boston. Brill 18 Discussion paper 2003-2: draft ver. 1 August 2003 Publishing.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-references.html

    Relevant paragraph at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter13.pdf
    (table 13.2 on page 770)


    The point that you seem to be missing in all of this is that people feel, and with good reason, that they've been sold a bill of goods. For years we've been told that the IPCC only considered peer-reviewed science, that they didn't just, in Pachauri's words, "pick up a newspaper article and, based on that, come up with our findings."

    Now we find out that they are doing exactly that. They are using newspapers, and working papers, and magazine articles, and discussion papers, and press releases, and other non peer-reviewed literature, to try to sell their point of view.

    As a result, people feel betrayed, and they are angry. But when someone points this out, you're all on about how Masters theses are just fine, and the number of claims from WWF isn't all that great, and other fine excuses. If you were savvy, you'd say, "Hey, we oversold it, our bad, won't happen again". But instead you've circled the wagons, and are trying to defend the indefensible.

    This was very apparent in Pachauri's response to the Himalaya glacier fiasco. Rather than say "Yes, it was an error", he immediately denounce it as "voodoo science". Indian scientists, whose work he was dissing, were incensed, and rightly so. The Indian Government was so upset by his comments that they set up their own government body, with the Indian Environment Minister saying:


    “There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am for climate science."

    But heck, keep up the good work, follow Pachauri's lead. All you are doing is further tarnishing the reputation of the IPCC, and you won't hear me complain about that. It has served and over-served its purpose. It has become a fully politicized and typical UN boondoggle. So I'm happy to see you continuing to claim that no important mistakes were made, it just advances my cause. People can look at the length of the lists of working papers and newspaper articles that the IPCC claims are "science" and make up their own minds ...
  35. Willis does not seem to be able to have a discussion while sticking with facts. As Riccardo suggests, this means talking with Willis is rather pointless.

    ...we have been told over and over that the IPCC considers nothing but peer reviewed documents.

    In point of fact the IPCC has never had such a policy. Why does Willis want to convey the opposite, incorrect impression?

    With regard to Nepstad, Willis says "So why should I care what Nepstad says in answer to a question by a reporter? What he said is no more peer reviewed than what I say. If it were, how come nobody can provide us with a citation to the study?"

    Of course, Nepstad is in fact the author of the papers in question and has specifically pointed to the papers he authored and which he points out justify the IPCC's remarks. Why does Willis want to convey a false impression?

    As to "working papers" being yet another badge of unreliability, Willis connects the concept with "not even finished", again seeking to convey an incorrect impression that a working paper is some sort of student project that was not completed. Why does Willis want to convey that wrong impression?

    A person authoring and then persistently defending what by almost any definition is propaganda relying on false impressions is a useless discussion partner. Propaganda does not axiomatically equate to untruth, but it may include untruth. What I read of Willis' work suggests he's conducting a campaign to sway public opinion, relying on conveying wrong impressions to promote his agenda.

    Anyway, the statistical outcome from looking at Willis' original claim that the IPCC relies on "propaganda pieces so often" is obviously not helpful to your case. No wonder he avoided putting up numbers. Who is conveying propaganda? Seeking to distort public thinking by suggesting "often" equals less than 1/10th of 1% seems to me like promoting an agenda based on false impressions.

    It's pretty appalling to witness this style of cognitive vandalism, I'll say that.
  36. doug_bostrom at 02:59 AM on 4 July, 2010

    I said:
    ...we have been told over and over that the IPCC considers nothing but peer reviewed documents.

    This statement was questioned, and I was asked to provide citations. I provided a number of quotations from the head of the IPCC, Pachauri, saying that exact thing. Now you accuse me of not sticking to the facts? That's the facts, I have provided the quotations as requested.

    You replied:
    In point of fact the IPCC has never had such a policy. Why does Willis want to convey the opposite, incorrect impression?

    A citation for your claim that they have no such policy would be helpful. Oh, and you should tell Pachauri, as he has said over and over that they do have such a policy. For example, he explicitly said that they don't use discussion papers, they only use peer-reviewed science, and the rest they just "throw into the dustbin" ... but guess what? The IPCC does use discussion papers, but only the ones that fit the party line. Go figure.

    Next, you say:
    Of course, Nepstad is in fact the author of the papers in question and has specifically pointed to the papers he authored and which he points out justify the IPCC's remarks. Why does Willis want to convey a false impression?

    Nepstad is not the author of the un-reviewed IPCC citation in question. That would be Rowell and Moore writing for the WWF. Nor is he the author of the un-reviewed paper that Rowell and Moore cite.

    I have read the papers by Nepstad. None of them contain the claim made by the IPCC. Perhaps you could point out where Nepstad claimed that "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". He may believe that, and it may be true, but I have looked, and I can't find it anywhere in Nepstad's work. Now I certainly could have missed it ... so if could you point out which of Nepstad's peer-reviewed papers and which paragraph of that paper made that claim? I have provided the citations and exact quotations that you requested, perhaps you could return the favor.

    Next, you say:
    Anyway, the statistical outcome from looking at Willis' original claim that the IPCC relies on "propaganda pieces so often" is obviously not helpful to your case. No wonder he avoided putting up numbers. Who is conveying propaganda? Seeking to distort public thinking by suggesting "often" equals less than 1/10th of 1% seems to me like promoting an agenda based on false impressions.

    Doug, if a man said "I never cheated on my wife", finding out that he cheated once makes his word worthless. Doesn't matter that he had sex with his wife a thousand times, so he only cheated on his wife 1/10th of 1% of the time. He still cheated.

    The same is true about the IPCC. Pachauri has repeatedly claimed that the IPCC only used peer reviewed science, and never used anything else because the rest was "voodoo science". I have given a dozens and dozens of examples of the use of newspaper articles and discussion papers and the like. As a result, just like the wife of the man who was cheating, people reasonably feed betrayed.

    You still seem to think that the issue is the veracity of a working paper or a discussion paper or a newspaper article. I know very well what a working paper is. I also know what a discussion paper is, and a newspaper article. The point is that they are not peer reviewed. You folks have established peer review as the gold standard, not me. You made your bed, you established the rules, now you want to say well, we only broke the rules dozens and dozens of times, so it doesn't count. Nice try.

    Finally, you say:
    Anyway, the statistical outcome from looking at Willis' original claim that the IPCC relies on "propaganda pieces so often" is obviously not helpful to your case. No wonder he avoided putting up numbers.

    Here are the numbers I put up:

    WORKING GROUP, Percentage of citations not peer-reviewed.

    Working Group 1, 7%
    Working Group 2, 34%
    Working Group 3, 57%

    For an IPCC which claims that its results are based on nothing but peer-reviewed science, that's pathetic. You can defend it all you like, but you'd be better off to obey the first rule of holes - when you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.

    Doug, like I said, I think that the rule on only peer reviewed science in the IPCC reports is stupid. I would allow any valid, supported, verified science. But I wasn't consulted when they made that rule. I see that they are now planning to change the rule for the Fifth Assessment Report, which is reasonable to me.

    But until they do so, the IPCC made the rules, Pachauri proclaimed the rules far and wide, the IPCC broke the rules, and as a result the IPCC lost the trust of the public. You may not like that, but there it is.
  37. Willis nothing I say or do is going to change your habits. You've got your agenda, have fun with it.

    Doug, like I said, I think that the rule on only peer reviewed science in the IPCC reports is stupid.

    What's more stupid, a nonexistent rule or constantly asserting in public that it exists?

    Just for the record, Willis has somehow missed the procedural steps described by the IPCC for inclusion of non-peer reviewed materials in IPCC synthesis reports. Either that or Willis would really like readers to form the wrong impression.

    IPCC has broken none of its "rules."

    Read about how IPCC prefers non-peer reviewed literature be used here in Appendix A, Annex 2:

    PROCEDURES FOR THE PREPARATION, REVIEW, ACCEPTANCE, ADOPTION, APPROVAL AND PUBLICATION OF IPCC REPORTS (pdf)
  38. I was wondering how many non peer review papers have been used by the IPCC and I'm impressed by the numbers Willis Eschenbach gave. Given that they were allowed to use non peer review papers I have to say that they did a really awesome job.
  39. By the way, Willis, I notice that once you saw the actual Greenpeace/WWF "propaganda" content you say is "so often" used by IPCC identified as composing something like 11/100ths of 1% of IPCC cites, you quickly changed the parameters of your complaint.

    Like I say, it's hopeless discussing this with you, you're not trying to improve anybody's understanding of the matter. If you were, you'd acknowledge you'd made an error and that 11/100ths of 1% is not "often."
  40. Oh, my goodness. I missed the part where Willis blew his cool, and his cover:

    [IPCC] has become a fully politicized and typical UN boondoggle. So I'm happy to see you continuing to claim that no important mistakes were made, it just advances my cause.

    Ah, so! This is not really about climate science, it's all about the UN. Apparently Willis is using this whole business to advance his "cause." Presumably this is a political cause, it's hard to think what else would fit a complaint about the UN.

    It would probably be a good thing if Willis were explicit as to the purpose of his "cause."

    Case of the pot calling the kettle black: "I don't like the UN's politics because the UN's politics don't comport with my politics."

    Not really about science, after all those words. Tsk.
  41. It would appear that Willis Eschenbach has been using other sources without acknowledgement - some of his lists are even in the same order !

    They seem to come from here and here.
  42. Here's what the IPCC themselves have always stated, as seen in doug_bostrom's link :

    Because it is increasingly apparent that materials relevant to IPCC Reports, in particular, information about
    the experience and practice of the private sector in mitigation and adaptation activities, are found in sources
    that have not been published or peer-reviewed (e.g., industry journals, internal organisational publications,
    non-peer reviewed reports or working papers of research institutions, proceedings of workshops etc) the
    following additional procedures are provided. These have been designed to make all references used in IPCC
    Reports easily accessible and to ensure that the IPCC process remains open and transparent.
  43. JMurphy at 08:07 AM on 4 July, 2010
    Here's what the IPCC themselves have always stated, as seen in doug_bostrom's link :


    Always stated? I fear you missed the part where the document you cited is the proposed revision to the existing rules. As the document says:

    This provisionally revised Appendix to the Principles Governing IPCC Work contains the procedures for the preparation, review, acceptance, adoption, approval and publication of IPCC reports and other materials relevant to methodologies. This Appendix complements the Procedures for the Preparation, Review, Acceptance, Adoption, Approval and Publication of IPCC Reports, which was adopted at the Fifteenth Session of the IPCC (San Jose, 15-18 April 1999).


    This is an appendix to the document "Principles Governing IPCC Work", which was not approved until 2006. The provisionally revised Appendix in question was approved at the Twenty-Ninth Session (Geneva, 31 August – 4 September 2008). I find no record of a final revised version.

    Always stated? Nice try ...
  44. Even George Monbiot has given up on your senseless statement that the Amazon claim was peer reviewed. Monbiot before:
    The ironies of this episode are manifold, but the most obvious is this: that North's story – and the Sunday Times's rewritten account – purported to expose inaccuracy, misrepresentation and falsehood on the part of the IPCC. Now that the IPCC has been vindicated, its accusers, North first among them, are exposed for peddling inaccuracy, misrepresentation and falsehood. Ashes to ashes, toast to toast.

    Don't like it? Write to George ...

    Monbiot now (emphasis mine):
    There is no doubt that the IPCC made a mistake. Sourcing its information on the Amazon to a report by the green group WWF rather than the substantial peer-reviewed literature on the subject, was a bizarre and silly thing to do.
    ...
    It is also true that nowhere in the peer-reviewed literature is there a specific statement that "up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation". This figure was taken from the WWF report and it shouldn't have been".
    Oooops ...

    I've asked here repeatedly for a reference to such a statement from the peer-reviewed literature. I can't find one. George can't find one. I'm still waiting for you to either produce one, or (like Monbiot) admit that you can't find one.
  45. JMurphy at 07:46 AM on 4 July, 2010
    It would appear that Willis Eschenbach has been using other sources without acknowledgement - some of his lists are even in the same order !


    Duh ... anyone with half a brain would realize that I didn't go out and research the hundred or so IPCC references in a single day.

    I didn't reference them because their original provenance is obvious ... the IPCC. What difference does it make where I got them? When the IPCC references a discussion paper, it references a discussion paper. No amount of intermediate collection of different references changes that.
  46. doug_bostrom at 07:04 AM on 4 July, 2010
    Oh, my goodness. I missed the part where Willis blew his cool, and his cover:
    [IPCC] has become a fully politicized and typical UN boondoggle. So I'm happy to see you continuing to claim that no important mistakes were made, it just advances my cause.
    Ah, so! This is not really about climate science, it's all about the UN. Apparently Willis is using this whole business to advance his "cause." Presumably this is a political cause, it's hard to think what else would fit a complaint about the UN.
    My cause is the investigation and hopefully the rectification of bad science, whether inside the UN or out. Regarding the UN, I worked in international village level development for many years, and have seen the results of many of their failed programs. In addition, both my parents worked for the UN. As a result, I've seen its boondoggles up close and personal. The problems with the UN are internal to the UN. Inherently they have nothing to do with politics, although in the case of climate science (where politicians have been appointed to the IPCC and the results have huge international implications) they overlap.

    Regarding politics, I voted for Obama ... remind me how that is relevant?
  47. Having read thru the thread, I'd like to make the following points (for whatever they are worth to the reader)

    * Rajandra Pachauri is the chairman of the IPCC. He is the final signatory to the report.
    * Willis supplied quotes attributed to Pachauri who made these statements AS the chairman.
    * If a chairman or CEO of a company makes statements about that company, one would be safe to assume the statements are those of the company.
    * Journalists and others listening to Pachauri would have, and indeed did, take his word as gospel and quoted him on it. Not too many people rush off to read the fine print in a 3000 page document. Why would you when the chairman answered direct questions on behalf of the panel.
    * This isn't a case of a single off the cuff comment made by Pachauri. He repeated his claims of 100% peer review on a number of occasions under direct questioning.
    * The reason why he was questioned was because the integrity of the report was brought into question.
    * Pachauri defended this integrity with the "all peer reviewed" comment.
    * Now that we know it wasn't "all peer reviewed" (rightly or wrongly) parts of the reports integrity must still be under question

    p.s. I was a citizens auditor. I audited over ten chapters. The lists of "working papers" "discussion papers" etc posted by Willis was done by me for Donna Laframboise. I was flabbergasted at the numbers then, I still am now.
  48. The Story Continues ...

    Well, it appears that Richard North has uncovered the original unreviewed source of the unreviewed IPAM report that was the source of the unreviewed WWF report that was cited by the IPCC. The original source is an IPAM web page, now only accessible by way of the Wayback Machine.

    It also turns out that the original source is very near, and yet very far, from the IPCC quote. Here's what the IPCC 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, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation (Rowell and Moore, 2000).
    This is the quote from the IPAM website:

    Probably 30 to 40% of the forests of the brazilian Amazon are sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall. With an increase in the frequency and intensity of El Niño events, it will become more and more common for forests to dry out sufficiently that they become flammable.
    Here is the IPCC First Order Draft of the statement:

    Forty percent of the Amazonian forests could react sensibly to a slight reduction of precipitation; this could mean that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America, may change very rapidly to another steady state ...
    Note the "react sensibly", similar to the IPAM web page quote. However, the IPAM web page says nothing about how that sensitivity means that the "tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state." Nor is that the context of the quote.

    Instead, the web page says that 30% to 40% (not 40%) of the Brazilian Amazon (not even the entire Amazon) could be in danger of fire if there is a drought. Nothing about a change in the climate system at all. So even the original source for the claim does not bear out what the IPCC said.

    Next, in the IPCC Second Order Draft, this has morphed into:

    Forty percent of the Amazonian forests could react drastically even to a slight reduction of precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America, could change very rapidly to another steady state ...
    There are three changes between the First Order and Second Order draft. First, "could react sensibly" has been changed to "could react drastically". Second, "this could mean that" has been changed to "this means that". Third, "may change rapidly" has changed to "could change rapidly".

    Note the process of exaggeration here. There is a web page which makes a random unreviewed claim. The claim is taken up by the IPCC. However, it is then further changed from a claim about reacting "sensibly" which "could mean that" there is a danger of fire, to a claim of reacting "drastically" which "means that" there is a danger of a complete change in the climate.

    This is the IPCC problem in a nutshell. They are not doing science in any accepted sense of the world. They are taking a non peer-reviewed claim about sensitivity to fire, changing it so it refers to sensitivity to a complete climate change, and then exaggerating the new claim even further. Bad IPCC ... no cookies.

    w.
  49. Ho-hum, Willis has gone off down the Amazon rabbit hole yet again.

    I suppose it would best to get Nepstad's entire statement out here so Willis can deal with it in detail.

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been recently criticized in media coverage (e.g. Sunday Times) for presenting inaccurate information on the susceptibility of the forests of the Amazon Basin to rainfall reduction in its fourth assessment. The statement that has drawn the criticism reads as follows:

    "Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that thetropical 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)." (IPCC 2007, Magrin et al. 2007)

    The Rowell and Moore review report that is cited as the basis of this IPCC statement cites an article that we published in the journal Nature in 1999 as the source for the following statement:

    "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.[Nepstad et al. 1999]" (Rowell and Moore 2000)

    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.

    Daniel Nepstad, PhD
    Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Research Center
    Coordinator of Research, Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazonia


    Source for above statement by Nepstad

    Nepstad versus "Willis Eschenbach." I know where my money would go.
  50. Willis persists with his error regarding the IPCC and "grey literature." Here we can read how use of this source of information in the IPCC synthesis has been routine, not a secret, not an error, not a "violation of rules: TS.1 Scope, approach and method of the Working Group II assessment

    In the item at the link, we read:

    The Working Group II Fourth Assessment, in common with all IPCC reports, has been produced through an open and peer-reviewed process. It builds upon past assessments and IPCC Special Reports, and incorporates the results of the past 5 years of climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability research. Each chapter presents a balanced assessment of the literature which has appeared since the Third Assessment Report[1] (TAR), including non-English language and, where appropriate, ‘grey’ literature.[2]

1  2  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.

Link to this page



The Consensus Project Website

TEXTBOOK

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)

THE DEBUNKING HANDBOOK

BOOK NOW AVAILABLE

The Scientific Guide to
Global Warming Skepticism

Smartphone Apps

iPhone
Android
Nokia

© Copyright 2014 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us