[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
International News Title: IPCC Rainforest eco-tastrophe claim confirmed as bunk More bad news today for the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as another of its extravangant ecopocalypse predictions, sourced from green campaigners, has been confirmed as bunk by scientists. The UN body came under attack earlier this year for suggesting that 40 per cent of the Amazonian rainforests – dubbed the “lungs of the planet” by some for their ability to turn CO2 into oxygen, and also seen as vital on biodiversity grounds – might disappear imminently. This disaster would be triggered, according to the IPCC’s assessment, by a relatively slight drop in rainfall of the sort to be expected in a warming world. Unfortunately it now appears that just such conditions have already occurred, and in fact the Amazonian jungles were unaffected. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the baseless IPCC projection originated in a study produced in 2000 by hard-green* ecological campaigning group WWF, which was also implicated in the IPCC’s equally invalid prediction that the glaciers of the Himalayas will all have melted within a generation from now. According to the WWF report (www.wwf.de/fileadmin/fm-w...Forest_Fires_Report.pdf), which was not subject to scientific peer review – it was written by a freelance journalist and published by WWF itself – drying-up of forests will lead to runaway wildfires that will destroy the jungle and perhaps the entire planetary ecosystem. The document is full of terrifying phrases such as “the year the world caught fire”. It warns of imminent doom caused by drought cycles: The world faces a positive feedback cycle in which climate change, exacerbated by forest fires and deforestation, increases the frequency of the El Niño phenomenon, which in turn causes more forest burning. The world faces warmer more violent weather, and more forest fires … scientists believe the whole Amazon itself is threatened, with the rainforest being replaced by fire-prone vegetation. This has global consequences … It was bad enough that the IPCC included this sort of speculative scaremongering in its 2007 Fourth Assessment Report. But now it has been conclusively disproven – so much so that even IPCC members pour scorn on it, though they haven’t retracted or amended their original endorsement of it. NASA-funded scientists analysing the past decades of satellite imagery of the Amazon basin say that in fact the rainforests are remarkably resilient to droughts. Even during the hundred-year-peak dry season of 2005 the jungles were basically unaffected. “WWF made it all up” – IPCC member speaks “We found no big differences in the greenness level of these forests between drought and non-drought years,” says Arindam Samanta of Boston university, lead author of the new study based on NASA’s MODIS sat data. “Our results certainly do not indicate such extreme sensitivity to reductions in rainfall,” adds Sangram Ganguly of the NASA-affiliated Bay Area Environmental Research Institute, another study author. Even the IPCC itself now regrets listening to WWF. “The way that the WWF report calculated this 40 per cent was totally wrong,” according to IPCC member Jose Marengo, commenting on the new research. Which might beg the question of why his colleagues referenced the bogus WWF polemic in their 2007 report on what the world can expect: and why they still publish it today on the web (www.ipcc.ch/publications_...en/ch13s13-4.html#13-4-1) as part of their considered opinion. Samanta, Ganguly and their colleagues also consider that their results debunk another controversial paper (www.sciencemag.org/cgi/co...DEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT) published in 2007, which said that the 2005 drought was actually good for the rainforests, causing them to “green up” due to more sunlight from cloudless skies. These results are “not reproducible”, according to the new analysis, which indicates that in fact nothing much changed down on the Amazon during the 2005 dry spell. Samanta, Ganguly et al’s paper, Amazon forests did not green-up during the 2005 drought, is published (europa.agu.org/?view=arti...54.xml&t=gl,2009GL042154) in Geophysical Research Letters (subscriber link). ® Bootnote *It’s WWF’s position (www.theregister.co.uk/200...ndon_growth_to_cut_co2/), for instance, that economic growth is evil and will destroy the planet. We should actually be praying for a prolonged and massive recession with no recovery afterwards. The organisation started out as a fairly mainstream outfit intended to protect wildlife, but has nowadays widened its remit into protecting the entire planet from unsuitable human activities. The initials WWF no longer stand for anything (www.panda.org/about_our_e...QuestionId=3620012246264) in particular.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
So...the IPCC didn't write it...they think it's bunk...but it's them whose wrong? Have I got it?
Which might beg the question of why his colleagues referenced the bogus WWF polemic in their 2007 report on what the world can expect: and why they still publish it today on the web (www.ipcc.ch/publications_...en/ch13s13-4.html#13-4-1) as part of their considered opinion. Samanta, Ganguly and their colleagues also consider that their results debunk another controversial paper (www.sciencemag.org/cgi/co...DEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT) published in 2007, which said that the 2005 drought was actually good for the rainforests, causing them to “green up” due to more sunlight from cloudless skies. These results are “not reproducible”, according to the new analysis, which indicates that in fact nothing much changed down on the Amazon during the 2005 dry spell. Samanta, Ganguly et al’s paper, Amazon forests did not green-up during the 2005 drought, is published (europa.agu.org/?view=arti...54.xml&t=gl,2009GL042154) in Geophysical Research Letters (subscriber link). ® Bootnote *It’s WWF’s position (www.theregister.co.uk/200...ndon_growth_to_cut_co2/), for instance, that economic growth is evil and will destroy the planet. We should actually be praying for a prolonged and massive recession with no recovery afterwards.
The IPCC has almost as much credibility at this point as the WWF....(laughing)
There are no replies to Comment # 4. End Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|