Amazonian contradictions
Looks like the Amazon(non)gate wont die. And in keeping it alive the deniers are again showing their self-contradictions.
So what happened? It started in 2007, when a study (Saleska et al. 2007, Science) showed that the Amazon actually greened during the drought of 2005. This was an odd responses; no one expected a rainforest to green during a drought, though because the study conclusions were based on satellite imagery, rather than direct observations, there was less certainty in them.
Now, a new study (Samanta et al. 2010, GRL), also using satellite imagery, indicates that the 2005 drought did not cause a greening of the Amazon. So how is this new study being spun by deniers? The same way the 2007 study was spun.
Or as Tim Lambert said “It’s always bad news for the IPCC”. Both studies can’t be bad news for the IPCC, but such contradictions are par for the course in denialist land.
Errors in the IPCC and perspective
It was inevitable. The IPCC AR4 is over 3000 pages long, there are bound to be some errors contained within. But some perspective is needed when they are found; jumping to the conclusion that any error in the IPCC is proof that climate science is bunk, or that global warming is a sham is absurd.
Amazon(non)gate
Once more, we find that the IPCC WG2 made an error. Only the error is not what is being trumpeted by deniers.
There was a dire warning in chapter 13 of the report of IPCC Working Group II:
"Up to 40% of 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," it observed.
"It is more probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems that have more resistance to multiple stresses caused by temperature increase, droughts and fires, such as tropical savannas."
Closer inspection reveals that the authors referenced for this work are, in fact, an expert linked to environmental group WWF and a green journalist.
Sounds, like the same type of issue as the Himalayan glacier error, citing the grey-literature, rather than the peer-reviewed literature. But on closer inspection the text of the IPCC is correct, and consistent with the science. The error was lazy citation. They should have cited the peer-reviewed literature, rather than a report from WWF.
