This effect seems to happen in the Media, too. Perhaps journalists talk to each other. They certainly all read the same Press Releases and draw research from each others’ articles.

This must explain why the Daily Telegraph repeats all the errors of other articles this week about the Amazon and Climate Change :-

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7437016/UN-climate-change-claims-on-rainforests-were-wrong-study-suggests.html

http://www.joabbess.com/2010/03/12/amazongate-redux-jonathan-leake-still-misguided/

The Royal Statistical Society publishes a truly readable magazine called “Significance”, and until today I hadn’t realised it’s available online.

The front cover of the March 2010 Volume 7 Issue 1 edition shows an artist’s mock-up of severe drought and the headline question is “After Copenhagen : What can be done ?”

The magazine contains three really helpful articles on Climate Change :-

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123300803/PDFSTART

“Copenhagen 1 : Climate change : making certain what the uncertainties are”

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123300799/PDFSTART

“Copenhagen 2 : The perfect storm : food security and nutrition under climate change”

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/123300795/PDFSTART

“Copenhagen 3 : The behavioural wedge : reducing greenhouse gas by individuals and households”.

The diagram above is from the second article, discussing stress on food supplies in the coming years due to Climate Change. I found it important to note that India and China are going to suffer from terrible problems with failing rice crops.

Selected comments :-

“The conclusions of the report, “Climate Change: Impact on Agriculture and Costs of Adaptation”, are dire and indicate a reversal of much of the progress made to date against poverty and hunger. By 2050, climate change could cause an additional 25 million children to be malnourished, yields for all major crops to be reduced, and food prices to rise…”

“These gloomy outcomes are not predestined. Much of climate change’s harmful effects through to 2050 can be avoided if governments and the international community commit the needed funding and all countries implement appropriate policies…”

This is a key point that Climate Change “sceptics” forget to mention when they level the accusation of “alarmist” at Climate Change Scientists – if the world does decide to significantly reduce Carbon Emissions then we will still be eating curry and rice in 2050.

NASA put you on the Moon, and they’ve been listening very carefully to their pinging satellites and they’re warning you about Climate Change. Are you going to listen to the clever Space guys and gals ?

http://www.youtube.com/user/ClimateHitsHome

I invite you to open your mind to the possibility that the “Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States Report” is not based on political ideology but fairly conservative projections :-

http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts

It’s not as if Professor Phil Jones has done anything wrong. In fact, he’s been behaving like any other productive and fruitful researcher, getting on with the work and trying to brush off unhelpful distractions, including a deliberate smear campaign.

OK, so he wrote a few contentious e-mails, using casual language and a frustrated tone. This was not Science, and should not be considered representative of his work. Take a look at his work, results of painstaking and in-depth analysis of raw data :-

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2003RG000143.shtml

“Climate over past millennia : P. D. Jones, Climatic Research Unit, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK; M. E. Mann, Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA : We review evidence for climate change over the past several millennia from instrumental and high-resolution climate “proxy” data sources and climate modeling studies. We focus on changes over the past 1 to 2 millennia. We assess reconstructions and modeling studies analyzing a number of different climate fields, including atmospheric circulation diagnostics, precipitation, and drought. We devote particular attention to proxy-based reconstructions of temperature patterns in past centuries, which place recent large-scale warming in an appropriate longer-term context. Our assessment affirms the conclusion that late 20th century warmth is unprecedented at hemispheric and, likely, global scales. There is more tentative evidence that particular modes of climate variability, such as the El Niño/Southern Oscillation and the North Atlantic Oscillation, may have exhibited late 20th century behavior that is anomalous in a long-term context. Regional conclusions, particularly for the Southern Hemisphere and parts of the tropics where high-resolution proxy data are sparse, are more circumspect. The dramatic differences between regional and hemispheric/global past trends, and the distinction between changes in surface temperature and precipitation/drought fields, underscore the limited utility in the use of terms such as the “Little Ice Age” and “Medieval Warm Period” for describing past climate epochs during the last millennium. Comparison of empirical evidence with proxy-based reconstructions demonstrates that natural factors appear to explain relatively well the major surface temperature changes of the past millennium through the 19th century (including hemispheric means and some spatial patterns). Only anthropogenic forcing of climate, however, can explain the recent anomalous warming in the late 20th century.”

The self-styled Climate Change “sceptics”, who are seeking to obstruct the progress of Climate Change Science, accuse Phil Jones, Mike Mann and others of errors that do not have any foundation.

“They hid the data; they’re not transparent”, is one notorious and invalid claim.

“They manipulated the results to fit a political agenda”, is another.

“They colluded to push out alternative research; they’ve suppressed dissenting voices; they subverted the peer-review process”, is yet another accusation.

There are now anti-Science sentiments being expressed freely and liberally throughout the World Wide Web.

I detect an anti-Science alarmism – an attempt to influence people to be suspicious and mistrustful of Science.

Climate Change “sceptics” accuse Climate Change Scientists of alarmism, but actually, it’s the “sceptics” who are being alarmist, breeding mistrust, preaching lack of confidence in Science, hinting at malpractice in Scientists.

Projection is typical psychopathic behaviour, shouting first and loudest in blaming others for your own misdeeds and bad intentions.

Public loathing for Climate Change Scientists has reached record levels. This is the result of an explicit campaign to unseat faith in the well-established Science of Global Warming, and to drive down acceptance of the messages of Climate Change Scientists.

Look guys : the people that are warning you and your governments about the risks of Climate Change are drawn from the same community that gave you Penicillin, the Moonshots, reconstructive surgery, IVF, mobile telephonic communication, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, the Internet and laser tattoo removal.

They were right before, and they’re right now. A bunch of pernickity electronic mails doesn’t change that. The Science still holds, despite the wrong accusations levelled at it.

The Climate Change Scientists are as accurate and meticulous and cautious as any scientists before them have been in any area, including Medicine, Electronics and Space.

Climatologists deserve your respect.

Although the Climate Change “sceptics” feel they are on the crest of a change, Science will not be beaten, especially not by rumour-mongering and dastardly lies.

Climate Change Scientists will still be here, five, ten, twenty years down the line, with firmer and further evidence of what Greenhouse Gases are doing to wreck the Biosphere.

More research grants will be made, more research papers will be written and more IPCC Reports will come.

You cannot beat the evidence, even with deception, rage and smear tactics.

Science will win.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_and_Loathing_in_Las_Vegas#Major_themes

“”History is hard to know, because of all the hired b3ll5h!t, but even without being sure of “history” it seems entirely reasonable to think that every now and then the energy of a whole generation comes to a head in a long fine flash, for reasons that nobody really understands at the time — and which never explain, in retrospect, what actually happened…There was madness in any direction…You could strike sparks anywhere. There was a fantastic universal sense that whatever we were doing was right, that we were winning…And that, I think, was the handle — that sense of inevitable victory over the forces of Old and Evil. Not in any mean or military sense; we didn’t need that. Our energy would simply prevail. There was no point in fighting — on our side or theirs. We had all the momentum; we were riding the crest of a high and beautiful wave…”

I have just received an e-mail from Jonathan Leake of the Times of London and the Sunday Times. By order of his e-mail signature, I am not permitted to share entirely the contents of that e-mail with you, however, I can relate to you that it concerns the latest Climate Change “sceptic” bunkum story, to which you can find extensive reference plastered all over the Internet like some ugly, testosterone-fuelled teenage graffiti :-

http://news.oneindia.in/2010/03/12/amazonrain-forests-were-unaffected-from-once-in-a-centuryd.html

“Amazon rain forests were unaffected from once-in-a-century drought in 2005 : Friday, March 12, 2010″

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100311175039.htm

“New Study Debunks Myths About Vulnerability of Amazon Rain Forests to Drought : ScienceDaily (Mar. 12, 2010)”

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/11/another-wwf-assisted-ipcc-claim-debunked-amazon-more-drought-resistant-than-claimed/

“Another WWF assisted IPCC claim debunked: Amazon more drought resistant than claimed : 11 03 2010″

http://esciencenews.com/sources/scientific.blogging/2010/03/11/never.mind.the.hype.amazon.unaffected.by.recent.drought

“Never Mind The Hype – Amazon Unaffected By Recent Drought : Thursday, March 11, 2010″

The history of this research is that in 2007 a paper was published that concluded that there was a “greening up” of the Amazon rainforest basin during the unprecedented drought of 2005 :-

http://www.lbaeco.org/eco11_presentations/1A.2%20-%20Salvador_C.cycle.RemSens_2.pdf

The conclusion was that, “2005 drought “green-up” is unlikely to be an artifact, but a real indicator of forest productivity”, and that this could be down to the increased sunlight (due to reduced cloudiness, which had led to the reduced rainfall) during that particular period.

However, further work on “greeniness” of the Amazon duing the outstanding drought of 2005 has showed the 2007 results cannot be reproduced, as quoted by ScienceDaily :-

“A study published in the journal Science in 2007 claimed that these forests actually thrive from drought because of more sunshine under cloud-less skies typical of drought conditions. The new study found that those results were flawed and not reproducible.”

In summary, “[the new] NASA-funded study has concluded that Amazon rain forests were remarkably unaffected in the face of once-in-a-century drought in 2005, neither dying nor thriving, contrary to a previously published report and claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change…The comprehensive study published in the current issue of the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters used the latest version of the NASA MODIS satellite data to measure the greenness of these vast pristine forests over the past decade.”

http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/media/2010/03/news_20100309_br.htm

“Amazon Droughts and Greening : 09 March 2010 : The sensitivity of Amazon rain forests to dry season droughts is still poorly understood, with reports of enhanced tree mortality and forest fires on one hand, and excessive forest greening on the other. In a current story there is a report that previous conclusions of large scale greening of the Amazon as a result of drought are not reproducible. Approximately 11%-12% of these drought stricken forests display greening, while, 28%-20% show browning or no change, and for the rest, the data are not of sufficient quality to characterize any changes. These changes are also not unique; approximately similar changes are observed in non-drought years as well. The Amazon drought of 2005 was the worst ever recorded in the Amazon. The drought has turned rivers into grassy mud flats, killed tens of millions of fish, stranded hundreds of communities, and brought disease and economic despair to the region. There have been other droughts such as in 1926, 1983, and 1998. These other droughts can be more linked to El Nino effects. Scientists are not certain as to the cause of the 2005 drought, although warmer water temperatures in the Atlantic Ocean are the leading suspect. Wet tropical forests are the most species rich biome, and tropical forests in the Americas such as along the Amazon River are consistently more species rich than the wet forests in Africa and Asia. As the largest tract of tropical rain forest in the Americas, the Amazonian rain forests have unparalleled biodiversity. However extensive deforestation has occurred in the last few decades and the 2005 drought did not help. There had been earlier claims that the 2005 drought caused a “greening” of the Amazon. Tied to this thought was that available sunlight increased in this area. In the March Geophysical Letters an article was published by several authors entitled: “Amazon Forests Did Not Green-up in the 2005 Drought”. The authors included Arindam Samanta and Ranga B. Myneni. In this the authors concluded that only about 10% of the affected area increased in greenness and about three times this ares became browner. The majority of the affected areas could not be determined. At the same time sunlight (in the wavelengths most useful for plant life) decreased rather than decreased in most areas. There was no co-relation between drought severity and greenness changes, which is contrary to the idea of drought induced greening. Finally the study concluded that the spatial patterns of Enhanced Vegetation Index changes seen in drought year 2005 are not unique in comparison to non drought years. Original abstract : http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009GL042154.shtml “Amazon forests did not green-up during the 2005 drought” ”

However, as always in Science, one report is not the end of the story, nor even the whole story.

What does “greeniness” show ? That vegetation in the Amazon was growing during the 2005 drought, and has been growing since. What it does not show is whether there have been any permanent changes due to the drought that could affect the long-term survival of this massive rainforest.

Another satellite monitoring project, or rather, twin satellites, known as GRACE, has been producing other information on this vital Carbon Sink :-

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JB006056.shtml

“2005 drought event in the Amazon River basin as measured by GRACE and estimated by climate models”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090529135720.htm

This research has shown that special attention must be paid to the kind of water in the basin and how water runs off the basin, when constructing Climate models.

There has also been unchallenged work on the loss of biomass in the Amazon rainforest during the 2005 drought :-

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/323/5919/1344

http://www.saber.ula.ve/bitstream/123456789/27334/1/drought_sensitivity.pdf

“Amazon forests are a key but poorly understood component of the global carbon cycle. If, as anticipated, they dry this century, they might accelerate climate change through carbon losses and changed surface energy balances. We used records from multiple long-term monitoring plots across Amazonia to assess forest responses to the intense 2005 drought, a possible analog of future events. Affected forest lost biomass, reversing a large long-term carbon sink, with the greatest impacts observed where the dry season was unusually intense. Relative to pre-2005 conditions, forest subjected to a 100-millimeter increase in water deficit lost 5.3 megagrams of aboveground biomass of carbon per hectare. The drought had a total biomass carbon impact of 1.2 to 1.6 petagrams (1.2 × 1015 to 1.6 × 1015 grams). Amazon forests therefore appear vulnerable to increasing moisture stress, with the potential for large carbon losses to exert feedback on climate change…”

“Relative to the predrought sink, we estimate a total impact of –1.21 Pg C (–2.01, –0.57) by simply scaling the per-plot impact by the total droughted area (~3.3 × 108 ha) and assuming that nonmeasured components of biomass were equally affected. Scaling the per-site impact yields slightly greater values (20). Alternatively, we can scale the observed relationship between relative biomass change in plots and droughting (Fig. 2) by the moisture deficits across Amazonia estimated from remotely sensed rainfall data (19, 20). This suggests an even greater impact on the biomass carbon balance of the droughted area: –1.60 Pg C (–2.63, –0.83). Site-based scaling up indicates similar values (20). Although better understanding of soils is needed to determine the local effects of meteorological drought, the magnitude and consistency of these estimates demonstrate Amazonia’s vulnerability to drought and the potential for changes in tropical climates to have large carbon cycle impacts. Our on-the ground data reveal that, despite apparent “greening up” during dry periods (13, 14), Amazon drought accelerates mortality over large areas (Fig. 2B) (20).”

The Amazon drought of 2005 was part of a longer drying out in the rainforest which has caused extensive and probably permanent change :-

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/3/1/014002/erl8_1_014002.pdf

“…The impact and the severity of the long-lasting 2002–2005 drought can be clearly seen in several other important hydroecological indicators (figures 3–6). The Amazon streamflow measured at Obidos (captures rainfall from about 90% of the total Amazon drainage basin) shows an unusually long and slow decrease since 2000, culminating in late 2005, a trend consistent with the precipitation anomaly…The recent drought in the Amazon highlights the sensitivity of its hydrology and ecosystem to prolonged drought conditions, as opposed to large short-lived ones. The rainforest has adapted to seasonal and short-term drought by strategies such as water uptake by deep roots, but may be less resilient to longer term change. The recent IPCC AR4 climate model simulations predict rainfall reduction in the Amazon, possibly due to a combination of changes in the Pacific and Atlantic SSTs as well as overall warming-induced changes. Although the causes of 2005 drought and future scenarios may differ, similar impact mechanisms likely underly the risk of possible alteration to the Amazon ecosystem and carbon cycle…”

The Amazon still looked green and healthy during and after the major drought of 2005, but had lost part of its living mass.

So there you have it : journalists do not understand what they are reading. Green tree canopy does not mean that things haven’t fundamentally changed in the rainforest as a whole.

It’s this insight that is so fundamentally important.

It is for this reason that all journalists should study Climate Change Science.

Without gravity, that strange attractive force that keeps chunks of solid matter, and even gas, falling towards each other, there would be no Atmosphere to speak of, because all the little Carbon Dioxide molecules, and Methane molecules and all the other little Greenhouse Effect Gases would all zither and wiggle off into Space and there would be no radiation trapping and no extra heating of the Earth’s surface.

There would be nothing to breathe or exhale, there would be no life, no fish, no trees, no puppy dogs, no lichen, no sunflowers, no Polar Bears, no humankind or human-unkind and all the injustices of History would just not have happened.

Mind you, if there were no gravity, imagine ! There would be no spinning around the Sun and no accretion of planets, so the Earth wouldn’t be here, either. And nor would the Sun. In fact, there wouldn’t be much of anything that we could call a Galaxy, if we were there, which we’re not.

And so you see, QED, quad erat demonstrandum, gravity causes Global Warming.

For challenges to this theorem, please annotate the Comments box below. Please keep it clean. I have to scrub messages of rudeness every day, and it’s tiring.

Imagine, if you will, that we can peer deep into a solid object, and looking very, very closely, smaller than the eye can actually see, we can begin to make out the internal structure of that object, and zooming even closer in, we find what appear to be the smallest things that make up this object.

Let’s call these things ATOMS.

That’s a bit of Ancient Greek (or Jain) philosophy, the theory of the atomisation of matter, the idea that there are small things that make up large things, and that these small things cannot be made any smaller. This is a fantastic theory, as it explains a lot of things that happen around us. In several thousand years, nobody has seriously been able to challenge this theory; however, it has undergone continuous refinement.

Besides ordinary solid objects there are also things that you can’t hold in your hands; things like light and heat and the little electric shocks you get when you comb really dry hair.

Heat appears to be what happens to ordinary solid objects when the tiny atomic parts are moving wider or further or faster. Most things expand but stay holding together when they get hotter, which confirms this idea. There are special cases, like water, which expands as it freezes, but that can be explained by thinking about how atoms move in relation to each other…

Anyway, back to light.

Light is a different matter altogether. It appears to be able to pass through some objects without changing radically. It travels very long distances without being stopped. It seems to cause ordinary matter to heat up. It doesn’t rest anywhere.

In English we use “radiation” to describe light, and things like light that we cannot see but behave in roughly the same way. There is some confusion, as there are other things that are also called “radiation” which are actually just parts of split atoms looking for a new home, but we won’t go into that just now.

Light radiation is ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION (or EMR), and it’s absolutely fascinating. The whole range of EMR includes not only the light that we can see, but also radiation that we call radio, microwaves, X-Rays, ultraviolet and infrared.

Just a point here : some people confuse infrared radiation with heat, but they’re not actually the same. It’s just that hot things often give out infrared radiation.

How EMR plays with atoms is fundamental Science, and is the basis of the Science of Global Warming.

Imagine further, if you will, a large orange with a thickish skin. This is our basic model of the atom.

If you were to place an orange on your breakfast table and then roll a coin towards it, the thickish, pulpy skin of the orange would bounce the coin back to you.

This is the main way that EMR plays with atoms. It bounces off.

If you were to place the same orange on the same breakfast table and throw a dart with a long enough point, it could quite possibly pass right through the orange, skin and all, and poke out the other side.

This is another main way that EMR plays with atoms. It passes right through without saying hello or goodbye. It might change direction slightly, on its way through, but it doesn’t stick around or cause any mayhem.

And again, sticking with the same orange on the same breakfast table and this time holding a pea shooter, you could fire a pea at the orange and it could lodge in the skin or even flesh of the orange.

This is almost the same as the third main way that EMR plays with atoms. Except there is this subtle difference. The green pea penetrates the skin of the orange and stays there. If EMR gets stuck in atoms, eventually the atoms spit out EMR again. It may have a different colour than when it went it, but it’s still EMR.

This is what is happening on the surface of the Earth and in the Earth’s Atmosphere, high above our heads.

The Sun’s rays, which are EMR, come in and a lot bounces off the atoms of the Atmosphere (air), but some passes right through and hits the Earth’s surface. Some will interact with the atoms of the Earth’s surface, but a lot of it will just bounce straight off the Earth and be radiated back out towards Space.

The key point here is that some of the radiation that comes out from the Earth will have a different “colour” than the original sunlight.

Part of the radiation that is coming off the Earth will hit the grouped atoms (molecules) of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere (air). Because some of it is now a different “colour”, a lot will be “absorbed”, like the pea in the orange rind, and then EMR will be radiated out again, in all directions.

It’s this “in all directions” bit that’s the most important. Some of the EMR that gets absorbed by the Carbon Dioxide will be radiated out to Space, but some will get radiated back to the Earth where it just came from.

This is the Greenhouse Effect : Carbon Dioxide effectively “traps” some of the radiation that would have gone back out to Space.

We then need to know a little about how EMR changes atoms – the simple rule of thumb is this – if EMR plays with atoms, they tend to heat up a bit. So you have some of the radiation coming from the Sun directly heating up the Earth’s surface, and you have some of the radiation trapped by the Carbon Dioxide coming back to heat up the Earth’s surface.

More Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere will mean more trapping of the radiation which will mean more heating up of the Earth’s surface, which means Global Warming, an increase in the normal temperature of the Earth.

Next time : how we know that Carbon Dioxide absorbs EMR; how we know that Carbon Dioxide is accumulating in the Atmosphere; and how we know that the Carbon Dioxide accumulating in the Atmosphere is mostly caused by burning Fossil Fuels and taking down trees.

http://www.joabbess.com/2010/03/02/fred-pearce-still-crucifying-phil-jones/

One of my commentators challenged what I had written, so I edited it out, awaiting the opportunity to discover more.

More has now been uncovered; not my me, I hasten to add, but by another commentator :-

http://www.joabbess.com/2010/03/06/institute-of-physics-nosedive/#comment-600

Following the link given, I find this :-

http://www.weatheraction.com/

“Thursday 11 Mar 2010 : Welcome to WeatherAction – world leaders in long range weather and climate forecasting : Piers Corbyn reveals revolutionary forecast concepts at special conference Oct 28th : The panel at WeatherAction’s international conference, Imperial College London Oct 28th : R to L. Hans Schreuder Analytic Chemist of ILMCD, Peter Gill – Physicist, Fellow of the Energy Institute and Member Inst of Physics, John Sanderson Physicist Pres Royal College Of Science Assoc, Piers Corbyn Astrophysicist founder WeatherAction, Prof Phillip Hutchinson Energy expert, Dr David Bellamy naturalist, Gabe Rychert Climate Realists.com. Joe D’Aleo of American Meteorological Soc & Dr Kirill Kuzanyan Solar Physicist (Moscow/Beijing) contributed by live Web-link. Sammy Wilson DUP MP also spoke on the political problems of ‘Climate Change’. (*) ‘Warmers’ flee from challenge to present evidence for CO2 case. (*) CO2 theory refuted by science fact : Piers Corbyn Opening remarks – We stand for Evidence based science : http://www.kane-tv.com/wa/piers1.html : Sammy Wilson DUP MP blasts the hypocrisy of the ‘Global Warmers’ : http://www.kane-tv.com/wa/sammywilson.html”

Would that be the same “Peter Gill – Physicist, Fellow of the Energy Institute and Member Inst of Physics” who advised on the composition of the Institute of Physics submission as evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee on the “goings on” at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the University of East Anglia (UEA) that was heard in Parliament on 1st March 2010, and which featured oral evidence from Nigel Lawson and Benny Peiser as well as disgruntled questions from Graham Stringer directed in a targeted, pointed, singling-out fashion towards the bowed-but-not-broken Professor Phil Jones, details of which can be found here ? :-

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/uc387-i/uc38702.htm

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3902.htm

http://www.iop.org/News/news_40679.html

As remarked by El Stoat :-

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/03/the_iop_fiasco.php

“It reads like a gift to the septics and it could easily have been written down to the septics dictation; indeed, it very probably was.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/05/climate-emails-institute-of-physics-submission

It certainly makes me question whether the Institute of Physics needs to question whether somebody may be bringing the Institute of Physics, and indeed, the whole Science of Natural Philosophy (Physics), into disrepute.

Piers Corbyn’s theories, though elegant and articulate, have been shown to be apparently unreliable and seemingly not useful. His position of vehement opposition to the great body of knowledge that is Climate Change Science seemingly takes him to that mental space of “denial” of the evidence, and he has apparently taken several other people there with him, in his organised association. This is not an appropriate position from which to conduct proper Science, in my view. It is more a state of mind, I feel, that is normally treated with pharmaceutical chemicals and one-to-one private counselling.

This apparent insertion of Climate Change “sceptic” views into the House of Commons Inquiry, utilising, or perhaps abusing, the vehicle of the Institute of Physics seemingly as a pretext for assuming authority on the subject, should, to my mind, be named “scandalous”.

I once considered membership of the Institute of Physics. I shall not now. I hope a great many Members reconsider their position, also.

The Times of London continues to mangle the facts, it seems to me; this time from the pen/fingers of Ben Webster, perhaps a Mini-Me version of that accreditable journalist Jonathan Leake :-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7056173.ece

“[The IPCC]…also claimed that global warming could cut rain-fed North African crop production by up to 50 per cent by 2020. A senior IPCC contributor has since admitted that there is no evidence to support this claim…”

I don’t think that quite pins it down accurately.

Here’s what RealClimate clarifies for us :-

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/02/ipcc-errors-facts-and-spin/

“…African crop yields: The IPCC Synthesis Report states: “By 2020, in some countries, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50%.” This is properly referenced back to chapter 9.4 of WG2, which says: “In other countries, additional risks that could be exacerbated by climate change include greater erosion, deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000-2020 period, and reductions in crop growth period (Agoumi, 2003).” The Agoumi reference is correct and reported correctly. The Sunday Times, in an article by Jonathan Leake, labels this issue “Africagate” – the main criticism being that Agoumi (2003) is not a peer-reviewed study (see below for our comments on “gray” literature), but a report from the International Institute for Sustainable Development and the Climate Change Knowledge Network, funded by the US Agency for International Development. The report, written by Morroccan climate expert Professor Ali Agoumi, is a summary of technical studies and research conducted to inform Initial National Communications from three countries (Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and is a perfectly legitimate IPCC reference. It is noteworthy that chapter 9.4 continues with “However, there is the possibility that adaptation could reduce these negative effects (Benhin, 2006).” Some examples thereof follow, and then it states: “However, not all changes in climate and climate variability will be negative, as agriculture and the growing seasons in certain areas (for example, parts of the Ethiopian highlands and parts of southern Africa such as Mozambique), may lengthen under climate change, due to a combination of increased temperature and rainfall changes (Thornton et al., 2006). Mild climate scenarios project further benefits across African croplands for irrigated and, especially, dryland farms.” (Incidentally, the Benhin and Thornton references are also “gray”, but nobody has complained about them. Could there be double standards amongst the IPCC’s critics?). Chapter 9.4 to us sounds like a balanced discussion of potential risks and benefits, based on the evidence available at the time–hardly the stuff for shrill “Africagate!” cries. If the IPCC can be criticized here, it is that in condensing these results for its Synthesis Report, important nuance and qualification were lost – especially the point that the risk of drought (defined as a 50% downturn in rainfall) “could be exacerbated by climate change”, as chapter 9.4 wrote – rather than being outright caused by climate change…”

The Times article writer continues to drag up and recite what I consider to be old, refuted claims, perhaps to pad out his seemingly rather thin piece :-

“…The Dutch Government has asked the IPCC to correct its claim that more than half the Netherlands is below sea level. The environment ministry said that only 26 per cent of the country was below sea level…”

This has already been explained. Here’s RealClimate again :-

“…Sea level in the Netherlands: The WG2 report states that “The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level”. This sentence was provided by a Dutch government agency – the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, which has now published a correction stating that the sentence should have read “55 per cent of the Netherlands is at risk of flooding; 26 per cent of the country is below sea level, and 29 per cent is susceptible to river flooding”. It surely will go down as one of the more ironic episodes in its history when the Dutch parliament last Monday derided the IPCC, in a heated debate, for printing information provided by … the Dutch government. In addition, the IPCC notes that there are several definitions of the area below sea level. The Dutch Ministry of Transport uses the figure 60% (below high water level during storms), while others use 30% (below mean sea level). Needless to say, the actual number mentioned in the report has no bearing on any IPCC conclusions and has nothing to do with climate science, and it is questionable whether it should even be counted as an IPCC error…”

A summary of the -gates is here :-

http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2010/03/they-got-nothin.html