Global Warming is Already Clobbering the Amazon

Global Warming is Already Clobbering the Amazon

Rainfor, a research project done in the Amazon to track the growth and size of every tree in certain plots of the rain forest to track Climate Change's effect on the rain forest, has started to notice some concerning trends regarding Carbon Dioxide intake of the forest. First a little about Rainfor and what they do.

Any individual tree doesn’t tell Phillips much about how the Amazon is reacting to climate change, of course. But thousands of them, measured regularly for decades? That’s some of the most valuable climate data to come out of the world’s largest rainforest. Phillips coordinates a project called Rainfor, which aims to census and re-census the trees in hundreds of plots in the Amazon for as many decades as funding will allow. The oldest plots in the network were first censused in the 1970s; over 400 scientists, many of them from Amazonian countries, have been involved in the fieldwork so far.

By tracking “the growth and the history and the death of every single tree” within those plots, Phillips says, Rainfor can calculate how much carbon the Amazon sucks up and stores, thereby keeping it out of the atmosphere where it would contribute to global warming. Tracking changes in the amount of carbon stored and released by the rainforest indicates how the Amazon is responding to—and potentially influencing—climate change.

And if scientists want to have any hope of understanding how climate change will affect the world, they must have data from the Amazon. Every year, the world’s largest rainforest cycles through 18 billion tons of carbon per year as its 6 million square kilometers of trees breathe in carbon dioxide and release it back into the atmosphere when they die. That’s more than twice as much carbon as fossil fuels emit all over the world. Mess with this system and the consequences will reverberate around the world.

Interesting project, and as it stands it is showing that Climate Change models are wildly inaccurate. Though all you skeptics don't get all super excited yet. The data is showing that they are inaccurate in the wrong direction. They are TOO optimistic.

Rainfor’s work also contributes to a growing sense of dread. Back in 1998, Phillips and his colleagues used their network of tree plots to show that the South American rainforest was sucking up more carbon than it was releasing, thus keeping carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and mitigating climate change. The Amazon’s role as an important carbon sink has been accepted dogma ever since, bolstering conservation efforts and guiding climate models.

Fair enough. That is certainly a good thing, but that was all the way back in 98.

When Brienen crunched the numbers, a startling result emerged. Last month the team reported that the Amazon isn’t pulling in as much carbon as it used to, contradicting the many models that predicted that the rainforest would thrive for another several decades thanks to increasing carbon dioxide levels. In many parts of the forest, the trees do appear to be growing faster and bigger, Phillips says. But they are also dying younger, riding the high of resource abundance until they suddenly flame out. Once a tree dies, its carbon travels back to the atmosphere—exactly where we don’t want it be.

For now, the Amazon is still sucking up more carbon than it’s releasing. But the Rainfor data suggests that a tipping point is coming. As skeptics have long asserted and scientists themselves suspected, models of the future of Earth’s climate did indeed get it wrong. But not in they way anyone would hope. As Phillips puts it: They were “too optimistic.”

This is serious news. The Amazon is responsible for taking much of the total carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. If the forest can't keep up with the carbon dioxide output of the world both natural and artificial, then it could seriously destabilize the planet's climates. This certainly deserves to be analyzed more thoroughly.

What do you suggest be done about it besides charging me new taxes? If you think this is a problem then I am all for you finding a solution as long as it doesn't cost me anything.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
This certainly deserves to be analyzed more thoroughly.

Deforestation and pollution/destruction via mining, agriculture and oil production is what needs to be addressed..

But they wont be..which is why we have studies/projects like OP's to keep us entertained while the show goes on.

originally posted by: Metallicus
What do you suggest be done about it besides charging me new taxes? If you think this is a problem then I am all for you finding a solution as long as it doesn't cost me anything.

Any solution that is proposed will cost you something. There is a cost associated with every decision that is made. It may not be a monetary cost, but there is always a cost. I guarantee that any government fix will involve taxes or some sort of monetary cost though. So what you just said there is just a roundabout way of saying that you aren't willing to do anything to fix this.

I certainly don't want new taxes to be charged. I'm not even really sure what SHOULD be done. I'm just pointing out the problem. It exists. Granted, talking solutions is a much more productive conversation, but everyone seems to think that solutions should allow them to continue their lives uninterrupted. The way things are going, the only way to truly fix this mess is to give up large swaths of what makes our society work. Small tax raises like carbon taxes will only just bandaid fix the problem, but that is pretty much akin to putting a bandaid on a arterial wound.

Anyone ever thought of;

Collecting the seeding of most Amazonian species of plants, trees, flowers..

And re-plant miniature rainforest in desired climate zones?

The species still exist and have their memory of reproduction encoded within the seed itself, replant them, in simular soil..

Also replenish the current region the amazon forest resides. There is lots of soil for the plant network.

Rather whine and study about future caution; take action now and replenish, so the future is abundance.

Or does this method of replanting not work ?

We are genetically modifying the FOOD WE EAT, but don't genetically manipulate trees and plants for higher purposes..?

Fix it, don't talk about it, that's how life gets done

a reply to: Elementalist

What about just switching to hemp for most of our lumber needs? That way we can seriously curb the amount of trees being cut down throughout the world.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Elementalist

What about just switching to hemp for most of our lumber needs? That way we can seriously curb the amount of trees being cut down throughout the world.

This is a real solution that I can support!

a reply to: Tucket

I wish I could give you more than just a star.

Reading that article, there is a whole lot of, "we just don't know". Not real helpful.

And really, why is there no common sense, when it comes to "seeing" that deforestation is a major factor? Scientists aren't going to have to worry about the effects in the rainforest, when there is no rainforest left.
Because we are idiots. (humans)

a reply to: Metallicus

I don't think that is really a solution. It might help in the short run to help stabilize our shrinking forests, but it will do little to curb the buildup of CO2 in our atmosphere. Though this solution could potentially buy us more time while we work on a real fix.

a reply to: chiefsmom

That's how science works. If they don't know, they say "we don't know." They don't make up answers in light of evidence. Clearly the answer "I don't know" isn't all that helpful, but that doesn't stop you from looking at what they do know and seeing the problems they see.

Thought i might add a little background history to the area just to make sure we know we are all talking about the same place yeah.

rainforests.mongabay.com...

Since 1978 over 750,000 square kilometers (289,000 square miles) of Amazon rainforest have been destroyed across Brazil, Peru, Colombia, Bolivia, Venezuela, Suriname, Guyana, and French Guiana. Why is Earth's largest rainforest being destroyed? For most of human history, deforestation in the Amazon was primarily the product of subsistence farmers who cut down trees to produce crops for their families and local consumption. But in the later part of the 20th century, that began to change, with an increasing proportion of deforestation driven by industrial activities and large-scale agriculture. By the 2000s more than three-quarters of forest clearing in the Amazon was for cattle-ranching. The result of this shift is forests in the Amazon were cleared faster than ever before in the late 1970s through the mid 2000s. Vast areas of rainforest were felled for cattle pasture and soy farms, drowned for dams, dug up for minerals, and bulldozed for towns and colonization projects. At the same time, the proliferation of roads opened previously inaccessible forests to settlement by poor farmers, illegal logging, and land speculators. But that trend began to reverse in Brazil in 2004. Since then, annual forest loss in the country that contains nearly two-thirds of the Amazon's forest cover has declined by roughly eighty percent. The drop has been fueled by a number of factors, including increased law enforcement, satellite monitoring, pressure from environmentalists, private and public sector initiatives, new protected areas, and macroeconomic trends. Nonetheless the trend in Brazil is not mirrored in other Amazon countries, some of which have experienced rising deforestation since 2000.

That's how science works. If they don't know, they say "we don't know." They don't make up answers in light of evidence.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I may not always agree with your posts, but I do respect you.

But you don't truly believe that is true for all science do you?

Please tell me you don't.

Ever wonder where all those trillions of random dollars floating around doing nothing go to?
Some of that goes to bribing governments, park officials, and paying off politicians and military leaders to go into those parts of the world and exploit it's natural resources.
Just look at the fiasco in the Congo for the last 40 years, latest being SOCO and in one of their national parks, which is a world heritage site!

Money talks unfortunately, and in order to stop the destruction of these vital organs to planet earth the big mining, oil, companies need to be watched and monitored. But, then again the consumer like you or me will suffer in the end along with these company's. We as the human race need to have some serious growing pains and make a lot of sacrifices to save the planet.

originally posted by: chiefsmom

That's how science works. If they don't know, they say "we don't know." They don't make up answers in light of evidence.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I may not always agree with your posts, but I do respect you.

But you don't truly believe that is true for all science do you?

Please tell me you don't.

It's true for all science that matters. Anyone who makes up answers in light of evidence is violating the scientific method and therefore isn't performing science. The peer review process exists to get rid of those frauds.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I would surmise that Deforestation by an Unchecked Logging Industry has caused more Harm to the Amazon Rain Forrest than the " Alleged " Theory of Global Warming has .Prove me Wrong.....................

Here's a freaking idea! Want the forest to Do what It's supposed to do and filter the air? QUIT CHOPPING DOWN HUNDREDS OF TREES A DAY. DERP. That was one of the dumbest things I've read, of course a bunch of idiots will cling to "climate change". Who cares about the trees, right?

a reply to: Metallicus

What do you suggest be done about it besides charging me new taxes? If you think this is a problem then I am all for you finding a solution as long as it doesn't cost me anything.

and there in lies the problem.. You think it should be ok for people to destroy earth as long as there is no finacial loss..

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I would surmise that Deforestation by an Unchecked Logging Industry has caused more Harm to the Amazon Rain Forrest than the " Alleged " Theory of Global Warming has .Prove me Wrong.....................

Hard to seperate the two really. Since destroying the rain forest is in effect removing a carbon sink store and releasing carbon into the atmosphere..

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I would surmise that Deforestation by an Unchecked Logging Industry has caused more Harm to the Amazon Rain Forrest than the " Alleged " Theory of Global Warming has .Prove me Wrong.....................

Why does it have to be an either/or situation? I'm pretty sure that both problems contribute in their own way to the state of the rain forest.

All the global warming people are going to look silly once Ol' Faithful blows and our cute little carbon emission become meaningless over night, literally.