Comments on: Worrying About the Amazon

By: D. D. Freund

D. D. Freund — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 03:56:42 +0000

One should be very sceptical of statements such as: “The world’s forests are an enormous carbon sink, meaning they absorb massive quantities of carbon dioxide, through the processes of photosynthesis and respiration. In normal years the Amazon alone absorbs three billion tons of carbon, more than twice the quantity human beings produce by burning fossil fuels.”

For the sake of simplicity, assume a world free of human depredation (as is the goal of much of environmental policy). Since forest denizens, specifically trees, have a finite life span, which is much less than the age of the earth, the earth must have rapidly reached a steady state long ago wherein the carbon acquired by living and growing trees is balanced on average by dying and decaying trees. The alternative would be a perpetually increasing mass of tree-wood until no carbon is left provide food for animal life. It stands to reason then, that the quoted statement is a half-truth; every year (on average) the Amazon forest must also release three billion tons of carbon thru plant decay. It is however, true, that reduction in the size of forests (and of fossil fuel deposits) does shrink the residual store of carbon, and this is only partly offset by the production of food crops in their place.

By: stumpy

stumpy — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:17:08 +0000

Just thought I would add that many tribes in this area who do not wish to be “christianised” by god men or “integrated” by the govt seek the depths of the Amazon for safety. Deforestation not only harms the areas biodiversity but also risks the loss of these unique and fascinating tribes, such as the Wai Wai people who still hold on to their culture. I am not in the slightest bit worried about increased co2.

Previous warm periods throughout the earths history (and am talking warmer than current temps) were never warmer at the equator by current standards(sometimes cooler). The temp at the equator historically changes very little (as clouds / storms mediate the climate), even the IPCC state this in AR4, so I doubt the temperature will change there much even if the global mean increases. And observation is far more certain than an untested model projection based on some unlikely scenario.

Than there is also the added benefit of increased co2 which will allow plants there to be more tolerent of poor soils and more drought resistant. Did the Biologists consider this on their study? I wander?

Sounds like the obligatory “link it to global warming” to secure funding for some obscure research no govt would otherwise care about. Then make sure the result is alarming to ensure the paper is published without scrutiny in Nature.

Want to study the mating habits of wood lice? Want funding? Study the effects of global warming on the mating habits of wood lice instead!

Want it published in Nature? Demonstrate global warming will harm them!

By: kuhnkat

kuhnkat — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 05:44:56 +0000

Doug,

“Another recent study found that there was no increase in old growth timber.”

Since I didn’t post the study I am not asking you to either.

BUT, your statement is that their was no increase in old growth timber. My statement wat that their was increase in GROWTH OF THE old growth.

Please clarify.

By: Frank

Frank — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 21:28:40 +0000

The region you defined as the Amazon is actually much larger than the real Amazon and includes regions that are not dinamically linked to the Amazon, like Northern Chile desert or the Bolivian Altiplano to some extent. I don’t know how focusing on the Amazon would change your results.

By: Denny

Denny — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:28:35 +0000

Not to long ago on Discovery Channel they showed the Natives down there using high pressure water and pumps to look for Gold. As we all know Gold prices are thru the roof so this destruction is wide spread because of Gold fever. Lot of the poor live off of what they find. The Destruction is emmense because they are removing large amounts of dirt on Hill sides destroying anything that grows. Just like they did out West in the late 1800′s here in the U.S..

By: hunter

hunter — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:56:10 +0000

The focus of the AGW hype industry is very nomadic.
First it was warming and increased storms.
That did not work out, so they went for the melting ice.
That has not worked out, so now it is the Amazon.
When this current prediction of the apocalypse fails, inquiring minds want to know what the next focus of fear will be?

By: Page48

Page48 — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 02:16:44 +0000

“through the processes of photosynthesis and respiration”

Trees release CO2 in the process of respiration.

By: hunter

hunter — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:17:45 +0000

Once again AGW alarmists ignore data and choose their models.
AGW is to climate science what eugenics was to evolution.

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 05:25:08 +0000

kuhnkat: Another recent study found that there was no increase in old growth timber.

By: kuhnkat

kuhnkat — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 04:28:48 +0000

Carl Chapman,

a recent study found that old growth timber is growing again, most likely due to the increased CO2 levels.