backtop

Blog: Science Climate Change May Benefit Rainforests
Michael Asher (Blog) - September 28, 2007 2:23 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 49 comment(s) - last by porkpie.. on Oct 1 at 3:46 PM
New research contradicts grim predictions of climate models

In 2005, the Amazon rainforest experienced an intense drought. Climate models predicted dire results, but a paper published last week in Science shows just the opposite occurred -- the forest actually greened up substantially, experiencing massive blooms of new growth.

The authors wryly concluded the forest "may be more resilient to climate change" than models have claimed. Some media outlets reported the work means climate change may actually help rainforests.

The research highlights a growing schism between modeling and reality. Global climate models predict all sorts of catastrophic events, but the effects we actually observe are quite different. Models overestimate the warming trend year after year, forcing continual revisions. They predict more storms, yet land-falling hurricanes have actually decreased. Polar bears are predicted to suffer as Arctic ice declines, but populations are actually on the rise.

As useful as models are, until one has proven it has predictive ability, it is useless for drawing conclusions. So far, no climate model has passed that test. None have successfully predicted a future trend. Most cannot even stay consistent with past, known-historical events.

In 2005, three researchers conducted a historical survey of climate models used to predict the length and severity of Monsoon seasons. Not only did they found current models to fail the task badly, they noted that model performance had not improved even slightly since the first hand-calculated model was done in 1932.

According to the new paper, drought will mean less rain, which is obviously bad for the rainforest. But less rainfall means more sunshine, which may counteract the lack of water. These types of negative-feedback mechanisms are common in nature, and they demonstrate that the "delicate" balance of nature really isn't all that delicate.

Consider the K/T extinction event. A 10 kilometer-wide asteroid struck the planet with a destructive force several thousand times as great as all nuclear weapons ever built. A massive tsunami several hundred feet high circled the entire planet. Firestorms raged, decimating most forests. Clouds of ash and dust obscured the sun for a decade, with near-constant rains of mud, saltwater, and dilute sulfuric acid. As catastrophic as this was, the fossil record indicates over half of all species survived ... and shortly afterwards, those survivors began thriving on the lack of competition, eventually differentiating into countless new species.

If the biosphere can survive an event as catastrophic as this, does anyone really believe it'll be decimated by a degree or two of warming? Certainly mild warming may cause some overly-specialized and poorly-adapted species to become extinct. But claims it will destroy the environment or threaten mankind's survival are no more than scary bedtime stories for adults who should know better.

Will climate change benefit the Amazon?  Past geologic eras that saw global warming also experienced a large increase in rainforest coverage.  Why would this time be any different?

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Job security
By Ringold on 9/28/2007 3:32:48 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
they noted that model performance had not improved even slightly since the first hand-calculated model was done in 1932.


A professor once said something along these lines to me: If economists were as accurate as meteorologists we'd all be unemployed. (context: spoken in an econ class)

I understand there's a difference between modeling a few, or a million, economic agents and modeling an entire planet, but if there's seriously been no improvement since 1932 in climate models where economic models have been revolutionized, then... well, I'm not sure what that says about the field, but it's not good!




RE: Job security
By Murst on 9/28/2007 3:42:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
but if there's seriously been no improvement since 1932 in climate models

Don't take his statement out of context. The claim is that a better model for predicting monsoons has not emerged in 70 years.

Whether that is true or not, stating that all climate models have not improved would be incorrect.


RE: Job security
By Ringold on 9/28/2007 3:50:17 PM , Rating: 4
I'm aware of that, and counter by saying that'd be the economic equivalent of still not understanding economic recessions and shocks any better than in 1932 -- which is to say, not understanding it hardly at all.


RE: Job security
By Murst on 9/28/2007 3:58:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
that'd be the economic equivalent of still not understanding economic recessions and shocks any better than in 1932


Not really. It'd be the equivalent of not predicting economic recessions and shocks. I'm not really quite sure we're any better at predicting changes like these to the economy than 70 years ago either. I have yet to see an accurate prediction of a recession in the US economy.


RE: Job security
By Ringold on 9/28/2007 4:17:18 PM , Rating: 2
Predicting, good point.

Part of the problem with you not having seen such a model would be due to the fact that you probably haven't paid for access to one. There's a reason why Goldman Sachs, and some hedge funds established for this single goal in the past couple years, made billions over the last couple months. Why? Because an economist (or finance whiz) created their own proprietary model and saw the credit meltdown from a lightyear away. Most financial firm worth their salt have these proprietary models, many quant funds operate with some (geared probably towards the shorter term however), and banks use long-term models (as does the Fed) that aren't really all that inaccurate. It's not an unreasonable expectation that many current GDP forecasts for 2008 will be pretty accurate, and some (many of which we'll never hear about) will be nearly dead-on.

Meteorologists, on the other hand, come up with these models, do all their hard work, and then tell everybody watching the news exactly what they've discovered.

Even a total stranger to economics can google something along the lines of the AS/AD-IS/LM model and either run with some parameters established by someone else or decompose the components and come up with their own (okay, that'd be tricky), and then stick in data printed in the business section of any newspaper and be able to fairly accurately predict macroeconomic consequences in the 6-12 month range. The current economic slowdown I recall was being predicted at least a year go and there's no reason to believe present forecasts for next year wont be similarly accurate. Off by perhaps 10 to 30 basis points, I'm guessing, but no surprise surges or explosions.

Anyway, especially if we want to compare the same time spans (Monsoon season or even a whole year), economic and finance models are very, very accurate. It helps to have almost flawless data in some areas, I'll admit, and for large firms, it helps having access to a Cray.


RE: Job security
By Ringold on 9/28/2007 4:41:40 PM , Rating: 2
I also just stumbled on this:

http://www.economist.com/markets/indicators/displa...

6 months later and the only significant change in the forecast for 2008 was in China. Just so happens that.. well, I for one take any data out of China with a grain of salt.

Meanwhile, 4 haven't budged at all, and the rest except for Bangladesh changed by what looks like only ten basis points.

There was a decent uptick in the overall areas predicted growth -- but China, of course, explains most of that.

http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/ADO/2007/update...

The original source for their chart. Full of predictions, all of which will be much more accurate than whatever they think that tropical storm out in the Pacific will end up doing. :P


RE: Job security
By Murst on 9/28/2007 5:27:15 PM , Rating: 2
You're right in that we have become much better at predicting where the economy is going. In the same way, we're much better at predicting where climate is heading. However, when you take something specific, such as monsoons, and attempt to make exact predictions for them, we're not even close. The exact same thing can be said about the economy.

Is there an accurate prediction of what the job growth in the USA will be for the second week of July next year? What will the durable good orders be in that same week? We just simply can't make predictions like that. Hell, if you can predict what stock will go up by more than 10% next week, I'll be more than happy to share the profits with you.


RE: Job security
By Ringold on 9/28/07, Rating: 0
RE: Job security
By rsmech on 9/30/2007 10:24:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're right in that we have become much better at predicting where the economy is going. In the same way, we're much better at predicting where climate is heading.


What happened to the global cooling of the 70's?

And your example of what would job growth be like in the second week of July would be like asking will there be a monsoon the second week of July. That being said I disagree with you that economic & climate models are equal. What he is saying is that economic models predict trends. Climate models do also, but aren't as accurate. Climate models will not give you the week a hurricane will hit, they just predict more or less. Which haven't been as reliable as the economic forecast.


RE: Job security
By Murst on 10/1/2007 12:23:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That being said I disagree with you that economic & climate models are equal.

Equal? I'm not sure where you got that. Of course the economic models are more detailed. Economic models have been worked on ever since trade existed. Climate models have, as a science, existed for the past couple hundred years maybe. Even today, there is more work on the economy than climate (and this will most likely never change). My entire argument is that models for both the economy and climate have improved. As obvious as it sounds, I'm arguing here with people who claim there is no improvement to climate models. I should have known better. :)


RE: Job security
By porkpie on 10/1/2007 12:37:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My entire argument is that models for both the economy and climate have improved
But climate models haven't improved. Not in predicting future events at least. None of the predictions the models made 10 years ago are more accurate than the models from 20 or even 30 years ago.

Are todays models any better? We can't say yet, because they haven't had a chance to predict anything yet.


RE: Job security
By Murst on 10/1/2007 1:15:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But climate models haven't improved. Not in predicting future events at least

Here's a nice article about recent improvements in forecasting. The article doesn't have many statistics, but its comments coming from someone in the field. http://www.artsci.washington.edu/news/WinterSpring...

I just find it amazing that people continue to argue that radars, satellites, and computers do not improve weather forecasts.


RE: Job security
By porkpie on 10/1/2007 1:54:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Here's a nice article about recent improvements in forecasting
Um, you've confused weather with climate. WEATHER forecasting has improved quite a bit. CLIMATE forecasting hasn't improved at all.


RE: Job security
By Murst on 10/1/2007 3:14:22 PM , Rating: 2
I think you're the one who's confused. You can think of weather as a point in time. Changes in weather, or aggregates of these points, is what climate is. This can be done on a long term, such as millions of years, or very short term, such as day to day.

When you're forecasting weather, you're predicting the change in weather over time (unless somehow you could predict weather without taking into account what happens over a certain time span). Change in weather over time = climate.


RE: Job security
By porkpie on 10/1/2007 3:46:50 PM , Rating: 2
Lol, no, its very clear which one of us is confused. Weather and climate are two totally different things. Rain tomorrow, or a cold snap on Wednesday is weather. The average temperature of Washington State five years from now is climate.

Weather forecasting has improved a lot lately. Climate models (a totally different thing) haven't improved one bit.


RE: Job security
By masher2 (blog) on 9/28/2007 6:22:15 PM , Rating: 2
> "stating that all climate models have not improved would be incorrect."

If we define 'improvement' as 'better at prediction', then yes, climate models have not improved. The delta between predictions and actual events is not declining. Some models will do fairly well for a few years...then wind up wholly off base again.


RE: Job security
By Murst on 10/1/2007 12:13:51 PM , Rating: 2
You've got to be kidding. Sure, not all climate models stand the test of time, but are you seriously attempting to argue that our models of weather and prediction of weather has gone nowhere in 70 years?

If you'd like a nice summary article about how climate models have evolved, I'd suggest reading http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm.

And as to predictions, we are MUCH better at predicting short-term climate changes than we were 70 years ago. Its not even close. We do not yet have the understanding to make very accurate long term predictions, but, as everything, it will improve with time.


RE: Job security
By porkpie on 9/28/2007 7:17:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The claim is that a better model for predicting monsoons has not emerged in 70 years.
Not for predicting individual monsoons, but for modelling how many we're likely to see and how severe they'll be.

In other words, exactly the same predicting people do when they try to claim GW will make storms more common and more severe.


Maybe but You Blow Past Some Important Points
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/28/2007 3:04:43 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
In 2005, the Amazon rainforest experienced an intense drought. Climate models predicted dire results, but a paper published last week in Science shows just the opposite occurred -- the forest actually greened up substantially, experiencing massive blooms of new growth.


I think you did not intend to mislead with this paragraph, but I expect some may misinterpret it.

The greening did not occur during the drought, but as a sort of rebound after it.

The abstract of the paper also clearly cautions that the Amazon is indeed threatened by threatened by "human-caused deforestation, fire, and possibly by more severe long-term droughts."

So if GW indeed caused this drought, as you seem to be inferring, than it may be actually bad news for the rainforest if droughts worsen with higher temperatures.

Actually, assuming proper humidity and rainfall, there is no reason why a rainforest cannot thrive in a warmed environment. In the past, in warmer climates rainforests have blanketed much of the globe. I think it is misleading to connect this as somehow being a blow against GW theory, as the vast majority of GW theory typically focuses on the effects to temperate climate and does not predict dire consequences for the rainforest. I think you would agree that this accurate. There may be some studies, but most studies focus on local U.S. or Europe/UK climate effects.

Also, as the paper says the biggest threat to the rainforest is not GW, obviously, it is deforestation.

Read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Rainforest
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_Africa

Experts expect the Congo rainforest could mostly be logged out of existence by 2020. The Amazon is larger, and more protected but it is current at 82% of the cover in 1970. That means that by 2100, only about a fourth of the Amazon will remain. Logging rates in the Amazon are charted on Wikipedia and are fairly steady over recent years. They will increase or decrease in small cycles, but remain relatively steady. Similar trends of destruction exist worldwide.

Here's some good data on rainforest destruction:
http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Deforesta...
http://library.thinkquest.org/26026/Environmental_...

According to many estimates over 25 to 50 acres are being destroyed each minute and over 100 species are going extinct a day due to the deforestation.

Here's some good images:
http://leslietaylor.net/gallery/destruction/destru...

Rainforest destruction is not like normal logging. After the forest is cleared by logging, mining, and farming, it is left barren. The soil is relatively devoid of nutrients, so plant regrowth cannot occur on the level of what once existed. Most experts agree that it would take hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years for a cleared forest to hypothetically regrow.

About the only way it ties in to global warming is that afterwards the rotting timber and brush is expected to release massive amounts of methane into the air, furthering GW.

Theres no doubt that human destruction is obliterating the rainforests at an alarming pace. Who cares what GW does to the rainforest? If theres no rainforest left in 100 years, it won't really matter, will it? Something must be done to reverse this trend, or an unprecedent anthropogenic ecological loss will occur.




By masher2 (blog) on 9/28/2007 6:32:32 PM , Rating: 2
> "The greening did not occur during the drought, but as a sort of rebound after it"

Incorrect. It occurred during the drought itself. The full paper makes that clear (though paid access is required for it). However, Saleska's earlier paper demonstrates it quite clearly:

http://www.eebweb.arizona.edu/faculty/saleska/docs...

> "I think it is misleading to connect this as somehow being a blow against GW theory'

Nothing of the sort was intended. The goal was simply to demonstrate that the "balance of nature" is far more robust that some people seem to believe, and that our climate models -- even for a task as simple as predicting the response of a rainforest to reduced water conditions -- are abysmally poor.


RE: Maybe but You Blow Past Some Important Points
By dluther on 9/28/2007 8:50:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Incorrect. It occurred during the drought itself.


Michael, you are normally a well-spoken author on such issues, but this is a blatant misstatement of the paper, which is clearly stated in the conclusion (section 4):

quote:
Our observations do not extend through an El Nin˜o cycle and so our conclusions on dry season greening are limited to typical rainfall years. During the stronger drought of an El Nino period, green-up may be prevented if even deep roots are insufficient to overcome dry-season rainfall deficits, a possibility supported by a drought-simulation experiment [Nepstad et al., 2002] and AVHRR observations through previous El Nino years [Asner et al., 2000]. Deforestation and land use pressures may also shift sunlight and moisture controls on Amazon phenology with important consequences to sustainable land use in Amazonia.


Remember that in 2005, the El-Nino induced drought was the worst in the recorded history of the Amazon basin. Combined with the rampant forest fires and continuing deforesting encroachment due to logging as well as agricultural and urban expansion, the net effect is that the rain Amazon rain forest is facing a double threat that has not been faced before.

I am assuming you are aware of the importance of the rain forests in maintaining the atmospheric balance of certain greenhouse gases.


By masher2 (blog) on 9/28/2007 8:57:19 PM , Rating: 2
> "but this is a blatant misstatement of the paper, which is clearly stated in the conclusion "

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say, but the "stronger drought" of an El Nino period is only a hypothetical. The authors are merely (wisely) issuing a little "cover our asses" verbiage, pointing out their results may not hold true for all droughts.

However, during this particular drought in 2005, the forest greened up substantially. During the drought itself. The statement was correct.


RE: Maybe but You Blow Past Some Important Points
By dluther on 9/28/2007 10:41:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the "stronger drought" of an El Nino period is only a hypothetical.


No, the intensity of a drought period during an El Nino is quite well documented, the 2005 one being a particularly shining example.

quote:
However, during this particular drought in 2005, the forest greened up substantially. During the drought itself. The statement was correct.


You are correct that the areas of rain forest unaffected by deforestation experienced an anomalous growth. However, if you'll look at the supporting documentation, it clearly states that the study did not account for areas that were deforested or encroached upon through artificial manipulation.


By masher2 (blog) on 9/29/2007 1:02:29 AM , Rating: 2
> "the intensity of a drought period during an El Nino is quite well documented, the 2005 one being a particularly shining example."

You're drifter ever-further afield I'm afraid. When the reseachers mentioned El Nino, they were speaking of a possible drought stronger than the one they documented. This hypothetical drought may mean a different outcome than the one they noted.

The 2005 drought was not during an El Nino Event.

> "You are correct that the areas of rain forest unaffected by deforestation experienced an anomalous growth"

So why did your earlier post attempt to challenge this? The rainforest greened up during the drought. Not afterwards.

> "However, if you'll look at the supporting documentation, it clearly states that the study did not account for areas that were deforested or encroached upon "

So? I'm sorry, but I'm not following your implication.


By dluther on 9/29/2007 5:32:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're drifter ever-further afield I'm afraid. When the reseachers mentioned El Nino, they were speaking of a possible drought stronger than the one they documented. This hypothetical drought may mean a different outcome than the one they noted.


Sort of. Bear with me so I don't go too far afield. The paper you cite in your article is at sciencemag.com:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/114...

In your reply to Jason, you cite another paper co-authored by Saleska (http://www.eebweb.arizona.edu/faculty/saleska/docs... that that used data from 2000 to 2005, but did not use data from the 2005 El Nino-induced drought:

quote:
Our observations do not extend through an El Nino cycle and so our conclusions on dry season greening are limited to typical rainfall years.


This same paper also states:

quote:
Our results show basin-wide enhanced rainforest activity in the sunnier dry season, suggesting that sunlight may exert more influence than rainfall on rainforest phenology and productivity.


which would be in line with the theme your original blog posting. I was referring to the earlier work, not the later one, which is where the confusion may lie as I don't have access to the later paper. I'm going to have to take your word for it, but without access to the work, that's what's known in legal terms as "hearsay", and means next to nothing.

Don't be so quick to discount the deleterious effects of drought:

quote:
The limit of the forest's resiliency is unknown, Saleska said, adding, "But if you take away enough water for long enough, the trees will die." (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-09/uoa...


quote:
> "However, if you'll look at the supporting documentation, it clearly states that the study did not account for areas that were deforested or encroached upon "

So? I'm sorry, but I'm not following your implication.


The implication is that the rain forests are rapidly, and increasingly shrinking due to deforestation. While the fact that the rain forests evidently green up during drought, it doesn't offset the damage due to deforestation, so the balance is still in the red.


By rsmech on 9/30/2007 10:41:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most experts agree that it would take hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years for a cleared forest to hypothetically regrow


This is not so. I lived in Washington state & the same was predicted about the land around Mt. St. Helens after it's major eruption. It may not be where it was before, but it has certainly made it a long way in a short time compared to what was predicted. I'm not arguing that deforestation is a good thing, just that nature is more robust than we give it credit for.


By onelittleindian on 10/1/2007 12:53:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most experts agree that it would take hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years for a cleared forest to hypothetically regrow.
Lol, this is the funniest thing I've read in weeks. All the old-growth forests in Canada and the Nothern US were under a few hundred feet of ice only 10,000 years ago. Once the ice retreated, those forests grew back in about 500 years.


Desertification
By pmonti80 on 9/28/2007 3:52:55 PM , Rating: 2
Michael Asher, You keep finding lots of good things that will happen if GW happens and for some parts of the world it may be right. But if you were living in the south of Europe or the North of Africa you would not be so happy to have a GW coming your way, because it's not very funny to live in a dessert. That is what will probably happen to countries in Southern Europe and North Africa if GW is really coming. And I supose I don't have to tell you what kind of problems desertification will lead to in those countries.
I can't tell if Global Warming is coming big or all of this is really overblown. But we don't need the most pessimistic hypothesis on the subject to know that the problems surpass the advantages if Global Warming is indeed coming.




RE: Desertification
By Ringold on 9/28/07, Rating: 0
RE: Desertification
By TomZ on 9/28/2007 4:04:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If I were southern European, I'd be more concerned about the economy at this point.

...said the economist. Hmm, what a surprise. :o)


RE: Desertification
By clovell on 9/28/2007 4:05:51 PM , Rating: 2
What makes you think that North Africa and South Europe will turn to desert if GW occurs?

We may not need the most pessimistic hypothesis on the subject, but we sure will need some convincing evidence to know that the problems of GW will surpass the advantages.


RE: Desertification
By pmonti80 on 9/28/2007 4:31:02 PM , Rating: 2
For example the fact that for the first time northern countries are becoming interested in UNCCD.

http://www.wikio.com/sciences/environment/desertif...


RE: Desertification
By TomZ on 9/28/2007 4:45:59 PM , Rating: 1
So interest in UNCCD proves causality...? I don't get it.


RE: Desertification
By masher2 (blog) on 9/28/2007 6:24:59 PM , Rating: 2
> "But if you were living in the south of Europe or the North of Africa you would not be so happy to have a GW coming your way, because it's not very funny to live in a dessert"

Desert regions in North Africa are actually declining. I posted the research to demonstrate this in another column.

Southern Europe may see some slight disadvantage to GW (though widescale desertification is quite unlikely), but Northern Europe will benefit quite dramatically. Net effect on the whole continent: probably a net win, but very close to zero either way.


RE: Desertification
By rsmech on 9/30/2007 10:57:05 PM , Rating: 2
No it wouldn't be "funny to live in a dessert". Just as it would have been to live in Minnesota just before a big ice age. Understand nature will change with or without us. The reason we are the superior inhabitants of this planet is because we can adapt. The key here is ADAPT. If you can't you loose. The problem we are having now is that some think we are so brilliant that we don't have to adapt, we can just tell nature to stop. Your sitting in a pot on the stove with a low flame, you better relocate because predicting it gets hotter doesn't stop it from getting hotter. Some people are getting too smart to adapt anymore.


Citation please!
By jkl on 9/29/2007 11:50:22 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
As useful as models are, until one has proven it has predictive ability, it is useless for drawing conclusions. So far, no climate model has passed that test. None have successfully predicted a future trend. Most cannot even stay consistent with past, known-historical events.


Not that you cherry-pick data or provide "evidence" in the form of html links to graphs (like the Chris Landsea graph.) If you have a desire to be somthing more than just another hack in the denialist echo-chamber, perhaps you should have at least the smallest bit of scientific competence. Until then, you are truly an embarassment to dailytech.com. And, quite frankly, its greatest liablility due to your reckless use of other persons' work, as evidenced by your last post.




RE: Citation please!
By dluther on 9/30/2007 8:57:51 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
If you have a desire to be somthing more than just another hack in the denialist echo-chamber


Now now, as much as mine and Michael's viewpoints on environmental issues are diametrically opposed, he does present some valid information. I've found that he's one of the more well-spoken authors on the subject, and I greatly enjoy discussing these viewpoints with him.

If you truly want to engage in high-level debate with an informed opinion and supporting evidence to back up your position, you could do much worse than Michael Asher. Let the evidence speak for you, and try to not let the conversation degenerate into a series of insults, which is always the last bastion of the ignorant and uninformed.

Environmental issues are of paramount importance, and deserve informed, even-handed debate from all viewpoints. While passions on both sides run high, it's important to remember that allowing those passions to color your opinions will only serve to harm your credibility.


RE: Citation please!
By chsh1ca on 9/30/2007 9:52:22 AM , Rating: 2
If you take the posts here by Jason and Michael for what they are -- opinion-influenced presentation of other people's scientific research related to the hot (harhar) topics of Global Warming, amongst other things -- there's nothing really out of line. You just have to know it's opinions presented going in.

This is one area I think Jason excels at -- he seems to try harder to keep his articles free of the "this obviously means" opinion based connections between specific points that the underlying supporting documentation doesn't do. That said, I like the fact that DailyTech has bloggers who are willing to debate this stuff. At least somebody is.

The thing that bites so many people in the ass is that we don't actually have enough data to conclude one way or another.


RE: Citation please!
By chsh1ca on 9/30/2007 9:56:36 AM , Rating: 2
I meant to say "debates this stuff sanely." Obviously far too many ill-equipped people are debating this issue. :)


RE: Citation please!
By porkpie on 10/1/2007 12:39:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Until then, you are truly an embarassment to dailytech.com. And, quite frankly, its greatest liablility due to your reckless use of other persons' work, as evidenced by your last post
Another worshipper at the altar of Global Warming displays righteous anger at having his god blasphemed.

Sad. Truly sad.


Deforestation the biggest threat
By dluther on 9/28/2007 7:27:49 PM , Rating: 2
I might agree in theory that an increase in temperature and CO2 levels will be beneficial to the tropical rain forests. High heat can create a higher localized humidity level, resulting in more localized rainfall which is paramount to rain forest development -- it's why they're called "rain" forests. But that is only when there is enough of a local evaporative water supply. There is more evidence to suggest that warmer temperatures only lead to drought.

However, the largest threat to the rain forests is deforestation due to logging and agricultural expansion. With more frequent and intense El Nino years which produce drought conditions in the Amazon basin, the fires, even in "virgin" rain forests have devastating effects to the forests because the thinning undergrowth does not provide the necessary moisture barrier that would normally protect rain forests. This thinned area encroaches further into the hearts of the rain forests, leaving dry tinder that fuels more intense subsequent fires. An unusually strong El Nino in 1997-1998 led to massive fires in the Amazon, with humidity levels up to 55% lower than normal. And in 2005, the El Nino led to the worst drought in the Amazon's recorded history, drying up rivers and small lakes.

Forest fires in the rain forests were once thought to be impossible. However, we know now that this is not the case. The forest fires in these areas release massive amounts of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and other hydrocarbon gases because there is little that can be done to fight these fires. Look at the wildfires that run rampant in a country as developed as America, and you can imagine the impotence of other, less developed regions in Central and South America.

There is also heavy evidence to support the theory that the more frequent and intense El Nino years are due to global warming. When combined with the effects of deforestation, any theoretical benefit of higher temperatures in the rain forests is effectively negated.




By masher2 (blog) on 9/28/2007 9:07:11 PM , Rating: 2
> " There is more evidence to suggest that warmer temperatures only lead to drought"

Incorrect. Check out Huntington, T.G. 2006. Evidence for intensification of the global water cycle. Journal of Hydrology. It shows a 2% increase in global precipitation over the last 100 years.

Or take a look at Wentz, et al, 2007, Science, which found a precipitation trend increase of some 7%/°C of surface warming.

By the way, Wentz's paper is also another excellent example of the failure of global climate models to predict reality, as his real-world results are far above what the models predict.


RE: Deforestation the biggest threat
By AlexWade on 9/28/2007 11:05:13 PM , Rating: 2
What proof do you have that El Nino's are getting stronger and more frequent?

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitori...
(P.S. Look carefully at the chart, some numbers aren't colorized.)

I will remind everyone we are coming into a weak La Nina. Also, according to NOAA, ENSO is caused by trade winds and ocean current, not global warming.
http://www.elnino.noaa.gov/lanina_new_faq.html


RE: Deforestation the biggest threat
By dluther on 9/30/2007 9:08:33 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting you should use that second link while definitively stating that ENSO is not linked to global warming, which clearly states in the section labeled "What is the relationship between El Niño/La Niña and global warming?":

quote:
The jury is still out on this. Are we likely to see more El Niños because of global warming? Will they be more intense? These are the main research questions facing the science community today. Research will help us separate the natural climate variability from any trends due to man's activities. We cannot figure out the "fingerprint" of global warming if we cannot sort out what the natural variability does. We also need to look at the link between decadal changes in natural variability and global warming. At this time we can't preclude the possibility of links but it would be too early to definitely say there is a link.


By AlexWade on 9/30/2007 9:54:09 PM , Rating: 2
You still provide no proof of your claim. Instead, you rely on a could be related, which is based on something that could be happening. In other words, that proves nothing. There is a reason I also provide the documented record. And, more importantly, the FAQ shows all the nuances are unknown, but ENSO is known for sure to be strongly related to trade winds and ocean currents.

Why is it that a piece of the weather is not fully understood but the whole weather is? In other words, if a piece of a whole is not fully understood, then logically the whole is not either. We do not fully understand ENSO, a small part of the whole weather. Thus, we do not fully understand the whole earth's weather either. Do you not agree?

I ask again. Answer me this, please: What proof is there that El Ninos are getting stronger and more frequent?

And, as an aside, I'm all for conservation. What I'm against is fear spread to make money, which climate change is. A fact of life is no crisis, no money. When does CNN and the Weather Channel get better ratings? When there is a crisis out there.


the cycle of nature
By porkpie on 9/28/2007 3:02:37 PM , Rating: 2
Wasn't the planet one gigantic rainforest during the Devonian or something? Back when CO2 levels were 20X higher than now? It seems pretty evident that rainforests like global warming.




RE: the cycle of nature
By dluther on 9/28/2007 7:54:26 PM , Rating: 2
It's cause and effect. Higher CO2 levels mean more food for plants, and the accompanying rains most likely were due to intense thunderstorms, which means more nitrogen and ammonia in the rainwater, both of which are potent fertilizers.

The Devonian period was also a period of high volcanic activity, which was more than likely the source of the atmospheric CO2, along with other greenhouse gases (methane, carbon monoxide, etc.)

Simply put, it isn't called a "greenhouse" for nothing.


type-o
By clovell on 9/28/2007 3:26:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and they demonstrate that the "delicate" balance of nature really isn't all that delicate.




Ding!!
By Enoch2001 on 9/30/2007 11:30:44 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the biosphere can survive an event as catastrophic as this, does anyone really believe it'll be decimated by a degree or two of warming? Certainly mild warming may cause some overly-specialized and poorly-adapted species to become extinct. But claims it will destroy the environment or threaten mankind's survival are no more than scary bedtime stories for adults who should know better.


I think this statement sums up my feelings. It's been a long road for me to reach this realization, too, as I used to be a huge "Inconvenient Truth" thumper!




"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki