Settled Science update-Amazon more AGW resilient than feared

Space, the environment, new discoveries and new uses for old ones
Post Reply
User avatar
kramer
Posts: 8852
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 8:38 pm

Settled Science update-Amazon more AGW resilient than feared

Post by kramer » Wed Feb 06, 2013 5:23 pm

The debate is over, the science is settled...
Amazon forest more resilient to climate change than feared - study
The Amazon rainforest is less vulnerable to die off because of global warming than widely believed because the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide also acts as an airborne fertilizer, a study showed on Wednesday.

. . .

The boost to growth from CO2, the main gas from burning fossil fuels blamed for causing climate change, was likely to exceed damaging effects of rising temperatures this century such as drought, it said.

"I am no longer so worried about a catastrophic die-back due to CO2-induced climate change," Professor Peter Cox of the University of Exeter in England told Reuters of the study he led in the journal Nature. "In that sense it's good news."

Cox was also the main author of a much-quoted study in 2000 that projected that the Amazon rainforest might dry out from about 2050 and die off because of warming. Others have since suggested fires could transform much the forest into savannah.

Plants soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and use it as an ingredient to grow leaves, branches and roots. Stored carbon gets released back to the atmosphere when plants rot or are burnt.
[So, the REDD program is an international (UN wealth redistribution scheme for colonialism atonement, population control, and development funding) program where rich countries can use trees in poor countries as carbon sinks for a fee. What happens when those trees that we paid to store our carbon in die and the carbon is released back into the air? Will we get a refund and will it include interest?]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ent-to-cli
“We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”

- Scientist James Lovelock

Post Reply