Fate of the rainforest is 'irreversible'
A third of the Amazonian 'carbon sink' is doomed whether or not emissions are cut, Copenhagen conference is told
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
ALAMY
The danger to the natural world from the warming atmosphere may have been underestimated
enlarge
The impact of climate change on the Amazon rainforest could be much worse than previously predicted, new research suggests.
Even if emissions were reduced and governments managed to limit temperature rises to 2C – the current aim of international climate policy – between 20 and 40 per cent of the forest could die because of warming, a British scientist told a conference on climate change in Copenhagen yesterday.
Dr Chris Jones, of the Met Office's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, said the Amazon may become "committed" to substantial change by rising temperatures long before any such change is apparent elsewhere.
The effect would be caused by the inertia of the Amazon's ecosystem – a phenomenon by which changes take a long time to work through the system to their fullest. This is already known to occur in the oceans, which is why sea level rise is expected to continue for centuries after any stabilisation of global warming.
The discovery that ecosystems can also be committed to large-scale changes means the danger to the natural world from the warming atmosphere may have been underestimated.
A 40 per cent loss of the Amazon rainforest, as well as being a disaster for wildlife and the people of the region, would make climate change worse because it would damage the region's ability to act as a carbon "sink", soaking up the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide.
The loss would be in addition to the losses presently caused by deforestation.
Dr Jones said: "Ecosystems do exhibit significant commitment to further change even after you've stabilised the climate. The Amazon forest will be committed to large-scale loss long before any is observable in the real world, so some kind of monitoring system to detect the first signs of Amazon dieback might actually be too late. We need to understand the processes responsible before that."
The computer model used to forecast forest losses showed that commitment to change came in at a temperature rise of about 1 C above the level existing before the industrial revolution in the 18th century.
Currently, global temperatures are about 0.75C above the pre-industrial level. However, scientists believe that large amounts of carbon dioxide emitted in recent years have caused further warming of about 0.6C – meaning that the world is likely to warm at least 1.3C, even if all carbon emissions were stopped immediately.
Asked if this meant Amazon dieback had already started, Dr Jones responded that it probably had. At 1.3C, the commitment to change is not great, but by C it rapidly leaps up to 20 and then 40 per cent loss of forest. At 3C – where the computer simulation shows no dieback might yet be visible – the commitment is a 70 per cent loss of the forest.
Dr Jones said these changes could be reversible only over very long time scales – perhaps hundreds of years. "On any kind of pragmatic time scale, I think we should see loss of the Amazon forest as irreversible," he added.
Despite the long-term term threat of Amazon forest dieback, Vicky Pope, the Hadley Centre's head of climate advice, said it was still important to try to continue to stop deforestation because it was leading to as much emissions being pumped into the atmosphere as the world's transport sector.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Reduce your global impact.
Comments
However I'n sure it will be ' Here we go again'; another opportunity for the so-called sceptics to tell us that carbon dioxide does not cause global warming (despite Tyndal and Ahrenius working that out well over a 100 years ago), another chance to say that the Earth is actually cooling (but if were to be warming, that would be due to a change in the Sun's activity), another opportunity for them to say that a higher carbon dioxide level will be good for the planet because it would promote plant growth, a chance to say that telling the thruth is 'being alarmist', a chance for so-called sceptics to demand more research instead of action, and another opportunity for the 'there is still time to act' brigade to promote technologies that have been shunned for the past 40 years.
The idea of putting on a seat belt before driving a car or taking a life jacket on a trip in a small boat seems completely alien to a large section of the contributors to this forum and to all politiicans and business leaders.
The Precautionary Principle indicates: Don't do it unless you sure its safe. The globalised consumer society says: Just keep doing it -keep burning oil and coal, keep adding CO2 and other poillutants to the atmosphere and keep degrading the entire world environment- until there is nothing left to burn and nothing left to trash.
It's almost getting too surreal for words at this stage.
The above two solutions could dramatically alter our future trajectory much for the better. Lose the dependence on carbon fuels, make deserts habitable for food through the byproduct of de-salinated sea water, and power the new electric transport infrastructure virtually carbon free. Is it just me or could it be that easy?
Europe and America used to be covered in forests. They aren't any more - they were chopped down as the main source of energy prior to the industrial revolution and the use of coal, gas and oil. There is no chance of wood providing a replacement for fossil fuels, it is not energy dense enough. And where would we grow food if we are growing fuel instead? (a point that the bio-fuel lobby prefer to ignore).
Also start building Fission Power Stations (watch the fear coming out if you suggest that to most "Greens"), whilst increasing R&D on Fusion & other renewables (Solar CSP, Solar PV, Tidal, Geothermal etc). The Politicians seem to favour Wind even though it will only ever be marginal.
IS LORENZ IN YYDDYSHEKEL IN DGJEWRUSALEM
AND LAWRENCE IN ARAByA BUT KNOT YN ARABYQKH
We have a simple choice between two options: change the way we live (in other words decrease our energy consumption by 95% or more) or let our children face the horrendous consequences of continued energy profligacy.
We already know which choice most governments will make, since most governments are still talking about more airport runways to cater for an increase in energy profligacy!
Presumably, at some stage the general public will wake up to the fact that the majority of politicians are compulsive liars or are insane, but probably not until the general public is suffering a lot more than at present.
Now I see the quoted author has used a definitive 'should' himself in the penultimate para, but I clicked this link because of 'Fate of the rainforest is 'irreversible''. Is 'is' the same as 'could', 'suggests', 'may' and 'probably'?
Not to detract from the seriousness of this research, or what it 'suggests' that may inform future actions, but I would like better context to get my head around it all, and what may then be proposed.
What was... is interesting to me (because I did not know so there is value here) is that this not so much about the effects caused by deforestation, but deforestation-causing effects.
However, with my limited experience, faced with finite resources (human, willpower, financial, etc), with what we've got I'd err on devoting much more to preventing further forest loss through cutting the things down in swathes now through direct human economic activity, especially we have only 100 months to avoid a tipping point.
2. These computer models - are they as useless as the IPCC ones? Those have been wrong, wrong and wrong again. Why are these any better?
3. I think we all agree that chopping down the Amazon is a bad thing. Why don't these pontificators go and PLANT SOME TREES instead of modelling the apocalypse on their PCs? Don't they want to do something USEFUL?
4. Are these computer models available for critical analysis? I want to know all the key parameters which control the models so we can see which key ones they've left out.
You'll note I've not said they are wrong, I've said that these strident claims simply need to be backed up with credible evidence. And computer scenario modelling using inaccurate parameters doesn't satisfy that.
IMHO.
IF 95 surveyors came round to your house and told you it was unsafe and may fall down, and 5 told you not to worry, what would you do? Nothing? Leave your family in it?
If the positive-feedback mechanisms kick-in, as they almost certainly will based on current knowledge, then we have very little to take action. Not to take this action is reckless madness.
That would be a sensible use of the Precautionary Principle.
2. The stock market crashes show that 95% of the media are always hyping stock prospects in the 6 months before a crash. Hopefully you don't buy at those inopportune moments?
3. If everyone designs their computer models in ways which do not reflect the reality of the earth and the solar system, then whether they say the same thing or not is irrelevant. They will be wrong!
4. The global financial system used computer models to dehumanise investment decisions in the past 10 years. Can you see the benefits of following all that identical advice?
5. Einstein was pilloried by 'the establishment' as a young man. It didn't mean he was wrong. It meant the establishment felt threatened. Think about that..
Again Mr McCarthy you keep giving this conference prominence and publishing apocalyptic scenarios but you do not write about the following happenings:
1) Worse snowstorm recently in China for 50 years affecting millions of people
2) Avalanches in Indian Kashmir caused by the worse snowfall in decades
3) Record breaking cold spell in Vietnam
4) A 20 cm snowfall in Jerusalem
5) Severe winter storms in North America
6) The exceptional cold spell in The Arctic
7) Largest snowcover in The Northern Hemisphere since 1966
8) Growing glaciers in
a) Norway
b) Canada
c) France
d) Ecuador
e) Switzerland
f) Russia
g) Etc Etc
9) Antarctica growing
The list goes on and on. So why the deafening silence by the media about these events I have mentioned? And what is the reason for this biased reporting? The truth of the matter is not many people care what you write about because they can see the imbalance in the argument. The behaviour of the majority is indicative of that fact and substantiated by people being polled on these issues as written by you and the likes of you. What you write about is being seen as nothing more that propaganda. That is a shame for pollution does concern me.
I was on Spitzbergen last year and could also here see with my own eyes glacier were retracting.
1)Alfotbreen Glacier
2)Briksdalsbreen Glacier
3)Nigardsbreen Glacier
4)Hardangerjokulen Glacier
5)Hansebreen Glacier
6)Etc Etc
Sitat: "Glacier length change- Glacier length changes were measured at 21 glaciers in southern Norway and seven glaciers in northern Norway in 2007. Twenty four of the glacier outlets had a retreat in
length, three were unchanged and one outlet advanced. Kjenndalsbreen had a retreat of
182 m. This is the greatest annual recession since the 1940s. The recession of
Briksdalsbreen continues and since 1999 both Kjenndalsbreen and Briksdalsbreen have
retreated about 500 metres."
The text is coming from:
http://www.nve.no/admin/FileArchive/1
Which is the state organisation that keeps track of glacier for the purpose of estimating the potential for power generation.
So, in as far your assertion is right, it is actually a very worrying sign...
"Dozens of glaciers were advancing....Friddjovbreen for example had advanced more than a mile in the last seven years, one of many to do likewise...
Glaciers advance for 5 to 7 years then retreat for the next 80 to 100 years. All entirely in nature's way."
The face of the Briksdal glacier, an off-shoot of the largest glacier in Norway and mainland Europe is growing by an average of 7.2 inches (18cm) per day (Bergens Tidende Norwegian Daily)
Output from Computer: Alarmist Headline.
Just more nonsense from the Warmists.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/116590/Incre
Science and Media reporting on Global Warming is;
Underestimated: 28%
Correct: 19%
Eexaggerated: 41%
This represents a major shift in American opinion. Americans are becoming more sceptical.
Of interest is that of the age groups polled scepticism was highest amongst the 18-29 years.
The young are not buying into the political ideology that is Alarmism
Correct: 29%
The Precautionary Principle says do the cheap things first whilst the Models are being "upgraded", then the catastrophic things if the "upgraded" Models still show we need to.
I agree with the Precautionary Principle, but do not agree with doing 'the cheap things first' unless these cheap things are the RIGHT things. I firmly believe in the Cradle to Cradle principle of being GOOD, instead of being LESS BAD (McDonough & Braungart).
It is obvious that the present warming and environmental damage will take a long time to reverse because the environmental abuse has continued over a long period to cause it in the first place.
As junkmale says, the rain forests will suffer because of deforestation. Even Viky Pope, a well known climate alarmist has admitted this. But again the headlines tell us that the alarmists have done what they set out to do. Just keep the research funds rolling in.
Never mind There seem to be quite a few sceptics (sorry deniers) commenting on this biased reporting.
If we are to accept these findings as fact I feel I ought to refer to the immortal words of Private James Frazer from Dad`s Army who would have proclaimed "We are all doooomed"
I am conservative by temperament and logic--so conservative that I believe that what I consider the hallmarks of Western civilization, a belief in science over dogma, should be public policy after due study and consensus. Because of this I find it risible that people calling themselves Conservatives are mixing and matching our intellectual heritage to legitimize their greed.
Simple observation of loss of farmland and woodlot should tell us that we are having too many babies: we should be responsible and live within our means--have none, or limit our families and make legislation to encourage small families of educated citizens rather than large litters of half-trained fools.
Endless parking lots and endless highways should tell us that we are perhaps seeking satisfaction in base materialism and not in good society of our fellow man (and woman); in friendships, our families and civil virtues.
Vast strip mines and exotic holidays in interexchangeable resorts where all the coffee is bad and all the food comes pre-packaged from some central factory, should perhaps indicate to us that the idea of leisure should perhaps be re-examined and simple comforts--once again with good company--should perhaps be more valued. "The world is (indeed) too much with us" and what the overwhelming number of scientific thought now recognizes and accepts is that we are fouling our nest at at alarming rate. Science and the public operate on two different planes, which is why such things as a direct democracy is dangerous: you can take a survey all you want if the earth is flat or not and the results of the poll does not determine the truth of the answer.
The consequence of human interaction in our environment is destroying and will destroy the very quality of our lives and that of our children if not checked with reason and self-interest. This is not theory, since we can see each and every day the consequence of unchecked human waste and folly. We can quibble about this glacier or that; this method of collecting data or that, but such dances of the ego cannot disguise the reality that a small, highly educated population living in harmony with their surroundings has a competitive advantage with overpopulated masses who must go to war to secure basic needs and then most likely will not receive them. And that the traditionally espoused virtues of stewardship, restrain and a husbanding of resources are far more desirable than consumption, glut and opulence.
Living within ones' means may seem quaint in an age where many apparently have a visceral need to have a flat-screen in each and every room, and certainly, historically among the Dutch, English and American Empires there has been much hypocrisy about what has been claimed as tradition and what actually happened, but if we don't learn to live within our resources we shall all die without them. And history is littered with the pathetic fragments of civilizations which couldn't make these decisions pro-actively and were left to cold, harsh reality.
Why can't the world press unite with their readers to stop destroying this world of ours.
We must find a man made material to replace timber.
Assuming the polar ice caps melt according to this BS article, sea level will rise by 1m. This means the Amazon basin's water table will rise by AT LEAST 1m, more like 1.3m 70% of the rainforest will have improved irrigation and the forest will bloom! The same goes for literally millions and millions of miles of coastal land.
I hope and pray that when the truth comes out that this was a massive scam on the population of the world that the leading propagandists like Prince Phillipp, 'Dr Jones' and Al Gore are thrown in jail for the hundreds of thousands of people who suffered, even died because we are forcing poverty stricken countries not to develop coal fired power stations and other modern technology.