Royston Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 A study in the amazon rainforest, which started back in 2002, has been observing the effects of a simulated drought by restricting rainfall on a given area. After one year the effects were minimal, after two years the roots of the trees grew to absorb water found deeper in the ground, however after a successive third year of drought the forest could no longer cope. Many plants died and obviously released carbon leading to the production of CO2 in the atmosphere. Next year will be the second successive year of drought for the amazon, and if the trend of hot weather continues the effects could be devastating, it's quite apparent the amount of carbon held in such a vast forest. According to this report the amazon faces forest fires and desertification, starting as early as next year, please see the article below... http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=6016&method=full Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Dalek Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 The impact of Amazon drought In 2005' date=' parts of the Amazon basin experienced the worst drought in 100 years[15'], and there are indications that 2006 could be a second successive year of drought[16]. hmmmm...... Such things are unpredictable. How do we know next year will be drought? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted August 2, 2006 Author Share Posted August 2, 2006 hmmmm......Such things are unpredictable. How do we know next year will be drought? Well we won't. However the effect of global warming is clearly not going to help matters, if not next year, then which year. I think it's the scale, and the speed of which the loss of the amazon could have on the world which is most alarming. It's not something we can tackle by slowly taking measures to reduce emissions of compounds et.c I see it more as a very stark 'heads up' that more problems are arising due to our energy consumption...rather big problems at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 How does this affect global warming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted August 2, 2006 Author Share Posted August 2, 2006 Look up carbon emissions into the atmosphere, of which the amazon has 90 billion tonnes. I've read a few related articles and the hurricane season and deforestation appear to be the main contenders of the drought. I was wondering with a worst case scenario, what a possible solution to this would be, presuming there wasn't much time to incorporate a viable solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scicop Posted August 2, 2006 Share Posted August 2, 2006 i think we've past the time to panic..its time to act. However we have "live for the moment" money hungry businessman in control of our government, so we're all doomed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herme3 Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Don't worry Snail, there's no reason to panic yet. That article you were reading is completely exaggerated. I talked to a group of people who are very concerned about global warming, and they revealed the truth. The experiment performed by the Woods Hole Research Centre was real, but the results posted in the article are fictional. For the real results, check out the web site of the organization that actually did the experiment: http://www.whrc.org/southamerica/drought_sim/results.htm Yes, global warming is a serious issue and the Amazon rainforest is in some trouble. However, we shouldn't worry about it turning into a desert next year like the article claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 How does this affect global warming? This represents a feedback loop: Drought -> dead forest -> more CO2 -> more drought -> more dead forest -> more CO2 It's sort of like global warming -> melted sea ice -> surface albedo changes from highly reflective to highly absorbant -> increased global warming -> more melted sea ice There are tipping points in any of these feedback loops where they begin to form self-perpetuating cycles which feed the general warming trend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted August 16, 2006 Author Share Posted August 16, 2006 That article you were reading is completely exaggerated. You're not kidding, I really should of checked the credibility of the site I posted, thanks for the link, Herme3. Thanks for a more detailed explanation, Bascule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaAotS Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 I think they took the part about the large top canopy trees dieing off and threw away the rest... selective reading Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted August 16, 2006 Author Share Posted August 16, 2006 It's a shame scientists can't get away with exaggerating in some circumstances, and not questionable websites. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 i think we've past the time to panic..its time to act. However we have "live for the moment" money hungry businessman in control of our government, so we're all doomed. I agree completely, scicop. It's very frustrating to think we have nothing to do about it though.. I once tried to find all the companies destroying Amazon Rainforests for their own profit and ban them, but concidering the fact one of them is McDonalds and the likes, it seems like a one-man-fight.. too many people just don't care. I wish there WAS something we can do.. ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaAotS Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Give up double big macs for the rainforests...? *leaves to ponder which he likes better* lol The way I see it, the destruction of earths enviroment will probably propel exploration of other planets, and the probably colonization of them. Sort of like, ok we screwed up the last planet, lets try this again... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Yeah but concidering the fact that so far we've almost completely failed to find any planets similar enough to our own planet for us to populate an alternative place, the future in that aspect seems quite bad.. :\ ~moo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaAotS Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 With enough scientific funding in the area, we could probably have people on mars permanetly right now if the need was great enough... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted August 17, 2006 Author Share Posted August 17, 2006 There's a game show called 'test the nation', where they have certain groups such as house wives, builders, estate agents et.c all competing, and people can play at home as well. When they interviewed some of the contestants before the show (the theme was 'planet earth') they were asked to name three greenhouse gases...one person managed to name just one greenhouse gas. Although it's hardly a controlled study of peoples awareness of the environment, I slapped my forehead when I saw this. I think the government really should take steps to educate people in these issues, make it a media strategy of some kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herme3 Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 There's a game show called 'test the nation'' date=' where they have certain groups such as house wives, builders, estate agents et.c all competing, and people can play at home as well. When they interviewed some of the contestants before the show (the theme was 'planet earth') they were asked to name three greenhouse gases...one person managed to name just one greenhouse gas. Although it's hardly a controlled study of peoples awareness of the environment, I slapped my forehead when I saw this. I think the government really should take steps to educate people in these issues, make it a media strategy of some kind.[/quote'] I can't believe more people aren't aware of greenhouse gases. CNN talks about it all the time on their web site and TV networks. It was even on the cover of Time magazine a few months ago. The issue of global warming is just like the depletion of fossil fuels. The evidence is everywhere, but most people just ignore it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadaAotS Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 er... CO2 and methane are 2. Water Vapour as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 CO2, Methane, water vapour, ozone will act as a green house gas to a limited extent, NOx, SO2 and i could go on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted August 18, 2006 Author Share Posted August 18, 2006 The issue of global warming is just like the depletion of fossil fuels. The evidence is everywhere, but most people just ignore it. My point was, is that although people are aware that global warming is going on, I can't think of any government move to educate these specific issues, just sticking it on a website or the odd news article, isn't good enough. Perhaps compulsory additional study at school, and media attention within the mediums that everybody has access to. I think when you understand the effect of aerosols, greenhouse gases, negative and positive feedback, distribution of radiation et.c you appreciate a lot more the problems that can arise. I get the impression that the education for the general public, is very poor indeed in this area, I just think that there should be a step up in not just awareness, but atleast a reasonable understanding of the main processes that effect the climate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Dalek Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 Originally Posted by herme3The issue of global warming is just like the depletion of fossil fuels. The evidence is everywhere' date=' but most people just ignore it. [/quote'] My point was, is that although people are aware that global warming is going on, I can't think of any government move to educate these specific issues, just sticking it on a website or the odd news article, isn't good enough. I wish that this education would put just a little emphasis on the fact that the issue of Global Warming is far from a certain one. There is a lot about atmosphere and climate science that is unknown or uncertain, but the issue it treated like we know exactly what is going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royston Posted August 18, 2006 Author Share Posted August 18, 2006 I wish that this education would put just a little emphasis on the fact that the issue of Global Warming is far from a certain one.There is a lot about atmosphere and climate science that is unknown or uncertain' date=' but the issue it treated like we know exactly what is going on.[/quote'] Well if you're referring to the media portrayal of Global Warming, it's treated with so called 'controversial' arguments...on both sides, and it doesn't help public habits. I remember an article in The Daily Mail (not that I read that paper) but was banging on how global warming is a product of volcanoes, more than our energy consumption, which is completely baseless. True volcanoes do release a lot of water and traces of CO2 into the atmosphere, but they also (the second most abundant gas from an eruption) release SO2, which I'm sure you know mixes with water vapour to form sulfuric acid...an aerosol if it reaches the stratosphere. If you took, for example, a climate modeling course, then most of what you'll be taught would account for uncertainties, and speculation. I'm certainly not disputing that, I just think personally that processes that we do know about, should be taught e.g compounds absorb radiation. Just telling people, well we don't know, so there's no point worrying about it, doesn't seem too sensible, despite there is still much more research to be done in this area. But yeah, I certainly understand your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now