It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Global Warming is Already Clobbering the Amazon

page: 2
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Flesh699

Why? How does a super volcano erupting disprove climate change? Just because climate change may not end up killing us in the end, doesn't make it not real.




posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   
" Last month the team reported that the Amazon isn’t pulling in as much carbon as it used to"

Maybe that's because there is less carbon to be 'pulled and sucked' after all, carbon is heavier than air and must eventually find its way to the ground...the carbon that was in the air that is. The stuff already on the ground is easily 'pulled and sucked'
Jeepers, that must mean that all the trees that are dying from 'way back in '98'....which was yesterday, are dying from lack of carbon!



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: smurfy

But MUCH more carbon is put in the air than was put in the air back in 98.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Flesh699

Why? How does a super volcano erupting disprove climate change? Just because climate change may not end up killing us in the end, doesn't make it not real.


I don't recall reading where anyone said anything about disproving climate change, or it not being real. Maybe I missed something?

Although, if mother nature spewed a few k years worth of emissions overnight, the people who support taxes/credits as a solution to the problem would look a little silly, no?



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 06:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


Once a tree dies, its carbon travels back to the atmosphere—exactly where we don’t want it be.

I thought coal deposits containing huge amounts of carbon in coal were made of dead trees and other plants compressed over time. Therefore I don't understand the comment about carbon from dead trees traveling back into the atmosphere. If that was so there wouldn't be any coal deposits, or what am I missing?
edit on 15-4-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

Not all dead material becomes coal you know.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Elementalist

What about just switching to hemp for most of our lumber needs? That way we can seriously curb the amount of trees being cut down throughout the world.


This is a very good idea, and even toilet tissues and hemp can replace plastic and resins/metal for cars, computer cases, just about anything, ie furniture even. Hempstone guitars, for example, and can see 8 harness floor looms and spinning wheels as well. Also corn husks work well for this same thing apparently.

However, the part about replanting trees. Trees and Foliage, more than bushes, affect climate, long term climate. Ie. replanting trees is considered expensive, but as they get established, they bring in the cycle of precipitation. Which for example, is why the drought (which could be geoengineered for water rights over humanity, at least IMO) in California, its really important not to let yards and nature dry up. Because it spins downward cycle to desert. They need to bring in water, ie from ocean, from desalination plants, that can be floating factories, that run on tide and wave power even, along with some solar collectors, the tide and wave should be enough however, to deslinate water, and they need to keep watering nature and yards, and plant trees.

Planting trees is very important for precipitation cycle and climate.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 03:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Krazysh0t


Once a tree dies, its carbon travels back to the atmosphere—exactly where we don’t want it be.

I thought coal deposits containing huge amounts of carbon in coal were made of dead trees and other plants compressed over time. Therefore I don't understand the comment about carbon from dead trees traveling back into the atmosphere. If that was so there wouldn't be any coal deposits, or what am I missing?


The trees which died in the coal-forming era did so in a different climate and different biology.

Today, bacteria and fungi have evolved the ability to decompose certain tough parts of trees. Back then, when the coal was being made, they hadn't, so dead trees could pile up and compress in certain weather/climate areas.

So it's possible that after foolish humans dig up and burn the former fossil fuels, they will never go back in to the ground in the future.
edit on 15-4-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-4-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy
" Last month the team reported that the Amazon isn’t pulling in as much carbon as it used to"

Maybe that's because there is less carbon to be 'pulled and sucked' after all, carbon is heavier than air and must eventually find its way to the ground...the carbon that was in the air that is. The stuff already on the ground is easily 'pulled and sucked'


No, carbon dioxide is quite well-mixed in the atmosphere despite the density differences.

And there is a higher concentration of CO2 now than then, so given equal physical reactants, the amount be taken in should be going up, but it is going down. That means that the climate change has been damaging the Amazon in a way which adds a positive (i.e. bad) feedback to the continued global warming from human emissions.

Remember, that today, a significant fraction of human emissions do NOT end up in the atmosphere, they have been taken up and stored, temporarily perhaps, by plants and oceans. If the fraction that is taken out from the atmosphere decreases, along with continued increases in emissions rate, it means we're facing an upward parabolic or higher curve, not a linear curve in CO2 concentration. That is bad.

edit on 15-4-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 12:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: smurfy

But MUCH more carbon is put in the air than was put in the air back in 98.



Oh really ?? HOW MUCH MORE.

10% tops I would imagine.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 12:46 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

I am not buying the statement that fungi evolved and nothing else does.

I bet carbon eating life forms have ALSO evolved then, and the entire system itself always has the same amount of ingredients does it not ?

It is interesting watching people claim all sorts of things, without any real evidence in totality.



posted on Apr, 16 2015 @ 07:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: smurfy

But MUCH more carbon is put in the air than was put in the air back in 98.



Oh really ?? HOW MUCH MORE.

10% tops I would imagine.


It's at an all time high and get ready for that number to skyrocket as China continues to industrialize its economy.

Record CO2 emissions 'committing world to dangerous climate change'


The study, by the Global Carbon Project, also found that China’s per capita emissions had surpassed those of Europe for the first time, between 2013 and 2014.


Here are Global Carbon Emissions since 2006.
Global Carbon Emissions



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join