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.

 

Drought in Amazon rainforest caused massive carbon release: study

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Drought in Amazon rainforest caused massive carbon release: study


technology.sympatico.msn.cbc.ca

The findings, published Thursday in the journal Science, is said to be evidence that drought causes massive carbon loss in tropical forests.

"What we found was that instead of being a carbon sink in 2005, it was a source. It released carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Many trees died," he said.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 11:14 PM
link   

"If the earth's carbon sinks slow or go into reverse, as our results show is possible, carbon dioxide levels will rise even faster. Deeper cuts in emissions will be required to stabilize our climate."


The trees are in on it.

In all seriousness, if the lifecycle of the rainforest itself is contributing to global warming/climate change, is it even possible for mankind to offset such a large source of carbon emissions? Seriously?



technology.sympatico.msn.cbc.ca
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 6 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Well, IF you really believe CO2 emissions are a problem, then there is a solution but it will not be implemented because all the Govt cronies, the finance industry and paper traders want the "Cap & Trade / Carbon Credit" scam to make money.

Below is an article from "Mr Green" James Lovelock the man whos work on atmospheric chlorofluorocarbons led eventually to a global CFC ban. He has a solution if we really want to do it but even he says it will not happen because of the SCAM! The biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes of carbon yearly; we put in only 30 gigatonnes. Ninety-nine per cent of the carbon that is fixed by plants is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so by consumers like bacteria, nematodes and worms.

www.newscientist.com...


2009 promises to be an exciting time for James Lovelock. But the originator of the Gaia theory, which describes Earth as a self-regulating planet, has a stark view of the future of humanity. He tells Gaia Vince we have one last chance to save ourselves - and it has nothing to do with nuclear power

Your work on atmospheric chlorofluorocarbons led eventually to a global CFC ban that saved us from ozone-layer depletion. Do we have time to do a similar thing with carbon emissions to save ourselves from climate change?

Not a hope in hell. Most of the "green" stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It's not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it'll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning. I am not against renewable energy, but to spoil all the decent countryside in the UK with wind farms is driving me mad. It's absolutely unnecessary, and it takes 2500 square kilometres to produce a gigawatt - that's an awful lot of countryside.
What about work to sequester carbon dioxide?

That is a waste of time. It's a crazy idea - and dangerous. It would take so long and use so much energy that it will not be done.

So are we doomed?

There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the massive burial of charcoal. It would mean farmers turning all their agricultural waste - which contains carbon that the plants have spent the summer sequestering - into non-biodegradable charcoal, and burying it in the soil. Then you can start shifting really hefty quantities of carbon out of the system and pull the CO2 down quite fast.

Would it make enough of a difference?

Yes. The biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes of carbon yearly; we put in only 30 gigatonnes. Ninety-nine per cent of the carbon that is fixed by plants is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so by consumers like bacteria, nematodes and worms. What we can do is cheat those consumers by getting farmers to burn their crop waste at very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then ploughs into the field. A little CO2 is released but the bulk of it gets converted to carbon. You get a few per cent of biofuel as a by-product of the combustion process, which the farmer can sell. This scheme would need no subsidy: the farmer would make a profit. This is the one thing we can do that will make a difference, but I bet they won't do it.



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by sc2099



"If the earth's carbon sinks slow or go into reverse, as our results show is possible, carbon dioxide levels will rise even faster. Deeper cuts in emissions will be required to stabilize our climate."


The trees are in on it.

In all seriousness, if the lifecycle of the rainforest itself is contributing to global warming/climate change, is it even possible for mankind to offset such a large source of carbon emissions? Seriously?



I love it when so called "Scientific Studies" stay contradicting eachother, as do the so called "Green Energy" Lobbyists, and Conservationists.

So what is this we have here, a case being made for increasing our deforestation efforts?

These fools are ridiculous, all they want is Grant Money. I already know from my Research with Climatologists at the United States Geological Survey that it matters little what we do in regards to "Emissions", for if we ceased ALL of them RIGHT THIS VERY MINUTE, it would make NO Difference At ALL.



ON Another note, in regards to "Renewable Energy", and "Clean Energy", I also know from my studies with the USGS that we, the United States, have enough Plutonium to power this Nation for the next 1,000 Years Plus. This is only of value however, if we are willing to tap into Nuclear Energy, which currently powers 70% of France. This Energy form is stable enough to be placed onboard our Ships with 6,000 Sailors in Close Proximity to it every single day, with NO ill effects resulting from such.

[edit on 3-7-2009 by TheAgentNineteen]



posted on Mar, 7 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I was recently at a lecture about the whole carbon credits system and third world countries.

I'll just summarize it for now;

Basically the developed nations will have to buy carbon credits from the poorer, 3rd world countries, because it would not be economically feasible to change our technology/emissions but it would be most cost effective if we build the 3rd world nations up with some ecological balance.

So what they have now are villages that clear out some forest for pastures and farmland, while at the same time planting new trees in different areas to keep the balance of carbon. Eventually as the trees grow they can sell off these carbon credits for money and at the end of 25 years they can sell the trees as timber which would bring the largest profit.

The current rate for carbon credits is $30 a ton.

This system is only slightly beneficial in my opinion, because while it does cut back on wasted land it doesn't really do anything for us here in the first world countries. The person giving the speech also admitted that this effort is futile if we don't have the 4 major countries on board (which they are not) for the whole carbon credit system. Brazil, US, China and India are not part of this program and they have well over 50 if not 60% of the emissions in the world combined.



new topics

top topics
 
1

log in

join