Per info in the article this cut in the Amazon rainforest will be replaced 50 times by new growth
We have a new study that appears to be another instance of what I call “alarmist whackjobism.” It only bolsters my impression that the “warmers” are in desperation mode and are posting some rather amazing things. Things that have the appearance of being designed to bolster their failing arguments regarding anthropogenic global warming. Things designed perhaps to give the governments of the world motivation to pass carbon taxes, cap-and-trade laws and reign in all things that emit carbon. Things that could potentially create a new Unibomber or a new James J. Lee. This time it’s about the tropical rainforests (again).
Allheadlinenews.com has this article titled “New Farmlands Driving Out Forests Causes Climate Change Study Says.” It cites what is in my opinion an alarmist study (citation here) posted on the PNAS website (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America) that “conveniently” points out that those nefarious tropical farmers are cutting down those trees (the warmers so love to hug) by the millions, and that the process is (of course), going to increase CO2 (which we’re still supposed to believe increases global warming in spite of much damning evidence to the contrary). You can take the following statement into consideration.
More than half a million square miles of new farmland created in tropical countries, such as Brazil and Indonesia, between 1980 to 2000 was due to the felling of forests which in turn, accelerated the release of carbon into the atmosphere resulting in global warming, according to a new study led by Stanford postdoctoral researcher, Holly Gibbs, of the Department of Environmental Earth System Science.
Go ahead, read it again, look at the dates: “between 1980 to 2000.” That seems to be a “conveniently” dated report. Possibly “conveniently” dated because there’s nothing going on after 2000 to get excited about. You call it, I’m just pointing it out for you to think about.
The abstract at PNAS makes me wonder if there wasn’t some “convenient” timing there? If you read the fine print you can see this study was submitted on September 22, 2009 and not approved until July 30, 2010. That’s a little over 10 months and a lot of negative things about global warming have happened since 9/22/09 such as Climategate, the IPCC getting sat on by the IAC, the Hockeystick graph, myriad problems with the MET, NOAA, NASA, GISS, Satellitegate and many other issues that appear to have increased the warmer desperation level faster than NOAA or GISS can alter temperature data.
I almost wonder if this wasn’t pulled out of the round file due to the increasing need to counter-attack the skeptics with anything they can muster. Like the saying goes “desperate times call for desperate measures,” which could be the new “warmer” mantra.
Why do I take umbrage at this? First, let us look at the definition of umbrage, which is why I chose that word as it seems to have a good take on the “warmer” claims made in this study about rainforests. From here at Dictionary.com we get the following:
[uhm-brij] Show IPA
1. offense; annoyance; displeasure: to feel umbrage at a socialsnub; to give
umbrage to someone; to take umbrage at someone’s rudeness.
2. the slightest indication or vaguest feeling of suspicion, doubt,hostility, or
3. leaves that afford shade, as the foliage of tree
4. shade or shadows, as cast by trees.
5. a shadowy appearance or semblance of something.”
Sorry if you don’t get it but since we’re talking about rainforests I thought the definitions were funny, and yes, words such as offense; annoyance; and displeasure could describe my feelings about what I question is going on with this report (to say the least).
There is a reason I take umbrage, which takes us back to the date of the report. My suspicion is that they don’t have much to stir people up with after 2000, so they cut things “conveniently” off at 2000. It appears that after 2000 we have things popping up that present problems with the claims in this report such as:
From Mongabay we get the following about the Amazon Jungle.
Annual deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon fell below 10,000 square kilometers for the first time since record-keeping began, reported Brazil’s Environment Minister Carlos Minc on Sunday.
You can read the whole article here. Please note that it’s dated June 22, 2009, about 8.5 years after the 2000 cutoff date cited in the study. Also please note the remark at the end about how the Brazilian government committing to significant reductions in deforestation of the Amazon Jungle, which is an indication the deforestation will slow down and possibly stop in much of the Amazon. Something not mentioned this report even though recently published.
Want more to ponder? You can read this from a New York Times article here circa June 29, 2009, again long after this studies cutoff date of 2000.
By one estimate, for every acre of rain forest cut down each year, more than 50 acres of new forest are growing in the tropics on land that was once farmed, logged or ravaged by natural disaster.
The new forests, the scientists argue, could blunt the effects of rain forest destruction by absorbing carbon dioxide, the leading heat-trapping gas linked to global warming, one crucial role that rain forests play.
Well now, isn’t that amazingly contrary to the report that prompted this post? Rainforest’s growing? Heaven forbid! This could be another reason we get the cutoff date of 2000. Again from the same NYT article.
The idea has stirred outrage among environmentalists who believe that vigorous efforts to protect native rain forest should remain a top priority. But the notion has gained currency in mainstream organizations like the Smithsonian Institution and the United Nations, which in 2005 concluded that new forests were “increasing dramatically” and “undervalued” for their environmental benefits. The United Nations is undertaking the first global catalog of the new forests, which vary greatly in their stage of growth.
Even the United Nations (home of the IPPC and who in general seem to love all things warming) bought into the fact that the rainforest are growing back in 2005, about 5 years after the 2000 cutoff date in the Stanford report. Is environmental outrage perhaps some or all of the driving force behind this report? Is this another good reason for the 2000 cutoff date?
We get even more from CO2 Science’s article found here.
In a report published in the 6 March 2009 issue of Science, Oliver L. Phillips of the UK’s University of Leeds and his 65 co-authors write that “old growth forests in Amazonia … through photosynthesis and respiration … process 18 petagrams [18 x 1015 grams] of carbon annually,” which they say is “more than twice the rate of anthropogenic fossil fuel emissions.” They also state that over the past quarter-century of intensive region-wide measurements, the productivity of the Amazon rainforest — even in its extreme old age — has been found to be “increasing with time,” in support of which statement they cite the comprehensive observational studies of Phillips et al. (1998), Nemani et al. (2003), Baker et al. (2004), Lewis et al. (2004) and Ichii et al. (2005).
So per the above the Amazon alone is processing more CO2 than we’re pumping out globally (2 x) and the ability to process CO2 is increasing, not decreasing as the report would have you believe. This causes me to again wonder why the evident alarmism, what the motivation for this report was and why the seemingly “convenient” cutoff date of 2000? Note that the item from CO2 Science doesn’t even include the respiration of all the other forests and plants of all types worldwide, just the Amazon.
Think about this and tell me where’s the problem and why the alarmism? Is this more CO2 Insanity?