Big Trees in Amazon More Climate-Resistant Than Previously Believed (theguardian.com) 31
The biggest trees in the Amazon are growing larger and more numerous, according to a new study that shows how an intact rainforest can help draw carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and sequester it in bark, trunk, branch and root. From a report: Scientists said the paper, published in Nature Plants on Thursday, was welcome confirmation that big trees are proving more climate resilient than previously believed, and undisturbed tropical vegetation continues to act as an effective carbon sink despite rising temperatures and strong droughts.
However, the authors warned this vital role was increasingly at risk from fires, fragmentation and land clearance caused by the expansion of roads and farms. "It is good news but it is qualified good news," said Prof Oliver Phillips from the University of Leeds. "Our results apply only to intact, mature forests, which is where we are watching closely. They suggest the Amazon forest is remarkably resilient to climate change. My fear is that may count for little, unless we can stop the deforestation itself."
However, the authors warned this vital role was increasingly at risk from fires, fragmentation and land clearance caused by the expansion of roads and farms. "It is good news but it is qualified good news," said Prof Oliver Phillips from the University of Leeds. "Our results apply only to intact, mature forests, which is where we are watching closely. They suggest the Amazon forest is remarkably resilient to climate change. My fear is that may count for little, unless we can stop the deforestation itself."
Imagine! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Imagine! (Score:4, Insightful)
A good thesis.
Now, if you could show some evidence that climate change always brings all the things the plants need to those plants and in appropriate quantities, you could make a convincing argument that more CO2 is good, for the plants at least.
Where I live the climate changes have produced droughts that are damaging or killing the plants on a scale I've not seen before and that's before the numerous fires.
Re: (Score:2)
He cannot. All the deniers have is anecdotes, because all actual evidence shows this change will be utterly catastrophic overall.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it amazing how even basic school knowledge and reasoning can disappear when you don't want to acknowledge reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. These people want things to be different so much that they completely switch off their reasoning ability. That utterly pathetic thing is that this is a frequent thing to happen. History tells us that groups of people like that eventually vanish. Reality has this habit of being utterly merciless and quite insistent.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, I would categorize the results as not surprising. Mature, established tress probably enjoy the extra CO2 humans are pumping into the atmosphere in record amounts. And maybe even the resulting 1.5C + increase in temps. Other ecosystems not so much** For certain the biggest problem with the Amazon is that humans are also cutting these trees down at record rates. That's detrimental to Brazil and the region as well as the rest of the world.
IMHO the best carbon capture / don't break the global envir
Imagine having slightly more time (Score:2)
In college I had a paper to write, I was given the assignment roughly halfway into the semester and it was due in a few weeks. I put it off then woke up in a panic that I only had one day left. That morning I promised myself I would finish it that night after school and work. And when I got to school, the professor was going to be out Friday (small class and no TA) and we all had until Tuesday (the next class) to bring the assignment. "GREAT" I thought with relief. So I spent the weekend at a LAN party with
Falsehoods and Greenwash (Score:2)
This Guardian piece leans heavily on the growth of big trees in pristine Amazon patches to paint a picture of resilience, but it’s misleading. Most of the forest is fragmented or deforested, and large areas are now net carbon emitters, not sinks. Highlighting a small subset of intact trees while downplaying widespread degradation risks greenwashing the crisis, giving readers a false sense that the Amazon is largely healthy and climate-positive. Protecting tiny pockets of mature forest does not offset
Re: (Score:3)
Most of the forest is fragmented or deforested, and large areas are now net carbon emitters, not sinks.
Rainforests are in general net zero when it comes to carbon, because decomposition is mostly anaerobic and that results in most of the carbon being released.
Re: (Score:2)
Now we can burn more and pollute more!!
Yay, lets hear it for resiliency.
(/s)
Hm (Score:4)
I didn't know you could order trees on Amazon. That's pretty cool, to be able to order Amazon trees from Amazon.
Meh, trees (Score:1)
What are they good for? Who needs 'em?
More woke scaremongering from the left. /s
Do forests consume any CO2? (Score:2)
Can anyone tell me how a forest can consume CO2?
Sure, a newly planted forest consumes CO2. The forest gains mass, and the mass gain is proportional to the total amount of CO2 that was consumed.
Similarly, if the story is true, the forest gains mass, so it must have consumed CO2.
But... both are temporary...
Any forest that is mature and in equilibrium has constant mass. Which means that it cannot absorb any CO2 at all.
Is this reasoning correct? If not, where's the flaw?
Re: (Score:2)
In addition to wrecking one of the most biodiverse areas of the planet, it would dump a hundred+ gigatons of extra carbon into the atmosphere.
But hey, that's all a hoax, anyways, so who cares. You rock, Bolsonaro!
Here's so
Re: Do forests consume any CO2? (Score:2)
Let it be clear that I only challenge the notion of a forest as a net consumer of CO2.
I do not challenge any of the many, many positives of forests. They are incredibly valuable in many ways - even if their net CO2 consumption (and oxygen production) is zero.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty much correct. Over the long term, trees grow, sequester carbon, die, fall down and rot. Releasing the carbon as CO2 into the atmosphere. Or burn, with the same result.
We have some old growth forests that have been around since the last ice age retreated. And yet I can dig through the organic layers with a hand shovel. So the carbon isn't there. These forests are full of trees approaching 1000 years old which are near the end of their lives. In a 20,000 year old forest, why can't I find trees with 20
Re: (Score:2)
I would add that in addition to carbon capture, the real value in the Amazon is moderating the global weather. Similar, to how large ocean currents are also crucial to keeping the global weather in a measure of balance.
I think I saw quoted that the amount of carbon contained the Amazon forest trees is something like 10 years the annual human output of CO2. So not a huge amount overall, but is likely pouring gasoline on a fire if that amount of CO2 released quickly in a matter of decades on top of the exis
Re: Do forests consume any CO2? (Score:1)
Right.
But even that last part has its limit. This limit is reached when the rate at which the old wood rots or burns, equals the rate at which new logs are being extracted from thr forest.
So even with logging, in the end the forest+wood stops absorbing CO2.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Do forests consume any CO2? (Score:1)
Right.
But even that has its limit. This limit is reached when the rate at which houses and furniture rot or burn, equals the rate at which new logs are being extracted from thr forest.
So even with logging, in the end the forest+wood stops absorbing CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument isn't entirely wrong, but there's a big piece of nuance in there :)
New, growing forests: *capture* carbon
Mature forests in equilibrium: *hold* carbon
Deforestation: *releases* carbon
So you're correct (with another further caveat, in a bit) that mature forests aren't sequestering carbon. But they hold mind-bogglingly massive amounts of carbon. And if you convert them to, say, pastureland, that holds far less carbon (both above and belowground), and the difference is released to the atmosphere
Re: (Score:2)
Since you have achieved adulthood, and do not grow or shrink (outside minor variances), therefore you can not absorb oxygen, food, or water.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, a newly planted forest consumes CO2. The forest gains mass, and the mass gain is proportional to the total amount of CO2 that was consumed.
I've written about this before, and now I will write about it again, because I don't save links to my old posts — when they scroll off the history, the fart smelling stops. I read several papers about this subject specifically because the "question" comes up here frequently, usually in the form of someone insisting that young trees sequester more carbon than mature ones. This sounds perfectly logical, but in fact it is mostly false.
The trees of most species can use considerably more carbon in their ol
Re: (Score:2)
In other news, human beings and other animals can help draw oxygen out of the atmosphere and sequester some of it in bodily tissues.
Or... wait, is that actually news?
Re: (Score:2)
First, nothing in nature is ever in equilibrium. The fact that there really never is equilibrium can provide mechanisms to sequester carbon.
Off the top of my head. I am going to come up with a few mechanisms (no idea if they are realistic nor how large the effects might be... I don't know anything about forest dynamics). A forest could do a few things.
It might build upon itself. That is, each year it becomes a little bit higher. Over time, this builds into a deep pile of organic stuff sequestered essentiall
Big trees (Score:2)
Big trees in the Amazon still famously lack chainsaw resistance.
They'll Speak of Us When We're Gone (Score:1)
To Quote Dr. Ian Malcolm... (Score:2)