Amazon rainforest near Puerto Maldonado
Image: flickr/Ivan Mlinaric
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
MOYOBAMBA, Peru – Karina Pinasco watched in dismay as flames on a hillside at the edge of town lit up the sky one night in October 2010. A farmer had intended to clear a few hectares of land to plant coffee bushes, but the fire – set during an unusually hot, dry spell – quickly got out of hand.
Propelled by winds and high temperatures, it burned for 10 days, charring more than 250 acres of land.
"We realized we weren't prepared," says Pinasco, a biologist who heads Amazónicos por la Amazonía, a local environmental organization. "The firefighters weren't trained. It was the rain that finally put it out."
Scientists used to think the rainforest, especially in the western Amazon, was too wet to burn. But major fire seasons in 2005 and 2010 made them reconsider.
Fires are a major source of carbon emissions in the Amazon, and scientists are beginning to worry that the region could become a net emitter, instead of a carbon sink. New findings link rising ocean temperatures off the northern coast of Brazil to changing weather patterns: As the Atlantic warms, it draws moisture away from the forest, priming the region for bigger fires.
"We are reaching a tipping point in terms of drought, beyond which these forests can catch fire," says Daniel Nepstad, international program director at the Amazon Environmental Research Institute in Brasília, Brazil.
Once-a-century no more
The 2005 drought – considered a once-in-a-century event – resulted in unprecedented wildfires in Acre, the western Brazilian state bordering Peru. Flames scorched the tree canopy, and at one point the front face of the fire stretched nearly seven miles. As many as 1.2 million acres of forests were affected in Acre and the neighboring regions of Pando in Bolivia and Madre de Dios in Peru. Officials estimated upwards of $100 million in economic damages.
But the forest loss wasn't the only concern for the Acre state government, said Foster Brown, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Research Center and a professor at the Federal University of Acre in Rio Branco, the state capital. Choking smoke spiked respiratory ailments in the region and canceled flights.
Just five years later, another once-a-century drought struck, and fires spread out of control, especially in Acre, Bolivia's Pando region and Brazil's Mato Grosso state. Acre was better prepared, but in Bolivia, smoke from more than 20,000 fires reduced visibility and shut airports in several towns. The Bolivian government declared a state of emergency as more than 3.5 million acres of forest burned. In Mato Grosso, fires destroyed at least 100 homes.
Gigatons of carbon
The 2005 fires added 1.6 gigatons of carbon to the atmosphere, according to a study by Simon Lewis of the University of Leeds, who put emissions from the more widespread 2010 fires at 2.2 gigatons.
In a normal year, the Amazon forests store 0.4 gigatons of carbon a year in the trees and soil, meaning that two bad seasons like 2005 and 2010 could wipe out a decade of gain, according to Lewis' calculations.
And as humans push further into an increasingly drier Amazon, the problem could worsen.
In the western Amazon, humans are the chief source of sparks. With new roads being built and paved through once-inaccessible areas, Peru's Amazonian regions now have some of the country's highest population growth rates. Many of the newcomers clear a little land to farm, and where there are farms, there is fire.
Fire risks
In the Amazon, where weeds and insects run rampant, burning is the most cost-effective way for small farmers to control ticks in cattle pastures and unwanted plants in cassava fields, says Miguel Pinedo-Vásquez, director of international programs for the Columbia University Center for Environmental Research and Conservation, who also works with the Center for International Forestry Research.
See what we're tweeting about
18 Comments
Add CommentIf you still think the climate isn't changing after seeing this, along with all the other glaringly obvious evidence that comes out almost daily, you have a willing disregard for the truth. If you think the Sun is causing it, you're wrong. If that were the case, we'd expect to see the tropics warm faster than the poles while days would warm faster than nights. Instead, we are seeing warming in the EXACT OPPOSITE manner. If you think it's cosmic rays, you're wrong. Cosmic ray flux is not correlated with temperature and the CERN paper all the deniers point to as evidence to prove otherwise EXPLICITLY STATES that its conclusions have nothing to do with the climate. It's not volcanoes or any of the other nonsense that's been debunked time and time again on this list:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
BTW, why would the deniers need 173(!) different arguments if there were any scientific merit to their case? It looks more like a kid spinning up one wild fantasy after another to explain why he broke his mom's prized china or something.
Face it, we're releasing billions of tons of CO2 into the air while also degrading the world's carbon sinks like the Amazon. CO2 traps heat, it's effects have been DIRECTLY MEASURED, and that trapped heat is the equivalent of 2 15-kiloton nuclear bombs going off EVERY SECOND! We've increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% ONE THOUSAND TIMES faster than at any other time in the geologic record. The pH of the oceans is falling, disrupting marine ecosystems as well.
All this so we can supposedly enjoy "cheap" electricity. Well, when the next thousand generations have to pick up our tab because we were just lazy, it won't look so cheap to them!
For anyone wondering what Sault is talking about when he says, "...why would the deniers need 173(!) different arguments if there were any scientific merit to their case?" I encourage everyone to go to Skeptical Science and take a gander at:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGlobal Warming & Climate Change Myths
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
There you will find 173 different and often contradictory fake skeptics arguments. Such contradictory arguments as insisting that the "Earh is cooling and the contradictory the "Earth is warming but it is the Sun."
The incoherent and contradictory fake objections has even spawned its own list:
Contradictions:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/contradictions.php
Bahahahaha, you guys get more desperate every day, lol.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs always, adding nothing to the debate. Is it because you don't even have any scientific evidence to begin a discussion in the first place?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"1. Do you claim to KNOW what the rate of warming will be for a doubling of CO2? Is it 1.2C or a slightly higher number? Do you have any observed conditions that support your theory? Where is the evidence of all the additional forcings?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't CLAIM anything, I just present evidence. That evidence points to a 3C climate sensitivity for 2x CO2:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm
"... if you argue that the Earth has a low climate sensitivity to CO2, you are also arguing for a low climate sensitivity to other influences such as solar irradiance, orbital changes, and volcanic emissions...Thus when arguing for low climate sensitivity, it becomes difficult to explain past climate changes. For example, between glacial and interglacial periods, the planet's average temperature changes on the order of 6°C (more like 8-10°C in the Antarctic). If the climate sensitivity is low, for example due to increasing low-lying cloud cover reflecting more sunlight as a response to global warming, then how can these large past climate changes be explained?
The main limit on the sensitivity value is that it has to be consistent with paleoclimatic data. A sensitivity which is too low will be inconsistent with past climate changes - basically if there is some large negative feedback which makes the sensitivity too low, it would have prevented the planet from transitioning from ice ages to interglacial periods, for example. Similarly a high climate sensitivity would have caused more and larger past climate changes.
One recent study examining the Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 million years ago), during which the planet warmed 5-9°C, found that "At accepted values for the climate sensitivity to a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration, this rise in CO2 can explain only between 1 and 3.5°C of the warming inferred from proxy records" (Zeebe 2009). This suggests that climate sensitivity may be higher than we currently believe, but it likely isn't lower."
2. A warmer world is bad for Humanity because we've built our entire civilization using certain assumptions about the climate: temperatures, rainfall patterns, snowmelt timing, sea level, etc. When you invalidate those assumptions, trillions of $$$ in infrastructure can become obsolete while unstable governments around the world are prone to collapse. The downfall of the last true Somali government as well as the recent "Arab Spring" coincide with abnormal climate periods, so how long will it be until we get dragged into another war?
Argument from absurdity...classic logical fallacy and a desperate attempt to cover up the fact that you don't really have a real argument!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Do you claim to KNOW what the rate of warming will be for a doubling of CO2?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRate of warming has nothing to do with global temps at doubled CO2. Phrasing that way displays a serious ignorance of basic science.
"Where is the evidence of all the additional forcings?"
In all the historical data. CO2 levels were constant at about 280ppm for almost 10,000 years. The climate variations of the Holocene, by definition, were driven by the other forcings. That's basic stuff. Attempts to fuzz the issues with that distraction is another illustration of basic anti-science syndrome.
"What is your evidence to believe that a warmer world is worse for humanity overall over the long term?"
Climate disruptions have trashed civilizations. Accadian, Egyptian, Mayan, Chimu, Anasazi ... how many bullets do you want to put into the Russian-roulette magazine?
Sell your warm paradise to the travel agencies - every 1dC of temp change moves the climate 200 miles latitude and 1500 feet altitude. Explain the wreckage to the farmers and the fishermen.
I think Vinny is getting caught up in the guilt-trip/blame-game mentality. Feels like he is being defensive because he wants to reject the possibility that he is responsible for something bad happening. We should move past that. Basically, anyone who has in any way benefited from the industrial revolution shares some portion of culpability for the problem we are facing. The question should be less of who is to blame, but rather, what can we do about it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheap, fossil fuel energy has come at the price of environmental degradation. Believe it or not, our food is grown in the environment. It should be clear that it would be better to invest in alternative energy before the environment is degraded to the point where it can no longer sustain the population than after.
@Vinney,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you need to think about your argument. Take your argument and put it into another context. The year is 1850 and a Southern gentlemen rises up before his audience and says:
"Are any of you Abolitionist wearing cotton? Did you have sugar with you coffee this morning? After dinner did you relax and have a puff on a fine cigar? If you answered in the affirmative to any of these questions then I condemn you as hypocrites!"
Can you find the flaw in the reasoning here? If so, then you have it why your own reasoning is unsound.
I would also like to point out that your inability to differentiate between excavating and burning carbon that has been sequestered in the Earth for millions and tens of millions of years and the everyday routine of the biological carbon cycle is stunning and yet typical of fake skeptic ignorance.
It is ridiculous for anyone to mention the option of looking to the other worlds to inhabit. What chance does man have at being successful in creating a viable ecosystem when they can't even manage to live in harmony with a perfectly designed one let alone understand how to set one up?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs the SA AGW propaganda group running so scared that they feel the need to delete comments that don't toe the line?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see that comments by geojellyroll and vinnywetnuts(?) have been removed before I could read them. What could they have said that so offended you? I'm left to guess that they touched on a raw nerve. Sad.
How do we reconcile the claim about Amazon sequestration with the maths:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmazon rainforest extent: Approx 1.3 million square miles.
Age: Approx 11 Million Years.
Claimed annual carbon sequestration: 400 million tons.
307.692307692 tons per acre per year.
1 ton of coal has a volume of 40ft3. Much denser than bio char or wood.
1 square mile has 27878400 square feet.
Divide by 40 = 696960
Therefore 1 square mile with a layer of coal 1 foot thick would weigh 696960 tons.
2265 years would therefore add the equivalent of one foot of carbon across the entire Amazon Rainforest area.
Suppose the rainforest took 6 million years to fully establish.
One foot of accumulation per 2265 years gives an accumulation of 2207 feet.
Please by all means check my maths. If my calculations are correct, where is this mountain of carbon?
The answer is that mature forests reach equilibrium & thereafter only accumulate as much carbon per year as they release through decay or burning.
Error. Should read per square mile per year.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRe your post #10 What do you think of SCIAM deleting the post you refer to?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Carlyle,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is their house they can clean it how ever they wish. That being said I wish they would explain their reasoning. It appears pretty haphazard. I think they should hire moderators and who engage with their readers.
Well, Carlyle, there is this thing called a river that flows out of the Amazon, and it carries a lot of organic matter out of the forest. What happens to it after that is probably a varied story.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegardless, it should be clear that the process of converting a forest to either scrub or grassland releases a lot of carbon.
Regarding the deleted comment(s), I was a little surprised that it was removed; I've seen stupider. My guess is that the "report abuse" button is in some way involved. It might even be automated; after x clicks, the comment is removed. Or, x clicks flag it for moderation, and the moderator had a low threshold at the time. Just guessing.
I appreciate your comments on this matter. Without opponents, there would be no debates, only congregations at sites that favour one point of view or the other. Nothing new would be learned by either congregation. Extremist views would proliferate, in both camps.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll the comments were removed recently at http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=china-sets-up-rare-earth-body-to-sh&posted=1#comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo matter how you look at it, sequestration claims for mature forests have to be false unless vegetative material is buried & becomes coal or marshland turns vegetation to peat. Explaining away thousands of feet of carbon accumulation without adequate evidence does not wash. The river explanation accounts for some vegetation being carried to the oceans but that does not preserve it from decay. Nature recycles very efficiently. Mature forests are in balance.