iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Amazon Drought May Have Bigger Impact On Global Warming Than U.S. Does In A Year

Amazon Drought

First Posted: 02/07/11 08:55 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:30 PM ET

RIO DE JANEIRO (Reuters/Stuart Grudgings) - A widespread drought in the Amazon rain forest last year was worse than the "once-in-a-century" dry spell in 2005 and may have a bigger impact on global warming than the United States does in a year, British and Brazilian scientists said on Thursday.

More frequent severe droughts like those in 2005 and 2010 risk turning the world's largest rain forest from a sponge that absorbs carbon emissions into a source of the gases, accelerating global warming, the report found.

Trees and other vegetation in the world's forests soak up heat-trapping carbon dioxide as they grow, helping cool the planet, but release it when they die and rot.

"If events like this happen more often, the Amazon rain forest would reach a point where it shifts from being a valuable carbon sink slowing climate change to a major source of greenhouse gases that could speed it up," said lead author Simon Lewis, an ecologist at the University of Leeds.

The study, published in the journal Science, found that last year's drought caused rainfall shortages over a 1.16 million square-mile (3 million square km) expanse of the forest, compared with 734,000 square miles (1.9 million square km) in the 2005 drought.

It was also more intense, causing higher tree mortality and having three major epicenters, whereas the 2005 drought was mainly focused in the southwestern Amazon.

As a result, the study predicted the Amazon forest would not absorb its usual 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in both 2010 and 2011. In addition, the dead and dying trees would release 5 billion metric tons of the gas in the coming years, making a total impact of about 8 billion metric tons, according to the study.

In comparison, the United States emitted 5.4 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel use in 2009.

The combined emissions caused by the two droughts were probably enough to have canceled out the carbon absorbed by the forest over the past 10 years, the study found.

GREATER WEATHER EXTREMES

The widespread drought last year dried up major rivers in the Amazon and isolated thousands of people who depend on boat transportation, shocking climate scientists who had billed the 2005 drought as a once-in-a-century event.

The two intense dry spells fit predictions by some climate models that the forest will face greater weather extremes this century, with more intense droughts making it more vulnerable to fires, which in turn could damage its ability to recover.

Under the more extreme scenarios, large parts of the forest could turn into a savannah-like ecosystem by the middle of the century with much lower levels of animal and plant biodiversity. Although human-caused deforestation in Brazil has fallen sharply in recent years, scientists say the forest is still vulnerable.

A crucial question is whether the droughts are being driven by higher levels of greenhouse gases or are an anomaly, Lewis said. If they are driven by global warming, a vicious cycle of warmer temperatures and droughts could conceivably lead to a large-scale transformation of the forest over a period of decades.

"You could quite rapidly move to a much drier Amazon with less forest there," Lewis told Reuters.

The research was a collaboration among scientists at the University of Leeds and the University of Sheffield in Britain and Brazil's Amazon Environmental Research Institute.

(Editing by Will Dunham)

Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

RIO DE JANEIRO (Reuters/Stuart Grudgings) - A widespread drought in the Amazon rain forest last year was worse than the "once-in-a-century" dry spell in 2005 and may have a bigger impact on global w...
RIO DE JANEIRO (Reuters/Stuart Grudgings) - A widespread drought in the Amazon rain forest last year was worse than the "once-in-a-century" dry spell in 2005 and may have a bigger impact on global w...
Filed by Joanna Zelman  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,151
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (17 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jim Anderson
You're going to burn up my bullshit detector.
12:41 PM on 02/10/2011
Reading the headline, I thought for sure it would be Rush Limbaugh's breath.
12:58 AM on 02/10/2011
Serious question, do any of you who are climate scientists know anything of the information in this article ? Is it bunk or ? http://www.salem-news.com/articles/february042011/global-superstorms-ta.php
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
07:07 AM on 02/10/2011
It's actually fairly deceptive.

There are sources cited, some of which are quite reputable. All of the reputable sources are talking about magnetic shifts, and there's no problem there. They mention geomagnetic storms, but NOT in connection to weather, or at least no connection is made in the sources linked.

There is one link regarding weather to another post which says pretty much the same thing as your article. That does have a link to a summary of a Danish study that claims a link between magnetic activity and tropical precipitation. That doesn't provide a link, but I tracked down the study. It is a real study, and it's an area of science I know little about, but the authors don't question current climate science, they merely state that their research provides some support for interaction between earth's magnetic field and weather.

Basically, this article is bunk. They take one paper on magnetism and weather, a large body of research on the earth's magnetic field that makes no claims about the weather, and then they talk about weather phenomena for a while.

They imply that NASA has been warning us of WEATHER impacts from changes in the earth's magnetic field, but no evidence that NASA has ever made that link conclusively.

They then talk about large weather phenomena as if their claims were settled facts. Again, when you follow back to their "sources", there is little to support their claim, and nothing that undermines climate science as it stands.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
07:13 AM on 02/10/2011
Full disclosure - I'm not a climate scientist, I just spend a lot amount of time on the issue, and I have a bachelor's in biology.
11:58 PM on 02/08/2011
It seems to me that the argument really comes down to those who believe in magic and those who have staked their future on the scientific method.
12:44 AM on 02/09/2011
Steelheadangler 09:54 PM on 2/07/2011
"Additional­ly you conversion factors are off. 1 pound of Bitumious coal has 12,000 BTU's in it while a pound of pine has only 6394 BTU so it's more like 2 tons of tree for every ton of coal.
You also have not explained how you are going to account for the time lags associated with growing timber for fuel."

Is it your scientific method to take one of the best Bitumious coal and compare with one of the worst pine wood and forget that some type of wood could provide more energy than some type of coal (by equal mass).

"Trees take years to develop and massive amounts of energy to process."
Trees collect sun energy during hundred years, without any batteries, provide dry biomass more than any others plant, if they treated with water and nutrition, like corn, hemp.
We could harvest them 365 day per year, as we need them.
Of course they need less energy to process, than tilling, watering and harvesting 100 times more land for one year crops.
02:35 PM on 02/09/2011
O.K. I'll try this again.

The fuels I used were the two highest concentrate fuels from each class, not the highest from one and lowest from the other. If you believe that oak is more energy dense than pine you are mistaken it is not.

http://www.uwsp.edu/cnr/wcee/keep/Mod1/Whatis/energyresourcetables.htm

I don't know if this mistake was based on shoddy research or you are basing your assumptions on "life" experience.

Next, it is highly unlikely that a tree could be grown to a harvestable size in a single year. The ration of wood to foliage would be much too small and you would be better served growing corn or some other crop.

Finally, you state that trees should be teated at other crops such as corn, then to turn around and state the exact opposite. Which is it?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:35 AM on 02/09/2011
There are many ways to describe that polarity, but I have to agree.
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
09:47 PM on 02/08/2011
The Amazon, Earth's terrestrial lungs, are drying up... and fools keep blathering that there is not a problem.....
11:53 PM on 02/08/2011
Yes, well we all know that Al Gores cup of water is much more important to the Earths climate that actual scientific inquiry. The real problem is that in the last 30 years this country has failed to educate our citizens in math and science and any sort of critical thinking. Deniers will.... well deny this, however it is quite obvious.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
03:27 AM on 02/09/2011
I find it particularly ironic that the right claims education is failing because of the left's influence in academia. It should not escape us that they are the ones making so many cognitive errors. One would presume that they should display the capacities they say are absent in public education.
11:24 AM on 02/09/2011
feedback loop's are now engaged, the next phase will be clearly exponential.

DAMAGE DONE.

you should probably just "lay back and enjoy the orgy"

OR -
use a bike exclusively for transportation
stop eating meat
don't buy foreign good's, oil, ipod's etc..
create community to raise awareness

"burn you TV on the lawn, gather around it with your friends,
and warm your hands upon the fire, and start again..." - Toad the wet sprocket ;-)
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
11:37 AM on 02/09/2011
Toad the wet sprocket... always loved that name!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
07:10 AM on 02/10/2011
Some damage is done, MUCH damage can be prevented still.

If we change nothing, we'll end up with CO2 levels last seen when the earth was 39 degrees hotter by the end of THIS century.

We'll have enough trouble with 2-6 degrees. There's still a lot to do.
07:19 PM on 02/08/2011
Just let me know when Al Gores cup of ice water melts and miraculously begins to overflow.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:54 PM on 02/08/2011
I'm impressed. Please tell me more about what Al Gore's cup has to do with climate change.
09:32 PM on 02/08/2011
Flawed science and "Inconvenient Truths".
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
09:40 PM on 02/08/2011
Who are you, Girragesarmyfriends? What are you getting off on? Just curious.....
10:26 PM on 02/08/2011
You are weird. Now put the farking lotion in the basket.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
06:00 PM on 02/08/2011
And then there is this warning about drought in China: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/business/global/09food.html?_r=1&hp

This is not good, folks.
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
06:45 PM on 02/08/2011
No, it is not. Whatever the cause of this possible drought, it is going to be a great illustration of how fragile the world's agricultural system is, and how sticking our heads in the sand, denialist style is not going to help when precipitation starts shifting away from where it is wanted to places it is not wanted. Climate change is no less scary that global warming, no matter what Republican strategist Frank Luntz says.

When food becomes increasingly scarce, and energy more expensive, decades of effort spent getting people to buy greasy burgers, beer, cigarettes, fast cars, big SUV’s, and bigger trucks while neglecting to get people to invest in home energy capture, are going to seem really, really stupid and short sighted.

Actually, they seem really really stupid and short sighted right now.
09:10 PM on 02/08/2011
The ceaseless population boom on the Indian Ocean crescent is not helping matters.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:55 PM on 02/08/2011
But as opposed to the US, the Chinese Get climate change and do something about it. Maybe it's just because they can feel the pain, but at least the Chinese government is smarter then the climate change denier stoopids in DC.
05:55 PM on 02/08/2011
The number one source of CO2 and particulates going into the atmosphere over the the past decades is volcanoes. When are we going to enact some legislation to address them?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
06:00 PM on 02/08/2011
Sorry, Dean, that's a myth.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming-intermediate.htm

"Volcanoes emit CO2 both on land and underwater. Underwater volcanoes emit between 66 to 97 million tonnes of CO2 per year. However, this is balanced by the carbon sink provided by newly formed ocean floor lava. Consequently, underwater volcanoes have little effect on atmospheric CO2 levels. The greater contribution comes from subaerial volcanoes (subaerial means "under the air", refering to land volcanoes). Subaerial volcanoes are estimated to emit 242 million tonnes of CO2 per year (Morner 2002).

In contrast, humans are currently emiting around 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year (EIA). Human CO2 emissions are over 100 times greater than volcanic CO2 emissions. This is apparent when comparing atmospheric CO2 levels to volcanic activity since 1960. Even strong volcanic eruptions such as Pinatubo have little discernable impact on CO2 levels. In fact, the rate of change of CO2 levels actually drops slightly after a volcanic eruption, possibly due to the cooling effect of aerosols."

And yes, all the claims there are referenced in the link. Wherever you got your information, they have mislead you, I'm sorry.
photo
CarolinaDem
they DID take the last train for the coast!
06:02 PM on 02/08/2011
Wow. Now THAT's what I call a SHOW!
06:36 PM on 02/08/2011
Bravo! I would have simply given him a link to the volcano observatory and called it a day. F+F.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
06:02 PM on 02/08/2011
What an odd thing to say.

1. why do you believe volcanoes are the number 1 source of CO2?

2. any reasonable person would look first at the things we can control, not the things we cannot control. We have control over our use of fossil fuels. We need to reduce that. So let's do it.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:57 PM on 02/08/2011
>1.
Because (s)he was told by Hannity, O'Reilly, Beck & co.
05:30 PM on 02/08/2011
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-02/lsu-lsf022808.php. Anyone who is interested in how trees affect weather should read this.
05:43 PM on 02/08/2011
Please disregard link above. Try this one
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080228174801.htm
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
06:01 PM on 02/08/2011
Thanks for digging that up, and good source!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
05:59 PM on 02/08/2011
What exactly do you think this means?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
06:12 PM on 02/08/2011
He'd asked about it earlier, and I asked for a source - something he heard on NPR. There wasn't an agenda, just curiosity, which is to be encouraged :)
11:05 AM on 02/09/2011
I am trying to raise awareness about the interactions between clouds and trees. It is my firmly held belief that trees are more vital in keeping our atmosphere cool than given credit for by many.
photo
Morgantheaxe
Eisenhower Republicans don't drink tea!!
04:33 PM on 02/08/2011
Is anyone else just completely saddened by the fact that it is going to take our worst fears about climate change to come to fruition before anything is really done about this? Given the political and economic landscapes there is no doubt this will be a stalemate to the end. It just saddens me so much to think of what will have happen for no reason.
photo
StephenBP
What's he building in there?
05:29 PM on 02/08/2011
I for one expect to keep fighting the battle as long as I can. There appears to be a renewed vigor in denialist traffic of late and it has to be beaten back. We will win the ideological battle for science and reason only with hard work.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robco1
08:45 PM on 02/08/2011
Very well said.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Bogstomper2
Secular conservative
10:47 AM on 02/08/2011
One of the underlying fears of the climate change deniers is the notion that cutting our CO2 emissions means doing without energy. I've heard so-called conservative leaders feeding this fear by painting a clean-energy America as a dismal, socialist gulag where we sit freezing in the dark.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The clean-energy future is going to look a lot like today. You plug into the wall, and you get electricity. You'll have lights, refrigerators, computers, and whatever new gadgets the toy companies come up with. The only difference is that way that your power is generated doesn't screw up the air so badly.

Cars are the only real problem. It's not easy to replace the convenience of a gas-powered engine, and nobody wants to ride around in golf carts. But even that problem is going away, because electric car technology is moving ahead.

Even interim steps to combat GW have benefits. Conserving energy in your home, for example, saves money. What's your problem with saving money?

Don't be afraid of the clean energy future. It's a lot better than the radio voices have led you to believe.
Gasparilla
there is no clean coal
12:21 PM on 02/08/2011
The problem with electric cars is that they need to plugged into an electric source. Half of our electricity in this country is produced from coal. I bought a Ford Fusion hybrid a couple months ago. I'm getting about 42 mpg, driving carefully but not really slowly. But you are correct. What is the problem with saving money. I like going two weeks between tankfuls. Last time I replaced my roof I got a metal reflective. More money but it keeps the interior of the house about eight degrees cooler, which is great since I live in Florida. I've been using CF bulbs since they came out. Last years and use little electric.
04:57 PM on 02/08/2011
This is true, for now. Electric cars don't confront the issue if the electricity comes from coal, but the real value of the electric car is in the ability to transport energy from any source, so next time we want to change our method for powering our transportation we don't need to recreate the infrastructure. Electricity is an easy way to apply alternative energy in a way that catches on rather than tons of fragmented attempts at alternate fuel which would all die out individually due to the need to create new fueling stations all the time. (e.i. a hydrogen car, a biofuel car, and so on).
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
06:03 PM on 02/08/2011
And I know you don't NEED them, but kudos!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
06:17 PM on 02/08/2011
The flip side of that is that if we keep forcing reliance on fossil fuels, when they run out, there's no guarantee we'll be able to make the transition fast enough.

I want to move into a 21st century where people don't HAVE to worry about energy consumption because the energy sources are clean, and abundant, and everything operates as well as possible and for as little power as possible.

Anything we can make from fossil fuels, we can now make from plant matter, so we can STILL have gasoline for when we need transportable fuel, but because all the carbon in it will be from plants, at worst you'd be putting back carbon that was recently pulled FROM the atmosphere.

Change is scary, but this is the first time that we can really step into the future that's been dreamed of in science fiction for so many years.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Roadrun
In Financial Theocracy we Trust
10:08 AM on 02/08/2011
I guess what strikes me the hardest is the "I look out my window and see all I know or believe" crowd. To them quantum mechanics can't exist. To them if it is summer out that window and it snows in South America this proves some theory to them. I can't imagine what sort of magic they guess when they get sick and go to a hospital, or watch House on TeeVee. And the number one rule - the people who are absolutely certain they are smart - aren't.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:40 PM on 02/08/2011
Roadrun, I don't even know who you are, but someone could get hurt here. I am not reading these articles. This is not a game nor is it a measure of one's brilliance. Huff Post, Facebook and other internet companies give us an opportunity to communicate with each other, but this is ridiculous and also very dangerous. Please find out who is feeding you this information about me, because I'm also concerned that it could put you in a very tenuous position also.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimboy71
Hen Diapheron Heautoi
02:13 PM on 02/08/2011
Whatever are you on about?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Roadrun
In Financial Theocracy we Trust
09:38 PM on 02/08/2011
"Please find out who is feeding you this informatio­n about me"

I'm sorry but that's not my voice you are hearing. As for me, I hear no voices whatsoever, about you or anyone.
09:45 AM on 02/08/2011
Great story keeping the attention of global warming. Very informative and enlightening.

http://www.GreenUptrends.blogspot.com
photo
Cory111
Life is truly good...
09:00 AM on 02/08/2011
We need to add "Bean-O" to our cattle food.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
enigma2
Moby..One of these mornings
09:15 AM on 02/08/2011
Cory, thank you for the pre-birthday wish last week, I may have done so already but the way things are scrubbed here,  it's hard to keep up with what has or hasn't posted.
leftcoastindy
Where did I put my MOJO
04:12 PM on 02/08/2011
Cutting down on the steaks and burgers is a little more effective
photo
Cory111
Life is truly good...
05:19 PM on 02/08/2011
My neighbor did just that three months ago. He started eating flavored dog kibbles. He died two weeks ago; he got run over chasing a car!!!
photo
ken607
Nothing natural about gas,nothing clean about coal
08:43 AM on 02/08/2011
and cutting most of the trees down had nothing to do with it huh? we had these problems here in the US. remeber the dust bowl inthe early 1900s. climate change is a fact! you cant blame everything on climate change there are man made reasons. deforrestation, landscape changes, and some natural phenom. sometimes people can do damage that is unforseen.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
alteredstory
Hold on to the center
09:02 AM on 02/08/2011
Of course it has something to do with it, but while it doubtless contributed, the main problem is that this drought covered large areas that are STILL forested, and THAT is where trees started dying and decomposing, and where plants stopped photosynthesizing, and started putting out more CO2 than they took in.
photo
ken607
Nothing natural about gas,nothing clean about coal
09:06 AM on 02/08/2011
a circle of life .........
09:06 AM on 02/08/2011
The whole point of science is to understand nature. We now understand climate science well enough to be able to explain why the climate is changing. We are the main cause of the current change.
08:22 AM on 02/08/2011
when will the public wake up and realize this entire global warming is a hoax perpetrated by Gore.
He is making a fortune off this bs.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClimateHawk
Think before posting.
08:53 AM on 02/08/2011
Scientists have been studying the causes of ice ages and the potential of greenhouse gases to alter the climate long before Al Gore was even born.

The history is actually pretty interesting. Here is a good summary: : http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chris Carpenter
09:05 AM on 02/08/2011
Oh, quit your whinning.