A doomsday cult always has to keep trotting out doom to keep themselves going. And the nature of that doom always grows. And using proper scientific terms isn’t necessary
Tropical forests losing their ability to absorb carbon, study finds
Tropical forests are taking up less carbon dioxide from the air, reducing their ability to act as “carbon sinks†and bringing closer the prospect of accelerating climate breakdown.
The Amazon could turn into a source of carbon in the atmosphere, instead of one of the biggest absorbers of the gas, as soon as the next decade, owing to the damage caused by loggers and farming interests and the impacts of the climate crisis, new research has found.
If that happens, climate breakdown is likely to become much more severe in its impacts, and the world will have to cut down much faster on carbon-producing activities to counteract the loss of the carbon sinks.
“We’ve found that one of the most worrying impacts of climate change has already begun,†said Simon Lewis, professor in the school of geography at Leeds University, one of the senior authors of the research. “This is decades ahead of even the most pessimistic climate models.â€
For the last three decades, the amount of carbon absorbed by the world’s intact tropical forests has fallen, according to the study from nearly 100 scientific institutions. They are now taking up a third less carbon than they did in the 1990s, owing to the impacts of higher temperatures, droughts and deforestation. That downward trend is likely to continue, as forests come under increasing threat from climate change and exploitation. The typical tropical forest may become a carbon source by the 2060s, according to Lewis.
Well, it’s nice that they mentioned carbon dioxide once, but, calling it carbon, and referring to carbon as a gas, shows this is an unscientific doomsday cult.
Doug Parr, the chief scientist at Greenpeace UK, said governments should heed the science and make strong commitments to cut greenhouse gases at the Cop26 summit, and agree to measures to protect and restore forests. “For years, we have had scientific warnings about tipping points in the Earth system and they’ve been largely ignored by policy and decision-makers,†he said. “That forests are now seemingly losing the ability to absorb pollution is alarming. What more of a wake-up call do we need?â€
Hmm, sounds like this is less about science and more about politics.
Teach you seem to be reluctant to state for the record why you think that the Earth’s temps are going up and also why tgst rate of increase is accelerating
Although at least now finally you do admit tgst the temps are going up
And don’t you think itvis time to change the climate data on the website? Most temps seem to end in the year 2000 omitting our last 2 hottest decades
As you’ve been shown earlier, John, the rate of warming isn’t accelerating. It’s statistically comparable to the warming early last century. (How did that happen..?)
The internet is full of links to any side of the argument you want, but some of the most important links show how NASA manipulates data to promote an agenda, and that the good scientists are not on board with the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Considering the amount of political power this theory created, the amount of money to study the theory, and how many are being indoctrinated through schools, anyone with a discerning mind would automatically suspect fraud.
Here’s the link to the actual article in the premier scientific journal, Nature.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2035-0.epdf?referrer_access_token=94fdYepGeORmMnCYIhCc69RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NOJ2x2BsrUNZyzCBuuL0UUqQjPW2euF71wbnss7bZVTypLc0eJu3wcwXkQBGokyA9HW2k-okTMHDdectG92AB7UCaAEYubgKcBIjfvWwAarBHNAQlggxcW6gKC8EBuatXyyNG4lsNoKGBuz6jwneDBL85C6ZibPhm8YlwdenuepVVP3nfandk-FdksbHp95BMzbOlkWsOdA_w-AgEHUgpR–O3YMfs5rGobLgW3dErAFzL2HiJnxMDdXmrUYWB9BnYwSArBljtV3Y69jI8_LNp&tracking_referrer=www.theguardian.com
TEACH typed: Well, it’s nice that they mentioned carbon dioxide once, but, calling it carbon, and referring to carbon as a gas, shows this is an unscientific doomsday cult.
Did you read the Nature article? The title was ‘Asynchronous carbon sink saturation…’, so the scientists who wrote the paper were able to slip it past the editors of Nature?? Or maybe, just maybe, it’s you, and it’s time for you to get a new schtick.
Are you really saying that you know more about carbon sinks than the climate scientists?
A little learning is a dangerous thing ;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring :
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again. — Alexander Pope
You can read all about CO2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide
CARBON dioxide is a gas where two atoms of oxygen are covalently bound to an atom of CARBON. The CARBON of CO2 ends up being incorporated into organic molecules in plants. Key to this process, as you well know, is the activity of the enzyme ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase oxygenase (RuBisCo) eventually yielding glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate, using the energy derived from photosynthesis.
You’ve heard this before from other commenters, but the use of the term ‘carbon’ in this context could be considered a synechdoche, e.g., Kansas City won the Super Bowl!
Hey, little sissybitch, do us all a favor and learn how to use tinyURL.com.
It may take some effort on your part but it will save the margins.
Other than that…
Lolgfy Jeffery
Porter Good is a little sissybitch.
Lolgfy Porter
“Taking up less CO2 due to higher temperatures, droughts and deforestation..†Hmm.. as warm or warmer during the MWP. Droughts aren’t becoming more frequent (by the way, how much drought is there in a tropical rain forest?). Deforestation is mostly due to humans cutting down trees but nothing to do with CO2. Interesting, though, that hundreds of thousands of acres of forests are cut down for biofuel and wind farms. It’s almost like these clowns have no idea what they’re talking about..