Posted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 9:00 am
Shorea
The problem with much of this information is that popular media tend to sensationalize or draw exaggerated conclusions from scientific papers. You will find that this paper from Boston University Scientists under a NASA grant found that atmospheric particulates and general aerosol contamination had created problems with the satellite data that was used in the World Wildlife Fund sponsored study that the UN Climate Panel used. Part of the reason for this is that farmers take advantage of droughts to burn forests to plant crops and this haze can "cloud" the data collected from satellite imaging techniques. The extent of this problem was not obvious at the time, however some of the people who believe there is no climate change imply that there was fraud or bad faith involved in using this study. The problem is that all such studies are somewhat tentative and results must be continually modified based on new information.
The truth is that even without a decrease in rainfall in the Amazon, deforestation is moving at a rapid pace, much land has been converted from forest to grassland, and consequently, less moisture is is getting into the atmosphere from evapotranspiration from trees in certain areas of the Amazon. When I was working in Borneo for two months during a huge El Niño related drought 13 years ago the smoke was so bad that the airports closed for days at a time because of forest fires which often burned out of control. During droughts the same sort of thing did happen in parts of the Amazon, though in the more intact parts where the drought was not so bad the forest was apparently quite resilient. My point is, that the reliability of a single study, even though it may effect popular media this way, should not cause us to ignore the preponderance of evidence that indicates major global climate change is occurring and that humanity has a major part in this process. If you notice that all the scientists who published the NASA paper and the WWF paper agree that global warming is occurring, that should be helpful in making judgments on this. See this link from BU scientists to get a handle on the complexity of both studies. http://cliveg.bu.edu/download/manuscrip ... nta-03.pdf
I do want to note that I much appreciate your bringing this article to our attention and that, yes it is a bit of good news, and I also want to say that I sympathize with you regarding the mass scale conversion of the forests to oil palm plantations which was going on in Borneo as well.
The problem with much of this information is that popular media tend to sensationalize or draw exaggerated conclusions from scientific papers. You will find that this paper from Boston University Scientists under a NASA grant found that atmospheric particulates and general aerosol contamination had created problems with the satellite data that was used in the World Wildlife Fund sponsored study that the UN Climate Panel used. Part of the reason for this is that farmers take advantage of droughts to burn forests to plant crops and this haze can "cloud" the data collected from satellite imaging techniques. The extent of this problem was not obvious at the time, however some of the people who believe there is no climate change imply that there was fraud or bad faith involved in using this study. The problem is that all such studies are somewhat tentative and results must be continually modified based on new information.
The truth is that even without a decrease in rainfall in the Amazon, deforestation is moving at a rapid pace, much land has been converted from forest to grassland, and consequently, less moisture is is getting into the atmosphere from evapotranspiration from trees in certain areas of the Amazon. When I was working in Borneo for two months during a huge El Niño related drought 13 years ago the smoke was so bad that the airports closed for days at a time because of forest fires which often burned out of control. During droughts the same sort of thing did happen in parts of the Amazon, though in the more intact parts where the drought was not so bad the forest was apparently quite resilient. My point is, that the reliability of a single study, even though it may effect popular media this way, should not cause us to ignore the preponderance of evidence that indicates major global climate change is occurring and that humanity has a major part in this process. If you notice that all the scientists who published the NASA paper and the WWF paper agree that global warming is occurring, that should be helpful in making judgments on this. See this link from BU scientists to get a handle on the complexity of both studies. http://cliveg.bu.edu/download/manuscrip ... nta-03.pdf
I do want to note that I much appreciate your bringing this article to our attention and that, yes it is a bit of good news, and I also want to say that I sympathize with you regarding the mass scale conversion of the forests to oil palm plantations which was going on in Borneo as well.