Amazon dries out as worst ever drought hits rainforest

kgroenhoej · Post by **kgroenhoej** » 11 Oct 2005, 12:04

It's somewhat old news, but nobody else have mentioned it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international ... 55,00.html
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate ... ught_x.htm

kgroenhoej · Post by **kgroenhoej** » 23 Oct 2005, 12:30

very sad news...
http://www.greenpeace.org/international ... the-amazon
http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp ... &channel=0
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9652807/
http://www.brazzilmag.com/index.php?opt ... &Itemid=49
http://www.brazzilmag.com/content/view/4242/49/
http://www.panda.org/news_facts/newsroo ... wsID=24029

edit:
Some pictures and a video:
http://216.239.39.104/translate_c?hl=en ... mpanha%3D0

Grimace · Post by **Grimace** » 23 Oct 2005, 15:49

It's almost too much! Makes me wanna cry! Stupid global warming is stuffing us up!

j4782 · Post by **j4782** » 23 Oct 2005, 21:51

I personally feel that global warming is alarmist rhetoric coming from conservationists.

There's proof that Iceland used to have tropical seas (fossils in the shore cliffs) and we all know about the ice age. A single degree's difference over 100 years is nothing. Earth can take it.

drpleco · Post by **drpleco** » 23 Oct 2005, 23:48

but...iceland used to be closer to the equator millions of years ago. And...1 degree every hundred years will add up VERY quickly, geologically speaking. Just think, there has been a few thousand years of recorded history and things have been roughly the same. Now add a few thousand more years at +1 degree every hundred and you have a catastrophic change in the same amount of time (just think what +30 degrees would feel like during the hottest summer = 130F). Ice caps will melt and we'll be living with the catfishes.

I'm not saying that this will happen, but blowing off a change of one degree is dangerously short sighted.

But, maybe you're right and things will right themselves. Who knows? All I can suggest is that we try to minimize the changes we create, JUST IN CASE.

snowball · Post by **snowball** » 24 Oct 2005, 00:06

j4782 wrote:I personally feel that global warming is alarmist rhetoric coming from conservationists.

There's proof that Iceland used to have tropical seas (fossils in the shore cliffs) and we all know about the ice age. A single degree's difference over 100 years is nothing. Earth can take it.

Tropical, eh? Methinks someone is alreadly living on the banks of de nile... ;)

Yes the Earth will take it, as you say, and ultimately an equilibrium will be found, despite what we do to it. However this tends to take some time, tens of thousands of years, and whether of not the creatures on the planet can 'take it' is rather doubtful.

Recent predictions I have heard suggest that some time in the next 100 years* there will be a particualrly hot northen summer that will trigger rapid melting of the arctic icecaps, thus dumping massive volumes of cold, fresh water into the oceans which will effectively stop the movement of regular currents of warmer salt water. If these models are to be believed, this will trigger a mini ice age in the northen hemisphere and turn tropical regions into desert.

But hey, this is all just scaremongering by greenie scientists, right? And if it isn't, well it doesn't matter because we probably won't be around to deal with it

* around the time we run out of oil perhaps?

djw66 · Post by **djw66** » 24 Oct 2005, 00:17

One degree of difference has caused a near-catastrophic situation in the most stable environ on the planet - the coral reef. The temperature shift has led to the decline and near-extinction of two major species Acopora coral formerly prevalent off the coast of Florida, and thus of the species that fed on, or sheltered within, them, and eventually, to impingue on you and me.

One should do research before claiming alarmist conservatism, IMO.

Dave

j4782 · Post by **j4782** » 24 Oct 2005, 02:29

Do note that statistical correlation does not necessarily denote the real cause.

There are plenty of crazy statistics like "misogynistic men are more likely to die young." Does personal bias kill?

I would say documented WWII actions like blasting reefs and atolls that get in the way of amphibious troop landings and nuclear bomb tests have more of an impact than the slight average temperature change over 100 years.

I just think it's wrong to say that the earth warming up is going to kill off life or to attribute one of pollution's side effects with causing the end of the world. There's plenty of other things that will kill us off faster than the temperature.

drpleco · Post by **drpleco** » 24 Oct 2005, 03:30

sadly, you're probably right. I read a book (third chimpanzee by Jared Diamond) that speculated on why we haven't made contact with life from outer space. His whole point was that higher beings had a tendency to create the means of their destruction. He then postulated that "intelligent" beings (like humans) will destroy themselves long before reaching the technological capability to communicate with, or travel to, other populations. (this is all theory, but still seems to hit pretty close to the mark...)

Long story short, we'll probably nuke ourselves long before the ice caps melt and drown us.

However, that doesn't give us the right to destroy something before someone else does. We should protect the resources we have on the off chance that someday we have peace and stability. It doesn't look likely now, but I'm an optimist.

Andy

fishypoo2 · Post by **fishypoo2** » 24 Oct 2005, 04:23

Also, think of the many extraordinarily unfortunate natural disasters that have happened in the last year (even some not global warming related):
-SE Asian tsunami (with 2 major earthquakes)
-Guatemalan floods/mudslides (potentially related)
-Pakistan/Afghanistan earthquake
-Hurricane Katrina (related)
-Hurricane Rita (related)
-NE US flooding (just happened) (related)
-Hurricane Wilma (related)
-the other hurricanes (related)
-Bird flu virus (potentially related)
-Last winter's blizzards (potentially related) and flu vaccine shortages
...etc...

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 24 Oct 2005, 10:08

I would say documented WWII actions like blasting reefs and atolls that get in the way of amphibious troop landings and nuclear bomb tests have more of an impact than the slight average temperature change over 100 years.

I think this is wrong. coral can recover very quickly (in less than 50 years) from being damaged in this way.

What they can't adapt to fast enough is the rising sea temperatures. The polyps will begin to expel their zooxanthellae, and will bleach and die. This process is not usually reversible. This is happening now.

I just think it's wrong to say that the earth warming up is going to kill off life

Nobody is suggesting this will happen at all! What we will see however are changes so rapid that species will be unable to cope, and will die off. Sure, new species will appear, but with an extremely unstable planet, the biodiversity will be a fraction of what is was.

People in the West will be fine, (although living with frequently more extreme weather), it's the people in the developing world who will really suffer.

There's plenty of other things that will kill us off faster than the temperature.

Of course there are other problems, but is that a valid excuse to ignore the greatest one of all?

Even George W Bush has recently accepted that global climate change has been caused by human activity.

sidguppy · Post by **sidguppy** » 24 Oct 2005, 10:59

Even George W Bush has recently accepted that global
climate change has been caused by human activity.

He did???

Amazing!

now if you'll excuse me, while I topple off my chair

I got into the same discussion with a guy here on a Dutch cichlid-forum who refuses to accept the phenomena of Global Warming/Greenhouse Effect.

he said that the sun is putting out more heat and that Mars was heating up for the last 100 years

interesting, since we haven't got equipment on Mars for 100 years to measure that, while the effects and temerature measures at home stare us in the face around the globe.

like for example, here, the winters are disappearing, and the largest dip in temperature usually happens in march/april, killing off flowering trees and fruittrees by the thousant; while the unusually high temeratures in december-februari cause summers to be extremely buggy.

All the hottest recordsummers for the last 100 years in Europe have happened in the time from 1990-2005.

It's true, earth has been warmer than it is now, and in a hot climate different species evolve.
unfortunately -as said- they need time, and time is not what we give them today.

Interesting fact: global warming can cause us an ice-age wich will freeze the northern half of North America, Asia and half of Europe......

this because the 'conveyor-belt' of the seacurrent stops.....it's this seacurrent wich makes Europe habitable for example; without it, most would have the same climate as Canada north of the Hudson Bay and nothern Siberia.

this because water of the Atlantic goes north, cools down and sinks....is goes southwarth in the abyss, passes the east coast of the US, turns east south of africa, rolls up in tropical Asia and reverses the pattern (it's a bit more complicated, but this is 1 current, there are more).

This sinking in the North Atlantic doesn't happen if it's too warm....warm seawater floats on top of cold......

panaque · Post by **panaque** » 24 Oct 2005, 16:31

Mankind releases enormous amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 causes a greenhouse effect. These are facts. Thousands of climate scientists are researching the question whether and to what extend this will result in global climate change. There are lots of possible positive and negative feedback mechanisms that need to be considered but thanks to improved data collection, more detailed models and bigger and faster supercomputers the picture is becoming clearer. Overwhelmingly, climatologists now feel that the weight of evidence strongly points to accelerated global warming as a result of CO2 emissions. Exactly how much warmer the earth will get over the next 100 years is difficult to predict but I believe careful estimates are in the region of 1.5 - 6 degrees.

J4782, I can understand that reading all the scientific facts and arguments (or even a summary of them) can be rather boring. Reading (about)a Michael Crichton novel is probably a lot more entertaining but try and remember he is a science fiction writer, not a climate expert.

Finally, it is certainly true that there have been a number of periods of rapid climate change in the earthâ??s past. It is also true that most, if not all, mass extinctions were associated with such events.

bunjiweb · Post by **bunjiweb** » 24 Oct 2005, 18:04

fishypoo2 wrote:Also, think of the many extraordinarily unfortunate natural disasters that have happened in the last year (even some not global warming related):
-SE Asian tsunami (with 2 major earthquakes)
-Guatemalan floods/mudslides (potentially related)
-Pakistan/Afghanistan earthquake
-Hurricane Katrina (related)
-Hurricane Rita (related)
-NE US flooding (just happened) (related)
-Hurricane Wilma (related)
-the other hurricanes (related)
-Bird flu virus (potentially related)
-Last winter's blizzards (potentially related) and flu vaccine shortages
...etc...

How about the mass flooding in central/eastern europe? Austria, Switzerland and Germany got hit really hard over the summer from massive floods.

Also, how about the "freak" tornado that ripped apart 2 streets in suburbian Birmingham??

Also things like the massive dolphin, minky and fin whales that have appeared in the Irish Sea?

Its things like this that give us the biggest clues of the damage we are doing to our own earth...

Ben

Zebrapl3co · Post by **Zebrapl3co** » 24 Oct 2005, 18:31

j4782 wrote:...I just think it's wrong to say that the earth warming up is going to kill off life or to attribute one of pollution's side effects with causing the end of the world. There's plenty of other things that will kill us off faster than the temperature.

I have doubt about what you're saying. If we did manage to nuke ourselves to death. Nature would be spared. If you set of a global effect that can not reverse itself, we all know what Mars looks like. If I have a choice between the two, I think I would pick the nukes anyother day over global warmming.

pturley · Post by **pturley** » 24 Oct 2005, 18:35

Ben Wrote:

Its things like this that give us the biggest clues of the damage we are doing to our own earth...

Ben

Let me correct the above statement:

...our ONLY earth...

Durlänger · Post by **Durlänger** » 24 Oct 2005, 18:58

Something else we do to our only earth

(I know that Indonesia is out of topic that was about dry at amazonas but as you already talk about hurrican`s)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... res_2.html
http://www.esa.int/esaEO/ESAGSHZ84UC_index_1.html

fishypoo2 · Post by **fishypoo2** » 24 Oct 2005, 19:13

sidguppy wrote:
Even George W Bush has recently accepted that global
climate change has been caused by human activity.
He did???

Amazing!

now if you'll excuse me, while I topple off my chair

That's news to me too.

snowball · Post by **snowball** » 25 Oct 2005, 02:02

Sometimes I think our planet is like a fish tank and we are cichlids pulling out the filter pipes to make a more comfortable nest for ourselves.

(no offence to cichlids)

To continue the analogy, we all know that it is possible to over stock a tank and keep everything alive for quite some time. But one day a power cut stops the filters or some other unforseen event occurs and suddenly there is a major problem that can no longer be ignored. Of course we can say we have learnt from this mistake, but by then it's too late for the fish concerned.

We only have one Earth to live on. The sad thing is when I speak to older generations such as my father, they invariably concede there is a problem (as George Bush appears to have done), but assume that 'someone in the future' will solve it, some how. By 'someone' I gather they mean the scientists whose warnings they have been ignoring for the past 50 years.

worton[pl] · Post by **worton[pl]** » 25 Oct 2005, 09:31

Hiya,

Sid you wrote about this what happened in "day after tomorrow" movie?

And what I think? There was few iceages in the past without humans on this planet (lol even poles were placed in different locations than now). Is it possible that earth is re-generating by this simple mechanism? Or trying to find this "one" species that will live wisely on this ONLY planet - after iceages lots of primary species disappeared from surface of Earth - for me it looks like Earth created some forms of live then they didn't work out for Earth and then Earth is trying to do it again by whiping out this bugged species - it's normal :), looks like we are one of this bugged species and we will probably disappear from Earth :) sooner (if we won't stop all this crappy things) or later.

Regards.

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 25 Oct 2005, 10:53

Don't take my works about George W Bush as gospel.

I'm pretty sure i saw it on Newsnight a while back.

He may not have said those exact words, but something to that effect.

Maybe someone can find out?

bronzefry · Post by **bronzefry** » 25 Oct 2005, 13:47

I saw Bush FINALLY say Global Warming exists, Racoll. It was quite a comically sad speech. I remember how insincere he sounded. It was the same look he had when he finally admitted he made a mistake with the response to the Katrina disaster.

Please don't get me started. I won't stop! I'm typing this as the edge of a Category 3 hurricaine, Wilma, is nearing Cape Cod, Massachusetts.

All I can think of is the Perry Farrell lyrics from "We'll Make Great Pets." Humans are killing ourselves off much faster than the dinosaurs ever did.
Amanda

kgroenhoej · Post by **kgroenhoej** » 26 Oct 2005, 16:03

A lot of great comments about the climate-changes and our only earth ("the big picture"). But what about the drought in the Amazon - Do the drought mean anything for the people and the animals in the Amazon? Is it a catastrophe or is it just a natural thing? Do the drought mean anything for collecting aquarium-fish - more fish or no fish?