# Amazon rain forest fires



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Somebody please correct me if this is mistaken. But I have read:

1.	The current Amazon rain forest fires are not a result of global warming, but are more likely a contributing cause to future warming.

2.	The rain forest itself is not burning since it is damp and not very flammable. What’s burning are the vast areas of land newly cleared for agriculture and cattle grazing, where the farmers normally burn the cleared vegetation this time of year. In other words, most fires are human caused.

3.	The cleared land, when burned, will yield its sequestered carbon immediately rather than over a number of years if the cleared vegetation were left to decay normally.

4.	The increased number of fires this year are due to the policies of the current administration in Brazil, which has relaxed restrictions on clearing land and drastically reduced fines.

Ultimately this may not make much long-term difference, but (if accurate) may promote a better understanding of what is happening in Brazil.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

"Trump of the Tropics" is likely practicing slash and burn agriculture
https://theconversation.com/the-ama...-reads-on-brazils-vanishing-rainforest-122288


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

The clearing is reported to comprise about the surface of a soccer field every minute.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> 1. The current Amazon rain forest fires are not a result of global warming, but are more likely a contributing cause to future warming.


AFAIK, all Ken's points are correct. The one quoted above is yet another example of the leveraging, multiplying effect of ongoing population growth upon the degradation of ecosystems; this particular instance--slash-and-burn in forests--leads directly to the worsening of AGW. Its dire effects can be easily understood by almost anybody: carbon dioxide is directly introduced into the atmosphere, the absorption of same by the now-denuded acreage is radically diminished, and you are minus a functioning ecosystem with all its biota.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

joen_cph said:


> The clearing is reported to comprise about the surface of a soccer field every minute.


This is now an approved SI Unit for area. Larger areas use the unit "the size of Wales". The SI unit for volume, usually of liquids is "an Olympic-size swimming pool"

In answer to Ken's OP, 4x correct. But rather than just helping, with a measly $20m, a short-term gesture if ever there was, no trade deal would be a better option, that is assuming our politicians do actually care......


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Yeah, Brazil is a very large economy, much bigger than say Russia, so more relevant for inviting it to join the G7/G8 some time in the future, as a carrot reward.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

More on the topic: According to the NY Times, many of the Amazon fires result not from deforestation but from the annual burning of agricultural debris on land cleared in years past. Although the rate of deforestation has increased a bit under Bolsonaro's administration, it is still far below the levels seen in earlier years. The Times offers this graph:










The full article, from _Reason_, is here.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

It has been noted as a positive trend the progress Brazil made pre-Bolsonaro to rein in Amazon deforestation, as the chart shows. The problem lies in Bolsonaro's reversal of that trend. Also to be remembered is that the farmland being "routinely" burned was once rainforest. A Google search for papers on the results of repeated burning of tropical soils turns up repeated reports of the steady loss of the soil nutrients--and tropical soils, especially rainforest soils, are notoriously depleted in soil nutrients due to the constant leaching from tropical precipitation. The vast bulk of existing nutrients are bound up within the living roots, fungi, micro-organisms that sustain the forest ecosystem. There may be a short-term burst of fertility as the ash left from burning the original forest cover is applied to the now-bare soil as a fertilizer but its effects steadily diminish through time. That, plus population growth, bodes ill for the Amazon's long-term future.

I would expect _Reason_, as a libertarian journal, to report the situation as they have.


----------



## Guest (Aug 26, 2019)

KenOC said:


> More on the topic: According to the NY Times, many of the Amazon fires result not from deforestation but from the annual burning of agricultural debris on land cleared in years past. Although the rate of deforestation has increased a bit under Bolsonaro's administration, it is still far below the levels seen in earlier years. The Times offers this graph:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Shhhh - you are going to let facts get in the way of the narrative!

That Reason article also references a paper published in the journal Nature last year, entitled: Global land change from 1982 to 2016
Here is the abstract (emphasis added):


> Land change is a cause and consequence of global environmental change1,2. Changes in land use and land cover considerably alter the Earth's energy balance and biogeochemical cycles, which contributes to climate change and-in turn-affects land surface properties and the provision of ecosystem services1,2,3,4. However, quantification of global land change is lacking. Here we analyse 35 years' worth of satellite data and provide a comprehensive record of global land-change dynamics during the period 1982-2016. *We show that-contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally5-tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2 (+7.1% relative to the 1982 level)*. This overall net gain is the result of a net loss in the tropics being outweighed by a net gain in the extratropics. Global bare ground cover has decreased by 1.16 million km2 (−3.1%), most notably in agricultural regions in Asia. Of all land changes, 60% are associated with direct human activities and 40% with indirect drivers such as climate change. Land-use change exhibits regional dominance, including tropical deforestation and agricultural expansion, temperate reforestation or afforestation, cropland intensification and urbanization. Consistently across all climate domains, montane systems have gained tree cover and many arid and semi-arid ecosystems have lost vegetation cover. The mapped land changes and the driver attributions reflect a human-dominated Earth system. The dataset we developed may be used to improve the modelling of land-use changes, biogeochemical cycles and vegetation-climate interactions to advance our understanding of global environmental change1,2,3,4,6.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

“We show that—contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally—tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2 (+7.1% relative to the 1982 level).”

A very interesting claim. I’ve only been checking the Amazon, and only in Brazil. According to Wiki, 20% of the tree cover has been cleared away since 1970. That’s nothing to sneeze at, so it’s good news that there has been some progress, however tentative, in the rate of deforestation. But even at the recent “improved” rates, it’s death by inches instead of death by feet.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DrMike said:


> Shhhh - you are going to let facts get in the way of the narrative!
> 
> That Reason article also references a paper published in the journal Nature last year, entitled: Global land change from 1982 to 2016
> Here is the abstract (emphasis added):


Excellent abstract! It confirms the loss of tropical forest (Why wasn't this highlighted?); also the enormous impact that human activity now wields over global land cover and use. All are encouraged to read this abstract in full. We read that montane areas are increasingly afforested while arid and semi-arid regions continue to lose vegetative cover (desertification). As population growth continues and water becomes more and more scarce and the subject of dispute, we can expect increased stress throughout both the biosphere and among nation-states and surging populations.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> Bare earth is also declining in deserts, mountainous areas, and tundra, indicating the influence of climate change, which is creating conditions that support the growth of grasses, shrubs, and trees. Those shifts are contributing to an overall greening trend, whereby bare ground cover declined by 3.1 percent since 1982.
> 
> That "greening," however, masks the ecological impacts of replacing diverse natural landscapes with monoculture crops. So while Earth may presently have more trees than 35 years ago, the study confirms that some of its most productive and biodiverse biomes-especially tropical forests and savannas-are significantly more damaged and degraded, reducing their resilience and capacity to afford ecosystem services.


The above is from a detailed and well-graphed analysis of the _Nature_ report, and makes for close reading to see where and how and why forests (and other forms of vegetation) are both advancing and retreating. One of the major losses is in closed-canopy forest. This is the article:

https://psmag.com/environment/the-planet-now-has-more-trees-than-it-did-35-years-ago


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I note also that current news says the deforestation rate in theAmazon is increasing sharply in 2019, making a big jump from 2018 (see graph above). I heard on the news that Bolsonaro was asked how Brazilians could best protect the environment. He replied, don't poop every day. Poop every other day.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

One of the points made in the psmag article is that the _Nature_ study does not discriminate between various sorts of "tree cover", thus treating the replacement of an untouched natural tropical forest with a palm oil plantation or the replacement of a temperate or boreal forest by a managed tree farm, as no net loss of tree cover. Yet the wholesale replacement of complex, diverse ecosystems by such essentially sterile and vulnerable monoculture tree crops represents a real loss of resilience, carbon capture, and sustainability. Careful reading of such articles reveals such essential elements of the story that a quick scan ignores or misses entirely.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> One of the points made in the psmag article is that the _Nature_ study does not discriminate between various sorts of "tree cover", thus treating the replacement of an untouched natural tropical forest with a palm oil plantation...


The palm oil plantations may or may not affect the land's ability to refresh the atmosphere. But they certainly have other drastic effects. All three species of orangutan, among our closest evolutionary relatives, are now critically endangered largely due to the change in land use. The Anthropocene extinction continues.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

"Why Everything They Say About The Amazon, Including That It's The 'Lungs Of The World,' Is Wrong"

*Forbes *totally demolishes the whole Amazon story.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

KenOC said:


> "Why Everything They Say About The Amazon, Including That It's The 'Lungs Of The World,' Is Wrong"
> 
> *Forbes *totally demolishes the whole Amazon story.


Why are you recycling the Forbes story? It is riddled with errors, irrelevancies, and non-sequiturs, some of which I already exploded in my previous post. Some fresh new Forbes idiocies debunked below:

A) Nobody with a brain ever said the fires were the result of climate change

B) How about this non-sequitur from Nepstad?

"What about The New York Times claim that "If enough rain forest is lost and can't be restored, the area will become savanna, which doesn't store as much carbon, meaning a reduction in the planet's 'lung capacity'"?
Also not true, said Nepstad, who was a lead author of the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. "The Amazon produces a lot of oxygen, but so do soy farms and [cattle] pastures.""

Yes, but the point is that soy farms and cattle pastures hold nowhere near the locked-up carbon as does climax tropical rainforest. And Shellenberger already told us that we don't have to worry about the oxygen-producing aspect of vegetation, so why have Nepstad bring it up again?

The bulk of the article is warmed-over material of no particular interest, though current reporting indicates that under Bolsonaro, the 80% of the Amazon rainforest allegedly protected by law will not actually be protected. Re-read my previous post. Also look into the credentials of Michael Shellenberger, the Forbes author. If you like nukes, he is your man!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> Why are you recycling the Forbes story? It is riddled with errors, irrelevancies, and non-sequiturs...


Thanks for your cautions! I'm sure people will bear them in mind as they read the article and make up their own minds.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

KenOC said:


> Thanks for your cautions! I'm sure people will bear them in mind as they read the article and make up their own minds.


I share your hope that people read the Forbes article along with all the rest, and all pay attention to the CVs of who writes them, the footnotes and references, etc. It's instructive and fun to tunnel into these sources; one never knows what might turn up. The headline of the Forbes article should be an immediate trigger for deeper investigation (and was). Some of my best anti-gun material came from sources cited by Ekim as being pro-gun from a cursory reading.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

The_ National Review_, a right-wing source, has a short article titled *The Amazon Scam*. Its conclusion: "The most fervent devotees of climate change don't really want science, no matter how often they invoke the word; they want drama and memorable images, believing they will catalyze action more than a properly modulated account of the best research. If they have to blow their credibility, one faux emergency at a time, so be it."


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

I agree, it's a short article. I could have written it in half an hour, for a quarter of the salary. It presents no new information and no arguments except that deforestation has been intense before, and that the fires are made by people. Also, that Bolsonaro only took the money because everyone likes money. So, it argues, it's all egotistical hysteria by the evil left. And the reader can feel reassured.

Macron usually knows what he's doing, his choice of words probably constitutes an attempt at appeal. Only very un-informed or non-informed people see the fires as the result of climate change; it's the effects for the future climate, that people are worried about, among other things.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

The National Review article is exactly what we have come to expect from Lowry, a rehash of the Forbes article repeating the obvious that virgin rainforest is not burning and that the fires are not caused by climate change. What persistent Trump explainer/excuser Lowry does not reference, of course, is that what is burning largely was rainforest that was cleared and burned previously and that it portends global warming to come as yet more carbon will release into the atmosphere as the slash-and-burn moves ever deeper into existing forest. Perhaps soon we'll have a Forbes/NR story on why the deterioration due to heat and growing acidity of the Great Barrier Reef is nothing to worry about. Sad.


----------

