“I had a dream a few weeks before I discovered Mills, hydrino energy and GUT-CP… one of those super awesome vivid dreams that I’ll remember for the rest of my life. 😀 It was in the near future, two hundred years or so, and I was just about to travel home from London to Manchester (five minutes on a Tesla type hyperloop), and my wife rung me (it was a dream), asking if I was on my way home and how long I would be… and I thought to myself… “You know what, I got a spare hour or two… might go the Moon for a pint of Guinness”
… Ten minutes later I was sat on my own, in my favourite bar on the Moon, looking out at planet Earth… with a Guinness 😀 … … I had my own spot and the bartender knew me by name and everything!”
Humanity may be on the brink of a leap in the field of space exploration, but are we ready to handle the extraterrestrial boom when it comes? We ask Simonetta Di Pippo, an astrophysicist and the director of the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs.
AM I THE ONLY PERSON (except for probably Mills himself, and his team at BLP) WHO REALISES AND UNDERSTANDS THAT HYDRINO ENERGY IS THE ONLY VIABLE AND REALISTIC SOLUTION TO SAVING HUMANITY FROM ALMOST CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL CATASTROPHE?
Yes, Climate Change is real.
Yes, it is caused by human carbon emissions.
No, there is no other solution, except for human civilisation to adopt a brand new energy source (i.e. hydrino energy… it’s the ONLY one that exists!)
And not only will it solve climate change, the technologies that could be developed from GUT-CP could possibly solve EVERY other environmental catastrophe that’s heading our way! (there are others, including plastics, feeding the population, deforestation)
“There’s squabbling among the kingdoms about issues that seem pressing. But meanwhile, far away, there is this looming threat that could eclipse all of it,” says Katharine Davis Reich, associate director at the UCLA IoES Center for Climate Science. She’s talking about Game of Thrones—and also our response to climate change. Of course, there’s at least one major difference between the two: winter is coming to Westeros, but disappearing on Earth. Still, both worlds’ most pressing problems involve a rejection of information gathered on the front lines, migrations of vulnerable populations that unsettle adjacent communities, and a potential tipping point past which there is no hope of survival. Peter Griffith, a scientist in Baltimore, MD, who works in the field of carbon cycle and climate, made the connection early while reading the first book in George R.R. Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire series: “Any time there was news from the Wall, and it was ridiculed by King’s Landing—the old stories that nursemaids tell to scare children—there was an immediate sense of, boy, this sounds familiar.”
Because the only way to get the general public to care about or even understand global climate change is to compare it to their current favourite TV show! (honest to f**k)
In a recent column for The Post, Margaret Sullivan said the media must cover climate change as if it’s “the only story that matters.” The Pentagon has stated that climate change is a threat to national security. The World Bank has warned about the devastating impact of rising temperatures on economies. Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org, has said that “climate change is actually the biggest thing that’s going on every single day.” So why isn’t the media covering this story all day, every day? Climate change has been described as a “catastrophe in slow motion.” But the Trump administration could be called a catastrophe at full speed. The distractions are relentless.
WASHINGTON — If there were any doubt before, there should be none now. “Solving” the global climate change problem may be humankind’s mission impossible. That’s the gist of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the United Nations group charged with monitoring global warming. Unless we make dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (carbon dioxide, methane and others), warns the IPCC, we face a future of rapidly rising temperatures that will destroy virtually all the world’s coral reefs, intensify droughts and raise sea levels. We need to take action immediately, if not sooner. The IPCC says that emissions need to be cut 45 percent from present levels by 2030 and virtually eliminated by 2050. This would keep the projected increase in global temperatures since the early 1800s to 1.5 degrees centigrade, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit. We would escape the worst consequences of global warming.
It’s not clear how this would be done. The reality is that global carbon emissions are rising, not falling. Emissions today are about 60 percent higher than in 1990, according to the World Bank. There are at least three obstacles frustrating the IPCC’s agenda. First, we don’t have the technologies to reduce and eventually eliminate emissions from fossil fuels (oil, coal and natural gas). Yes, solar and wind power have made advances, but they still provide only a tiny share of the world’s total energy, about 4 percent. Electric vehicles don’t solve the problem, because natural gas and coal are the underlying energy sources for much of the electricity. Second, even if we had the technologies to replace fossil fuels, it’s doubtful that we have the political will to do so. Democracies — or, for that matter, dictatorships — have a difficult time inflicting present political pain for future, hypothetical societal gains. Voters abhor higher gasoline and heating-oil prices, which are an integral part of most proposed solutions for global warming. They would dampen demand for fossil fuels and spur investment in substitutes. The clearest proof of America’s political bias against the future is the treatment of Social Security and Medicare. For decades, we have known that an aging population would significantly boost spending for these programs. What did we do to prepare for this inevitability? Not much.
Finally, assuming (unrealistically) that today’s advanced societies — led by the United States — overcome these obstacles, it’s unclear whether poorer and so-called “emerging market” countries would follow suit. These countries represent the largest increases in fossil-fuel demand, as they attempt to raise living standards. Already, China is the world’s largest source of carbon dioxide emissions, nearly twice as high as the United States. Economic and population increases boost energy demand. Consider air conditioners. The world now has 1.6 billion air conditioning units, reports the International Energy Agency. By 2050, that could triple to 5.6 billion units. People in advanced societies won’t abandon air conditioning, and people in poorer countries won’t surrender the chance to enjoy it. Much of future demand will come from three countries — China, India and Indonesia.
What is to be done? Maybe nothing. This seems to be the choice made by many Republicans and the Trump administration, which is withdrawing from the Paris agreement’s commitments to reduce emissions. Trump’s hostility is not as crazy as it sounds. If suppressing global warming is as hard as I’ve argued, one likely response is a series of half measures that don’t much affect global warming but do weaken economic growth. The politicians’ real aim is to brag that they’ve “done something” when all they’ve really done is delude us. Trump would skip this stage. My own preference is messier and subject to all the above shortcomings. I would gradually impose a stiff fossil-fuel tax (not a 10 or 15 percent tax but a doubling or maybe a tripling of prices) to discourage fossil-fuel use and encourage new energy sources. In addition, some of the tax revenues could reduce budget deficits and simplify income taxes. With luck, a genuine breakthrough might occur: perhaps advances in electric batteries or storage. That would make wind and solar power more practical. There are risks. It can be argued that this sort of policy, aside from relying on unpopular energy taxes, would represent a triumph of hope over experience. In the name of fighting global warming, we might justify a host of energy boondoggles. Combating global warming is a noble crusade, but it’s much harder than the rhetoric implies. If we were serious about cutting greenhouse gases, we could adopt comprehensive wartime controls that empower the government to mandate changes. Or we could accept a worldwide depression as a way to quash job growth and greenhouse gases. Obviously, neither is in the cards. Robert J. Samuelson is a columnist for The Washington Post.
The IPCC has been criticized for being “too alarmist. If anything, it is the opposite. With their latest report, they have been overly conservative.”
A decade ago, the “father of global warming”—the first scientist to sound the alarm on climate change in the 1980s to the US Congress—announced that we were too late: the planet had already hit the danger zone. In a landmark paper, James Hansen, then head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, along with seven other leading climate scientists, described how a global average temperature above 1°Celsius (C)—involving a level of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere of around 450 parts per million (ppm)—would lead to “practically irreversible ice sheet and species loss.” But, they added, new data showed that even 1°C was too hot.
At the time the paper was issued in 2008, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were around 385 ppm. This is “already in the dangerous zone,” explained Hansen and his colleagues, noting that most climate models excluded self-reinforcing amplifying feedbacks which would be triggered at this level—things like “ice sheet disintegration, vegetation migration, and GHG [greenhouse gas] release from soils, tundra, or ocean sediments.” Such feedbacks constitute tipping points which, once triggered, can lead to irreversible or even runaway climate change processes. According to Hansen and his co-authors, these feedbacks “may begin to come into play on time scales as short as centuries or less.” The only viable solution to guarantee a safe climate, they wrote, is to reduce the level of greenhouse gases to around 350 ppm, if not lower. Today, we are well in breach of the 1°C upper limit. And we have breached this limit at a much lower level of atmospheric CO2 than Hansen thought would be necessary to warm this much—as of May 2018, the monthly average atmospheric CO2 had reached 410ppm (the August measurement puts it at 409ppm.) This is the highest level of CO2 the earth has seen in 800,000 years. Ten years on from Hansen’s warning, the UN’s new climate report—presenting the consensus of the world’s leading climate scientists—informs us that if we continue at this rate, the planet will warm to around 1.5°C in just 12 years, triggering a sequence of increasingly catastrophic impacts.
According to a Met Office briefing evaluating the implications of the UN report, once we go past 1.5°C, we dramatically increase the risks of floods, droughts, and extreme weather that would impact hundreds of millions of people.
The IPCC says that this would just be the beginning: we are currently on track to hit 3-4°C by end of century, which would lead to a largely unlivable planet.
The IPCC “fails to adequately warn leaders” about six climate tipping points that work in this way. One of the more well-known such tipping points is Arctic sea ice, which could disappear in the summer in just 15 years, according to the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme’s Snow, Water, Ice and Permafrost in the Arctic report. The ice acts as a reflector of heat back into the atmosphere, so the more it melts, the more the Arctic waters absorb heat.
This self-reinforcing feedback loop could lead to an ‘Arctic death spiral,’ where the loss of the sea ice accelerates the melting of permafrost, which some scientists believe could release large quantities of methane—a greenhouse gas 30 times more potent in driving warming than CO2—into the atmosphere.
Computer simulations of the Arctic’s thermokarst lakes—a certain type of Arctic lake that forms as permafrost thaws—are not incorporated into current global climate models.
The simulations suggest that toward mid or late century, “the permafrost-carbon feedback should be about equivalent to the second strongest anthropogenic source of greenhouse gases, which is land use change”, Katey Walter Anthony, an associate professor at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, said in a press release announcing a NASA-funded study that found the “abrupt thawing” of permafrost could release large amounts of CO2 and methane via soil microbes “within a few decades.”
Despite its blind spots, the IPCC throws down the gauntlet to global policymakers, demanding “rapid and far-reaching” transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities to slash carbon emissions and begin drawing down carbon from the atmosphere.
By 2030, global CO2 emissions will need to drop 45 percent below 2010 levels—equivalent to over 60 percent below 2015 levels—reaching net zero by 2050. This will be a colossal undertaking. The UN report says it will require “unprecedented changes in all aspects of society.”
“The goal of keeping warming under 1.5°C will require the virtual dissolution of the military-industrial complex”
The financial and banking system will also need new regulation to mainstream this approach, along with new forms of “public-private partnerships” to support “new business models for small-scale enterprises and help households with limited access to capital.” Without saying it aloud, these sorts of measures entail a fundamental shift in how capitalism as we know it operates, converting the economy from a structure dominated by narrow special interests which accumulate wealth for themselves, to one that serves communities.
THE SITUATION certainly is dire, though we’ve known that for the past 30 years. What we now have are more accurate models of how serious the consequences of global warming will be. One thing to remember is that the IPCC is a body set up by the United Nations. It is staffed by leading climate change experts, but it only issues reports that are acceptable to the governments they represent. So IPCC predictions tend to be very conservative. Historically, they have consistently underestimated how quickly the climate is warming and how serious the effects will be. With respect to how quickly the climate is warming, we have pretty good models. In particular, we know the effects of pumping more and more carbon into the atmosphere. It’s simple physics that this will result in average global temperatures going up due to the greenhouse effect. What’s more difficult to model are the so-called “tipping points” and feedback loops. For instance, as the world warms, the polar ice caps start to melt. We’re already at the point where the Arctic is almost ice-free during the summer. With less ice, less sunlight is reflected back into space. Instead, it’s absorbed by the ocean, which in turn speeds up ice loss, so even less sunlight is reflected into space, and so on. A further effect is that as global warming increases, permafrost — ground that is frozen — begins to thaw, releasing trapped methane. Methane is a greenhouse gas that has an even bigger impact on warming than carbon dioxide — in the short term, although it does dissipate much faster. This is another feedback loop: More methane released into the atmosphere means warmer temperatures, which means more loss of permafrost, which means more methane in the atmosphere, and a continuing downward spiral. All this means that warming may happen even faster than the IPCC predicts. But the dire predictions in the latest report have more to do with the consequences of warming.
The reports says, “There is no documented historic precedent” for what needs to happen, and that’s no exaggeration.
The problem is that governments of every political complexion have prioritized the interests of the fossil-fuel industry.
Leaving the oil in the ground is exactly what we need to do. But that runs counter to the interests of the fossil-fuel industry and the logic of the wider capitalist system in which it is embedded.
The size of the fossil-fuel industry is mind-boggling. There is more capital invested in it than any other industry. The major oil and gas companies make tens of billions of dollars in profits each year, and the total value of existing fossil fuel and nuclear power infrastructure is at least $15 trillion.
Most of this infrastructure has decades of possible further use. But in order to solve the climate crisis, we need to shut it down almost immediately and invest in renewable energy.
The people who own and profit from the existing system obviously won’t let that happen without a huge fight. That’s why they’ve been funding climate denialism for decades, both through sponsorship of think tanks and large campaign contributions to right-wing politicians.
As we now know, Exxon, Shell and other major oil companies knew of the risks of global warming as early as the 1970s from their own research, but they buried it in order to continue making profits.
GIVEN THE institutional opposition to change, is there any realistic way in which the kind of transformations necessary can actually happen?
I DON’T know what the chances are, but I do know that radical change only happens when mass movements demand it.
The price of beer could rise sharply this century, and it has nothing to do with trends in craft brewing. Instead, a new study says beer prices could double, on average, because of the price of malted barley, a key ingredient in the world’s favorite alcoholic drink. By projecting heat and drought trends over the coming decades, a team of researchers in China, the U.K. and the U.S. found that barley production could be sharply affected by the shifting climate. And that means some parts of the world would very likely be forced to pay much more for a beer. In Ireland, a leading beer-consuming nation, prices could triple, the study says.
THE SOLUTION TO ALL THIS!!!
KEEPING THE ENVIRONMENT FREE OF CARBON EMISSIONS, WHILST KEEPING CAPITALISM IN PLACE, A NEW TECHNOLOGICAL REVOLUTION, KICKSTARTING THE STAGNANT GLOBAL ECONOMY… CLEAN, CHEAP, LIMITLESS, NON-POLLUTING ENERGY SOURCE…. … DRAGONS ARE REAL!!!
“Probably the only truthful and meaningful reporting Ted Turners ever done… now piss off Ted and start dribbling please… and don’t forget to wear your nappy!”
“It’s ‘diaper’ over in the States”
The ONLY solution to humankinds energy and climate problems is ‘hydrino’ energy… IT IS THE ONLY SOLUTION!
There is no nuclear cold fusion. No hot fusion/fission will be developed for viable commercial use… humanity cannot rely upon ‘renewables’ (wind, hydro, solar) to provide power to an ever increasing and energy consuming population… THE ONLY SOLUTION IS RANDELL MILLS, BRILLIANT LIGHT POWER AND THE SUNCELL!… it is that fecking simple!
The guy has singlehandedly (a few people at Brilliant Light Power) saved humanities miserable arse… give him his dues!
“This news report has me stitches! ‘They call it the SunCell, it’s an energy source about the size of a briefcase’… then she has to show the audience an actual briefcase, just in case the yanks forgot the dimensions of one. She should have used a different prop of similar dimensions!… 😀 … ‘They call it the SunCell, it’s an energy source about the size of a midget’ ‘hey!’“
“Half as many animals with back bones would lose the majority of their habitats… yeah it’s the ones without backbones that are causing this!” 😀
“Well the way I see it, in my childlike, possible undiagnosed Asperger’s mind is… if humanity has the solution to ALL of its energy needs in the form of ‘hydrino’ energy, an understanding of the atom (GUT-CP) that can save our planet from all forms of ecological catastrophe… and humanity chooses to ignore that solution for whatever reason… then they must want to burn in a global oven! 😀 They might as well burn their children, which they claim to love and care for so much, in ovens right now!”
“So according to the UN report, either human civilisation utilises and adapts to this technology, and brings forth a new technological revolution… … or humanity continues on the path its on and brings about a Mad Max style ecological apocalypse… … either way I’m happy!… … in fact?” 😀
UN report on global warming carries life-or-death warning ‘Not impossible but will require unprecedented changes’
Report written by 90 scientists says preventing an extra single degree of heat could drastically improve life for millions, but sees little chance of it actually happening.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Preventing an extra single degree of heat could make a life-or-death difference in the next few decades for multitudes of people and ecosystems on this fast-warming planet, an international panel of scientists reported Sunday. But they provide little hope the world will rise to the challenge.
The Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its gloomy report at a meeting in Incheon, South Korea.
We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN
Urgent changes needed to cut risk of extreme heat, drought, floods and poverty, says IPCC IPCC climate change report – live updates and reaction The world’s leading climate scientists have warned there is only a dozen years for global warming to be kept to a maximum of 1.5C, beyond which even half a degree will significantly worsen the risks of drought, floods, extreme heat and poverty for hundreds of millions of people. The authors of the landmark report by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released on Monday say urgent and unprecedented changes are needed to reach the target, which they say is affordable and feasible although it lies at the most ambitious end of the Paris agreement pledge to keep temperatures between 1.5C and 2C. The half-degree difference could also prevent corals from being completely eradicated and ease pressure on the Arctic, according to the 1.5C study, which was launched after approval at a final plenary of all 195 countries in Incheon in South Korea that saw delegates hugging one another, with some in tears. “We must reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero or face more floods” Nicholas Stern “It’s a line in the sand and what it says to our species is that this is the moment and we must act now,” said Debra Roberts, a co-chair of the working group on impacts. “This is the largest clarion bell from the science community and I hope it mobilises people and dents the mood of complacency.”
Avoiding climate chaos means ‘unprecedented’ change: UN report The UN’s 195-nation climate science body plunged deep into overtime Saturday to finalise a report outlining stark options—all requiring a global makeover of unprecedented scale—for avoiding climate chaos. Working through the night, the closed-door huddle in rain-soaked Incheon, South Korea, was to convene a plenary later in the day to hammer through a “Summary for Policymakers.” Can humanity cap global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit)? What will it take and how much will it cost? Would climate impacts be significantly less severe than in a 2C world? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was tasked with these questions by the framers of the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement, which calls for halting the rise in temperatures to “well below” 2C—and 1.5C if possible. That aspirational goal—tacked on to the treaty at the last minute—caught climate scientists off-guard. “Our understanding of 1.5C was very limited, all but two or three of the models we had then were based on a 2C target,” said Henri Waisman, a senior researcher at the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations in Paris, and one of the report’s 86 authors. Based on more than 6,000 peer-reviewed studies, the 20-page bombshell will make for grim reading when it is released on Monday. “Leaders will have nowhere to hide once this report comes out,” said Jennifer Morgan, Executive Director of Greenpeace International, and an observer at the talks.
UN warns paradigm shift needed to avert global climate chaos Avoiding global climate chaos will require a major transformation of society and the world economy that is “unprecedented in scale,” the UN said Monday in a landmark report that warns time is running out to avert disaster. Earth’s surface has warmed one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit)—enough to lift oceans and unleash a crescendo of deadly storms, floods and droughts—and is on track toward an unliveable 3C or 4C rise. At current levels of greenhouse gas emissions, we could pass the 1.5C marker as early as 2030, and no later than mid-century, the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) reported with “high confidence”. “The next few years are probably the most important in human history,” Debra Roberts, head of the Environmental Planning and Climate Protection Department in Durban, South Africa, and an IPCC co-chair, told AFP. A Summary for Policymakers of the 400-page tome underscores how quickly global warming has outstripped humanity’s attempt to tame it, and outlines options for avoiding the worst ravages of a climate-addled future. “We have done our job, we have now passed on the message,” Jim Skea, a professor at Imperial College London’s Centre for Environmental Policy and an IPCC co-chair, said at a press conference.
Preventing an extra single degree of heat could make a life-or-death difference in the next few decades for multitudes of people and ecosystems on this fast-warming planet, an international panel of scientists reported Sunday. But they provide little hope the world will rise to the challenge. The Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its gloomy report at a meeting in Incheon, South Korea. In the 728-page document, the U.N. organization detailed how Earth’s weather, health and ecosystems would be in better shape if the world’s leaders could somehow limit future human-caused warming to just 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit (a half degree Celsius) from now, instead of the globally agreed-upon goal of 1.8 degrees F (1 degree C). Among other things: Half as many people would suffer from lack of water. There would be fewer deaths and illnesses from heat, smog and infectious diseases. Seas would rise nearly 4 inches (0.1 meters) less. Half as many animals with back bones and plants would lose the majority of their habitats. There would be substantially fewer heat waves, downpours and droughts. The West Antarctic ice sheet might not kick into irreversible melting. And it just may be enough to save most of the world’s coral reefs from dying.
Avoiding climate chaos means ‘unprecedented’ change: UN report – New Delhi: The UN’s 195-nation climate science body plunged deep into overtime Saturday to finalise a report outlining stark options — all requiring a global makeover of unprecedented scale — for avoiding climate chaos. … Without a radical course change, we are headed for an unliveable 3C or 4C hike. And yet, humanity has avoided action for so long that any pathway to a climate-safe world involves wrenching economic and social change “unprecedented in terms of scale,” the report said.
We have 12 years to act on climate change before the world as we know it is lost. How much more urgent can it get? Twelve years. According to climate scientists, that’s how long until we hit the 1.5C tipping point if we carry on as we are.
Such a shift in our planetary temperature will imperil not only low-lying areas because of the increased risk of floods, but will have consequences for all of us – not least due to the necessary migration of millions of people away from areas that become uninhabitable.
Coral reefs will vanish; many ancient trees will not survive; extreme weather events will become ever more common. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change paints a bleak picture.
Yet the scientists are also clear that we can still hold the line on further damaging change – if we’re prepared to act fast and invest a great deal of money. By reducing CO2 emissions by nearly half from their 2010 levels, we could give ourselves a fighting chance; by planting millions of trees and using technology to further capture carbon dioxide too, we might just do it.
But in all honesty it is hard to feel optimistic about the world’s ability to make that happen. The World Wildlife Fund’s lead climate change scientist, Chris Weber, says “the difference between possibility and impossibility is political will”, which in present circumstances is unnerving, to say the least.
Deadline for greenhouse gas emissions revealed in UN report
The world’s most authoritative body on climate science has today issued a stark warning about the future of the planet.
More than 90 scientists have pulled together thousands of pieces of research to compile the report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The report says global emissions of greenhouse gas pollution must reach zero by about 2050, for the world to avoid the effects of extreme climate change.
What about the Amazon?… … my Amazon! 😀
The Amazon Used to be a Hedge Against Climate Change. Those Days May Be Over. Direct human impacts like these have long defined the battle to save the rainforest. But Carlos Quesada, with Brazil’s National Institute for Amazonian Research, says a new threat is now looming. “The forest is responding to the atmosphere,” he says. And the atmosphere is changing. Chainsaws and cattle are still eating away at the forest’s perimeter, but carbon dioxide coming out of tailpipes and smokestacks thousands of miles away is altering tropical forests on a much larger scale. “So, in areas completely remote, far away from people’s influence, the forest is changing. Forests that are pristine, they are suffering.” … Quesada says all of this extra CO2 is causing global temperatures to rise on the one hand, “but on the other,” he says, “high CO2 can also stimulate growth.” Growth in trees like the ones we’re standing among. And for years, that’s what’s been happening. The Amazon and many other forests have been absorbing a lot of that extra CO2 and converting it into leaves, branches and trunks. Essentially capturing and storing pollution that would otherwise heat up the atmosphere even more. Quesada says until recently, the Amazon was hungrily absorbing the equivalent of the CO2 pollution from every car on the planet, every year. But even a huge forest like this one can only capture so much more CO2 before it reaches other biological limits. And Quesada says the Amazon appears to have done that, and stopped sucking up extra CO2. “So, we are changing the atmosphere,” he says. “The atmosphere is changing the climate system. And the climate system and the higher levels of CO2 are changing how the forest behaves.” In fact, a few years back, for the first time on record, it actually released more carbon than it absorbed. It flipped from what’s known as a “carbon sink” to a source of carbon. “It’s probably saying, ‘OK, that’s enough now — you guys stop.’” Which, Quesada says, presents a frightening scenario. “The Amazon was buying you some time that it is not going to buy anymore,” he says, because once that environmental service of absorbing extra CO2 from the atmosphere stops, all that extra carbon will instead accumulate in the atmosphere, driving global temperatures even higher at a much faster rate. “We will really start to feel it,” he says.
Recent intensification of Amazon flooding extremes driven by strengthened Walker circulation Abstract The Amazon basin is the largest watershed on Earth. Although the variability of the Amazon hydrological cycle has been increasing since the late 1990s, its underlying causes have remained elusive. We use water levels in the Amazon River to quantify changes in extreme events and then analyze their cause. Despite continuing research emphasis on droughts, the largest change over recent decades is a marked increase in very severe floods. Increased flooding is linked to a strengthening of the Walker circulation, resulting from strong tropical Atlantic warming and tropical Pacific cooling. Atlantic warming due to combined anthropogenic and natural factors has contributed to enhance the change in atmospheric circulation. Whether this anomalous increase in flooding will last depends on the evolution of the tropical inter-ocean temperature difference.
“See, if it boiled down to a choice between 7 billion humans and the Amazon forest… I’d easily choose the forest” 😀
“He isn’t joking on that one either!”