The Amazon Rainforest

[M.R Otter]

As we all know the Amazon jungle is important to all of us.....This forest gives out 20% of the world's oxygen and it is called the Earth's lung, the point is that, the rain forest is been chopped down and distroyed by humans, this thing had endangered so many Birds, Plants and even insects, and the Amazon jungle is our only hope against the Global Warming. is there someone that is protecting this forest? is this forest still and will stay bieng chopped? what does the Government has to say about this?

 

[pinkdolphin_113]

Governments are very absent minded...they tend to work on whats happening now, rather than what will happen later...hence global warming.
There are many different organisations helping to slow down, and hopefully prevent, deforestation of the Amazon rainforest, but they probably won't receive any help from any Governments. If they do, then great!
The problem is, its a rainforest...and with that, it brings many resources.
If people started recyling wooden objects, such as tables and chairs, instead of throwing them on a fire on bonfire night, creating more CO2 contributing to global warming may I add!, then the ruining of this natural haven would slow down dramatically...but people tend to think, "MY contribution alone won't help in anyway" or "no body else is doing it, so why should i?"
It makes me sick to think that a lot of the amazon rainforest is gonna be destroyed before anyone has even had chance to thoroughly explore it/perform proper research...there could be dinosaurs in there somewhere for all we know!
Its similar to the abysal plains...dredging and deep sea trawling is destroying deep sea habitats before anyone has explored them!


Pink.

 

[dave_oddballs]

this problem is being monitored and protested against by a number of organizations both in Brazil and elsewhere. the fact is that yes the forest does produce 20% of the worlds oxygen and it is being cut down at a rate equivalent to the size of 6 football pitches every minute!, i personally don't think there is enough being done at the moment to save it in time. there is one organization that proved that a square mile of hemp plants wold produce more paper than the same area of rain forest, if people used this it would slow the destruction of the rainforest by half, of course the argument is that the hemp plant also produces marijuana which subsequently illegal. there has been a number of proposals of 'alternatives' to cutting down the forest but it hasn't stopped it.
the scientific facts include, the rainforest produces its own weather, the less forest there is the less rain it would produce, it is the rain that builds up and floods the forest every year, thus fertilizing the forest, this is why it is so rich in growth, the rain slows, the flooding is less, the fertilization decreases, the plant and tree growth decreases so in fact the amount of trees destroyed is doubled in the long run, and eventually the forest would get next to no fertilization and simple collapse as it will be unable to support its self. people cause the problems, its only people who could stop it, but they won't, they're too greedy!

 

[M.R Otter]

Is there something that we can do to stop the rainforest from bieng chopped? and do people know how bad it is for the rainforest to be chopped? and why the chopping can't be stopped?

 

[Truck]

You've got to remember that global warming due to human's is still only a theory, it is not a fact.
methane is doing just as much damage, but I can see where your coming from, from the habitat side of view, but I believe we could combat CO2 problems quite easily...Algal farms, Algae is a very adaptable organism and does well in a range of conditions, and it can photosynthesize very fast.

When I was at a lecture on nuclear fussion on monday, Kate lancaster a nuclear expert in her field was talking about how nuclear fusion reactors are fast becoming a feasible source of energy, and putting out very little emissions, the fussion itself is very clean! fusion reactors can't go into meltdown, a bit like the chernobyl fission plant, but the chances of that happening again aren't very likely, so it would make a good source of energy, compared to wood and fossil fuels.

We've got to remember that the whole global warming malarkey is only a theory, and I for one only believe in parts of it.

 

[M.R Otter]

Maybe you haven't read my last post.... maybe you should read it and then post (NO OFFENCE).

 

[OldMan47]

I fully understand your concern with the devastation that has been going on in the Amazon jungle for decades now. Other people are trying to express their own opinions and are equally likely to have a valuable input in the discussions if you will allow any ideas that differ from your own. One of those is the very simple concept that the production of the other 80% of oxygen production could be enhanced to offset the simple oxygen production loss. To me, that is not even the question. The much bigger question here is not simply oxygen and CO2 but the diverse environment with its vast reservoir of differing life forms that are being destroyed, before we even have a chance to categorize them, much less understand the value of each of those life forms. Energy sources can be changed as they have been repeatedly over the prior centuries but once a life form is lost, it is lost and cannot be retrieved.

 

[Truck]

Is there something that we can do to stop the rainforest from bieng chopped? and do people know how bad it is for the rainforest to be chopped? and why the chopping can't be stopped?

I bet 99% of the population know what it is doing, but gangs illegally log and the Brazilian government wont do anything, there is policing in the amazon, 2000 brazilian police officers and soldiers were sent in, obviously this isn't enough.

 

[dave_oddballs]

there is many arguments about this, it is fact that humans are responsible for a percentage of the global warming problem, its the actual percentage that hasn't and can not be accurately proven, the same as it is said that the amazon produces 20% of the worlds oxygen, this is just an estimate, no one will prove it exactly, there will always be other ways to mass produce oxygen but its if the people in the world are willing to do this.
a lot of the people who do cause the destruction do it because its their way of life, the same way you go to work, to earn money, to live, they do it for money to live, they will be long gone before the effects are really affecting the lives of humans so they don't care. things will change, they could be made to change for the better or they could simply carry on getting worse, the same as the icebergs, they estimate in 90 years the sea level will have risen 3 foot, which will easily cover all low lying land, reducing the amount of land this already overpopulated world has to support its population. its quite simple, its no good asking if things will change or will they not, the fact is that not in our generation, or the next generation of people but one day this problem will become irreversible and will affect peoples day to day lives, one day people will have to do something, or its game over, its called mass suicide, we would have been responsible for ending the human race.

 

[Bignose]

You've got to remember that global warming due to human's is still only a theory, it is not a fact.
methane is doing just as much damage, but I can see where your coming from, from the habitat side of view, but I believe we could combat CO2 problems quite easily...Algal farms, Algae is a very adaptable organism and does well in a range of conditions, and it can photosynthesize very fast.

When I was at a lecture on nuclear fussion on monday, Kate lancaster a nuclear expert in her field was talking about how nuclear fusion reactors are fast becoming a feasible source of energy, and putting out very little emissions, the fussion itself is very clean! fusion reactors can't go into meltdown, a bit like the chernobyl fission plant, but the chances of that happening again aren't very likely, so it would make a good source of energy, compared to wood and fossil fuels.

We've got to remember that the whole global warming malarkey is only a theory, and I for one only believe in parts of it.

Here in the Scientific Section, you HAVE to use the words correctly. In this case, "theory". In science, a theory is well-supported by evidence. I don't think that that is what you mean.

The casual everyday use of the word theory is significantly different than the scientific use of the word theory.

Please be more careful of its use here in the scientific section to ensure that you mean exactly what you write.

----------------

Also, I still stand by what I wrote in the bio-fuels thread: http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?/topic/313246-algae-bio-fuel/

There is an incredible amount of evidence that the Earth is indeed warming.
There is a fair amount of evidence that mankind is the cause for a significant amount of it. As dave writes above, what isn't sure is exactly what that percentage is.

Nonetheless, I think that we (mankind) are foolish to just assume that our share of the warming is small and ignore it. I feel we should be doing everything we can to slow down our emissions of CO2 and methane (both of which are known to be greenhouse gases). It is simply the safe bet. If our portion of it is small and we stop polluting, then things will continue on the same. But, if our portion is large and we do nothing, then we are just destroying ourselves unnecessarily. And today, it is unnecessarily because there are alternates that are available.

----------------

Finally, truck, I think you should do some reading as to why a great deal of scientists are so sure mankind's emissions have a significant effect. We have computational models that can recreate the temperature profile of the history of mankind. These models have as inputs the amount of CO2 that was present as each time -- both natural and manmade. Obviously, the manmade CO2 was very small at the beginning and then continuously rises. Given that the models accurately recreate the past almost perfectly, their predictions into the future need to be considered seriously. And what those models predict is not good. These models aren't just something a few guys bang out in a weekend -- these scientists have spent their lives making sure the computational methods, the inputs, and the results are all as accurate as they can be. They hold conferences where other scientists can pick over and point out mistakes in the models in the attempt to make them better. The models we have a very good. Not perfect by any means, and there are certainly plenty of areas of improvement, but they are very good. If you don't believe the models, you can read in the scientific literature exactly what the models are doing, and why every choice along the development of the model was made. It is all out there.

 

[Mikaila31]

Destruction of the rainforest is a big issue. The local governments sometimes protect "some" of it. Similar to how we setup national parks. Thing is the rainforest is a major resource to these countries. Most of which are still developing. History has show that undeveloped countries exploit there natural resources in an attempt to modernize. If you go down there and point a finger at them for cutting down there forests, they point the finger right back at us. The US and Europe use to be heavily forested. In the US they say a squirrel could go from the west to east without ever touching the ground. Where did all the trees go? We chopped them down. We have already removed and destroyed most of our native forests, so really what right do we have to tell another country not to do the same?

Also your thing about the rainforest producing it may produce a lot of oxygen, but it doesn't produce the most. My understanding is that most oxygen production comes from algae then followed by the taiga(northern forest). The rainforest is important because of its biodiversity.

Logging from both a land management and ecological view point is not entirely a bad thing. Trees are renewable, especially in the rainforest. They will grow back rapidly. What hurts is massive strip logging. There are both ways of sustainable and nonsustainable logging. The taiga is actually more impacted by deforestation. It is mainly old growth forests. These despite being trees, are NOT renewable. Sure they will grow back, but not in our lifespan, it will take them longer.

How to stop the logging? Watch what you buy. Paper products should be recycled or have a sustainable forestry or eco friendly mark. Even simple things like toilet paper. The nice soft stuff is made more from old growth forests. Toilet paper alone counts for 5% of logging in old growth forests. The crappy stuff you see at gas stations, is usually recycled. And as always recycle everything you can.

 

[pinkdolphin_113]

Here in the Scientific Section, you HAVE to use the words correctly. In this case, "theory". In science, a theory is well-supported by evidence. I don't think that that is what you mean.

a theory can't be proven...thats what makes it a THEORY and not a fact...



why is everyone talking about global warming? i thought this was a topic on the amazon rainforest??
but as we're here the rainforest isn't our only hope to save us from global warming, as truckasaurus stated. algal farms are probably going to see a huge increase in the future.
but saying this, algae (as well as any other plants on earth) produce CO2 too...unless they were in constant sunlight obviously.

theres just too many natural things thats saying the Earth says global warming is a good idea. yea, humans have contributed, but global warming is a natural process, hence the last iceage...and the one before that...and the one before that...etc.



As for getting back on topic, the Amazon rainforest is, no doubt about it, going to be gone soon...as well as sharks, tigers, elephants...get out there and see them while you can!
thats what I'm doing.

Pink.

 

[Bignose]

Here in the Scientific Section, you HAVE to use the words correctly. In this case, "theory". In science, a theory is well-supported by evidence. I don't think that that is what you mean.

a theory can't be proven...thats what makes it a THEORY and not a fact...

Where did you see the word "prove"? Because it wasn't me.

I said "well-supported by evidence".

This is why in science, the proper term is "The Theory of Gravity" or "The Theory of Evolution". Both are exceptionally well supported by evidence, but both are still properly called theories. That is the scientific terminology. Please read: http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

In scientific terminology, something that isn't well-supported by evidence is a "hypothesis" or an "idea".

Here in the scientific section, as moderator, I want the words to be used properly.

 

[england]

Impossible task protecting the rainforset....illegal logging goes on everyday, including huge oil companys that destroy the forest,where tribes try to protect what they own,there are alot of murders due to protecting the forest, it will be a very difficult task to get under control....if i can i will find the program i watch about it all

 

[dave_oddballs]

theories have the potential to be proven, all theories are in the process of being proven, some are proved wrong, in which case it is not fact some theories are proven in which case they become facts, ans some theories will never be proven right or wrong, which leaves them as theories i suppose. its not good saying, 'oh, algae farms are the way forward' they should not be the answer, thats like saying chop his arm off, its ok we can get a fake one.
the fact i yes, there is no doubt there will be more ice ages in time, hopefully by that time humans would have developed ways of preserving the human race, yes this is fact, it has been proven it is going to happen, over and over again, whether we, or any other animal will be here to witness it is a different question, i doubt at this point no one could say for fact who or what will or will not survive the next ice age.
it is estimated that the amazon produces around 20% of the worlds oxygen (at the moment!) and marine plants most of which are photosynthetic algae produce 70-80% of the worlds oxygen, so if this is roughly correct nothing else in the world plays a large part in the production of oxygen in the world.
theoretically the world could go on without the rainforest, or if the scientists who estimate the % of oxygen produced by algae are correct, the world could go on with no tree's at all!
since the subject is the the rainforest, we will get back to it, i think the true worry is the life in the rainforest, the mammals, the fish, the insects, the reptiles and indeed the amphibians, a large percentage of animals would become extinct if the rainforest was gone, there is a large number of animals and indeed plants that only live in parts of the amazon, they would be extinct. this is the real worry, and for that we would be to blame, that would not be a natural process, no one else to blame but ourselves. oxygen production wouldn't even be a factor. the world produces more than enough oxygen to support the population, its the amount of land that can't support the population. the population could double and we would all still have enough oxygen to live.
if people really do care about the rainforests and its inhabitants, the last thing to worry about should be oxygen production.