The Amazon Is Doing Exactly the Opposite of What Climate Scientists Spent Decades Predicting

Grokmaster

Well-known member
Contributor
Gasp! Climatistas wrong again...as usual... :rofl2:


The Amazon Is Doing Exactly the Opposite of What Climate Scientists Spent Decades Predicting​



AA1NAzzk.img




For decades, scientists feared the Amazon rainforest was teetering on the edge — increasingly stressed by rising temperatures, prolonged droughts and deforestation. But a landmark study published in Nature Plants this month offers a surprising counterpoint: trees across the Amazon have been steadily growing larger, defying predictions of widespread decline.

Researchers from more than 60 universities — including the University of Cambridge, Universidade do Mato Grosso and University of Leeds — tracked nearly 200 forest plots over a 40-year period, starting in 1971. Their findings show that the average size of Amazonian trees has increased by 3.2% every decade, across all tree classes. From saplings in the understory to towering canopy elders, the forest appears to be thriving — at least for now.

“We expected to see signs of stress or stagnation,” said Professor Tim Baker, a senior author on the project from the University of Leeds. “Instead, we saw consistent growth, even in the largest trees. It was unexpected.”

The study links this growth spurt to the rising concentration of carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the atmosphere — a greenhouse gas long blamed for driving global warming. Trees absorb CO₂ through photosynthesis, turning it into biomass. With more CO₂ available, the Amazon seems to be undergoing a kind of natural fertilisation effect, fuelling its expansion.

This CO₂ fertilisation effect isn’t new to plant scientists, but what makes this study remarkable is the uniformity of the response. Initial models had predicted an uneven distribution of benefits, where only the tallest, sun-drenched trees would thrive, pushing smaller ones out. That didn’t happen.

“We actually found the opposite,” said Dr Adriane Esquivel-Muelbert, who co-led the study while at the University of Birmingham. “Trees of all sizes are growing faster. The forest appears to be sharing the benefits of CO₂ enrichment across the board.”









 
Gasp! Climatistas wrong again...as usual... :rofl2:


The Amazon Is Doing Exactly the Opposite of What Climate Scientists Spent Decades Predicting​



AA1NAzzk.img




For decades, scientists feared the Amazon rainforest was teetering on the edge — increasingly stressed by rising temperatures, prolonged droughts and deforestation. But a landmark study published in Nature Plants this month offers a surprising counterpoint: trees across the Amazon have been steadily growing larger, defying predictions of widespread decline.

Researchers from more than 60 universities — including the University of Cambridge, Universidade do Mato Grosso and University of Leeds — tracked nearly 200 forest plots over a 40-year period, starting in 1971. Their findings show that the average size of Amazonian trees has increased by 3.2% every decade, across all tree classes. From saplings in the understory to towering canopy elders, the forest appears to be thriving — at least for now.

“We expected to see signs of stress or stagnation,” said Professor Tim Baker, a senior author on the project from the University of Leeds. “Instead, we saw consistent growth, even in the largest trees. It was unexpected.”

The study links this growth spurt to the rising concentration of carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the atmosphere — a greenhouse gas long blamed for driving global warming. Trees absorb CO₂ through photosynthesis, turning it into biomass. With more CO₂ available, the Amazon seems to be undergoing a kind of natural fertilisation effect, fuelling its expansion.

This CO₂ fertilisation effect isn’t new to plant scientists, but what makes this study remarkable is the uniformity of the response. Initial models had predicted an uneven distribution of benefits, where only the tallest, sun-drenched trees would thrive, pushing smaller ones out. That didn’t happen.

“We actually found the opposite,” said Dr Adriane Esquivel-Muelbert, who co-led the study while at the University of Birmingham. “Trees of all sizes are growing faster. The forest appears to be sharing the benefits of CO₂ enrichment across the board.”










Aunt Phanny must be having kittens!!
.
 
While The Daily Galaxy covers science topics, particularly astronomy and space, its journalistic credibility is highly questionable and is generally regarded as an unreliable source. It is often described as a "blogspam" site that sensationalizes scientific discoveries, leading to a negative reputation in online science communities.
  • Sensationalism: The site has a reputation for exaggerating scientific findings and using dramatic headlines. In discussions among astronomy enthusiasts, it has been described as "utter garbage" that makes "pretty obviously false claims".
  • Poorly written and factually incorrect articles: User reviews and forums cite the presence of poorly written articles and factual errors, which indicates a lack of rigorous fact-checking and editorial oversight.
  • Aggregator, not an original source: The Daily Galaxy is largely an aggregator of news from other outlets rather than a primary source producing its own original, well-researched content.
  • Lack of transparency and journalistic standards: Unlike reputable scientific news outlets, The Daily Galaxy does not transparently disclose its editorial process, fact-checking policies, or the credentials of its writers.
 
Idiots should try to read their own references first. Tree sizes are increasing because of the huge deforestation of the Amazon and the highest atmospheric CO2 levels in a couple million years.

“The observed increases in tree size and BA are consistent with previous studies reporting a carbon sink across tropical forests stimulated particularly by CO2 fertilization.

“…the number of trees drops as space is occupied by fewer larger trees,leading to an increase in mean tree size.”

“On the contrary, atmospheric CO2 has progressively increased year after year globally and across all tropical forests, consistent with the Amazonian-wide tree size increase.”

Fucking moron
 
Assuming this study is valid it reflects an open mindedness that characterizes science in contrast to the locked minds in Trump world where even now "The Stolen Election" remains an article of truth.
 
While The Daily Galaxy covers science topics, particularly astronomy and space, its journalistic credibility is highly questionable and is generally regarded as an unreliable source. It is often described as a "blogspam" site that sensationalizes scientific discoveries, leading to a negative reputation in online science communities.
  • Sensationalism: The site has a reputation for exaggerating scientific findings and using dramatic headlines. In discussions among astronomy enthusiasts, it has been described as "utter garbage" that makes "pretty obviously false claims".
  • Poorly written and factually incorrect articles: User reviews and forums cite the presence of poorly written articles and factual errors, which indicates a lack of rigorous fact-checking and editorial oversight.
  • Aggregator, not an original source: The Daily Galaxy is largely an aggregator of news from other outlets rather than a primary source producing its own original, well-researched content.
  • Lack of transparency and journalistic standards: Unlike reputable scientific news outlets, The Daily Galaxy does not transparently disclose its editorial process, fact-checking policies, or the credentials of its writers.
Yaaawwwnnn....

"
Researchers from more than 60 universities — including the University of Cambridge, Universidade do Mato Grosso and University of Leeds — tracked nearly 200 forest plots over a 40-year period, starting in 1971. Their findings show that the average size of Amazonian trees has increased by 3.2% every decade, across all tree classes. From saplings in the understory to towering canopy elders, the forest appears to be thriving — at least for now.


“We expected to see signs of stress or stagnation,” said Professor Tim Baker, a senior author on the project from the University of Leeds. “Instead, we saw consistent growth, even in the largest trees. It was unexpected.”
 
I said you don't know the meaning of non-sequitur and the comment you say was "irrelevant" addressed the thread claim directly.
Seems you're not smart enough to know the difference. You never are.

non se·qui·tur
/ˌnän ˈsekwədər/

noun

  1. a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

    Stupidfuck. You haven't the brains of turnip.







 
Yaaawwwnnn....

"
Researchers from more than 60 universities — including the University of Cambridge, Universidade do Mato Grosso and University of Leeds — tracked nearly 200 forest plots over a 40-year period, starting in 1971. Their findings show that the average size of Amazonian trees has increased by 3.2% every decade, across all tree classes. From saplings in the understory to towering canopy elders, the forest appears to be thriving — at least for now.


“We expected to see signs of stress or stagnation,” said Professor Tim Baker, a senior author on the project from the University of Leeds. “Instead, we saw consistent growth, even in the largest trees. It was unexpected.”
Yep. Record CO2 levels and deforestation. Trees are getting bigger. There just are so many fewer.

But, you’ll stick with a simplistic narrative. That’s what simpleton’s do.
 
While The Daily Galaxy covers science topics, particularly astronomy and space, its journalistic credibility is highly questionable and is generally regarded as an unreliable source. It is often described as a "blogspam" site that sensationalizes scientific discoveries, leading to a negative reputation in online science communities.
  • Sensationalism: The site has a reputation for exaggerating scientific findings and using dramatic headlines. In discussions among astronomy enthusiasts, it has been described as "utter garbage" that makes "pretty obviously false claims".
  • Poorly written and factually incorrect articles: User reviews and forums cite the presence of poorly written articles and factual errors, which indicates a lack of rigorous fact-checking and editorial oversight.
  • Aggregator, not an original source: The Daily Galaxy is largely an aggregator of news from other outlets rather than a primary source producing its own original, well-researched content.
  • Lack of transparency and journalistic standards: Unlike reputable scientific news outlets, The Daily Galaxy does not transparently disclose its editorial process, fact-checking policies, or the credentials of its writers.
If it came from Grok, we fully expect this.
 
Back
Top