Another WWF assisted IPCC claim debunked: Amazon more drought resistant than claimed

It Should Be Obvious™
What depth is the water table? How far down are the aquifers?
You don’t get vegetation to grow that tall and that dense without very deep roots. It seems very likely they extend downward at least as far as a reliably-producing hand-dug well would go.
The dang trees can fetch their own water. Little shortages in the rainfall don’t matter, unless going on for a very long time, which certainly does not look to be happening anytime soon.

While rain forest resistance to drought is a bit of a no brainer, I am at a loss as to why this is relevant.
It has been empirically established, by Wentz et al, that:
“And as the air, earth and sea warms with climate change the atmospheric water vapor load increases by as much as 6.5 percent per degree Celsius, according to satellite data from the past 20 years. As the water vapor increases, so, too, will rainfall, argues physicist Frank Wentz, director of Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) in Santa Rosa, Calif., a provider of climate data records contracted by NASA. ”
So the only way drought will increase, will be via a global cooling scenario. When we see polar ice growing, we will know more water is being removed from the atmosphere, and absolute humidity is dropping. It will then be time to worry about drought and increased desertification.
Btw, both poles are now nominal, in regards to sea ice extent. GK

Cont… can’t find the original source, but here is something:
Greenpeace’s factsheets cannot disguise which side Exxon is really on. Their factsheet on Stanford University reads :
On November 20, 2002 Exxon Mobil announced it would give $100 million to a groundbreaking Stanford University project dedicated to researching new options for commercially viable, technological systems for energy supply and use which have the capability to substantially reduce greenhouse emissions.” Other corporate sponsors to The Global Climate and Energy Project included General Electric and Schlumberger…..The project is not intended to further explore climate science, instead focusing on development of new energy technology and carbon sequestration technology(5)
The same ruse was used in 1913 to get Congress and the public behind the plan for the Federal Reserve System. Unknown to the public, the Federal Reserve Act was drawn up in secret by Wall Street in 1910. Rockefeller and friends knew that there was great public mistrust of Wall Street ‘s involvement with the Glass-Owen Bill placed before Congress. The only way to swing public opinion in favour of the Bill was for Wall Street to come out in the press vehemently against it. And so anti-establishment feeling helped to win the day for Wall Street.(6). This is a warning from history that Rockefellers deny with their lips what they are doing with their hands.
So what are they doing with their hands, or more importantly with their wallets? Besides the Stanford University example, under the umbrella of Rockefeller Family Fund 136 foundations formed the Environmental Grant makers Association (EGA) in 1987 which has grown to over 200 by the end of the twentieth century. It donates hundreds of millions of dollars annually to environmental groups. In a dazzling display of raw power, foundations with interlocking directorates funded the Nature Conservancy in 1996 to the tune of $203,886,056, or 60 percent of its annual revenue. The Earth Charter, written by Stephen Rockefeller is the Ten Commandments for the Green Religion. It was a development of an earlier Rockefeller initiative, the 1972 Rockefeller Brothers Fund report entitled Use of Land: A Citizen’s Policy Guide to Urban Growth. This was a bench-mark publication on subjecting property rights to government censure.(7)

Ann said,
“It is important to remember that we are talking about a natural drought. The devastation caused by fires and the clearing of forests for such artificial constructs as Brasilia have cause enormous damage, although there does seem to be some mitigation over time. In other words, junk science does not obliterate the real problem of environmental destruction.”
Well Ann, I don’t think anyone here would advocate for wanton environmental destruction, and the fact that there has been some mitigation over time is further evidence of the resilience of the rainforest.
Certainly I don’t personally think that over-logging and/or clearing huge areas of rainforest in order to build a city are the best ideas on the planet, but over-logging and over-clearing of the forest are not caused by excessive levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, they are (unlike global warming) ACTUALLY caused by human choices and activities.

In reply to Gail Combs,
FINALLY someone who actually understands. Regulations are NOT written to control large corporations. Regulations are written BY the large corporations, then passed by our “government” to the detriment of small businesses and the people in general.
Bank regulations do NOT make big banks smaller. Bank regulations make mega-banks even bigger, and destroy community banks. Farming regulations do not make big farms become smaller and more local and manageable. Farming regulations benefit the mega-farms and destroy small family-owned community-based farming.
Look at any instance of government “regulation” and you will see exactly the same phenomenon. This is not by accident, this is by design.

PeterB in Indainapolis (08:48:43) :
“In reply to Gail Combs,
FINALLY someone who actually understands. Regulations are NOT written to control large corporations. Regulations are written BY the large corporations, then passed by our “government” to the detriment of small businesses and the people in general.”
Yes I finally figured that out. At another site “Sancho” remarked about his brother who works for EPA. The brother was ordered to leave Mobil and Exxon alone and go after the small Mom and Pop businesses. Regulations are there to raise the bar so new comers can not become business owners and challenge the profits of the mega corporations. Think about it For the average Joe trying to make a living in a one man shop the following businesses have been regulated out of existence by the US government or insurance companies.
Maid/laundry service
child care
petting zoos
mechanic shops
home baked goodies
even “consultant”
Just to name a few. We are being herded into working for the big corporations. New tax reg now make it almost impossible for a single person to be a consultant. One technical writer found she was paid $10 while the big temp firm charged over $100 for her work. Companies will no longer hire you unless you are from a multi-person consulting firm thanks to the change in tax regs that was “supposed to protect workers from exploitation”
The USA is now Government by the megacorporations for the megacorporation…
and this from a capitalist!

Gail Combs (09:49:43) :I made the comment because people seem to equate burning with evil when it is a natural part of the earth’s cycles
If it’s natural then: “Save the jungles, burn global warmers instead of trees!”

owl (01:36:38), and Stephen Skinner (03:29:54), the “eco-suicide” of the Easter Islanders is probably just another eco-myth:
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/EE%2016-34_Peiser.pdf
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/rethinking-the-fall-of-easter-island
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125621.100-easter-island-a-monumental-collapse.html?full=true

jeez (02:54:19) : said
Hey owl. Can you name 5 of the those species that went extinct in 2009?
owl (04:41:58) : said
List of extinct species in 2009
New Zealand Owlet-nightjar
Owl. .As you can see the below the NZ owlet-nightjar has been long gone – like since 1200 AD. This was just the first on your list of 5. Why should I believe anything you say.
Despite a small number of reports of small owls being found in the 19th century that may have been New Zealand Owlet-nightjars, the species is thought to have become extinct around 1200 AD.
The New Zealand Owlet-nightjar was the largest species of owlet-nightjar, weighing an estimated 150-200 g. The species was also either flightless, as suggested by its small wings, or a very poor flier (the species has a strong keel). The diet probably consisted of invertebrates, as well as frogs and lizards.
The species rapidly became extinct after the introduction of Pacific Rats to New Zealand. Their remains have never been found in association with Māori middens, and are unlikely to have been hunted due to their small size and nocturnal habits.
Doug

Tenuc (00:24:09) :
However, as climate is defined, in our reference frame, as long-term changes to weather these events, energetic though they are, have no measurable effect of climate and provide no indication of change.
———–
Sorry, no.
If what used to be a “once-in-a-century drought” starts happening every 10 years in a place like the American Southwest, then by definition, the climate for that region has changed.
My links above do not attempt to prove that this is the case in the locations mentioned – but it brings up the topic. The point is, “once-in-a-century” weather events for a particular place is not an eternal, unchanging measurement.
If the Amazon rain forest starts to have “once-in-a-century” droughts every 10 years, that is significant. And also shows “once-in-a-century drought” needs to be updated.