Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
All living things have tipping points: points of no return, beyond which they cannot thrive. A new report in Science shows that maximum daily temperatures above 32.2 degrees Celsius (about 90 degrees Fahrenheit) cause tropical forests to lose stored carbon more quickly. To prevent this escape of carbon into the atmosphere, the authors, including three scientists affiliated with the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI) in Panama, recommend immediate steps to conserve tropical forests and stabilize the climate.
Carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas, released as fossil fuels are burned. It is absorbed by trees as they grow and stored as wood. When trees get too hot and dry, they may close the pores in their leaves to save water, but that also prevents them from taking in more carbon. And when trees die, they release stored carbon back into the atmosphere.
Tropical forests hold about 40% of all the carbon stored by land plants. For this study, researchers measured the ability of tropical forests in different sites to store carbon.
“Tropical forests grow across a wide range of climate conditions,” said Stuart Davies, director of the Smithsonian’s Forest Global Earth Observatories (ForestGEO), a worldwide network of 70 forest study sites in 27 countries. “By examining forests across the tropics, we can assess their resilience and responses to changes in global temperatures. Many other studies explored how individual forests respond to short-term climatic fluctuations. This study takes a novel approach by exploring the implications of thermal conditions currently experienced by all tropical forests.”
By comparing carbon storage in trees at almost 600 sites around the world that are part of several different forest monitoring initiatives: RAINFOR, AfriTRON, T-FORCES and ForestGEO, the huge research team led by Martin Sullivan from the University of Leeds and Manchester Metropolitan University found major differences in the amount of carbon stored by tropical forests in South America, Africa, Asia and Australia. South American forests store less carbon than forests in the Old World, perhaps due to evolutionary differences in which tree species are growing there.
They also found that the two most important factors predicting how much carbon is lost by forests are the maximum daily temperature and the amount of precipitation during the driest times of the year.
As temperatures reach 32.2 degrees Celsius, carbon is released much faster. Trees can deal with increases in the minimum nighttime temperature (a global warming phenomenon observed at some sites), but not with increases in maximum daytime temperature.
They predict that South American forests will be the most affected by global warming because temperatures there are already higher than on other continents and the projections for future warming are also highest for this region. Increasing carbon in the atmosphere may counterbalance some of this loss, but would also exacerbate warming.
Forests can adapt to warming temperatures, but it takes time. Tree species that cannot take the heat die and are gradually replaced by more heat-tolerant species. But that may take several human generations.
“This study highlights the importance of protecting tropical forests and stabilizing the Earth’s climate,” said Jefferson Hall, co-author and director of the Smithsonian’s Agua Salud Project in Panama. “One important tool will be to find novel ways to restore degraded land, like planting tree species that help make tropical forests more resilient to the realities of the 21st century.”
The Agua Salud project asks how native tree species adapted to an area can be used to manage water, store carbon and promote biodiversity conservation at a critical point where North and South America connect.
It is also noted that one of the first permanent tropical forest study sites in the world, located at STRI’s research station on Barro Colorado Island in Panama, is currently not being monitored for the first time in 40 years as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, giving scientists less of a handle on any climate change effects that may be in play.
Steve Paton, director of STRI’s physical monitoring program, notes that in 2019 there were 32 days with maximum temperatures over 32 degrees Celsius at a weather station in the forest canopy on the island, and a first glance at his data indicates that these exceptionally hot days are becoming more common.
###
Again, we living in an Ice Age.
When tropical trees existed tens of million of years ago, it was not an Ice Age and there was a much higher global temperature.
All they are really talking about is that increased temperatures cause trees to take in less CO2 and they highlight this as a problem.
It would only be a problem if one believes in the fairy tale of Human-caused, CO2-caused, Climate Change.
Temperatures have been a lot warmer in the past and did not harm the trees or the climate then, so we should not expect to see any harm from a temperature increase today measured in tenths of a degree.
From this article.
“As temperatures reach 32.2 degrees Celsius, carbon is released much faster. Trees can deal with increases in the minimum nighttime temperature (a global warming phenomenon observed at some sites), but not with increases in maximum daytime temperature.”
I’m confused. Apparently, they are a lot warmer than 32.2 C now. How is more than 32.2 C bad when it’s already hotter than that and the forests are just fine?
“In Brazil, the rainy season roughly runs from mid-December to mid-May, and in this time temperatures are a tiny bit cooler than during dry season. This time of year also brings heavier winds, which cause increased rainfall around the central Amazon. The rest of the year (June to December) is considered dry season. Average temperatures in the Brazilian Amazon range from roughly 85 – 95 degrees (29 – 35C), with night times dropping up to ten degrees in heat.”
The big deal of >32.2 C is what, exactly?
It’s called invention science in the old days scientists used to call them thought experiments. So you take a smattering of facts and make some claim that would take a ridiculous amount of work to disprove. Given the amount of effort it would take to disprove it, and only an idiot would believe it so the claim stands.
It’s not new Einstein used to use the same sort or arguments against QM because he disliked it … “does god play dice”, “does the moon really exist if no-one is looking” etc. Einstein’s science reputation is greatly diminished these days because of these sorts of silly claims that he had all the information to know they were wrong, and so he is viewed as a very flawed genius.
>>
. . . so he [Einstein] is viewed as a very flawed genius.
<<
Yeah, right. When has General Relativity ever failed an experimental test? QED, which replaced Maxwell’s Equations, combines Special Relativity with Quantum Theory and is based on renormalization of infinities–that even Feynman disliked. And how about electrons? Point charges? Miniature black holes? As you get smaller the electric force increases so much that it would blow the elctron apart–if it has a non-zero, though very tiny physical size. Einstein disliked the idea of black holes too.
Jim
Yeah, so 32.2 is a magical number after which carbon is released as methane and carbon dioxide, but what is taking place elsewhere in the world? The Amazon doesn’t live on its own planet.
As the temperature rises one or two degrees, forests don’t do much, but when CO2 rises, forests respond vigorously. Overall carbon fixing in forests, particularly those outside the tropical zone, have risen dramatically since 1980, from 30 to as much as 50 per cent. It is an amazing phenomenon. Forests are starving for carbon dioxide and when it is available, they grab it immediately. The rate up additional growth was recently upgraded.
This article clearly intends to creat panic over co2 emissions from forests, while ignoring what is happening overall.
The more humid it is, the less impact CO2 can have. Tropical forests already have pretty much all the humidity they can handle. A small increase in CO2 is not capable of significantly warming the tropics.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the assumption that the temperature increase in the tropics has been minimal, if any at all, compared to the higher latitudes?
”And when trees die, they release stored carbon back into the atmosphere” Also, I thought that dead wood is still a carbon bank. Something many greenies don’t want to admit. Especially those opposed to logging.
In fact, the best way to sequester carbon, and enrage greenies at the same time as a bonus, is to turn those trees into woodchips and put them on your flowerbeds.
Because mature forest is co2 neutral (the Amazon are not the lungs of the world); cut down all mature forests and bury the wood, do NOT burn it. Reforest with fast growing wood, rinse and repeat.
OMG, you can’t tell the truth out loud like that!
Sounds like a great CCS racket? Fill all the opencast extraction/mining sites – that we can’t landfill because its not environmentally friendly and you must burn the waste for subsidies in return for converting waste to CO2 in a eco way (special green chemistry) – with trees you chop down and collect CCS subsidies…. as its the only thing that is likely to work, subsidies must come while the CO2 racket remains credible, until the temperatures have dropped reliably over several years as they soon must, despite the “adjustments”.
Yes Hans, I’ve been trying to advocate for years that the best way to sequester carbon in the bush is to have a vibrant forest industry. A young forest stores more carbon than an old growth forest which as you say, is carbon neutral.
They opposed to logging for lumber, but wildly in favor of logging for burning “bio-fuels”.
Trees might grow back, so burning them is a major part of renewable energy- which is generously, subsidized by all green governments.
Yes, the tropics are pretty much always hot, but I am sure there is some variation but not much. The evidence for this is the amazingly complex and specialized species and species relationships in the rainforest and, for that matter, the coral reefs. Such intricate ecosystems indicate very steady conditions that have allowed specialized evolution.
With various temperature swings over the ages, the ranges of the rainforests and coral reefs surely change but their central regions are safe.
Coral reefs and rainforests are THE MOST STABLE on the planet and the constant in our world. It is the other ecosystems that are largely at risk with natural changes in climate.
It is time to stop thinking that CO2 drives climate. No gas at any concentration can drive the climate, particularly as the upper tropical troposphere, which is the region that supposedly warms Earth’s surface, is 32 degrees C colder than the surface. A cold gas cannot warm a hot surface, being thermodynamically impossible. Even, in general, on a sunny day, the surface is always hotter than the air above it. The models that they use have sun 24/7 and no night time, which makes them seriously flawed and always wrong.
Charles: A cold gas cannot warm a hot surface…but…but…but…brilliant!
Charles: Similarly, a cold jacket cannot warm a hot person, being thermodynamically impossible. That’s why no one wears jackets on a cold day…
And why HUMID air as in the tropic keeps nigh time temperatures up unlike dry air (with the same amount of CO2 in it) in the desert allows the night time temperature to plummet.
If you slow down the rate of heat loss, you can warm the surface. That’s what CO2 does. It doesn’t matter in the slightest what the actual temperature of the CO2 is.
To put it another way, if you replace a 32C atmosphere with a 33C atmosphere, what impact will that have on the surface?
Probably a beneficial impact. The “average” temp doesn’t tell you much if anything at all. That slowed rate of heat loss is seen at the bottom of the temperature envelope. How much does the minimum temperatures going up enough to raise the average by 1C affect the surface? Longer growing seasons? More nighttime plant growth? Fewer deaths from cold temperatures? I can’t even think of any negatives off hand.
>>
If you slow down the rate of heat loss, you can warm the surface.
<<
Careful MarkW, Zoe what’s-her-name will claim you don’t know the definition of temperature and quote an incorrect definition from kinetic gas theory.
Jim
but probably not at the tropics. The impact at the tropics is minimal it will be warm for longer away from the tropics which should increase the CO2 uptake.
The other key issue is that temperatures have risen but mostly at night. Is this going to increase or decrease the uptake.
If it gets warmer in the tropics then the same will happen in Canada and Siberia. Just think of the vast forests in the tundra areas that will absorb far more CO2 than lost in the tropics. Might lead to global cooling after a couple of generations.
In nights, there is no photosynthesis, plants release CO2…
Slightly warmer nights makes for a longer growing period in the day, as plants can still use dark cycle energy to grow, which also means they can get back to work sooner in the morning. In addition, the growing season would be longer at both ends. There is no downside to this warming.
However, when it gets below 45 deg F, plants pretty much stop growing, so colder times means a shorter growing season. As increased CO2 makes plants work better at both ends of their temperature range, more CO2 would be a benefit during a cool climate period, also allowing plants to conserve water as they need fewer stomata.
I’d think the ‘tipping point’ to determine is the one involving frosty end of the temperature scale.
It definitely is. I’ve never seen anywhere too hot for stuff to grow. Too dry, certainly, but never too hot alone.
Here in Canada, when it drops below 0 C at night, sometime in September, pretty much all plant life dies down to its roots. That’s probably the cold limit you were looking for…./s
Good thing it doesn’t get much colder than that, it would freeze the ground, they might never grow back. 😉
/sarc off
I wonder how the tropical forests will react to lowering temperatures that may occur in the future. Fortunately they will be hedged against this by the extra CO2.
Firstly, that’s a pittance compared to what’s in the oceans, where almost all of our oxygen comes from.
Secondly, the tropics are not supposed to warm under the ‘settled’ Climate Scientology ™ so the tropical forests are going to be fine anyway. They are absolutely fine here in Australia, for sure. There are some of the oldest rainforests in existence here, too.
Not totally fine, Zig Zag, the greenies are after them.
Old-Growth Trees Razed For Wind-Farm Power Lines
http://bit.ly/2KzarI8
Rainforest trees 200 years old have been cleared to make way for a wind farm transmission line in Tasmania’s Tarkine, prompting claims of green “hypocrisy”.
Myrtle and sassafras trees were among those felled along a 10.5km corridor widened for transmission lines associated with the $280 million 112-megawatt wind farm at Granville Harbour, in Tasmania’s remote northwest.
Pretty much over 32 degrees C here in Thailand everyday and the forests are thriving. Many days in April/May that are closer to 40 degrees C. Plenty of trees, plenty of plants, plenty of crops.
Same in India, a summer noon / afternoon phenomenon since eons.
There are niches for al kinds of vegetation due to elevation, orography, distance from the ocean, soils etc. and many are not far apart plus connected by seed spreading winds, insects & birds.
People who talk about ‘carbon’ are probably lying.
Or they just don’t understand the difference between Carbon and Carbon Dioxide. This would be understandable since the two terms are conflated on just about a daily basis by the alarmists. More confusion injected into climate science and political rhetoric. Alarmists specialize in injecting confusion into the climate debate. Skeptics specialize in calling them on it.
A+.
A+.
Talk about the boy who called wolf too often.
With all these rabid “scientific” announcements is there anyone left who actually believes anything that Climate scientists say.
It is getting so bad with activists scientists, I don’t believe anything any scientists says or publishes, until I have seen it corroborated by a totally different group of scientists, & then not if I can’t understand the pronouncement.
“ Carbon dioxide is an important greenhouse gas, released as fossil fuels are burned. It is absorbed by trees as they grow and stored as wood. ”
This is such a stupid statement. It suggests that trees exist to store carbon dioxide as wood. It’s almost as if trees know that CO2 is bad, so they store it to prevent runaway warming. And also it’s as if the only source of CO2 is fossil fuel combustion.
How about this instead: “Carbon dioxide is essential for life on earth. Carbon dioxide is the most important food for trees. Trees cannot live, grow, and produce wood without it.”
And: “There are many sources of CO2 in the atmosphere. (Place a short list of sources here).
They will do anything to hide these simple truths.
Can you get enough believing done before breakfast? That frees up the entire rest of the day for questions.
“As temperatures reach 32.2 degrees Celsius, carbon is released much faster. ”
On so many levels, what a load of utter CARP! As somebody once wrote: it’s so stupid it burns.
“As CO2 levels increase, carbon uptake is much faster”
“As temperatures reach 32.2 degrees Celsius, carbon is released much faster. Trees can deal with increases in the minimum nighttime temperature (a global warming phenomenon observed at some sites), but not with increases in maximum daytime temperature.”
I’m a little puzzled. Surely it’s at night that trees release more CO2 – during the day photosynthesis means O2 is produced but (with some exceptions) this doesn’t happen at night. More heat also means more energy for photosynthesis so unless there are other factors (lack of water) then surely the trees will deal better with warm temps during the day?
Also… 32°? Really? In the tropics that a cool day!
The other question is ‘how does a tree release carbon?’
When a tree burns, a very small part of the carbon contained in the various molecules that make up wooD is released as elemental carbon (soot). Most of it is released as carbon dioxide. Very, very little carbon is released.
Gerry, remove sunlight and most plants consume oxygen and release CO2 there are a very small number that can release oxygen without sunlight :-).
Photosynthesis doesn’t use heat as an energy source although it is true that, within limits, many reactions proceed faster at higher temperatures. Perhaps at higher temperatures there is a faster flow of materials into and out of the photosynthesis sites?
Science is broken. It has become a bureaucratic machine for turning mediocre students into supposition processors, whose primary function is the transmutation of research funding into predefined conclusions designed to justify the extraction of taxes from productive people.
Just yesterday I was listening to an interview with one of these ”scientists” about the ”desperate need to do ongoing monitoring and to receive ongoing funding for rehabilitation of the forests” after the Australian fires.
As if tinkering around the edges of millions of square miles of forest by planting a few trees and grasses and trapping a few feral animals is going to make the slightest bit of difference to the ”biodiversity”
When asked about what would happen if nothing was done, he said something like err ah, err it would be a shame…”
The truth of course is that the forests will rehabilitate themselves just as they always have done and without any help.
https://www.insider.com/photos-of-life-returning-after-australia-wildfires?amp
No further comnent necessary 😀
…several different forest monitoring initiatives: RAINFOR, AfriTRON, T-FORCES and ForestGEO, the huge research team led by Martin Sullivan from the University of Leeds and Manchester Metropolitan University…”
Another glob of worthless data and no statement of the cost to the taxpayers (including indirectly from “non profits) Every published study should state the cost immediately behind the title: Global warming re-visited Rev 8752 ($XXXXXXX) and then the authors and contributors names.
A nice study by armchair foresters. There are too many insects in the tropics.
I stopped reading this pseudo-science BS after (sorry for the typos) :
“A new report in pseudo-Science shows blah blah blah … cause blah blah to lose stored carbon more quickly.”
When a report confuses “carbon” and CO2, I don’t waste time reading any further.
I stopped at the title, and confirmed that it was tripe by scrolling down to find “From EurekAlert!” at the bottom.
I especially liked the part about no monitoring for 2 months will lessen the ability of scientist to understand the forest!
LOL LOL LOL LOL
“By examining forests across the tropics, we can assess their resilience and responses to changes in global temperatures. ….. This study takes a novel approach by exploring the implications of thermal conditions currently experienced by all tropical forests.”
What does that even mean?
How did they ”assess” their resilience and responses and to what ”changes in global temps”? One degree?
How do you do that? How do they separate massive seasonal, local, annual and generally variable weather conditions from tiny ”changes in global temperatures? (which have occurred very gradually over a century)
Come on now, are they just making sh*t up again?
Aside from the standard CO2 hype, here are two obviously false claims:
“When trees get too hot and dry, they may close the pores in their leaves to save water, …”
Actually, only CAM plants can close their stomata to prevent excessive loss of water. Most rainforest trees are C3 (in fact, some 95% of all green plants are C3).
“And when trees die, they release stored carbon back into the atmosphere.”
No, they do not. They dry out, i.e., loose water (which is a much more potent greenhouse gas then CO2!). One can forgive scientists of Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI) in Panama for this brouhaha because they have probably never seen logs (what do they consist of?) that we denizens of colder regions use to warm our habitats.
The lack of knowledge about biological processes is remarkable. During photosynthesis trees take CO2 from the atmosphere and water from the roots and create glucose, a compound that has carbon atoms as its base. In the process oxygen is excess and is released into the atmosphere. During cell respiration, which is when cell growth occurs, glucose and sunlight is used to provide energy. As in human respiration, CO2 is created and released into the atmosphere along with water.
When trees die the remaining glucose is not converted automatically to CO2. It remains in the tree. Further decomposition will occur through various methods and most release CO2.
To prevent decomposition created CO2, it would be best to create lumber and forego the natural decomposition process.
Miso Alkalaj May 24, 2020 at 1:16 am
Aside from the standard CO2 hype, here are two obviously false claims:
“When trees get too hot and dry, they may close the pores in their leaves to save water, …”
Actually, only CAM plants can close their stomata to prevent excessive loss of water. Most rainforest trees are C3 (in fact, some 95% of all green plants are C3).
Not true, all trees close their stomata under extreme conditions to prevent loss of water. CAM plants (such as cacti) have a special mechanism whereby they have their stomata open at night and chemically store the CO2 that enters in a vacuole in the cell. During the day the stomata are closed and the stored CO2 is regenerated and is used in photosynthesis.
Normal C3 plants control their water loss by closing their stomata under extreme conditions, unfortunately that also prevents CO2 entering the leaves and O2 from leaving. Thus the CO2 concentration in the leaves drops and photosynthesis slows and the O2 concentration rises and photorespiration takes over which is less efficient, (and is also favored by higher temperatures).
I disagree with the numbers. I just know the tipping point is at 32.5C, not at 32.2C.
“When trees get too hot and dry” Yet GW is supposed to increase rainfall….
Dry rainforests, dontchaknow? Lots of dry rain.
Not a big fan of jungles. Little brown people with AK-47’s threatened me there, both Vietnam and Nicaragua. I have worked in jungles and one thing that is impressive is the amount of vegetation that is rotting on the jungle floor. This rotting is generally a process of oxidation, or the consumption of oxygen. Our savior the jungle? Not so much.
“Steve Paton, director of STRI’s physical monitoring program, notes that in 2019 there were 32 days with maximum temperatures over 32 degrees Celsius at a weather station in the forest canopy on the island, and a first glance at his data indicates that these exceptionally hot days are becoming more common.”
What weather station? Which one exactly? I’d like to see what the last 36 months show for cooling degree-day values.
A quick check of my Oracle database with the GHCN Daily dataset loaded with TMAX measurements shows 4297 out of 40,146 stations recorded 32 or more days in 2019 with TMAX over 32.0 C. Orlando International Airport in Orlando, FL, USA had 138 days over 32 C between April and Oct 2019.
Apparently a run of 32 days in a year over 32 C is not that unusual. You’d think someone would have noticed the collapse of the rain forests by now.
A moot point. The tropical forests will be cut down for biomass fuel.
32.2 degrees is not a magical number. All the warmer forests are already pre adapted to warmer temperatures, and are able to cope with higher temperatures than their more temperate counterparts.
The implicit assumption that the only form of adaptation forests can make is to be supplanted by different species is breathtakingly ignorant.
Rather than being supplanted by new species, they will just experience natural selection toward heat-tolerance.
This is because all species have recessive genes that adapt them to higher or lower temperatures. No single place has the same unvarying temperature the whole globe does, which is why these adaptations exist.
The expected impact of Global Warming is less to raise maximum temperatures than it is to raise minimum ones. The article itself points out that will have little to no actual impact.
And the warmer tropics are expected to exhibit least change to global warming.
The actual significance of this work is minimal to none.
I think they confused Centigrade with Fahrenheit. 32F is freezing point.
This is a critical temperature for a lot of crops.
“all species have recessive genes that adapt”
don’t forget the thousands of times greater variance through epigenetics!
The Tmax 1880…2019 in the tropics (land only)
The danger was pretty much bigger in the 30s …
And what about the “Tipping point” of 32 °C?
These alarmist never run out of new CAGW problems but at the same time continue to talk as if they are stuck on stupid in some fairy tale world where mankind can stop using fossil fuel and support a nearly 8 Billion population.
My conspiracy theory is that they are working on a way to return the world population to a time say the early 1800’s when the population was around 1 Billion or 1950 at 2.5 Billion and then keep it there.
I think over population is the Elites greatest fear and de-population is their vision for the future, with of course, these talking heads and government funded scientists and bureaucrats envisioning they will all have a reservation on the ark that will spare them from the de-population when it occurs.
Suppose that the Corona Virus was a test run for when they release their Satan bug. Before that happens they will have a vaccine and control who lives and who gets sacrificed to save the resources for the more deserving.
We have a lot more to fear from these Globalists and their One World Central Authoritarian Governance than a few degrees increase in global surface temperatures wiping out tropical forests.
The tropical rain forests regulate their own temperature. The leaves in the forests change their angle to maintain optimum temperature for photosynthesis.
An interesting coincidence, the temperature of the tropical rain forests is the minimum temperature at which a naked human can survive. Outside the tropical rain forests we need fire and clothing, or we die of exposure.
Contrary to what climate science teaches, humans are adapted to handle heat. It us our technology that allows us to survive in cold areas. Take away that technology to save the planet and minimize co2, and you eliminate humans from much of the planet. It is just that simple.
“All living things have tipping points: points of no return, beyond which they cannot thrive.”
Well, obviously, if a species gets down to one male survivor, that is a tipping point. The general number is undoubtedly larger, particularly for herd animals that use their numbers as a defense against predators, such as zebra or musk ox, to name a couple. But, it is a misrepresentation to make the quoted statement as justification for a following claim that rising temperatures are an existential threat. That is because most life is mobile and can retreat to more hospitable zones. Even those that can’t move will probably be able to adapt or evolve to be tolerant of the slowly increasing temperatures. This claim is more of the Chicken Little syndrome. Humans already find tropical climates enervating. Yet, Attenborough claims that the tropics support 50% of the species of life, with only 3% of the Earth’s area.
” and a first glance at his data indicates that these exceptionally hot days are becoming more common.”
Science of this quality gives me confidence that we are getting good advice — not!
In the Paleogene the average temperature in the South American rainforests was 30-34 degrees and they did just fine:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07671
Well, I actually live in Panama. This report is the worst kind of fake news.
I know the island and some of the people who “work” there. It is a pimple in a vast ocean of water. Nothing that happens there has any meaning for the mainland.
For starters, the west coast of Panama is the terminus for the Pacific ITCZ. Sea surface temps vary widely depending on El Nino/La Nina. This is a confounding variable for any surface temps measured on the island.
Temperatures are remarkably stable – Willis is exactly right about the thermostat. However, rainfall is wildly variable and unpredictable. Which is why we set up a network of weather stations on the mainland to get an idea of the variability. It may rain 2″ in a month at my house, and 12″ three miles away at Lloyd’s house. We have accurate temperature records going back 20 years. No significant temperature changes.
A single weather station with no long term records on an offshore island is as useless as… pick your metaphor.
Next, the temps are governed by adiabatic cooling. Go 500 feet above sea level and they are about 3F cooler. We live at 4,200 feet and my min/max thermometer, which has been running for a year or so, is showing 66/77F. Go up 500′ to our neighbor’s and it would be something like 64/74. 99.9% of the rain forest is above the level of that island. Panama is after all, a mountain range.
As a scientist, it’s painful to see the clickbait prostitutes and profiteers taking over the temples of science. Thanks to WUWT for exposing them for what they are.
Does anyone listen to these proclamations of DOOM anymore?
Atomic war
Global cooling
Nucular winter
Over-population
Starvation
Limits to growth
Global Warming
Y2K
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Global Warming
Climate change
Sars
Banking collapse of 2008
Trump
Wuhoo Flu
Yes, Virginia, we ARE all going to do.
The End is Nigh, and always has been.
What actually happens is that during centennial solar minima, El Nino conditions increase, which reduces rainfall in the tropical forests, resulting in increased CO2 output from the forest regions. During full glacial states there are near permanent El Nino conditions and the tropical forest regions dry to the point of collapse and are greatly reduced in area. A net increase in climate forcing does the reverse, it increases La Nina conditions and increases rainfall to the tropical forests.
I lived in the tropics for some years … Kenya… The Seychelles. I wouldn’t show this study to the locals in such tropical countries. They’d simply laugh at this paper.