Talk:Rainforest/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Degradation

"50,000 species a year" disappearing? Can anyone provide any reference for this patently ridiculous claim?

I agree 50,000 is a mild understatement of the amount of species "disappearing" each year.

I think it's more of 17,000, don't we? yes it is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.97.112 (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Where has this 50,000 come from? I have just watched Penn & Teller's Bullshit s01ep13 which featured an environmentalist quoting this figure, yet again with no source to back it up. Here I read that "biologists" say so. I have added citations needed tags to this and the claim that 40 hectares of rainforest is destroyed every minute. If biologists do indeed say so, please could we have the relevant peer reviewed articles cited. JammyB 01:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There are more species of ants living in a single tree in any part of the Asian rainforest than in all of Europe; while high, 50,000 distinct species is plausible. Also, Penn & Teller aren't a very reputable source. Did you see the fat one on Michael Moore Hates America? He must have taken a lot of LSD before getting in front of the camera. FireWeed 19:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If I believed P&T were a reputable source I would have removed the existing text and cited them, but I didn't, because I don't. I don't care what seems plausible to me or you, this is an encylopedia and statements such as this need citations or they shouldn't be in the article. JammyB 20:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)hi my name is123abc

The reality is that nobody can honestly with any certainty how many species exist on the planet, let alone the number that become extinct each year. I heard it was between 10,000 and 50,000 with the latter number being the very highest estimate. Speedything 09:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Speedything is correct it is not possible to know for certain the number of species lost per year - these estimates are based on some fairly dodgy science. It usually goes along the lines of this: The area of rainforest is x million ha and this supports x million species, the rate of forest loss is x ha/year and using species area curves we "know" this will correspond to a loss of x species. So the rates of species loss are dependent on which figures (for rainforest area, rate of forest loss and rainforset spp diversity - all of which are fairly dodgy) you use to make the calculation and whether it is approriate to extrapolate from SA curves etc. Sepilok2007 02:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

So the current debate is whether P&T is a good source, or if we are better off not having a source at all? Why doesn't someone find a source other than P&T and use that? I would give slight preference to peer reviewed, highly respected biology journals over made-for-entertainment television. If find it hard to believe P&T are the only citeable source of this information.500 x 375 - 42k - jpg - www.incatrail-peru.com/inka-trail/img_web/zoo

Also we should say how much has been saved already, saved by being bought by charity orginizations. Iankap99 (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Iankap99

Merhaba ben texas ben schwul

What's the difference between a rainforest and a jungle? (That's a serious question, not the beginning of a joke). -- Heron

From: http://www.ladatco.com

From "The Nefbhrsurspical Companion" by John Kricher:

When a rainforest is disturbed, such as by hurricane, lightning strikes or human activity, the disturbed area is opened, permitting the penetration of large amounts of light.

Fast growing plan species intolerant of shade are temporarily favored and a tangle of thin-boled trees, shrubs and vines result.

Like a huge, dense pile carpet, a mass of greenery, or "jungle", soon covers the gap created by the disturbance.

Another explanation:

A tropical rainforest has more kinds of trees and other plant life than any other area of the world. Most trees in the tropical rainforest are broad leaf trees that grow closely together. The tallest trees may grow as tall as 200 feet. The tops, called crowns, form a covering of leaves about 100-150 feet above the ground. This cover is called the upper canopy. The crowns of the smaller trees form one or two lower canopies. These canopies share the forest floor so that it receives less than one percent as much sunlight as does the upper canopy. As a result, only ferns and other plants requiring little sunlight grown on the forest floor. This makes it possible for a person to easily walk through most parts of a tropical rainforest. However, areas of dense growth occur where much sunlight reaches the ground. These areas are called jungles and grow in swamps, near broad rivers or in former clearings.

-freezing balls

Thanks. I put a very simplified version of your answer in the article. -- Heron

---

It would be nice if the tropical forest and the rainforest be separated. User:anthere

Jungle is a word of Hindi/Indian origin and is used to refer to all kinds of forest. Rainforest is used for tropical forests in high rainfall areas. Tropical forests can also be dry deciduous/moist deciduous/wet evergreen/scrub. Wet evergreen forests are also sometimes termed rainforest. The word rainforest has a certain romantic and adventurous connotations and is generally more attractive to people than 'wet evergreen'. Shyamal 08:33, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

A jungle has dense vegetation and is almost impentrable without a machette. Rain forests that are not jungles also have dense vegetation; however, comparatively little grows on the floor of the forest, sometimes on account of nutrient-poor soil. Instead, much of the life of these rainforests occurs in the canopies of the trees. The thickness of the canopies prevents much sunlight from reaching the forest floor, so the destruction of the rainforest can allow for sufficent sunshine for a jungle to develop, provided sufficient soil nutrients.

Also, my dictionaries suggest a minimum precipitation for a rainforest of 2500 mm, not 1000 mm. The 1000-mm limit would allow for the designation of most of the eastern United States as "rainforest," which clearly does not reflect the true definition of the word. On the other hand, areas with somewhat less precipitaiton are often considered as rainforests. I'd be willing to go for a compromise, say 1800 mm (about 70 inches).

The precipitation, however, must be well-distributed throughout the year, with at least 60 mm occurring in every month.

Will edit the page to reflect the proper precipitation criterion.

Basically, a jungle has to exceed 1700 mm of precipitation for it to be a rainforest. A rainforest, as said in its name, rains much more and is wetter.

Weirelementary7 03:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)WeirElementary7

As I understand it, much of the Central-American rainforest is Sub-tropical Moist Forest, and presumably several of the others on here are, too. I don't think it's confusing to add another category. In Guatemala, Belize and the Yucatan, the 'rainforest' might not get any rain for two weeks in the dry season.. lumping all these forests in together suggests uniformity when in fact there is incredible diversity between them. -Peeeter

Merhaba ben helsin ben schwul

Can some one fix the ridiculous sentence that "Rainforests are home to two-thirds of all the living animal and plant species on Earth"? To start, this is ambiguous. Does it mean "Rainforests are home to over two thirds of plant species as well as over two thirds of animal species"? Or does it mean "Rainforests are home to two-thirds of the total species in the plant and animal kingdoms"? Is there a good reason for neglecting the other kingdoms of life, or is the author of this sentence ignorant they exist? Does this total include undescribed species? If so, how do you count them? If not, I couldn't find a reference, but believe well over half the described animal species are in the ocean. What is a "living animal" species? Why not only count living plant species? Did the author want to include wood flooring and exclude ivory? If this is a vague qualification that extinct species do not currently live in the rainforest, of which there probably aren't enough to affect the total percentages, it is completely unnecessary and also poorly worded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.170.252 (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I replaced that sentence with an estimate range. Your statement "well over half the described animal species are in the ocean" is simply false. For number of described species, see e.g. Global biodiversity#Known species: the number of known insect species (which are mainly terrestrial), is about 75% of all the known animal species. Krasanen (talk) 11:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Size

It is estimated that the rainforest was reduced by about 58,000 km² annually in the 1990s. Rainforests used to cover 14% of the Earth's surface. This percentage is now down to 6% and it is estimated that the remaining rainforests could disappear within 40 years (mid-21st century) at the present rate of logging.

Are those percentages out of the 159 million km² of land area? So reainforests used to cover 22 million km² (159*0.14) and now cover 9.5 million km² (159*0.06)? When did rainforests cover 22 million km²? What is the definition used for rainforest, and what is the source of the data?--213.238.212.98 17:29, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

"rain forests are responsible for containing the "basic ingredients of birth control hormones, stimulants, and tranquilizing drugs"....??? I am quite sure that rain forests have little to nothing to do with birth control hormones. --Deglr6328 03:51, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Diffrent types of forest in rainforest

There are many types of forest under the (tropical) rainforest like Mangrove, Dipterocarp, Heath and more. So we should list them and perhaps link them to article like Mangrove, dipetrocarp and others that can be found in rainforest. -- Gross 14:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

The [phytoplankton] article says that phytoplankton produce approximately 98% of atmospheric oxygen. but this article says 40%. Which is right? How does the rain forests and phytoplankton relate to the carbon cycle? Can someone add to this article (or potentially the phytoplankton article) or add links to the correct source? Thank you

You should sign your messages! I fixed the phytoplankton article after seeing your comment there. I think this one needs fixing too, but when I look at it, I see the whole article could use a serious rewrite. Maybe when I have time. - Marshman 04:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've just reorganised what was a very jumbled page and added 'canopy', a topic I think could support it's own page in the future. This page itself has room for massive expansion, if dedicated and knowledgable editors find their way here. Coyote-37 13:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Almost a year has passed and this page is getting increasingly depressing. What should be a largely academic and informative page about a geographical feature is constantly beset by vandals and a very ugly breed of agenda pushers who seem to think that environmentalism is a political issue to be debunked with whatever partisan and unsupported facts necessary. This page has become another reason that Wikipedia is a joke and why I no longer choose to spend time on editing pages like this to improve them. As I have seen more experienced users than myself say in the past, on Wikipedia, the jerks always win in the end. I hope someone with more patience than myself will attempt to clean up this page at some point and I wish them luck. Coyote-37 08:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggested merger

• Oppose - this page is a general article, the other one is a more specific article about one particular subgroup of rainforests - MPF 23:35, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - the articles are on slightly different things and take a completely different emphasis. However, each article contains some common information which is presently absent from the other which should maybe be added where appropriate. Canderra 16:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• strongly oppose...rainforest is a general category embracing temperate and tropical and subtropical climes. the two articles stand well separately, although each needs more work Covalent 22:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

"Earth's lungs"?

What are the scientific evidence that Rainforsts, as an ecosystem, produce a surplus of oxygen? --DelftUser 12:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no scientific evidence for such a claim. I have amended that particular statement by acknowledging that, while it is often attributed to rainforests, it is without any basis. I have also provided references to this effect.

--"Rainforests are also often described as the "Earth's lungs"; however, this appellation has no scientific basis as rainforests produce little or no net oxygen [1]." I went to your source, and it suggests no evidence of the cited claim. It merely explains how we have a lot of oxygen, and can't put a dent in it with our supplies. It's possible I missed it in the article... so please point out where it supports your claim that rainforests produce little or no net oxygen, or remove the statement from the article. Mouse 16:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

--I revisited the cited page and again found nothing to support the specified piece of the article. After twelve days of inaction waiting for a reply, I have removed this. Feel free to revert it with an explanation of where this information is supported. Mouse 21:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there are articles floating around the 'net that tell how oil is constantly produced at the center of the Earth and used to smooth Continental Drift. Like them, this one seems to be wishful thinking. FireWeed 19:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WTF? Can you people not read? The reference, from one of the world's leading experts in biogeochemical cycling, says "the Earth's forests... consume just as much of this gas [oxygen] as they produce." How can anyone claim to have read the article and not seen anywhere that it says that rainforests produce no net oxygen? Do you not understand that "no net oxygen production" is exactly the same as "consume just as much of this gas as they produce"? Or perhaps people are struggling with the fact that rainforests are a type of forest. For those hard of understanding I have included another reference, this one which clearly states "It took 15 years for the 'lungs of the Earth' myth to be corrected. Rainforests contribute little net oxygen additions to the atmosphere." Note that this is a somewhat older article. We now know that undisturbed primary rainforest consume just as much oxygen as they produce; ie there is no net oxygen production occurring.

Original comment reinstated. Delete only when you have an equally valid reference suggesting that rainforests produce oxygen. And I mean equally valid. Not some unreferenced nonsense from some conservation group's webpage repeating the "lungs of the Earth" myth.138.77.2.130

New information about how the forest helps prevent global warming and captures CO2 has been found through the study of Professor Beverly Law of Oregon State University. Information about this can be found in this video from Yahoo News "Big Trees Fight Global Warming". http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=7398392 —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewDreams2 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Violation

Someone has changed title of one of the layers of the forest to Bum Sex just to let everyone know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.166.161 (talk)

That was fixed. Pawl 15:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There's also now a section about the "Alien Rainforest," of which the only content is a statement about an alien being found in a particular forest.

The first sentence of the second paragraph in the intro has the word "bitch" in it. Maybe fix that.

Rainforest is Oxygen negative???

Is the statement on the rainforest being Carbon neutral or Carbon emitting true? It sounds very untrue to me, I am no expert but it looks very suspicious. If the rainforest is Carbon emitting, what preserves the balance of Oxygen in the air? I mean other than that almost everything else living or non-living consumes Oxygen consistently.

--Karkaron 01:45, 3 February 2007 (uvr)

Uh don't trees emit oxygen due to photosynthesis? Juppiter 01:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Trees consume oxygen "consistently". 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 day a a year trees consume sugar and oxygen via respiration exactly as animals do. The only differences is that with sufficient water and bright enough light they can convert water and air into sugar and relase oxygen in the process. That is sugar is then almost all burned via respiration just as it is in animal and the oxygen is once again consumed.

Unfortunately US high schools appear to have dumbed down teh science curriculm to the point where they only teach half the story. For some reason most Americans seem to think that plants produce oxygen and never produce carbon dioxide. This of course is not true. Plants produce vast amounst of carbon dioxide.

The only way that plants can produce CACA net oxygen/become net carbon storers if they can convert the sugar into biomass rather than burning it for energy. Since sugar is denser than air this means that plants can only produce oxygen or store carbon if they are getting heavier. While individual plants in a mature forest may be getting heavier just as many will be dying and hence getting lighter. Overall forests therefore can't produce any oxygen and can't produce carbon unless they have been recently disturbed.138.77.2.130

Hmm, what you just said doesn't make sense. I don't think it is any doubt that forests can be net carbon sinks, and thus net oxygen producers. In order for a plant to grow with photosynthesis it produce oxygen. For most plants photosynthesis is the main source of energy. Although there are claims that rainforests is carbon neutral, this isn't established (as far as I can tell), so if what you are saying is true then wheter rainforests are O2 neutral isn't realy established either? Well, admittedly, Im no expert in this area so Im not gonna make any claims either way (right now at least) but I do think it sounds fishy.--Apis O-tang (talk) 03:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www-saps.plantsci.cam.ac.uk/records/rec255.htm -Peeeter

Everything living on this planet is carbon-neutral, including you. All the carbon you take in from the environment to build your body is returned to the environment upon your death. Silly question. —Quicksilver^{T @} 23:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

On listing every single state/county/province that contains any amount of rainforest

If we attempt to do this then we will need to fill an entire page with lists of such counties. That alone is reason enough to omit it. Just as pertinent, this is an article on a community type. It is more than sufficient to know that rainforests exist in USA and Canada. Naming a thousand specific states does not contribute any knowledge to an understanding of rainforests and seems little more than self-indulgence by locaals. This is clearly a case of where more information is defintiely not better.

If we simply restrict our list to US/Canadian states/provinces we will be contributing to the already well noted US/North American bias of Wikipedia. Yes, the US and Canada are sizable nations, but so are India, Australia, China, Russia, Indonesia, Japan and so forth and they and a dozen other nations therefore demand equal treatment if we are to avoid bias. More importantly most of those nations have sizable areas of rainforest rather than just a few pockets as in the US and so they demand even more treatment.

The simplest solution is to simply list rainforest on a broad geographical basis, country level at worst. If anyone feels their local patch of scrub deserves more credit they can then write an article on it and link form here. An article on Californian rainforests for exmaple would be well recieved. But to simply list every US state or ever Japanese province with rainforest doens't contribute a thing to an understanidng of rainforest as a community type and only detracts from the flow of the article. Ethel Aardvark

I appreciate the sentiment, but the list isn't overwhelming at the moment, and your changes only reduce it by around 100 characters (your explanation above is over 1,600 by comparison). You've also made it inaccurate by leaving only "eastern Australia" and omitting Tasmania, which makes it appear as if eastern Australia is the only part with rainforest.

If you want to work on presenting the information better, consider having a shortened list in the introduction, and creating a new section elsewhere in the article to have a more detailed list, which can be expanded to include different areas of different countries when necessary. If the list were to get so long as to overwhelm the article (which it is not at risk of doing at present), it could be moved to another article and Summary format used. But using summary format to save 100 characters isn't really worth it. And simply deleting information isn't helpful.

In short, I agree with Waqcku, who said in edit summary: "The more information we can provide the better, I don't see who benefits from the omission, especially considering the large size of the USA and Canada, and the inclusion of other specific regions." —Pengo 11:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved from intro. The details should go in the tropical rainforest and temperate rainforest articles. Vsmith 15:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it looks much cleaner this way, while still providing the information. Thanks, Vsmith. Waqcku 22:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well to clarify a simple point Tasmania is Eastern Australia, Just as Manhattan is Eastern US. So no problem there.

Secondly the current list is short precisely because it has such a massive North Am bias. The US has 4 separate states listed in the temperate section alone, while Norway, Japan, Indonesia etc are listed as a single country. This is the point you seem to be overlooking. If we listed every Indonesian Island, every Japanese province, every Norwegian county etc.as we have done for US states then the list would indeed be excessively long. Indonesia alone comprises some 20, 000 islands, and almost all have some rainforest. It is only by implying that US states are more important than Indonesian Islands or Japanese provinces that we have the relatively short list we have now. This is precisely the type of US/North Am bias that Wikipedia is already noted for. It isn't necessarily deliberarte bias, it simply reflects the large US participation. Unfortunately it gives a very distorted view of the world by suggesting, in this case, that rainforest is scattered across widespread locations in the US but is either restricted or contiguous in Indonesia.

This is the problem. By simply listing Indonesia or Japan as a single enitity but specifically listing US states we are implying that there is somehting special about the distribution of US rainforests that demands such special treatment. Entirely unintentional, but noehteless strong US bias and strongly misleading. A clear case of more information not being a good thing precisely because it is incomplete. And expecting that people from Indonesia will take up the cudgel for their country is both optimistic and unproductive. If we are provinding bias because we can't list all non-US states with rainforest then we are bette roff not listing any US states either. Perhaps less complete, but also less biased and ore accurate.

I'm not sure what relvance the length of my contirbution on the discussion page has. Nodody needs to read my rantings here if they are seeking information on the distribution of rainforest so length is irrelevant IMO.~~ im bbooorrreeedddd of reading this now!!!!!

The United States is a much larger country than either Japan, Norway or Indonesia, therefore doesn't it stand to reason that a the US would require more specification than either of the other three countries? Regardless, I think it would be better to combat this "bias" by adding more information to other countries, rather than removing it from the U.S. alone (and leaving Tasmania, Ajaria, a national park in Mexico and a Canadian province). That's just another bias on your part. I don't see how leaving out information makes the article "more accurate", it seems like that's a bit counterintuitive. Wikipedia might be noted for a North American bias, but it could also be said that Wikpedia is noted for providing simplistic, amateurish or incomplete descriptions. Saying simply that there are rainforests in the United States, a very large country with a very small percentage of land actually containing rainforest, seems to fit that charge. Feel free to list subdivisions of Japan or Indonesia, states/regions of Georgia and Australia, two non-North American countries, have already been listed, and you never objected to that inclusion. Waqcku 01:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

First off I did "object to that inclusion". I removed it and someone reinstated it.

However I will follow your suggestion and attempt to list every state, province, county etc. in the world that contains rainforest as I come across them in my readings. I've made a start with India, Japan and Indonesia but the list complete list will be extensive. I'm guessing that the complete list will be several pages long. Ethel Aardvark 08:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:POINT and refrain from further disruptive edits. Vsmith 13:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the addition of an unneeded mass of locations - if you want a list then create a new article for it. However, the more detailed locality info would be better place in Temperate rainforest and Tropical rainforest. The map in temperate rainforest article is more meaningful for distribution than an unformatted mass of locations. Vsmith 14:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed the existing extensive list List of tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests ecoregions. Wasn't aware of its existance previously. Vsmith 14:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well this is now interesting. On the one hand we have people demanding that we list every single US state that conatins rianforest by name. On the other hand we jhave people syaing that we shouldn't do so for states of other nations aside from the US.

So are peopel still trying to argue there is no US bias here? Or are we trying to claim that the US states are somehow more important than other countries. At this point I'm going to remove all state refernces for all countries, including the US. Either we list all states of all nations or we list none. There is no excuse for giving the US special treatment.Ethel Aardvark 22:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverted: "UNited States and Canadas" as it removed pertinent information and I see no reason for the capitalization and plural errors - why be in such a hurry with your anti US and Canada editing. Perhaps the distribution section should replaced with a simple reference to the more detailed tropical and temperate articles. Vsmith 13:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm in no hurry. this discussion has been ongoing for months. If you wish to replace distribution section as suggested then feel free to do so. In the meantime there is no justification in implying the US has special status by listing US states.Ethel Aardvark 00:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the listing any sub-national entity by name seems to be against the rules in your mind, Ethel, I tried to word it in a way that gives the US and Canada equal specification compared to the other countries mentioned without listing states/provinces. I still don't know who you think this benefits, in the name of your skewed notions of equality you've removed information not only for North America but for non-North American countries as well, while the section on tropical rain forests remains quite "unbalanced". Regardless, hopefully you think the current format is sufficiently egalitarian. Waqcku 18:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Effect on global climate - Revision.

>> In contradiction to popular belief, rainforests are not major consumers of carbon dioxide...

-- Wrong. Read your own reference. From the "www.ucar.edu" article linked further below, the Britton study "...concludes that intact tropical forests [rather than forests in the U.S. or other northern latitude regions] are removing an unexpectedly high proportion of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, partially offsetting carbon entering the air through industrial emissions and deforestation."

>> and like all mature forests

Wrong again. This is a weaseling attempt to minimize the role of rainforests. The Britton study demonstrates that rainforests are not "like all mature forests" but are in fact responsible for absorbing 1 billion tonnes of previously unaccounted for carbon which is generated by northern forests: "aircraft samples show that northern forests absorb only 1.5 billion tons of carbon a year".

>>...evidence suggests that rainforests are in fact net carbon emitters of between 18 billion tonnes (ref)Chu, Henry. "Rain Forest Myth Goes Up in Smoke over the Amazon", Los Angeles Times, June 8, 2005.(/ref)

-- Wrong. Read your own reference. http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:EzKzjr2P-qEJ:planet.uwc.ac.za/nisl/docs/Moll_docs/Amazon%2520stuff.doc Chu's article cites no figure of "18 billion" and states that the so-called emissions are actually the result of human activity. Your spin is an attempt to misrepresent the facts to imply that the rainforest is either unimportant or else is made directly to blame by expressly ignoring all mention of the real perpetrators.

Meanwhile, the old models had incorrectly "...indicated that tropical ecosystems were a net source of 1.8 billion tons of carbon, largely because trees and other plants release carbon into the atmosphere as a result of widespread logging, burning, and other forms of clearing land. The new research indicates, instead, that tropical ecosystems are the net source of only about 100 million tons of carbon, even though tropical deforestation is occurring rapidly. ... Most of the (old) computer models produced incorrect estimates because..." they were "...relying on ground-level measurements..."

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2007/carbonsink.shtml

BTW, "lungs of the Earth" is a nonsensical pop-science analogy. Since when is the defining characteristic of "lungs" based on the alleged production of oxygen? Do your lungs produce any oxygen? haha. It's also disingenuous to isolate byproducts of human respiration in this analogy rather than comparing net byproducts of human digestion to those of a tree/forest, since the net "consumption" and "emission" figures (such as in the Broeker paper) are collectively referring to the holistic rainforest ecosystem.

~ 172.134.130.178 10:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

All I can say is read the articles cites and try to understand.

Nobody disputes that forests absorb CO2 and produce oxygen. What you seem to have difficulty understanding is that they also produce CO2 and absorb oxygen. At the moment all evidence says that rainforests absorb more oxygen than they emit and they and emit more carbon than absorb. That in no way alters the fact that tropical ecosystems have recently been discovered to be absorbing a suprisingly large amount of CO2, but at the moment they remain net emitters.

Also be very careful with extrapolating form "tropical ecosystems" or "tropical forests" to "tropical rainforests". The best evidence we have is that most of that tropical carbon absorption is coming from savannas, dry forests and wetlands, which are net CO2 sinks, and not from tropical forests. Further it is simply incorrect to say that the CO2 absorption of tropicla wooded ecosystems is due to human activities such as logging. The best evidence we have is that the carbon sink effect of tropical wooded ecosystems is due to the CESSATION of burning and and logging due to changes in traditional land management and the increase in grazing animal densities combined with prolonged and frequent ENSO events.

There really is no shortage of literature on this subject, and I suspect that unlike you I have access to the originals, not just popular press bowdlerisations. PLease read the original articles and undertsand what is actually being said before making further alterations. At this point you have presented no factual inaccuracies in the current wording, and your extrapolations are not suported based on the refrences you have provided. If you have references that support your position that rainforests are net CO2 sinks and that human biomass removal is the primary driver in the current carbon budget then by all means presnet this evidence. Until then please don't alter wording. If you do so again I won't revert, I will add citation tags and then when you can't provide specific refrences I will revert.

CeersEthel Aardvark 22:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

>> If you have references that support your position that rainforests are net CO2 sinks

My position is NOT that rainforests are net CO2 sinks, and nowhere did I make such a claim -- don't put strawman words in my mouth. Thanks for the condescending tone, but I understand perfectly that rainforests produce CO2 and utilize -- not "absorb" as you would have it -- oxygen.

"Oxygen production by photosynthesis is a key component of the global oxygen cycle."

-- Christine H. Foyer (Chair of the Organising Committee of the 14th International Photosynthesis Congress).

Removal of trees therefore equals removal of agents of photosynthesis -- that's my wild "extrapolation" as you call it.

As I stated above, the "lungs of the Earth" denial relies on faulty framing parameters. Photosynthesis for a fact produces a surplus of oxygen. If we're going to reject the "rainforest=lungs" analogy on the basis of Broeker's "Et tu O2" numbers -- which include gases from organic decomposition and the offset of oxygen consumed by native species other than trees -- then we must just as absurdly include gas emission figures for the decomposition of human corpses and the whole human-supporting 'ecosystem' rather than simply the respiratory output of human lungs. Otherwise what you have is a useless apples-to-oranges comparison for these supposed "lungs".

And there's no need to act indignant in your replies. I wandered into this article completely at random, so don't presume I have any 'green agenda' here.

>> >> At the moment all evidence says that rainforests absorb more oxygen than they emit and they and emit more carbon than absorb.

...Not unlike human lungs, in that case.

Wiki article: "In contradiction to popular belief, rainforests are not major consumers of carbon dioxide..."

You, in contrast, have replied above: That in no way alters the fact that tropical ecosystems have recently been discovered to be absorbing a suprisingly large amount of CO2, but at the moment they remain net emitters.

Me, parroting your reply: Tropical ecosystems remain net emitters (to the tune of 100 million tons), but that in no way alters the fact that they have recently been discovered to be absorbing a surprisingly large amount of CO2.

The sentence claiming that rainforests "are not major consumers of CO2" is therefore patently false by your own admission, and patently misleading by your slanting emphasis.

>> Further it is simply incorrect to say that the CO2 absorption of tropicla wooded ecosystems is due to human activities such as logging.

That's nice, because that's the opposite of what I wrote in my edit. I didn't say "CO2 absorption"; I said "carbon emission" comes largely from those activities.

Quoting Chu: "...these annual blazes... lay waste to a cherished notion that the rain forest (is) the "lungs of the world." -- Got it: the blazes are the emissions culprit, releasing "hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the skies each year. ..."It's probably burning up more oxygen now than it's producing."... The Amazon's role as a source of pollution, not a remover of it, is directly linked to the galloping rate of destruction in the region over the last quarter-century."

The Britton study estimates "only 100 million tons" (net) being produced despite those rampant slash & burn activities (which are accelerating, says Chu). Yet here you claim that burning and logging are in decline (or more loftily, "cessation") and that grazing practices are beneficial -- precisely contrary to information presented in the cited Chu article. Apparently, your special reading of it somehow confers a diametrically opposed view. (...)

Go ahead and provide a citation to substantiate the asserted number "18 billion tonnes", which is non-existent in the presently listed citation (Chu's article again), which you insist contains no factual inaccuracies.

With the above in mind, here was the full content of my edit to the section:

Rainforests are approximately carbon neutral due to the oxygen consumption by their native insect, bacteria, and fungi species.[3][4] Recent research [6] suggests that rainforests are more important in absorbing carbon dioxide than previously thought, further indicating that tropical ecosystems are a net source of 100 million tonnes of carbon emitted annually due largely to human activities of logging, burning, and other land clearing.[5][6] Rainforests play a major role in the global carbon cycle as stable carbon pools. Clearance of rainforest leads to increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Rainforests may also play a role in cooling air that passes through them.[5] As such, rainforests are of vital importance within the global climate system.

Kindly point out which fact among these sentences you dispute. If anything, the only valid argument I see might be to exclude "6" as a listed citation for "...logging, burning, and other land clearing", rather than to exclude my entire revision.

Also, your hasty revert has once again resulted in the duplicate reference for Broeker, which to me looks like a dishonest attempt to inflate the list of sources.

~ 172.164.147.115 09:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

1) Absorb =/= consume. The words are not synonyms

2) Two important points here: rainforests are CO2 emitters, not CO2 absorbers and rainforests are oxygen neutral, not oxygen producers. I specifically added these references because the article originally stated that rainforests were "The lungs of the Earth" and that they were major producers of O2 and major consumers of CO2. Rainforests producing only tens of millons rather than billions of tonnes of CO2 is NOT the point.99.999% of readers neither know nor care what emmission levels were thought to be last year. Rainforests producing CO2 at all is the point because >90% of our readers are going to beleive that rainforests are CO2 sinks, which isn't true. Ditto for oxygen. "Rainforests are net CO2 emitters and produce no oxygen" is going to be news to most readers and is thus an important contribution to thier knowledge. You only need to read the comments on this very page to confirm that. By altering that to "Rainforests are even more important at absorbing carbon than we thought" with the clumsy use of "further" that refers to the furtherance of no point you have totally buried the message.

3) Rainforests are not oxygen neutral primarily due to the oxygen consumption by consumers and decomposers. The single biggest oxygen consumers in a rainforest are the canopy trees. So the statement is factually incorrect in additon to burying the important fact: that rainforest are not net oxygen producers.

4) Human activity including deforestation and burning play a significant role in the carbon budget of rainforests but there is no justification I have seen for your claim that they are emmitters largely because of human activity. The best evidence we have is that the emmisons are primarily due to redictribution of rainfall. This view is confirmed by the fact that totally undisturbed areas of rainforest that have seen no burning or clearing are also acting as carbon sources.

I repeat, when you have some references that confirm factual errors in the original wording then you will have some basis for changing it. Until then please confine edits to adding information if you feel something is lacking. Don't change the entire focus from "Contrary to popular myth roinaforests aren't net CO2 emitters, nor do they produce oxygen" to "Rainforests are absorbing more CO2 than we thought". That is not at all the same information. If you feel the neeed to ADD that information then by all means do so, but not at the expense of bowdlerising what has already been contributed.

Thank youEthel Aardvark 10:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

>> 1) Absorb =/= consume.

So? What's your point? You were the one using the Broeker reference to seemingly imply that compost is an O2 sink rather than being recycled into the next generation of rooting trees. For every respiration reaction, generationally there must first have been a photosynthetic reaction, so respiration cannot proceed faster than photosynthesis; add up their chemical equations and the net result is zero (apart from expended photon energy) unless humans act to recklessly decrease the net CO2 locked up in plants.

>>2) Two important points here: rainforests are CO2 emitters, not CO2 absorbers and rainforests are oxygen neutral, not oxygen producers.

Failing to explain that the causal agents are indirect factors (listed in first paragraph of Broeker's page) leaves readers with misguided ideas about the end-products of photosynthesis.

>> Rainforests producing only tens of millons rather than billions of tonnes of CO2 is NOT the point.

You have yet to provide a valid reference for the claim of "18 billion tonnes". That's a "confirmed factual error" which you continue to ignore. It looks to me like someone here took the obsolete "1.8 billion" figure (earlier quoted above) and shifted the decimal place.

>> ...>90% of our readers are going to beleive that rainforests are CO2 sinks, which isn't true.

Rainforests are indeed CO2 sinks, just not net CO2 sinks because they're simultaneously emitting CO2; we subtract these fluxes to calculate their contribution to the carbon budget. Nor are they permanent "sinks" because the balance of the carbon cycle is disrupted as a result of large-scale forest clearance -- omission of this fact implies that logging and burning are harmless pastimes, which appears to be the skew of your preferred wording. The effect of humans on these purely biological contributions to the carbon cycle is to speed up the cycle of atmospheric C12 which would otherwise be sequestered in plants.

>> "Rainforests are net CO2 emitters and produce no oxygen"

You mean no NET oxygen, And your version does not explain WHY, whereas mine does -- see "indirect factors", above.

>> Don't change the entire focus from "Contrary to popular myth roinaforests aren't net CO2 emitters, nor do they produce oxygen"...

Read closer: that isn't what the article currently says!

You should have amended my revision (or changed your own version) to read:

Rainforests are not net consumers of carbon dioxide. Rainforests are approximately carbon neutral due to the oxygen consumption by their native insect, bacteria, and fungi species. (etc...)

-- Get rid of the word "major" which is already demonstrated false, and replace it with "net". Accompanying that correction, I would altogether avoid the preliminary reference to "popular myth" because I'm unaware of any populist argument which exercises the term "net", and the word "myth" lends a biasing accent; "popular notion" would be more neutral.

>> with the clumsy use of "further"

Change it to "also" if it confuses you that much. I originally had it split into two separate sentences but kept it intact only because these adjacent points use the same cited reference.

>> 3) Rainforests are not oxygen neutral primarily due to the oxygen consumption by consumers and decomposers.

Is ambient organic decomposition included in the definition of human lungs? No.

Should we therefore assert that methane is a byproduct of human lungs as well?

You have not addressed this flaw in Broeker's arbitrary framing of the analogy. Instead you're just hand-waving with colloquial misinterpretations of forest function, because "that's what most people think."

And I did not write anywhere that rainforests are O2 neutral, so declaring that "the statement is factually incorrect" doesn't affect me. You have a great talent for invoking strawmen, or else you're arguing the ghosts of previous editors.

>> 4) Human activity including deforestation and burning play a significant role in the carbon budget of rainforests but there is no justification I have seen for your claim that they are emmitters largely because of human activity.

It's not "my" claim; it was taken verbatim from the ucar.edu link, and from condemning statements in Chu's article. Your objection to the word "largely" does not justify deletion of the remainder of the information unless you're trying to disguise the harm of human activity by conveniently not mentioning it.

>> This view is confirmed by the fact that totally undisturbed areas of rainforest that have seen no burning or clearing are also acting as carbon sources.

Yes, but in what quantities compared to burn zones? You're employing an "illicit minor" fallacy, or "affirming the consequent" when already given that forests per se produce CO2.

~ 172.134.34.249 14:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you apparenty have nothing novel to contribute this discussion is over as far as I am concerned. As I said, I encourage you to add information that you feel lacking to the article. If you alter the meaning and focus of the existing material without cause however I will revert it, as I will revert any altertaion made without reputable refernces. Cheers, Ethel Aardvark 22:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I have highlighted specific instances of dubious wordings, incomplete information, and a blatant numerical fabrication, to which you respond with blanket non sequiturs about net CO2 production which I never disputed in the first place, and then pretend like you've adequately addressed the issues raised.

I made a note that destruction of rainforests produces large quantities of CO2, to which you bafflingly counter, "Well, untouched forests can produce CO2 naturally, too..." -- These are two independent carbon sources which you are dishonestly attempting to conflate via equivocation.

Feigning ignorance won't lend your inaccuracies any more credibility.

1. Since the subject at hand is the public misconception regarding O2 production, leading the paragraph with the (now corrected) word "myth" risks misdirecting those lay readers to believe that rainforests must therefore be worthless after all, so that their destruction must make no difference, which appears to have been someone's deliberate design by selective omission of details.

2. Rainforests ARE "major" consumers of CO2, as indicated by the Britton study, and as your own words have acknowledged above. The lead sentence should be made to read that they "are not NET consumers of CO2."

2b. The paragraph fails to describe why this is so, potentially misplacing blame on trees alone (rather than ants, insects, fungi, and decomposition) thanks to the layman's continued assumption of worthlessness from the intro sentence.

3. You appear determined to avoid any mention of the negative consequences of logging and burning practices despite information cited in your own references.

4. The "18 billion tonnes" claim is a bogus figure with a bogus reference. Provide a valid citation or remove the claim.

5. Comparing respiratory output of Species A (humans while living) to the output of Ecosystem B (forests while living and in death) is a false analogy. If we are to include decomposition figures for the latter, we are obliged to consider the same post-mortem exhaust for this "human lungs" comparison, or else exclude decomposition and guest species altogether. (This last item is rhetorical in any case because I only made note of it on this page, not within the article.)

And you don't own the article, contrary to your territorial delusions, or your efforts to intimidate by strutting self-righteous indignation. Why do you repeatedly threaten to produce hypothetical citations instead of actually producing them? I'll direct this matter to certain other editors since you're proving hopelessly unreasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.133.68.113 (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the article can make sense without distinguishing between undistrubed forest and the results of deforestation. Deforestation clearly leads to a net source. [1] says that absent this, they are probably a net sink William M. Connolley 16:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Distinguising between disturbed and undisturbed woould be worthwhile, but nearly impossible in parctice for numerous reasons. More importantly without disturbance forests of any type must be carbon neutral. Carbon can only be fixed if a stand is increaing in mass, and clearly that is a process with a finite limit. Once that limit is reached any forest must be carbon neutral.

Many tropical ecosystems are net cabron sinks today absent direct human management, but that is because of changing weather patterns and a cessation of traditional management, in the case of the Amazon for example reversion of areas cleared by indians back to forest, and invasion of forets into cerrado areas may leads ot an increase in human biomass precisely because of human disturbance, which leads us back to the difficulty of defining what constitutes an undisturbed forest.

These are certainly interesting points that might be worth adding, but they don't detract from from the information already present.Ethel Aardvark 22:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

William, I just went over Stephens et al again and it does not say what you claim it does. Nowhere does it say that deforestation of rainforest leads to it being a carbon source and nowhere does it positively assert that mature forests are sinks.

There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of Stephens et al here. The paper isn't about rainforests, it is about tropical vs non-tropical systems. Given that most tropical systems are not rainforests and given that not all rainforets is found in the tropics the article is only relaly of marginal relevance to this topic.

To look at what it does say specifically: "Land use changes in the tropics are thought to cause strong carbon emission". This refers to the entire tropics, not rainforests. More importantly it is not referring to deforestion but land us changes. See the IPCC website for the masisve of scope for LULUCF, deforestation =/= LUC. "Our results imply strong carbon uptake in undisturbed systems". Once again tropical systems, not rainforests. Most tropical systems are grasslands, savanna, dry forest and desert. Rainforest is a tiny, tiny fraction of tropical systems, and once again much rainforests is in temperate regions. Moreover the authors don't even say, as you claimed, that undisturbed systems are sinks; they say it is implied by the model and based on the argument that "Land use changes cause large emmiisions therefore undisturbed systems must be a large sink". IOW if we accept that LUC is causing large emmisions in the tropics then the results obtained by Stephens et al implies a sink for systems not undergoing change. Note that no evidence is actually provided to this effect, nor is it positively asserted and nowhere does it refer to rainforests. It completely ignores the fact that LUC has been established as major carbon sink, not source, in many tropical systems. "A weak emmision flux resulting from relatively weaker deforestation source combined with a relatively stronger sink has support form bottoms up estimates". This is the only mention by Stephens et al of deforestation, and it is caged in relative terms based on estimates that have come from secondary sources. It stil isn't refering to rainforests. Moreover the sources cited aren't claiming that undisturbed systems are a sink, only that emmisons from deforestation is being offset by sinks, that includes regrowth from deforested areas.

Hopefully you see why I have reverted your edits since they arent; actually supported by your reference.

Cheers Ethel Aardvark 01:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Given what you've jusst said ("The paper isn't about rainforests") I don't see why you're restored the paper to the article. If you're correct, its irrelevant William M. Connolley 08:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm not happy with removing the deforestation bit; nor with your only surviving ref being to a newspaper article William M. Connolley 08:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Stephens et al probably should be deleted. If you follow the thread you will see that originally I assumed that somewhere in there it said that the tropical data were obtained in rainforest, so I left the article and corrected the figures to what were actually quoted in the article. I didn't read the article fully and that is my fault, but in my defence it was an error made in good faith and under an assumption that the original contributor had read the artcile more fully than I. Upon reading closely it is apparent that the data were obtained from aircraft up to 9 km in the atmosphere and are not rainforest specific. So feel free to delete as you wish.

Not sure why you are unhappy with me removing the deforestation material. That isn't what Stephens et all say, and if you dispute that then feel free to quote where Stephens et al do say that. If you want the deforestation material reinstated then you only need to provide a reference to that effect. IIRC Mahli & Grace, Tree, August 2000 made such a claim, though it has been disputed, so you might start there or I might get around to reading it some time. But until we get a reference I'm not sure why you are so unhappy about me removing an unreferenced claim.

Also not sure why youare unhappy with surviving ref being a newspaper article, I agree it's not a primary refernce, but it is a secondary reference to credible research and not a controversial statement. But once again, if you want to add more, even contradictory, refrences I'm sure we would all encourage that.

I had only one real contribution I wanted to make here, and that was to correct the erroneous statments I found in the article that rainforests are carbon sinks and that rainforests produce oxygen. Those statements appear to have stood unchallenged for 12 months at least before they were corrected. I haven't the interest or the time to chase specific references on the whys and wherefores ATM, though one day an Wiki article may be added on carbon dynamics in tropical woody ecosystems. Until then the contribution I wanted to make has been made and supported with credible refernces. I encourage anyone who wants to to add details to those points, but I won't support them being bowdlerised without valid references. I don't feel that is an unreasonable position for a Wiki contributor.

Update. Just noticed that you have already deleted Stephens et al. Good call.

Cheers,Ethel Aardvark 10:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I object to the newspaper article because newspapers are invariably poor at reporting science. Assuming its [2], this seems to be true in this case. Its hopelessly confused: Far from cleaning up the atmosphere, the Amazon is now a major source for pollution. Rampant burning and deforestation, mostly at the hands of illegal loggers and of ranchers, release hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide into the skies each year. Which is to say, its not talking about undisturbed forest, but about the effects of deforestation William M. Connolley 10:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right, Newspapers are poor at reporting science, but unless you have a more reputable contradictory reference or some grounds for dismissing the article it stands as a reliable referewnce and sufificent basis for my claim, no? That specific reference is indeed including all rainforest regardless of the degree of disturbance, but the nothing in the article indicates otherwise. But read Broekers' article", mature forests can't be major carbon sinks, it just plain impossible as afact of biology and physics. No system can continue to accumulate mass indefinitely least of all a biological one.Ethel Aardvark 10:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, its not a good source for your claim. Its primarily concerned with deforestation. It has little to say about undisturbed rainforest. What little it does say (left unmolested, the forest does generate enormous amounts of oxygen through photosynthesis, but it consumes most of it itself in the decomposition of organic matter.) implies that the forest is indeed a small net sink (since it says "most of it"). So the current state of the article "Recent evidence suggests that rainforests are in fact net carbon emitters", supported by that one ref, is not acceptable. Replacing it with "Recent evidence suggests that rainforests are in fact net carbon emitters due to deforestation" would be acceptable. But that article is such a poor source it should not be used. IPCC would be far better William M. Connolley 10:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

And anyway, we already have the ucar page: intact tropical forests are removing an unexpectedly high proportion of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, partially offsetting carbon entering the air through industrial emissions and deforestation [3]. This is clear enough: intact forests are a net sink. It is a far better ref than a newspaper article William M. Connolley 11:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

And I don't see the Broecker paper as relevant William M. Connolley 11:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not a better reference, it is of exactly the same quality: a popular press article, written by a journalist and not scientist and not subjetc to peer review. In many ways it is worse because the article that it claims says these things in fact says no such thing. For example The Science article doesn't in fact even use the word rainforest depsite what the UCAR article claims. More crucially the article doesn't refer to NET carbon balance. The Science article does indeed indicate that the forests may be absorbing more carbon than previously thought (ie the "unexpectedly high" figure of the UCAR article) but it still stops short of claiming a net sink. As far as your suggestion that the forest is a small net sink, that's certainly plausible and some (older) studies have indicated that, which is why the Wiki article says that the forests are approximately neutral with latest evidence suggesting an overall CO2 source. But I've already covered all this in the discussion above. As for the relevance of the Broeker article, that you can't see the relevance says a lot by itself. Carbon and oxygen budgets are two sides of the same coin. If a system isn't producing net oxygen then it isn't sequestering significant carbon and vice versa. significant. The Broeker article even says this: most of the carbon produced in rainforest ends up being re-mineralised.

But hey, if you want more evidence I'll quote Richey et al, Nature April 2002 "Outgassing from Amazonian rivers and wetlands as a large tropical source of atmospheric CO2"; "The net C budget of an area of forest is the balance between net production and heterotrophic respiration. As shown in Fig. 1b, these two terms must be in approximate balance because any change in Np eventually produces a corresponding change in Rh, with a lag time equal to the sum of the soil and the biomass residence times. For example, if there is a short-term increase in Rh, because of an increase in soil temperature, the soil C stocks will eventually decrease to bring Rh back to a level with Np." or Pierre et al "Amazonia and themodern carbon cycle" Oecologuia 2005 "mature tropical forests should be at climax, i.e. over time the net gain of carbon should near zero". Are those good enough references for you? Photosynthesis and respiration have to be approximately in balance in a forest +/` the carbon pool residence times. If a forest is sequesterng significant carbon then it must be either because the residence times have changed or because the maximum potential biomass has increased : ie it means the forest has been disturbed and is not a mature forest. I have no shortage of references to this effect, it is hardly uncommon knowledge amongst ecologists.

Which brings us back once again to what we choose to call a disturbed forest. Some authors have suggested a widepread increase in mature rainforest biomass, but if that is the case it needs to be explained, and that explanation is invariably in the form of CO2 fertilistion, temperature increase due to anthropogenic CO2, deposition of excess nitrogen and recovery from human disturbance or some combination thereof (eg see Lewis Phil Trans Royal Soc of lOndon, 2004). IOW even those authors arguing for carbon sequestration in old growth forest are attributing it to human disturbance. As such any mention of the effect of human disturbance one way also needs to acknwledge the obverse effect is also due to human disturbance. IOW if rainforest are a carbon source it is due to human disturbance ( a serious possibility) they are every bit as much a carbon sink because of human disturbance. Without human disturbance rainforests mus be carbon neutral, as are all mature forests.

Hope that clears up the issue for you. If nothing else you prompted me to dig out some of my old references and I might even get around to including some. Ethel Aardvark 12:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No, of course that doesn't clear it up. The Broeckner thing isn't PR either. As far as I can tell, we agree that undisturbed tropical forests are largely in balance. I'm happy with that, but not with the quality of the refs saying so. I certainly assert that tropical forest is a net carbon source due to deforestation: do you agree with that? William M. Connolley 12:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

1) The Broeker article is written by Broeker himself, not a journalist, and he is one fo the world's leanidg authorities on biogeochemical cycling. As references go it is on par with a book authored by Broeker or a symposium paper. IOW it is the best reference possible outside a peer reviewed journal article wiht original research.

2) It simply isn't accurate to say that rianforests are a net carbon source due to deforestation. The issue is way, way more complex than that and can't be simplified by a soundbite as you have done. Do you understand from the refercnes I posted above that even without deforestation there is a 50% chance that rainforests of the world would be carbon emmiters right now? If you do understand that then you will understand why you can't simply say that they are emmitters because of deforestation. Rainforests have been carbon emitters for 5 millon of the past 10 million years, that is what being carbon neutral means: periods of carbon sequestration are balanced by equivalent periods of carbon emmision (or shorter periods of concommitantly higher emmision). Unless you have some evidence you can not simply claim that the current emmision status is due to deforestation, for all we know the current emmison status could be a natural process that is being accentuated by deforestaion but not in any sense caused by it. For the moment I am just rewording so that your edit doesn't bowlderise the original (undisputed) statement, but I am also adding a cite tag. If you can't provide a reference for your claim that current deforestation is entirely due to deforestaion then I will delete it as per standard Wiki policy.

Cheers Ethel Aardvark 23:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added a longwinded and detailed explanation of carbon balance in rainforests, hopefully this will keep everyone happy. It lacks punch and is overblown and over-referenced for what is supposed to be an article on rainforests, not on carbon budgeting. Unfortunatly Wiki suffers from this. The original statements were perfectly accurate and made their point very well, but for some reason some people considered it was misleadimg (I assume because they implied that we couldn't blame humanity for all ills). Now the article says exactly the same thing, but the relevant information (what is the contirbution of rainforests to the greenhouse effect) is buried under a lot of footling details. IMO the article is worse for the edits, but I appear to be in the minority so I will abide by the majority will and add information on the contirbution of human effects and the state of undistrubed stands to say what was originally said in one sentence: rainforets are and always have been approximately carbon neutral and best eveidence is they are emmiters today.

Cheers Ethel Aardvark 07:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are failing to distinguish between the long term balance and the current state. rainforets are and always have been approximately carbon neutral and best eveidence is they are emmiters today makes no sense. What does make sense is "Rainforests have been in approximate balance; today they aren't primarily because of deforestation". I removed However the amount of carbon dioxide humans are causing some rainforests to release is balanced by the carbon dioxide humans are causing other rainforests to absorb. because I don't believe it. I would accept that some rainforests are gaining, but not by enough to lead to overall balance. FOr example [4] The analysis of Houghton (1999) indicated that the net flux due to land-use change was 2.0 ± 0.8 PgC/yr during the 1980s, almost entirely due to deforestation of tropical regions William M. Connolley 08:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As with Stephens et al, you demonstrate that you don't undertsand what you are reading. Flux due to LULUCF is not total flux. Tropical rgeions =/= rainforest, most tropical regions are savannas, dry forest, grassland and desert. I have provided references for my statements therfore they will remain. If you have resoson to dipute those rferences then by allmenas do so, but don't remove statements supported by highly credible refercnes. And don't add statemnts that deforestation ios repsonsible for the emmsiosn until you have arefernce for that claim. i havce already provided refernces that weather pattterns amongst other things have been blamed and that there is uncertainty about the role of deforestaion. We can say that deforestation is a significant contributor, but if you wnat to attribute it as primary cause then reference that claim.

Honestly at this stage it seems like you will only be happy when the article says that deforestaion is a massive evil and the source of all ills. Since that isn't the case according to the best science then the artcile will can't say that.

Ethel Aardvark 01:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be getting a bit silly. No-one is talking about massive evil. I think the page should say that rainforests are largely in balance, except for deforestation leading to net emissions. You want the article to say This means that natural rainforests do not absorb carbon dioxide from the air, nor do they release nor release carbon dioxide into the air - this is obviously wrong. The clearly do, on a small scale, emit and absorb CO2. I can't see why you think that whilst there are large fluxes CO2 between forest, soil and atmosphere, natural rainforests do not, over the long term, absorb carbon dioxide from the air is inaccurate.

For crying outloud. I posted a refernbce that says that that natural rainforests do not absorb carbon dioxide from the air, nor do they release nor release carbon dioxide into the air. It is not wrong.

If you feel that the page should say that rainforests are largely in balance, except for deforestation leading to net emissions then find a reputable refrence that says such a thing. All the scientific literature I have seen says precisely what the refernces provided here say: say that rainforests are largely in balance, were in balance before humabns evolved, were in balance before humans invented axes and would be inbalance if absolutely no deforestaion were occuring. If you have evidence to the contrary then by allmeans present it.

This is getting ridiculous now. I attempted to accomadate you by expanding the article to acommodate deforestation and providing refrnces for every single claim made and you still want to add nonsense with no referential support. At this point since you don't seem to be reading either my comments here or the refrences provided I will change tack. I will simply call for references and if they can't be provdied then the edits will be deleted as per Wiki policy. Ethel Aardvark 08:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree this is getting ridiculous. I think we are talking past each other. I think the language you are using is wrong. Taking the simplest example rainforests do not absorb carbon dioxide from the air - this is obviously wrong. Rainforests are plants, they absorb and emit CO2 continuously. The net flux is zero, but it is obviously wrong to say that there is no absorption. As for deforestation: The analysis of Houghton (1999) indicated that the net flux due to land-use change was 2.0 ± 0.8 PgC/yr during the 1980s, almost entirely due to deforestation of tropical regions, as above William M. Connolley 09:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No, rainforests are not plants. Rainforests are ecosystems. No, plants do not absorb carbon dioxide continuously, at best they do so when light levels are above a critical threshold and no nutrients are limiting and the plants have leaves and a dozen other vital caveats. I have adressed Houghton above. No mention of rainforest. I've said it about 6 times. The tropics =/= rainforest. Forested tropics =/= rainforest. Deforestation in the tropics =/= deforestation of rainforest. Net flux due to deforestaion =/= net ecosystem flux. I don't think that you appreciate that the tropics are not one big rainforest. No offence intended but I have frankly have run out of patience with this. I'm not here to provide such basic information in the discussion page. I've referenced my claims and you are free to challenge the refrnces as you wish. I've added citation tags for your claims If you have refernces for what you claim then post them. If you can't provided the references then the edit will be deleted as per Wiki policy. Ethel Aardvark 10:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

effects on global climate

I am a newly registered user, so I am currently denied editing this page, but I noticed in the section, "Effects on the Ecosystem", there was a bit mentioned twice in mostly identical phrasing about the rainforests being net carbon emitters. The exaxt line is repeated twice in the same section, first in the first paragraph, then again near the end of the second to last paragraph. The line is this: "rainforests are in fact net carbon emitters, releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than they absorb." This repeated word for word twice and I see it as being a bit redundant. Anyone have an idea how to reword this or rearrange the section, or have their own ideas? I suggest deleting the second occurence of the line. -Levi 22:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This apears to have been deat with. --Apis O-tang (talk) 04:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

percentage of Earth's animal species in the rainforests

There are two differing figures concerning the world's population of animas in the rainforests. In the introductory paragraph it says two thirds of the world's population are in rainforests, while under the fauna section, someone has said it is over half the world's animal species, which also as been marked as needing a citation. So if the first paragraph's figure of two thirds has been checked, would there be a way to use the same source for tha fauna section? -Levi 23:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Effects on global climate (new section)

As it currently stands, little of what the section says can be supported.

Part 1

In contradiction to popular belief, rainforests are not consumers of carbon dioxide and are in fact net carbon emitters, releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than they absorb. This is primarily due to deforestation

• If it's going to start like that, we need to address (and reference) "popular belief". It's far too bald a statement as it stands. And if we are talking about "popular belief" we really need to say something about how widespread the belief is. This isn't encyclopaedia.
• Although the article starts off by explaining the difference between tropical and temperate rainforests, I think this section is talking about tropical rainforest. Therein lie further problems - the map is supposed to cover "Tropical and subtropical moist broadleaf forests", per WWF. But that's a far broader definition of "rainforest" than is usually used in the ecological literature.
• Per NPOV, we are supposed to fairly represent all major viewpoints. However, this makes absolute statements. Is there scientific consensus on this issue that allows us to make these kinds of statements?
• To say "rainforests are not consumers of carbon dioxide" is going to mislead most readers, even if you split hairs in such a way as to define "rainforests" to include plants + soils + microbes. There's a huge difference between "not consumers" and "not net consumers". In addition, the term "consumer" is going to be very jarring to anyone who knows much about trophic relationships. Guettarda 19:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Part 2

Natural or undisturbed rainforests, like all forests, are approximately carbon neutral. This means that natural rainforests do not absorb carbon dioxide from the air, nor do they release nor release carbon dioxide into the air.

• No, "carbon neutral" means that there is no net uptake or release, not that there is no uptake
• The Broecker reference does not appear to support the assertion that "rainforests" are carbon neutral. Guettarda 19:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
• The second sentence is simply false, and not supported by either ref. Guettarda 03:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Part 3

No rainforest in the 21st century can be considered to be undisturbed.

• This statement is a little odd. Is this meant in the context of forest dynamics (i.e., in contrast with Clementsian view of "climax" communities), or is it meant in terms of the idea of carbon fertilisation? Regardless, it has serious POV/OR problems, given its juxtaposition with statements about "natural or undisturbed forest". It appears to neutralised the "carbon neutral" statement, but does so without explicitly addressing the issue. The Lewis paper talks about carbon fertilisation, but does so in a highly speculative way, so it really doesn't seem like an appropriate citation. Guettarda 19:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Part 4

Human induced deforestation plays a significant role in causing rainforest to release carbon dioxide, as do natural processes such as drought that result in tree death and these droughts themselves are believed to be exacerbated by human induced climate change. However the amount of carbon dioxide humans are causing some rainforests to release is balanced by the carbon dioxide humans are causing other rainforests to absorb.

• Neither the Ometto paper nor the Lewis paper appear to support the assertion that I have bolded. This needs to come out of the article immediately. Guettarda 19:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Part 5

Humans have caused some rainforests to absorb carbon dioxide by processes such as adding fertilisers, removing animals that eat plants and increasing rainfall through climate change

• Again, using the Lewis paper as a reference here is totally inappropriate. I can't find any reference to fertiliser addition or herbivore removal in the Ometto paper either. As for precipitation changes, the Ometto paper (which only deals with Amazonia) discusses declines in precip, with only passing mention of the possibility of increased precip. So it's also an unsuitable reference for this. Guettarda 19:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Part 6

The regrowth of rainforests cleared by humans in the past has also increased carbon dioxide absorption by rainforests.

• The Wright paper does not address this, so cannot be used as a reference here
• This statement lacks context, and appears to be argumentative, not encylcopaedic. Guettarda 19:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Part 7

Because human disturbance has caused an increase in both the amount of carbon dioxide rainforests release into the air and the amount they absorb from the air rainforests in the 21st century are still carbon neutral, releasing and absorbing approximately the same amount of carbon dioxide.

• The Wright paper does not make this assertion at all. This is in no way supported by that reference.
• The Pregitzer paper is rather long, and I have only skimmed it, but I could find nothing in it to suggest that it supports that assertion. Quite frankly, I would be shocked if Kurt Pregitzer were to say such a thing. Where does he say anything of the sort? Guettarda 19:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Part 8

Recent evidence suggests that the Earth's rainforests are in fact net carbon emitters, releasing more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than they absorb.

• An LA Times article isn't a scientific pub and really isn't an acceptable source.
• The Malhi article does not support this assertion - in fact it says the opposite, that tropicals forests are a net sink. Guettarda 19:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Part 9

Rainforests do play a major role in the global carbon cycle as stable carbon pools. Clearance of rainforest leads to increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Rainforests may also play a role in cooling air that passes through them. As such, rainforests are of vital importance within the global climate system.

• This paragraph is fluff.
• The only reference doesn't lead anywhere. Guettarda 19:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I was expecting some reply from EA William M. Connolley 08:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Which part is fluff - the stable carbon pool is correct and so is the second sentence. Peatsamps are a type of rainforest found in SE Asia - they sequest carbon and have substantial carbon pools - I'll added a reference when I can chase one down - but google Susan Page (university of Leciester, UK.) for further informations.Sepilok2007 (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Carbon neutral

The article currently states that rainforests are carbon neutral, seeing how this is a higly controversial topic I think it is fair to require a reference to this claim. As far as I can tell the role of rainforests as carbon sinks/emitters are not well understood and there are current scientiffic efforts trying to clarify this matter. However since there have been recent (peer reviewed) reports with contradictory findings I sugest this topic is removed from the article entirely (the CO2 flux part, not the entire effects on global... section). Wikipedia isn't really a forum for scientific debate as far as I am aware, and I think it would be more constructive to leave the question alone until there is a bigger scientific consensus in this matter. If someone feels there is a consensus about this, please correct me! Otherwise I will probably remove this part myself in a few days. --Apis O-tang (talk) 04:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't state that RF are carbon neutral. Which bit are you talking about? Needless to say (which is why I'm saying it...) don't take anything out until you've clarified this William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The section effect on global climate begins with: "A natural rainforest emits and absorbs vast quantities of carbon dioxide. Over the long term these fluxes are approximately in balance[citation needed], so that an undisturbed rainforest would have little net impact on atmospheric CO2 levels[citation needed]". The "emits and absorbs" part is fine of course, it's what comes after I'm referring to.--Apis O-tang (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm still a bit confused about this, but agree it shouldn't be removed as per discussion on Williams talk page. --Apis O-tang (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Reading through the page this section "These droughts themselves are believed to be exacerbated by human induced climate change. Some climate models run with interactive vegetation predict a large loss of Amazonian rainforest around 2050 due to drought, leading to forest dieback and the subsequent feedback of releasing more carbon dioxide. Not only that but by 2090 scientists estimate that all rainforests will have disappeared at the rate we are deforesting them.[citation needed]" Looks very tenuous....all of it needs citations...the first sentence believed by who....is the 2nd sentence really needed at all?......and the last sentence sounds pretty....well, stupid....given the amount of rainforest that is controlled by people/organisations/entities who have the express intention of conserving it.

The 2050 stuff is a Hadley study William M. Connolley (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

These droughts themselves are believed - no idea. Take it out for all I care William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd also think that the section could be improved by what effect rainforest has on gases other than CO2....oxygen for example, and certainly more information on the water cycle....they are called rainforests afterall. I seem to remember hearing that rainforest consumes oxygen (net), but I'm certainly not in my area of expertise Restepc (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, the numbers are questionable (especially the 2090 scientists) but I don't think there is any doubt that the rainforest's in the world are threatened by logging and other human activities, as well as fires and droughts, possibly attributable to global warming. But the section could certainly be improved upon, I don't feel qualified though, and anything related to global warming appears to be a battleground, even this. :( --Apis O-tang (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been posting this through out this talk page in hopes that someone notices it, kindly check it out: http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=7398392

According to this of the CO2 that enters the system, 20% are retained. Hence it may show that forests aren't truly Carbon Neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewDreams2 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

New information on Trees on trees fighting Global Warming can be found here:

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=7398392

Its from Yahoo News, about the study of Beverly Law. Basically it says that Trees do play a large part in reducing CO2 and helping to stop global warming. If its useful, I think the article should be updated accordingly.

By Jessica Fitts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.211.218.221 (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

the map?

Despite the fact that our first image is from the Daintree Rainforest in Australia the map of general tropical rainforest distribution doesn't show so much as one green pixel of tropical rainforest anywhere in Australia.Zebulin (talk) 08:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC) erika ii mari friends for ever life —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.179.24.74 (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone want to fix the map so that north east Australia is included? 65.167.146.130 (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The maps are quite poor, indeed. Limits are far from exact, and also some other areas are missing besides northeast Australia, like western India. Taiwan is included in the tropical rainforest map although it is rather subtropical (and temperate in higher altitudes). Maybe it would be better to look for a ready-made map in the internet than to fix the existing map. The temperate rainforest map is maybe of still worse quality, and I suppose there are not much better ones in the internet: for example, american maps show exactly the west coast rainforests, but regarding another countries they consider rainforest often only southern Chile + some areas in another english speaking countries, where the word "rainforest" is used (Tasmania, New Zealand). Krasanen (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced sentences

Removing unsourced sentences from the article. --ClaudioMB (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Deforestation

About half of the mature tropical rainforests, between 750 to 800 million hectares of the original 1.5 to 1.6 billion hectares have been deforested. The rate of deforestation is accelarating . Most of the remaining rainforest is in the Amazon basin, where the Amazon rainforest covered more than 600 million hectares. Unless significant measures are taken on a worldwide basis to preserve them, by 2030 there will only be 10% remaining with another 10% in a degraded condition. 80% will have been lost and with them the natural diversity they contain will become extinct. More loss of the Amazon would cause enormous amounts of carbon dioxide to be released back into the atmosphere Agatam0102 (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Humam uses

Tropical rainforests are also the source of medicinal drug components.

Rainforests cover only six percent of the Earth; however, twenty-five percent of all drugs are derived from rainforest ingredients.

More than 1,430 varieties of tropical plants are thought to be potential cures for cancer. The National Cancer Institute claims that 70 percent of the plants identified as having anti-cancer properties are found exclusively in rainforests. The rainforest has shown to hold many other types of medicines as well, from everyday pain killers like aspirin to important cardiac drugs.

Asidemes will you please stop reverting my edits. The references you added do not support the text in the article, I explained that when i removed the material and will happily do so again here. However if you revert those edits again i will report you. Wikipedia requires that references actually support the claims made within the articles. The refernces that I deleted do no agree ith the text.

Similarly, please do not remove the clarification, cite and weasel tags, both inline and in the heading. Those are there for a reason and should only be removed when you change the phrasing so they are no longer unclear or weasel words. SImply posting a link to a journalist who uses the same unclear or weasel phrasing is not sufficient because it doesn't resolve the problem. If you revert this article again I will report you. Ethel Aardvark (talk) 09:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Protected

Protected for one week due to edit warring. Please discuss your concerns here. Vsmith (talk) 13:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Ethel Aardvark, STOP removing content from Wikipedia. I have provided citations from credible sources. Asidemes (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you have not provided no such refernces. I pointed this out when I made the reversion. Since the lock and your warning seems to have finally prompted you to be willing to discuss this let's start. We'll begin with the simple one.

Do you understand that the reference you on Madagascar says that 80% of Madagascar's FORESTS have been lost. Do you understand why this does not support your clain that 80% of Madagacar's RAINFOREST has been lost?

Asidemes references must support the text taht you have added, If they don't agree with what you have added to the article they are not references at all. DO you understand now that you have failed to understand what the article says? The terms forest and rainforest are not interchangable. It is entirely possible for Madgascar to have lost 90% of its forest and still retain 100% of its forest, or to have lost 1% of its forest and lost 100% of its rainforest. I know it can be hard for a layperson to understand, but these terms have specific meaning, but Disney movies aside, there are many types of forest in Madagascar aside from rainforest.

When we've sorted this I can explain to you how you have also misinterpreted the other articles you cite, and how they also don't say what you have claimed they say.Ethel Aardvark (talk)

I've provided such references[5] and I will provide more. "Following IUCN’s recommendation, the Committee inscribed the eastern Madagascan Rainforests of the Atsinanana on the World Heritage List because of their globally outstanding biodiversity. The Committee in turn applauded the tremendous efforts of Madagascar in protecting its remaining eastern rainforests, more than 90% of whose original extent has already been lost to deforestation."[6] Asidemes (talk) 09:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you have not provided any references, As I pointed out the reference you provided at [7] states that 90% of Madagascar's FORESTS have been lost. Not 90% of its RAINFORESTS. We can try to discuss his, but you really need to answer me when I ask whether you understand that there is a difference between all forests and rainforests. I need to know your level of understanding so I can discuss this at that level. If you don't even understand that 90% of forests is not the same as 90% of rainforests then i am going to have to explain some very basic concepts. That's OK, I am prepared to do that, but you need to reply when I ask you these questions so I can gauge your level of understanding of this subject.

With this new "reference" you have once again misrepresented the source by failing to understand what is clearly written. It doesn't say that 90% of Madagascar's 'rainforest have been lost, which is what you claimed in the Wikipedia article. It says that 90% of Madagascar's EASTERN rainforest have been lost. Madagascar's eastern rainforest may be less than 1% of Madascar's total rainforests.

That is twice now that you have misrepresented references to support your claim that 90% of Madagascar's rainforest have been cleared. Two points are becoming clear. One is that the statement is unsupportable and that 90% of Madagscar's rainforest have not been lost. The second is that your interpretation of references is not particularly reliable and requires close scrutiny.

Needless to say your statement that 90% of Madagascar's rainforest have been lost remains unsupported and appears to be factually incorrect, and as such it will be deleted as per Wikipedia policy. I will also be giving far more scrutiny to your other "citations" to see whether they support your claims in the Wikipedia articles.Ethel Aardvark (talk)

Madagascar's tropical rainforests are concentrated on the steep hillsides along a slender north-south axis bordering the east coast, from the Tsaratanana Massif in the north to Tolagnaro in the south. The vegetation of the central highlands and the west coast is for the most part savanna or steppe, and coarse prairie grass predominates where erosion has not exposed the orange-red lateritic soil. In the southwest, the vegetation is adapted to desert conditions. The remaining rainforests in the east of Madagascar 1950-1985. [8] Asidemes (talk) 08:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Asidemes the standard for these discussions is that you add your reply after the pertinent comment. I've moved your last posting to reflect this and make it easier to follow.

Having said that, I note that you haven't actually adressed my commenst at all. You still haven't responded as to whether you understand that rianforests is not forest, for example.

You have posted a non sequitur quotation (I asssume) from a completely unattributed source. I'm not really sure what I am meant to make of it, absent any comment from you. Aside form that without even giving ahint as to the source I really can't evaluate whether it is a suitable reference for Wikipedia.

Any way enough of this unproductive and evasive nonsense. Simple question: are you prepared to have an actual, good faith discussion to settle this, using your own words and stating what your position is, or ar we just going to go on like this? I type out lengthy and detailed contributions, and you cut and paste non sequiturs from other websites. If I have to go through this for each one of your dodgy refernces then I am going to lose patience.

Let's settle all this with a simple question: do you now understand and admit that the references you provided do not support your claim that 90% of Madagascar's rainforests have been lost? If so then you should also understand that I was simply following basic Wiki policy by reverting them, and not engaging in vandalsim. What you do about finding accurate references after that is up to you. I don't have the time to run through this sort of BS for each and every reference. I will simply point out where and how the references don't support you claims and leave it at that. If you dispute the fact then you can say so and we'll discuss that. If you don't state clearly that you dispute it then I will leave it at that and if you start another edit war thereafter the Wikipedia adminstration can dela with you?

Agreed? Ethel Aardvark (talk) 09:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ethel Aardvark: "Why hide where you took the quote from? Late edit: I see why you hid it. You are quoting from an unsourced Wikipedia article."

Source: U.S. Library of Congress. [9], [10] Asidemes (talk) 11:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly not interested in discussing this. I am more than willing to do so. Suffice it to say that at this point Ihave demonstrated that your refercnes did not say what you claimed, and that I was justified in removing them and not engaging in vandalsim. What you do about finding accurate references after that is up to you. I don't have the time to run through this sort of BS for each and every reference. I will simply point out where and how the references don't support you claims and leave it at that. If you dispute the fact then you can say so and we'll discuss that. If you don't state clearly that you dispute it then I will leave it at that and if you start another edit war thereafter the Wikipedia adminstration can dela with you? Ethel Aardvark (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Asidemes I have removed those references yet again. They do not say what yuou purport them to say> I am willing to discuss this with you, but you seem unwilling to do so. If you put them back in again I will report you and you can face the consequences. Ethel Aardvark (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest taking it one at a time. Asidemes had modified the Madagascar bit per your note, or didn't you notice? Your revert took out more than you state. I've checked three of the disputed sources and they are valid and do support the statements made. Rather than revert warring and threats, lets try a more congenial approach. Vsmith (talk) 01:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I tried to take this one at a time, but Asidemes refused to engage in discussion. You can see this for yourself above. He made makes no attempt to offer any input. He won’t even answer direct questions. I honestly can't tell whether the even disputes that the references don't say what he claims they say.At what point am I allowed to consider that I made a bona fide attempt at discussion with someone who won’t engage in discussion?

Asidemes has a habit of posting references that simply don’t say what he claims, as you can see if you follow his posting history through this or other threads. Am I expected to go through the song and dance above for every one of them? I post my position and a description of what is wrong, he post non sequitur quotes form random websites and refuses to say anything of substance. Then when the lock is removed from the article I have to go through it all again? I don't have the patience for the time for that. Asidemes is at best a passionate amteur who lacks suffuicent undertsanding of the subtle differences between concepts like forest and rainforest,. And that is assuming good faith.

But I’ll do you a deal. If I can prove to your satisfaction that the reference she has provided here don’t support his claims do I get given the benefit of the doubt and not need to go through this nonsense for all his phony “citations”?

So, vsimth, are you saying that you think one of those articles says that the rate of deforestation is “ever quickening”? If so can you point out which one and perhaps quote where it says this? Two of the articles don’t even mention global deforestation, concentrating solely on limited geographic areas. The others don’t make any mention of the rate of change of deforestation whatsoever, being interested only in simple rates. As you will see if you look over in the discussion for the deforestation article, the UNFAO thinks that the rate of deforestation both globally and within the tropics is in fact slowing, not “ever increasing”, so it would be surprising to see someone contradict this.

“Absolute rates of [tropical] deforestation (area/yr) are predicted to decline in this analysis” S. Joseph Wright The Uncertain Future of Tropical Forest Species BIOTROPICA

“FRA 2000 also conducted a remote sensing survey of tropical forests to assess forest change. ..The results indicated that the world's tropical forests were lost at a rate of about 8.6 million ha annually in the 1990s, compared to a rate of around 9.2 million ha per year during the previous decade. During the same period, the annual rate of loss of closed forests decreased from 8.0 million ha in the 1980's to 7.1 million ha in the 1990s.” http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/MEETING/003/X9591E.HTM

So you will understand why I look closely at any references perporting to support the claim that rainforest deforestation rates are “ever increasing” globally. The premier body collecting this data states categorically that it is ever decreasing.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)