Without its rainforest, the Amazon will turn to desert (2015)

Yeah, the premise that rain patterns can actually be affected significantly by what is growing on land seems to be further supported by how the local climate has seemingly been affected in the Ernst Gotsch plantation by his activities:

https://www.renature.co/articles/ernst-gotsch-planting-water...

EDIT: Ok, so the article doesn't actually talk about increased rainfall, only about increased water absorption in soil, which then provides water for local streams.

> just can't possibly care less about their rainforest

Is it their rainforest though? It raises some interesting philosophical and geopolitical questions. Paving the Amazon rainforest would almost certainty disrupt many things outside Brazil's borders.

I think it's tantamount to discussions about putting carbon, cfc, and pollution into our atmosphere.

> Brazilians clearly want it gone though, or they'd have mounted a stronger defense around it.

How come? This is the biggest natural landscape conserved in the world, the country (and its population) could have profit trillions from it but it is still there, working on behalf the whole world, and nobody (besides Brazilians) paid for it.

And how will the Amazon being mostly desert effect Brazilian people ?

wealthy countries could just donate some of their money to these people too ?

From what I gather there were programs in place to finance sustainable development in the Amazon by donor governments abroad. And I'm sure this could be expanded given how the climate disaster becomes more and more apparent. But only if the recipient government is willing to cooperate. Which seems to be the main problem now. With the current 'whatever-denialist' at the helm it's impossible to find constructive solutions that can benefit all involved parties.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding is that the primary economic interest driving the Amazon's deforestation is (wealthy) cattle ranchers and to a lesser extent loggers. The loggers make money off a tract of land once, the ranchers make money off it for years. Neither of those groups employ a particularly large share of Brazil's poor, nor do they exert a price effect that particularly benefits the poor.

+1

Everything comes at a cost, if people cannot profit from it. In this case, looks like protecting Amazon is not making a profit. Then someone must pay the cost.

Exactly this. If the Amazon was American or European it would be a desert long time ago.

You make it sound as if the theory is pure quack, but from the second article:

> The other reviewer was Judith Curry, then an atmospheric physicist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, who has long had concerns about the atmospheric dynamics at the core of climate models. She felt it was important to publish the paper and says the standoff was “very bad for climate science, which badly needs an infusion from hard-core physicists.” After 3 years of debate, the journal’s editor overruled Held’s recommendation and published the paper, saying it was published “not as an endorsement” but “to promote continuation of the scientific dialogue on the controversial theory [that] may lead to disproof or validation.”

> Since then, there has been neither validation nor disproof, but largely a standoff.

To me this sounds more like the theory really needs more consideration and research. Because the potential implications are huge. There was a time when the existence of aether was common sense scientific view.