Naive assumption.
Wow. More stumbling blocks for the global warming/climate change doom-sayers.
Just how much are scientists allowing their emotions bias their results?
At this "rate of deforestation," we'd be down to about 1500 million ha by now.
But we're apparently still stuck somewhere close to 1900.
Could this unexpected new reforestation have anything to do with more CO2 in the atmosphere?
Odd. When anything bad happens, that's the first thing they speculate about. When something good happens, the crickets get a workout.
Earth's plant life is growing because of the increased CO2. Think about it...long ago earth's atmosphere was primarily CO2. Where did it all go? There is now only 0.03% CO2 in the atmosphere. Plants ate it all.
They ate it down to literally negligible amounts--any less and plants would die from lack of CO2. If the atmosphere had a food label, it wouldn't even list CO2 as an ingredient, the amount is so vanishingly small.
All the ancient plant species are dead because they couldn't efficiently find CO2 in the atmosphere. Only plants that are really good at gathering CO2 can survive in the modern, almost CO2-less, atmosphere.
0.038% is equal to 380 parts per million. Imagine a city of 1,000,000 people but only 380 of them are of a certain type. In order to survive you have to sit around waiting for one of the 380 to come by at random, miss your chance and it could a long while before another one comes by.
The temperature does not depend on atmospheric CO2. Even if the earth's atmospheric CO2 rose to 10%, there might be a slight increase in temperature would but it would be completely swamped by local shifts in climate--one would still need highly accurate measurements to find it, the average caveman would not notice the difference.
More evidence of the whoredom of scientific “activism.”
The wholesale politicization of the scientific establishment, through the neo-marxists of the environmental movement is a HUGE issue.
~~Anthropogenic Global Warming ™ ping~~
Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown
New!!: Dr. John Ray's
GREENIE WATCH
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
I can’t help but notice that there is no discussion about how different groups classify managed forests when it comes to forest cover. I know that some enviromentalists do not consider plantations to be forests.
Well, it is a jungle out there. ;~))
Reforestation of tropical forest plundered by greedy Mayan capitalists.
Speaking of climate change, it sounds a lot like the symptoms of mild depression as if the planet were a living creature with a mind under stress. Without a doubt the Global Warmists have the Gaia thing in the back of their minds and some have no doubt about it at all.
Well the question isn’t really all that difficult to answer, actually. There’s Landsat data going back 30+ years — it would provide a pretty unambiguous means to do trending. It’d mean dealing with a lot of data and number crunching, but that’s no big deal — there are lots of Landsat tropical forest studies: they already know what to look for.