Skip to comments.Study shows global forest loss over past 35 years has been more than offset by new forest growth
Posted on 08/10/2018 7:37:00 PM PDT by aimhigh
A team of researchers from the University of Maryland, the State University of New York and NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center has found that new global tree growth over the past 35 years has more than offset global tree cover losses. In their paper published in the journal Nature, the group describes using satellite data to track forest growth and loss over the past 35 years and what they found by doing so.
There has been a growing consensus in recent years that because humans cut down so many trees (most particularly in the rainforests) that global tree cover is shrinking. In this new effort, the researchers have found that not to be the case. They contend that global tree cover is actually increasing.
(Excerpt) Read more at phys.org ...
Looks like a job for...
Da da da da...
The Masters of the Universe!
You can’t see the Cities for the Trees
Always wondered why people did not plant more fruit trees all over town, apples, peaches, plums, lemons, apricots.
Next year, maybe fruitless peach?
Went to nurserie to replace a black plump (red meat) and you have to recognize the leaves to ID. Worker told me what I found on their lot was fruitless.
On my tiny 5 acres it’s a battle every summer to keep the trees cut back.
My area of Texas was heavy in fruit trees in the 1840’s to 1890’s. They marketed dried fruit.
More “climate change” bullshit. Setting us up for more carbon dioxide song, and dance routine. I saw it in the headline, but read the article anyway until it got to “Global Warming”, and I stopped to make this note.
Mechanized agriculture should be thanked for the reforestation of southern Pennsylvania and northern Maryland.
I’ve see many pictures from the 1890’s-1920’s showing nearly treeless landscapes in areas which now are covered with thick woodlands.
Mule teams could plow, plant, and harvest on slopes too steep for Johnny Poppers.
“apples, peaches, plums, lemons, apricots.”
For one thing, they attract stinging insects.
Remember when scientists claimed the area around Mt St Helen’s would never recover? While there is no good hardwood and old growth in the area there are hundreds of thousands of small trees and other plant life and wildlife is thriving.
Log the other planets later.
So many trees.
So little time.
Kind of like spending several hundred million dollars of taxpayer money to launch a satelite to detect greenhouse gas emissions to confirm Man made global warming, only to find out the the by far largest producer of greenhouse gasses is ROTTING VEGITATION from the rain forests...
Could it possibly be that CO2 is not a pollutant?
Next I suppose you’re gonna tell me those trees are absorbing g CO2...
There may be more to it than that. We visited Pounds Hollow Lake, a real gem in the Shawnee National Forest in Southern Illinois, recently. They have very nice informational posters (I really wish they’d put it all online!!!) there, detailing both the history of the facility and the National Forest. The slopes were over-farmed and exhausted, eventually becoming heavily eroded and useless for most any sort of farming. Now restored to forest, much like what was there 200 years ago, woodlands, and an occasional lake, are probably the best use for most of this land...
I guess those “scientists” were not aware of the environment around most volcanoes, given some years after the eruptions subside. Often these are very fertile areas, and sometimes very coveted farmlands.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.