Study shows global forest loss over past 35 years has been more than offset by new forest growth

Phys.org ^ | 08/09/2018 | Bob Yirka

[aquila48]

Maybe the higher levels of CO2 had something to do with it?

[Paul R.]

The one fly in the ointment here may be that forest losses are greatest in tropical rainforest areas, while gains are in more temperate areas. Tropical areas would tend to crank out more oxygen, I would think?

[VRWC For Truth]

Paging Al Bortion...

[WMarshal]

And few of the dim bulbs infesting this world understand that if man had not learned to find and use fossil fuels the world would be as treeless as Scotland and populated with much fewer idiots.

[leopud]

Quotation: “With over 240 million planted trees, Israel is one of only two countries that entered the 21st century with a net gain in the number of trees.”
Just curious: what is the other country.? Thanks in-advance

[RedMonqey]

Groot?

[Sacajaweau]

there may be new growrh but the fires burned homes, critters and people. get your priorities straight.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

All that new carbon dioxide has to go somewhere. As carbon dioxide levels rise, vegetation growth accelerates. It is not rocket science.

Bur you are right, the Sierra Club won’t be advertising this fact anytime soon.

[central_va]

The greatest deforestation in history occurred in North America. Pre Colombian North America was 100% forested from the great plains eastward ti the Atlantic. Now this huge land area is barely 50% forested, if that.

[trebb]

Can't be.......

I remember about 25 years ago when my wife asked if she could donate to a "save the rain forests" deal...I told her that as soon as she allowed them to dictate what we did with our own yard and landscaping, she could donate all she wanted. She has since bolstered her Conservative credentials by becoming a lot more aware of how the Left works.....and she is right more often than I am...(I had to say that so she doesn't shoot me....)....

[palmer]

Back in the 1990s, the environmental scam NGOs were claiming that the "rain forest" was being destroyed at the rate of 15,000 acres per day.

It was true. In Brazil in 1995 they estimated they lost 10,000 square miles which is about 17,000 acres per day. But that was a peak year. Also what they don't tell you is how much grew back (about 30% on average). The rainforest is something we should all care about, but should base it on facts.

[palmer]

On my tiny 5 acres it’s a battle every summer to keep the trees cut back.

I needed a guy with a giant dozer to clear cedar from part of my 5. That's now a seeded somewhat native meadow. There's still a ton of trash cedar in one section that I am leaving for now. I also had to remove 24 dead or dying ash trees and have 24 more (at least). A few have managed to survive the ash borer for now, and I am hoping they are somehow immune (although I doubt it).

Meanwhile I have planted a wide variety of trees to see how they do. Some spruce for blocking the wind. Some relatively rare trees. Some pecans and apricots but also pawpaw, persimmon and mulberry. Some locust for fast growing firewood.

[palmer]

Maybe the higher levels of CO2 had something to do with it?

That is correct.

[P.O.E.]

[Dilbert56]

The rain forests were called the “lungs of the planet”. In a sense, they are. Lungs take in oxygen and exhale CO2. The rotting vegetation in the rain forests made then oxygen sinks. It’s the new growth forests absorb CO2 and produce O2. So it’s good news if plantings of new growth replace old rain forests.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Someone should point out that, just like “dead men tell no tales,” standing deadwood doesn’t recycle any CO2 into oxygen. One of the flaws of the rewild-the-forests” do nothing policies of Clinton and especially Obama.