PDA

View Full Version : Forest Growth is encouraging,says the researchers..


D2112
11-15-2006, 07:52 PM
Where are all the global warming alarmists??

Isn't it funny how the media and lunatic left have not said boo
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn10521&feedId=online-news_rss20

Forest growth is encouraging, say researchers
09:30 14 November 2006
NewScientist.com news service

Contrary to common belief, forests in many nations are expanding not shrinking, say researchers. They say that while the majority of the world's most forested countries are still losing trees, the number that are gaining forests is rising.

However, much of the new forest is cultivated, not natural, leading some experts to caution that planted forests do not support the same level of biodiversity.

The new work assessed the 50 most-forested countries around the world from 1990 to 2005. It reveals that forest area increased in 18 of the 50 nations, while total biomass increased in 22 countries.

“There is a trend towards an improvement in forests both in terms of the area they cover and in terms of their condition,” says Roger Sedjo of Resources for the Future, an independent institute in Washington DC, US.

Sedjo and colleagues say improved yields in the agriculture mean less land is needed to feed populations, allowing some to be returned to forest.

Richer is greener
The researchers used data from the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization to draw up each country’s "forest identity" - the area of land covered by forest, volume of timber, biomass and amount of carbon captured within the country’s forests. Most previous studies of national forests have considered only the area covered.

They defined as "growing stock" the number of trees large enough to be used commercially as timber. Their study showed that among the relatively rich countries surveyed, all had an increasing growing stock. These nations all had a GDP above $4600 per capita, roughly equivalent to that of Chile.

The authors point out that some countries poorer than this appear better able to manage their forests than others, indicating that good forest management is not purely dependent on wealth.

Rather, they suggest that the relatively rich countries studied do not rely so heavily on their forests and also have a degree of political and social order that allows them to better manage their natural resources.

Natural forests
Mark Aldrich of WWF’s forest landscape restoration programme says the research is interesting and sound. But he says that although it does show that a considerable amount of agricultural land is being returned to forest, it risks hiding that large extents of natural forest are still being cut down in many countries.

The research by Sedjo and his colleagues show that the two nations that have suffered the greatest losses in area of forest and volume of growing stock are Brazil and Indonesia.

Aldrich points out that natural forests play roles that cultivated forests cannot replace, both in terms of housing a huge amount of biodiversity and in the ways in which they support local human populations.

He also says the problems with the datasets provided by the Food and Agriculture Organization could have flawed the study. The FAO gathers its data from national governments, which do not use standardised definitions to describe their forests.

Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (vol 103, p 17574)



Growing stock change between 1990 and 2005; green indicates countries that gained growing stock, red countries lost growing stock, brown experienced no change. There was insufficient data for nations in yellow (Graphic: University of Helsinki)

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn10521/dn10521-1_600.jpg

BucEyedPea
11-15-2006, 08:07 PM
People must be using a lot more paper. The more we use the more trees we must create. Sounds logical to me! :)

banyon
11-15-2006, 08:40 PM
I do not understand how the thread topic and article connect.

Also, the article basically suggests a conclusion from questionable premises. Forests in 18 countries out of 50 are expanding? By how much? How big is the net gain or loss? Which countries did they pick and why?

Not to mention that this is not a peer-reviewed journal.

Here's The UN FAO stats which clearly show that most countries are being deforested at a rather rapid rate. Linky (http://www.mongabay.com/deforestation_rate.htm)

headsnap
11-15-2006, 08:49 PM
simple...

the earth heats up > more water evaporates > more clouds > more rain > more trees...



global warming logic...

banyon
11-15-2006, 08:53 PM
simple...

the earth heats up > more water evaporates > more clouds > more rain > more trees...



global warming logic...

?? I don't think trees get much water in a desert.

headsnap
11-15-2006, 08:57 PM
?? I don't think trees get much water in a desert.
doesn't look like much growing going on in the desert

NewPhin
11-15-2006, 09:02 PM
Did you miss the part where it says that the trees are cultivated, not natural? They're growing 20 year pines on tree farms. Those aren't forests. They're factories.

banyon
11-15-2006, 09:05 PM
I think there a little more to it than your syllogism. Not only are there intervening variables (such as people cutting down the trees irrespective of rain), but don't they get most of their water from the water table through their roots? I would like to see credible science that holds that increased surface temperatures lead to increased vegetation overall.

headsnap
11-15-2006, 09:05 PM
Did you miss the part where it says that the trees are cultivated, not natural? They're growing 20 year pines on tree farms. Those aren't forests. They're factories.

do you call those things growing wheat, corn, etc... factories?





short fiber wood is a CROP!!!

banyon
11-15-2006, 09:08 PM
do you call those things growing wheat, corn, etc... factories?





short fiber wood is a CROP!!!

That's the view of our National Forest Service unfortunately. Fortunately it is not the view of our National Park system for when Bush's timber-goon buddies wanted to cut down old growth sequoyah's last month.

NewPhin
11-15-2006, 09:15 PM
do you call those things growing wheat, corn, etc... factories?





short fiber wood is a CROP!!!

I have zero problem with tree farms. That being said, I dislike the idea of them being counted in forest/wilderness acreage. They're not.

Halfcan
11-15-2006, 09:50 PM
"and the trees are all kept equal, by hatchet, axe and saw."

D2112
11-16-2006, 06:02 AM
I do not understand how the thread topic and article connect.

What I meant by the lunatic left was...I have not heard a peep out of that environmental hero who invented the internet...

banyon
11-16-2006, 08:19 AM
What I meant by the lunatic left was...I have not heard a peep out of that environmental hero who invented the internet...

This article is full of holes. I pointed these out in post#3 to no challenges from anyone because the questions are readily apparent I assume.

tiptap
11-16-2006, 08:26 AM
Has the dynamic of increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere changed with the notion that more grove of trees are planted (note not forests, groves). The focus of the former Vice-President, who was important to pushing the internet to be opened in access, has been the increase in carbon dioxide. Not directly deforestation question. That is part of balance sheet. The question is the absolute quantity carbon dioxide going down or up in the atmosphere?

To the degree that you can provide evidence of carbon dioxide reduction absolutely from this effort we applaud. But even those who are against deforestation alone do not consider grove of trees to be a substitute for evolving forests.