Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Earth has more trees than it did 35 years ago - but there’s a huge catch

GwadGwad Member Posts: 2,855
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/planet-earth-has-more-trees-than-it-did-35-years-ago/

However, an important distinction needs to be made between tree cover and forest cover.

The study points out that industrial timber plantations, mature oil palm estates and other specifically planted forests add to global tree cover. On paper these areas compensate for the primary forest that has been cut down; 100-hectare loss of primary forest is perfectly offset by a 100-hectare gain on a man-made plantation, for example.

But while they may be equal in area, they are not equal in biodiversity. Primary tropical forests and savannas harbour a wealth of flora and fauna which is lost when these areas are cleared.

Comments

  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    But how many trees compared to 400 years ago?
  • WestlinnDuckWestlinnDuck Member Posts: 15,719 Standard Supporter
    But the big issue is CO2 capture which is greater in young trees. Biodiversity in an old growth Douglas Fir forest is minimal. Mammal and bird diversity explodes after a clear cut and replant. Just a little knowledge bomb for you leftards.
  • GrundleStiltzkinGrundleStiltzkin Member Posts: 61,515 Standard Supporter
    edited October 2019

    We always loose to Cal
  • PurpleJPurpleJ Member Posts: 37,524 Founders Club
    2001400ex said:

    But how many trees compared to 400 years ago?

    Maybe more considering we used to burn wood chips for fuel, maybe less because population has exploded. I guess about the same, given how much we replant them. I also hear trees are the earth’s lungs.

    @ThomasFremont @collegedoog
  • ThomasFremontThomasFremont Member Posts: 13,325
    PurpleJ said:

    2001400ex said:

    But how many trees compared to 400 years ago?

    Maybe more considering we used to burn wood chips for fuel, maybe less because population has exploded. I guess about the same, given how much we replant them. I also hear trees are the earth’s lungs.

    @ThomasFremont @collegedoog
    That’s literally what they do.
  • BendintheriverBendintheriver Member Posts: 6,188 Standard Supporter
    edited October 2019

    But the big issue is CO2 capture which is greater in young trees. Biodiversity in an old growth Douglas Fir forest is minimal. Mammal and bird diversity explodes after a clear cut and replant. Just a little knowledge bomb for you leftards.

    You are correct of course. Funny how the left manipulates the truth to force us all to live like they want us to.

    Last week we were treated to an explanation of why the smallest recorded hole in the ozone near the South Pole was no big deal and "probably" didn't have anything to do with human efforts to limit pollution but was "probably" the result of "freakish weather" . I thought that was a funny one. An entire movement based off of repeated references to a growing hole in the ozone layer and when it has shrunk and is the smallest ever recorded it seems to mean nothing. Hilarious. Billion dollar bullshit.
  • GwadGwad Member Posts: 2,855
    You guys are weird
  • BendintheriverBendintheriver Member Posts: 6,188 Standard Supporter
    Gwad said:

    You guys are weird

    Nice rebuttal with facts.
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457

    But the big issue is CO2 capture which is greater in young trees. Biodiversity in an old growth Douglas Fir forest is minimal. Mammal and bird diversity explodes after a clear cut and replant. Just a little knowledge bomb for you leftards.

    You are correct of course. Funny how the left manipulates the truth to force us all to live like they want us to.

    Last week we were treated to an explanation of why the smallest recorded hole in the ozone near the South Pole was no big deal and "probably" didn't have anything to do with human efforts to limit pollution but was "probably" the result of "freakish weather" . I thought that was a funny one. An entire movement based off of repeated references to a growing hole in the ozone layer and when it has shrunk and is the smallest ever recorded it seems to mean nothing. Hilarious. Billion dollar bullshit.
    Where did you read that one at?
  • BendintheriverBendintheriver Member Posts: 6,188 Standard Supporter
    2001400ex said:

    But the big issue is CO2 capture which is greater in young trees. Biodiversity in an old growth Douglas Fir forest is minimal. Mammal and bird diversity explodes after a clear cut and replant. Just a little knowledge bomb for you leftards.

    You are correct of course. Funny how the left manipulates the truth to force us all to live like they want us to.

    Last week we were treated to an explanation of why the smallest recorded hole in the ozone near the South Pole was no big deal and "probably" didn't have anything to do with human efforts to limit pollution but was "probably" the result of "freakish weather" . I thought that was a funny one. An entire movement based off of repeated references to a growing hole in the ozone layer and when it has shrunk and is the smallest ever recorded it seems to mean nothing. Hilarious. Billion dollar bullshit.
    Where did you read that one at?
    A NASA scientist hailed the shrinkage as "really good news," though it seems more a result of freakish weather than reduced pollution.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/ozone-hole-near-south-pole-shrinks-smallest-size-ever-seen-ncna1070211
  • 2001400ex2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457

    2001400ex said:

    But the big issue is CO2 capture which is greater in young trees. Biodiversity in an old growth Douglas Fir forest is minimal. Mammal and bird diversity explodes after a clear cut and replant. Just a little knowledge bomb for you leftards.

    You are correct of course. Funny how the left manipulates the truth to force us all to live like they want us to.

    Last week we were treated to an explanation of why the smallest recorded hole in the ozone near the South Pole was no big deal and "probably" didn't have anything to do with human efforts to limit pollution but was "probably" the result of "freakish weather" . I thought that was a funny one. An entire movement based off of repeated references to a growing hole in the ozone layer and when it has shrunk and is the smallest ever recorded it seems to mean nothing. Hilarious. Billion dollar bullshit.
    Where did you read that one at?
    A NASA scientist hailed the shrinkage as "really good news," though it seems more a result of freakish weather than reduced pollution.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/ozone-hole-near-south-pole-shrinks-smallest-size-ever-seen-ncna1070211
    Yeah.... That's what a scientist says. So I'll take his word over yours.

    The 1987 international Montreal Protocol — the only United Nations treaty ratified by every country on Earth — banned many of the chlorine compounds used in refrigerants and aerosols. The ban resulted in a slightly smaller ozone hole in recent years, but this year's dramatic shrinking isn't from those efforts, Newman said.
  • PurpleThrobberPurpleThrobber Member Posts: 44,844 Standard Supporter

    2001400ex said:

    But the big issue is CO2 capture which is greater in young trees. Biodiversity in an old growth Douglas Fir forest is minimal. Mammal and bird diversity explodes after a clear cut and replant. Just a little knowledge bomb for you leftards.

    You are correct of course. Funny how the left manipulates the truth to force us all to live like they want us to.

    Last week we were treated to an explanation of why the smallest recorded hole in the ozone near the South Pole was no big deal and "probably" didn't have anything to do with human efforts to limit pollution but was "probably" the result of "freakish weather" . I thought that was a funny one. An entire movement based off of repeated references to a growing hole in the ozone layer and when it has shrunk and is the smallest ever recorded it seems to mean nothing. Hilarious. Billion dollar bullshit.
    Where did you read that one at?
    A NASA scientist hailed the shrinkage as "really good news," though it seems more a result of freakish weather than reduced pollution.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/ozone-hole-near-south-pole-shrinks-smallest-size-ever-seen-ncna1070211
    Shrinkage is never good news.

  • GwadGwad Member Posts: 2,855

    But the big issue is CO2 capture which is greater in young trees. Biodiversity in an old growth Douglas Fir forest is minimal. Mammal and bird diversity explodes after a clear cut and replant. Just a little knowledge bomb for you leftards.

    Noted HCH ecologist heard from
  • BennyBeaverBennyBeaver Member Posts: 13,346
    Gwad said:

    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/planet-earth-has-more-trees-than-it-did-35-years-ago/

    However, an important distinction needs to be made between tree cover and forest cover.

    The study points out that industrial timber plantations, mature oil palm estates and other specifically planted forests add to global tree cover. On paper these areas compensate for the primary forest that has been cut down; 100-hectare loss of primary forest is perfectly offset by a 100-hectare gain on a man-made plantation, for example.

    But while they may be equal in area, they are not equal in biodiversity. Primary tropical forests and savannas harbour a wealth of flora and fauna which is lost when these areas are cleared.

    Anyone else watch the Biggest Little Farm documentary?
  • RaceBannonRaceBannon Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 107,707 Founders Club

    Gwad said:

    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/planet-earth-has-more-trees-than-it-did-35-years-ago/

    However, an important distinction needs to be made between tree cover and forest cover.

    The study points out that industrial timber plantations, mature oil palm estates and other specifically planted forests add to global tree cover. On paper these areas compensate for the primary forest that has been cut down; 100-hectare loss of primary forest is perfectly offset by a 100-hectare gain on a man-made plantation, for example.

    But while they may be equal in area, they are not equal in biodiversity. Primary tropical forests and savannas harbour a wealth of flora and fauna which is lost when these areas are cleared.

    Anyone else watch the Biggest Little Farm documentary?
    Couldn't put it down
Sign In or Register to comment.