Rising forest density offsets climate change: study

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Yet another study that shows us how little we really know about climate change and how the worlds climate works.

Working to save forests and increase energy efficiency and find forms of cleaner energy are good. But the last thing we should be doing is passing carbon taxes and trying to regulate something that we really don't understand yet.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_climate_forests
OSLO (Reuters) – Rising forest density in many countries is helping to offset climate change caused by deforestation from the Amazon basin to Indonesia, a study showed on Sunday.
The report indicated that the size of trees in a forest -- rather than just the area covered -- needed to be taken into account more in U.N.-led efforts to put a price on forests as part of a nascent market to slow global warming.
"Higher density means world forests are capturing more carbon," experts in Finland and the United States said of the study in the online journal PLoS One, issued on June 5 which is World Environment Day in the U.N. calendar.
Trees soak up carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, as they grow and release it when they burn or rot. Deforestation in places from the Congo basin to Papua New Guinea is blamed for perhaps 12 to 20 percent of all emissions by human activities.
The report, based on a survey of 68 nations, found that the amount of carbon stored in forests increased in Europe and North America from 2000-10 despite little change in forest area.
And in Africa and South America, the total amount of carbon stored in forests fell at a slower rate than the loss of area, indicating that they had grown denser.
And some countries still had big losses of carbon, including Indonesia and Argentina. The study did not try to estimate the overall trend, saying there was not yet enough data.
Greater density in some countries, including China, was probably linked to past forest plantings, lead author Aapo Rautiainen of the University of Helsinki told Reuters.
"Forests that were established in China a few decades ago are now starting to reach their fast-growing phase. That is a reason for rising density now," he said.
WARMER
Global warming, blamed by the U.N. panel of climate experts mainly on human use of fossil fuels, might itself be improving growth conditions for trees in some regions. Warming is projected to cause heatwaves, droughts and rising sea levels.
The United States has had among the most striking shifts -- timberland area expanded by just one percent between 1953 and 2007 but the volume of growing stock surged by 51 percent.
A shift toward farming in the Midwestern United States meant that forests in the east had been left to grow, and get denser.
The report also suggested that forest managers might rotate fellings less frequently since trees kept thickening.
But it could complicate efforts to design market mechanisms to encourage developing nations to safeguard tropical forests. Under the U.N.-led effort, people would get tradable credits for slowing the rate of deforestation.
Measuring the density of a forest requires more complex monitoring than just measuring the extent of a forest by photographing it from a plane or by satellite.
"There does need to be a greater sampling to be able to come to a legitimate and credible number for the carbon," said Iddo Wernick, a co-author at the Rockefeller University in New York.
Negotiators from about 180 nations will meet in Bonn, Germany, from June 6-17 to discuss measures to slow global warming, including the protection of tropical forests.
 

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
Your post makes no sense. You're saying that because it was predicted that more forests mean less CO2 and less climate change, we don't know enough about how the climate works?

That's like me saying, because I started eating vegetables and now feel healthier, it highlights that we don't really know how nutrition works.

What is wrong with you?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
The first sentence in the study shows how Non Prof John gets it all wrong as the study says, "Rising forest density in many countries is helping to offset climate change caused by deforestation."

Helping OFFSET something says nothing about what is needed, which is a a trend line
that actually REVERSES the net effects of MMGW.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Let me explain this to you two in simple english.

We THOUGHT that the loss of forests around the world would result in increased temperatures due to all that carbon being released into the air.

But that isn't what happened. Instead denser forests are more than making up for the lost in forested areas.

This is yet another example of how our theories on climate change are proven wrong as we gain more data and a greater understanding of the field.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Jesus, you really are a partisan. Must be sad to be this wrong this often.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,012
9,117
136
Let's say the human population, in the United States, doubles.

How are trees and forests going to fare then?
 

IGBT

Lifer
Jul 16, 2001
17,965
140
106
in their goofy computer fraud models the eco-KOOKS factor out co2 sink effect to magnify their alarmist hoax.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
New growth trees are carbon Neutral, deforestation is largely carbon negative.

Because in deforestation, trees 500 or more years old are chopped down and often simply burned, releasing all the carbon in the cellulose of the tree straight into the atmosphere. With the resulting land being less capable of supporting future carbon capture vegetation.

With new growth forests, we still get efficient carbon capture as these new trees grow.
But because these new growth forests usually do not support trees that have a very long life, they eventually die and fall to the forest floor. And regardless if they rot or are burned, they release all the carbon captured in cellulose right back into the atmosphere.

Meanwhile Non Prof John fails to mention, small effects of MMGW are releasing massive amounts of methane trapped in global permafrosts, with methane about 17 times as effective as a greenhouse gas when compared to CO2. Not to mention all the fossil fuels we are burning. And lest we forget, Brazil just passed new laws making Amazon deforestation far easier.

But if one wants to be a MMGW denier, the only thing with any scientific hope might be in global dimming.
 

KGB

Diamond Member
May 11, 2000
3,042
0
0
I don't know who's threads are sillier... PJ's or Anarchist420's.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Let me explain this to you two in simple english.

We THOUGHT that the loss of forests around the world would result in increased temperatures due to all that carbon being released into the air.

But that isn't what happened. Instead denser forests are more than making up for the lost in forested areas.

This is yet another example of how our theories on climate change are proven wrong as we gain more data and a greater understanding of the field.

No, let me explain this to YOU, you ignorant, partisan jackass:

1) Nowhere in the study does it say denser forests are "MORE than making up" for deforestation of rainforests. The actual words used were that denser forests are HELPING to OFFSET. And specifically:

The study did not try to estimate the overall trend, saying there was not yet enough data.

2) Deforestation of rainforests is a CONTRIBUTOR to climate change, not the only cause. The article itself says:

Deforestation in places from the Congo basin to Papua New Guinea is blamed for perhaps 12 to 20 percent of all emissions by human activities.

So your argument amounts to: "Since denser forests are helping to offset 12 to 20% of human emissions, nothing else should be done."
 

Sinsear

Diamond Member
Jan 13, 2007
6,439
80
91
Let's say the human population, in the United States, doubles.

How are trees and forests going to fare then?


I'm sure they'll grow quite well in mexico and other central/south american countries.
 

Blackjack200

Lifer
May 28, 2007
15,995
1,688
126
This all makes sense once you understand that Paul Revere was actually riding to warn the British.
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76
This fail thread isn't to failure level of Anarchist or Ape's thread's yet.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
Let's say the human population, in the United States, doubles.

How are trees and forests going to fare then?

In the past 60 years, I'd say we've cleared more than enough land to offset forest density changes.

Why would you say such a thing without taking the minimal time it takes to google it? The forested area in the US has been pretty much constant since about 1930. Link.
 

p0nd

Member
Apr 18, 2011
139
0
71
Why would you say such a thing without taking the minimal time it takes to google it? The forested area in the US has been pretty much constant since about 1930. Link.

There should be some clarification about this figure - it is true, but:

1. There is a difference between Old Growth forests and New Growth ones - the U.S. lost a lot of its Old Growth, but new forests have been grown or are maintained to farm lumber. Many times you'll see people claim that the amount of forest in the U.S. is increasing, but there is failure to distinguish between what kind of forest. Ecologically and possibly in terms of carbon offset, the two kinds of forests are different and that is important.

2. The U.S. can also "export" its deforestation to countries who cannot afford to do so, like Brazil. So figures for the U.S. don't represent the rest of the world!

I will also add, to the many good points already brought up counter to the OP, that forests are *not* infinite CO2 sinks. Eventually a forest can be "saturated" with CO2, where a sort of uptake plateau has been reached and one could keep artificially pumping CO2, if they so desired, into the forest with no effect. Usually limiting factors are nutrients in the soil (source: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v411/n6836/full/411469a0.html)
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,012
9,117
136
Why would you say such a thing without taking the minimal time it takes to google it? The forested area in the US has been pretty much constant since about 1930. Link.

You're trying to argue using some arbitrary metric that has no value.

If you tried to apply it, that would mean that we've built no roads, and no buildings since 1930. Use your head.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
I doubt that oxygen-carbon systems are as simple as more CO2 equals more trees. But it would be nice if this were true.
 

airdata

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2010
4,987
0
0
Did you know that hemp grows at a much much faster rate than trees? It also grows much more dense so you can grow more per square foot. I can't quote the exact number, but you could replant hemp over and over and the yield compared w\ trees is staggering.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
You're trying to argue using some arbitrary metric that has no value.

If you tried to apply it, that would mean that we've built no roads, and no buildings since 1930. Use your head.

So instead of reading my link and admitting you were wrong, you decide to dig yourself deeper into your hole of denial? K. ;)