Forests not disappearing

[Walter]

No convincing evidence for decline in tropical forests



Claims that tropical forests are declining cannot be backed up by hard evidence, according to new research from the University of Leeds.
This major challenge to conventional thinking is the surprising finding of a study published today in the Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences by Dr Alan Grainger, Senior Lecturer in Geography and one of the world's leading experts on tropical deforestation.
"Every few years we get a new estimate of the annual rate of tropical deforestation,” said Dr Grainger. “They always seem to show that these marvellous forests have only a short time left. Unfortunately, everybody assumes that deforestation is happening and fails to look at the bigger picture – what is happening to forest area as a whole.”
In the first attempt for many years to chart the long-term trend in tropical forest area, he spent more than three years going through all available United Nations data with a fine toothcomb – and found some serious problems.
“The errors and inconsistencies I have discovered in the area data raise too many questions to provide convincing support for the accepted picture of tropical forest decline over the last 40 years,” he said. “Scientists all over the world who have used these data to make predictions of species extinctions and the role of forests in global climate change will find it helpful to revisit their findings in the light of my study.”
Dr Grainger does not claim that tropical deforestation is not occurring, as there is plenty of local evidence for that. But owing to the lack of frequent scientific monitoring, something for which he has campaigned for 25 years, we cannot use available data to track the long-term global trend in tropical forest area with great accuracy.
“The picture is far more complicated than previously thought,” he said. “If there is no long-term net decline it suggests that deforestation is being accompanied by a lot of natural reforestation that we have not spotted.”

Complete article: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-01/uol-nce010708.php

 

[darkbeaver]

Walter when you get to your thread titled, Fishery Not In Decline, I will stop reading your delusional material altogether. You seem to be desperate to turn back the hands of time when there was still a clean unexplored frontier and nothing but easily had plenty for all. Wake up man it's not 1842 it's 2006.:smile:

 

[MikeyDB]

Reports have been confirmed that a bright celestial body spotted in the midnight sky hovering over Bethlehem is the herald of a new messiah. Three journalists traveling in the Bethlehem area have confirmed that while hotels and inns are swamped with holiday celebraters, a special envoy from the carpenters guild and his wife have obtained accomodations at one of the newest chic villas adjacent to the Hayatt hotel and are holding an open house to commemorate the arrival of their un-planned for first child. While reports are sketchy, Western Mythic News sources have reliable data suggesting there may be a peculiar physiologic pehenomenon associated with this event. Stay tuned to Fantastic Radio News for developing details....

 

[darkbeaver]

I'm glued to my reciever in anticapation of the good news.

 

[#juan]

I believe Walter thinks he is arguing against the idea of global warming. That tropical rain forests are disappearing is a given:

[SIZE=+3]Review of Literature[/SIZE]

IV. Destruction of the Rainforests



The cause of the destruction of the rainforest was put very simply by the Forest Alliance of British Columbia (1996): "The global population has more than tripled this century, and will continue to grow for the next 50 years, particularly in developing countries. World population is expected to reach ten billion by 2050." Because the number of people living on the planet increases every year, the number of forest products needed also increases, forcing temperate and tropical rainforests to be cut down.

Almost half of all tropical deforestation has occurred in South America.

"The rainforests of the world are disappearing at a rate of 80 acres per minute, day and night… …major climatic and other environmental changes will occur if this continues." (Costa Rica Rainforests Outward Bound School, 1996) The destruction of the rainforests cause carbon dioxide to be released, which in turn allows the greenhouse effect to occur. The greenhouse effect raises the temperatures all around the world, and can cause ice caps to melt. When ice caps melt, the sea level rises, causing major flooding around the world.

Traditionally there were three major causes of destruction to the rainforest: farming, ranching, and logging.



Farmers in rainforest countries are often poor and can’t afford to buy land. Instead, these farmers clear rainforest land to grow their crops. Because tropical rainforest soil is so poor in nutrients, farmers cannot reuse the same land year after year. In following years, farmers just clear more land, destroying the forest piece by piece.

Ranching also causes destruction of the rainforests. Ranchers clear large areas of rainforest to become pastures for their cattle. This land does not cost them very much, so they can sell cattle at low prices. Because it is very profitable, ranchers continue to clear rainforest land so they can raise and sell more cattle. "During the 1980s, about 16.9 million hectares of tropical rainforest was cut down and replaced with farms and grazing land for cattle." (Forest Alliance of British Columbia, 1996)

The third major traditional reason for destruction of the rainforests is logging. Trees from the rainforest are used for building houses, making furniture, and providing pulp for paper products, such as newspapers and magazines. Rainforest that was chopped down can grow back over time, but they will never have the same variety of plants and animals they once did.

The Amazon rainforest still remains as it was years ago, with less destruction occurring than in many other forests, because it is very large and remote. But the Amazon may not remain so peaceful for long. Transnational corporations are now targeting the Amazon and the other rainforests because of the latest problem of in rainforest destruction: Greed.

Corporations have convinced many rainforest countries that it would improve their economies by allowing the companies to use the land, and now these countries economies have become dependent on it.

Oil companies often attempt to trick and bribe the Indians into signing over to them the rights of the land. But the people have begun to fight back, for example: "Occidental Petroleum’s use of coercion to get the native communities to sign away land rights violates Ecuadorian and international law protecting indigenous people, and runs counter to company policies that state Occidental will "protect the environment, health and safety… of the communities in which we operate."" (Wright, 1996)

Although Occidental is attempting to fight local governments, the oil produced if Occidental were to win the land would only satisfy the petroleum needs of the U.S. for thirteen days.

The rainforests are disappearing rapidly, and mainly for correctable problems… that should have been corrected years ago.

"Tropical rainforests once covered more than 14 percent of the Earth’s land area… they now amount to less than 6 percent." (Tropical Rainforest Coalition, 1996)

 

[Tonington]

All that soy and palm oil isn't being planted on grasslands...

 

[MikeyDB]

Juan....tongue in cheek...

You tree-hugger types believe all that propaganda from Greenpeace and so on and so forth.. You know perfectly well that Styrofoam harvesting was outlawed years ago and with the extinction of the Nauga that's been associated with Styrofoam clear cutting, no longer do we have lovely NaugaHide in our livingrooms and our automobiles.... You radical evvironmentalist types are Nazii Gestapo-like hammering your hobnail boots all over free enterprise...

You won't be happy until all the Genuines are gone and Genuine Leather joins the Nauga...

 

[lone wolf]

Rumour has it they may be installing a window at that University in Leeds. The bad news is, it will only reveal what is happening in that little part of Leeds.

Woof!

 

[Tonington]

I have no doubt that forests in some areas of the tropics are indeed reforesting, but I'll have to wait until later in the week for PNAS to make the article available. The forests in Vietnam particularly is intriguing. I wonder has there been a shift in the species diversity from the forest mix before napalm and agent orange?

 

[#juan]

Juan....tongue in cheek...

You tree-hugger types believe all that propaganda from Greenpeace and so on and so forth.. You know perfectly well that Styrofoam harvesting was outlawed years ago and with the extinction of the Nauga that's been associated with Styrofoam clear cutting, no longer do we have lovely NaugaHide in our livingrooms and our automobiles.... You radical evvironmentalist types are Nazii Gestapo-like hammering your hobnail boots all over free enterprise...

You won't be happy until all the Genuines are gone and Genuine Leather joins the Nauga...

So true. A lot of us will go to our grave never having seen a real live Nauga. I'm told they were playful creatures.......:smile:

 

[Walter]

November 13, 2006

New look at world's forests shows many are expanding

For years, environmentalists have been raising the alarm about deforestation. But even as forests continue to shrink in some nations, others grow — and new research suggests the planet may now be nearing the transition to a greater sum of forests.

A new formula to measure forest cover, developed by researchers at The Rockefeller University and the University of Helsinki, in collaboration with scientists in China, Scotland and the U.S., suggests that an increasing number of countries and regions are transitioning from deforestation to afforestation, raising hopes for a turning point for the world as a whole. The novel approach, published this week in the online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, looks beyond simply how much of a nation's area is covered by trees and considers the volume of timber, biomass and captured carbon within the area. It produces an encouraging picture of Earth's forest situation and may change the way governments size up their woodland resources in the future.

“Instead of a skinhead Earth, we may enjoy a great restoration of forests in the 21st century,” says study co-author Jesse Ausubel, director of The Rockefeller University's Program for the Human Environment.

The formula, known as “Forest Identity,” considers both area and the density of trees per hectare to determine the volume of a country’s “growing stock”: trees large enough to be considered timber. Applying the formula to data collected by the United Nations and released last year, the researchers found that, amid widespread concerns about deforestation, growing stock has expanded over the past 15 years in 22 of the world's 50 countries with most forest cover. In countries where per capita gross domestic product exceeds $4,600 (roughly equal to the GDP of Chile), richer is greener. In about half the most forested countries, biomass and carbon also expanded. Earlier work showed that by the 1980s wooded areas in all major temperate and boreal forests were expanding.

Forest area and biomass are still being lost in such important countries as Brazil and Indonesia but an increasing number of nations show gains. The forests of Earth’s two most populated nations no longer increase atmospheric carbon concentration: China’s forests are expanding; India's have reached equalibrium.

The researchers found that among the 50 nations studied, forest area in percentage terms shrank fastest from 1990 to 2005 in Nigeria and the Philippines, and expanded fastest in Vietnam, Spain and China. Growing stock fell fastest in Indonesia, Nigeria and the Philippines, and increased fastest in the Ukraine and Spain. In absolute terms, Indonesia and Brazil experienced the greatest losses of both forested square kilometers and cubic meters of growing stock; China and the USA achieved the greatest gains.

“For many years, the Earth has suffered an epidemic of deforestation. Now humans may help spread an epidemic of forest restoration,” says Ausubel.

When forest transition occurs at a global level depends largely on Brazil and Indonesia, where huge areas of tropical forests are rapidly being cut and cleared. Encouragingly, in many other tropical areas forests are regrowing. Studies in Central America show tree cover in El Salvador grew one-quarter from 1992 to 2001. Forests are also recovering fast in the Dominican Republic in harsh contrast to deforested Haiti, on the same Caribbean island.

“The main obstacles to forest transition are fast-growing poor populations who burn wood to cook, sell it for quick cash and clear forest for crops,” says study co-author Pekka E. Kauppi, of the University of Helsinki. “Harvesting biomass for fuel also forestalls the restoration of land to nature. Through paper recycling and a growing reliance on electronic communication, people help the transition by lessening demand for wood products.”

In addition to the measurement of forest area and growing stock, the researchers offer a formula to calculate atmospheric carbon being stored incrementally in the trees of a given area, knowledge critical for mitigating climate change. A rapid forest transition on a global scale would mean that atmospheric carbon dioxide might not rise as fast as many fear.


http://newswire.rockefeller.edu/?page=engine&id=549

 

[#juan]

Walter has discovered that you can find a copy and paste to support virtually any position in any dopey argument out there. Facts are another matter:


"Tropical rainforests once covered more than 14 percent of the Earth’s land area… they now amount to less than 6 percent." (Tropical Rainforest Coalition, 1996)

 

[Walter]

"Tropical rainforests once covered more than 14 percent of the Earth’s land area… they now amount to less than 6 percent." (Tropical Rainforest Coalition, 1996)

The political agenda of the source always needs to be considered.

 

[lone wolf]

The political agenda of the source always needs to be considered.

Very true, Walter

Woof!

 

[#juan]

SPOTLIGHT ON: TROPICAL RAIN FORESTS

Tropical rain forests once blanketed the Earth like a wide green belt around the equator. Just a few thousand years ago rain forests covered 14 percent of the Earth’s land surface, or 5 billion acres.
Humans already have destroyed half of this forest area, with most damage occurring in the last 200 years. With just 2.5 million square miles (647 million hectares) of tropical rain forest remaining, we continue to lose an estimated 93,000 square miles (150,000 square km) a year.

 

[EagleSmack]

Walter has discovered that you can find a copy and paste to support virtually any position in any dopey argument out there. Facts are another matter:


"Tropical rainforests once covered more than 14 percent of the Earth’s land area… they now amount to less than 6 percent." (Tropical Rainforest Coalition, 1996)

Now isn't that a TWIST!

 

[Tonington]

Seems there is a glut of studies coming out right now in regards to forests. I don't know if anyone noticed, but forests were one of the chief disagreements at Bali last year.

There is also a study out this past week showing that increasing fall temperatures decrease the uptake of carbon in Northern forests by increasing soil decomposition. That is potentially very bad news for climate stabilization, as the shifting growing season shortens the window for forest carbon sinks.

Also this week, the Forest Guild-non-profit organization made up of foresters- released their report on the challenges facing forests due to climate change.

Here's a sample of the kinds of things foresters are discussing and recommending:

On one hand, there are many efforts afoot in private forests towards greater carbon storage. On the other, there's planning for the prevention of "conversion" of forestland into, basically, nonforest. It goes on to say that there's a huge incentive for managers to 'keep forests in forests' to maintain the carbon storage there, and this can be done by encouraging landowners to pursue conservation easements, supporting the work of land trusts, and continuing to help landowners realize personal and financial benefits from their lands which encourage continued stewardship.

Management that increases growing stocks of trees and larger standing volumes while minimizing disturbances will provide the greatest carbon sequestering value.

With the predicted temperature increases of 3.6 to 11.9 degrees F, looking to the past to determine good management practices tomorrow looks less useful. Forest communities may begin to dissolve and re-coalesce into new associations of species, changes we can only imagine today.

Recommendation: rather than managing for any desired mix of species in the next 100 years, it may become necessary to step back to a more basic objective of simply maintaining forest health and stability, to protect the forest's primary functions, including its ability to survive as forest.

This means managing for resiliency and makes it important that we keep all of the pieces. Mixed-species forests are more productive over the long term and can thus sequester more carbon at a higher rate and store it more predictably than plantations.

Increased fire severity and frequency is a working assumption, and "stand-replacing fires" can result in complete loss of any carbon mitigation benefit they were providing. So prescribed burns, while adding CO2 to the atmosphere, may be necessary. Likewise, responsible biomass removal that minimizes fire risk and supplies products that offset fossil fuel use provides a double bonus.

Strategies to consider:

When selecting species to manage for or introduce, consider their potential growth and viability in a warmer climate.

Manage for stocking levels and for species mixes that will reduce the risk of catastrophic disturbances.

Plan for stand/landscape-level patterns that will promote continuity and heterogeneity: patches, mixed-species stands, and reserve networks to provide refugia for species under climate stress.

I emphasized the point I consider the most important in that package. Simply replanting tree stands with one single species will:

-reduce carbon storage,
-reduce ecological services, and
-reduce biodiversity of the forests through niche destruction

None of which should be scoffed at.

 

[Toro]

Walter has discovered that you can find a copy and paste to support virtually any position in any dopey argument out there. Facts are another matter:


"Tropical rainforests once covered more than 14 percent of the Earth’s land area… they now amount to less than 6 percent." (Tropical Rainforest Coalition, 1996)

Of course, when scientific facts are used to support global warming, that's great. But when scientific facts are used to call into question an issue that runs counter to the dogma, that's cut and paste.

 

[karrie]

It will be interesting to see what the trend is once they are working off of one data set, rather than compiling tons of obviously flawed data and trying to compare it to precise methods.

 

[YoungJoonKim]

Great, Walter.
Perhaps you need a little visit to Haiti...just for tour...
Then you can come back to our faces and say these stuff again.
Seeing is Believing