Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Forest growth is encouraging, say researchers...where are the gl-warming alarmists??

  1. #1
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408

    Forest growth is encouraging, say researchers...where are the gl-warming alarmists??

    funny the media and lunatic left haven't mentioned anything about this...

    [QUOTE]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)

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

    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)

    [/QUOTE]

    [url]http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn10521&feedId=online-news_rss20[/url]

    I'm sure algore and his minions will find a way to spin this as part of the global warming arguement....as they did when icebergs were found to be thickening....

  2. #2
    I hear timber fields are an undervalued investment asset class...

  3. #3
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Let me quote my good friend, bitonti, on the subject of global warming:

    [QUOTE=bitonti on 10-19-2006, 01:23 PM]
    making a claim like that is akin to saying a butterfly flapping it's wings in China caused Katrina. Maybe it's true but there's no way to prove it.[/QUOTE]

    [url="http://www.jetsinsider.net/forums/showthread.php?t=128009"]http://www.jetsinsider.net/forums/showthread.php?t=128009[/url]

  4. #4
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]funny the media and lunatic left haven't mentioned anything about this...



    [url]http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn10521&feedId=online-news_rss20[/url]

    I'm sure algore and his minions will find a way to spin this as part of the global warming arguement....as they did when icebergs were found to be thickening....[/QUOTE]

    To begin... PNAS is one of the higher-tiered, peer-reviewed journals in our field. No average journalist would even know what it is. New Scientist serves as one of the middlemen between researchers and average Joes. That type of media will pick up on some studies like this that are interesting enough to sell magazines.

    Here's a link to the actual paper in PDF: [url]http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/103/46/17574[/url]

    Other than that, global warming wasn't the point of this study. The questions were involving the quantity and quality of forests at the global scale and how the scale of industrial harvest, trade, and leakage impact forests.

    The authors made a brief speculations on their data concerning global warming about forest biomass withholding carbon dioxide that would add to greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Per the PNAS paper, "The threat of climate change from increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has encouraged an interest in the carbon sequestered in forests. The quantity may be sufficient for forests to be the missing carbon sink in the budgeting of carbon emission and its addition to the atmosphere."

    That was all they had to say about global warming. They acknowledge global warming and said increasing forest biomass would create a carbon sink. Environmentalists have been saying this for years.

    It's a really interesting study that points out some neat social and economic trends that may be responsible for these transitions in forests. I'm all for discussing the relevant issues to the study.

    However, if you're looking to sling nasty ideological and political driven slogans... then that's a circle jerk I'm not going to participate in. You and I have already had one of those go rounds. ;)

  5. #5
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound]I hear timber fields are an undervalued investment asset class...[/QUOTE]


    That may be a result of the type of timber (soft vs. hard) that you have and what you are harvesting it for. The actual movement of it may be impractical, another region is capable of growing trees faster, or maybe its a supply/demand issue. I don't really know. I'm not an economist.

    Whatever the reason is, it might be adding to the numerator and thus lowering whatever influences asset classes.

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=finlee17]To begin... PNAS is one of the higher-tiered, peer-reviewed journals in our field. No average journalist would even know what it is. New Scientist serves as one of the middlemen between researchers and average Joes. That type of media will pick up on some studies like this that are interesting enough to sell magazines.

    Here's a link to the actual paper in PDF: [url]http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/103/46/17574[/url]

    Other than that, global warming wasn't the point of this study. The questions were involving the quantity and quality of forests at the global scale and how the scale of industrial harvest, trade, and leakage impact forests.

    The authors made a brief speculations on their data concerning global warming about forest biomass withholding carbon dioxide that would add to greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Per the PNAS paper, "The threat of climate change from increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has encouraged an interest in the carbon sequestered in forests. The quantity may be sufficient for forests to be the missing carbon sink in the budgeting of carbon emission and its addition to the atmosphere."

    That was all they had to say about global warming. They acknowledge global warming and said increasing forest biomass would create a carbon sink. Environmentalists have been saying this for years.

    It's a really interesting study that points out some neat social and economic trends that may be responsible for these transitions in forests. I'm all for discussing the relevant issues to the study.

    However, if you're looking to sling nasty ideological and political driven slogans... then that's a circle jerk I'm not going to participate in. You and I have already had one of those go rounds. ;)[/QUOTE]


    fact is one of the talking points of the global warming lunatics (algore's, bitonti's, etc) is the reduction of forests is a prime contributor to global warming....

  7. #7
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]fact is one of the talking points of the global warming lunatics (algore's, bitonti's, etc) is the reduction of forests is a prime contributor to global warming....[/QUOTE]


    Deforestation is one of several factors contributing to global warming. I happen to be one of those global warming lunatics, however, I deserve better company than Al Gore. The guy is all environmental rhetoric and no environmental action.

    Putting me, somebody who has dedicated his career to the conservation of our natural resources, in the company of pseudo-environmentalist like Al Gore is not cool.

    Next time, I'm considering them fighting words.

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=finlee17]Deforestation is one of several factors contributing to global warming. I happen to be one of those global warming lunatics, however, I deserve better company than Al Gore. The guy is all environmental rhetoric and no environmental action.

    Putting me, somebody who has dedicated his career to the conservation of our natural resources, in the company of pseudo-environmentalist like Al Gore is not cool.

    Next time, I'm considering them fighting words.[/QUOTE]

    but algore is the face of global warming....

  9. #9
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]but algore is the face of global warming....[/QUOTE]


    right... and so are all of the outspoken celebrities. The only way science can stand on it's two feet is to have politicians and celebrities be our "face."

    For instance, I'm heading out to do a bird survey on some property. But before I do, I have drop a line to Drew Barrymore and find out how to fit my work into her agenda to make her look cute and concerned about real world problems outside that little Hollywood bubble.

  10. #10
    check the red areas these are jungle areas

    we might be gaining forest but we are losing jungles

    and the world's temperatures are still rising
    Last edited by bitonti; 11-16-2006 at 08:42 AM.

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=finlee17]right... and so are all of the outspoken celebrities. The only way science can stand on it's two feet is to have politicians and celebrities be our "face."

    For instance, I'm heading out to do a bird survey on some property. But before I do, I have drop a line to Drew Barrymore and find out how to fit my work into her agenda to make her look cute and concerned about real world problems outside that little Hollywood bubble.[/QUOTE]


    good luck...I think that chick is ugly and no amount of work will make her look cute....I hope you charge a huge fee...

  12. #12
    Yes. It's not good that all the red areas are located where the worlds tropical rainforests are. The rainforests are the lungs of the planet, and they are starting to look like the lungs of a two-pack-a-day smoker.


    Check out Google Maps, and zoom in on satellite view on the Amazon. As you get closer you will see large tracts of land that are getting mowed down. You can't miss them, they look like the laces on a football----and they are everywhere down there :(

  13. #13
    I e-mailed Al Gore, he said he is checking on it!

  14. #14
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [QUOTE=SnuffTheRooster]Yes. It's not good that all the red areas are located where the worlds tropical rainforests are. The rainforests are the lungs of the planet, and they are starting to look like the lungs of a two-pack-a-day smoker.


    Check out Google Maps, and zoom in on satellite view on the Amazon. As you get closer you will see large tracts of land that are getting mowed down. You can't miss them, they look like the laces on a football----and they are everywhere down there :([/QUOTE]


    It's Bush's fault.....

  15. #15
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]It's Bush's fault.....[/QUOTE]

    it's not his fault per se but it's not like he's helping matters either

  16. #16
    The US should not get involved in other peoples business! Right?

  17. #17
    Come Back hates the environment, or any cause picked up by "LIBS"..
    Too Bad EVERY major scientist in the world knows that Global Warming is real and it's serious.

  18. #18
    Do you mean the ones that agree with Al Gore?

  19. #19
    No..I mean even the ones that were commissioned by the white house..and then silenced!

  20. #20
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=bman]Come Back hates the environment, or any cause picked up by "LIBS"..
    Too Bad EVERY major scientist in the world knows that Global Warming is real and it's serious.[/QUOTE]

    Wrong as usual, dumbmarine

    [url="http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.warming.ap/index.html"]http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/11/16/smog.warming.ap/index.html[/url]

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us