Global Deforestation Demoed In Google Earth

eldavojohn writes "On Google's official blog, they claim a 'new technology prototype that enables online, global-scale observation and measurement of changes in the earth's forests.' Ars has more details on what Google unveiled at Copenhagen. If you have Google Earth installed, you can find a demonstration here. Many organizations and government agencies are on board with this initiative to put deforestation before the eyes of the public. If only satellite data of North America existed before the logging industry swept in!" It's interesting to contemplate the implications for intelligence gathering of Google's automated tools to compare satellite photos.

Comments

Trees

[arizwebfoot]

Interestingly, before the white man appeared in North America, there were an average of 8 trees per acre and now there are an average of 220 trees per acre in the US alone.

Just saying...

Re:Trees

[rock_climbing_guy]

Remain exactly where you are! THINKPOL is on the way to take you to MINILUV for rehabilitation.

Re:Trees

[AlphaBit]

Exactly, the logging industry (as related to paper production) uses farmed trees. This means that the paper/logging industry has led to an increase in the number of trees growing in North America, while at the same time no longer contributing to deforestation. I believe almost all of our paper comes from these farmed trees.

Of course, increased forest cover could be just as bad as decreased forest cover. It's more about balance than maximization.

Re:Trees

[Tekfactory]

8 Trees per acres sounds about right for centuries old trees in pristine forest.

I have a quarter acre with 5, 30-40 year old maples on it, we also have 2 Japanese Cedars and a Cherry tree.

200 trees in an acre would be pretty closely spaced young trees, maybe like an orchard or nursery.

Now what we should be looking at is not how many trees we have per acre, but how many of those are young AND carbon absorbing trees, compared to carbon producing trees from decomposition. Forests have a carbon life cycle, and their balance shifts during that cycle, also some species of tree are better absrbers than others.

Re:Trees

[geekoid]

[Citation needed]

Re:Trees

[dkleinsc]

It's important to note that the North American forests were not "pristine" when the white folks showed up. The people who had lived there for a few thousand years had practiced some fairly sophisticated forest management. For instance, they would regularly clear undergrowth to make it easier to travel and hunt, and put significant effort into managing herd sizes. They also cleared some spaces for agriculture, which the Pilgrims in particular took advantage of when they went to set up their own colony.

Re:Trees

[piltdownman84]

[Citation needed]

Not the op, but the number I have is: Natural Density in California is 60 trees per acre, but it currently is at 273 per acre. From "Green House Gas Emissions From Four California Wildfires: Opportunities To Prevent and Reverse Environmental and Climate Impacts" (PDF)

Re:Trees

[drinkypoo]

Where, who, how many, how large the area, at what times. Otherwise this is just mythical FUD about "noble Indians"

Actually, the term is "noble savages", and you are an incompetent troll.

I live in Lake County, California, where the Pomo people lived in peace for 10,000 years or more. They built basket-like houses to ride out the winter, and then burned them down in the summer, producing yearly burns that kept down the undergrowth without harming old growth, with which the county was covered until the US Government paid the influx of whites money to cut them down and plant Black Walnuts. You can live on Oak acorns, but you can't live on black walnuts, which forced anyone they didn't outright kill to live the lifestyle of the white man, and buy his food. These people were almost entirely independent of agriculture; there was more than plentiful food available for the taking, and the land was thick with game. The coast is just a day's walk away, and it was once rich with shellfish.

In fact, I live in Kelseyville, named after a man who enslaved a large number of Pomo people, forcing them to labor and raping a number of women. I often tell people it's a bit like living in "hitlerville" but most of the dumb rednecks around here don't see my point. Kelsey's wife apparently grew so tired of his behavior that she poured water in the men's gunpowder, opening them up for an old-fashioned indian massacre which they wholly deserved. Then the US' 1st Cavalry came up here and went genocidal on an entirely different band of Pomo, killing everyone on the island now known as Bo-No-Po-Ti, or "Bloody Island". Well, except for one little girl, hiding in the reeds. I have her account here someplace, but I cannot locate it ATM to quote it (it's on paper, and under some other stuff I guess. But I'll dig it out later if someone makes a request... someone less cowardly than you.

North American Reforestation.

[tjstork]

The original poster wishes he could see North America before the logging industry swept in. Around 30-50 years ago, his intuition would have been rewarded. But, for the last decades, much of the United States has actually been reforested, rather than deforested. The reasons for this are complex and mixed, but some factors include the original mills going out of business in the Northeastern USA, adoption of better forestry practices, a reversion of farmland to homesites - which invariably means planting even more trees, and so on.

Indeed, Americans have been catching something of a break as they have planted so many trees that North America would be a net carbon sink, if they didn't also drive so many cars. This picture changes as all the new trees mature and their carbon uptake decreases. But, the important lesson here is that while Americans might be bad about CO2 emissions, they have, in their own way, also showed how areas can be reforested, that were once barren.

Re:North American Reforestation.

[IndustrialComplex]

Trees don't remove CO2 from the atmosphere in any permanant way.

If you go from 0 trees, to 1 tree that you replant every time the old one dies then you have removed 1 trees worth of carbon from the air as long as you keep a tree growing.

If you go from 0 trees to 1 tree that you harvest every time it is fully grown and use the wood in building a house or some other permanent structure and keep replanting that tree every 10-15 years then you are removing 1 tree's worth of carbon from the atmosphere every 10-15 years.

It is only if you plant a tree and let it die and decompose and plant no additional trees that your example holds.

Oregon

[fwarren]

We have more trees here in Oregon now than were here 100 years ago or even 200 years ago. (Unlike nature, we don't let forest fires burn them down.)

We plant them all over the place and take care of them. Every time we cut one tree down, we plant 3 to 10 more of them.

We really are not deforested to the west of the Mississippi. Now east of the Mississippi is a different story. But no one is talking about deforestation on the east coast. They only talk about it out west where we have plenty of trees to go around.

School kids went out 30 years ago on filed trips here in Oregon to plant trees. Why? As a reminder that most of the income in this state came from logging, and that timber was a renewable resource. If we plant trees today, then in 20 years when you are old enough to work a timber job, there will be plenty of trees to cut down.

I live in a county that has been devastated by the loss of 80% of the logging industry. We have as many trees now as we had 30 years ago. The only difference is we have 15% unemployment and we can't cut and replant trees to actually make a living.

Earth first -- we will log the rest of the planets later

Re:Oregon

[geekoid]

"The only difference is we have 15% unemployment and we can't cut and replant trees to actually make a living"

what does that mean?

Also, forest fires don't burn down forests.

"Every time we cut one tree down, we plant 3 to 10 more of them."

Cite needed.

"They only talk about it out west where we have plenty of trees to go around."
there is a reason for that, it's called 'shifting baseline'. Basically it mean that people who grow up where there aren't trees have no reference to go by to realize there should be trees.

In Oregon people cans ee the fantastic forests, and when they start to diminish they say something.

Careful citing logging industry stats, they ahve a tendency to be massively incorrect.

For example, According to the Labor dept.there are only about 8000 worker in the logging industry, but they would have you believe there are 100K +.

Re:Oregon

[DeadDecoy]

We have more trees here in Oregon now than were here 100 years ago or even 200 years ago. (Unlike nature, we don't let forest fires burn them down.)

Well, it helps that Oregon has rain 60% of the time throughout the year. In California the state has to do controlled burning to limit the damage a wildfire might cause. Plus Oregon's heavy rain system makes it easier to grow plants there; the only other place I've seen that has the same capacity have been the Hawaiian islands. Those benefit from frequent rains and fertility from volcanic soil. But, overall you make a good point. Planting more trees than you cut down leads to a more sustainable and pretty environment.

Pre-Logging Industry Maps

[jbeaupre]

"If only satellite data of North America existed before the logging industry swept in!"

Not from a satellites, but there are some maps. For example: http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nercNORTHAMERICA.html

Note the complete lack of forests over most of NA about 15,000 years ago.

or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Interior_Seaway

Not much forest under the ocean bits.

You might not be as right as you think

[Quila]

Depending on your timeframe.

Forests covered about half the land before settlement, now about a third.

But the amount of forests have been going up in the last decade. One reason is because most of the forests belong to the evil logging industry, and they have an economic incentive to expand forestation if they want to expand their businesses. Today we have about as much forest as we did 100 years ago.

The advent of the automobile and other forms of transport, plus better farming techniques, also helped spread the forests, since we don't need so much land dedicated to feeding us and our livestock.

Re:You might not be as right as you think

[PopeRatzo]

Today we have about as much forest as we did 100 years ago.

Genetically modified, fast-growing hardwood cash-crops do not equal "forest".

The things the evil logging industry (your words) wants to call "forests" do not allow for insignificant elements like wildlife, forest floor or wetlands. They are no more "forests" than cornfields are prairies.

Re:You might not be as right as you think

[onepoint]

wait wait wait. If the paper industry needs wood, why not let them plant and reap that crop. same for the lumber industry, this way over time more and more virgin forest is left alone until one point the only crop they are harvesting is their own.

in reference to GM Woods, your right it's not a forest, it's a crop. and if you follow that crop ( which is some of the hardest data to get due to eco - terrorist burning down planted fields ), you'll find the creation of some interesting trees ( I am waiting for the 8' diameter tree with a height of 20 feet gown in 10 years to be published )

and just another note: we are seeing more responsible harvesting of forest over the last 40 years, it is progress, given it's not what I would be hoping for, but at least it's the right direction. I expect that in the next 100 years we will see more virgin type forest's and GM tree crops .

Re:You might not be as right as you think

[dlt074]

no room for wildlife in these cash crop lands? um you better go tell that to all the wild life living in them. seriously, have you ever been hunting(sorry that may offend PETA) HIKING in them? all kinds of fuzzy creatures. i assure you they don't know the difference and don't care. it is down right ridiculous to claim that just because a tree was planted for profit that it is somehow less desirable to the creatures that live in them. i like clean air and water as much as the next person but some of you have gone off the deep end and are just getting down right stupid.

Re:You might not be as right as you think

[Penguinisto]

Err, GM trees? I can grok the existence of GM food crops, but somehow I'm not seeing trees as being that easily modified on a commercial scale (mostly because it takes so damned long to grow them and test the results by comparison).

Now selective 'breeding' and grafting, okay - but to be honest, both would barely qualify for the moniker "genetically modified" - Hell, Dachshunds would be better suited to the term "GM" than a selectively-bred Douglas Firs would).

If you have evidence of actual GM trees being sown and grown commercially, I'd be interested to find out where.

Re:You might not be as right as you think

[TooMuchToDo]

Can you explain the massive deforestation evident from satellite imagery in South America? Huge swaths of land that used to be rainforest are now used for grazing cattle and soybean/palm oil farms.

Re:You might not be as right as you think

[Shotgun]

They're going to apply GM methodologies to trees just like food, because it is very profitable.

The paper and lumber industry wants fast growing trees of uniform dimension, with blemishes from blight or sickness. GM methodologies deliver that. The trees become much easier to factory harvest. The trees all reach maturity at the same time. The mill gets set up to chop up everything to the same dimensions. The experts that determine how a particular log will be cut to get the most value from it are no longer needed.

There is just to much money left on the table when trying to log old growth forest.

Re:You might not be as right as you think

[Rei]

Can you explain the massive deforestation evident from satellite imagery in South America? Huge swaths of land that used to be rainforest are now used for grazing cattle and soybean/palm oil farms.

The satellite deforestation record doesn't completely match up with the surface deforestation record, so both of them are suspect. Plus, ten years ago, a scientist made an error on a non-peer-reviewed graph that was later used as the cover of a report on deforestation.

Demoed?

[ground.zero.612]

Demolished or demonstrated? Maybe some Googelian combination of the two?

fwarren: I believe fighting natural forest fires has proven to be policy error. For a citation please see the burning of Custer State Park. There are no more Smokey the Bear commercials because forest fires are actually necessary to prevent catastrophic fires. From what I remember reading, the 40+ years of Smokey the Bear campaigning, and fire fighting left MILLIONS of tons of fuel in the form of old dead timber.

I guess I'm just trying to point out that while some of Oregon's other forestry programs might be a benefit, fighting forest fires for decades can and has lead to a catastrophe.

We can fix this!

[Quiet_Desperation]

We must think BIG and GLOBAL like GOOGLE! We will launch saplings into orbit on vast arks and scattershot them into the ground, thusly reforesting the world! Mwa ha ha! We call it the Forest Continuity Project and pay for it with lumber credits and carbon back bearer bonds and the illegal unicorn horn trade out of Romania! Yes, most of the trees will shatter on impact and fail to achieve a planted state, but if just one tree saves just one child then $50 trillion is worth it! Follow me, boys, into the glorious future and let the trees rain down o'er me!

There's more to the story

[hyades1]

Just as long as people keep in mind that satellite photos don't always tell the whole story. A team of Canadian scientists went north recently in an ice breaker. Satellite imagery indicted that the pack ice had expanded rather than contracted, which was totally at odds with Global Warming models.

What they found when they actually got to the location where the satellites indicated the pack ice started, it wasn't there. It had retreated more than a hundred miles beyond where it was thought to be. The satellite cameras had been looking at a slurry of rotted ice fragments that were so broken up the ship just blasted through them at full speed without even noticing it.

Basically, the reality on the ground was very different from what appeared to be happening on cameras located a few miles overhead.

They are better than "Forests" for global warming

[Quila]

Lots of fast-growing trees suck up more CO2 than ancient forests.

But they are the forest industry, so they must be evil.

Re:Stop using trees for paper - use hemp!

[fridaynightsmoke]

Seriously, we want to slow down deforestation? Stop using trees for paper products. The US needs to get over their high and mighty "We can't use hemp because its taboo" crap.

I was going to reply with a highly sarcastic rebuttal, but closer inspection shows that you may be right.

Wikipedia reckons hemp grows at 'up to' 25 tonnes/hectare/year of dry above ground matter. This gives 'up to' 13 tonnes/hectare/year for fancy 'high yield' hybrid poplar, intended for papermaking.

There is a huge amount of wiggle room with those figures, 'up to' is often meaningless (I'm going to give you 'up to' 100 billion dollars) and both sources are doubtless from organisations trying to promote their different 'crops'. Also theres the problem of how much actual paper you get from a tonne of almost-unspecified plant material respectively for each crop, and the required fertiliser and labour inputs etc etc.

I would also wich to point out that despite my name on here I'm usually very skeptical of "HEMP: The Wonder Plant!" type suggestions (even though I do approve of one particular use of certain varieties, at least).

The crux

[zogger]

That's the crux of the matter, *employment*. This is hardly ever addressed when it comes to draconian "no you must stop this" laws and proposals as regards the vast rural areas of the world.

This is what I see all the time: Wealthy urbanites in the industrialized areas are all for "conservation" in areas they don't live, but they have pitiful to non existent whacko theories on what exactly the human beings who live in those other areas are supposed to do for a living. Can't cut down jungle hardwoods for lumber=evil, stop. Can't cut down the big trees to make row crop farms=evil. Can't cut down and replace trees with other species that have a globally useful economic function=evil. Can't raise stock animals because they emit methane greenhouse gas. Can't do row crops en masse because it requires spraying and artificial; irrigation, uses too much water. And so on, a HUGE list that wealthy urbanites have on the "you shouldn't do this" side.. Can't do anything at all on your property because one month out of the year there is a mud puddle that supports the breeding of the endangered three eyed flying newt-owl. all sorts of laws like that too, even if it means you are now instantly unemployed with not much in the way of immediate alternatives..yet the bills still come in every month, plus property taxes.

So, that's nice and all for all the well meaning urbanites, but a couple billion people around the planet are supposed to then live on "eco tourism"? For real, I see that thrown out by some of those folks as some sort of credible option. Nuts... Funny,speaking of nuts, I am not seeing any huge move for urbanites to exist entirely on a diet of imported wild harvested tropical exotic hardwoods nuts and berries either, which is the only other crop you can get from wild forest. But then, whoops, you are stealing the food that the animals need to eat too....so that's out...

That's about what is left if you can't harvest the trees and use them in manufactured articles and for construction lumber, or make some cropland. And forget mining anything, all of that is just instantly evil no matter what...

You just can't have it both ways, if these people want to just wall off huge forest areas of the planet and let them go wild forever, completely naturally, with no human use, they must first come up with viable, realistic and constructive alternatives for useful modern employment in areas that are currently at the bottom of the economic foodchain. Or offer a couple billion people a direct cash perpetual welfare subsidy to do nothing and just live there. Anything else is unfair, unrealistic, and practically speaking, unworkable.

Basically, I am for sustainable use, including managed forests, and I am *way* in favor of getting rid of the backward "environmental" laws that forbid use and harvest of all the fifty buzillion acres of dead forest land they let burn up for no reason every year in the western USA, said dead forest expanding rapidly from such things as the pine beetle. That's a huge waste, and contributes mightily to air pollution when it burns up from uncontrolled wildfires every year, with zero economic or practical benefit for anyone really. We could be using that wasted wood for vast biochar manufacturing facilities and for replacements for coal in some electricity plants for example, providing much needed jobs in rural areas, going to more sustainable energy sources, and also improving soil tilth with the biochar in established row crop lands. But no....can't do that, wouldn't be environmental, have to let it just burn up "naturally", while the runoff silts over all the creeks and wipes out the fish and stuff...

How about this proposal to solve all the environmental problems at one whack..it would work, too.. let all the big cities burn up "naturally", I mean fires break out there all the time, so just stop putting them out, which would greatly help to reduce the planet's population (those folks all want that as well, "too many people!"), most of humanity lives in big ci

On the flip side from suburbs

[Quila]

Extremely large swaths of land have been turned back to forests because they are no longer needed to grow crops to feed us and our livestock.

Urbanization is only about three percent of the US area, while farmland is a lot more, yet continually shrinking.

There are multiple factors, http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/biology/a_forest.html

"The forest cover in the U.S. has actually increased in the last 100 years - mostly due to farm abandonment in the East and fire suppression in the West."