Slashdot Mirror
The World Lost an Oklahoma-Sized Area of Forest In 2013, Satellite Data Show
merbs writes Oklahoma spans an area in the American South that stretches across almost 70,000 square miles. That's almost exactly the same area of global forest cover that was lost in a single year. High resolution maps from Global Forest Watch, tapping new data from a partnership between the University of Maryland and Google, show that 18 million hectares (69,500 square miles) of tree cover were lost from wildfires, deforestation, and development the year before last. The maps were created by synthesizing 400,000 satellite images collected by NASA's Landsat mission.
All of those losses of forest are very different:
* After wildfires, trees naturally re-grow.
* Some deforestation is replaced with new trees, but not all.
* After development, trees are usually planted - sometimes where there used to be no trees. What is the net gain/loss of trees across ALL development, not just development taking place in a forest...
To say nothing of; what is the natural level of variation in forest year to year? From wildfires alone you would think there would be a substantial amount.
Pretty much any time nowadays someone wants you to panic, you should look very closely at the message they are trying to sell you.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
They will eventually, but in the amount of time it takes for them to regrow, drastic environmental impacts may happen which destroy their habitat
Forests are very optimized to handle fires, because fire is a natural occurrence that forests must deal with. Over time, some forests even require fire to thrive (like bristlecone pines which use the heat from fires to activate seeds in cones).
The main problem with fires is if there has (ironically) been too much prevention, then there is a lot of dead undergrowth and the fire burns hotter than normal.
So, again, which is it? Were these fires that have been monitored normal forest fires, that the landscape will deal with? Or were they more harmful for some reason?
Can you begin to see the feedback loop?
Again, the feedback loop is part of a natural process.
I'm not sure I understand their definition of "deforestation"
Great question also. Does it include pines killed from pine beetles for example?
Do you think that might be related to the increasing number of things that are totally fucked on our planet?
Things are always changing an environmentally we (meaning the Earth) are a LOT better off now than we were back in the 60s/70s for example. Especially when the Soviets were in their heyday they were absolutely a massive force for destruction we probably will not see the like of again. The stuff going on these days is really pretty minimal in comparison, which is why some eco-groups try to drum up fear, because they care more about maintaining funding than they do the environment.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...notes that the loss is both of the permanent, human-driven varietyÃ"razing for agriculture and developmentÃ"and the cyclical; from fires, logging, harvesting, and natural tree death.
So yes, I did read that, which it was exactly what led me to wonder what the breakout was of each of those things. If it's primarily natural cyclical loss that will be restored why should I freak out again?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Because there is clearly a high level and consistent level of loss each and every year as is quite clear from the graphs.
Oh wow a graph showing a WHOLE DECADE. Of only loss, not amounts restored through regrowth... it's pretty easy to demonstrate a negative when you take away all positive parts of an equation.
If these are mostly natural forest fires (the real question at hand that all you zealots seem uninteresting in answering) the area will re-grow just fine, and in fact there will be a new rush of growth from the space opened up for undergrowth to take over for a while while new trees mature. Which in fact would sequester more carbon than old-growth forest would...
Is it even possible for you to learn anything? It would not appear so. Now THAT is sad.
Like the GW deniers do...
Since you have revealed yourself a willfully mindless cultist and thus not able to deal with reason, I'll just back away slowly and let you have the last word, so that your religious sensibilities can be satisfied. All fear the great noodlly appendages that magically destroy forest without end! In fact all the forests died over FOURTY YEARS AGO, and forest you see on the news now are all from a single sound stage in Nevada!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
To be honest here in Canada we need massive wildfires to clean up the pine beetle problem. The wood can be used, usually in chipboard or paper products as long as the tree isn't fully rotten among other problems. When I was driving out through western canada a couple of years back it was a serious problem, and if you want to see what happens when a wildfire plus pine beetle infestation can do to an area, look at the slave lake fire. The fire was deliberately set, but the forest in the area is infested with pine beetles which have caused massive die offs with the trees, basically making it a perfect situation.
Anyway, once a place is burned out, harvested, and so on we plant new trees there anyway. The forestry industry here is amazingly good at creating an entire harvest, burn, plant cycle. Not forgetting that we have laws on the books that companies that harvest(anything whether it be trees, oil, oilsands, coal, etc) have to by law set aside funds for restoration. The government oversees the funds to ensure that enough is being put aside.
Om, nomnomnom...
Pretty much any time nowadays someone wants you to panic, you should look very closely at the message they are trying to sell you.
I just see some people stating some things they've measured. Not sure why you feel you should panic.
Why is it that you seem to think panicking is the most appropriate response to anything?
You're the only one talking about panicking.