Recently on the BBC, Deborah Tabart from the Australian Koala Foundation noted that “85 percent of the world’s forests are now gone.” Luckily this statement is incorrect.
Moreover, due to afforestation in the developed world, net deforestation has almost ceased. I’m sure that Tabart had nothing but good intentions in raising environmental concerns, but far-fetched claims about the current state of the world’s forests do not help anyone. The record needs setting straight.
The numbers and conclusions coincide with most of what I have read over the last few years. I spent much of my life in and around the lumber industry, so this topic has always been important to me.
The article is from May 2018, but I am going to suggest that the trends are continuing. I searched briefly for an article to support my supposition, but all I found were alarmist, doom-and-gloom stories, so I leave you with what I have.
There is no discussion of net effect(s) on Carbon Cycle or Atmospheric Greenhouse Stabilization.
This is outside the peer-reviewed literature of factor differentiation among different kinds of forestation, from Rain to Temperate Zone to Alpine, and does not assess the relative balance between Deciduous and Evergreen forestation modes.
Even more conspicuously, it omits any robust quantification of forestation age thresholds and corresponding metabolism-driven Carbon Capture rates; i.e., Juvenile Growth vs Intermediate vs End State forestation-specific parameters.
There is consensus at Earth Station Thunberg.
That report is not approved for inclusion within the Climate Control database.
There is no discussion of net effect(s) on Carbon Cycle or Atmospheric Greenhouse Stabilization.
Nor is there a discussion of French Provential table legs.
quote
This is outside the peer-reviewed literature of factor differentiation among different kinds of forestation, from Rain to Temperate Zone to Alpine, and does not assess the relative balance between Deciduous and Evergreen forestation modes.
Oh, he's not in the club, so he shall be ignored.
quote
Even more conspicuously, it omits any robust quantification of forestation age thresholds and corresponding metabolism-driven Carbon Capture rates; i.e., Juvenile Growth vs Intermediate vs End State forestation-specific parameters.
Well, except for the seventh paragraph:
quote
Some argue this data is faulty because the FAO defines forest area as including natural forests and tree plantations. But that criticism is illegitimate. The FAO makes it clear that “93 percent of global forest area, or 3.7 billion hectares in 2015,” was natural forest. Natural forest area decreased at an average rate of 6.5 million hectares per year over the last five years, a reduction from 10.6 million hectares per year in the 1990s. Put differently, natural forest loss is declining by 0.059 percent per year and is heading towards zero.
If I were going to enlarge on that outburst of words--and I was just kind of azz'ing around with it---there is as much space for normalization bias and false reassurance, as there is for Greta Thunberg-style alarmism and oversimplification. That's taking this "Myth of Deforestation" topic into a climate-related kind of discussion. Umpteen million hectares of land area being classified (here) as "forest" of some kind does not translate (for me) to "Just chill all that climate-related talk, because it's All Good."
Strictly speaking, it was kind of a forum topic hijack or redirect, that I engaged in.
Maybe this can be some making of amends.
"EPA to Help Cities Adapt to Climate Change, Official Says"
quote
The EPA wants to help 40,000 communities across the U.S. adapt to extreme weather caused by climate change by giving them better information, an agency official said Jan. 9.
The Environmental Protection Agency wants to provide communities with the tools to make good climate adaptation decisions, but doesn’t want to “tell them what to do,” said Joel Scheraga, the agency’s senior adviser for climate change adaptation, speaking at the National Council for Science and Environment annual conference in Washington.
The announcement to help communities deal with climate change comes even as the EPA has been at the forefront of Trump administration efforts to roll back regulations curbing greenhouse gas emissions, which are the primary cause of climate change.
The EPA is teaming up with the council and universities to bring locally tailored tools designed by the agency’s Climate Change Adaptation Resource Center, known as ARC-X, to communities across the country that don’t have the resources or expertise to find ways to adapt to weather extremes driven by global warming.
It's a very brief update. That's how it starts. It continues with "Deep Dive into Local Efforts."
If you are living in the USA, you are not breathing air made by the Amazon Rain forest.
What if you're in Florida, and there's a hurricane that went down south to Brazil, and then kind of made it's way up north really quickly into the Gulf?
Deforestation in Haiti is real. The border between Haiti and the Dominican Republic is trees and no trees.
I understand that there is a lot that changes when you cross that border. To the west is one of the poorest nations in the world and to the east is the largest economy in the region, and some pretty good cigars.
Originally posted by cliffw: [QUOTE]Originally posted rinselberg? "EPA to Help Cities Adapt to Climate Change, Official Says”
The 2 identical posts CliffW made with nothing in them but Rinselberg's quote were made from the hospital. He is trying to post from his phone and is having great difficulty with it due to his injuries. Bear with him folks.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-29-2020).]
The reason for the glaring physical botanical differences in those 2 nations is more than just intentional and wanton deforestation.
I understand what you're saying, but this isn't like Cuba where parts in the south are desert, and the greater north side is tropical. In every impoverished nation that has large population growth, the first things that go are clean water, and trees. This is pretty much what it is. The left, eco nuts, whomever, they always seem to focus on the Western World as the great big polluters, but really... the more advanced a nation becomes, the better their ecology becomes.
You look at places in India, Pakistan, Haiti, etc... people dump trash in the river because then they are no longer accountable... or they burn trash for heat. For cooking, heating, and even power generation... people cut down trees because of lack of infrastructure and a growing population. First thing to go are the trees.
Haiti and the Dominican Republic are on the same Latitude, and the tree line literally ends at the border, which you can see on Google Maps.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I understand what you're saying, but this isn't like Cuba where parts in the south are desert, and the greater north side is tropical. In every impoverished nation that has large population growth, the first things that go are clean water, and trees. This is pretty much what it is. The left, eco nuts, whomever, they always seem to focus on the Western World as the great big polluters, but really... the more advanced a nation becomes, the better their ecology becomes.
You look at places in India, Pakistan, Haiti, etc... people dump trash in the river because then they are no longer accountable... or they burn trash for heat. For cooking, heating, and even power generation... people cut down trees because of lack of infrastructure and a growing population. First thing to go are the trees.
Haiti and the Dominican Republic are on the same Latitude, and the tree line literally ends at the border, which you can see on Google Maps.
Is it population, or is it the limited things that they can trade, make money from, but are not smart enough to reseed , To refresh the forest and in a way, the product.?
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I understand what you're saying, but this isn't like Cuba where parts in the south are desert, and the greater north side is tropical.
No, it's an East West thing.
Why did the political, economic and ecological histories of these two countries — the Dominican Republic and Haiti — sharing the same island unfold so differently?
Part of the answer involves environmental differences. The island of Hispaniola’s rains come mainly from the east. Hence the Dominican (eastern) part of the island receives more rain and thus supports higher rates of plant growth.
Hispaniola’s highest mountains (over 10,000 feet high) are on the Dominican side, and the rivers from those high mountains mainly flow eastwards into the Dominican side.
The Dominican side has broad valleys, plains and plateaus and much thicker soils. In particular, the Cibao Valley in the north is one of the richest agricultural areas in the world.
Environmental differences In contrast, the Haitian side is drier because of that barrier of high mountains blocking rains from the east.
Compared to the Dominican Republic, the area of flat land good for intensive agriculture in Haiti is much smaller, as a higher percentage of Haiti’s area is mountainous. There is more limestone terrain, and the soils are thinner and less fertile and have a lower capacity for recovery.
That too tho, is still only part of the story...
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-31-2020).]
Why did the political, economic and ecological histories of these two countries — the Dominican Republic and Haiti — sharing the same island unfold so differently?
Part of the answer involves environmental differences. The island of Hispaniola’s rains come mainly from the east. Hence the Dominican (eastern) part of the island receives more rain and thus supports higher rates of plant growth.
Hispaniola’s highest mountains (over 10,000 feet high) are on the Dominican side, and the rivers from those high mountains mainly flow eastwards into the Dominican side.
The Dominican side has broad valleys, plains and plateaus and much thicker soils. In particular, the Cibao Valley in the north is one of the richest agricultural areas in the world.
Environmental differences In contrast, the Haitian side is drier because of that barrier of high mountains blocking rains from the east.
Compared to the Dominican Republic, the area of flat land good for intensive agriculture in Haiti is much smaller, as a higher percentage of Haiti’s area is mountainous. There is more limestone terrain, and the soils are thinner and less fertile and have a lower capacity for recovery.
That too tho, is still only part of the story...
I stand partially corrected. Thanks for the lesson.
Why did the political, economic and ecological histories of these two countries — the Dominican Republic and Haiti — sharing the same island unfold so differently?
Part of the answer involves environmental differences. The island of Hispaniola’s rains come mainly from the east. Hence the Dominican (eastern) part of the island receives more rain and thus supports higher rates of plant growth.
Hispaniola’s highest mountains (over 10,000 feet high) are on the Dominican side, and the rivers from those high mountains mainly flow eastwards into the Dominican side.
The Dominican side has broad valleys, plains and plateaus and much thicker soils. In particular, the Cibao Valley in the north is one of the richest agricultural areas in the world.
Environmental differences In contrast, the Haitian side is drier because of that barrier of high mountains blocking rains from the east.
Compared to the Dominican Republic, the area of flat land good for intensive agriculture in Haiti is much smaller, as a higher percentage of Haiti’s area is mountainous. There is more limestone terrain, and the soils are thinner and less fertile and have a lower capacity for recovery.
That too tho, is still only part of the story...
The above is also true.
I spend approx. 1 month or more every year in the Dominican Republic, (Santo Domingo and other places). My time there is usually 1 week at a time. For anyone that asks, my reasons for my being there fall into the "Nunya" category.
What I do know for a fact is that the D.R. receives about 57 inches per year of rain which is approx. 5-6 times what falls on Haiti.
Having been there a few times, I also know for an absolute fact that Haiti is one of THE worst sh*tholes on this planet and that wasn't solely caused by it's relative lack of precipitation.
I've driven along some lengthy stretches of that Haitian / Dominican border and have seen with my own eyes the difference on each side and I can state with experienced certainty that the rain does not fall on just one side of that road.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-31-2020).]
Having been there a few times, I also know for an absolute fact that Haiti is one of THE worst sh*tholes on this planet and that wasn't solely caused by it's relative lack of precipitation.
I never inferred that rainfall was the sole cause.
It has been decades since I was in Port au Prince, but it's outskirts were extremely dismal even then. The French did them no favors, Papa Doc and Baby Doc even fewer. The country's downfall begins and continues to be influenced by French colonialism . US occupation was not the diamond it has been presented as either.
It's been one civil war/coup d'etat/natural disaster after another, with a population that seemingly has no idea how to enter to 20th/21st centuries.
Originally posted by rinselberg: "EPA to Help Cities Adapt to Climate Change, Official Says"
Three times I have asked you, with no answer, how climate change has impacted your life since 1998. When Al Gore said all the polar ice packs would be gone by 2015, triggering sea level risings which would submerge many country islands and low lying costal cities.
Now you are telling us cities/communities across America need government advice on how to be made whole again and survive, ?
I must have been ripped off. My life has not changed one bit. Perhaps I missed it. What should I have been looking for ?
Let's do the math. My town is population 1,000. My last town was 20,000. Both being County seats, triple the population. Heck, lets just say the 40,000 communities the EPA wants to help are population 30,000. That is 1,200,000,000 people who do not know how to survive with nature, who don't know how to google. Do they really think we are that stupid ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Bloomberg. Where's that? Oh wait, I remember a guy ...
I remember an idiot. Can you believe he thinks he knows how big of a soda we want to buy, or what he thinks is healthy for us ? He is such an idiot, he can't figure out our new two sodas is the same as the old one.
Originally posted by cliffw: My life has not changed one bit.
So, there "they" are, in 2120. The Texas of 100 years from now. One of just 49 United States, since Florida was completely inundated. The East Coast has moved a ways inland of where it used to be, as much as 100 miles further inland in some places. The West Coast... the Gulf Coast... ditto. The weather across what still remains of eastern Texas is kind of hot and steamy all year round, punctuated by a monster Gulf Coast hurricane about every other month. But the "w" family still remembers great-grandfather "cliff" and how he used to live.
The folks farther north in Buffalo have made the adjustment. Cross-country skiing and all the other themes of winter in the north, from mittens and hot chocolate to clearing the roads of snow, just a distant memory for the few that are old enough to have lived through any of it. Super Bowl CLIV (154) is about to be played on the home field of the Buffalo Bills and the Bills are in it, as the AFC champions. It's an open air stadium. The weather will be sunny and mild, with an afternoon high of 73. That's what February is like, mostly, in the Buffalo of 2120.
quote
Buffalo is one of a narrow band of northern U.S. cities that may be best positioned to withstand climate change, said Jesse M. Keenan, a professor at Harvard University's Graduate School of Design and an expert on climate change adaptation.
quote
"If you’re a Duluth, Minn., or a Buffalo or a Burlington, Vermont, there’s an opportunity,” he said. “You have a potentially superior place to live in the face of climate change.”
quote
Many places — and people — will not be as fortunate ...
So, there "they" are, in 2120. The Texas of 100 years from now. One of just 49 United States, since Florida was completely inundated. The East Coast has moved a ways inland of where it used to be, as much as 100 miles further inland in some places. The West Coast... the Gulf Coast... ditto.
We could loose the west coast? I'm not seeing the down side.
Originally posted by cliffw: The problem with that is ????????????????????????????
I have highlighted the word "that" (from cliffw) in red. Keep an eye out for more red-colored text as this message plays out.
I think it is altogether likely that there will be at least a partial realization of this "Buffalo, New York becomes an 'oasis' of agreeable year-round weather on the path to Year 2120" scenario.
I am "channeling" an NBC News report that does not explicitly refer to Year 2120 or Year 2100 or any other specific future year, but I believe, based on all of my previous perusals of climate and global warming-related reports and presentations, that those are future years that make sense in this context.
I have described my personal interest in this topic as arising from a "rooting interest." To me, it's a "pro-science fan base-driven" proclivity, on my part, for preferring the realization of particular outcomes from the universe of possibilities--outcomes which will only unfold, to a large extent, after my own personal narrative and awareness of the contemporaneous world has come to its inevitable end.
Here are two "bullets" that I want to highlight, before the remainder of this message plays itself out.
The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, is by the latest reports, now at the highest level since the inception of continuous scientific measurement in the 1950s.
"Oasis Buffalo" is part of a larger scenario, involving sea levels, that diminishes the total land area of the United States, and tilts the balance, world-wide, towards a reduction in the amount of surface area that is Land (vs Ocean.)
For the sake of my own good, I am going to suspend this newest elaboration of my thoughts about this topic, and let this message, as already conceived, play itself out until the "referee's whistle" that signals End Of Message.
This is text that I have reproduced from the aforementioned NBC News report:
" Buffalo is one of a narrow band of northern U.S. cities that may be best positioned to withstand climate change, said Jesse M. Keenan, a professor at Harvard University's Graduate School of Design and an expert on climate change adaptation.
Keenan listed off what makes these cities so appealing: access to bodies of fresh lake water, distance from the coast, elevation from sea level, and colder weather that will become a little more temperate.
"If you’re a Duluth, Minn., or a Buffalo or a Burlington, Vermont, there’s an opportunity,” he said. “You have a potentially superior place to live in the face of climate change.”
Stephen Vermette, a professor of geography at SUNY Buffalo State, used climate data from 1965 to 2018 to analyze the impact of changing temperatures in Western New York. The models showed rising regional air temperatures and longer growing seasons. More surprising, however, was the discovery that severe weather indices, precipitation and extreme heat were largely unchanged over those years.
Many [other] places — and people — will not be as fortunate. The Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, an international organization based in Geneva, Switzerland, that tracks refugees, estimated that 16.1 million people were displaced in weather-related disasters across the planet in 2018. On Tuesday, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees warned that the world needs to prepare for millions of people who will be displaced by climate-related disasters and environmental changes.
Americans are also at risk. A study published in Nature three years ago projected that as many as 13.1 million Americans would be displaced from coastal areas by the end of this century because of rising sea levels. "
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 02-06-2020).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: The models showed rising regional air temperatures and longer growing seasons. More surprising, however, was the discovery that severe weather indices, precipitation and extreme heat were largely unchanged over those years.
Many [other] places — and people — will not be as fortunate. The Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, an international organization based in Geneva, Switzerland, that tracks refugees, estimated that 16.1 million people were displaced in weather-related disasters across the planet in 2018. On Tuesday, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees warned that the world needs to prepare for millions of people who will be displaced by climate-related disasters and environmental changes.
Screw the UN. Displaced ? The environment has always caused people to move, for what ever reason.
'Ya know, … I just discovered that I am a fitness refugee. Poor me, I am a victim. 'Ya see, I had an accident. My life will be forever changed. For a couple of months, .
Life. Deal with it. I am nobody's Huckleberry.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Americans are also at risk. A study published in Nature three years ago projected that as many as 13.1 million Americans would be displaced from coastal areas by the end of this century because of rising sea levels. "
........now that is a laugh..
?
