Global land change from 1982 to 2016

Here we analyse 35 years’ worth of satellite data and provide a comprehensive record of global land-change dynamics during the period 1982–2016. We show that—contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally5—tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2 (+7.1% relative to the 1982 level). This overall net gain is the result of a net loss in the tropics being outweighed by a net gain in the extratropics.

Here are some very interesting results documented in a NASA funded scientific study showing that overall global forest coverage of our planet has increased by over 7% over the last 35 years. The study published at Nature.com shows a unexpected increase in overall forestiation which is the likely result of higher levels of CO2 in Earths atmosphere.

It is nice to see that the logical benefits of higher CO2 levels being good for plants is beginning to be documented even in a Government funded scientific study. Great news for planet Earth!

Study Link

But,but,but, WHAT ABOUT THE POLAR BEARS!! The children??WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!

A very good thing of course but any rain forest lost counts against biodiversity, diminishing already small colonies of flora and fauna that cannot exist elsewhere. We still need to do more in place like Brazil and the Congo to protect those rain forests.

originally posted by: WUNK22
But,but,but, WHAT ABOUT THE POLAR BEARS!! The children??WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!

Just feed one to the other. The problem will work itself out.

Truly great news.

However, I'd like to know why, even with the increase in tree cover, the CO2 level is rising. Since plants "breathe" CO2, shouldn't there be less?

climate.nasa.gov...

The 2 graphs on the right are pretty telling. We (as a planet) need to get it together.

a reply to: Metallicus

The following image is posted with credit to the following;

Song, X.P., Hansen, M.C., Stehman, S.V., Potapov, P.V., Tyukavina, A., Vermote, E.F., & Townshend, J.R. Global land change 1982-2016. UMD GLAD 2017

tree canopy (TC) cover, short vegetation (SV) cover and bare ground (BG) cover



Well, overall this maybe good news, or it maybe irrelevant. It maybe a bit like cutting your finger and placing a bandaid in your elbow, who knows.

The simple facts of the matter are that we still do not understand all of the inputs into the climate system. So drawing any absolute conclusions is irrelevant.

Sourcification

a reply to: Metallicus

It is nice to see that the logical benefits of higher CO2 levels being good for plants is beginning to be documented even in a Government funded scientific study. Great news for planet Earth!

Carbon dioxide is not what is making the trees grow. If the CO2 where normal levels that they should be. The trees would still be there.

a reply to: myselfaswell

The simple facts of the matter are that we still do not understand all of the inputs into the climate system. So drawing any absolute conclusions is irrelevant.

I don't believe scientists have a clue regarding climate modeling or how it changes. However, I was thrilled to see we have MORE trees than 35 years ago. I think it suggests that not all things about rising CO2 levels are negative.

a reply to: Metallicus

It is nice to see that the logical benefits of higher CO2 levels being good for plants is beginning to be documented even in a Government funded scientific study. Great news for planet Earth!

Actually, I reckon you've jumped the gun there.

In this case it's more about the TYPE of tree.

As you can see from my post above, the vast majority of positive VCF is located throughout Europe, Russian with additional significant amounts through the northern US & China. This vegetation is most likely to be plantation timber. And it is most likely to be coniferous as opposed to deciduous.

There's a problem with that.

the continent's forests have expanded by 10% since 1750, timber harvesting and shifts to more commercially valuable tree species have resulted in a net release of carbon to the atmosphere,

And.

the shift toward dark conifers, which absorb more sunlight and emit less water, has contributed to local warming

Just sayin.

Tomato Source

a reply to: Metallicus

Mother Nature is infinitely stronger than we are.

I do think think that deforestation is a massive issue but little people like us will never be able to curb that. The Earth is adapting.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
A very good thing of course but any rain forest lost counts against biodiversity, diminishing already small colonies of flora and fauna that cannot exist elsewhere. We still need to do more in place like Brazil and the Congo to protect those rain forests.

Exactly.

And the deforested areas that have been reforested over the last 150 years are monoculture — pine plantations. This type of forestation is great for timber products and land cover, but the unintended consequences are a direct input into the biodiversity loss function.

Historical US Forest Cover

World atlas is a lie. Earth is Hollow