Rising forest density offsets climate change: study

In what may become a threat to the AGW movement for redistribution of wealth and de-industrialization, scientists have found that the world's forests are growing denser and removing CO2 at higher rates than anyone, including the IPCC, believed.

Rising forest density in many countries is helping to offset climate change caused by deforestation from the Amazon basin to Indonesia, a study showed on Sunday.
The report indicated that the size of trees in a forest -- rather than just the area covered -- needed to be taken into account more in U.N.-led efforts to put a price on forests as part of a nascent market to slow global warming.
"Higher density means world forests are capturing more carbon," experts in Finland and the United States said of the study in the online journal PLoS One, issued on June 5 which is World Environment Day in the U.N. calendar.

www.reuters.com...

Unfortunately, such a study does not fit into environmetalists agenda and may threaten the carbon-taxing and carbon trading schemes being comtemplated and put into place around the world.

The report, based on a survey of 68 nations, found that the amount of carbon stored in forests increased in Europe and North America from 2000-10 despite little change in forest area. And in Africa and South America, the total amount of carbon stored in forests fell at a slower rate than the loss of area, indicating that they had grown denser.

The United States has had among the most striking shifts -- timberland area expanded by just one percent between 1953 and 2007 but the volume of growing stock surged by 51 percent.

But it could complicate efforts to design market mechanisms to encourage developing nations to safeguard tropical forests. Under the U.N.-led effort, people would get tradable credits for slowing the rate of deforestation.

Negotiators from about 180 nations will meet in Bonn, Germany, from June 6-17 to discuss measures to slow global warming, including the protection of tropical forests.

Sadly, and predictably, some groups are complaining about such tactics, since they do not result in the diversion of money to their efforts and organizations' agendas:

Carbon market prices could tumble 75 percent if credits for re-growing forests are added to markets for industrial emissions, Greenpeace claims.

A report issued during U.N. talks on a climate treaty said that forest carbon credits could also slow the fight against global warming and divert billions of dollars from investments in clean technology. "Forest credits sound attractive but they are a dangerous option," Greenpeace International's political adviser on forests said

Forests Could Undermine Carbon Market: Greenpeace

I guess you have to decide what the real goal is, clearing the air or generating "billions of dollars" for the "green'
agenda?

jw

Okay then globalists ( That means YOU Al Gore) why should we care about Global Warming destroying the environment when CO2 levels are really lowered

reply to post by starwarsisreal
And guess who is responsible?

Mother Nature, herself!

Man cannot have a lasting effect on the global climate; the Earth will ALWAYS overcome our puny and temporary influences.

Do not expect the MSM or the IPCC to publicize these commoin-sense findings.

jw

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Looks like insufficient data.

Measuring the density of a forest requires more complex monitoring than just measuring the extent of a forest by photographing it from a plane or by satellite.

"There does need to be a greater sampling to be able to come to a legitimate and credible number for the carbon," said Iddo Wernick, a co-author at the Rockefeller University in New York.

www.reuters.com...

It shouldn't take a study to know that significantly fewer trees equals more carbon dioxide. It's common sense. It should be, anyway.

its like i pointed put, there is not enough co2 to feed all the plants so they use oxygen in place of it, but when theres more co2 theyll just use that instead of the oxygen, its co2 is better for the world than worse, its all propaganda to make #loads

Originally posted by starwarsisreal
Okay then globalists ( That means YOU Al Gore) why should we care about Global Warming destroying the environment when CO2 levels are really lowered

Yeah. Like if your basement floods with 3000 gallons of water, but then you get 50 gallons out, your basement is no longer flooded, right?

People who try and conflate carbon trading with climate science fail science.

Originally posted by connorromanow
its like i pointed put, there is not enough co2 to feed all the plants so they use oxygen in place of it, but when theres more co2 theyll just use that instead of the oxygen, its co2 is better for the world than worse, its all propaganda to make #loads

Plants EXHALE oxygen. They can not inhale it.

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


yeah they can, they use it in their light independant cycle when co2 is absent, they fixate oxygen, they are desgined to

RuBisCO, the enzyme that captures carbon dioxide in the light-independent reactions, has a binding affinity for both carbon dioxide and oxygen

Originally posted by Phage
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Looks like insufficient data.

Measuring the density of a forest requires more complex monitoring than just measuring the extent of a forest by photographing it from a plane or by satellite.

"There does need to be a greater sampling to be able to come to a legitimate and credible number for the carbon," said Iddo Wernick, a co-author at the Rockefeller University in New York.

www.reuters.com...

So they took some photos and claim it's hard data on carbon sequestration?

And then the OP copies and pastes a MM story and calls it fact?

Funny how people can deny a story out fo hand for being MSM until they find one that suits their needs...

Good.

However that is just one negative feedback. There are other positive feedbacks that accelerate global warming faster than what was originally considered.

he Earth will ALWAYS overcome our puny and temporary influences.

Tell that to the people here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by C0bzz


Maybe you are missing my point.

We are an infection to the Earth and biosphere. Our misuse of finite resouces will not permanently alter the planet. The planet will overcome our stupid notions of entitlement and reclaim the areas we've burned, poisoned, buried or flooded.

Your failure is in your thinking in terms of human lifespans. In 500 or 10,000 years, ( a geological blink), we will have been reduced in number, if we survive at all, and the Earh will have thoroughly compensated for our short-term focus.

We are insignificant in geologic time, and we must adapt or die.
Anyone who believes that we can adapt the Earth to our needs is not paying attention.

There is nothing in the Earth's history that indicates that the climate conditions of the 1st through 20th centuries of our time are "normal."

jw

Originally posted by Phage
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Looks like insufficient data.

Measuring the density of a forest requires more complex monitoring than just measuring the extent of a forest by photographing it from a plane or by satellite.

"There does need to be a greater sampling to be able to come to a legitimate and credible number for the carbon," said Iddo Wernick, a co-author at the Rockefeller University in New York.

www.reuters.com...

reply to post by incrediblelousminds

So they took some photos and claim it's hard data on carbon sequestration?

No, they dudn't. If you'd bothered to read the study you'd see that your obstinance betrays your bias.

And then the OP copies and pastes a MM story and calls it fact?

Nope. I actually read this and other studies to verify their veracity and publication. You did not.

Funny how people can deny a story out fo hand for being MSM until they find one that suits their needs.

What's really funny is how AGW advocates are quick to criticize legitimate science that contradicts their faith, without even bothering to read it..

Perhaps if you'd read the underlying article, you'd have known that this was a long-term study relying upon U.S. and international data sets compiled from inventories since the 1950s:

The United States represents a single nation with a continuing inventory. We examined measurements from 1953 to 2007 by the United States Forest Service (USFS). The USFS has published estimates of forest area, timberland area, and growing stock on timberland using a standard, continuing system.

A National and International Analysis of Changing Forest Density

The international studies included the U. N. and the analyses of the 68 countries whose measurements were considered most reliable:

For a broader understanding of changing area and density, we analyzed international data compiled by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UNFAO) in the 2010 Global Forest Resources Assessment. Difficulties creating reliable time series from UNFAO reports stem from 1) inconsistent reporting criteria and data quality from member countries, 2) frequent retroactive revisions by the UNFAO, and 3) changing definitions of forest attributes. To address these problems our analysis relies on the latest 2010 publication, which provides a consistent data series for the years 1990–2010
...
Countries meeting data quality criteria were included in the analysis as described in the Materials and Methods section. Table S1 provides a list of the 68 countries included in this analysis by region. These countries provided a global sample that accounted for 72% of the reported global forest area and 68% of the reported
global carbon..

A National and International Analysis of Changing Forest Density

This, of course is only the latest of numerous studies of forest growth and carbon sequestration:

The evidence from field-grown trees suggests a continued and consistent stimulation of photosynthesis of about 60% for a 300 p.p.m. increase in [CO2], and there is little evidence of the long-term loss of sensitivity to CO2 that was suggested by earlier experiments with tree seedlings in pots.

Tree responses to rising CO2 in field experiments

Although soil warming has resulted in a cumulative net loss of carbon from a New England forest relative to a control area over the 7-y study, the annual net losses generally decreased over time as plant carbon storage increased. In the seventh year, warming-induced soil carbon losses were almost totally compensated for by plant carbon gains in response to warming.

Soil warming, carbon–nitrogen interactions, and forest carbon budgets

Of course, AGW "stakeholders" will try to limit a simple response to their "crisis:"

“Measures to reduce deforestation are the quickest and least expensive way of achieving large emission cuts. At today’s meeting, around 50 countries agreed on a framework for the rapid implementation of measures for reducing deforestation.

THE OSLO CLIMATE AND FOREST CONFERENCE 2010

Carbon market prices could tumble 75 percent if credits for re-growing forests are added to markets for industrial emissions, Greenpeace claims.

A report issued during U.N. talks on a climate treaty said that forest carbon credits could also slow the fight against global warming and divert billions of dollars from investments in clean technology. "Forest credits sound attractive but they are a dangerous option," Greenpeace International's political adviser on forests said.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


The AGW crowd, including Greenpeace, willl do their best to denigrate anything that disturbs their agenda. Too bad for the world. Funny how "science" matters if it favors redistribution of wealth, but doesn't deserve consideration when it doesn't favor the AGW faithful.

deny ignotance

jw

Pop quiz for those who believe in AGW:

At what level of CO2 do plants stop photosynthesizing no matter how much water is available? That's something the AGW crowd never takes into account. In their haste to reduce CO2, they just might kill us all. But I guess biology was never their strong suit.

Also, the increased lushness of vegetation is a result of rising CO2. Carbon dioxide is plant food, after all. The increased "forest density" can't mitigate global warming--it is a direct result of it!

That story is 100% BS.


The Great Lakes are so stressed with CO2 their about 100% dead.

The oceans CO2 levels will take hundreds of thousands of years before they return to the levels they were at in 1900.

Originally posted by Pervius
That story is 100% BS.
The Great Lakes are so stressed with CO2 their about 100% dead.
The oceans CO2 levels will take hundreds of thousands of years before they return to the levels they were at in 1900.

Unfortunately, some people can ignore valid, published, replicated studies that disturb their unsupported and inaccurate beliefs in favor of their favorite goblins and religions.

Let's see which of the two camps this post belongs to:

Source? None.

Publications? None.

Replication/verification? None.

Credibility? None.

Misdirected AGW hyperbole? 100%

Try harder .

deny ignorance,

jw

None of this is worth worrying about.

If the planet become uninhabitable huge segments of the population will die off.

Eventually the planet will equalize.

It doesnt matter what we've contributed to bringing it about and it doesnt matter what we attempt to prevent it. We are insignificant to its existence.

We have another 7 billion years of Sun left give or take a million. What the hell do we matter? Pretending that our emissions even at the most hyperbolic and exaggerated affects matter in the slightest is absurd.

We dont matter. How could our farts?

reply to post by HappyBunny

The increased "forest density" can't mitigate global warming--it is a direct result of it!

MORE unsupported, unsubstantiated goofiness?

Too bad a growing group of scientists, Nations and NGOs have proven your misrepresentations completely false:

“Reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries and approaches to stimulate action”, first appeared as an agenda item in December 2005, at the 11th session of the Conference of Parties to the Climate Change Convention (COP 11) in Montréal. Two years later, at COP 13 in Bali, Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation was the big new idea to save the planet from runaway climate change.

unfccc.int...

Sadly, this type of nature-based climate program will divert money away from those who would otherwise benefit from the flood of money from developed economies to their favorite carbon-trading schemes, de-industrialization programs, and programs to hype the "crisis" that their failed models nevertheless are tweaked to enhance.

Even so, people and organizations who are not driven by an insatiable quest for more funding to vattle AGW, are exploring these natural, environmentally-friendly alternatives that actually produce measurable results and a return on investments.

The idea of REDD was first brought to the table during the Kyoto protocol negotiations in 1997 which first recognised the important role that forests could play in reducing carbon emissions from deforestation. However formal recognition of REDD was not achieved until 2007 at the UNFCCC 13th Conference of the Parties (COP 13) under the Bali Action Plan. The plan cemented the international community's commitment to reducing deforestation through REDD activities, however decisions over the definitions of REDD and how it would work in practice, were yet to be decided.
As discussions gained momentum, COP14 held in Poznan in 2008, saw the expansion of REDD into REDD+ which was to include the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries. It was agreed that funds from REDD+ could support new, pro-poor development, help conserve biodiversity and secure vital ecosystem services.

REDD+101

Reforestation programs are probably the only proven-effective method of CO2 sequestration and mitigation, at costs far below the speculative programs and destructive propositions more favored by those who will profit from them and the accompanying hysteria machine they drive through the MSM and other organizations.
Moreover, it provides benefits aside from mitigation, such as growth industries and alternatives to deforestation. Since these do not gobble-up the wealth of nations to benefit others who depend upon redistribution for their sustenance, they are not favored in the AGW orthodoxy.

Deforestation and forest degradation, through agricultural expansion, conversion to pastureland, infrastructure development, destructive logging, fires etc., account for nearly 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions, more than the entire global transportation sector and second only to the energy sector. It is now clear that in order to constrain the impacts of climate change within limits that society will reasonably be able to tolerate, the global average temperatures must be stabilized within two degrees Celsius. This will be practically impossible to achieve without reducing emissions from the forest sector, in addition to other mitigation actions.

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) is an effort to create a financial value for the carbon stored in forests, offering incentives for developing countries to reduce emissions from forested lands and invest in low-carbon paths to sustainable development. “REDD+” goes beyond deforestation and forest degradation, and includes the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks.

www.un-redd.org...

How effective can it be? How about 20% of CO2 emissions>

Forests are essential to natural greenhouse gas regulation and offer several options to mitigate carbon emissions:
- Reduce deforestation
- Engage in reforestation
- Increase carbon uptake in existing forests
SEQUESTRATION POTENTIAL: Allowing forests to mature undisturbed greatly enhances their capacity for carbon storage. Globally, forest preservation and reforestation, coupled with agricultural mitigation, could offset 10-20% of projected fossil fuel emissions by 2050.

www.esa.org...

Trees absorb carbon as they grow through the process of sequestration. They store the carbon in the woody mass of the tree as they grow, and release oxygen into the air. It is estimated that urban trees in Washington State are responsible for sequestering more than 500,000 tons of carbon per year (Nowak and Crane 2001).

www.cascadeland.org...

Working forests are fundamental to reducing overall greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere.
...
Sequestered carbon is stored in the forest in trees, soil, and the wood debris on the forest floor and in long-lasting products made from harvested wood.
•Forests in the United States ... offset about 15% of annual U.S. emissions from burning fossil fuels. According to the EPA, this amount represents 86% of the carbon sequestered by all land uses.

Mitigation Benefits of Working Forests

Of course, the few billions it takes to drive and sustain reforestation and prevent de-forestation are no match for the tens of billions of US dollars and Eurodollars funding the fearmongering AGW sycophants.

deny ignorance

jw

Very good study and one that I have not seen yet. You will notice however that this study pertains to climate change and not global warming. Those same dates when this study was conducted also shows a steep rise in average global temps compared to previous periods as is noted through ice core samples.

Starting around the 1920's through today the temp was supposed to rise as we are currently coming out of an ice age but compared to historical data our warming is significantly higher than what the trend has been in the past for the same conditions.

No scientist will debate that the temps are increasing on average at a higher rate than usual as this is just a matter of taking temps and comparing it. The effect that this warming will have, if any, on climate change is where the debate lies and that's why this study is very interesting.

Scientists do not know what happens to climate when the earth heats up as the records for this are harder to find.