Global Deforestation is The Real Climate Change cause behind CO2 Increase

I wrote this piece because of an article written by The Guardian in the UK on deforestation. Its several years old but I was alarmed by it. Sure its my opinion but when you look at the factually proven massive change to the earth based on the amount of forests removed since 2000 and compare it to a warmer climate here in 2019 there sure seems to be an easy to see, interpret and understand the correlation between Climate Change and Deforestation.

No, climate change is not all about planes trains and automobiles nor cow gas or obese people being the #1 priority in CO2 reduction. Sure they [we] all contribute and whomever runs the show on planet earth would like to get you to believe it is the top cause of CO2 but when you look at global deforestation since 2000, it is my opinion as an engineer that global deforestation is the number one single root cause for the warming of the planet along with poor air quality and whatever befalls onto us down the road. A forest was and is a real time CO2 sink that purifies the air we breath. It also cools the earth. I mean compare an a 80' high tree to a cow and do the math on out gassing of CO2 as there is an offset. A huge one.

So here's the article. you can read it here:

The Guardian

Earth has lost more than half a million square miles of forest between 2000 and 2012. Analysis of 650,000 satellite images, published in the journal Science, reveal the extent of loss and recovery – Brazil’s success in the Amazon is offset by deforestation in Indonesia, Malaysia, Paraguay, Bolivia, Zambia and Angola. The colour-coded maps here show the changes: green is forest cover, red is lost forest, blue is forest gained and pink is forests both lost and gained in the period Adam Vaughan @adamvaughan_uk Fri 15 Nov 2013 09.03 EST

Here's another with an interactive map. You can read it here:

Missing trees: Interactive map shows global deforestation

new global map of deforestation reveals that 888,000 square miles (2.3 million square kilometers) of forest has vanished since 2000.

But wait, both of those articles are from 2013 and lets look at what is happening in 2019 in Brazil today

The Guardian: Brazil

Also look up China and India. Sure stewards of the earth. Right.

I have watched some pretty compelling videos on this subject. It makes total sense...trees absorb co2. Cut down treds and well there ya go. Same thing as a massive volcano belching out ash.

a reply to: Waterglass

Said it a long time ago on ATS threads that building over everything is not the answer.

We know how to do better. The fact that we don't is the huge red flag that these folks really DON'T want to do better. If the climate scaremongers really believed their crap, they'd be yelling from the rooftops for worldwide decriminalization of industrial (and all) hemp. This is from 2008:

If all fossil fuels and their derivatives, as well as trees for paper and construction, were banned in order to save the planet, reverse the Greenhouse Effect and stop deforestation, then there is only one known annually renewable natural resource that is capable of providing the overall majority of the world’s paper and textiles; meet all of the world’s transportation, industrial and home energy needs, while simultaneously reducing pollution, rebuilding the soil and cleaning the atmosphere all at the same time. That substance is the same one that has done it before: Cannabis Hemp.

Herer’s mixing of cannabis hemp with industrial hemp is a little unfortunate...

No, actually, it's not. Decriminalize it all!!!

...for according to Hemp Global Solutions, hemp could be a good short term climate tool, because the crop is rapid-growing for carbon dioxide uptake, less vulnerable to climate variations than agro-forestry, and might be a good cash crop for farmers. HGS calculates each ton of hemp grown represents 1.63 tons of CO2 absorption.

Hemp, and Lots of It, Could Be One Climate Solution

psmag.com...

When do the lies stop?
There are more trees than 35 years ago, than 100 years ago

www.mnn.com...

Documented fact the op is a lie

Yes we are losing diversity but we have more trees and forests

www.bostonglobe.com...

Global warming mistruths

a reply to: Waterglass

Why are you doing a second thread on this? This is the same thing as the thread you started yesterday.

a reply to: Waterglass

Theres actually more trees now. So much for the carbon sink scam....wait you were saying?????



www.weforum.org...

Scientists at the University of Maryland analysed satellite pictures showing how the use of land on Planet Earth has altered over a 35-year period. The study, published in Nature journal, is the largest of its kind ever conducted.

The research suggests an area covering 2.24 million square kilometers - roughly the combined land surface of Texas and Alaska, two sizeable US states - has been added to global tree cover since 1982. This equates to 7% of the Earth’s surface covered by new trees. But what may sound like good news for the planet actually represents mixed news for the environment.

a reply to: KansasGirl

Op has a habit of doing that - just look at their variations of Greta threads in 1 day.....LOL

There are more trees today but some areas, really dumb about conservation meaning replanting. Afghanistan for example, a lot of people don't know they use to have a lot of trees, many areas were like a forest. The country had a massive amount of trees. War, lack of education though it didn't get replanted so now they have damn near a wasteland and scrounge around for scraps of wood and used their own dried up feces for fuel.

The US figured it out. Just look at Christmas trees. Cut down some, create a new nursery and bingo. Laws for residential areas on cutting down trees, big fines. Takes a lot of paperwork to cut a tree down in my area. It better be damn near dead or don't even think about it.

a reply to: Waterglass

I think deforestation isn't the only culprit... Many times we clear vegetation and put blacktop roads or buildings with black roofs.

So we take sun absorbing and converting surface and replace it with something that generates heat.

Luckily, if CO2 levels rise, and we plant massive amounts of vegetation, the increased levels will help them grow faster.

originally posted by: FlyinHeadlock
There are more trees today but some areas, really dumb about conservation meaning replanting. Afghanistan for example, a lot of people don't know they use to have a lot of trees, many areas were like a forest. The country had a massive amount of trees. War, lack of education though it didn't get replanted so now they have damn near a wasteland and scrounge around for scraps of wood and used their own dried up feces for fuel.

The US figured it out. Just look at Christmas trees. Cut down some, create a new nursery and bingo. Laws for residential areas on cutting down trees, big fines. Takes a lot of paperwork to cut a tree down in my area. It better be damn near dead or don't even think about it.

Well if we invest in Afghanistan, allow them to invest, they get wealthy and plant trees...
Clearly we are managing the trees, putting in the effort
Outside of complaining, what have you done

It’s happening, things have changed, there are more trees and forests than for a long time.
People,care, stop acting like they dont

a reply to: Raggedyman

What have I done. Well, I have about 25 trees on my property, mature trees. Some are over 200 yrs old. I don't put the leaves in bags in the winter. I built a large compost and throw veggie scraps in it as well. Been doing this for about a decade. I use the compost for gardening in the spring.

Am I Johnny Appleseed. No, but I think I do way more than the average person. It's a lot of work with that many large trees. Most would not deal with it. Cut them down and throw all their food scraps in the garbage.

First, OP kudos for consistently coming up with alternative scenarios.

So your position is that deforestation lessens CO2 absorption plus oxygen exchange purifies the air.
Plausible, logical, measurable (at least land areas) - I'll take Climate Science & Deforestation for $500.

These effects haven't been sufficiently studied (by Climate Scientists) & if they were studied predictive models wouldn't be affected (because they wouldn't be adju$ted to account).

NASA studies solar heat transfer to the atmosphere and determined it wasn't the cause of global warming.
NASA didn't study other solar energy transfer beyond thermal like solar flares & radiation bursts, which mostly interact with the upper atmosphere and aren't considered in climate models.

I like models that account for known variables instead of literally writing them off in "assumptions". Don't ever get the idea that scientists in general love math. Engineers measure twice, cut once, make sure math calculations are accurate because peoples lives depend on it - but they don't necessarily love math, it's a tool.

I think it may be too soon to declare a single overriding factor bears ultimate responsibility for the change, but it seems likely you've hit upon a large percentage of what's in the full basket of cause & effect.

ganjoa

a reply to: Waterglass

The Carbon locked up in the forests is small compared to the Carbon in the ocean ecosystems.

a reply to: Waterglass

Also important to know the difference between Christmas tree fields that are cut down around 5-15 year cycles,

VS

Real old forests with biodiversity and giant trees. They are almost gone.

a reply to: FlyinHeadlock

Well good oh, that’s great
But plenty of others do a whole lot more and no complaints

Actions, louder than word

A lot is being done, an awful lot

a reply to: Waterglass

Then you realized that all news is fake. They write this nonsense for sales. And all media is owned by one tribe of goblins from hell.

originally posted by: AyinSof
a reply to: Waterglass

Then you realized that all news is fake. They write this nonsense for sales. And all media is owned by one tribe of goblins from hell.

A lot of news is sensationalized... But saying global warming doesn't exist is just putting your head in the sand.

If you want to argue it's naturally occurring, and would be happening without human impact... There is an arguement there. Personally I think it's mostly natural, but humans probably play a role considering we live in a bubble and whatever we do is mostly contained.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Documented fact the op is a lie

Documented fact what? So tell me how all of that stuff called oil was formed. Dead Dinosaurs? Nah, biomass as in trees YES! Nice try. Thanks for the links because I will add them to the list.

Thanks!

originally posted by: CrazeeWorld777
a reply to: Waterglass

Said it a long time ago on ATS threads that building over everything is not the answer.

Registered: 26-9-2019

That is not that long ago.