Arctic Sea Ice : Forum

AGW in general => Science => Topic started by: Apocalypse4Real on February 24, 2014, 05:35:22 AM

Title: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Apocalypse4Real on February 24, 2014, 05:35:22 AM
The World Resource Institute, Google and other partners have just put up an interactive mapping site that tracks deforestation and reforestation from 2000-2013. It is a great site.

Here is my blog intro to this new resource and potential impact on CO2 and CH4 tracking.

http://a4rglobalmethanetracking.blogspot.com/ (http://a4rglobalmethanetracking.blogspot.com/)

With a potential El Nino on the way, it will change the CO2 and CH4 pattern we have had for the last three years.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Laurent on May 22, 2014, 09:23:51 AM
Carbon loss from tropical forests 'underestimated'
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27506349 (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27506349)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Laurent on June 30, 2014, 04:20:52 PM
Charles Barber on the Complexities of Stopping Deforestation
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-dudley/a-chief-of-forests-on-the_b_5480048.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-dudley/a-chief-of-forests-on-the_b_5480048.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Laurent on June 30, 2014, 11:52:09 PM
After the Trees Disappear
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/science/earth/ash-forests-after-emerald-ash-borers-destroy-them.html?partner=rss&emc=rss (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/science/earth/ash-forests-after-emerald-ash-borers-destroy-them.html?partner=rss&emc=rss)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Laurent on August 11, 2014, 12:33:12 PM
The Philippines: where 'megadiversity' meets mega deforestation
http://news.mongabay.com/2014/0731-gfrn-panela-philippines.html (http://news.mongabay.com/2014/0731-gfrn-panela-philippines.html)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Laurent on August 17, 2014, 10:00:41 AM
Europe's forests 'particularly vulnerable' to rapid climate change
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/05/europes-forests-particularly-vulnerable-to-rapid-climate-change (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/05/europes-forests-particularly-vulnerable-to-rapid-climate-change)

NASA: Forest loss leaps in Bolivia, Mekong region
http://news.mongabay.com/2014/0808-glofdas_q2_2014.html (http://news.mongabay.com/2014/0808-glofdas_q2_2014.html)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Laurent on August 23, 2014, 07:39:56 PM
Nothing else left to log: are eco-certified timber companies stripping Russia of its last old growth forests?
http://news.mongabay.com/2014/0815-gfrn-dasgupta-russia-greenpeace-fsc.html (http://news.mongabay.com/2014/0815-gfrn-dasgupta-russia-greenpeace-fsc.html)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Laurent on August 23, 2014, 07:40:57 PM
'Natural Reserves' no more: illegal colonists deforest huge portions of Nicaraguan protected areas
http://news.mongabay.com/2014/0813-gfrn-watsa-silva-gorda.html (http://news.mongabay.com/2014/0813-gfrn-watsa-silva-gorda.html)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Laurent on August 23, 2014, 07:41:56 PM
China and Europe's outsourcing of soy production impacts the Amazon
http://news.mongabay.com/2014/0814-mato-grosso-soy-footprint.html (http://news.mongabay.com/2014/0814-mato-grosso-soy-footprint.html)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Laurent on September 11, 2014, 08:47:02 AM
Demand for agricultural products drives 'shock' tree loss in tropical forests
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29144568 (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29144568)

Amazon rainforest destruction in Brazil rises again
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-29151977 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-29151977)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Laurent on September 19, 2014, 07:21:04 PM
Time is right for global focus on forest land rights
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29254051 (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29254051)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Laurent on October 01, 2014, 09:59:48 AM
World Bank 'failing to protect Kenya forest dwellers'
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2576059/world_bank_failing_to_protect_kenya_forest_dwellers.html (http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2576059/world_bank_failing_to_protect_kenya_forest_dwellers.html)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Laurent on October 02, 2014, 06:19:49 PM
Forests are emerging out from the shadow of fossil fuels in climate debate
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/02/forests-fossil-fuels-climate-debate (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/02/forests-fossil-fuels-climate-debate)

Quote
We need governments to make big decisions to steer humanity to operate within planetary boundaries. Action at that level can reallocate resources from destructive to constructive activities, and globally from those with more than enough to those who have too little.

But something else governments have to do is give power to communities who can make things happen at the ground level, and recognise their role in finding solutions to seemingly intractable problems. That might be making renewable energy a success in Britain or, in this case, finding a way for humanity as a whole to live with, rather than cut down, forests that are intrinsically valuable, vital for local livelihoods and, in an age of climatic upheaval, something upon which we all depend for our collective survival.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: jbg on October 02, 2014, 06:57:20 PM
Forests are emerging out from the shadow of fossil fuels in climate debate
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/02/forests-fossil-fuels-climate-debate (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/02/forests-fossil-fuels-climate-debate)

Quote
We need governments to make big decisions to steer humanity to operate within planetary boundaries. Action at that level can reallocate resources from destructive to constructive activities, and globally from those with more than enough to those who have too little.

But something else governments have to do is give power to communities who can make things happen at the ground level, and recognise their role in finding solutions to seemingly intractable problems. That might be making renewable energy a success in Britain or, in this case, finding a way for humanity as a whole to live with, rather than cut down, forests that are intrinsically valuable, vital for local livelihoods and, in an age of climatic upheaval, something upon which we all depend for our collective survival.
Couldn't be soon enough. I think deforestation is a serious environmental degradation problem.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Laurent on October 08, 2014, 09:39:06 AM
From Russia to Amazonia, Rampant Ecocide
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-reese-halter/from-russia-to-amazonia-r_b_5949440.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-reese-halter/from-russia-to-amazonia-r_b_5949440.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Laurent on October 17, 2014, 06:48:50 PM
Going Undercover to Fight Illegal Logging
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-prenticedunn/going-undercover-to-fight_b_6003388.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-prenticedunn/going-undercover-to-fight_b_6003388.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Laurent on October 17, 2014, 07:03:51 PM
China tests outright logging ban in state forests
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/17/china-tests-outright-logging-ban-in-state-forests (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/17/china-tests-outright-logging-ban-in-state-forests)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Laurent on October 19, 2014, 10:28:54 PM
Amazon deforestation picking up pace, satellite data reveals
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/19/amazon-deforestation-satellite-data-brazil (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/19/amazon-deforestation-satellite-data-brazil)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Laurent on November 01, 2014, 09:16:03 AM
Amazon rainforest losing ability to regulate climate, scientist warns
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/31/amazon-rainforest-deforestation-weather-droughts-report (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/31/amazon-rainforest-deforestation-weather-droughts-report)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Laurent on November 18, 2014, 10:30:39 AM
Global Forest Change, 2000-2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLWw80tqUZ5J_AlZ3dFFi9ePzifX6Ln6Cg&v=ZeZ4yjPqTPw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLWw80tqUZ5J_AlZ3dFFi9ePzifX6Ln6Cg&v=ZeZ4yjPqTPw)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Laurent on November 25, 2014, 11:36:00 AM
New Amazon Carbon Maps May Help Limit Deforestation
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/carbon-maps-may-help-limit-amazon-deforestation-18312 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/carbon-maps-may-help-limit-amazon-deforestation-18312)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Laurent on November 27, 2014, 04:46:03 PM
Indonesia cracks down on deforestation in symbolic u-turn
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/27/indonesia-cracks-down-on-deforestation-symbolic-u-turn (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/27/indonesia-cracks-down-on-deforestation-symbolic-u-turn)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Laurent on December 15, 2014, 08:40:10 PM
Tropical rainforests not absorbing as much carbon as expected, scientists say
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/15/tropical-rainforests-not-absorbing-as-much-carbon-as-expected-scientists-say (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/15/tropical-rainforests-not-absorbing-as-much-carbon-as-expected-scientists-say)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Laurent on December 16, 2014, 11:05:13 AM
Amazon peatlands are 'most carbon-dense ecosystem'
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30448519 (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30448519)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Laurent on December 19, 2014, 10:08:02 PM
Deforestation in the Amazon will cause precipitation in Britain
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/deforestation-in-the-amazon-will-cause-precipitation-in-britain-9934426.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/deforestation-in-the-amazon-will-cause-precipitation-in-britain-9934426.html)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Laurent on December 24, 2014, 10:17:39 AM
Restored Forests Breathe Life Into Efforts Against Climate Change
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/24/science/earth/restored-forests-are-making-inroads-against-climate-change-.html?partner=rss&emc=rss (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/24/science/earth/restored-forests-are-making-inroads-against-climate-change-.html?partner=rss&emc=rss)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: bligh8 on December 28, 2014, 01:32:50 PM
Russian boreal forests undergoing vegetation change....and warming

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110325022352.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110325022352.htm)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Laurent on January 20, 2015, 10:21:56 AM
Traditional farming technique preserves soil, forest in Kalimantan
http://news.mongabay.com/2015/0106-gfrn-bell-fachrizal-kalimantan-farming-preserves-forest.html (http://news.mongabay.com/2015/0106-gfrn-bell-fachrizal-kalimantan-farming-preserves-forest.html)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Laurent on February 25, 2015, 12:32:37 PM
Brazil Detains Alleged Deforestation King Of Amazon
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/24/ezequiel-antonio-castanha-detained_n_6747618.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/24/ezequiel-antonio-castanha-detained_n_6747618.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: KeithAnt on February 26, 2015, 11:43:56 AM
Heat stress on gum trees is not expected in an Australian State noted for its temperate climate.

 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-26/ginger-tree-syndrome/6263118 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-26/ginger-tree-syndrome/6263118)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Laurent on February 27, 2015, 01:34:35 PM
Rainforest Destruction Isn’t Getting Better, It’s Getting Worse
http://www.vocativ.com/culture/science/rainforest-deforestation/ (http://www.vocativ.com/culture/science/rainforest-deforestation/)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Steven on February 28, 2015, 07:04:32 PM
How Sahara Dust Sustains the Amazon Rainforest, in 3-D
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/sahara-dust-amazon-rainforest-nasa-18708 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/sahara-dust-amazon-rainforest-nasa-18708)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygulQJoIe2Y (http://youtu.be/ygulQJoIe2Y)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 03, 2015, 05:32:42 PM
The linked article points to research indicating that not only will continued deforestation (say to provide farmland to provide high-quality food for the world's middle class that is projected to double by 2030) increase CO₂ concentrations in the atmosphere, but it could shift India's monsoon rains southward, causing extreme distresses to a large fraction of the world's population very quickly:

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/deforestation-could-shift-monsoons-leaving-india-high-and-dry-study-finds-20150302-13t9cp.html (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/deforestation-could-shift-monsoons-leaving-india-high-and-dry-study-finds-20150302-13t9cp.html)

Extract: "Large-scale deforestation could cause monsoon rains to shift south, cutting rainfall in India by nearly a fifth, scientists say.
Deforestation has long been known to cause temperature increases in local areas, but new research published on Tuesday shows a potentially wider impact on monsoon rains.
While releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, deforestation also causes changes in how much light reflects off the earth's surface and the amount of moisture in the atmosphere from plants transpiring."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 03, 2015, 05:48:12 PM
The linked article indicates that India's new budget has little money for environmental protection and especially little funding to protect India's forests (& my prior post [Reply #32] shows that such deforestation could well shift the monsoon rains southward, which could cause food shortages in India)

http://www.rtcc.org/2015/03/03/modi-budget-sends-mixed-messages-on-indias-climate-commitment/ (http://www.rtcc.org/2015/03/03/modi-budget-sends-mixed-messages-on-indias-climate-commitment/)


Extract: "Environmentalists in India have dubbed the Narendra Modi-government’s maiden budget “destruction-oriented” after it slashed funding for environmental protection.
Finance Minister Arun Jaitley truncated allocation to the ministry of environment forests and climate change from Rs 2,043 crore (US $378 million) in 2014-15 to Rs 1,681 crore ($300m).
The government also declined to fund new climate change adaptation measures, despite recent disasters in Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir linked to heavy rains and deforestation, which led to catastrophic flooding and heavy loss of life.
Environmental activist Subhas Datta, who wants to launch a Green party in India, said the lack of budget for forests showed how little concern the administration had for environmental protection.
“Forests account for 23% of the country’s geographical area. Instead of increasing allocation for afforestation to achieve the 33% green cover goal in the country, they have allocated only 1% (Rs 140 crore) of the total budget for the cause,” he said."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 05, 2015, 10:35:33 AM
Per the linked article: "NASA has a plan to take the most detailed scans of the world’s forests ever".  This is a serious topic as there is evidence that the increasingly intense ENSO cycle will change the tropical rainforests of the world from a carbon sink to a carbon source (and this question needs to be better understood):

http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-gedi-will-image-the-worlds-forests-in-3d-2015-3 (http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-gedi-will-image-the-worlds-forests-in-3d-2015-3)

Extract: "To better understand how big a role trees play in this carbon cycle, NASA has recently granted a spot aboard the International Space Station to an instrument to measure the carbon in Earth's forests.
The Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation lidar, or GEDI (pronounced "Jedi", à la Star Wars) will determine the total volume of trees on Earth, and analyze how that figure might have changed over time."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 06, 2015, 08:40:32 AM
The linked article indicates that the mainstream GCM forecasts only project a 15% reduction in rainfall over the Amazon, but the "biotic pump" theory indicates that the Amazon basin could be transformed into a desert with continued anthropogenic radiative forcing:

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2776099/without_its_rainforest_the_amazon_will_turn_to_desert.html (http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2776099/without_its_rainforest_the_amazon_will_turn_to_desert.html)

Extract: "Mainstream climatologists predict a 15% fall in rainfall over the Amazon if it is stripped of its rainforest. But the 'biotic pump' theory, rooted in conventional physics and recently confirmed by experiment, shows that the interior of a forest-free Amazon will be as dry as the Negev desert. We must save the Amazon before it enters a permanent and irreversible desiccation.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: sidd on March 06, 2015, 07:38:12 PM
The biotic pump theory is ... not very well supported. (I had stronger words im mind, but I'm feeling kind this afternoon)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 07, 2015, 02:05:15 AM
The biotic pump theory is ... not very well supported. (I had stronger words im mind, but I'm feeling kind this afternoon)

sidd,

Thanks for the heads-up.  As do not know much about atmospheric dynamics, I cannot say whether the biotic pump theory has even partial merit, or not.  Therefore, I will only provide this following link to a peer reviewed paper on this topic:

Makarieva, A. M., Gorshkov, V. G., Sheil, D., Nobre, A. D., and Li, B.-L.: Where do winds come from? A new theory on how water vapor condensation influences atmospheric pressure and dynamics, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 1039-1056, doi:10.5194/acp-13-1039-2013, 2013.


http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/1039/2013/acp-13-1039-2013.html (http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/1039/2013/acp-13-1039-2013.html)
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/1039/2013/acp-13-1039-2013.pdf (http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/1039/2013/acp-13-1039-2013.pdf)


Abstract. "Phase transitions of atmospheric water play a ubiquitous role in the Earth's climate system, but their direct impact on atmospheric dynamics has escaped wide attention. Here we examine and advance a theory as to how condensation influences atmospheric pressure through the mass removal of water from the gas phase with a simultaneous account of the latent heat release. Building from fundamental physical principles we show that condensation is associated with a decline in air pressure in the lower atmosphere. This decline occurs up to a certain height, which ranges from 3 to 4 km for surface temperatures from 10 to 30 °C. We then estimate the horizontal pressure differences associated with water vapor condensation and find that these are comparable in magnitude with the pressure differences driving observed circulation patterns. The water vapor delivered to the atmosphere via evaporation represents a store of potential energy available to accelerate air and thus drive winds. Our estimates suggest that the global mean power at which this potential energy is released by condensation is around one per cent of the global solar power – this is similar to the known stationary dissipative power of general atmospheric circulation. We conclude that condensation and evaporation merit attention as major, if previously overlooked, factors in driving atmospheric dynamics."

Best,
ASLR
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Laurent on March 08, 2015, 10:20:18 AM
Palm oil firms in Peru plan to clear 23,000 hectares of primary forest
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/andes-to-the-amazon/2015/mar/07/palm-oil-peru-23000-hectares-primary-forest (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/andes-to-the-amazon/2015/mar/07/palm-oil-peru-23000-hectares-primary-forest)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 08, 2015, 11:20:12 AM
The linked article provides a good overview of the topic of deforestation, and indicates that in the opinion of climate scientists, deforestation (with its net carbon and water vapor emissions) is the biggest concern for the climate system:


http://www.livescience.com/27692-deforestation.html (http://www.livescience.com/27692-deforestation.html)


Extract (with bold text by me for emphasis): "Deforestation is the second largest anthropogenic (human-caused) source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, ranging between 6 percent and 17 percent. (Van Der Werf, G. R. et al., 2009)

Carbon isn't the only greenhouse gas that is affected by deforestation. Water vapor is also considered a greenhouse gas. "The impact of deforestation on the exchange of water vapor and carbon dioxide between the atmosphere and the terrestrial land surface is the biggest concern with regard to the climate system," said Daley. Changes in their atmospheric concentration will have a direct effect on climate.

Deforestation has decreased global vapor flows from land by 4 percent, according to a study published by the National Academy of Sciences. Even this slight change in vapor flows can disrupt natural weather patterns and change current climate models."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 11, 2015, 10:21:22 PM
The linked article indicates that projected increases in frequency & intensity of local droughts in the Amazon Basin could result in a strong positive feedback mechanism (see extract) in coming decades with continued global warming:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/drought-amazon-carbon-capture-18733 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/drought-amazon-carbon-capture-18733)


Extract: "Without the Amazon, the impacts of climate change would likely be far worse. The forest sequesters about a quarter of all human carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, stashing them in plants and soils. But a warmer, drier future could reduce its ability to store carbon and could turn it into a source of CO2 emissions as trees die and release the carbon they stored."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Lewis C on March 17, 2015, 04:06:23 PM
I'm having difficulty finding any paper giving a credible account of the Amazon's widely reported sequestration of ~2.5GtC /yr. If anyone can post a link I'd be grateful.

At issue is not whether the forest could produce that much new carbon each year but where it is accumulating.
- It is not being floated off down the rivers since the volume, around 5.0Gt Wood, would make them impassable to boats.
- If reports of a steady-state topsoil of an avereage 1ft depth are correct then it is not being converted into soil - and if it were, then over the forest's 60Myr lifespan even a minute annual increment would have built an astonishing soil depth by now.
- Weathering of rock must play some role but given that plants, vines and trees will occupy every feasible space that is neither too sheer or too well swept by river waters, it can only occur on a tiny fraction of the overall area.
- The addition of ~5.0Gts of wood per year on an area of ~7.0Mkms2 would imply an addition of 7.14TsWood per hectare per year - which is plainly untenable over time. Apart from balance issues the canopy would get so thick that young trees and the understory species would be killed off by lack of light.

Am puzzled. Better information welcome.

Regards,

Lewis
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 17, 2015, 05:47:12 PM
Lewis, I think mister Kahn has either misinterpreted the paper or the paper itself is badly flawed.
Without reading anything more than the Climate Central piece I can't really tell but the Amazon sequestering 25% of all antCarbon is nonsense .  Atmosphere takes up ~ 50% the oceans 25% and the terrestrial sinks combined take up the remaining 25%. So for the claim that the Amazon  taking  up 25% of antCarbon to be true it would need to be the only terrestrial sink on the planet. I see mister Kahn did respond to your query at CC in the comment section but I think maybe he's in a bit over his head. I have seen similar mistakes in the past and if those serve as any example the error is with terrestrial verses total carbon. So dividing 2.5 Gt C by 4 will potentially get you the Amazon total, but I am guessing. The Amazon may take up 25% of the terrestrial sink.
 I remember a paper that tried to quantify DOC ( dissolved organic carbon ) delivered from South American rivers and they are very large sources of DOC delivered to the Atlantic. I will try to find the paper.     
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 17, 2015, 07:05:32 PM
The following provides some limited information about the Amazon:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf)


Jeffrey Q. Chambers, Robinson I. Negron-Juarezb, Daniel Magnabosco Marrac, Alan Di Vittorioa, Joerg Tewse, Dar Roberts, Gabriel H. P. M. Ribeiroc, Susan E. Trumbored, and Niro Higuchic (2013), "The steady-state mosaic of disturbance and succession across an old-growth Central Amazon forest landscape", PNAS, 3949–3954, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1202894110

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/10/3949.abstract (http://www.pnas.org/content/110/10/3949.abstract)

Abstract: "Old-growth forest ecosystems comprise a mosaic of patches in different successional stages, with the fraction of the landscape in any particular state relatively constant over large temporal and spatial scales. The size distribution and return frequency of disturbance events, and subsequent recovery processes, determine to a large extent the spatial scale over which this old-growth steady state develops. Here, we characterize this mosaic for a Central Amazon forest by integrating field plot data, remote sensing disturbance probability distribution functions, and individual-based simulation modeling. Results demonstrate that a steady state of patches of varying successional age occurs over a relatively large spatial scale, with important implications for detecting temporal trends on plots that sample a small fraction of the landscape. Long highly significant stochastic runs averaging 1.0 Mg biomass⋅ha−1⋅y−1 were often punctuated by episodic disturbance events, resulting in a sawtooth time series of hectare-scale tree biomass. To maximize the detection of temporal trends for this Central Amazon site (e.g., driven by CO2 fertilization), plots larger than 10 ha would provide the greatest sensitivity. A model-based analysis of fractional mortality across all gap sizes demonstrated that 9.1–16.9% of tree mortality was missing from plot-based approaches, underscoring the need to combine plot and remote-sensing methods for estimating net landscape carbon balance. Old-growth tropical forests can exhibit complex large-scale structure driven by disturbance and recovery cycles, with ecosystem and community attributes of hectare-scale plots exhibiting continuous dynamic departures from a steady-state condition."

See also:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/stop-deforestation/deforestation-global-warming-carbon-emissions.html#.VQhJT6Pn9Ms (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/stop-deforestation/deforestation-global-warming-carbon-emissions.html#.VQhJT6Pn9Ms)

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140318/ncomms4434/full/ncomms4434.html (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140318/ncomms4434/full/ncomms4434.html)

Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 17, 2015, 08:37:23 PM
Here is the DOC paper on river outflow rates.

http://www.sciencecodex.com/massive_amounts_of_charcoal_enter_the_worlds_oceans-110754#xsTMYvCsa2vLZbCI.99 (http://www.sciencecodex.com/massive_amounts_of_charcoal_enter_the_worlds_oceans-110754#xsTMYvCsa2vLZbCI.99)


Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 18, 2015, 10:38:14 PM
According to the linked New York Times article, in the 1990's the Amazon rainforest absorbed about 2 billion tons of CO₂ each year, but now absorbs less than 1 billion tons of CO₂ per year (see extract):


http://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-absorbs-less-carbon-dioxide-as-trees-die-off-study-says-1426701926 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-absorbs-less-carbon-dioxide-as-trees-die-off-study-says-1426701926)


Extract: "Each year, human activity releases about 35 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. For the past few decades, about a quarter of those emissions have been absorbed by the oceans, while another quarter is taken up by trees and other terrestrial sources. The other half stays in the atmosphere and is believed to be the main driver of man-made climate change.

About half of the carbon sink on land consists of intact tropical forests. The Amazon, which is 15 times the size of California, is at least half of the global tropical forest. Its 300 hundred billion trees store one fifth of all carbon in the earth’s biomass.

In the 1990s, the Amazon absorbed an estimated two billion tons of CO2 each year. Compared with that peak level, the net carbon uptake has now halved, according to the study. For the first time, the Amazon absorbs less carbon than the one billion tons of CO2 emitted annually by the countries of South America."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 19, 2015, 04:49:21 PM
As a follow-up to my last post about the Amazon Basin carbon sink/source, I offer the following references and associated image/caption:

Brienen, R.J.W et al. (2015), "Long-term decline of the Amazon carbon sink", Nature, doi:10.1038/nature14283

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14283.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14283.html)

Abstract: "Atmospheric carbon dioxide records indicate that the land surface has acted as a strong global carbon sink over recent decades, with a substantial fraction of this sink probably located in the tropics, particularly in the Amazon. Nevertheless, it is unclear how the terrestrial carbon sink will evolve as climate and atmospheric composition continue to change. Here we analyse the historical evolution of the biomass dynamics of the Amazon rainforest over three decades using a distributed network of 321 plots. While this analysis confirms that Amazon forests have acted as a long-term net biomass sink, we find a long-term decreasing trend of carbon accumulation. Rates of net increase in above-ground biomass declined by one-third during the past decade compared to the 1990s. This is a consequence of growth rate increases levelling off recently, while biomass mortality persistently increased throughout, leading to a shortening of carbon residence times. Potential drivers for the mortality increase include greater climate variability, and feedbacks of faster growth on mortality, resulting in shortened tree longevity. The observed decline of the Amazon sink diverges markedly from the recent increase in terrestrial carbon uptake at the global scale, and is contrary to expectations based on models.


Hedin, L.O. (2015), "Signs of saturation in the tropical carbon sink", Nature,  doi:10.1038/519295a

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/519295a.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/519295a.html)

Summary: "The carbon sink in the land biosphere has grown during the past 30 years, taking up much of the carbon dioxide produced by human activities. The first signs of this growth levelling off have been spotted in Amazon forests."


See also:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/03/amazon-rainforest-is-taking-up-a-third-less-carbon-than-a-decade-ago/ (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/03/amazon-rainforest-is-taking-up-a-third-less-carbon-than-a-decade-ago/)

Captions: "Top graph shows trend in biomass (i.e. the amount of carbon stored), middle graph shows trend in productivity (i.e. tree growth), and the bottom graph shows trend in biomass mortality (i.e. tree deaths). Data before 1990 (dotted black line) was from a small number of sites, so there is more variation in these years. Source: Brienen et al. (2015)"
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 22, 2015, 03:50:05 AM
The linked article indicates that while in general terms the rate of deforestation is decreasing globally; but the remaining forest degrading at a faster rate than before.

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/deforestation-slowing-but-surviving-forests-are-breaking-down-18801 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/deforestation-slowing-but-surviving-forests-are-breaking-down-18801)

Extracts: "The amount of climate pollution being produced every year by the felling of forests is falling worldwide, but benefits of the heartening decline are being eroded by the worsening conditions of the forests still left standing.



The slowing of deforestation that underpinned the improvement masked worsening rates of forest degradation, though, which is estimated to be releasing about 1.1 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually. From 2000 to 2010, forest degradation was responsible for a little less than half that amount each year.



“Deforestation” refers to the felling or razing of forests to make space for ranches, soy plantations and other uses of formerly forested land, said Francesco Tubiello, an FAO project coordinator who helped compile the numbers, which are provided to the U.N. by individual nations. “Degradation,” by contrast, happens when individual trees are chopped down, such as for firewood or to harvest valuable mahogany, or when wildfires or storms rage, or “basically anything that’s linked to unsustainable management.”"
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 22, 2015, 04:07:02 AM
The linked reference indicates that large-scale deforestation, reforestation and afforestation can change precipitation in the monsoon regions of the world.  Therefore, this fact should be considered in all model projections and in Negative Emissions Technology, NET, planning

N. Devaraju, Govindasamy Bala, and Angshuman Modak (2015), "Effects of large-scale deforestation on precipitation in the monsoon regions: Remote versus local effects", PNAS, 3257–3262, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1423439112

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3257.abstract (http://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3257.abstract)

Abstract: "In this paper, using idealized climate model simulations, we investigate the biogeophysical effects of large-scale deforestation on monsoon regions. We find that the remote forcing from large-scale deforestation in the northern middle and high latitudes shifts the Intertropical Convergence Zone southward. This results in a significant decrease in precipitation in the Northern Hemisphere monsoon regions (East Asia, North America, North Africa, and South Asia) and moderate precipitation increases in the Southern Hemisphere monsoon regions (South Africa, South America, and Australia). The magnitude of the monsoonal precipitation changes depends on the location of deforestation, with remote effects showing a larger influence than local effects. The South Asian Monsoon region is affected the most, with 18% decline in precipitation over India. Our results indicate that any comprehensive assessment of afforestation/reforestation as climate change mitigation strategies should carefully evaluate the remote effects on monsoonal precipitation alongside the large local impacts on temperatures."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 23, 2015, 03:20:12 PM
The linked Newsweek article reminds us that the Amazon rainforest is currently under growing threat of deforestation due to such factors as: road development, oil development, dam developments, corruption, and general economic and population pressure.  Furthermore, I note that: (a) 2015 could bring a major drought to the Amazon Basin due to a possible major El Nino event; and (b) as the Amazon rainforest creates much of its own rainfall we are approaching a tipping point where more forest loss will mean substantially more frequent droughts:

http://www.newsweek.com/brazils-deforestation-rates-are-rise-again-315648 (http://www.newsweek.com/brazils-deforestation-rates-are-rise-again-315648)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 23, 2015, 03:28:04 PM
The linked National Geographic article reminds us that the pine beetle epidemic is continuing in North American forests; which also increases the risk of northern wildfires/forest-fires that can decrease the Arctic albedo due to black and brown carbon emissions:

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/pine-beetles/rosner-text (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/pine-beetles/rosner-text)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 23, 2015, 03:43:09 PM
The linked article discusses a UN initiative to promote reforestation (least hope that it can keep pace with the rate of natural forest loss around the world):

http://www.rtcc.org/2015/03/23/countries-reveal-progress-on-2020-forest-restoration-challenge/ (http://www.rtcc.org/2015/03/23/countries-reveal-progress-on-2020-forest-restoration-challenge/)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 25, 2015, 04:06:01 PM
The linked article states that wildfires are out of control in Chile, and we should all remember that this radiative forcing associated with wildfires (whether in the NH or the SH) are not included in the AR5 projections:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-32045870 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-32045870)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 26, 2015, 03:41:00 PM
It is rather sad to think about how many forests around the world will be lost to sea level rise (the Sundarbans forest in Bangladesh is just one example):

http://www.dw.de/rising-sea-levels-threaten-sundarbans-forests/a-18342772 (http://www.dw.de/rising-sea-levels-threaten-sundarbans-forests/a-18342772)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 30, 2015, 10:56:15 PM
Per the linked reference, climate change induced droughts will cause widespread loss of forests by 2050, in the USA:

William R. L. Anderegg, Alan Flint, Cho-ying Huang, Lorraine Flint, Joseph A. Berry, Frank W. Davis, John S. Sperry & Christopher B. Field  (2015), "Tree mortality predicted from drought-induced vascular damage", Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo2400


http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2400.html (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2400.html)


Abstract: "The projected responses of forest ecosystems to warming and drying associated with twenty-first-century climate change vary widely from resiliency to widespread tree mortality. Current vegetation models lack the ability to account for mortality of overstorey trees during extreme drought owing to uncertainties in mechanisms and thresholds causing mortality. Here we assess the causes of tree mortality, using field measurements of branch hydraulic conductivity during ongoing mortality in Populus tremuloides in the southwestern United States and a detailed plant hydraulics model. We identify a lethal plant water stress threshold that corresponds with a loss of vascular transport capacity from air entry into the xylem. We then use this hydraulic-based threshold to simulate forest dieback during historical drought, and compare predictions against three independent mortality data sets. The hydraulic threshold predicted with 75% accuracy regional patterns of tree mortality as found in field plots and mortality maps derived from Landsat imagery. In a high-emissions scenario, climate models project that drought stress will exceed the observed mortality threshold in the southwestern United States by the 2050s. Our approach provides a powerful and tractable way of incorporating tree mortality into vegetation models to resolve uncertainty over the fate of forest ecosystems in a changing climate."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Laurent on March 31, 2015, 06:40:04 PM
Subsidies to industries that cause deforestation worth 100 times more than aid to prevent it
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/31/subsidies-to-industries-that-cause-deforestation-worth-100-times-more-than-aid-to-prevent-it (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/31/subsidies-to-industries-that-cause-deforestation-worth-100-times-more-than-aid-to-prevent-it)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 02, 2015, 06:07:44 PM
The linked article (and associated attached image) demonstrates that the boreal forest coverage losses have been particularly high in Canada and Russia in the past three years.

http://blog.globalforestwatch.org/2015/04/tree-cover-loss-spikes-in-russia-and-canada-remains-high-globally/ (http://blog.globalforestwatch.org/2015/04/tree-cover-loss-spikes-in-russia-and-canada-remains-high-globally/)


See also:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/04/02/3641546/wri-forests-report-canada-russia-deforestation/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/04/02/3641546/wri-forests-report-canada-russia-deforestation/)

Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 04, 2015, 11:33:00 AM
The linked reference uses NASA satellite images (see attached image of evapotranspiration) shows that deforestation is changing regional climate due to changes in albedo & evapotranspiration.

Yan Li, Maosheng Zhao, Safa Motesharrei, Qiaozhen Mu, Eugenia Kalnay and Shuangcheng Li (2015), "Local cooling and warming effects of forests based on satellite observations", Nature Communications doi:10.1038/ncomms7603 .

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150325/ncomms7603/full/ncomms7603.html (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150325/ncomms7603/full/ncomms7603.html)


Abstract: "The biophysical effects of forests on climate have been extensively studied with climate models. However, models cannot accurately reproduce local climate effects due to their coarse spatial resolution and uncertainties, and field observations are valuable but often insufficient due to their limited coverage. Here we present new evidence acquired from global satellite data to analyse the biophysical effects of forests on local climate. Results show that tropical forests have a strong cooling effect throughout the year; temperate forests show moderate cooling in summer and moderate warming in winter with net cooling annually; and boreal forests have strong warming in winter and moderate cooling in summer with net warming annually. The spatiotemporal cooling or warming effects are mainly driven by the two competing biophysical effects, evapotranspiration and albedo, which in turn are strongly influenced by rainfall and snow. Implications of our satellite-based study could be useful for informing local forestry policies."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: johnm33 on April 05, 2015, 12:11:36 PM
Biotic pump
"Native species that form natural forest communities have evolved a complex set of genetically encoded biophysical and morphological traits that make the biotic pump possible. These traits took hundred million of years to evolve. For example, the root system of forest trees facilitates both storage and extraction of moisture from soil; biogenic aerosols produced by trees control the intensity of water vapor condensation over the forest; the large height of trees determines the vertical temperature gradient under the canopy, keeping soil evaporation under biotic control; tall trees are also essential for surface friction that does not allow extremely high wind velocities to develop. Thus, natural forests not only create an ocean-to-land moist air flow, but also stabilize this flow at an optimum level and prevent its extreme fluctuations like hurricanes, tornadoes, severe droughts or floods. Species other than plants (bacteria, fungi, animals) are essential for the stability of the forest ecosystem itself."
 from http://news.mongabay.com/2012/0201-hance_interview_bioticpump.html (http://news.mongabay.com/2012/0201-hance_interview_bioticpump.html)


Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 09, 2015, 07:00:48 PM
The linked report indicates that with regard to climate change, the forest degradation problem is about as bad as the deforestation problem (see attached image):

http://www.pcfisu.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Princes-Charities-International-Sustainability-Unit-Tropical-Forests-A-Review.pdf (http://www.pcfisu.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Princes-Charities-International-Sustainability-Unit-Tropical-Forests-A-Review.pdf)

See also:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/04/forest-degradation-as-bad-for-climate-as-deforestation,-says-report/ (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/04/forest-degradation-as-bad-for-climate-as-deforestation,-says-report/)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Laurent on April 19, 2015, 06:09:43 PM
The tires on your car threaten Asian biodiversity
http://news.sciencemag.org/asiapacific/2015/04/tires-your-car-threaten-asian-biodiversity (http://news.sciencemag.org/asiapacific/2015/04/tires-your-car-threaten-asian-biodiversity)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: foolhardycougar on April 21, 2015, 05:08:58 PM
The global forest index is reducing day by day as the ratio of plantation to deforestation is very small there is a vast difference between both
http://www.globalforestwatch.org/countries (http://www.globalforestwatch.org/countries)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 22, 2015, 05:26:35 PM
As the Global Forest Watch program delivers status reports that are over one year old, per the linked Wired article (see also extract below): "Orbital Insight, founded by former Google and NASA robotics and artificial intelligence expert James Crawford, plans to collect satellite imagery of tropical forests to track changes over time."

http://www.wired.com/2015/04/using-smart-satellites-to-monitor-deforestation-from-space/ (http://www.wired.com/2015/04/using-smart-satellites-to-monitor-deforestation-from-space/)

Extract: "An estimated 46 to 58 thousand square miles of forest are cut each year. At the current rate of deforestation, the world’s rain forests could be obliterated within just 100 years, according to National Geographic."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: wili on April 22, 2015, 06:22:49 PM
They mention logging, but really cattle raising is the bigger threat in places like the Amazon, though of course the two are not always mutually exclusive.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 30, 2015, 11:46:10 PM
The linked article indicates that there are currently wildfires blazing in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone:

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/news/article/wildfires-in-chernobyl-exclusion-zone-prompt-fears-of-radiation-contamination/520054.html (http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/news/article/wildfires-in-chernobyl-exclusion-zone-prompt-fears-of-radiation-contamination/520054.html)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Laurent on May 04, 2015, 12:54:48 PM
Hyperdominance in Amazonian forest carbon cycling
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150428/ncomms7857/abs/ncomms7857.html (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150428/ncomms7857/abs/ncomms7857.html)
Quote
We find that dominance of forest function is even more concentrated in a few species than is dominance of tree abundance, with only ≈1% of Amazon tree species responsible for 50% of carbon storage and productivity.

From : http://www.rainfor.org/ (http://www.rainfor.org/)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 07, 2015, 04:51:53 PM
Per the information in the following two links, Western North America is on track for a severe wildfire season this year (see attached image).

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/intense-wildfire-season-in-west-expected-18962 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/intense-wildfire-season-in-west-expected-18962)

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201504.pdf (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201504.pdf)

Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 09, 2015, 03:26:10 PM
The linked (open access) US Forest Service researchers: "… discuss the positive feedback loops that lead to demands for increasing suppression response while simultaneously increasing wildfire risk in the future."

David E Calkin, Matthew P Thompson and Mark A Finney (2015), "Negative consequences of positive feedbacks in US wildfire management", Forest Ecosystems, 2:9,  doi:10.1186/s40663-015-0033-8


http://www.forestecosyst.com/content/2/1/9 (http://www.forestecosyst.com/content/2/1/9)


Abstract: "Over the last two decades wildfire activity, damage, and management cost within the US have increased substantially. These increases have been associated with a number of factors including climate change and fuel accumulation due to a century of active fire suppression. The increased fire activity has occurred during a time of significant ex-urban development of the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) along with increased demand on water resources originating on forested landscapes. These increased demands have put substantial pressure on federal agencies charged with wildfire management to continue and expand the century old policy of aggressive wildfire suppression. However, aggressive wildfire suppression is one of the major factors that drive the increased extent, intensity, and damage associated with the small number of large wildfires that are unable to be suppressed. In this paper we discuss the positive feedback loops that lead to demands for increasing suppression response while simultaneously increasing wildfire risk in the future. Despite a wealth of scientific research that demonstrates the limitations of the current management paradigm pressure to maintain the existing system are well entrenched and driven by the existing social systems that have evolved under our current management practice. Interestingly, US federal wildland fire policy provides considerable discretion for managers to pursue a range of management objectives; however, societal expectations and existing management incentive structures result in policy implementation that is straining the resilience of fire adapted ecosystems and the communities that reside in and adjacent to them."

Caption for figure: "Estimates of area burned by large wildfires in the contiguous United States (CONUS), 1984–2012. A large wildfire is defined here as ≥ 405 ha in the Western US, ≥ 203 ha in the Eastern US. Estimates for 1984–2012 (bars) are based on large perimeters mapped as part of the Monitoring Trends in Burn Severity (MTBS) project (Eidenshink et al. [2007]). An additional set of estimates for 1992–2012 (line) is based on records of wildfires > 405 ha included in the Fire Program Analysis Fire-Occurrence Database (Short [2014])."

See also:
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060018254 (http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060018254)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Laurent on May 12, 2015, 10:56:05 AM
How pollen may make clouds sneeze
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/05/04/yet-another-reason-to-hate-pollen-it-may-screw-up-your-weather/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/05/04/yet-another-reason-to-hate-pollen-it-may-screw-up-your-weather/)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 21, 2015, 06:49:10 PM
Science magazine has just issued a special issue on threats to forest health in a anthropogenically changing world see links below:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/current (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/current)

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6250/800.full.pdf (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6250/800.full.pdf)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6250/771.summary (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6250/771.summary)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6250/802.summary (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6250/802.summary)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6250/806.summary (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6250/806.summary)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6250/810.summary (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6250/810.summary)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6250/814.abstract (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6250/814.abstract)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6250/819.abstract (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6250/819.abstract)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6250/823.abstract (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6250/823.abstract)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6250/823.abstract (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6250/823.abstract)
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6250/832.abstract (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/349/6250/832.abstract)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 03, 2015, 04:13:40 PM
The linked article indicates that deforestation of the Brazilian Amazon has accelerated recently:

http://www.latimes.com/world/brazil/la-fg-brazil-deforestation-20150903-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/world/brazil/la-fg-brazil-deforestation-20150903-story.html)

Extract: "Figures released this week point to an apparent rise in deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon over the last year, an ominous development that one researcher attributed to an increase in cattle ranching aimed at the U.S. market.

The newly lost forest, nearly 2,000 square miles, amounts to an area about the size of Delaware."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 03, 2015, 04:17:18 PM
The linked article cites that humans are contributing to deforestation at an alarming rate:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/09/daily-briefing-earth-has-3-trillion-trees-but-theyre-falling-at-alarming-rate/ (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/09/daily-briefing-earth-has-3-trillion-trees-but-theyre-falling-at-alarming-rate/)

Extract: "But every year, humans are cutting down over 15bn trees, which is quickly eating into forests' ability to lock up carbon and keep it out of the atmosphere, say the researchers."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 30, 2015, 12:45:24 AM
The linked article provides evidence that climate change induced droughts will cause larger trees to suffer the most.  This will act as a positive feedback, by accelerating forest degradation worldwide.

http://www.nature.com/articles/nplants2015139 (http://www.nature.com/articles/nplants2015139)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 11, 2015, 04:09:50 AM
The linked article discusses the drought in Brazil which already is the worst in its history; and now with at least a Super El Nino coming, the drought should intensify; which should result in more forest loss, and when the La Nina comes, much of the dead wood will produce methane:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/opinion/sunday/deforestation-and-drought.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/11/opinion/sunday/deforestation-and-drought.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur&_r=1)

Extract: "“A lot of people are scrambling to make observations in the Amazon this year, with the expected big El Niño coming,” said Abigail L. S. Swann, an eco-climatologist at the University of Washington. “It’s expected to drive significant drought over the Amazon, which will change how much water trees have available.”

...

AND its impact could potentially accelerate. In a recent report, Antonio Donato Nobre, a veteran climatologist with Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research, warned that if just 40 percent of the Amazon region is deforested there could be an abrupt large-scale shift to grasslands, which could substantially alter global weather patterns “and cause a breakdown of the current climate system.” If deforestation continues, he has said, São Paulo will most likely “dry up.”"
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Csnavywx on October 11, 2015, 05:57:10 AM
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/201509_fires/ (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/201509_fires/)

Indonesian peat and forest fires seem to be kicking into high gear -- "tracking close to 1997" -- an which released between 3 and 9 billion tons of CO2. Also, fires have already started in the Amazon and forecasts there show much above normal temps and much below normal precipitation (for the next 6+ months!) on a forest already stressed by last year's dry conditions.

We could be looking at some very serious forest loss and a big burst of CO2 emissions this year. The Amazon in particular worries me as it has taken repeated hits with severe droughts in the past several years. This drought could take the cake, especially in the southern portions, since they were hit hard last year.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 13, 2015, 12:08:27 PM
The linked article discuss a disturbing positive feedback associated with lianas (vines) strangling rainforest trees:

http://phys.org/news/2015-10-scientists-vines-strangle-carbon-storage.html (http://phys.org/news/2015-10-scientists-vines-strangle-carbon-storage.html)


Extract: "Tropical forests account for a third of the total carbon fixed by photosynthesis. Lianas' increasing abundance may be driven by changing climate, increased disturbance or by more severe seasonal drought. By reducing the ability of tropical forests to accumulate and store carbon released through burning fossil fuels, lianas could cause a positive feedback loop, accelerating climate change.

"This study has far-reaching ramifications," said co-author Stefan Schnitzer, a biology professor at Marquette University and a long-term research associate at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. "Lianas contribute only a small fraction of the biomass in tropical forests, but their effects on trees dramatically alter how carbon is accumulated and stored."

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published the article co-authored by Geertje van der Heijden, a postdoctoral fellow at STRI and in Schnitzer's lab, and Jennifer Powers, a professor at the University of Minnesota.

Lianas are characteristic of lowland tropical forests, often making up more than 25 percent of species and woody stems. Because they depend on trees for support as they climb into sunlit treetops, they can invest a greater percentage of their own biomass in leaves."


Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: jai mitchell on October 13, 2015, 01:21:35 PM
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/201509_fires/ (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/201509_fires/)

Indonesian peat and forest fires seem to be kicking into high gear -- "tracking close to 1997" -- an which released between 3 and 9 billion tons of CO2. Also, fires have already started in the Amazon and forecasts there show much above normal temps and much below normal precipitation (for the next 6+ months!) on a forest already stressed by last year's dry conditions.

We could be looking at some very serious forest loss and a big burst of CO2 emissions this year. The Amazon in particular worries me as it has taken repeated hits with severe droughts in the past several years. This drought could take the cake, especially in the southern portions, since they were hit hard last year.

.81 to 2.57 Gt of Carbon released in indonesia in 1997


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v420/n6911/full/nature01131.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v420/n6911/full/nature01131.html)


Abstract:

Tropical peatlands are one of the largest near-surface reserves of terrestrial organic carbon, and hence their stability has important implications for climate change1, 2, 3. In their natural state, lowland tropical peatlands support a luxuriant growth of peat swamp forest overlying peat deposits up to 20 metres thick4, 5. Persistent environmental change—in particular, drainage and forest clearing—threatens their stability2, and makes them susceptible to fire6. This was demonstrated by the occurrence of widespread fires throughout the forested peatlands of Indonesia7, 8, 9, 10 during the 1997 El Niño event. Here, using satellite images of a 2.5 million hectare study area in Central Kalimantan, Borneo, from before and after the 1997 fires, we calculate that 32% (0.79 Mha) of the area had burned, of which peatland accounted for 91.5% (0.73 Mha). Using ground measurements of the burn depth of peat, we estimate that 0.19–0.23 gigatonnes (Gt) of carbon were released to the atmosphere through peat combustion, with a further 0.05 Gt released from burning of the overlying vegetation. Extrapolating these estimates to Indonesia as a whole, we estimate that between 0.81 and 2.57 Gt of carbon were released to the atmosphere in 1997 as a result of burning peat and vegetation in Indonesia. This is equivalent to 13–40% of the mean annual global carbon emissions from fossil fuels, and contributed greatly to the largest annual increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration detected since records began in 1957 (ref. 1).
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: silkman on October 19, 2015, 08:50:36 AM
No sign of a let up in the peat fires in Indonesia that are currently emitting carbon at a rate greater than the total US economy according to the Global Fire Emissions Database:

http://news.mongabay.com/2015/10/carbon-emissions-from-indonesias-peat-fires-exceed-emissions-from-entire-u-s-economy/ (http://news.mongabay.com/2015/10/carbon-emissions-from-indonesias-peat-fires-exceed-emissions-from-entire-u-s-economy/)

http://spaceref.com/onorbit/fires-in-indonesia-seen-from-orbit.html (http://spaceref.com/onorbit/fires-in-indonesia-seen-from-orbit.html)

There's some international collaboration now to tackle the fire but it's clearly too little too late:

http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/singapore-joins-indonesias-biggest-operation-ever-combat-fires (http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapore/singapore-joins-indonesias-biggest-operation-ever-combat-fires)

This situation seems destined to continue until the current El Niño subsides



Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 08, 2015, 07:42:15 PM
The linked article discusses both the challenges & implications of modeling changes in the Amazon biomass, including the role of CO₂ fertilization, land use impacts, variable plant traits, roles of nutrients, and climatic variability (among other factors).  Personally, I find it disturbing that despite the CO₂ fertilization negative feedback, the world has stayed on a BAU pathway for decades, and if/when this negative feedback is disrupted then climate sensitivity will become much worse than it is today:

Andrea D. de Almeida Castanho, David Galbraith, Ke Zhang, Michael T. Coe, Marcos H. Costa & Paul Moorcroft (2015), "Changing Amazon biomass and the role of atmospheric CO2 concentration, climate and land use", Global Geochemical Cycles, DOI: 10.1002/2015GB005135


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GB005135/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GB005135/abstract)

Abstract: "The Amazonian tropical evergreen forest is an important component of the global carbon budget. Its forest floristic composition, structure and function are sensitive to changes in climate, atmospheric composition and land use. In this study biomass and productivity simulated by three DGVMs (IBIS, ED2 and JULES) for the period 1970–2008 are compared with observations from forest plots (RAINFOR). The spatial variability in biomass and productivity simulated by the DGVMs is low in comparison to the field observations in part because of poor representation of the heterogeneity of vegetation traits within the models. We find that over the last four decades the CO2 fertilization effect dominates a long-term increase in simulated biomass in undisturbed Amazonian forests, while land use change dominates a reduction in AGB, of similar magnitude to the CO2 biomass gain, in the south and southeastern Amazonia. Climate extremes exert a strong effect on the biomass on short time scales, but the models are incapable of reproducing the observed impacts of extreme drought on forest biomass. We find that future improvements in the accuracy of DGVM predictions will require improved representation of four key elements: 1) spatially variable plant traits; 2) soil and nutrients mediated processes; 3) extreme event mortality; 4) sensitivity to climatic variability. Finally, continued long-term observations and ecosystem-scale experiments (e.g. FACE experiments) are essential for a better understanding of the changing dynamics of tropical forests."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 17, 2015, 04:33:34 PM
The linked (open access) study finds that US forests will absorb less CO₂ in the future:

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep16518 (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep16518)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/16/the-hidden-factor-that-could-complicate-u-s-plans-to-cut-carbon-emissions/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/16/the-hidden-factor-that-could-complicate-u-s-plans-to-cut-carbon-emissions/)

Extract: "A new study in Nature Scientific Reports, by U.S. Forest Service researchers David Wear and John Coulston, finds that U.S. forests, which currently store more carbon than they lose each year — lowering the country’s net emissions — could store less of it in the future."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 20, 2015, 06:59:04 PM
The linked (open access) reference uses improved models of the Amazon forest to conclude that: "Areas with initial tree coverage greater than 80 % show an increase in coupling with the atmosphere after deforestation, suggesting land use change could heighten sensitivity to climate anomalies, while irrigation acts to dampen coupling with the atmosphere."

Badger, A. M. and Dirmeyer, P. A. (2015), "Climate response to Amazon forest replacement by heterogeneous crop cover", Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 4547-4557, doi:10.5194/hess-19-4547-2015.

http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/19/4547/2015/hess-19-4547-2015.html (http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/19/4547/2015/hess-19-4547-2015.html)

Abstract: "Previous modeling studies with atmospheric general circulation models and basic land surface schemes to balance energy and water budgets have shown that by removing the natural vegetation over the Amazon, the region's climate becomes warmer and drier. In this study we use a fully coupled Earth system model and replace tropical forests by a distribution of six common tropical crops with variable planting dates, physiological parameters and irrigation. There is still general agreement with previous studies as areal averages show a warmer (+1.4 K) and drier (−0.35 mm day−1) climate. Using an interactive crop model with a realistic crop distribution shows that regions of vegetation change experience different responses dependent upon the initial tree coverage and whether the replacement vegetation is irrigated, with seasonal changes synchronized to the cropping season. Areas with initial tree coverage greater than 80 % show an increase in coupling with the atmosphere after deforestation, suggesting land use change could heighten sensitivity to climate anomalies, while irrigation acts to dampen coupling with the atmosphere."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 21, 2015, 10:05:15 AM
The linked article indicates that not only is the Amazon rainforest projected to shrink (and thus to absorb less CO₂) it is also projected to lose biodiversity as more than half of its tree species are threatened:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/amazon-threatened_56500a64e4b0258edb31b709 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/amazon-threatened_56500a64e4b0258edb31b709)

Extract: "It's been estimated that the Amazon rainforest and surrounding areas are—or once were—home to upwards of 11,000 different tree species. It's also been estimated that those forests have shrunk by about 12 percent, and that human meddling could double or triple that number by 2050. Now, researchers report, the loss of forest cover could threaten the existence of more than half the tree species in the Amazon."


See:
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/10/e1500936 (http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/10/e1500936)

Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 22, 2016, 07:54:24 PM
The linked (open access) reference indicates that humans are having a doubly negative impact on rainforests by first cutting them down and then limiting their regrowth potential; both of which are positive feedbacks for global warming:

María Uriarte, Jesse R. Lasky, Vanessa K. Boukili & Robin L. Chazdon (22 February 2016), "Demography beyond the Population: A trait-mediated, neighbourhood approach to quantify climate impacts on successional dynamics of tropical rainforests", Functional Ecology, DOI: 10.1111/1365-2435.12576


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2435.12576/full (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2435.12576/full)

Summary:
1.   Second-growth forests account for 40% of the terrestrial forest carbon sink and represent the dominant forest cover in tropical regions. Uncertainties in predicting responses of these ecosystems to climate change arise from high tree species diversity, complex links between eco-physiology and demography, and the role of ontogeny and competition in mediating individual tree responses to climate. The dynamic nature of second-growth forests adds further uncertainty to our ability to quantify the relative importance of climate in mediating successional trajectories.
2.   To address these uncertainties, we develop a hierarchical Bayesian neighbourhood modelling approach that quantifies how the joint response of two key functional axes, wood density and specific leaf area (SLA), modulate impacts of inter-annual variation in seasonal water stress (number of days during dry season > 1 kPa vapour pressure deficit) and night-time temperature on growth and survival of small (5–10 cm dbh) and large (≥ 10 cm dbh) trees for 171 rainforest species in 6 s-growth and 2 old-growth 1-ha mapped stands. We use model results to examine potential climate impacts on the successional trajectories of these stands.
3.   High water stress reduced large tree growth but favoured growth of small trees. Drought also reduced tree survival for both large and small trees. Tree species with high wood density suffered lower growth reductions and had higher survival under water stress. High SLA magnified the negative effects of water stress on tree growth and survival. Across all tree sizes, high night-time temperatures did not influence growth or survival. Simulated successional trajectories under different climate scenarios using these results suggest that multi-annual droughts will have substantial impacts of the successional trajectories of tropical forests, leading to lower stem numbers, basal area and biomass. Sustained drought will also shift functional composition of second-growth forest by favouring species with low SLA which tend to dominate in late stages of succession.
4.   By incorporating trait-mediated effects on key drivers of tree demography and successional dynamics, our approach provides an integrated perspective on interspecific variation in vulnerability to drought and consequences for successional trajectories in tropical rainforests. Our results suggest that multi-annual drought stress will significantly alter structure, composition and dynamics of second-growth forests and, from a functional perspective, accelerate succession. However, this effect may be hampered by dispersal limitation of old-growth species into second-growth forests.

See also:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/tropical-forests-store-less-carbon-climate-changes-20052 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/tropical-forests-store-less-carbon-climate-changes-20052)

Extract: "Humans appear to be delivering one-two punches to tropical rainforests, with new research projecting that climate change will reshape how the ecosystems recover following logging.
Scientists simulated how different trees in tropical rainforests will respond to prolonged droughts triggered by climate change, based on 14 years of data from Costa Rica study plots.
Their findings suggest that profound changes lay ahead for these important ecosystems around the world, and that the changes may accelerate global warming."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 23, 2016, 11:56:35 PM
The linked article indicates that almost all forests in the USA are threatened by the impacts of climate change induced increase of droughts:

James S. Clark, Louis Iverson, Christopher W. Woodall, Craig D. Allen, David M. Bell, Don C. Bragg, Anthony W. D'Amato, Frank W. Davis, Michelle H. Hersh, Ines Ibanez, Stephen T. Jackson, Stephen Matthews, Neil Pederson, Matthew Peters, Mark W. Schwartz, Kristen M. Waring & Niklaus E. Zimmerman (Feb. 22, 2016), "The Impacts of Increasing Drought on Forest Dynamics, Structure, and Biodiversity in the United States," Global Change Biology, DOI: 10.1111/gcb.13160

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13160/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13160/abstract)

Abstract: "We synthesize insights from current understanding of drought impacts at stand-to-biogeographic scales, including management options, and we identify challenges to be addressed with new research. Large stand-level shifts underway in western forests already are showing the importance of interactions involving drought, insects, and fire. Diebacks, changes in composition and structure, and shifting range limits are widely observed. In the eastern US, the effects of increasing drought are becoming better understood at the level of individual trees, but this knowledge cannot yet be confidently translated to predictions of changing structure and diversity of forest stands. While eastern forests have not experienced the types of changes seen in western forests in recent decades, they too are vulnerable to drought and could experience significant changes with increased severity, frequency, or duration in drought. Throughout the continental United States, the combination of projected large climate-induced shifts in suitable habitat from modeling studies and limited potential for the rapid migration of tree populations suggests that changing tree and forest biogeography could substantially lag habitat shifts already underway. Forest management practices can partially ameliorate drought impacts through reductions in stand density, selection of drought-tolerant species and genotypes, artificial regeneration, and the development of multistructured stands. However, silvicultural treatments also could exacerbate drought impacts unless implemented with careful attention to site and stand characteristics. Gaps in our understanding should motivate new research on the effects of interactions involving climate and other species at the stand scale and how interactions and multiple responses are represented in models. This assessment indicates that, without a stronger empirical basis for drought impacts at the stand scale, more complex models may provide limited guidance."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 25, 2016, 11:21:04 PM
The linked (open access) reference discusses the world's first computer simulation capable of growing realistic forests, with the goal of studying the impacts of climate change.  The researchers are concerned that increasing drought conditions will make it harder for forests to recover from clear-cutting.  Further, I note that as temperate zones move poleward, light scarcity will limit the growth of some types of trees:

Jean Liénard & Nikolay Strigul (10 February 2016), "An individual-based forest model links canopy dynamics and shade tolerances along a soil moisture gradient", Royal Society Open Science, DOI: 10.1098/rsos.150589

http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/2/150589 (http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/2/150589)

Abstract: "Understanding how forested ecosystems respond to climatic changes is a challenging problem as forest self-organization occurs simultaneously across multiple scales. Here, we explore the hypothesis that soil water availability shapes above-ground competition and gap dynamics, and ultimately alters the dominance of shade tolerant and intolerant species along the moisture gradient. We adapt a spatially explicit individual-based model with simultaneous crown and root competitions. Simulations show that the transition from xeric to mesic soils is accompanied by an increase in shade-tolerant species similar to the patterns documented in the North American forests. This transition is accompanied by a change from water to sunlight competitions, and happens at three successive stages: (i) mostly water-limited parkland, (ii) simultaneously water- and sunlight-limited closed canopy forests featuring a very sparse understory, and (iii) mostly sunlight-limited forests with a populated understory. This pattern is caused by contrasting successional dynamics that favour either shade-tolerant or shade-intolerant species, depending on soil moisture and understory density. This work demonstrates that forest patterns along environmental gradients can emerge from spatial competition without physiological trade-offs between shade and growth tolerance. Mechanistic understanding of population processes involved in the forest–parkland–desert transition will improve our ability to explain species distributions and predict forest responses to climatic changes."

See also:
http://www.gizmag.com/simulated-forests-climate-change-effects/42046/ (http://www.gizmag.com/simulated-forests-climate-change-effects/42046/)

Extract: "…. researchers at Washington State University have created the world's first computer simulation capable of growing realistic forests, using the model to predict how things like frequent wildfires or drought might impact forests across North America.
The new computer simulation allows scientists to grow a virtual forest over the period of a few weeks. Known as LES (after the Russian word for forest), the system simulates the growth of 100 x 100 m (330 x 330 ft) areas of vegetation, that are then scaled up to simulate entire forests. It's more complex than any previous systems, simulating both canopy structures and intricate root systems for each tree. Each leaf competes for sunlight, while beneath the virtual earth, the organisms' roots compete for water resources.



The team believes that LES could greatly improve our understanding of exactly how climate change is effecting forests, and how those changes will evolve over time. The researchers hope that the system will allow forest managers to determine the species of trees, as well as ecological factors, that are central to forests re-establishing themselves are being disturbed by events such as wildfires.
"The fear is that drier conditions in the future will prevent forests in places like Washington from re-establishing themselves after a clear-cut or wildfire," said Washington State University's Nikolay Strigul. "This could lead to increasing amounts of once-forested areas converted to desert. Our model can help predict if forests are at risk of desertification or other climate change-related processes and identift what can be done to conserve these systems.""
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 26, 2016, 05:13:04 PM
The linked article discusses that while China is on pace to reforest 154,440 sq miles from 2005 to 2020; on net they are contributing to deforestation (both legal & illegal) worldwide:

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22032016/china-success-regrowing-its-forests-has-flip-side-deforestation-carbon-emissions (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22032016/china-success-regrowing-its-forests-has-flip-side-deforestation-carbon-emissions)

Extract: "China has pledged to increase forest cover by a total of 154,440 square miles between 2005 and 2020, the study said. 
While China regrows its own forests, however, the country's timber imports have led to significant deforestation elsewhere.
"They are overwhelmingly the world's largest and most aggressive consumer of timber," said William Laurance, director of the Centre for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Science at James Cook University in Cairns, Australia. More than half of the timber shipped anywhere in the world is destined for China, Laurance said, using figure from a Greenpeace International report that is cited in commentary he published in the journal Science.
In their study, Liu and colleagues conceded this point. They said China's conservation policy may be exacerbating forest degradation, through both legal and illegal logging, in other regions including Southeast Asia and Africa. "At least some of the carbon sequestration in China's forested areas may have come at the cost of carbon emissions elsewhere," they write."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 17, 2016, 05:24:41 PM

The linked article entitled "Palm oil’s in everything and everywhere, and it’s destroying Asia’s rainforests" posted by Michael Thomas July 26, 2015; cites that due to lack of oversight & regulation land clearing (largely for palm oil) is the number one cause of deforestation in Indonesia:

http://www.exposingtruth.com/palm-oils-in-everything-and-everywhere-and-its-destroying-asias-rainforests/ (http://www.exposingtruth.com/palm-oils-in-everything-and-everywhere-and-its-destroying-asias-rainforests/)

Extract: "Due to the lack of oversight and regulation in Indonesia and Malaysia, deforestation in the name of palm oil doesn’t show any indication of decreasing. Land clearing for palm oil plantations is the number one cause of deforestation in Indonesia, which saw approximately 1,240,000 square kilometers of rainforest burned and cut down for palm oil between 2009 and 2011."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 18, 2016, 03:11:35 PM
Since the early 1990s Cambodia has experienced severe (and typically illegal) deforestation:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/defender-of-cambodias-dwindling-forests-wins-goldman-prize/2016/04/18/26ed8800-051c-11e6-bfed-ef65dff5970d_story.html (https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/defender-of-cambodias-dwindling-forests-wins-goldman-prize/2016/04/18/26ed8800-051c-11e6-bfed-ef65dff5970d_story.html)


Extract: "Cambodia remained heavily forested until relatively recently, thanks in part to lingering battles with Khmer Rouge guerrillas and massive use of land mines during the Vietnam War.
As the economy opened in the early 1990s, investment from China poured in. Forest cover dropped to 48 percent in 2014 from 57 percent in 2010 and 73 percent in 1990, a loss of nearly 3 million hectares of tropical forest. Rosewood, known as “hongmu” in Chinese, is especially prized, and loggers can get $5,000 for a cubic meter of the brightly-hued timber."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 20, 2016, 05:24:37 PM
The linked (open access) reference discusses and intensive effort to observe & model the Amazon from 2014 thru 2015.  The attached image shows the marked increase in fires from early 2014 to late 2014.


Martin, S. T., Artaxo, P., Machado, L. A. T., Manzi, A. O., Souza, R. A. F., Schumacher, C., Wang, J., Andreae, M. O., Barbosa, H. M. J., Fan, J., Fisch, G., Goldstein, A. H., Guenther, A., Jimenez, J. L., Pöschl, U., Silva Dias, M. A., Smith, J. N., and Wendisch, M.: Introduction: Observations and Modeling of the Green Ocean Amazon (GoAmazon2014/5), Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 4785-4797, doi:10.5194/acp-16-4785-2016, 2016.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/4785/2016/ (http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/4785/2016/)

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/4785/2016/acp-16-4785-2016.pdf (http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/4785/2016/acp-16-4785-2016.pdf)

Abstract. The Observations and Modeling of the Green Ocean Amazon (GoAmazon2014/5) Experiment was carried out in the environs of Manaus, Brazil, in the central region of the Amazon basin for 2 years from 1 January 2014 through 31 December 2015. The experiment focused on the complex interactions among vegetation, atmospheric chemistry, and aerosol production on the one hand and their connections to aerosols, clouds, and precipitation on the other. The objective was to understand and quantify these linked processes, first under natural conditions to obtain a baseline and second when altered by the effects of human activities. To this end, the pollution plume from the Manaus metropolis, superimposed on the background conditions of the central Amazon basin, served as a natural laboratory. The present paper, as the introduction to the special issue of GoAmazon2014/5, presents the context and motivation of the GoAmazon2014/5 Experiment. The nine research sites, including the characteristics and instrumentation of each site, are presented. The sites range from time point zero (T0) upwind of the pollution, to T1 in the midst of the pollution, to T2 just downwind of the pollution, to T3 furthest downwind of the pollution (70 km). In addition to the ground sites, a low-altitude G-159 Gulfstream I (G-1) observed the atmospheric boundary layer and low clouds, and a high-altitude Gulfstream G550 (HALO) operated in the free troposphere. During the 2-year experiment, two Intensive Operating Periods (IOP1 and IOP2) also took place that included additional specialized research instrumentation at the ground sites as well as flights of the two aircraft. GoAmazon2014/5 IOP1 was carried out from 1 February to 31 March 2014 in the wet season. GoAmazon2014/5 IOP2 was conducted from 15 August to 15 October 2014 in the dry season. The G-1 aircraft flew during both IOP1 and IOP2, and the HALO aircraft flew during IOP2. In the context of the Amazon basin, the two IOPs also correspond to the clean and biomass burning seasons, respectively. The Manaus plume is present year-round, and it is transported by prevailing northeasterly and easterly winds in the wet and dry seasons, respectively. This introduction also organizes information relevant to many papers in the special issue. Information is provided on the vehicle fleet, power plants, and industrial activities of Manaus. The mesoscale and synoptic meteorologies relevant to the two IOPs are presented. Regional and long-range transport of emissions during the two IOPs is discussed based on satellite observations across South America and Africa. Fire locations throughout the airshed are detailed. In conjunction with the context and motivation of GoAmazon2014/5 as presented in this introduction, research articles including thematic overview articles are anticipated in this special issue to describe the detailed results and findings of the GoAmazon2014/5 Experiment.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 07, 2016, 10:51:29 AM
Scribbler has another excellent article on the Amazon basin entitled: "Carbon Sinks in Crisis — It Looks Like the World’s Largest Rainforest is Starting to Bleed Greenhouse Gasses"

https://robertscribbler.com/2016/08/05/carbon-sinks-in-crisis-it-looks-like-the-worlds-largest-rainforest-is-starting-to-bleed-greenhouse-gasses/
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 16, 2016, 03:15:12 AM
Oil palm plantations are contributing to accelerating climate change:

Claudia Dislich, Alexander C. Keyel, Jan Salecker, Yael Kisel, Katrin M. Meyer, Mark Auliya, Andrew D. Barnes, Marife D. Corre, Kevin Darras, Heiko Faust, Bastian Hess, Stephan Klasen, Alexander Knohl, Holger Kreft, Ana Meijide, Fuad Nurdiansyah, Fenna Otten, Guy Pe'er, Stefanie Steinebach, Suria Tarigan, Merja H. Tölle, Teja Tscharntke, Kerstin Wiegand. A review of the ecosystem functions in oil palm plantations, using forests as a reference system. Biological Reviews, 2016; DOI: 10.1111/brv.12295

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/brv.12295/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/brv.12295/abstract)



Abstract: “Oil palm plantations have expanded rapidly in recent decades. This large-scale land-use change has had great ecological, economic, and social impacts on both the areas converted to oil palm and their surroundings. However, research on the impacts of oil palm cultivation is scattered and patchy, and no clear overview exists. We address this gap through a systematic and comprehensive literature review of all ecosystem functions in oil palm plantations, including several (genetic, medicinal and ornamental resources, information functions) not included in previous systematic reviews. We compare ecosystem functions in oil palm plantations to those in forests, as the conversion of forest to oil palm is prevalent in the tropics. We find that oil palm plantations generally have reduced ecosystem functioning compared to forests: 11 out of 14 ecosystem functions show a net decrease in level of function. Some functions show decreases with potentially irreversible global impacts (e.g. reductions in gas and climate regulation, habitat and nursery functions, genetic resources, medicinal resources, and information functions). The most serious impacts occur when forest is cleared to establish new plantations, and immediately afterwards, especially on peat soils. To variable degrees, specific plantation management measures can prevent or reduce losses of some ecosystem functions (e.g. avoid illegal land clearing via fire, avoid draining of peat, use of integrated pest management, use of cover crops, mulch, and compost) and we highlight synergistic mitigation measures that can improve multiple ecosystem functions simultaneously. The only ecosystem function which increases in oil palm plantations is, unsurprisingly, the production of marketable goods. Our review highlights numerous research gaps. In particular, there are significant gaps with respect to socio-cultural information functions. Further, there is a need for more empirical data on the importance of spatial and temporal scales, such as differences among plantations in different environments, of different sizes, and of different ages, as our review has identified examples where ecosystem functions vary spatially and temporally. Finally, more research is needed on developing management practices that can offset the losses of ecosystem functions. Our findings should stimulate research to address the identified gaps, and provide a foundation for more systematic research and discussion on  ways to minimize the negative impacts and maximize the positive impacts of oil palm cultivation.”
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 16, 2016, 05:09:08 PM
CMIP5 models largely do not account for the influence of wildfires on the rain forest, but the linked article point to both field and model results indicates that this is not a very good idea:

http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2016/08/the-olympics-year-the-rain-forest-burned/ (http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2016/08/the-olympics-year-the-rain-forest-burned/)

Extract: "With a camera on a NASA satellite that circles over Earth’s poles, University of California, Irvine professor James Randerson has spotted a near-record number of early-dry season fires burning on the southern and western perimeter of the Amazon forest, including in seven Brazilian states and swaths of lowland Peru and Bolivia.
Randerson, a biologist, has created a computer model for forecasting forest fires. Evidence from various satellites indicate that the rainy season just ended shed unusually little precipitation. “It’s the driest we’ve observed in the last 15 years at the onset of the dry season,” he says. Several weeks ago, he forecast a chart-busting conflagration later this month. The many blazes already detected appear to bear out his prediction.

But don’t rest easy. The bad news is that a mechanism not considered by the British researchers might be as threatening to the Amazon as the out-of-favor dieback process: forest fires inadvertently spread by farmers during unseasonably dry years. New research shows that in dry years, fires migrating off farms and ranches can inadvertently convert flame-resistant forest into combustible tinder, increasing the area burned in successive droughts. “That can become self-perpetuating,” says Nepstad."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 01, 2016, 12:42:23 AM
The linked article indicates that reforestation does not fight climate change unless it is done right:

https://thinkprogress.org/planting-trees-climate-change-solution-3e5b6979561f#.mncjnc5qb

Extract: "Reforestation Doesn’t Fight Climate Change Unless It’s Done Right"
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 16, 2016, 03:00:52 PM
The linked article is entitled: "As the Global Demand for Palm Oil Surges, Indonesia’s Rainforests Are Being Destroyed

http://www.audubon.org/magazine/fall-2016/as-global-demand-palm-oil-surges-indonesias (http://www.audubon.org/magazine/fall-2016/as-global-demand-palm-oil-surges-indonesias)

Extract: "Tracts of land are being cleared to make way for palm plantations, releasing vast quantities of CO2 and giving poachers easy access to endangered Helmeted Hornbills."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 19, 2016, 02:27:05 PM
 The linked 2016 study by the Union of Concerned Scientists is entitled: "Cattle, Cleared Forests, and Climate Change - Scoring America’s Top Brands on Their Deforestation-Free Beef Commitments and Practices".  It finds that: "The growing global appetite for beef is the single biggest driver behind the disappearance of the planet's rainforests—and that is likely to expand as the world hurtles toward a population of 10 billion in 2050."


http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/09/ucs-cattle-cleared-forests-climate-change-2016.pdf (http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/09/ucs-cattle-cleared-forests-climate-change-2016.pdf)

Extract: "Each year, tropical forests are destroyed to clear land that is ultimately used for beef production, making beef the largest driver of tropical deforestation globally. South America’s forests are “ground zero” for beef-driven deforestation."

See also the linked article entitled: "Beef Companies Failing in Effort to Slow Amazon Deforestation, Study Says"

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/17102016/beef-companies-failing-effort-slow-amazon-rainforest-deforestation-climate-change-mcdonalds-burger-king-walmart (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/17102016/beef-companies-failing-effort-slow-amazon-rainforest-deforestation-climate-change-mcdonalds-burger-king-walmart)

Extract: "America's top beef buyers have failed to tackle deforestation in South America despite some companies' pledges to source "deforestation-free" beef, according to a report by an environmental advocacy group.

The growing global appetite for beef is the single biggest driver behind the disappearance of the planet's rainforests—and that is likely to expand as the world hurtles toward a population of 10 billion in 2050."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 06, 2016, 07:13:40 PM
The linked open access report is entitled: "Toward a Global Baseline of Carbon Storage in Collective Lands".  It emphasizes the value of securing the legal right of indigenous people w.r.t. protecting collective tropical forestland from deforestation (see attached image):

http://rightsandresources.org/en/publication/summary-toward-global-baseline-carbon-storage-collective-lands/#.WB9v0U3fOTN (http://rightsandresources.org/en/publication/summary-toward-global-baseline-carbon-storage-collective-lands/#.WB9v0U3fOTN)
&
http://rightsandresources.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Toward-a-Global-Baseline-of-Carbon-Storage-in-Collective-Lands-November-2016-RRI-WHRC-WRI-report.pdf (http://rightsandresources.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Toward-a-Global-Baseline-of-Carbon-Storage-in-Collective-Lands-November-2016-RRI-WHRC-WRI-report.pdf)

Key findings:
" - Indigenous Peoples and local communities manage at least 24 percent of the total carbon stored aboveground in the world’s tropical forests, or 54,546 million metric tons of carbon (MtC), a sum greater than 250 times the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global air travel in 2015.
 
- At least one-tenth of the total carbon found aboveground in the world’s tropical forests is located in collective forestlands lacking formal recognition, placing over 22,000 MtC at risk from external deforestation and/or degradation pressures.

- Study results are a mere fraction of the forest carbon managed by Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Indigenous Peoples and local communities customarily claim at least 50 percent of the world’s lands, but legally own just 10 percent. The gap between recognized and unrecognized areas points to significant opportunities to scale-up the protection of customary rights."

Also see the linked article entitled: "Failure to secure forest dweller rights risks carbon emissions spike, report says"

http://in.reuters.com/article/asia-landrights-climatechange-idINKBN12X03Y (http://in.reuters.com/article/asia-landrights-climatechange-idINKBN12X03Y)

Extract: "Securing the land rights of indigenous people and forest dwellers is crucial to keeping global rises in temperature below the agreed 2 degree Celsius threshold, according to a report.
Community forest lands from Brazil to Indonesia contain at least 54,546 million metric tons of carbon, equivalent to four times the global carbon emissions in 2014, according to analysis by the Rights and Resources Initiative, Woods Hole Research Center and World Resources Institute.
Without secure rights for the communities that live in these forests, there is a risk that the people will be displaced and the lands destroyed, releasing the carbon into the atmosphere, said the report published on Wednesday."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 23, 2016, 04:12:23 PM
The linked article is entitled: "An astounding 102 million trees are now dead in California".  The big concern is the wildfires that this will likely cause in the fire season of the summer of 2017.

http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/11/22/13709442/dead-trees-california-wildfire (http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/11/22/13709442/dead-trees-california-wildfire)

Extract: "Forest managers have never seen anything like it. Across California, an astounding 102 million trees have died over the past six years from drought and disease — including 62 million trees in 2016 alone, the US Forest Service estimates. Once-mighty oaks and pines have faded into ghastly hues of brown and gray. "
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 28, 2016, 06:31:34 PM
The linked reference indicates that the yellow-cedar forest in Alaska is in trouble due to climate change:

Brian Buma, et. al. (Nov 28 2016), "Emerging climate-driven disturbance processes: widespread mortality associated with snow-to-rain transitions across 10° of latitude and half the range of a climate-threatened conifer", Global Change Biology, DOI: 10.1111/gcb.13555

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13555/full (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13555/full)

Abstract: "Climate change is causing rapid changes to forest disturbance regimes worldwide. While the consequences of climate change for existing disturbance processes, like fires, are relatively well studied, emerging drivers of disturbance such as snow loss and subsequent mortality are much less documented. As the climate warms, a transition from winter snow to rain in high latitudes will cause significant changes in environmental conditions such as soil temperatures, historically buffered by snow cover. The Pacific coast of North America is an excellent test case, as mean winter temperatures are currently at the snow–rain threshold and have been warming for approximately 100 years post-Little Ice Age. Increased mortality in a widespread tree species in the region has been linked to warmer winters and snow loss. Here, we present the first high-resolution range map of this climate-sensitive species, Callitropsis nootkatensis (yellow-cedar), and document the magnitude and location of observed mortality across Canada and the United States. Snow cover loss related mortality spans approximately 10° latitude (half the native range of the species) and 7% of the overall species range and appears linked to this snow–rain transition across its range. Mortality is commonly >70% of basal area in affected areas, and more common where mean winter temperatures is at or above the snow–rain threshold (>0 °C mean winter temperature). Approximately 50% of areas with a currently suitable climate for the species (<−2 °C) are expected to warm beyond that threshold by the late 21st century. Regardless of climate change scenario, little of the range which is expected to remain suitable in the future (e.g., a climatic refugia) is in currently protected landscapes (<1–9%). These results are the first documentation of this type of emerging climate disturbance and highlight the difficulties of anticipating novel disturbance processes when planning for conservation and management."

See also the linked article entitled: "New mapping shows extent of yellow-cedar die-off in Alaska; analysis forecasts big losses in the future":

https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/environment/2016/11/26/new-mapping-shows-extent-of-yellow-cedar-die-off-analysis-forecasts-big-losses-in-the-future/ (https://www.adn.com/alaska-news/environment/2016/11/26/new-mapping-shows-extent-of-yellow-cedar-die-off-analysis-forecasts-big-losses-in-the-future/)

Extract: "The maps and calculations, described in a study published online in the journal Global Change Biology, show over 1,500 square miles of yellow cedar forest has been stricken with die-offs associated with a warming climate.

"It had never been mapped before, so we really didn't know how big the decline was," said Brian Buma of the University of Alaska Southeast, the lead author.

The future for the tree is troubled, according to the study. About half the forested area currently considered suitable for yellow cedars will no longer be so by the end of the century as temperatures rise and winter precipitation shifts from snow to rain, according to the study."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 29, 2016, 05:56:26 PM
The linked article is entitled: "Indonesian lower court rejects bid to protect prized forest".

http://phys.org/news/2016-11-indonesian-court-prized-forest.html (http://phys.org/news/2016-11-indonesian-court-prized-forest.html)

Extract: "They said the bylaw threatens the Leuser ecosystem by allowing diversion of the region into industrial and mining forests. The local government so far has issued 23 mining permits within the area, they said.

Conservationists say the 1.8 million-hectare (4.4 million-acre) forest, which spans Aceh and North Sumatra provinces, is the only place in the world where orangutans, rhinos, elephants and tigers share the same wild environment. Each of those four Sumatran species is endangered."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 03, 2016, 05:21:38 PM
The linked article is entitled: "How Big Banks Are Putting Rain Forests in Peril"; and discusses how some of the world's biggest banks have helped agricultural powerhouses in Indonesia to expand their plantation empires:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/business/energy-environment/how-big-banks-are-putting-rain-forests-in-peril.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/03/business/energy-environment/how-big-banks-are-putting-rain-forests-in-peril.html?_r=0)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 06, 2017, 04:32:06 PM
Wilcox, B. P., S. Bruijnzeel, and H. Asbjornsen (2016), The pace of change on tropical landscapes, Eos, 97, doi:10.1029/2016EO063837. Published on 30 December 2016.

https://eos.org/meeting-reports/the-pace-of-change-on-tropical-landscapes?utm_source=eos&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EosBuzz010617

Extract: "… the dual processes of climate change and deforestation are driving rapid changes in tropical landscapes. The effects of these changes on water and biogeochemical processes, at a range of scales, are enormous but poorly understood. Scientists do know, for example, that deforestation leads to changes in evapotranspiration, streamflow, and precipitation on local to regional scales and may even influence global climates. Similarly, climate change will likely lead to large-scale and important changes in cloud and precipitation dynamics, feedbacks between the atmosphere and vegetation, and hydrologic cycles in the tropics."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 15, 2017, 06:22:18 PM
The linked article is entitled: "Ecuador has begun drilling for oil in the world's richest rainforest".  Need I say more?

http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/1/14/14265958/ecuador-drilling-oil-rainforest (http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/1/14/14265958/ecuador-drilling-oil-rainforest)

Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: DrTskoul on January 15, 2017, 06:44:01 PM
The linked article is entitled: "Ecuador has begun drilling for oil in the world's richest rainforest".  Need I say more?

http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/1/14/14265958/ecuador-drilling-oil-rainforest (http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/1/14/14265958/ecuador-drilling-oil-rainforest)

The world developed countries should be paying countries like Ecuador to keep the rainforests pristine... They don't want to be poor. How else can tthey do ?
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 24, 2017, 06:13:48 PM
The linked article is entitled: "We are destroying rainforests so quickly they may be gone in 100 years".  Will the world allow the current high rate of deforestation to continue, or will it take effective action?

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/jan/23/destroying-rainforests-quickly-gone-100-years-deforestation (https://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2017/jan/23/destroying-rainforests-quickly-gone-100-years-deforestation)

Extract: "Rich countries pledged at Paris to raise $100bn a year to help poor countries reduce their emissions. Some of that money should go to tropical forest protection.
 
In addition, a new UN-backed mechanism called Redd (reduced emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) has been initiated that involves rich countries paying countries to protect forests and the carbon stored within them. Tropical and sub-tropical countries could receive both public and private funding if they succeed in reducing their emissions from deforestation. But this is deeply controversial as global schemes are prone to corruption, difficult to implement and hard to measure.

If there is money to protect forests, will it go to big companies as subsidy, or lead to evictions of people and human rights abuses?

There must be safeguards, but Germany, Norway and the UK have together promised up to $1bn a year for Redd schemes until 2020. The World Bank plans to contribute a similar amount to work with African countries. A further fund is intended to benefit indigenous and other forest communities which have been the traditional protectors of the forest.

Until Paris, stopping tropical deforestation was at best unlikely and probably impossible. It remains very difficult, but a political and financial mechanism has now been created to incentivise countries, companies and communities to do so at a fraction of the cost of reducing comparable emissions in the US or Europe. Protecting the forests now depends on rich governments not ducking their responsibilities and playing their part."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 07, 2017, 11:33:55 PM
The linked article entitled: "Risk of ‘megafires’ to increase as climate warms", cites peer reviewed research published in 'Nature Ecology & Evolution' that climate change will increase the frequency of extreme wildfires:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/risk-megafires-increase-climate-warms (https://www.carbonbrief.org/risk-megafires-increase-climate-warms)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 23, 2017, 11:46:01 PM
The linked article is entitle: "Small farmers play big role in felling Peru rainforest - satellite maps".  It is going to be difficult to stop small/poor indigenous farmers from slowly destroying the Peruvian rainforest.

http://news.trust.org/item/20170222172928-jnarz (http://news.trust.org/item/20170222172928-jnarz)

Extract: "Small producers clearing forests have caused Peru to lose 1,800,000 hectares of Amazon rainforest since 2001.

Deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon has risen this century - destroying an area of rainforest 14 times larger than Los Angeles - with small farmers behind most of the cutting, according to a new analysis of satellite maps.

Small farmers account for about 80 percent of Peru's forest loss, the Monitoring of the Andean Amazon Project (MAAP), a Washington, D.C.-based research group, said on Wednesday."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 25, 2017, 08:40:27 PM
The linked article is entitled: "Protected areas found to be ‘significant’ sources of carbon emissions", & is indicates that merely designating tropical rainforests as 'protected' does not stop deforestation and the associated net GHG emissions.

https://news.mongabay.com/2017/02/protected-areas-found-to-be-significant-sources-of-carbon-emissions/

Extract: "•    The researchers found 2,018 protected areas across the tropics store nearly 15 percent of all tropical forest carbon. This is because protected areas tend to have denser, older forest – thus, higher carbon stocks.
•   Their study uncovered that, on average, nearly 0.2 percent of protected area forest cover was razed per year between 2000 and 2012.
•   Less than nine percent of the reserves that the researchers sampled contributed 80 percent of the total carbon emissions between 2000 and 2012, putting this small subset of reserves on par with the UK’s entire transportation sector.
•   The researchers say their findings could help prioritize conservation attention."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 25, 2017, 08:51:58 PM
The linked article is entitled: "Amazon Deforestation, Once Tamed, Comes Roaring Back".  Policymakers are taking credit for stopping Amazon deforestation, but reality is much different than their "alternate facts".

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/business/energy-environment/deforestation-brazil-bolivia-south-america.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0 (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/24/business/energy-environment/deforestation-brazil-bolivia-south-america.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0)

Extract: "A decade after the “Save the Rainforest” movement captured the world’s imagination, Cargill and other food giants are pushing deeper into the wilderness."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Monty on April 27, 2017, 08:50:00 AM
How Sahara Dust Sustains the Amazon Rainforest, in 3-D
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/sahara-dust-amazon-rainforest-nasa-18708 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/sahara-dust-amazon-rainforest-nasa-18708)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygulQJoIe2Y (http://youtu.be/ygulQJoIe2Y)

How interesting, thanks for sharing the video.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 03, 2017, 04:54:43 PM
The linked reference indicates that wildfires in Borneo are ten time more larger during droughts than in non-drought years, & that global warming will increase the frequency & severity of such droughts:

Muh Taufik et al. Amplification of wildfire area burnt by hydrological drought in the humid tropics, Nature Climate Change (2017). DOI: 10.1038/nclimate3280

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3280.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3280.html)

Abstract: "Borneo’s diverse ecosystems, which are typical humid tropical conditions, are deteriorating rapidly, as the area is experiencing recurrent large-scale wildfires, affecting atmospheric composition and influencing regional climate processes. Studies suggest that climate-driven drought regulates wildfires, but these overlook subsurface processes leading to hydrological drought, an important driver. Here, we show that models which include hydrological processes better predict area burnt than those solely based on climate data. We report that the Borneo landscape has experienced a substantial hydrological drying trend since the early twentieth century, leading to progressive tree mortality, more severe than in other tropical regions. This has caused massive wildfires in lowland Borneo during the past two decades, which we show are clustered in years with large areas of hydrological drought coinciding with strong El Niño events. Statistical modelling evidence shows amplifying wildfires and greater area burnt in response to El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) strength, when hydrology is considered. These results highlight the importance of considering hydrological drought for wildfire prediction, and we recommend that hydrology should be considered in future studies of the impact of projected ENSO strength, including effects on tropical ecosystems, and biodiversity conservation."

See also, the associated linked article entitled: "Hydrological drought amplifies wildfires in Borneo's humid tropics".

https://phys.org/news/2017-05-hydrological-drought-amplifies-wildfires-borneo.html (https://phys.org/news/2017-05-hydrological-drought-amplifies-wildfires-borneo.html)

Extract: "The area of wildfires in Borneo during drought years turns out to be ten times larger than during non-drought years, an international research team reports in Nature Climate Change of this week. The fires recurrently affecting Borneo's humid tropical ecosystems have negative influence on the biodiversity and lead to large CO2 emissions, affecting atmospheric composition and regional climate processes. Future droughts in wet tropical regions will likely increase in frequency and severity, and consequently the fire risk, the team says. "
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 03, 2017, 05:17:35 PM
I think that the following reference errs on the side of least drama, but nevertheless, finds that on average climate change will disrupt forest ecosystems.

Xiang Song, Xiaodong Zeng (2017), "Evaluating the responses of forest ecosystems to climate change and CO2 using dynamic global vegetation models", Ecology and Evolution, 7 (3): 997-1008

Abstract: "The climate has important influences on the distribution and structure of forest ecosystems, which may lead to vital feedback to climate change. However, much of the existing work focuses on the changes in carbon fluxes or water cycles due to climate change and/or atmospheric CO 2, and few studies have considered how and to what extent climate change and CO 2 influence the ecosystem structure (e.g., fractional coverage change) and the changes in the responses of ecosystems with different characteristics. In this work, two dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs): IAP-DGVM coupled with CLM3 and CLM4-CNDV, were used to investigate the response of the forest ecosystem structure to changes in climate (temperature and precipitation) and CO 2 concentration. In the temperature sensitivity tests, warming reduced the global area-averaged ecosystem gross primary production in the two models, which decreased global forest area. Furthermore, the changes in tree fractional coverage (ΔFtree; %) from the two models were sensitive to the regional temperature and ecosystem structure, i.e., the mean annual temperature (MAT; °C) largely determined whether ΔFtree was positive or negative, while the tree fractional coverage (Ftree; %) played a decisive role in the amplitude of ΔFtree around the globe, and the dependence was more remarkable in IAP-DGVM. In cases with precipitation change, Ftree had a uniformly positive relationship with precipitation, especially in the transition zones of forests (30% < Ftree < 60%) for IAP-DGVM and in semiarid and arid regions for CLM4-CNDV. Moreover, ΔFtree had a stronger dependence on Ftree than on the mean annual precipitation (MAP; mm/year). It was also demonstrated that both models captured the fertilization effects of the CO 2 concentration."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 06, 2017, 03:40:21 PM
The linked article indicates that fire could transform the Amazon forests this century

Le Page, Y., Morton, D., Corinne, H., Ben, B.-L., Cardoso Pereira, J. M., Hurtt, G., and Asrar, G.: Synergy between land use and climate change increases future fire risk in Amazon forests, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2017-55, (https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2017-55,) in review, 2017.

http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2017-55/ (http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/esd-2017-55/)

Abstract. Tropical forests have been a permanent feature of the Amazon basin for at least 55 million years, yet climate change and land use threaten the forest's future over the next century. Understory forest fires, common under current climate in frontier forests, may accelerate Amazon forest losses from climate-driven dieback and deforestation. Far from land use frontiers, scarce fire ignitions and high moisture levels preclude significant burning, yet projected climate and land use changes may increase fire activity in these remote regions. Here, we used a fire model specifically parameterized for Amazon understory fires to examine the interactions between anthropogenic activities and climate under current and projected conditions. In a scenario of low mitigation efforts with substantial land use expansion and climate change – the representative concentration pathway (RCP) 8.5 – projected understory fires increase in frequency and duration, burning 4–28 times more forest in 2080–2100 than during 1990–2010. In contrast, active climate mitigation and land use contraction in RCP4.5 constrain the projected increase in fire activity to 0.9–5.4 times contemporary burned area. Importantly, if climate mitigation is not successful, land use contraction alone is very effective under low to moderate climate change, but does little to reduce fire activity under the most severe climate projections. These results underscore the potential for a fire-driven transformation of Amazon forests if recent regional policies for forest conservation are not paired with global efforts to mitigate climate change.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 07, 2017, 07:53:39 PM
The linked reference indicates that coniferous & boreal biome forests are particularly sensitive to future climate change

Rupert Seidl, et. al. (2017), "Forest disturbances under climate change", Nature Climate Change, Volume: 7, Pages: 395–402, doi:10.1038/nclimate3303

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n6/full/nclimate3303.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n6/full/nclimate3303.html)

Abstract: "Forest disturbances are sensitive to climate. However, our understanding of disturbance dynamics in response to climatic changes remains incomplete, particularly regarding large-scale patterns, interaction effects and dampening feedbacks. Here we provide a global synthesis of climate change effects on important abiotic (fire, drought, wind, snow and ice) and biotic (insects and pathogens) disturbance agents. Warmer and drier conditions particularly facilitate fire, drought and insect disturbances, while warmer and wetter conditions increase disturbances from wind and pathogens. Widespread interactions between agents are likely to amplify disturbances, while indirect climate effects such as vegetation changes can dampen long-term disturbance sensitivities to climate. Future changes in disturbance are likely to be most pronounced in coniferous forests and the boreal biome. We conclude that both ecosystems and society should be prepared for an increasingly disturbed future of forests."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 19, 2017, 04:11:27 PM
Relying on developing countries to safeguard tropical rainforest for the benefit of the world is not a very good bet:

"Brazil on verge of legitimizing Amazon land theft on a grand scale"

https://news.mongabay.com/2017/06/brazil-on-verge-of-legitimizing-amazon-land-theft-on-a-grand-scale/

Extract: "President Temer, serving the bancada ruralista rural lobby, is poised to turn over 600,000 hectares of federally protected Amazon forest to illegal miners, loggers and land thieves."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: gerontocrat on June 19, 2017, 07:11:40 PM
Logging is a rough business. Back in 1990 I wrote a report on some loging proposals for a Government. I was told that failure to change the recommendations would be fatal. Fortunately some Vietnam Vet drinking buddies showed the bad guys that their illegal weapons were bigger than the bad guy's illegal weapons.

For some time those drinking buddies had a great line of credit at our watering hole. It is as dangerous today as then.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on July 12, 2017, 11:26:43 PM
Sad news from Columbia's rainforest:

Title: "Deforestation soars in Colombia after Farc rebels' demobilization"

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/11/colombia-deforestation-farc (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/11/colombia-deforestation-farc)

Extract: "Colombia has seen an alarming surge in deforestation after the leftwing rebels relinquished control over vast areas of the country as a part of a historic peace deal.

The area of deforestation jumped 44% in 2016 to 178,597 hectares (690 sq miles) compared to the year before, according to official figures released this month – and most of the destruction was in remote rainforest areas once controlled by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc).

The rebel army was a violent illegal armed group, but for decades the guerrillas enforced strict limits on logging by civilians – in part to protect their cover from air raids by government warplanes."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Neven on August 23, 2017, 11:32:05 PM
From another thread:

Maybe a stupid question. But if you look at the rainforest in Brasil. What would be the impact on rainfall by cutting it down. As far as i know a tree in the Amazon takes up somewhere between 1000 and 2000 liters of water a day. And most of that water falls back down as rain.  Mostly the vegatation has a top layer, a middle layer and a bottom layer in the Amazon. That means 1 are creates several 1000 liters of rain a day. Or do i see this wrong ? Lost year they cut 8000 square km of forest. If that water would fall on land as rain. That 8000 km of forest could provide 14000 square km of land with 1 qubic meter of water a year. Could this have a substantial impact, and on what kind of things will it have an impact ?
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: gerontocrat on September 30, 2017, 02:58:57 PM
Some grim reading.

Brazil's worst month ever for forest fires blamed on human activity

"September saw more fires than any month on record, as experts say uptick is due to expansion of agriculture and reduction of oversight and surveillance"
See:-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/28/brazil-forest-fires-deforestation-september-record-amazon (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/28/brazil-forest-fires-deforestation-september-record-amazon)

Alarm as study reveals world’s tropical forests are huge carbon emission source
Forests globally are so degraded that instead of absorbing emissions they now release more carbon annually than all the traffic in the US, say researchers
See:-
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/28/alarm-as-study-reveals-worlds-tropical-forests-are-huge-carbon-emission-source (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/28/alarm-as-study-reveals-worlds-tropical-forests-are-huge-carbon-emission-source)


One reads that human CO2 emissions were stable in 2017, and then one reads the above articles and tries not to despair.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 06, 2017, 04:35:13 PM
The acceleration of anthropogenic deforestation is not limited to developing countries:

Title: "'Alarming' rise in Queensland tree clearing as 400,000 hectares stripped"

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/05/alarming-rise-in-queensland-tree-clearing-as-400000-hectares-stripped (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/05/alarming-rise-in-queensland-tree-clearing-as-400000-hectares-stripped)

Extract: "Figures released on Thursday showed a 33% rise in clearing to almost 400,000 hectares in 2015-16, meaning Queensland now has two-thirds the annual rate of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon."

See also:  "Queensland tree clearing wipes out federal emissions gains"

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/06/queensland-tree-clearing-wipes-out-federal-emissions-gains (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/oct/06/queensland-tree-clearing-wipes-out-federal-emissions-gains)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 30, 2017, 06:25:04 PM
More sad news about recent deforestation trends:

Kemen G Austin, Mariano González-Roglich, Danica Schaffer-Smith, Amanda M Schwantes and Jennifer J Swenson (9 May 2017), "Trends in size of tropical deforestation events signal increasing dominance of industrial-scale drivers", Environmental Research Letters, Volume 12, Number 5 https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6a88

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa6a88#references

Abstract: "Deforestation continues across the tropics at alarming rates, with repercussions for ecosystem processes, carbon storage and long term sustainability. Taking advantage of recent fine-scale measurement of deforestation, this analysis aims to improve our understanding of the scale of deforestation drivers in the tropics. We examined trends in forest clearings of different sizes from 2000–2012 by country, region and development level. As tropical deforestation increased from approximately 6900 kha yr−1 in the first half of the study period, to >7900 kha yr−1 in the second half of the study period, >50% of this increase was attributable to the proliferation of medium and large clearings (>10 ha). This trend was most pronounced in Southeast Asia and in South America. Outside of Brazil >60% of the observed increase in deforestation in South America was due to an upsurge in medium- and large-scale clearings; Brazil had a divergent trend of decreasing deforestation, >90% of which was attributable to a reduction in medium and large clearings. The emerging prominence of large-scale drivers of forest loss in many regions and countries suggests the growing need for policy interventions which target industrial-scale agricultural commodity producers. The experience in Brazil suggests that there are promising policy solutions to mitigate large-scale deforestation, but that these policy initiatives do not adequately address small-scale drivers. By providing up-to-date and spatially explicit information on the scale of deforestation, and the trends in these patterns over time, this study contributes valuable information for monitoring, and designing effective interventions to address deforestation."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: gerontocrat on March 05, 2018, 10:15:24 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/05/global-deforestation-hotspot-3m-hectares-of-australian-forest-to-be-lost-in-15-years

A long read and infinitely depressing. And they call Australia "The Lucky Country"

'Global deforestation hotspot': 3m hectares of Australian forest to be lost in 15 years

Quote
“It has gotten so bad that WWF International put it on the list of global deforestation fronts, the only one in the developed world on that list,” says Martin Taylor, the protected areas and conservation science manager at WWF Australia.

In Queensland, where there is both the most clearing and the best data on clearing, trees are being bulldozed at a phenomenal rate.

About 395,000 hectares of native vegetation were cleared there in 2015-16, 33% more compared with the previous year. And despite the re-elected Labor government promising changes to rein it in, notifications of planned land clearing in Queensland have jumped a further 30%, suggesting woodlands could be bulldozed even faster in coming years.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: colchonero on March 10, 2018, 08:16:31 PM
https://twitter.com/EcoSenseNow/status/972145504460029953
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Alexander555 on March 10, 2018, 09:53:35 PM
https://twitter.com/EcoSenseNow/status/972145504460029953

I don't know where this comes from, but over here they are building everywhere. And still it looks a lot greener now than in 1997 on the map. So i think it's a joke.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: colchonero on March 10, 2018, 10:42:24 PM
I don't know, I just saw it on twitter, that's why I didn't leave any comment below about it. I mean it's not a joke, I did a research, NASA has been tracking Earth's vegetation this way since September 1997 and has maps like these, I just don't know if the dates in this tweet are accurate or not because I couldn't find any on original NASA website to prove it.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Alexander555 on March 10, 2018, 11:31:41 PM
Maybe the vegetation is growing faster because of the extra co2. But probably there is less vegetation. It's hard to imagine there would be more. Over here they turn 12 footballfields of nature into concrete every day. And on the map it shows as green as a rainforest. So in general it tells very little about the condition we are in.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Alexander555 on March 10, 2018, 11:55:32 PM
In some way it even holds some kind of danger. Besides the fact that this vegetation growth tells us something about climate change. We add more co2, what is good for photosynthesis. And that is good for foodproduction. So the population keeps growing. The same time we exhaust our land, more and more places need fertiliser. Or they can not use the land every year, or at a much lower yield. The moment we start to add less co2, and we see the opposite happening, less vegetation growth. Our population will be bigger than ever, all land will depend on some kind of fertiliser. That will probably trigger more deforestation. Lost week i made a small seedbank for myself. Some corn , onion, carrots.... They stay good for 5 years on average, some a little less. In that case , small scale production could be part of a solution.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Daniel B. on March 13, 2018, 03:34:33 PM
Research has shown that elevated CO2 levels increases photosynthesis and reduces water loss.  This effect is most pronounced in arid regions, like north Africa and Australia.

https://phys.org/news/2013-07-greening-co2.html
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: ghoti on March 13, 2018, 04:40:01 PM
Research has shown that elevated CO2 levels increases photosynthesis and reduces water loss.  This effect is most pronounced in arid regions, like north Africa and Australia.

https://phys.org/news/2013-07-greening-co2.html
Much plant physiology research was done on this in the 1970s and plant ecophysiology research done on this in the 1980s. The effect of increasing CO2 on water use efficiency mostly pertains to plants with C3 photosynthesis (broad leaf plants) but has a much smaller impact on C4 photosynthesis (grains and grasses) because these plants chemically concentrate CO2 to feed photosynthesis. C4 plants are already much more water use efficient which is why they dominate arid zones. Succulents (CAM photosynthesis) concentrate CO2 separate from photosynthesis during the night when water loss is minimized.

So this generalized result is expected but is limited. The impact is not linear and does not continue to increase with ever increasing CO2 concentrations.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Daniel B. on March 13, 2018, 06:33:04 PM
Research has shown that elevated CO2 levels increases photosynthesis and reduces water loss.  This effect is most pronounced in arid regions, like north Africa and Australia.

https://phys.org/news/2013-07-greening-co2.html
Much plant physiology research was done on this in the 1970s and plant ecophysiology research done on this in the 1980s. The effect of increasing CO2 on water use efficiency mostly pertains to plants with C3 photosynthesis (broad leaf plants) but has a much smaller impact on C4 photosynthesis (grains and grasses) because these plants chemically concentrate CO2 to feed photosynthesis. C4 plants are already much more water use efficient which is why they dominate arid zones. Succulents (CAM photosynthesis) concentrate CO2 separate from photosynthesis during the night when water loss is minimized.

So this generalized result is expected but is limited. The impact is not linear and does not continue to increase with ever increasing CO2 concentrations.

Considering that between 80 and 90% of the plants covering the surface of the planet are C3, that does not seem very limited. 
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: ghoti on March 13, 2018, 06:57:36 PM
Much of our crops are C4. Maize photosynthesis increases max out at  400 ppm.

Too many things limit plant growth for increased CO2 to have a significant positive impact. The science has been done.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Daniel B. on March 13, 2018, 07:38:15 PM
Much of our crops are C4. Maize photosynthesis increases max out at  400 ppm.

Too many things limit plant growth for increased CO2 to have a significant positive impact. The science has been done.

If CO2 is not responsible for the greening of our planet's surface (as claimed by the scientists at CSIRO), then what is causing the increase?
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: ghoti on March 14, 2018, 03:11:04 AM
Much of our crops are C4. Maize photosynthesis increases max out at  400 ppm.

Too many things limit plant growth for increased CO2 to have a significant positive impact. The science has been done.

If CO2 is not responsible for the greening of our planet's surface (as claimed by the scientists at CSIRO), then what is causing the increase?
I'm not saying there isn't greening. I'm saying greening won't double if we further double CO2. The paper doesn't actually say it is the CO2. It points out the correlation and actually says there might be other factors such as weather changes - which is reasonable (and likely). It also indicates that greening isn't everywhere - also an indication that it isn't a direct CO2 effect though water use efficiency improvements due to higher CO2 are extremely likely. Again CO2 / water use efficency in non-linear and a decreasing function. (I got my PhD measuring this stuff).
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Daniel B. on March 14, 2018, 11:39:46 AM
Much of our crops are C4. Maize photosynthesis increases max out at  400 ppm.

Too many things limit plant growth for increased CO2 to have a significant positive impact. The science has been done.

If CO2 is not responsible for the greening of our planet's surface (as claimed by the scientists at CSIRO), then what is causing the increase?
I'm not saying there isn't greening. I'm saying greening won't double if we further double CO2. The paper doesn't actually say it is the CO2. It points out the correlation and actually says there might be other factors such as weather changes - which is reasonable (and likely). It also indicates that greening isn't everywhere - also an indication that it isn't a direct CO2 effect though water use efficiency improvements due to higher CO2 are extremely likely. Again CO2 / water use efficency in non-linear and a decreasing function. (I got my PhD measuring this stuff).

That I can agree with.  I thought you were discounting the CO2 effect altogether.  In general, the limiting factor is what controls plant growth.  I would contend that water is the main factor in  arid regions, and weather has the most influence.  In the absence of sufficient precipitation, CO2 can help enhance water uptake. 
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 21, 2018, 04:46:05 PM
The linked reference focuses on the increase in carbon sequesterization associated with the increased growth rate for boreal trees due to changes in North Atlantic Ocean dynamics since 1980.  However, that leaves it up to reader to account for the associated accelerated decrease in local albedo associated with such boreal forest growth:

Clémentine Ols et al. (Post-1980 shifts in the sensitivity of boreal tree growth to North Atlantic Ocean dynamics and seasonal climate: Tree growth responses to North Atlantic Ocean dynamics", Global and Planetary Change, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2018.03.006

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818117302564

Abstract: "The mid-20th century changes in North Atlantic Ocean dynamics, e.g. slow-down of the Atlantic meridional overturning thermohaline circulation (AMOC), have been considered as early signs of tipping points in the Earth climate system. We hypothesized that these changes have significantly altered boreal forest growth dynamics in northeastern North America (NA) and northern Europe (NE), two areas geographically adjacent to the North Atlantic Ocean. To test our hypothesis, we investigated tree growth responses to seasonal large-scale oceanic and atmospheric indices (the AMOC, North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), and Arctic Oscillation (AO)) and climate (temperature and precipitation) from 1950 onwards, both at the regional and local levels. We developed a network of 6876 black spruce (NA) and 14,437 Norway spruce (NE) tree-ring width series, extracted from forest inventory databases. Analyses revealed post-1980 shifts from insignificant to significant tree growth responses to summer oceanic and atmospheric dynamics both in NA (negative responses to NAO and AO indices) and NE (positive response to NAO and AMOC indices). The strength and sign of these responses varied, however, through space with stronger responses in western and central boreal Quebec and in central and northern central Sweden and across scales with stronger responses at the regional level than at the local level. Emerging post-1980 associations with North Atlantic Ocean dynamics synchronized with stronger tree growth responses to local seasonal climate, particularly to winter temperatures. Our results suggest that ongoing and future anomalies in oceanic and atmospheric dynamics may impact forest growth and carbon sequestration to a greater extent than previously thought. Cross-scale differences in responses to North Atlantic Ocean dynamics highlight complex interplays in the effects of local climate and ocean-atmosphere dynamics on tree growth processes and advocate for the use of different spatial scales in climate-growth research to better understand factors controlling tree growth."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 27, 2018, 03:30:20 PM
The linked article cites ESLD assumptions that lead to a projection that over half of Alberta's forests will be lost to wildfires and climate change in just over 80-years:

Title: "Half Alberta's boreal forest could disappear due to fires and climate change"

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2018/03/26/news/half-albertas-boreal-forest-could-disappear-due-fires-and-climate-change

Extract: "A study shows half of Alberta's boreal forest could disappear in just over 80 years due to wildfires and climate change.

The research, published Monday in the journal Ecosphere, gives a glimpse at how vegetation could change based on the current rate of carbon emissions and climate change.

"We found that wildfire could initiate the conversion of approximately 50 per cent of the current boreal forest into grassland or deciduous open forest," said Diana Stralberg, who did the research as part of her PhD in the biological sciences department at the University of Alberta.

"If you look at even more extreme assumptions about future wildfire, you would get something closer to 75 per cent conversion.""
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: sidd on April 15, 2018, 09:34:04 PM
I  must read this book:

"They’ve been flowering every spring, for the last hundred million years. They flowered in every year you’ve been alive. And with luck, they’ll flower for a few years yet to come."

https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/heres-to-unsuicide-an-interview-with-richard-powers/

sidd
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: gerontocrat on June 27, 2018, 10:10:00 PM
Things are not going well

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2018/jun/27/one-football-pitch-of-forest-lost-every-second-in-2017-data-reveals

One football pitch of forest lost every second in 2017, data revealsGlobal deforestation is on an upward trend, jeopardising efforts to tackle climate change and the massive decline in wildlife

Quote
The world lost more than one football pitch of forest every second in 2017, according to new data from a global satellite survey, adding up to an area equivalent to the whole of Italy over the year.

The scale of tree destruction, much of it done illegally, poses a grave threat to tackling both climate change and the massive global decline in wildlife. The loss in 2017 recorded by Global Forest Watch was 29.4m hectares, the second highest recorded since the monitoring began in 2001.

Global tree cover losses have doubled since 2003, while deforestation in crucial tropical rainforest has doubled since 2008. A falling trend in Brazil has been reversed amid political instability and forest destruction has soared in Colombia.

In other key nations, the Democratic Republic of Congo’s vast forests suffered record losses. However, in Indonesia, deforestation dropped 60% in 2017, helped by fewer forest fires and government action.

Forest losses are a huge contributor to the carbon emissions driving global warming, about the same as total emissions from the US, which is the world’s second biggest polluter. Deforestation destroys wildlife habitat and is a key reason for populations of wildlife having plunged by half in the last 40 years, starting a sixth mass extinction.

“The main reason tropical forests are disappearing is not a mystery – vast areas continue to be cleared for soy, beef, palm oil, timber, and other globally traded commodities,” said Frances Seymour at the World Resources Institute, which produces Global Forest Watch with its partners. “Much of this clearing is illegal and linked to corruption.”
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Daniel B. on June 28, 2018, 03:34:51 PM
How sad!  To me, this is the biggest issue we are facing currently.  It has lasting consequences.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: dnem on June 28, 2018, 04:07:53 PM
It is a big one, Daniel.  If you don't want to get on board with global climate change, I'd add ocean acidification and plastic pollution to your worry list.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: oren on June 28, 2018, 04:09:17 PM
Indeed. And topsoil degradation, and groundwater depletion.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Tor Bejnar on June 28, 2018, 05:36:01 PM
Growing population with diminishing fresh water sources (surface and subsurface) is a real bummer for the people involved.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: vox_mundi on November 14, 2018, 05:50:31 PM
Large Areas of the Brazilian Rainforest at Risk of Losing Legal Protection
https://phys.org/news/2018-11-large-areas-brazilian-rainforest.html

(https://media.springernature.com/m685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41893-018-0171-4/MediaObjects/41893_2018_171_Fig1_HTML.png)

Up to 15 million hectares of the Brazilian Amazon is at risk of losing its legal protection, according to a new study from researchers at Chalmers University of Technology and KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden, and the University of Sao Paulo, Brazil. This is equivalent to more than 4 times the entire forest area of the UK.

... In Brazil, there is a legislative requirement that private landowners designate a certain part of their land for the protection of native vegetation. Private landowners in states that lie in the Amazon region may use up to 20 percent of their land for agriculture, with the rest reserved for nature. But the law contains a paragraph which makes it possible for states to reduce this land use restriction, if more than 65 percent the state's territory is protected public land.

"Earlier studies concluded that this paragraph probably would never be invoked. But we have now shown that the ongoing land tenure regularisation process of undesignated land in the Amazon could lead to the paragraph being invoked in several states in the Amazon region. If this happens, it would become legal to use a further 30 percent of the privately-owned land for agriculture," says Göran Berndes, Professor at Chalmers, and one of the authors behind the study.

This means that between 6.5 and 15.4 million hectares could lose the protections they enjoy today. By way of comparison, the total forest area of the UK is about 3.17 million hectares. The areas that might become legally available for agriculture consist primarily of tropical rainforest, which hold high biodiversity values. Additionally, tropical deforestation causes large carbon dioxide emissions, which contributes to global warming.

(https://media.springernature.com/m685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41893-018-0171-4/MediaObjects/41893_2018_171_Fig2_HTML.png)

Flavio L. M. Freitas et al. Potential increase of legal deforestation in Brazilian Amazon after Forest Act revision (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-018-0171-4), Nature Sustainability (2018)

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fphotos1.blogger.com%2Fblogger%2F952%2F1098%2F1600%2FNon_Sequitur_pan.142.g.0.gif&hash=0fef9908105084195daa36d7c4fd2aae)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Sleepy on November 15, 2018, 08:34:52 AM
Bolsonaro’s deforestation of the Amazon has already begun
http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/11/14/bolsonaros-deforestation-amazon-already-begun/ (http://www.climatechangenews.com/2018/11/14/bolsonaros-deforestation-amazon-already-begun/)
Quote
Deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon jumped almost 50% during the three month electoral season that brought Jair Bolsonaro to power, according to preliminary official figures.

That means the forest lost 1,674 sq km from August to October, an area more than double the size of New York City.

The main culprit was the conversion of forest to pasture. The largest increase was in the border area between Acre and Amazonas states. The deforestation increase there, compared with the same period in 2017, was 273% and 114%, respectively.

Deforestation usually increases in Brazil’s electoral years, amid promises from local politicians they will open up protected land or make environmental legislation more flexible if elected.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: bluesky on April 27, 2019, 09:00:16 PM
"Brazil’s National Institute of Space Research (INPE) has calculated that Bolsonaro’s policies could increase annual Amazonian deforestation from 6,900 square kilometres to 25,600 square kilometres in 2020"
"As consumers we must insist on due diligence by companies and banks to eradicate deforestation from agricultural supply chains and capital investments.»
Jaboury Ghazoul
https://www.ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2019/04/blog-ghazoul-forest-conservation-brazil.html
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: b_lumenkraft on May 14, 2019, 11:14:56 AM
Guy plants entire ecosystem

Link >> https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/bo6s0g/guy_plants_entire_ecosystem/
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on May 29, 2019, 08:47:39 PM
Amazon deforestation up 20% in past year:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/amazon-rainforest-loss-20-per-cent-climate-change-1.5151950?__vfz=medium=sharebar&
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: wdmn on May 29, 2019, 09:02:42 PM
Thanks Tom,

I have problems with the numbers presented in that article.

The article says a loss of 2,169 km2 was measured over the last 9 months, which is 20% higher than the same 9 month period from the previous year.

But 6,624 km2 were lost in 2017, and ~8000 in 2018.

https://sustentabilidade.estadao.com.br/blogs/ambiente-se/cientistas-estimam-que-desmatamento-da-amazonia-pode-triplicar-em-cenario-bolsonaro/
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: El Cid on May 29, 2019, 09:34:52 PM
Great graphics:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/04/watch-how-europe-is-greener-now-than-100-years-ago/?utm_term=.b15bd621ec8d

We have not had so many forests in Europe in at least in 100 years! And they keep expanding.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: gerontocrat on June 05, 2019, 01:40:59 PM
Bolsonaro and his acolytes continue on the path to self-destruction (of themselves and us)....

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/04/deforestation-of-brazilian-amazon-surges-to-record-high-bolsonaro
Deforestation of Brazilian Amazon surges to record high
Environmentalists fear 2019 will be one of worst years for deforestation in recent memory

Quote
“The government can’t deny these numbers from their own agency. The question now is what they’ll do about it,” said Carlos Souza, of the independent monitoring group Imazon. “By the end of July. we’ll have a clear idea of the impact of recent moves to dismantle environmental policies.”

Since the far-right Bolsonaro came to power in January, he has weakened the environment ministry, loosened controls on economic exploitation of the Amazon, halted demarcation of indigenous land and encouraged mining and farming interests to expand in the region.

Since the president criticised the government’s main monitoring agency as a “fines industry”, it has issued a fewer penalties than at any time in 11 years and the number of inspection operations is down 70% from last year.

His environment minister, Ricardo Salles, who was convicted for environmental fraud and had never visited the Amazon region before this year, has further undermined morale by failing to appoint regional chiefs and by firing veteran inspectors. Earlier this week, Folha reported he was moving to privatise the satellite monitoring of the forest.

Bolsonaro has indicated that agribusiness can help to lift Brazil towards positive growth.

In this regard, he is echoing and amplifying the message of his predecessors as president, Dilma Rousseff and Michel Temer, both of whom presided over periods of accelerated forest clearance as they became reliant on the rural lobby and commodity exports to China and Europe.

Another factor is an expansion of infrastructure projects, including roads and hydroelectric plants. The Brazilian state that suffered the greatest deforestation last month was Pará, which is home to the BR163 road through the Amazon and the Belo Monte dam.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 05, 2019, 01:47:53 PM
Fun Fact: Bolsonaro promised to cut down the jungle as a campaign issue.

And this is the situation we are in.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Klondike Kat on June 05, 2019, 03:35:05 PM
What good would reducing CO2 emissions do, if we cut down all the trees?
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: b_lumenkraft on June 05, 2019, 03:43:38 PM
Way less good!

Deforestation and Its Extreme Effect on Global Warming
Link >> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/?redirect=1
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on June 05, 2019, 05:03:55 PM
More on Brazil, Bolsonaro:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-environment-deforestation-idUSKCN1T52OQ?utm_source=reddit.com

EDIT: Salamanders needed in healthy forests:
https://www.wgbh.org/news/local-news/2019/06/05/the-wolves-of-the-forest-floor-these-salamanders-can-help-combat-climate-change-scientists-say
Guatemala increasing forest cover:
http://www.ethicalcorp.com/nature-biggest-proven-technology-address-climate-impacts-0

PLUS even more on Bolsonaro:
https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/06/05/we-are-literally-sawing-branch-we-all-live-amazon-deforestation-increasing-under

EDIT AGAIN: Still more on Bolsonaro:
https://news.mongabay.com/2019/06/brazil-guts-environmental-agencies-clears-way-for-unchecked-deforestation/ and, while you gestated a baby, 200,000+ hectares were deforested -
https://www.smh.com.au/world/south-america/more-than-200-000-hectares-of-amazon-forest-have-been-destroyed-in-just-nine-months-20190528-p51rwa.html

EDIT YET AGAIN: REDD+ doesn't always succeed:
https://news.mongabay.com/2019/06/is-redd-ready-for-its-closeup-reports-vary/

JUNE 15 EDIT:
Greenpeace says forest loss continues:
https://news.mongabay.com/2019/06/despite-a-decade-of-zero-deforestation-vows-forest-loss-continues-greenpeace/
Food industry will miss zero deforestation goal:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-carg-brazil-environment/cargill-says-food-industry-will-miss-zero-deforestation-goal-idUSKCN1TE345
Vancouver Island tree dieoff climate related:
https://www.vicnews.com/news/salal-die-off-on-vancouver-island-a-sign-of-climate-stress-says-forester/

JUNE 18 EDIT:
Older forests more AGW resistent:
https://vtdigger.org/2019/06/16/study-older-forests-less-vulnerable-climate-change/
Cambodians blame deforestation for hot weather:
https://news.mongabay.com/2019/06/as-cambodia-swelters-climate-change-suspicion-falls-on-deforestation/

JUNE 19 EDIT
Liberian risked life to stop deforestation:
https://e360.yale.edu/features/to-stop-destruction-of-liberias-rainforest-he-put-his-life-on-the-line-alfred-brownell
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on June 24, 2019, 06:25:36 PM
Big enough post above  ;)

Guatemalan  park suffering more deforestation:
https://news.mongabay.com/2019/06/invaders-cattle-cocaine-deforestation-spikes-in-guatemalan-national-park/
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: anthropocene on July 07, 2019, 11:16:06 PM
Hi All

Can't see a link posted anywhere for this; doesn't fit naturally into any thread - this is the best fit I could find.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48870920

Also, since this is the science section. Could somebody check my maths. The above article includes this line.

"Once these trees matured they could pull down around 200 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide, some two-thirds of extra carbon from human activities put into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution."

This looked wrong straight-away. Checking seems to confirm this. Looking at wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere)  1ppm of C02 is approx. 8Gt of CO2 (other sites have slightly different figures but doesn't make much difference).
Saying pre-industrial was 280 ppm CO2 and so increase in C02 since pre-industrial is  (410 - 280)  =130ppm which gives a figure of approx. 1040 Gt of CO2 added.  This means above quote is out by approx a factor of 3. Is this just a confusion between mass of CO2 and Carbon on it's own?  If so, where is the error introduced - is it just a typo in to above quote and it should be "pull down around 200 gigatonnes of carbon"?
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Pragma on July 08, 2019, 02:11:31 AM
This looked wrong straight-away. Checking seems to confirm this. Looking at wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere)  1ppm of C02 is approx. 8Gt of CO2 (other sites have slightly different figures but doesn't make much difference).
Saying pre-industrial was 280 ppm CO2 and so increase in C02 since pre-industrial is  (410 - 280)  =130ppm which gives a figure of approx. 1040 Gt of CO2 added.  This means above quote is out by approx a factor of 3. Is this just a confusion between mass of CO2 and Carbon on it's own?  If so, where is the error introduced - is it just a typo in to above quote and it should be "pull down around 200 gigatonnes of carbon"?

I don't know enough in this area to comment on the process, but you raise a pet peeve of mine. Unless we refer back to actual scientific papers, it seems we are chasing moving goalposts. Even then, it can be very difficult to make sure you are comparing apples to apples.

- Is it tons of carbon or tons of CO2?
- What is the baseline year for temperature increases? (deg. C or F? Arrrgh!)
- Where on the persistence curve do you select the relative power of a GHG?

And in this case, the numbers look odd but when percentages are stated, do these numbers reflect that the ocean and other processes absorb ~50% of the CO2 emitted? (NOAA)

BTW, I know I have seen numbers much much higher for ocean absorption (IIRC ~90%), which I think is confusion between CO2 and heat.

The media is doing a terrible job. Some of it I suspect is intentional, but I think most of it is sloppiness or ignorance, and often there is no way to get back to the original paper.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: vox_mundi on July 08, 2019, 03:12:22 AM
Bye bye biodiversity ...

The Wrong Kind of Trees: Ireland's Afforestation Meets Resistance   
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/07/the-wrong-kind-of-trees-irelands-afforestation-meets-resistance

From having just 1% forest cover in 1900, Ireland now has 11%, covering 770,000 hectares. It has just committed to planting 8,000 more hectares each year to reach 18% coverage.

Research published last week said planting billions of trees across the world was the biggest and cheapest way to tackle the climate crisis.

But some in Ireland have a problem with the great green vision. They say Ireland is planting the wrong sort of forests – dark, dank abominations that kill wildlife, block sunlight and isolate communities

The offending species is Sitka spruce, a coniferous evergreen that dominates Ireland’s afforestation programme. Originally from North America, it grows quickly and tall – up to 100 metres – and flourishes in Ireland’s damp, temperate climate.

About half of Ireland’s trees are Sitka spruces, many in packed phalanxes that blanket hills and valleys.
They supply wood for pulp, plywood, pallets, fencing, garden furniture and building materials, much of it exported to Britain.

... Private companies, encouraged by tax breaks, followed. Farm land vanished as Sitkas multiplied. They now number an estimated 34.5m – more than 1,000 for each inhabitant.

The trees mature in about 30 years – exponentially faster than oak – and are then felled, making way for a fresh plantation.

Save Leitrim activists say their county has been a laboratory for such plantations – “a national sacrifice zone” – and that the results are a warning to the rest of the country.

“We’re not anti-trees, we’re anti-this,” ... “It’s industrial monoculture – a green barrier all around us. It’s horrible.”
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: sidd on July 08, 2019, 06:09:19 AM
Re: trees for carbon drawdown

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,363.msg210986.html#msg210986

the number is 205 GT carbon, not CO2

sidd
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Neven on July 08, 2019, 07:25:59 AM
“We’re not anti-trees, we’re anti-this,” ... “It’s industrial monoculture – a green barrier all around us. It’s horrible.”

Literally Green BAU.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: b_lumenkraft on July 08, 2019, 11:56:32 AM
a green barrier all around us

and

Quote
Ireland

They don't want green... in Ireland...

Think about it.  ;D
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: anthropocene on July 09, 2019, 12:46:14 AM
This looked wrong straight-away. Checking seems to confirm this. Looking at wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere)  1ppm of C02 is approx. 8Gt of CO2 (other sites have slightly different figures but doesn't make much difference).
Saying pre-industrial was 280 ppm CO2 and so increase in C02 since pre-industrial is  (410 - 280)  =130ppm which gives a figure of approx. 1040 Gt of CO2 added.  This means above quote is out by approx a factor of 3. Is this just a confusion between mass of CO2 and Carbon on it's own?  If so, where is the error introduced - is it just a typo in to above quote and it should be "pull down around 200 gigatonnes of carbon"?

I don't know enough in this area to comment on the process, but you raise a pet peeve of mine. Unless we refer back to actual scientific papers, it seems we are chasing moving goalposts. Even then, it can be very difficult to make sure you are comparing apples to apples.


Thanks for the response. I would have linked to the original paper but of course it looks like it is pay-walled. Science needs to become more transparent: freely accessible papers and access to data as well. I don't know how publications make money out of that model but it is an area which needs improvement. It would create a step change in the quality of science and also force the reporting on science to up its game.  (Anyway - that's most probably enough off-topic).
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Pragma on July 09, 2019, 01:05:59 AM
Thanks for the response. I would have linked to the original paper but of course it looks like it is pay-walled. Science needs to become more transparent: freely accessible papers and access to data as well. I don't know how publications make money out of that model but it is an area which needs improvement. It would create a step change in the quality of science and also force the reporting on science to up its game.  (Anyway - that's most probably enough off-topic).

Just to be clear, I wasn't complaining about you. I understand the whole paywall thing, for information we have usually already paid for.  >:( I just find so much reporting sloppy.

Maybe if the subsequent reporting was peer reviewed, they would shape up. Hmmm...that's an intriguing idea.  ;)

Cheers,
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: kassy on July 09, 2019, 10:04:08 PM
That paywalling is one of my pet peeves.

So scientists working at public universities write papers and review them and in between there is a publisher that gets it for free then overcharges it selling the subscriptions to the same institutions.

Everyone seems to take it for granted which is one thing which disappointed me at the time.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Pragma on July 09, 2019, 11:23:00 PM
I think it's pretty much agreed that it's a racket and Elsevier is one of the worst. There are a number of user groups that consist of a data base or members that have access, and if you ask nicely, they will fetch it and/or forward it. I got a paper through a friend that was little more than a pamphlet with zero new information and it would have cost me ~$25 to find that out.

It is highway robbery, because as you say, they are selling what they get for free. When you consider what Google/Youtube downloads for free, for the hope of an ad click for microdollars, you know these bandits are making a fortune. Service charge? For a download, not a hard copy? Bullshit!

In many cases, I literally helped pay for it!!! >:(

I have heard noises that people are tired of it and things might change soon, but I won't hold my breath.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Sebastian Jones on July 10, 2019, 06:54:14 AM
Have you tried sci-hub for opening paywalled scientific papers? I use it regularly, generally to discover the paper was not what I needed...It's an interesting story how it came to be. https://sci-hub.tw (https://sci-hub.tw)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: dnem on July 10, 2019, 01:42:14 PM
I have written dozens if not hundreds of authors asking for a reprint.  Back in the day it was a hard copy; these days a PDF.  I've never failed to get one for free. 

Just email the author and say "Hey, saw your really interesting abstract. I'd love a copy of your paper."
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Stephan on July 10, 2019, 08:57:04 PM
In Germany the big drought of 2018 and insufficient rain in 2019 leads to a massive dying of trees. At first the spruce trees were "infected" by zillions of bark beetles, then funghi attacked pine trees, and now a massive die-off of beech trees in central Germany started.
See attached a report from Wetteronline.de. Just look at the huge areas of dead or dying trees in the movie (sorry it is spoken in German).

https://www.wetteronline.de/wetterticker/video-trockenheit-laesst-buchen-sterben-201907103003198
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Tunnelforce9 on July 20, 2019, 07:27:07 AM
Quote
preliminary satellite data released by Inpe showed that more than 1,000 sq km (400 sq miles) of the (Brasilian) rainforest had been cleared in the first 15 days of July - an increase of 68% from the entire month of July 2018.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-49052360
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Stephan on July 21, 2019, 09:46:08 PM
The situation in Germany is quite bad. To cut dead or infected trees and bring them out of the forests at least 2.1 billion € are needed - and in the same time the price forest owners get for that wood depleted by 50-70%. In many cases they have to spend more money in cutting the trees than they receive later on selling the wood. "It goes beyond what we can afford" said one forest owner to BR5 radio today. And without cutting all of those dead, infected or dying trees and without sufficient rain in the next months a re-forestation is almost impossible.
Weather forecast for the next two weeks in Germany: 31-39°C, mostly dry, some isolated thunderstorms. That is definitively not what is needed now...
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: kassy on July 22, 2019, 01:33:38 PM
That´s bad...sounds like a recipe for forest fires. Please keep us posted. There is no disaster aid for events like these?
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Stephan on July 22, 2019, 02:47:54 PM
The crop-failure of 2018 and the die-off of forests in 2019 was a kind of wake-up call for our conservative-social democratic federal government.
It has announced 0.6 billion € of aid for the forest-owners. To avoid a mis-use of this money they have to define clear descriptions who can benefit from which amount of money. It is too few, of course, and this process will take some time. Probably not before 2020 some funding can be paid out.
The same with the crop-failure last year. Many of the farmers, some already in a precarious state, wait since then. The problem here is that federal government is not responsible, as both EU laws and federal state regulations have to be obeyed. And, again here, they try to avoid a mis-use of the money.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: blumenkraft on August 01, 2019, 07:08:28 PM
354 million seedlings in twelve hours
Ethiopia breaks world record in planting trees


Link >> https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.spiegel.de%2Fwissenschaft%2Fnatur%2Faethiopien-pflanzt-354-millionen-baeume-in-zwoelf-stunden-weltrekord-a-1279624.html
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: El Cid on August 01, 2019, 08:18:02 PM
The crop-failure of 2018 and the die-off of forests in 2019 was a kind of wake-up call for our conservative-social democratic federal government.
It has announced 0.6 billion € of aid for the forest-owners. To avoid a mis-use of this money they have to define clear descriptions who can benefit from which amount of money. It is too few, of course, and this process will take some time. Probably not before 2020 some funding can be paid out.
The same with the crop-failure last year. Many of the farmers, some already in a precarious state, wait since then. The problem here is that federal government is not responsible, as both EU laws and federal state regulations have to be obeyed. And, again here, they try to avoid a mis-use of the money.

As I have written on another thread: maybe, we should not subsidize these monoculture forests, which get sick exactly because they are (mostly) monocultures. They have no immune system and we are surprised when they get sick. We should create biodiverse forests that resist all sorts of sicknesses, flood, heat and cold much better. These forest-problems are totally man-made.

(just a sidenote: me and my partners have literally planted more than a million trees on many-many hectares, I know what I am talking about)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: vox_mundi on August 01, 2019, 11:22:46 PM
Plants Use More Water in Soils Leached by Acid Rain, West Virginia Forest Study Shows
https://phys.org/news/2019-07-previously-unknown-mechanism-forest.html

Bad news for global forests (and other plants)

In a study published in the journal Science Advances, the researchers report the mechanism works this way: Sulfuric and nitric acid fall to the ground when fossil fuels are burnedl, causing acidification of the soi.

When that happens, a significant amount of soil calcium washes out of the soil, and then plants suffer from calcium deficiency. Calcium deficiency causes the plants to intensify their use of water.


Calcium plays a unique role in plant cells by regulating the minute pores, called stomata, in the plants' leaves or stems, Wang said. If plants don't have enough calcium, they can't close those pores, and their water use increases. Also, when plants suffer from calcium deficiency, they will pump up more water through transpiration, the process of water movement through a plant and its evaporation from leaves, to meet their calcium demand, he said.

"We hypothesized that the leaching of the soil calcium supply, induced by acid deposition, would increase large-scale vegetation water use," Lanning said. "We present evidence from a long-term whole watershed acidification experiment demonstrating that the alteration of the soil calcium supply by acid deposition can significantly intensify water use."

The researchers found multiple lines of evidence showing that calcium leaching induced by acid deposition not only increased vegetation water use but markedly decreased the soil water pool on the treated watershed.

Quote
... "When plants are always using a lot of water, it means there will be less water left for people," ... "It also means that these plants are very sensitive to drought. If a drought comes, and they can't close their stomata, they are subject to high levels of mortality due to water stress."

(https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/5/7/eaav5168/F5.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1)

Open Access: Matthew Lanning,  et.al. Intensified vegetation water use under acid deposition (https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/7/eaav5168), Science Advances  31 Jul 2019: Vol. 5, no. 7, eaav5168
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Stephan on August 02, 2019, 08:56:25 PM
I have just spent a holiday week in Weserbergland, located a little bit NW from the centre of Germany, a hilly-mountaineous region along the Weser river. I hiked a lot through the forests and there is no place from which you can NOT see a dying or a dead tree. It is not only the spruce trees or the beeches, many other species are also affected. And this region here has a rich and complicated geology, which shows that tree damages are not concentrated exclusively over e.g. sandstone ridges or hills made of limestone.
It is a real shame how German forests look like. And you can hear the sounds of chainsaws everywhere. Big heaps of wood are placed along the trails in the forests, waiting to be transported into the next sawmill.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: blumenkraft on August 02, 2019, 09:01:13 PM
there is no place from which you can NOT see a dying or a dead tree. It is not only the spruce trees or the beeches,

Palatinate forest/Germany right before my living room windows. Same here. I see like 20 dead trees (mostly birches). And way more having yellow leaves/dead branches.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: vox_mundi on August 06, 2019, 06:20:28 PM
Limits of Rainforest Growth
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-limits-rainforest-growth.html

According to estimates by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Amazon rainforests absorb a quarter of the carbon dioxide that is released each year from the combustion of fossil fuels. To date, global climate models have assumed that this absorption capacity will also remain constant in the future.

"But there has been no proof of this to date," emphasizes Dr. Katrin Fleischer. "It is entirely possible that the absorption capacity will even decrease."
The ecologist from the Professorship for Land Surface-Atmosphere Interactions at the Technical University of Munich worked together with ecologists and ecosystem modelers from 10 countries to investigate the extent to which the nutrient supply in the Amazon region limits the production of biomass.

"Most ecosystem models which allow the future development of ecosystems to be simulated were developed for the temperate latitudes, where there is generally sufficient phosphorus. However, in many areas of the Amazon region, it is in short supply—the ecosystem is many million years old, and the soil is leached of nutrients."

In order to find out how the rainforest will react to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, the researchers selected 14 different ecosystem models. All models were then used to simulate biomass production for the next 15 years: first for the current carbon dioxide concentration of 400 ppm and in a second scenario for an increased concentration of 600 ppm.

The result: Additional carbon dioxide can be absorbed by the trees and transformed into biomass—but only if sufficient phosphorous is available. If it becomes too scarce, the CO2 fertilization effect once again decreases.

Quote
... "This would mean that the rainforest has already reached its limit and would be unable to absorb any more carbon dioxide emissions caused by human kind," ... "If this scenario turns out to be true, the Earth's climate would heat up significantly faster than assumed to date."

(https://media.springernature.com/m312/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41561-019-0404-9/MediaObjects/41561_2019_404_Fig1_HTML.png?as=webp)

Katrin Fleischer et al, Amazon forest response to CO2 fertilization dependent on plant phosphorus acquisition (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0404-9), Nature Geoscience (2019).
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on August 13, 2019, 02:50:32 AM
Indians plant 220,000,000 trees in one day
Dozens of species of saplings were planted in over 1.4 million locations, including 60,000 villages
https://grist.org/beacon/220-millions-trees-grow-in-india/
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: vox_mundi on August 15, 2019, 03:30:35 PM
If you understand the science of this - this is VERY BAD!

--------------

Research: Link Between Increased Atmospheric Vapor Deficit and Worldwide Loss of Vegetation
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-link-atmospheric-vapor-deficit-worldwide.html

Scientists have been studying the possible repercussions of global warming for several years, and suggest it is likely to lead not only to warmer temperatures, but also changes to weather patterns. One such weather change not often mentioned is VPD, which is the difference in air pressure due to water vapor during fully saturated times versus times when it unsaturated. When VPD is increasing, there is less water in the air. VPD is important because of its impact on plants. When VPD rises a certain amount, plants react by closing their stomata, the pores in their leaves, to prevent water loss. But this also shuts down the release of oxygen and the absorption of carbon dioxide—partially shutting down photosynthesis and slowing growth. In this new effort, the researchers wondered if there might be a connection between observed losses of vegetation worldwide and changes to VPD in some parts of the world.

To find out, the researchers obtained datasets that included observation information from across the globe going all the way back to the 1950s. When focusing on VPD, they found that prior to the 1990s, VPD increased only slightly. But after 1998, the VPD grew quite dramatically—by up to 17 times over the next several years in some places, and it remained at those levels. They also found that over half of all vegetated land on the planet experienced a rise in VPD. The researchers also found that the upswing in VPD occurred in lockstep with the rise in global temperatures and the decrease in worldwide vegetative cover. They suggest that global warming is pushing VPD ever higher, resulting in more loss of vegetation—and because the planet is growing hotter, they predict that VPD will continue to increase, as well, resulting in diminishing vegetative cover.

(https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/5/8/eaax1396/F1.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1)
Fig. 1 Global mean vapor pressure deficit (VPD) anomalies of vegetated area over the growing season

Open Access: Wenping Yuan et al. Increased atmospheric vapor pressure deficit reduces global vegetation growth (https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/8/eaax1396), Science Advances (2019).
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Stephan on August 18, 2019, 11:41:13 AM
Indians plant 220,000,000 trees in one day
Dozens of species of saplings were planted in over 1.4 million locations, including 60,000 villages

That is an impressive number, even if only 60% of the trees will survive in the end.
Two questions arose: How many trees are cut in India every day (averaged over the year) and will this joint effort be repeated soon?
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: kassy on August 18, 2019, 04:35:03 PM
All these trees have been planted in Uttar Pradesh state so you would need the number of trees lost in that state.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: TerryM on August 19, 2019, 04:38:45 PM
All these trees have been planted in Uttar Pradesh state so you would need the number of trees lost in that state.


Why?


GHG is a global problem, so where the trees are planted should be immaterial.


Or am I missing something?
Thanks
Terry
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: nanning on August 19, 2019, 05:47:45 PM
Terry, I think you missed this:

<snip>
That is an impressive number, even if only 60% of the trees will survive in the end.
Two questions arose: How many trees are cut in India every day (averaged over the year) and will this joint effort be repeated soon?
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: kassy on August 19, 2019, 06:13:14 PM
Yes.

The initial quote said trees planted in India but India is rather big. UP is about as big as the UK.

Its a bit like Wales planting millions of trees and then saying the UK did so.

I think Stephan wants to know how meaningful that number is and in that case it would make sense to look at the trees cut in UP.

We won´t get that number because no one uses that metric or actually counts the trees.
We usually look at forest cover. Trend is slightly positive overall for 2015 to 2017.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_cover_by_state_in_India

And i think this will actually be repeated and be done in other Indian states as well because it is rather easy to do. I have read other reports on tree plantings there but they were smaller so i never considered posting them.

Actually people plant trees all over the world but it should be much more important to preserve old growth forests where we not just lose trees but the other plants and animals that evolved with them. Of course we are doing badly at that...
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: TerryM on August 19, 2019, 08:57:37 PM
My Bad :-[


I'd like everyone to quit burning any and all wood.


I've seen very large downed screw pine logs in fringe desert that must have lived during pluvial ice age times. The area won't support cactus today.


Dead a long time, but still sequestering some carbon.


Not the petrified variety that are even older, but more akin to the very old stumps on Baffin Island or Ellesmere that explorers burned to heat their tents.
John England carbon dated stumps at the heads of arctic fjords that had survived many thousands of years trapped behind the ice shelves that grew in colder times.


Burning wood releases ~ twice the CO2 of coal to produce the same amount of heat.
Terry
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on August 22, 2019, 01:27:33 AM
Quote
Brazil's Amazon rainforest has seen a record number of fires this year, new space agency data suggests.
The National Institute for Space Research (Inpe) said its satellite data showed an 84% increase on the same period in 2018.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-49415973
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: nanning on August 22, 2019, 05:22:41 AM
Tom, I posted the very same link yesterday in the wildfires thread
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1368.msg223522.html#msg223522
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Gray-Wolf on August 22, 2019, 12:52:07 PM
I used to think it would be the drying and dying of the Amazon, combined with lightning strikes, that would lead to this scale of fire....... I thought 'Man' too aware to ever be so stupid???
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on August 22, 2019, 02:26:25 PM
Tom, I posted the very same link yesterday in the wildfires thread
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1368.msg223522.html#msg223522
Yeah, there are links that could fit in different topics. Sorry.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: gerontocrat on August 22, 2019, 04:58:03 PM
THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

China / US Trade stand-off.

One of the major drivers of Brazil deforestation is, at the moment, and likely for some time to come, probably one Donald Trump.

And the man who started much of it? Richard Nixon.

There is also little doubt that one cause of the current rash of wildfires is farmers clearing land.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/14/politics/china-us-soybeans-brazil-nixon/index.html
China doesn't need US soybeans, thanks to Richard Nixon
Quote
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump is upset with China for buying Brazilian soybeans instead of American ones amid the ongoing trade war, but the South American industry got its start thanks to an earlier round of protectionist policies under President Richard Nixon.

Nixon temporarily froze the prices of consumer goods and restricted exports of food in 1973 in response to rising inflation, a move that essentially cut off exports of US soybeans. It worked, creating a surplus and lowering prices for American consumers. But the embargo -- which lasted for just three months -- prompted Brazil to step up its supply, particularly to Japan, creating a formidable competitor on the world agricultural stage and leaving a lasting impact on the American soybean industry.

"It inspired the Japanese to go look for somebody else and, basically, that action created the Brazilian soybean industry," said Andrew Novaković, a professor of agricultural economics at Cornell University.

Brazil nearly tripled its soybean production over the next decade, and growth continued as Japan made financial investments to help turn Brazil's wooded grasslands into a suitable place to grow soybeans -- a move that also accelerated deforestation in the country.

Now Brazil is the second biggest soybean producer in the world, and it's where China's farmers have been getting a lot of their soybeans since Beijing imposed retaliatory tariffs on US agriculture.

Last year was an "extraordinary one for Brazilian soybean producers," according to a recent report from the US Department of Agriculture. Demand from China grow by more than 20%.
Before Beijing targeted US-grown agricultural products with tariffs, China was the biggest market for American soybean growers.

Some US farmers, who have been some of those hardest hit by the trade war, are worried they won't ever get the Chinese market back. "I don't think, from an agricultural perspective, that we'll be a primary supplier to China again," said Grant Kimberley, who grows soybeans and corn in Iowa and is the director of market development at the Iowa Soybean Association.
"I think the Chinese are pouring money into South America right now," he added.

There is little reason for China to go back into the US market. Their foreign policy of increasing their influence and presence in the world supports development of trading relationships with Brazil. Brazil plans to increase soy production substantially. (see below)

One wonders how much of the additional area of 95,000 km2 will be from detruction of virgin woodland.

http://soybeansandcorn.com/news/Aug1_19-Brazil-Ministry-Soy-Production-to-Expand-32_9-Over-Next-Decade
August 1, 2019
Brazil Ministry - Soy Production to Expand 32.9% over next Decade
Quote
Brazil's soybean production could increase 32.9% over the next 10 years to 151.9 million tons according to a long term study from the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture released last Friday.

Soybeans - The Ministry estimates that over the next decade, Brazil's soybean acreage could increase 9.5 million hectares or 26.6% to 45.3 million hectares in 2029 (111.8 million acres). Of all the major crops in Brazil, the soybean acreage will expand the most over the next 10 years, although it will still be less than the 67% it expanded over the past decade.

Brazilian soybean acreage is expected to expand in four areas. In northeastern Brazil, which is comprised of the states Maranhao, Tocantins, Piaui and Bahia, commonly referred to as the Matopiba region, soybean acreage is expected to expand 14.9% over the next decade. There is still land available in the region at relatively cheap prices and the climate in the region is generally favorable and similar to the climate in the cerrado region of central Brazil. One of the biggest challenges in the region is the general lack of infrastructure, but that is slowly improving. On the positive side, the region is relatively close to export facilities which would help to hold down the cost of transportation.

Another area of expansion will be in the cerrado areas of central Brazil as farmers convert degraded pastures to row crop production. Land prices are relatively expensive in states such as Mato Grosso, so it is more economical to convert pastures to row crop production than it is to purchase new land for the same purpose. This pasture conversion is occurring all across the cerrado regions of central Brazil.

In areas where there is not any new land or pastures available, soybean acreage will expand by substituting for other crops. That is what is happening in states such as Parana where farmers are opting for less full-season corn production in favor of increased soybean acreage. The full-season corn is then converted to safrinha corn planted after the soybeans are harvested.

Lastly, additional soybean acreage is expected on the southern fringe of the Amazonian states of Rondonia and Para where land prices are still relatively cheap.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: kassy on August 22, 2019, 05:08:02 PM
And thus we sacrifice the Amazon. At least it makes sense on some level. >:(
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: nanning on August 22, 2019, 06:56:40 PM
Yes indeed kassy, I think we all are  >:(
Especially considering what is being lost. All that biodiversity and complex ecosystems and original human tribes. Gone. Destroyed. Never to come back.  >:(
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: bluice on August 22, 2019, 07:43:42 PM
Every now and then it’s possible to watch stupidity manifest itself in truly historical proportions.

Such event is now taking place in Brazil.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on August 23, 2019, 03:08:15 AM
Brazilian minister booed at climate event as outcry grows over Amazon fires
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/22/brazilian-minister-booed-at-climate-event-as-outcry-grows-over-amazon-fires
Quote
The environment minister of Brazil, where wildfires have been sweeping the Amazon rainforest, was booed at a climate event on Wednesday as celebrities including Leonardo DiCaprio and Ariana Grande joined an international chorus of criticism.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Human Habitat Index on August 23, 2019, 03:16:46 AM
Yes indeed kassy, I think we all are  >:(
Especially considering what is being lost. All that biodiversity and complex ecosystems and original human tribes. Gone. Destroyed. Never to come back.  >:(

Nanning, have you seen Ten Canoes ?, I think you will enjoy it  :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2QVOslNuFHw

Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: kassy on August 23, 2019, 03:01:23 PM
At least most European countries seem appalled by the current fires. There is a free trade deal with Brazil in the signatory stage so they might use this as leverage. 
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: DrTskoul on August 23, 2019, 03:42:44 PM
Yet, more acres have been burned in Siberia than in the Amazon. I understand the news cycle and the images but forest fires are a worldwide scourge....

However most Amazon fires are due to land clearing by farmers...

It is a sad state of affairs...
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: blumenkraft on August 23, 2019, 09:10:41 PM
Dr.T, Bolsonaro promised to cut down the rainforest before the election. He ran on this message. People voted for him because of this!

You need to know that the slash-and-burn method is the common method to 'cut down' forest in this region.

Comparing this situation with the situation in Siberia is therefore not sensible imho. One is a political problem, the other is climate change related.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: kassy on August 24, 2019, 08:28:12 AM
A decree issued by President Jair Bolsonaro authorises the deployment of soldiers in nature reserves, indigenous lands and border areas in the region.

The announcement comes after intense pressure from European leaders.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-49452789
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: kassy on August 24, 2019, 09:20:22 AM
It's Not Just Brazil's Amazon - Bolivia's Vital Forests Are Burning Out of Control, Too

Up to 800,000 hectares of the unique Chiquitano forest were burned to the ground in Bolivia between August 18 and August 23. That's more forest than is usually destroyed across the country in two years.

...

The Chiquitano dry forest in Bolivia was the largest healthy tropical dry forest in the world. It's now unclear whether it will retain that status. The forest is home to Indigenous peoples as well as iconic wildlife such as jaguars, giant armadillos, and tapirs. Some species in the Chiquitano are found nowhere else on Earth.

https://www.sciencealert.com/it-s-not-just-brazil-s-amazon-bolivia-s-vital-forests-are-on-fire-too

Their president first stated Bolivia did not need help - they are fighting this fire with 3 helicopters.

The article states it will take up too two centuries to undo the damage while the climate trent and further human abuse will only do more damage in that time.

So i press F for the Chiquitano dry forest.  :'(
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: PSJ on August 24, 2019, 09:50:25 AM
Great article in NYT about what satellite time series tell us about this year's fires in the Amazon

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/08/24/world/americas/amazon-rain-forest-fire-maps.html
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: PSJ on August 24, 2019, 09:52:31 AM
And this one
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: kassy on August 24, 2019, 10:34:53 AM
That 2011/2018 average map vs 2019 is really cool. You can clearly see this is human encroachment. Thx!
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: blumenkraft on August 24, 2019, 06:57:06 PM
NASA Earth Observatory image by Joshua Stevens, using MODIS data from NASA EOSDIS/LANCE and GIBS/Worldview, Fire Information for Resource Management System (FIRMS) data from NASA EOSDIS, and data from the Global Fire Emissions Database (GFED).⁣

(https://i.redd.it/p0n4eugejei31.jpg)
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on August 25, 2019, 11:28:14 AM
But 2003-2010 was actually worse than now?
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: PSJ on August 25, 2019, 11:43:08 AM
But 2003-2010 was actually worse than now?

Higher rates of deforestation then yes, but now as the original forest cover shrinks every unit of deforestation is much more serious as it shrinks the carbon sink and we are much closer to the tipping point of where the first might not produce enough water vapour to sustain itself as a first and turn into a Savannah.

Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on September 04, 2019, 06:42:07 PM
Ireland planning to plant 440 million trees over the next 20 years
https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/459591-ireland-planning-to-plant-440-million-trees-over-the-next-20-years
Quote
A spokeswoman for the government’s Department of Communications Climate Action and Environment told the local newspaper that the “climate action plan commits to delivering an expansion of forestry planting and soil management to ensure that carbon abatement from land-use is delivered over the period 2021 to 2030 and in the years beyond.”

“The plan sets out key actions to be taken by the Department of Agriculture,” she continued, adding: “The target for new forestation is approximately 22 million trees per year. Over the next 20 years, the target is to plant 440 million.”

Giant Norway pension fund weighs Brazil divestment over Amazon deforestation
https://news.mongabay.com/2019/09/giant-norway-pension-fund-weighs-brazil-divestment-over-amazon-deforestation/
Quote
KLP, Norway’s largest pension fund, with over US$80 billion in assets, is saying it may divest from transnational commodities traders operating in Brazil such as Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Bunge and Cargill, if they work with producers who contribute to deforestation. KLP has $50 million in shares and loans with the firms.
KLP is also reaching out to other investors to lobby them to use their financial influence to curb Amazon deforestation via supply chains. On August 28, Nordea, the largest asset management group in the Nordic region announced a temporary quarantine on Brazilian government bonds in response to this year’s Amazon fires.
International investment firms play a pivotal role in preserving or deforesting the Amazon. A new report found that mega-investment house BlackRock ranks among the top three shareholders in 25 of the largest public “deforestation-risk” companies, firms dealing in soy, beef, palm oil, pulp and paper, rubber and timber.
The Amazon deforestation process is complex. But it often proceeds by the following steps: land speculators invade the rainforest, illegally cut down and sell the most valuable timber, then set fire to the rest; they then can sell the land for 100-200 times its previous worth to cattle ranchers, who may eventually sell it to soy growers.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on September 06, 2019, 11:23:40 PM
New report reveals northern Ecuadorian region has lost 61 percent of forests
https://news.mongabay.com/2019/09/new-report-reveals-northern-ecuadorian-region-has-lost-61-percent-of-forests/
Quote
The Mache-Chindul Ecological Reserve maintains only 61 percent of its original plant cover. The area’s ecological significance is partly due to its sitting in a transition zone between humid tropical forests and seasonally dry forests.
In Cotacachi-Cayapas Park, a high level of conservation success represents a source of hope. Now the challenge is to connect the park to private reserves to guarantee protection of the most-threatened lowland forests.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on September 13, 2019, 10:36:27 PM
World 'losing battle' on 2020 goal to cut deforestation
http://news.trust.org/item/20190912123534-rteig/
Quote
The 2014 New York Declaration on Forests garnered more than 200 signatories among countries, companies and green groups, including the governments of Colombia, Norway and the United States and consumer goods giants such as McDonald's and Walmart.

Nonetheless, the world lost more than 26 million hectares of trees - an area the size of Britain - each year from 2014-2018.

That represented a 43% jump in the global rate of tree loss compared with the period 2001-2013, said the report issued on Thursday ahead of a U.N. climate summit on Sept. 23.
Title: Re: Global Forest Watch
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on September 21, 2019, 02:00:10 AM
Trump Wants to Log an Enormous Alaska Forest. These Native Women Traveled 3,000 Miles to Stop It.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2019/09/trump-wants-to-log-an-enormous-alaska-forest-these-native-women-traveled-3000-miles-to-stop-it/
Quote
“If we had dressed in office clothing to meet the standards of DC,” says Wanda Culp, who wore vibrant red, blue, and black robes, “we would have just melted into the crowds that were going into those offices every 15 to 30 minutes.”

In March, Culp and three other indigenous women traveled to Washington, DC, from their home in Southeast Alaska, to meet with lawmakers in an attempt to persuade them to protect the Tongass National Forest. As part of a delegation organized by Women’s Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN), a nonprofit group that engages women worldwide in environmental advocacy, they walked the halls of Congress wearing formal Tlingit regalia instead of pantsuits and plain dresses. “We stood out that way,” explains Culp, who is part of the Tlingit people. “We couldn’t be ignored.”