3 ms·
That is the point where someone bring up photos from almost 100 years ago and make comparison photo of today and notice the obvious: there is a lot more trees i
by belorn 6y ago
That is the point where someone bring up photos from almost 100 years ago and make comparison photo of today and notice the obvious: there is a lot more trees in the old photos.
- chrisco255 6y agoNot 100 years ago, maybe in urban areas that got converted to buildings, but overall, forest acreage in the U.S. has been flat for the past 100 years. If you go back to early 1800s, that would have been a time when acreage was about 25% higher: https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2012/ForestFacts_1952-2012_English.pdf https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2012/Forest...
- belorn 6y agoTalking globally, deforestation results in a net decrease in forest biomass and been like that for a very long time. Talking US specific, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_St... gives peaks and valleys depending on which time frame but a distinct decrease each year since 1963 with exception during the year of 1997. It is not flat.
- chrisco255 6y agoObviously I don't mean perfectly flat, when we're talking an organic, dynamic system. The trend is flat. See page 7 of the document I linked from the USDA. Even the page you link shows: 766,000,000 acres (3,100,000 km2) in 2012 and 721,000,000 acres (2,920,000 km2) around 1920. Note: "The majority of deforestation took place prior to 1910"