4 ms·

can't believe. what about the Amazon forest decimation threads we've had here?

• zpeti 5y ago
  Your brain is wired to upvote and share apocalyptic news more than positive news.
  • fzzzy 5y ago
    No, it's just that there is not as much forest that is as easily exploitable as there was in the 80s, so of course the rate has to go down. We already cut most of it down. [edit] forest cover is still going down. we are not increasing the amount of forest. the first derivative of forest has gone down. that's meaningless. forest is still going to approach zero at the current rate.
    • goatlover 5y ago
      "In total, the increase in leaf area over the past two decades corresponds to an area as large as the Amazon rainforest. There are now over two million square kilometers more green leaf area compared to the beginning of the 2000s. That is an increase of five percent." https://www.warpnews.org/human-progress/nasa-the-earth-is-greener-now-than-it-was-20-years-ago/ https://www.warpnews.org/human-progress/nasa-the-earth-is-gr... As the article notes, it's not all good news and deforestation needs to decrease in certain regions. But it's also not true that we already cut most of it down. There are more trees today than 20 and 100 years ago.
      • jeffbee 5y ago
        Global forest proliferation and Amazon deforestation can happen at the same time.
      • fzzzy 5y ago
        You understand that old growth forest and new growth forest have completely different ecological profiles, right? False equivalence. Regreening of new growth forest does not make up for the same amount of area as old growth.
        • goatlover 5y ago
          Shifting the goal posts. The article and the comments were not talking about ecological profiles, but rather deforestation.
          • fzzzy 5y ago
            Sorry, but you are just straight up wrong. Even if reforestation percentage has increased in recent years, the derivative of forest is still negative, and the reforestation is new growth, which as I mentioned is not as ecologically useful. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.FRST.ZS https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.FRST.ZS
      • anothernewdude 5y ago
        > There are more trees today than 20 You didn't read the article.
        • goatlover 5y ago
          I did read it and there I've read others that say this: https://news.mongabay.com/2018/08/earth-has-more-trees-now-than-35-years-ago/ https://news.mongabay.com/2018/08/earth-has-more-trees-now-t... I take it that trend held up over the last 20 years given what NASA has reported on plant growth increasing by 5% this century. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/146296/global-green-up-slows-warming https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/146296/global-green... Deforestation and reforestation are separate measurements, but the article does mention both and here is a quote: "For the past 30 years, temperate regions have seen a continued increase in forest cover through afforestation: you see this as the bars are now ‘positive’ (pointing upwards). Across temperate forests the world gained 6 million hectares in the last decade."
          • anothernewdude 5y ago
            Then you don't understand what a net loss is, and you ignore the massive caveats of the article you cite to push your point. You're all over this thread pushing bad faith arguments. Who pays you?
• goatlover 5y ago
  It was much worse in the 1980s. There was serious concern back then that the Amazon would mostly be gone by now. But the deforestation rate has declined since then. It's still far from ideal, and there was a recent surge. But it's not apocalyptic.
  • _Microft 5y ago
    From what I know the damage to the Amazon rainforest is greater than ever. Some models seem to suggest that a savannah could be another stable state that the region could exist in. Fears are now that the area could undergo a rapid transition between these states because the decreasing rainforest coverage can no longer give rise to the weather patterns that help to sustain it.
    • marcosdumay 5y ago
      Well, it's not greater than ever. It's among the largest (not the largest) numbers on the current time series, that started at the late 90's. It's known that the entire series is much lower than the historic amounts, but the previous data is not precise enough to tell by how much. The rest of your comment is spot on, but those fears have been there since the 70's. Of course, as deforestation continues, we move closer and closer to that scenario, but nobody can tell if it's actually any close. Anyway, systematic forest loss due to increased temperatures (and the weather changes they bring) is much more worrisome, since this one is already happening all around the world.
• _Microft 5y ago
  Temperate forests, like we have them in North America, Europe and northern Asia (i.e. Russia) are growing back. The Amazon is a rainforest and these are still being cut down faster than they regrow.