If you read the article carefully, there is quite a disconnect between what they are saying and what they actually measured. If the article is correct about wha

If you read the article carefully, there is quite a disconnect between what they are saying and what they actually measured. If the article is correct about what they did actually measure then the study is mostly useless. To validate their hypothesis, they would need to get into the regions and place measuring equipment to collect on the ground in-situ data. Notice that their measurements were taken from space, which is really only a precursor set of data. They need to get into the forests and do onsite measurements to validate or invalidate their ideas. The space data would tell them where to set up their measuring stations. Now that data would be quite intriguing as it should show up just how critical the problem is. It may well be more critical than they estimate This kind of experimental technique is quite faulty and incomplete. For me, it would be great to see a really comprehensive set of data taken at many points over a large region.