Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

More trees than there were 100 years ago? It's true!
Mother Nature Network ^ | Feb. 9, 2011 | Starre Vartan

Posted on 02/09/2011 5:24:51 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY

The numbers are in.

In the United States, which contains 8 percent of the world's forests, there are more trees than there were 100 years ago. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), "Forest growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s.

By 1997, forest growth exceeded harvest by 42 percent and the volume of forest growth was 380 percent greater than it had been in 1920."

The greatest gains have been seen on the East Coast (with average volumes of wood per acre almost doubling since the '50s) which was the area most heavily logged by European settlers beginning in the 1600s, soon after their arrival.

This is great news for those who care about the environment because trees store CO2, produce oxygen — which is necessary for all life on Earth — remove toxins from the air, and create habitat for animals, insects and more basic forms of life.

Well-managed forest plantations like those overseen by the Forest Stewardship Council also furnish us with wood, a renewable material that can be used for building, furniture, paper products and more, and all of which are biodegradable at the end of their lifecycle.

The increase in trees is due to a number of factors, including conservation and preservation of national parks, responsible tree growing within plantations — which have been planting more trees than they harvest — and the movement of the majority of the population from rural areas to more densely populated areas, such as cities and suburbs.

Tree planting efforts begun in the 1950s are paying off and there is more public awareness about the importance of trees and forests.

(Excerpt) Read more at mnn.com ...


TOPICS: Science
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 02/09/2011 5:24:52 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Oh give the tree huggers time...they will get around to banning oxygen.


2 posted on 02/09/2011 5:27:14 PM PST by Soothesayer9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

{Photoshop of Al Gore face into baghdad bob picture}

No, no. There is no good news about trees. Sky is falling, All is death and pain. Your family is going to die in 2012. It’s the republicans’ fault.


3 posted on 02/09/2011 5:30:41 PM PST by Christian Engineer Mass (25ish Cambridge, MA grad student. Any potential conservative Christian FReepmail-FRiends out there?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Not if my husband has to keep cutting them down to heat our home because of all this global warming, lol.


4 posted on 02/09/2011 5:34:22 PM PST by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

More but different trees. The old hardwoods are gone, replaced by fast growing pine, aspen, etc.


5 posted on 02/09/2011 5:38:52 PM PST by macquire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

And increased CO2 enhances plant growth and forest expansion.

Oh wait. Were not supposed to know that.

CO2 is a pollutant.


6 posted on 02/09/2011 5:39:04 PM PST by lonestar67 (I remember when unemployment was 4.7 percent)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

There are a lot more pine trees on the slopes of the Sierra Nevada range in California than a 100 or even 150 years ago. This fact has been discovered by comparing old photos to the same scenes today.


7 posted on 02/09/2011 5:44:41 PM PST by Inyo-Mono (Had God not driven man from the Garden of Eden the Sierra Club surely would have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
Just a minute here. Trees, like other plants, extract CO2 from the atmosphere and convert the carbon (and some hydrogen) into woody material, while releasing oxygen to the atmosphere. However, when the trees die, all that carbon is again oxidized. This is true whether the tree burns, or is eaten by termites, or consumed by fungi. From seed to maturity to death and decay, the net production of oxygen by trees is ZERO, and the net extraction of CO2 is likewise ZERO. The idea that plants produce oxygen comes from looking only at part of their life cycle.

If the greens were serious about reducing CO2, they'd advocate planting trees, turning them into paper, using the paper ONCE (no recycling), then burying the paper where the oxygen in the atmosphere couldn't get at it.

8 posted on 02/09/2011 5:51:47 PM PST by JoeFromSidney (New book: RESISTANCE TO TYRANNY. A primer on armed revolt. Available form Amazon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: macquire

Tree growth goes in eras. If you watched the same plot of ground over a 1000 year period, you would naturally see various phases of hardwood and softwood growth over and over again, affected by bugs, people, animals, weather, fire, global warming and cooling.


9 posted on 02/09/2011 5:53:15 PM PST by lurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: macquire
The old hardwoods are gone, replaced by fast growing pine, aspen, etc

Did you figure that all out on your own? Or did you do some exhaustive research that revealed that with more trees now, they weren't OLD growth? You know, cuz all those trees that are around now that weren't here in 1910, I'm sure you would have *thought* they were old growth.

10 posted on 02/09/2011 5:54:00 PM PST by GreenAccord (Bacon Akbar!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
More trees than there were 100 years ago? It's true!

So then, by correlation, we should all conclude that, global warming was caused by, more trees.

The democrats should be asking for government funding to chop down all those extra trees that are harming the environment.
11 posted on 02/09/2011 5:54:50 PM PST by adorno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Time for a big bonfire and marshmallow roast.


12 posted on 02/09/2011 5:55:58 PM PST by DaxtonBrown (HARRY: Money Mob & Influence (See my Expose on Reid on amazon.com written by me!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
In 2000, a Rapid City, SD photographer sought to give an exact contemporary view of the photos taken during Custer's 1874 expedition to the Black Hills. You are immediately impressed that the photos taken in 2000 showed extensive forests where the 1874 photos showed empty meadows and prairie. The reason is decades of reforestation and extinguishing forest fires. See sample photos from the book here
13 posted on 02/09/2011 5:58:27 PM PST by The Great RJ (The Bill of Rights: Another bill members of Congress haven't read.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

TREE PING


14 posted on 02/09/2011 5:59:58 PM PST by 4Speed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

TREE PING


15 posted on 02/09/2011 6:00:57 PM PST by 4Speed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: macquire

“More but different trees. The old hardwoods are gone, replaced by fast growing pine, aspen, etc.”

Yep. Those old growth trees sure came in handy when we were building the greatest nation ever!


16 posted on 02/09/2011 6:02:19 PM PST by panaxanax (*Memo to Jim DeMint: Check your mail. Your DRAFT NOTICE will be arriving soon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: macquire
More but different trees. The old hardwoods are gone, replaced by fast growing pine, aspen, etc

True that the great climax forests which greeted the settlers are gone, but the hardwoods are not exactly scarce. While lumber companies plant softwood for harvest, natural progression allows other growth to revive with maple-beech and oak-hickory stands spreading slowly and patiently to reclaim their place in parks and national forests.

Sadly, the great American chestnut, the most impressive tree of the continent east of redwood country, seems gone for good.

17 posted on 02/09/2011 6:02:34 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JoeFromSidney

You nailed it. The only net oxygen producers are the photoplankton. They don’t get consumed like land based plants because they die and fall to the bottom of the ocean and get covered by sediment.

The rain forests as the “Lungs of the Earth” is a load of crap.


18 posted on 02/09/2011 6:03:28 PM PST by Straight Vermonter (Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

And the animals are moving back in. We have more white tail deer than you can shake an SUV at, a bald eagle nest less than a mile away, a burgeoning coyote pack replacing the role previously played by wolves and an occasional wayward lovelorn male moose hitting on the local dairy cows. And this is western New York State which was 25% forest and 75% farmland 75 years ago but is 75% forest and 25% farmland today.


19 posted on 02/09/2011 6:03:29 PM PST by immadashell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
The increase in trees is due to a number of factors, including conservation and preservation of national parks, responsible tree growing within plantations — which have been planting more trees than they harvest — and the movement of the majority of the population from rural areas to more densely populated areas, such as cities and suburbs.

Automobiles have played a significant part in the reforestation of America. The railroads cut down significant numbers of trees in the establishment and maintenance of the railroads, for railroad ties, for fuel, and for the towns that sprung up along the rails. The era of the automobile replaced this large user of wood, and largely with petroleum.

20 posted on 02/09/2011 6:07:05 PM PST by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

There must be more trees now, I can personally verify there are many acres of pine trees growing on land where I used to walk behind a mule in the cotton fields. There are many, many acres growing where other people used to farm. What used to be open farm country is now either housing developments or forests and the forests are growing much faster than the housing developments. Deer, black bear, coyotes, wild hogs etc. all roam where there used to be squirrels, cottontails and quail which are almost completely gone now. It only vaguely resembles what it used to look like.


21 posted on 02/09/2011 6:14:32 PM PST by RipSawyer (Trying to reason with a liberal is like teaching algebra to a tomcat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
A hardwood forest is a climax forest-which means it will be forever a hardwood forest unless something happens.

We are on the very edge of losing our forests if we do not start to manage them aggressively. Many are becoming stagnant and susceptible to disease and invasive insects.

22 posted on 02/09/2011 6:14:44 PM PST by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Get a window seat next time you fly somewhere in the Northeast. Unless you happen to be over a major city, almost all you will see is green canopy with the occasional town poking through. It really is mostly forest in these parts and we have the summertime mosquito bites to prove it.


23 posted on 02/09/2011 6:16:11 PM PST by SamAdams76 (I am 31 days from outliving Vince Foster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Rurudyne; steelyourfaith; Tolerance Sucks Rocks; xcamel; AdmSmith; ...

Thanks Free ThinkerNY.


24 posted on 02/09/2011 6:24:51 PM PST by SunkenCiv (The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv; Fiddlstix; Fractal Trader; FrPR; enough_idiocy; meyer; Normandy; Whenifhow; ...
I believe this conflicts with Annie Leonard's "Story of Stuff". ;-)

Thanx SunkenCiv !

 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

25 posted on 02/09/2011 6:28:56 PM PST by steelyourfaith (ObamaCare Death Panels: a Final Solution to the looming Social Security crisis ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: All
Just google photos of the San Fernando Valley in the 1920’s and compare to google Satellite from today.
26 posted on 02/09/2011 7:02:45 PM PST by troy McClure
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY


More trees than there were 100 years ago? It’s true!

IIRC, Mr. Limbaugh documented that the size of America’s forest has
been on the rise for decades (a couple of centuries?).
Because we are no longer building fleets of ships made of wood.
Because we are no longer chunking wood into home stoves or the guts
of locamotives.
Because we aren’t building log cabins.
Because we aren’t busy building buggies or stage-coaches.
Etc. Etc. Etc.

AND

We are planting an incredible number of tree seedlings to be sure we
have enough materials for our computer printers.

Amazing how Western Capitalism benefits the environment!


27 posted on 02/09/2011 7:03:44 PM PST by VOA (`)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoeFromSidney
If the greens were serious about reducing CO2, they'd advocate planting trees, turning them into paper, using the paper ONCE (no recycling), then burying the paper where the oxygen in the atmosphere couldn't get at it.

In almost any burial scenario, the paper decays and the carbon goes back into the atmosphere.

A more effective way to store carbon, temporarily but fairly long term, is to build houses out of wood. As long as the houses are maintained so the wood doesn't rot or burn, the carbon stays locked up.

28 posted on 02/09/2011 7:14:05 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: troy McClure
Just google photos of the San Fernando Valley in the 1920’s and compare to google Satellite from today.

Just the sort of thing the Liberals don't want to see.

You'll never see that posted in the MSM.

29 posted on 02/09/2011 7:35:33 PM PST by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
As long as the houses are maintained so the wood doesn't rot or burn, the carbon stays locked up.

Why do you want to lock up carbon?

30 posted on 02/09/2011 7:37:23 PM PST by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

You’re welcome, SunkenCiv.


31 posted on 02/09/2011 7:45:01 PM PST by Free ThinkerNY (Live Free Or Die)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
You can see this in old photos easily. Hillsides that were baran of trees 100 years ago and now lush and green.

That's because we no longer need to chop down trees to heat our homes or cook our food or grow feed for our horses.

Those damn energy companies mining coal and drilling for gas and oil have sure changed the environment --- for the better.

And that's not even mentioning saving the wales. John D. Rockefeller saved more wales than Greenpeace could ever dream of, and he never gets any credit for it. Thats an injustice. ;~))

32 posted on 02/09/2011 7:49:05 PM PST by Ditto (Nov 2, 2010 -- Partial cleaning accomplished. More trash to remove in 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith

Heh... the main reasons for the increase in tree growth is, we use hydrocarbons for heating (either directly or indirectly) much more than Americans did 100 years ago, and burn far less wood; and of course, the abandonment of draft animals by most farmers and the use of various chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, plus scientific plant breeding have combined to reduce the amount of land under cultivation per capita. The trees have grown back.

It’s noticeable in my old hometown just since my youth.

It’s also amusing to see the vintage photos of some of the streets (the photos that survive) — not only no big trees circa 1900, almost no trees at all. The trees that are now big and shading the neighborhoods — as well as those which have deteriorated and been taken down, or blown down in storms — can be seen in the photos as small saplings, planted a handful of years earlier.


33 posted on 02/09/2011 7:55:01 PM PST by SunkenCiv (The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
This is great news for those who care about the environment because trees store CO2, produce oxygen — which is necessary for all life on Earth — remove toxins from the air, and create habitat for animals, insects and more basic forms of life.

Well-managed forest plantations like those overseen by the Forest Stewardship Council also furnish us with wood, a renewable material that can be used for building, furniture, paper products and more, and all of which are biodegradable at the end of their lifecycle.

The increase in trees is due to a number of factors, including conservation and preservation of national parks, responsible tree growing within plantations — which have been planting more trees than they harvest — and the movement of the majority of the population from rural areas to more densely populated areas, such as cities and suburbs.

Was this written by, or written to, fourth graders?

It is good to see, though, that we are conserving and preerving national parks!

34 posted on 02/09/2011 7:59:44 PM PST by ApplegateRanch (Made in America, by proud American citizens, in 1946.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GreenAccord

Why don’t you go back to your mom’s bed. If you can’t handle someone making an impartial observation without needling them, you are too immature to be sleeping in your own room.


35 posted on 02/09/2011 8:29:33 PM PST by macquire
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Inyo-Mono
There are a lot more pine trees on the slopes of the Sierra Nevada range in California than a 100 or even 150 years ago. This fact has been discovered by comparing old photos to the same scenes today.

Same here in the Black Hills. A local photographer has painstakingly found the identical spots & camera angles that Custer's 1874 expedidition photographer used thoughout the Hills, then printed a book of side by side photos, just to show this.

It is amazing how many of the old trees (or their remains) are still standing; as well as how many times more tree cover exists now than back then. It was really sparse in 1874.

36 posted on 02/09/2011 9:19:51 PM PST by ApplegateRanch (Made in America, by proud American citizens, in 1946.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: The Great RJ
In 2000, a Rapid City, SD photographer sought to give an exact contemporary view of the photos taken during Custer's 1874 expedition to the Black Hills.

I did this in Colorado back in 1996-97. I would go to a library that had historical photographs, and go find the spot and take a picture. Almost invariably, the environment was a lot more green in 1996 than 100 years previously.

I got the idea from a dry more academic book from someone who had done that a few years previously by using old picture from the US Geological survey, which were some of the first photographs of the area. Since then, a well known Colorado photographer has done the same thing and made a book out of it as well.

37 posted on 02/09/2011 10:47:21 PM PST by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes

That’s the whole point behind sequestering carbon.

The massive burning of fossil fuels is adding a lot of carbon to the atmosphere and the level of CO2 is going up remarkably fast. You can argue about what that means for the atmosphere and the climate, etc., but you can’t argue that it isn’t happening.

So a bunch of people are trying to figure out how to capture carbon in the exhaust of power plants and such and keep it out of the atmosphere, reducing the rate of increase of concentrations of CO2. This is called sequestering and usually involves pumping it underground beneath a supposedly impermeable rock layer.

My point was that wood materials that are kept from decaying or burning are just as effective a method of sequestering carbon as pumping it underground.


38 posted on 02/10/2011 8:06:33 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: JoeFromSidney

if the greens were honest, they would acknowledge that YOUNG trees use up more CO2 than old trees....so using old trees for materials or fuel perhaps is a good and wise idea?


39 posted on 02/10/2011 9:04:47 AM PST by cherry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

And more deer in New Jersey now than in 1776. Back then, when they wandered too close to your yard they became supper and supplies. Now hunting is severely limited and the only serious predator left is the automobile.


40 posted on 02/10/2011 11:16:19 AM PST by JimRed (Excising a cancer before it kills us waters the Tree of Liberty! TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
My point was that wood materials that are kept from decaying or burning are just as effective a method of sequestering carbon as pumping it underground.

I haven't been convinced that increased carbon dioxide causes global warming.

41 posted on 02/10/2011 6:02:49 PM PST by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson