Trillions and Trillions of Trees make that 'giant sucking sound' of CO2 from the atmosphere

WUWT reader P Wilson writes;

There are just over three trillion trees on Earth, according to a new assessment. The figure is eight times as big as the previous best estimate, which counted perhaps 400 billion at most.

It has been produced by Thomas Crowther from Yale University, and colleagues, who combined a mass of ground survey data with satellite pictures.

The team tells the journal Nature that the new total represents upwards of 420 trees for every person on the planet. The more refined number will now form a baseline for a wide range of research applications – everything from studies that consider animal and plant habitats for biodiversity reasons, to new models of the climate, because it is trees of course that play an important role in removing the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

More  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34134366

The press release from Yale:


 

Trees-world

Seeing the forest and the trees, all 3 trillion of them

A new Yale-led study estimates that there are more than 3 trillion trees on Earth, about seven and a half times more than some previous estimates. But the total number of trees has plummeted by roughly 46% since the start of human civilization, the study estimates.

Using a combination of satellite imagery, forest inventories, and supercomputer technologies, the international team of researchers was able to map tree populations worldwide at the square-kilometer level.

Their results, published in the journal Nature, provide the most comprehensive assessment of tree populations ever produced and offer new insights into a class of organism that helps shape most terrestrial biomes.

The new insights can improve the modeling of many large-scale systems, from carbon cycling and climate change models to the distribution of animal and plant species, say the researchers.

“Trees are among the most prominent and critical organisms on Earth, yet we are only recently beginning to comprehend their global extent and distribution,” said Thomas Crowther, a postdoctoral fellow at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies (F&ES) and lead author of the study.

“They store huge amounts of carbon, are essential for the cycling of nutrients, for water and air quality, and for countless human services,” he added. “Yet you ask people to estimate, within an order of magnitude, how many trees there are and they don’t know where to begin. I don’t know what I would have guessed, but I was certainly surprised to find that we were talking about trillions.”

The study was inspired by a request by Plant for the Planet, a global youth initiative that leads the United Nations Environment Programme’s “Billion Tree Campaign.” Two years ago the group approached Crowther asking for baseline estimates of tree numbers at regional and global scales so they could better evaluate the contribution of their efforts and set targets for future tree-planting initiatives.

At the time, the only global estimate was just over 400 billion trees worldwide, or about 61 trees for every person on Earth. That prediction was generated using satellite imagery and estimates of forest area, but did not incorporate any information from the ground.

The new study used a combination of approaches to reveal that there are 3.04 trillion trees — roughly 422 trees per person.

Crowther and his colleagues collected tree density information from more than 400,000 forest plots around the world. This included information from several national forest inventories and peer-reviewed studies, each of which included tree counts that had been verified at the ground level. Using satellite imagery, they were then able to assess how the number of trees in each of those plots is related to local characteristics such as climate, topography, vegetation, soil condition, and human impacts.

“The diverse array of data available today allowed us to build predictive models to estimate the number of trees at each location around the globe,” said Yale postdoctoral student Henry Glick, second author of the study.

The resulting map has the potential to inform scientists about the structure of forest ecosystems in different regions, and it can be used to improve predictions about carbon storage and biodiversity around the world.

“Most global environmental data is thematically coarse,” said Matthew Hansen, a global forestry expert from the University of Maryland who was not involved in the study. “The study of Crowther et al. moves us towards a needed direct quantification of tree distributions, information ready to be used by a host of downstream science investigations.”

The highest densities of trees were found in the boreal forests in the sub-arctic regions of Russia, Scandinavia, and North America. But the largest forest areas, by far, are in the tropics, which are home to about 43% of the world’s trees. (Only 24% are in the dense boreal regions, while another 22% exist in temperate zones.)

The results illustrate how tree density changes within forest types. Researchers found that climate can help predict tree density in most biomes. In wetter areas, for instance, more trees are able to grow. However, the positive effects of moisture were reversed in some regions because humans typically prefer the moist, productive areas for agriculture.

In fact, human activity is the largest driver of tree numbers worldwide, said Crowther. While the negative impact of human activity on natural ecosystems is clearly visible in small areas, the study provides a new measure of the scale of anthropogenic effects, highlighting how historical land use decisions have shaped natural ecosystems on a global scale. In short, tree densities usually plummet as the human population increases. Deforestation, land-use change, and forest management are responsible for a gross loss of over 15 billion trees each year.

“We’ve nearly halved the number of trees on the planet, and we’ve seen the impacts on climate and human health as a result,” Crowther said. “This study highlights how much more effort is needed if we are to restore healthy forests worldwide.”

Researchers from 15 countries collaborated on the study. There were 14 researchers from across the Yale community who contributed to the study.

The article at Nature:

http://www.nature.com/news/global-count-reaches-3-trillion-trees-1.18287

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

255 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jim Watson
September 3, 2015 9:29 am

Does this mean I can have TWO Christmas trees this year?

Resourceguy
Reply to  Jim Watson
September 3, 2015 10:47 am

Possibly three, depending on the next revision

Neo
September 3, 2015 9:37 am

But the total number of trees has plummeted by roughly 46% since the start of human civilization, the study estimates.
I blamed the $18 trillion debt

frozenohio
September 3, 2015 9:47 am

Hell, I have several hundred trees on my 2 acres alone – love sitting outside at night and hearing all that CO2 being sucked in.

Paul
Reply to  frozenohio
September 3, 2015 11:46 am

” love sitting outside at night and hearing all that CO2 being sucked in.”
Don’t they emit CO2 at night? Still a nice place to sit, I do the same.

Michael Jankowski
September 3, 2015 9:59 am

So many trees…so little tree ring proxy coverage.

Latitude
Reply to  dbstealey
September 3, 2015 12:45 pm

😀

September 3, 2015 10:04 am

So this news might improve IPCC AR5’s Table 6.1 CO2 balance uncertainties (i.e. WAGs) from the current +/- 96%. Maybe the natural sources and sinks really do dominate the 400 ppm global CO2 balance and mankind’s 2 ppm “imbalance” is lost even deeper in the data noise of natural variability.

Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
September 3, 2015 11:18 am

Nicholas, the natural variability after a full seasonal cycle is only +/- 1 ppmv around the trend over the past 55 years, which is recently over 2 ppmv/year net increase with human emissions of around 4.5 ppmv/year.
The new findings may change the throughput of the biological carbon cycle, but the net result is independently measured via O2 and δ13C changes.

September 3, 2015 10:19 am

“We’ve nearly halved the number of trees on the planet, and we’ve seen the impacts on climate and human health as a result,”
Always speculation. Does anyone ever publish an article where the conclusions are actually based on research? I would have said numbers, but since all numbers are now produced by co mputer models we can’t use numbers any longer.

richard
September 3, 2015 10:21 am

“The first Europeans to penetrate the Amazon rainforests reported cities, roads and fertile fields along the banks of its major rivers. “There was one town that stretched for 15 miles without any space from house to house, which was a marvellous thing to behold,” wrote Gaspar de Carvajal, chronicler of explorer and conquistador Francisco de Orellana in 1542. “The land is as fertile and as normal in appearance as our Spain.”
Such tales were long dismissed as fantasies, not least because teeming cities were never seen or talked about again. But it now seems the chroniclers were right all along. It is our modern vision of a pristine rainforest wilderness that turns out to be the dream”
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27945-myth-of-pristine-amazon-rainforest-busted-as-old-cities-reappear/

Reply to  richard
September 6, 2015 4:52 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hernando_de_Soto
This fellow was the first to explore the South in the 1539 – farms and villages were non-stop when he visited but 150 years later, they were empty and “wild….” Historians figure it was the expedition’s pigs that spread diseases that killed upwards of 99% of the natives…

Doonman
September 3, 2015 10:35 am

Carbon is pollution. More carbon is more pollution. Since the total amount of carbon has now risen according to the latest study numbers, its totally appropriate to say “Its worse than we thought”

Tom in Denver
Reply to  Doonman
September 3, 2015 11:47 am

The natural state of the Earth’s atmosphere was essentially CO2 and N2. O2 is a waste product of photosynthesis, so technically free Oxygen is the pollution.

Gloria Swansong
Reply to  Tom in Denver
September 3, 2015 12:49 pm

http://www.scientificpsychic.com/etc/timeline/atmosphere-composition.gif
The oxygen catastrophe was the greatest challenge life on earth ever posed itself.

Gentle Tramp
Reply to  Doonman
September 3, 2015 1:26 pm

Actually you are saying: Life is pollution…
Think again, if you understand what photosynthesis is and for what it is good for…

highflight56433
September 3, 2015 10:38 am

Man moves to desert. Man plants trees and other green shrubs. More man show up in desert, soon golf course and more trees….hmmmmm

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  highflight56433
September 3, 2015 1:58 pm
Gloria Swansong
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 3, 2015 2:01 pm

Climate criminals!

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 3, 2015 5:30 pm

Burning man must not be a warmista gathering.
I can tell, because their pants are not on fire.

September 3, 2015 10:40 am

I’m not sure the actual number of trees is such a relevant number.
Also, grasses and forbs tend to begin growth earlier in the season and continue till frost, and the soils they grow on generally have greater biomass. Is it possible the worlds grasslands and prairies are more significant than the forested areas with respect to the CO2 budget?

Resourceguy
September 3, 2015 10:48 am

Now let’s see a global map of the revisions.

Dahlquist
September 3, 2015 10:52 am

CO2_Vos-ML2.gif

Dahlquist
Reply to  Dahlquist
September 3, 2015 10:53 am

my mistake

September 3, 2015 10:57 am

Why do you need a supercomputer to do simple math?

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
September 3, 2015 11:07 am

“Why do you need a supercomputer to do simple math?”
Inflates your job description and paycheck.

Reply to  Nicholas Schroeder
September 3, 2015 11:45 am

+1

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
September 3, 2015 11:20 am

My laptop calculator goes up to 9 Quadrillion+

Resourceguy
September 3, 2015 11:16 am

Is there any mention of faster growing trees and depopulation (people) outside the mega city corridors?

Tom in Florida
September 3, 2015 11:25 am

A couple of years ago I put forth an idea, partially in jest, that it could the natural order of things on all planets like Earth for vegetation to suck so much CO2 out of the atmosphere that it eventually turns the entire planet too cold for anything to live. Only planets where the intervention of intelligent species that can manipulate the environment would be saved from this inevitable fate.

Tom in Denver
Reply to  Tom in Florida
September 3, 2015 12:12 pm

Hi Tom in Florida,
The problem with that idea is that there is evidence in the Geologic record that there was Ice ages during the early Archean time period, (when CO2 was 30,000 times the current concentrations). Granted the Sun was a bit dimmer back then, but it kind of punches a hole into the “CO2 controls the Earth’s temperature” theory.
I read a geological paper a couple of year back that was addressing the conditions on the earth about the time that life started. In that paper they pointed out this discrepancy between CO2 density and temperature in detail. Unfortunately I cannot locate the reference to the paper at this time. I will keep looking though.

Gloria Swansong
Reply to  Tom in Denver
September 3, 2015 1:06 pm

Think you mean 30% (ie, 300,000 ppm) rather than 30,000 times the current concentration, which implies 12 million parts per million (400 ppm x 30,000).

Latitude
Reply to  Tom in Florida
September 3, 2015 12:47 pm

Tom Fl, problem with that is plants will only take it down to where I becomes limiting for plant growth….plant growth will slow to where it reaches a balance
…oh wait! we did that already!

Tom in Denver
Reply to  Latitude
September 3, 2015 3:12 pm

Gloria Swansong,
The context of the paper I was referencing, was that the atmosphere was much denser back in the Archean , most of which was CO2. They specifically referenced 30,000 times the current CO2.
regards

Gloria Swansong
Reply to  Latitude
September 3, 2015 3:19 pm

Sorry, Tom, but that’s not possible.
Even with a denser atmosphere, 12 million parts per million is at best unlikely. The graph I linked shows an early Archaean atmosphere of perhaps 30% CO2. That would mean N2 and other constituents would have to be over 20 million parts per million of present density.
Sorry, but an early atmosphere more than 32 times as dense as today’s just doesn’t compute. Where did all that nitrogen go?
Study of Archaean rocks suggests that at most the atmosphere might have been twice as dense then as now, but probably not.

milwaukeebob
September 3, 2015 11:29 am

So there was 5,629,629,629,633 trees on the planet before – – – ?? Yes, there is the problem with THAT “46% less” wild a_ _ guess in the dark, and therefore the entire count and therefore the entire study/report. The start of the decline, they say, is; “since the start of human civilization.” Tell me – exactly when was that? At 100,000 humans? At 1 million? At 100 million? And when was that FIRST tree (and every one there after) cut down and was it for a “beneficial” reason or was it just left there to rot? Should the early humans not have cut tress for huts or teepees or – – -? If not, there probably wouldn’t be – – – us.
Oh, and one (two actually) other question; How many tree nurseries are there in the world and how many tress has “human civilization” cultivated “since the start”?
Yes, the authors would have been far better off if they had left the “46% less” GUESS out. And to quote a political hack; “WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE NOW?”

dp
Reply to  milwaukeebob
September 3, 2015 11:45 am

Beavers have been exonerated by this study. Nobody knows why.

dp
Reply to  dp
September 3, 2015 11:48 am
Berényi Péter
September 3, 2015 11:31 am

“We’ve nearly halved the number of trees on the planet, and we’ve seen the impacts on climate and human health as a result,” Crowther said.

I do love forests, but what is implied by Crowther, is not true.
I can’t say much about climate, except it is actually better now in Europe than it was 300 years ago. But human health, impacts or not, did improve tremendously.
http://skeptvet.com/Blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/life-expectancy-2.png
Does Crowther mean all this improvement is due to loss of trees? I doubt it.

Brad
Reply to  Berényi Péter
September 3, 2015 12:02 pm

The sad thing about the life expectancy plot is how close together the developing nations and global lines are, suggesting a much larger sample size in the developing nations data. I.e. there are far more poor people in developing nations and developed nations. Be on the look out for the mass migration to the first world nation you worked hard to build.

Steve in SC
September 3, 2015 11:49 am

Hey Nature, want to save the trees?
Quit printing propaganda!

RD
September 3, 2015 12:02 pm


Some lovely trees, music and a poem!

Dahlquist
September 3, 2015 12:03 pm

Here’s something new: We are driving the earth to the brink. I would say Iran getting nukes would probably be more of a problem than co2.
“The study is described in the paper “Biotic replacement and mass extinction of the Ediacara biota” published Sept. 2 in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
“There is a powerful analogy between the Earth’s first mass extinction and what is happening today,” Darroch observed. “The end-Ediacaran extinction shows that the evolution of new behaviors can fundamentally change the entire planet, and we are the most powerful ‘ecosystem engineers’ ever known.”
http://phys.org/news/2015-09-evidence-earth-mass-extinction-critters.html#nRlv
And we were having so much fun with trees. Sorry… 🙁

Dahlquist
Reply to  Dahlquist
September 3, 2015 12:09 pm

And, climate scientists said in yesterdays article that we can change the ocean currents if we have to to avoid a catastrophe.

Dahlquist
September 3, 2015 12:21 pm

Pssst. Hey, RD. Did I scare everyone away?
Nice music and pictures BTW.

Robin Hewitt
September 3, 2015 12:41 pm

“420 trees for every person on the planet”.
But there are estimated 3/4 of a ton of wood munching termites for every person on the planet. Is 420 trees enough?

Dahlquist
September 3, 2015 12:47 pm
September 3, 2015 12:47 pm

In this study is there any distinction between Deciduous Forests/Trees and Conifer Forests/Trees? I didn’t see any reference to that. I assume Deciduous “eats up” more CO2 than Coniferous (except maybe in winter, depending on latitude, etc.).