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:
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Does anyone know the CO2 uptake rate for — say, an acre of grass, or an acre of trees, — or an acre of corn?
Freeman Dyson says that corn will stop growing in only a few minutes if there’s no breeze to provide CO2.
So DB, maybe the giant sucking sound is all the freakin’ birdchoppers that are extracting so much wind energy that they will kill all the corn by CO2 starvation, eh?
“Does anyone know the CO2 uptake rate for — say, an acre of grass, or an acre of trees, — or an acre of corn?”
Yes.
The world is always coming to an end. Endlessly.
The record for ‘end of world’ predictions is around zero so far.
Yes, they have the worst batting average in the entire Peewee League.
Oh…the answer?
The answer is…”It depends”.
Ah, don’t you just love this settled science!
Forget all those ordinary trees. The culprit has been identified: YAD061…
+1
If you can’t plant trees, just plant a couple of Kudzus – they will soon take over and they use a lot of CO2 and grow much faster than trees:
http://www.ourstate.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/kudzu1-1175×620.jpg
and
http://www.takepart.com/sites/default/files/styles/tp_gallery_slide/public/invasivespecies4.jpg?itok=h2fHfn1E
and
If the choice is between Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Armageddon and kudzu, I’m going with the CACA!
But Sturgis…this stuff is edible…a delicacy in some places.
I here they will remake the movie “Soylent Green”, and it will be called “Kudzu Yellow”.
Wherever kudzu is a delicacy, I don’t want to go.
Some other kudzu images (I think they would take care of all extra CO2)::
https://www.google.com/search?q=kudzu+houses&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAWoVChMIssjY6YDcxwIVggiSCh3C8gDF&biw=1366&bih=633
/sarc
OK, Never really knew much about kudzu (thought this was kind of a joke/humorous), except that my in-laws north of Philadelphia, PA grew it every year in front of their front porch. Sometimes it would try to enter the living room through a side window. It was cut down at the end of each season, but reappeared every spring. So I have been educated via the internet about something I knew little about:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/botany/kudzu.htm
“Kudzu may not have gained much traction as a bovine food source, but it may have a future as a source of alternative fuel for automobiles and airplanes. In fact, researchers are exploring it as a form of ethanol. This green, lush plant’s roots contain large amounts of carbohydrates that can easily be converted to biofuel. These days, corn and soy are largely used to create biofuel, but some people are concerned that depleted supplies of both due to ethanol production could create a food shortage. In fact, the popularity of corn-based ethanol has already made price swings more volatile, affecting farmers, food manufacturers and even charitable organizations that depend on food donations [source 1=”Ruble” language=”:”][/source]. Proponents of kudzunol say that kudzu is the perfect solution for this dilemma; it grows like a weed and it can meet the demand for fuel for combustible engines — without jeopardizing food supplies.”
“People don’t call kudzu the plant that ate the South for nothing. As we learned earlier, kudzu grows really fast — as much as a foot or two (30 or 61 centimeters) each day. Once it forms a blanket over land or trees, light can’t get through, so the vast majority of the underlying plants or trees eventually die. Only the hardiest plants can survive the suffocating effects of a kudzu infestation. Considering that, imagine the damage kudzu can do to a food or timber crop. Forest economist Coleman Dangerfield estimates that for every acre of timber that kudzu overtakes, landowners lose $48 per acre per year. Another expert, plant ecologist James Miller, calculates that electricity providers spend $1.5 million per year just to control kudzu and keep it off power lines and utility poles [source 1=”Britton” language=”:”][/source]. That’s scary enough, but the weight of kudzu vines can actually uproot trees, elevating the plant from a mere annoyance to an actual source of danger.”
OK, Then let’s plant them around the bases of each giant wind turbine. That will eventually make them green. But it will only work in places that get enough inches of rain during growing season. Probably not in the desert soutwest.
Responding to J. Philip Peterson below:
Biofuels, even from a weed is a waste of time, energy, and equipment. We have no need for something that simply makes gasoline more expensive and ruins our engines. It’s broken-window economy to do all this work and not end up gaining anything from it. And, in reality, more energy is spent making it than is gained in burning it. But biofuels from corn raises the price of corn and other grains and starves people in other countries to death, which the UN sees as a natural way to lower the world’s population.
Kudzu – bad idea. Seriously!
This reminds me of the fish in the ocean estimate. From what I gather, until last year the estimate accepted by nearly all scientists with knowledge in the field was that the carrying capacity of the oceans was around 1 billion tons of fish. Using new technology scientists learned that the fish population at depths below about 200 meters is far more dense than previously believed. The new estimate is that the oceans contain 10 billion tons of fish, or 10x more than the previous “settled science consensus”. Who knows how long this new estimate will hold.
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/5930/20140207/biomass-mesopelagic-fish-ocean-10x-higher-initial-estimates.htm
Oh, great…another computer model showing results that cannot be verified. Someone tell me what the value is of comparing a rough estimate of the current number of trees to an unverified computer model number from a long time ago.
Next: How many holes in Albert Hall?
LOL! Great reference.
But, but, but, I thought that the Science was all settled!!!
from the BBC link:
“The previous estimate of trees in the world was 400 billion. The new estimate is three trillion large trees. There are so many margins of error in this study that the real number could be anything between the two – or even 10 times higher.”- Dr Martin Lukac, University of Reading
NOW COMPARE SETH’S REPORT THAT UN-AFFILIATED PLANT FOR THE PLANET HAS UPPED THEIR GOAL TO 18 BILLION, AND CROWTHER’S RESONSE, INCL THAT IT MIGHT BE HARD TO FIND ROOM!, WITH NPR’S CLAIM FROM CROWTHER THAT THEY’VE UPPED THE TARGET TO 1 TRILLION! NOT TOO GOOD WITH FIGURES THESE CAGW PROPAGANDISTS.
2 Sept: ABC: AP: Seth Borenstein: Lots of Trees to Hug: Study Counts 3 Trillion Trees on Earth
So if there are so many trees on the planet, the planting of a billion trees wouldn’t do too much to fight climate change on its own, Crowther conceded. But he said that didn’t stop the tree planters group; they just upped their goal. On its website, Plant for the Planet says the objective is now ***18 BILLION.
Now that’s over many decades, and it might be hard to find space, but it can be done, Crowther said…
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/lots-trees-hug-study-counts-trillion-trees-earth-33483802
2 Sept: NPR: Nell Greenfield Boyce: Tree Counter Is Astonished By How Many Trees There Are
Thomas Crowther was inspired to do this tree census a couple of years ago, when he was working at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. He had a friend who was working with a group with an ambitious goal: trying to fight global warming by planting a billion trees. A billion trees sounded like a lot. But was it really?
“They didn’t know if planting a billion trees was going to add 1 percent of the world’s trees, add 50 percent of the world’s trees,” recalls Crowther. “They didn’t even know if it was even possible to fit a billion trees on Earth.”…
So did all of this news discourage that group that wanted to plant a billion trees?
“Based on this, they really want to upscale their efforts hugely,” says Crowther, who explains that the new analysis has spurred them on. “Their goal is now to plant ***A TRILLION TREES.”
http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/09/02/436919052/tree-counter-is-astonished-by-how-many-trees-there-are
BTW I heard BBC quote the UN-affiliated youth group had upped their target to 1 trillion trees on radio this morning, without even a giggle. of course, the 3 trillion figure will no doubt be factored in by all the carbon groups, who will update the availability of carbon offsets, etc.
Treebeard approves of a trillion trees especially if they march on Isenguard.
422 trees for every person on earth? It sounds like the world is overpopulated with trees. Trees will soon deplete the Earth of natural resources required for their massive bodies. If the average tree consumes 1,000 pounds of minerals and water a year, we will be out of minerals and water in 50 years. It’s time to start cutting them down.
Last year one of my 500 year old red oak trees suddenly shuddered and the trunk split in two and it nearly fell on me and my dog as we came over to see what the loud cracking sound was. I suspect the trees are plotting something about the tree/human ratio.
The ‘new’ number of trees is 4 Trillion. The ‘old’ number of trees was 300 Billion. A little arithmetic tells me that the number of trees has INCREASED by 7.5 times. Just how is this a 46% decrease from years ago?
does that mean that the the ipcc ar5 figure of 123 pg/yr figure for photosynthesis sink needs to be revised?
Since the actual global tree population is 3 trillion as opposed to 400 billion, a good case could be made that the 25% increase in tree growth from CO2 fertilization is the tree-equivelant of almost TWICE the original estimate: (3 trillion trees x 25% added CO2 fertilization effect= 750 billion tree-equivelant).
New bumper sticker: “Hug a tree. Buy an SUV.”
Why is Glooooooobal Waaaaarming still taken seriously????…
Q: What is the #1 GHG? A: Water vapor
Q: What is a/the major producer of water vapor? A: Trees and vegetation
Q: Where has the majority of the growth in trees occurred? A: N Hemisphere
Q: Which hemisphere has shown the greatest warming? A: N Hemisphere
Q: Does CO2 difference between the N and S hemisphere? A: Nope
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/418334main_hemi-temp-full.jpg
Imagine that? Trees cause global warming. How ironic.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/418334main_hemi-temp-full.jpg
Water Vapor Confirmed as Major Player in Climate Change
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
Studies have revealed that about 10 percent of the moisture found in the atmosphere is released by plants through transpiration. The remaining 90 percent is mainly supplied by evaporation from oceans, seas, and other bodies of water (lakes, rivers, streams).
http://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycletranspiration.html
Oooops, this should have been the second chart in the above post:
““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,”
Is he referring to the tremendous improvements in human health in the last 10,000 years because of Anthropogenic Medine?
My bet is that the temperature variation is much less for climates with near saturated air than climates with very dry air. That would be solid evidence that H2O, not CO2 is the driving GHG. I also bet that regions with saturated air rarely have temperatures go much above the temperature associated with saturation, ie the Equatorial area would have stable rain forest temperatures and wild swings in the deserts. Basically H20 would continue to trap heat and warm until the air is saturated, at which time is would have less ability to continue warming. (yes I know that warmer air hold more water so their is a feedback, but not enough to be a self perpetuating cycle).
http://www.southamptonweather.co.uk/images/dewpoint1.png
CO2isLife– As Willis has so adroitly shown through his research, increased ocean evaporation/cloud cover is the mechanism that keeps global temps so stable over eons of time.
Any tiny amount of logarithmic CO2 forcing is mostly offset by the added cloud cover/increased albedo caused by increased ocean evaporation.
During global cooling periods, there is less ocean evaporation, fewer clouds, lower albedo, which allows more TSI to hit the earth’s surface, thus preventing snowball earth.
The CAGW hypothesis is 100.00% dependent upon ocean evaporation causing a “catastrophic runaway feedback loop” from an added H2O GHG effect, which is absolutely impossible. Our very existence proves this catastrophic runaway H2O feedback loop doesn’t exist.
““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.
There is absolutely no evidence for this statement. It is simply impossible to detect or define. Just sheer propaganda. There is no way a negative impact on human health, which has improved greatly over the years, can be detected by losing trees. Maybe he is indication a positive impact, but that would not get him more funding, would it?
Ya wanna know about trees ?, take a 4 hour walk(one way) away from the parking lot in the U.P. of Michigan.
You come back with blisters, the last 2-3 miles are just …desperation.
18 mile round-trip !!
Oh, most of the trip was under the canopy of trees.
I was listening to Adelaide radio this week talking about what vegetation used to be here in South Australia before European settlement. Surprise, surprise, most of the plains and low hills were mostly grassland only, with forest predominantly in the mountains. We have vegetated almost all of greater Adelaide with trees that were never there before. We have roughly 11 trees per person just in the city and greater metropolitan areas. This does not include any of the native and plantation forests. Plenty of trees here matey! I wonder how many other places are the same? https://eyesonbrowne.wordpress.com/2012/09/28/more-trees-than-any-other-city-in-the-world/
Well, I guess, there were trees in the Adelaide region BEFORE the aborigines arrived there around 40’000 years ago. These indigenous hunter/gatherers liked to hunt by ignition of wild fires in wood lands and had so likely some influence in the extinction of Australias megafauna as well…
Thus, not only our modern technical civilisation, can have a destructive influence on the landscape…
Of course then there is irrigation… vast areas that were desert scrub before are now green, places like perth, ord river, alice springs and Los Angeles. When we build cities in deserts we plant and irrigate trees and begin to sequester CO2 in places there was little sequestration before. Bet this urban effect isn’t considered.
I saw some estimates a number of years ago about trees in Australia. The original Aborigines kept huge areas cleared by fire, to promote grassland for herbivores such as kangaroos. Very successful farming practice. A very high percentage of that land is now forested. According to scientists in Australia, there are more trees now than two hundred years ago. Similar stats elsewhere for Europe and North America.
However that is changing. Timber is a sustainable energy source, and is being cut down to be used for fuel by Watermelons, particularly Europe and the UK. Now if we got rid of the crazy “Global Warming” obsession, we could go back to having more trees.
And living in the Australian bush, I don’t know where they got there numbers from, but there are a lot more trees per person around here than that.
Couldn’t we count tree rings to figure out how many trees there used to be?