Forest Degradation A Major Climatic Warming Driver, Study Finds. CO2-Induced Tree Growth Cools?

Reposted from the NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin on 30. July 2021

new study published in the journal Ecological Solutions and Evidence shows that forestry management has a significant influence on the cooling capacity of forests.

Our cooling forests. Photo: Copyright P. Gosselin

Also the study’s findings suggest that the added growth tree growth 

The study shows why burning trees in “sustainable” biomass plants using wood chips imported from around the world and deforestation to make way for wind parks are really bad ideas. Deforestation leads to warming.

And then imagine the effect trees have in sprawling megalopolises. One could easily argue that poor urban planning has been one of the main drivers of warming over the past 100 years. See cities with the most trees here, and here.

Forest ecosystems influence climate on global and local scales, the scientists say in the new study. One important feature of forests is the regulation of ecosystem microclimate.

The original press release for the study is here.

Canopy degradation leads to warming

Shading by trees, evaporation of water, storage of heat in biomass, and energy conversion through photosynthesis cause forests to cool themselves and their surroundings during hot weather. This can prevent damaging maximum temperatures, especially during prolonged heat waves, say scientists from Eberswalde (EUSD) in the study.

The scientist responsible for the study, Jeanette Blumröder, of the University for Sustainable Development, EUSD, states, “Increased logging and a correspondingly greater opening of the canopy drive up the maximum temperatures in the forest.”

0.5°C warmer with 10% less trees

An extensive series of measurements in beech forests and pine forests in northern Germany from the heat summers of 2018 and 2019 confirm that whenever the canopy is opened by 10%, the “average maximum temperatures increase by about half a degree Celsius”.

In a heavily thinned forest with a disintegrated canopy and interspersed with wind turbine access roads, the microclimatic regulation that is characteristic of forests is lost. This leads to severe heat and drought-induced damage and the dieback of old exposed trees in particular, new study finds. Photo: Copyright P. Gosselin

9°C warmer with 67% less biomass

In biomass-poor pine plantations (177 m3 per hectare), the average maximum temperature was 9°C higher than in relatively biomass-rich beech forests (> 565 m3 per hectare).

Over 13°C warmer in opened canopy pine forest 

When pine plantations alone are considered, a significant influence of use intensity is also evident: during the hottest day in 2019, the difference in peak temperatures between those with a relatively dense canopy (72%) and those with a particularly open one (46%) was more than 13°C, the authors found.

Deforestation to make way for wind parks leads to severe heat and drought-induced damage and the dieback of old exposed trees . Photo: Copyright P. Gosselin

Trees guard against extreme weather?

Project leader Prof. Dr. Pierre Ibisch summarizes, “The conclusion is that forest managers therefore have some control in climate change over how much the forests entrusted to them heat up and are potentially damaged as a result. Higher biomass stocks and a closed canopy are insurance against extreme weather.”

The paper also critically discusses and casts doubt on previously common silvicultural recommendations to promote forest thinning. Water losses and the risk of heat damage increase with thinning. The authors recommend to keep the canopy as closed as possible (at least 80%) and to use the forests accordingly cautiously. In addition, they confirm the well-known demand to develop the simply structured conifer monocultures into structurally rich mixed deciduous forests as quickly as possible.

CO2 cools the planet? 

What the scientists don’s bring up, however, is CO2’s impact on forest growth: More CO2 means more tree growth, which leads to cooling.

Original press release here.

Original study: Blumroeder, Jeanette S., Felix May, Werner Härdtle, and Pierre L. Ibisch (2021) Forestry contributed to warming of forest ecosystems in northern Germany during the extreme summers of 2018 and 2019. Ecological Solutions and Evidence. DOI 10.1002/2688-8319.12087. Link to the article and the journal.


Jeanette Silvin Blumröder & Prof. Dr. Pierre L. Ibisch
Centre for Econics and Ecosystem Management, Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development

Dr. Felix May
AG Theoretische Biologie, Institut für Biologie, Freie Universität Berlin

Prof. Dr. Werner Härdtle
Institut für Ökologie, Leuphana Universität Lüneburg

5 6 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve Case
July 30, 2021 6:24 pm

So it’s cooler in the woods than it is in the parking lot. Who knew!

Reply to  Steve Case
July 30, 2021 7:15 pm

Anyone who’s ever been out in nature.
Which leaves out most greens and ecologists.

Reply to  Steve Case
July 30, 2021 8:48 pm


July 30, 2021 6:53 pm

Beech trees and pine trees (actually all kinds of trees) have different water transpiration rates. For example from June through November in one site every 100 grams of dry weight in birch leaves transpired on average 67.9 grams of water; while white pine only transpired on average 5.8 grams of water for every 100 grams dry weight of white pine leaves.

During that June through November season the birch tree needed on average 75 liters of water in that period per 100 grams dry weight leaves it had. In contrast, for the same season the white pine tree only needed on average 7 liters of water in that period per 100 dry weight leaves. Data source author calculated this to mean that on a hot and dry day a single free-standing birch tree that had 200,000 leaves was evapo-transpiring on average 400 liters of water that hot and dry day.

Last edited 1 month ago by gringojay
Peta of Newark
Reply to  gringojay
July 30, 2021 8:11 pm

Different trees are evolved, have adapted themselves, for different situations.

You pick 2 really good examples.
Birch: In common with Willow and Alder especially are trees that ‘Don’t mind getting their feet wet”
IOW They grow in swamps and marshes = places with waterlogged ground with low nutrient density. That being caused by low oxygen levels limiting bacterial action which releases plant nutrient and also by the high turnover of available water washing away what food/nutrient is available.
So the trees need to ‘filter’ huge amounts of water to get the Phosphorus. Potash, Nitrogen , Sulphur,Iron, Magnesium etc etc that they need
The perfect reason why the Alders not least, encourage bacteria around their roots, bacteria that fix nitrogen.
Nitrogen being THE most water-soluble and easily leached/lost nutrient of them all.

The pines are adapted, their leaves tell the story, for much drier but also low nutrient places ##
And perfectly explains why:
Quote:”What the scientists don’s (sic) bring up, however, is CO2’s impact on forest growth: More CO2 means more tree growth, which leads to cooling.”
……is patent nonsense.

All experiments I’ve seen on CO2 vs tree growth involved conifers grown in greenhouses – greenhouses being places with impossibly high quality dirt/soil – the sort of soil that never exists out in the real world.
Thus in those experiments, CO2 becomes the Liebig Limiter and the experimenter gets the result he/she expected.
Junk Science Rules
Muppets from NASA then misunderstand what’s going on and falsely interpret what their Sputnik sees and Junk Science then propagates like Wild Fire 😀
While nobody can challenge NASA due to their impenetrable ultra-authority and self-importance – endowed upon them by the Sputniks themselves and supercomputers

## The low nutrient aspect is why conifers don’t drop their leaves. Doing so, obviously, means giving away what food they have gathered. OK a lot of it will be recycled via the soil but that’s a risk they dare not take and is why they are always ‘shallow rooted’ = designed to grow on thin, not-very-deep soils where solid rock is not far below the surface. Canadia basically, because the deep soil was removed by the ice-sheet during the last ice-age.
California also but because a lot of the soils there are very ancient and highly eroded, both by wind and water. The good dirt either blew away in the wind or got washed away down the rivers.
I might have mentioned Australia but (sadly) it is a totally lost cause.
Lost because of nigh-on 100,000 years of Man burning the now goddam place.
We really do do THE most stupid, selfish and destructive things – sometimes, I have no sympathy for my fellow man, none at all.

Last edited 1 month ago by Peta of Newark
Reply to  Peta of Newark
July 30, 2021 11:15 pm

Why don’t you try doing a bit of research before you pull that crap about low nutrient soil out of your arse again, Peta? Broadleaf trees pull their green chlorophyll out of their leaves as a response to colder days and fewer hours of light in late fall. That’s why their leaves turn colors before they fall. They do it because their leaves would freeze and die in winter losing all that precious chlorophyll. Broadleaf trees have leaves that are well, you know, broad and can photosyntesize lots of sugars quickly to facilitate tree growth in the spring when the chlorophyll returns to a new leaf. Conifers don’t have to drop their needles because they have evolved natural anti-freeze so their needles don’t freeze. It has nothing to do with the nutrient quantity of the soil. How does a thinking person know? Because conifers that evolved in areas with rich soil still hold their needles and broadleaf trees that evolved in rich soils still drop their leaves.

Reply to  Meab
July 31, 2021 7:57 am

Thank you, I was shaking my head reading that garbage. Claiming greenhouses have impossibly good soil that can’t be found anywhere in nature is incredibly ignorant. The soil of the redwood forests in California is so specialized that the Archangel Ancient Tree Archive has to literally truck it from the forest to their cloned trees’ new home. They have been unable to replicate its specific makeup, and especially not in a greenhouse.

Of course seeing both conifers and leafy trees thriving in the same soil, regardless of soil condition, is direct observation and not anecdotal. The maples of the redwood forests are dropping leaves every fall, yet Peta claims “The low nutrient aspect is why conifers don’t drop their leaves” Why then are there broadleaf trees in the conifer redwood forest? Why are there masses of Oregon myrtlewood amid fir, hemlock, pine forests?

Peta makes it seem like you can’t have leaves in a conifer forest and you can’t have conifers in a broadleaf forest. Perhaps Peta should step outside and make some direct empirical observations?

Reply to  Meab
July 31, 2021 10:22 am

A while back Peta declared that the reason why deserts were deserts had nothing to with rain, but was because repeated fires had destroyed the soil.

Mike Dubrasich
July 30, 2021 7:29 pm

How about a little forest foresight, eggspurts?

Dense forests burn catastrophically. Fires in dense forests experience 100% mortality, release carbon dioxide, other gases, and ash, and leave moonscape snag patches with no canopy cover at all. Often low brush replaces trees, and return fires burn the site again and again. Tree cover is eliminated.

Properly thinned forests are resilient to fires, burn with little mortality, protect older trees, and retain canopy cover.

If these scienterrificals visited some burns of dense and thinned forests, and took their spiffy measurements there, they would reach the exact opposite conclusions.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
July 30, 2021 7:45 pm

Define what you mean by ‘dense’
IOW: read the article

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Peta of Newark
July 30, 2021 9:29 pm

Excuse me, do you think I cannot read? From the cited original article:

Project leader Prof. Dr. Pierre Ibisch summarizes, “The conclusion is that forest managers therefore have some control in climate change over how much the forests entrusted to them heat up and are potentially damaged as a result. Higher biomass stocks and a closed canopy are insurance against extreme weather.”

The paper also critically discusses and casts doubt on previously common silvicultural recommendations to promote forest thinning. Water losses and the risk of heat damage increase with thinning. The authors recommend to keep the canopy as closed as possible (at least 80 %) and to use the forests accordingly cautiously.

A closed canopy forest is dense. Fires crown in closed canopy forests spreading from crown to crown engulfing every tree. Conversely, in properly thinned forests crowns are separated by wide spaces. Fires go the ground and burn ground fuels without torching the crowns.

Properly thinned forests may have less than 50% canopy cover as measured by two-dimensional aerial photography, but they acquire resilience to fires. Perhaps such forests are not as shady as closed canopy forests, but they are more so than devastated roasted forests.

The Bootleg Fire has burned 415,000 acres of the Fremont-Winema NF so far. That forest was not thinned. Now it is destroyed. It will not “guard against extreme weather”. It will not “prevent damaging maximum temperatures, especially during prolonged heat waves.” The wildlife are dead, the soil is damaged, the steams are polluted with ash, and there will be floods and landslides this coming winter.

The push for No Touch, Let It Burn, Watch It Rot has long been supported by climate alarmists. They say that warmer temps will burn forests, so let’s burn them ahead of time as a precaution. I kid you not. Now they have another rationale: no thinning will preserve cool forest floors, as if that will mitigate global warming. But hot burned former forest floors will inevitably result.

Rank amateurs and pinheaded profs frequently attempt to advise foresters. Do they also advise brain surgeons, veterinarians, and beauty shop operators? Should professionals with experience kowtow to know-nothings with crackpot theories? Not when so much of great value is at stake.

Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
July 30, 2021 10:44 pm

Nothing in the article suggest a widespread effect on temperatures. No additional energy is created in a thinned forest so it cannot add to temperatures elsewhere.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Peta of Newark
July 30, 2021 10:16 pm

And BTW, your peta theories are complete crap:

The low nutrient aspect is why conifers don’t drop their leaves. Doing so, obviously, means giving away what food they have gathered. OK a lot of it will be recycled via the soil but that’s a risk they dare not take and is why they are always ‘shallow rooted’ = designed to grow on thin, not-very-deep soils where solid rock is not far below the surface.

Conifers do drop needles. I’ve been in fir and pine forests where the needle mulch is foot thick or more. Conifer roots penetrate dozens of feet, even over a hundred, sometimes into apparently solid rock, which has micro fractures made by micro rootlets. Pine, firs, and other conifers grow very well on deep soils and out-compete deciduous trees with superior height and longevity.

What really bugs me is that people who live in Newark and other places thousands of miles away are the putative “owners” of National Forests in Oregon, and their hired goons do such severe mismanagement, and our priceless Oregon forests are thereby destroyed by the “owners” who have never seen them, never will, and know nothing about them.

We’d like our forests back, please. You don’t want them, and it costs you a bundle to have them so grievously abused. Your “pride of ownership” is causing a lot of damage and suffering. Let it go. Give us our land back.

Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
August 2, 2021 8:43 am

Yes, most conifers at various ages slowly lose their needles over time, but are replaced while staying ‘evergreen’ year round. Take a look under some Juniper hedging…it will be 6″ deep in needle litter after 25 years and extreme fire prone. Not a good hedge to plant next to your house with cedar siding and a cedar shake roof. Unless you want your house to maybe burn down at the drop of a spark.

Although Eastern Larch (also know as Tamarack) Dawn Redwood and Bald Cyprus trees lose all of their needles every year. Similar to deciduous trees, this helps protect them against winter conditions and (like all conifers) allows them to grow under fairly challenging soil and climate conditions.

Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
July 30, 2021 10:40 pm

Quite a few plants in different locals require periodic fires to propagate.

Reply to  AndyHce
July 31, 2021 5:16 am

For example, the Venus flytrap which only grows naturally in a small area near Wilmington, North Carolina. Regular fire is very healthy for the plant, helps clear competition for sunlight.

When you think wildfire, do you think of the east coast? Yet there is another plant on the east coast which needs regular wildfire to survive: the longleaf pine. When a sapling of this pine tree buds, it hardly grows at all for 5 years. But during those 5 years, it is virtually fireproof. Unfortunately, most other trees don’t stop growing for 5 years. Without a wildfire, the longleaf pine will lose the competition for sunlight.

If wildfire and drought are so bad and a sign of climate change, why are there are two plants in the wet east coast that need wildfire to survive?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Wade
July 31, 2021 1:15 pm

“For example, the Venus flytrap which only grows naturally in a small area near Wilmington, North Carolina.”

There’s something I didn’t know.

Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
August 1, 2021 1:56 pm

I used to own a good bit of timberland, including a piece in the Rim Fire in 2013 near Yosemite. I wish I could take people to see the effects of thinned forests on the behavior of fire. The Forest Service had completed a thinning project in a mature forest around our property the year before and we had selectively logged ours that year as well. Leading up to the area was a burnt moonscape but as soon as the fire reached the thinned areas it laid down and left the large majority of the canopy while burning much of the reduced undergrowth left after the logging. Plus the numerous skid trials slowed the spread and therefore intensity of the fire.
The same thing happened on the east end of the fire. There was an old fire scar that had been replanted about 30 years before. The Forest Service had begun precommerical thinning of the plantation the year before and got about halfway done. The fire hit the unthinned portion first and razed it to the ground. As soon as it hit the thinned areas it not only laid down and creeped along the ground; it eventually extinguished itself. The thinned half of the plantation looks like and is still a heathy forest. The other half is still either mostly barren, just starting to regrow a few small trees or is an impenetrable brush field.

Julian Flood
July 30, 2021 8:15 pm

The Earth is a water planet, and its lungs are not on land. Plankton fix, export, release and use many times more CO2 in a year than all the trees and forests and soil bacteria.

We spill enough light oil and surfactant onto the world ocean surface every year to cover it several times over. This lowers albedo, reduces evaporation and, by suppressing wave breaking lowers the production of salt CCNs, all warming factors. Earth warmsFewer waves reduces stirring, lowers plankton production as less CO2 is available. Silica run-off shifts plankton towards diatom growth.

Etc. This guess explains some warming and the light C signal. More detail at Independence Daily blog.

ISome warming is anthropogenic, the part caused by ocean pollution. Its fixable?


Reply to  Julian Flood
July 30, 2021 9:10 pm

So have you got numbers on that Plankton CO2 fixing ?….or a source….it’s a demanding crowd here who demands real numbers….with possible exception of pandemic cures…

Last edited 1 month ago by DMacKenzie
July 30, 2021 8:35 pm

Has that forest management paper been misinterpreted?

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Chaamjamal
July 30, 2021 10:47 pm

Not by me. A quote from your link (the all caps are theirs — they made the emphasis):


Thick canopies lead to 100% mortality fires. Completely incinerated forests do not “enhance the microclimate”. “Excessive” thinning saves trees from crown fires and perpetuates forests.

Forest management guidelines from climate alarmists are bunkum. Agenda driven junk science devastates forests. Burn baby burn is bad for Planet Earth. Warmer, on the other hand, is better.

July 30, 2021 9:35 pm

If we allow these insane Fascists to destroy our freedoms, the global economy, education, society, the courts, rule of law, race relations, police forces, military, borders, environments, etc., our next major source of energy won’t be fossil fuels, wind, solar or nuclear power…., it will be abandoned household furniture….

July 30, 2021 9:58 pm

So let’s cut our forests down for biofuel wood pellets. It’s carbon neutral right?

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 30, 2021 10:52 pm

How about restoring forests to heritage conditions: widely spaced trees with grassy understories that are resilient to fire. Do whatever you like with the thinned biomass: burn it for energy or build houses with the boards — what matters to me is the forest that’s left. That should matter to you, too.

July 30, 2021 10:16 pm

Are they aware that 100’s of MILLONS of Acres were cut down in the last 10,000 years?

The world has lost one-third of its forests, but an end of deforestation is possible

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Sunsettommy
July 30, 2021 11:00 pm

UN FAO info is crap. There are more trees alive today than at any time in the Holocene. Please note that TREES GROW BACK, all by themselves, without help from the UN, which is a political cesspool. Please note that your home, your abode, where you and your family shelter from the storm, is made from former trees.

Jumping jeepers, when the Editors at WUWT start citing the UN as a reliable source for science? In mega red type font no less. Have you gone mad, too?

Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
July 30, 2021 11:23 pm

Mike, I shall disagree with a small amount – our abode is steel-framed, not wood. Stucco surface finish over wall board. My wife’s family, living in the UK and France, all live in masonry homes. Your statement “… your home, your abode, where you and your family shelter from the storm, is made from former trees” is true for most homes in the US, but not all.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
July 31, 2021 8:39 am

Wattle and dab, eh? How Dark Agey. But I accept your bunker mentality and sympathize with you. And thank you for not citing the UN or the EU in giant red letters. I was worried that the wokie dokers hijacked the website.

Here in the declining and falling US, we huddle in stick-frame houses and wait for catastrophic fires to burn us out. The freaking gummit owns all the forests, just like in Red China, and the loyal functionaries are loathe to touch them for fear temps will rise one-tenth of a degree and everyone will die. If that happened, who would pay the teachers union? So don’t toich those forests or all the needles will fall off. Better to let them burn away in million acre firestorms to save the flytraps. Humans are bad.

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
July 31, 2021 10:24 am

Question Jim,

So there are a FEW houses built from steel framing in the US. I inspected some in Las Vegas, NV, BUT they are harder to maintain good insulation values due to steel NOT being an insulator. So what % of HOMES in Europe and the UK are built primarily of steel?

As to your those “masonry” buildings of which you speak. Speaking of single family homes and townhomes, etc. what % have no wooden beams for roofs, door and window headers, roof sheathing, etc. What % of multistory masonry structures are built with the floors above grade made from masonry?

Rocks are a good and handy building material, but other than dead loads, are not of much use.

Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
July 31, 2021 9:57 am

Mike, your anger is unsupported, what you don’t seem to realize is that America from the Rocky Mountains east to the Atlantic ocean was almost entirely covered with forest, yes almost all of it, now we have just regional coverage left.

Forests of the United States

Cities of Seattle, Tacoma and Bellingham were covered in forests, now little remains.

It is similar in large areas of Europe too where vast areas have been cut down to make way for farming and cities.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
July 31, 2021 10:30 am

I suspect there are more trees in the plains states then there were 200 years ago.
Yes, there are cities where forests once stood, however even in those cities, trees can be found. In where I live, the neighborhoods around the downtown you can find canopies that completely cover the houses and the streets. Probably not as thick as before these areas were settled, but still quite extensive.
Of course homes in these areas are 50 to 100 years old. Given time, younger neighborhoods will add trees of their own.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Sunsettommy
July 31, 2021 10:44 am


Wiki eh? Another unimpeachable science source. Pier reviewed and all. I hate to burst their wokie bubble, but bad bad humans have lived in the East and the West for 15,500 years at least, and those bad bad ignoble savages (they were only human, too) burned their landscapes with unbridled impunity all the time, for 15,300 years at least.

All that deliberate (and accidental) torching nixxed the trees and made grass grow. Ergo buffalo. Ask yourself, if it was continuous dense virgin forest having a climax, what did the buffalo eat? Venus flytyraps? Also, how did the Hopewell peeps grow all that maize under a closed forest canopy?

If these questions are too tough to answer, don’t bother. It’s better to huddle in the darkness than light a single candle. Remain mired in ignorance. The senile wokesters and their Maoist cadres like it better that way. Burn Baby Burn. Seattle especially.

Last edited 1 month ago by Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
July 31, 2021 11:32 pm

Gee all I did was post good evidence that the worlds forests are smaller by acreage than it was 300 and 10,000 years ago, that was all I talked about.

You have NOT made a single counterpoint to the two sources I posted.


Reply to  Sunsettommy
July 31, 2021 10:58 am

American Indians burned forest to plant corn….to drive animals to kill. Europeans cut forests to build homes…to have fire wood….. to build ships….to make charcoal to make iron. I live in a semi-rural area and notice the verdant weeds growing along side rural 2 lane roads….sufficient rain and the stuff is like 3 feet tall – biomass, no?

Reply to  Sunsettommy
July 31, 2021 11:07 am

“almost entirely covered”? Ever hear of the GREAT PLAINS? The Texas Scrublands?

Even the Wiki article you reference states “Prior to the arrival of European-Americans, about one half of the United States land area was forest,”

When you consider MOST of the Rocky Mountains below the tree line is and was forested, and east of the Mississippi was and is forested. Just regional coverage? There are LARGE swaths of Virginia that were cotton and tobacco plantation that are now forests. The Blue Ridge, Appalachian, Adirondacks etc., mountains, are mostly forested.

With the desire for space, suburban areas have take over much of the east coast agricultural areas, and MANY of these houses have woodlots when the property is over 1/2 acre. My brother is on 2 acres, was farmland over 100 years ago, now a pine and oak forest, where about 1/3 acre is grass, driveway and home, the rest woodlot.

And Cities. by their very nature, are not forests, what a surprise.

So, if you think we should get back to the forests of 300+ years ago, start liquidating PEOPLE.

As re Mike’s Anger. I don’t really see anger, I see incredulity. The UN link you provided shows that the US, Australia and much of Europe has NO DATA.

One author, wants to bridge the gap between “science” and the masses. Naomi Oreskes anyone?

The primary? author is REALLY concerned with equity, so I really care MUCH about what he wants to tell us in his biased research, not. Why BIASED research, again because of what they left OFF of their world map.



Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Drake
July 31, 2021 12:52 pm

Thank you, Mr. Drake. It’s more derision than anger. Besides, why should I be angry at millions of acres of priceless heritage forests burning to the ground while tweaky climastrologists demand no thinning so as to prevent Thermageddon? Thank goodness for the UN.

As to Victorian proto-science based on Medieval Ashmolean sophistry, it’s slightly racist don’t you think? I mean, denying the existence of the indigenous residents and/or their humanity is a kind of blind prejudice — and it seems to underlie their paradigm. But then I’m not an Anglo or a Teuton, so who am I to judge?

Last edited 1 month ago by Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  Drake
July 31, 2021 11:25 pm

Well at least you made an effort to get past the common fallacious attack on sources I used.

I am still the only one who posted some evidence based on research, all you and Mike have done is attack it with opinions and no direct counterpoint.

The Wiki posted a map showing that even forested areas in the Appalachian Mountains have been thinned greatly since the 1800’s.

You ignored it and the numerous references to the United States Forest Service reports.

The rest of your post I will just ignore as they are not about the Forests.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
July 30, 2021 11:32 pm

what is the uncertainty in ‘how much forest there was 10,000 years ago’?

Matthew Sykes
July 31, 2021 12:32 am

So CO2 fertilisation, and the 30% increase in tree growth, is a negative feedback.

I also read somewhere trees release chemicals that aid cloud formation.

Ed Zuiderwijk
July 31, 2021 3:21 am

The conclusion is that forest managers therefore have some control in climate change over how much the forests entrusted to them heat up ….


Bruce Cobb
July 31, 2021 4:47 am

Proper forest management is a good thing in its own right. The “Climate” canard is an idiotic reason to do, or not do anything. It doesn’t get any more idiotic than burning trees instead of coal, or gas, or cutting down forests to grow biofuels. In India, they learned the hard way why it was bad to destroy forests. Being such an ancient civilization, you would think they’d know better.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 31, 2021 6:33 am

And then there is Haiti.

Bloke down the pub
July 31, 2021 5:13 am

Think back to the original survey of scientists which lead to the 97% figure. One of the questions was, ‘do you believe mankind is affecting the climate?’. This paper shows that those scientists were being truthful, without any impact from driving suvs needing to be accounted for.

Tom Kennedy
July 31, 2021 5:28 am

Multi-modal forests (Structurally complex) are better at carbon sequestration according to this study by VCU:

Tom Kennedy
July 31, 2021 5:34 am


“Only 10% of Ireland is under forest cover and, it’s understood that just 1% of that is made-up of native Irish trees. If you’ve followed our work in the past you’ll know just how important native trees area to the surrounding environment.
These incredibly low numbers are primarily due to human activity in the 18th and 19th centuries, and to a lesser extent also activities in the early 20th century.”

Lets cut down the last 10% and build wind projects and huge solar farms!

August 1, 2021 7:38 am

It’s nice to have a study, but EVERY motorcyclist could have told you what was found. Riding from open spaces to forested areas demonstrates a truly dramatic cooling that cannot be denied, even by the Global Warm-mongers.

Except, of course, at night, when the opposite is true.

Last edited 1 month ago by Kpar
%d bloggers like this: