all 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 37 points 2 months ago (1 child)

As the article says though, monoculture crops aren't a good replacement for what came before. Also, older trees are thought to sink much more carbon than younger trees; so the near-elimination of old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest ... is still a disaster for the planet. :(

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 2 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    (Not this planet, sorry)

  • source
  • 7 comments in c/hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se view that post
    [–] 11 points 2 months ago

    Fuckin trees moving in. Taking our jobs. They're not even native species.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    And more carbon. And more humans. Heck, there's just so much new stuff!

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    So much carbon! Carbon daters in the future are going to have a field day with what we're doing here!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

    Hell, I love dating carbon, hot sexy carbon, and I'm having a field day now. So many options. I can even be hyper specific about isotopes, and I still have more than I can handle.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    I would have never guessed

  • source
  • Yep, forests in Antarctica soon.

  • source
  • 3 comments in c/hopeposting@sh.itjust.works view that post
    [–] 11 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Doubtful, considering the Amazon rain forest has been losing a football field or more of trees every minute of the day, since at least 1990.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/amazon-has-lost-more-ten-million-football-fields-forest-decade-180973879/

    https://worldanimalfoundation.org/advocate/deforestation-statistics/

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48827490

    Even the article expresses doubts: “The authors note these numbers contradict data from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, which collects national forest data from countries’ forestry departments and has historically been seen as the most consistent source of information.”

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Is there any effect from increased CO2 in the atmosphere making it easier for trees to breathe and grow? I understand the data saying we're cutting them down faster than they regrow but just wondering if we see anywhere we aren't cutting them down where they grow faster than they used to?

  • source
  • parent
  • It's reports like this that do actually give me hope for the future, though the study seems to be from almost 10 years ago. I'd be curious to see updated results, and I'm not saying this to be a doomer -- I do believe (on my good days) that on the whole, the efforts humanity is making to slow loss of established habitat and re-growing habitats that were already lost or in jeopardy should show a fairly neutral or even positive trend -- I just wonder how the last decade may look in comparison to when these stats were reported.

    Humankind is incredibly good at figuring out solutions to problems and kind enough to help nature bounce back when we overtax it. Humpback whales were hunted near to extinction just half a century ago (less than 5,000 individuals in 1966). Today there are near estimated near 100,000 and indications that their populations are increasing, and are listed as Least Concern for conservation efforts. We absolutely can and are helping nature adapt to and recover from the changes we've made to the planet, and we're only going to get better at it. It may not look the same as when we arrived, but we'll still help nature thrive around us.

  • source