Exnihiloest wrote:Its increase even contributes to the greening of the planet faster than deforestation.
Once again you bias the real information to make an opportunistic generalization in the service of your lies ...
On this subject, the researchers write: "Although efforts to plant trees, with the initiative of China of a great green wall, improve the capacity of our planet to absorb atmospheric carbon, the greening obtained thanks to intensive farming does not have the same effect, according to Victor Brovkin of the Max Planck meteorological institute, co-author of our paper. Instead, the carbon absorbed by the crops is quickly released into the atmosphere. ”
"This overall growth [in tree cover] results from a net loss between the tropics, which is more than offset by a net gain outside the tropics," write the researchers. Who estimate that these evolutions are 60% linked to human activities (deforestation, intensification of agriculture, reforestation etc.) and for the rest to indirect factors, "like climate change".
Scientists note an increase in tree cover in temperate climates, but also in boreal regions or in the mountains, a consequence of global warming: "Warming facilitates the growth of wooded vegetation in northeast Siberia, in western Alaska and northern Quebec, ”they note, for example.
46% fewer trees since the beginnings of humanity
It is therefore probable, in the light of the studies cited, that there are indeed more trees on earth than there were twenty years ago (including due to global warming). Looking over a longer time, the result is reversed. In 2015, an article - also published in Nature - mentioned a 46% decrease in the number of trees since the beginning of human civilization.
https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/201 ... ns_1732974Massive use of irrigation, fertilizers and mechanization
However, this type of culture is much less favorable for the environment. "If reforestation like that observed on the Great Green Wall or in Eastern European countries increases CO2 storage, it is not the same for cultivated fields, including the CO2 they absorb is released quickly into the atmosphere, "says Victor Brovkin, of the Max-Planck Institute for Meteorology and co-author of the study. On the other hand, this intensive agriculture has largely developed at the cost of increased crop rotation, untimely pumping of groundwater and the massive use of fertilizers and pesticides. The two countries are thus at the top of the first fertilizer consumers in the world, and Brazil follows exactly the same trend (the latter also encroaches on its primary forests to extend its crops). If more greenery leads to a depletion of water supplies, a depletion of soil and pollution of rivers, there is nothing to be happy about.
A previous study based on satellite observations had hypothesized that the increase in plant cover was mainly due to the increase in the level of atmospheric CO2, favorable to plant growth. "We show here that the role of Man is much more important than what we thought," attests Ranga Myneni. And he doesn't always make the right choices. Another study published in 2018 in Nature thus showed the perverse effects of massive conifer plantations in Europe.
https://www.futura-sciences.com/planete ... lle-75039/
“It is better to mobilize your intelligence on bullshit than to mobilize your bullshit on intelligent things. (J.Rouxel)
"By definition the cause is the product of the effect". (Tryphion)
"360 / 000 / 0,5 is 100 million and not 72 million" (AVC)