What happened to global warming?

The have planted alot of tree's in cali as of late

 

fact is...

we used to burn nicer wood than we build furniture with today.

it's why I'm a big fan of reclaimed wood.

I did the floors in my new home entirely with reclaimed heart pine.

It looks like a million bux. well, actually it looks like about 15 grand...but you get my drift.

 

... ^^^ ... Not so ... I believe in global warming ... but I used to live in Canada ...

and now have the wisdom of 10,000 Americans ... it was an amazing transformation ...
.

 

That article is misleading. Read the Forestry Department document it was based on.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/x4995e.htm#P40_457

"After two centuries of decline, the area of US forestland stabilized
in about 1920 and has since increased slightly. The forest area of
the US is about two-thirds what it was in 1600."

The paragraph above is true despite massive forest conservation efforts in recent years. Personally, I believe even that paragraph may be misleading since it focuses mainly on national parks and similar. Next time you're sitting at Wal-Mart, McDonald's, or similar, look around and ask yourself if there really are more trees today.

Not necessarily. However, I'm also not willing to rule it out entirely either. I'm open to the possibility, pending further evidence.

 

http://www.oregonwild.org/oregon_fo...myths-facts-about-forests-and-global-warming/

Its not quite that simple...so much insane complexity in a forest ecosystem. It goes well beyond the age of the tree and has to do with the complete ecosystem and successional phase of the forest and what kind of disturbance prompted the successional phase you are evaluating for carbon sequestration.

 

You tree homos need to give it a rest.

 

I love trees...

especially old growth ones that have been cut and milled to dimention and are sitting on my work bench.

and I've hugged one or two...but that's as far as it got.

 

Problem is you all live in concrete and think lumber comes from Home Depot

Clear cut old growth is a sad sight

 

The paragraph is also true despite the wood used in McDonalds, Walmart, etc. I never made the claim that there are more trees in the US than there were in 1600. I don't have to ask myself if there are more trees today. The study says that there are.

Let's not leave out the other points it makes

• The area consumed by wildfire each year has fallen 90 percent; it was between eight and twenty million hectares (20-50 million acres) in the early 1900s and is between one and two million hectares (2-5 million acres) today.
• Forest growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. By 1997 forest growth exceeded harvest by 42 percent and the volume of forest growth was 380 percent greater than it had been in 1920.
• Nationally, the average standing wood volume per acre in US forests is about one-third greater today than in 1952; in the East, average volume per acre has almost doubled. About three-quarters of the volume increase is in broad leaved or deciduous trees.
• Populations of many wildlife species have increased dramatically since 1900. But some species, especially some having specialized habitat conditions, remain the cause for concern.
• Tree planting on all forestland rose dramatically after World War II, reaching record levels in the 1980s. Many private forestlands are now actively managed for tree growing and other values and uses.
• Recreational use on national forests and other public and private forest lands has increased manyfold .
• American society in the 20th century has changed from rural and agrarian to urban and industrialized. This has caused a shift in the mix of uses and values the public seeks from its forests (particularly its pubic forests). Increased demands for recreation and protection of biodiversity are driving forest management. This has caused timber harvest from federal lands to decline by more than 60 percent since 1990. In spite of this shift, today's urbanized nation is also placing record demands on its forests for timber production.

Can we do better? Sure. Is it the massive deforestation you're suggesting? Not at all.

 

Wasn't most of the entire east coast clear cut by the early-mid 1900s? Most of the people in the east have never seen an old growth forest, most of whats here is 40-80 years old

 

Wait wait wait. I'm late to the party.

So what I'm getting is that we're wrong for cutting down all the trees back in the day, and now we're wrong for growing more trees to counteract that deforestation?

Hippies....

 

wut

 

"Old Growth" is a vague term. It doesn't really have a timespan attached to it, though some say 120 years. It can mean different timespans depending on the tree type. For example, a birch tree can live about 40-50 years. In contrast, a giant sequoia can live about 3000 years. So depending on the tree type, an 80 year old forest would be considered old growth if you're talking about a tree like the birch or it could be relatively young for a forest of sequoias.

 

Spent most of this summer logging my neighbor's place. Should have the last of them yarded out by the end of this week then we can start cutting a section of our land. There are realities that have to be admitted to about what this kind of activity does and how best to mitigate its environmental impact. There is a middle of the road that can be reached by both sides. Unfortunately people way over simplize the issues to the point of doing harm no matter what conclusion they come to. Throwing pieces of knowledge out there should never be discouraged. Going through the forestry program at OSU. This shit is real and so intensely important, but so misunderstood by the public its obscene.

 

old growth: forest or woodland having a mature or overly mature ecosystem more or less uninfluenced by human activity.

 

Well, guess I'm just a bit too influenced by reality. There's not a place today that has as many trees as I remember just a few years ago. Every town I've been in has expanded substantially over the last few decades (roads, stores, office buildings, housing developments, etc), with thousands of trees cut down to clear land for that. One hundred million more people in the USA than just a few decades ago.

Saw the same in Europe, with towns there expanding well more into the neighboring forests since the previous visit. Appears the same (trees being cut down in great numbers) in South America.

Based on that (growing populations, towns expanding, etc), suspect it's a world-wide trend. A little hard to imagine all that deforestation isn't having a significant impact on the environment, including our atmosphere.

However, we're obviously not going to agree on absolutely any of this, so I'll leave it at what I've already said.

 

Did someone say.... WOOOOOD?

http://youtu.be/eCkX-ZOB5Hg