Keep In Mind This Earth Day That Trees Are NOT Going Extinct

treesIt’s important to remember on Earth Day that it’s unlikely trees are going extinct, despite recent concerns made by green researchers.

Environmentalists and conservationists helped spur a grassroots campaign in the 1970s helping to create Earth Day, in part over concerns trees would become extinct as a result of so-called man-made global warming.

Studies have issued dire warning about tree’s chances of survival in the age of man-made global warming.

One climate study conducted by the University of Delaware in 2015 and published in the journal of Nature Climate Change, for instance, issued a warning to public policy makers and environmentalists.

If global warming is not scaled back soon, the study’s authors argue, then the world should expect to see the death of 72 percent of needle leaf evergreens in the Southwest by 2050. That number would increase to 100 percent by 2100, the study states.

Analysts, however, argue the fear of these mass tree extinction is exaggerated.

“On the whole, I’d say the world’s forests and trees are in very good health,” Chip Knappenberger, a long-time climatologist and current assistant director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“There have been concerns that trees and other forestation would dwindle, but satellites show the Earth is actually greening at higher rates than in years past,” Knappenberger said, adding also that it’s important to note that trees actually thrive in conditions where there’s more carbon in the air.

Other climate researches share Knappenberger’s viewpoint.

Craig Idso, chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, for instance, noted in a 2016 study that If the Earth’s temperature were to rise dramatically in the future, then all would not be lost as “tree species have been shown to acclimate to changes in temperature.”

Idso’s research goes on to state that in fact “the optimum temperature for plant growth generally rises,” in a carbon enriched environment.

Read rest…

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (7)

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    With only a 0.8 degree change in 150 years and a pause in warming for almost 20 years we are not likely to get a big shift in temperature assuming there is no mini-ice age.

    I do not have a degree in forestry but have live at and traveled between different altitudes. I have noticed as I assume many other have that there are different species of trees at different elevations. If there were a big change in temperature what we could expect is a shift in the elevations that young trees can survive in. Over time the eventual result would be a shift in the altitude where various species would thrive.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    When did the scary global warming promoters know plants , animals and trees do better in a CO2 enriched environment ? Why did they withhold this from the public ?
    Where were the scientific organizations
    that could have presented at least a balanced perspective ? The UN political activists hijacked the science to screen out anything that didn’t produce the doomsday scenarios they wanted to be cranking out .
    Wasn’t that the real conspiracy to mislead the public for the purpose of liberating people of their cash ? That is who needs to be investigated along with the other activists who have collaborated to pull off one of the biggest mass frauds in history .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    Here in Wisconsin forests are healthy, aside from the emerald ash borer invasion which has nothing to do with an undetectable change in overall temperatures. If we have any problem with our forests it’s that the paper industry is declining and not enough pulp wood is being cut.

    Our forests rely on regrowth from natural disasters such as wildfires, which for the most part are now a thing of the past. The pulp industry took over for the role of fire, allowing a more natural and diverse habitat continuum. Wildlife diversity here is associated with younger, diverse forests, and old-growth forests provide little habitat for the widest variety of other plants and animals despite the romantic pining of eco-leftists for old growth everywhere.

    That said, our forests in any given year may experience swings of 150 degrees Fahrenheit from winter to summer. Anyone who tells you that a median change of one degree or so in either direction will be “devastating” to our forests is full of sap.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    I need to mention the real threat the trees are facing. When a jungle is cut down in Brazil for its lumber and to make way for an agricultural field, the cause isn’t climate change. The climate change movement has made an effort to preserve jungle but they continue to be destroyed. When a man in Africa cuts down a tree so his cattle can eat its leaves, the cause is not climate change. When a forest in the state of Washington is destroyed to make way for housing development, the cause is not climate change.

    These are the issues that the environmental organizations should be working on because of these organizations’ very nature. Instead they chose the non-issue of anthropological climate change. I guess saving trees doesn’t forward their political agendas.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    [quote name=”David Lewis”]The climate change movement has made an effort to preserve jungle but they continue to be destroyed. When a man in Africa cuts down a tree so his cattle can eat its leaves, the cause is not climate change. When a forest in the state of Washington is destroyed to make way for housing development, the cause is not climate change.

    These are the issues that the environmental organizations should be working on because of these organizations’ very nature. Instead they chose the non-issue of anthropological climate change. I guess saving trees doesn’t forward their political agendas.[/quote]
    So very true David. There are [u]real[/u] things we can do as good stewards of natural resources but all this is lost on the politically motivated climate change crowd. Just imaging what could have been done with the trillions of dollars diverted into this madcap scheme!

    We never discuss the opportunity costs of the climate change agenda. We never debate what real opportunities have been lost due to this eco-political scam.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Mjw

    |

    What an amazingly accurate prediction, 72%, not 71% and not 73% not 72.5%. These people verge on the borderline of absolute genius and God.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    chris

    |

    They are just fiddling with parameters on models that numerically simulate stuff. It is nonsense. A true first principles model is a gargantuan effort requiring the full participation of computer scientists, engineers, chemists, and physicists to even come close to any kind of realism.

    Then, you have the unsolved problem of light moving through the particles that make up the atmosphere–this can only be simulated at limited draw distances, unless you do a ray trace…Any true implementation would be ground breaking and on Nvidia CUDA, which is still a new technology. I can say with 98.3% confidence that no climatologists have access to that kind of knowledge.

    Without being able to tell how the light proliferates and diffuses in the atmosphere, the climatologists have no clue where the watts from the sun eventually come to rest in the atmosphere, and what wavelength they radiate out in.

    For instance, a cloud will reflect the visible spectrum, and all that energy will escape into space…but CO2 will absorb certain wavelengths and radiate thermal energy…

    Anyways, without being able to model the particles in the atmosphere… or, for that matter, the gaseous exchange and thermal expansion (and consequent change in absorption coefficients) of the ocean, the fluid capacity of the lands, etc…, then they really have no clue…

    Other than they can probably say with reasonably high certainty that the temperature won’t change by 10-100 degrees in 5 years (but some models are so terrible that they are changing that much).

    These guys are, in dead seriousness, selling awful science, and our ruling class is eating it up like manna from heaven.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.