Skip to content
Back to the collection

Global land change from 1982 to 2016

Xiao-Peng Song, Matthew C. Hansen, Stephen V. Stehman

Show all 7 authors

Peter V. Potapov, Alexandra Tyukavina, Eric F. Vermote, John R. Townshend

2018 · Nature

Read the paper
HN score
0
Mentions
4
Readers
4
Months
4
What’s in a score?

In the conversation

Original HN comments, with labels from simple text rules. A label describes the whole comment and may miss context or irony. Read the discussion to make up your own mind. About the labels

4 selected excerpts · 4 total mentions

WoodenChair
Neutral mention · rule
You can't make hockey sticks out of just a few data points, as this author does in several of the charts. For example, the deforestation chart is based on a few data points from a UN study (where Our World in Data that the author links to cites as its source). But tree coverage has actually increased over the past 30 years according to some studies by NASA and elsewhere. For example, one 2018 paper from Nature says: "We show that—contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally5—tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2 (+7.1% relative to the 1982 level). This overall net gain is the result of a net loss in the tropics being outweighed by a net…
Read the full comment
gain in the extratropics. Global bare ground cover has decreased by 1.16 million km2 (−3.1%), most notably in agricultural regions in Asia. Of all land changes, 60% are associated with direct human activities and 40% with indirect drivers such as climate change." [0] 0: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0411-9
throwkeep
Neutral mention · rule
If you look at it from a global perspective, there are more forests now, up by 7% since 1982. Some regions see decreased life, others increased life: "Here we analyse 35 years’ worth of satellite data and provide a comprehensive record of global land-change dynamics during the period 1982–2016. We show that—contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally—tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2 (+7.1% relative to the 1982 level). This overall net gain is the result of a net loss in the tropics being outweighed by a net gain in the extratropics." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0411-9
dj_mc_merlin
Neutral mention · rule
"Here we analyse 35 years’ worth of satellite data and provide a comprehensive record of global land-change dynamics during the period 1982–2016. We show that—contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally—tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2 (+7.1% relative to the 1982 level). This overall net gain is the result of a net loss in the tropics being outweighed by a net gain in the extratropics." - Song, X., Hansen, M.C., Stehman, S.V. et al. Global land change from 1982 to 2016. Nature 560, 639–643 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0411-9 This does not take into account loss of biodiversity or effects on climate, but the viewpoint…
Read the full comment
that we are "running out of trees" is a common one. There are actually more trees on earth than stars in the Milky Way by an order of magnitude. I would love to have my opinion changed on this however, so if further data contradicts the above study (not that one single study ever proves anything), please make me aware of it.
aoeaoeaoe
Neutral mention · rule
Helping a planet that already helps itself. "Here we analyse 35 years’ worth of satellite data and provide a comprehensive record of global land-change dynamics during the period 1982–2016. We show that—contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally—tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2 (+7.1% relative to the 1982 level). This overall net gain is the result of a net loss in the tropics being outweighed by a net gain in the extratropics." https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0411-9 Human, an fascinating animal yet with such a high opinion of itself.

Keep following the thread.

More in Other research

More from the same topics.