Bsrhrki

Inverse square law not accurate for non-point masses?

NIntegrate on a solution of a matrix ODE

Is there a verb for listening stealthily?

How does TikZ render an arc?

The test team as an enemy of development? And how can this be avoided?

Is this Kuo-toa homebrew race balanced?

.bashrc alias for a command with fixed second parameter

Is there a spell that can create a permanent fire?

Does the transliteration of 'Dravidian' exist in Hindu scripture? Does 'Dravida' refer to a Geographical area or an ethnic group?

What is a more techy Technical Writer job title that isn't cutesy or confusing?

Does the main washing effect of soap come from foam?

How to make an animal which can only breed for a certain number of generations?

Derived column in a data extension

How does the body cool itself in a stillsuit?

Fit odd number of triplets in a measure?

How to make triangles with rounded sides and corners? (squircle with 3 sides)

French equivalents of おしゃれは足元から (Every good outfit starts with the shoes)

Vertical ranges of Column Plots in 12

2018 MacBook Pro won't let me install macOS High Sierra 10.13 from USB installer

My mentor says to set image to Fine instead of RAW — how is this different from JPG?

Did any compiler fully use 80-bit floating point?

Can gravitational waves pass through a black hole?

Is it OK to use the testing sample to compare algorithms?

Marquee sign letters

Is there more forest in the Northern Hemisphere now than 100 years ago?

4

In April 19, 2019, there was a public debating event called "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism" featuring Canadian psychologist Jordan B. Peterson and psychoanalytical philosopher Slavoj Žižek as the two speakers. During this so-called "debate of the century", Peterson (1:55:32 in the video of the event) reiterates an argument made earlier by Žižek that there were more forests now in the Northern Hemisphere than 100 years ago.

Is this claim correct?

environment climate-change

share|improve this question

edited yesterday

Schmuddi

3,15421624

asked yesterday

SSimonSSimon

5771213

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Maxim That only goes back a few decades. In any case the last hundred years are not the most important. There was huge deforestation in North America between 200 and 100 years ago.
  
  – DJClayworth
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Related question: Is only 4% of original forest left in the US?
  
  – Oddthinking♦
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

4

In April 19, 2019, there was a public debating event called "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism" featuring Canadian psychologist Jordan B. Peterson and psychoanalytical philosopher Slavoj Žižek as the two speakers. During this so-called "debate of the century", Peterson (1:55:32 in the video of the event) reiterates an argument made earlier by Žižek that there were more forests now in the Northern Hemisphere than 100 years ago.

Is this claim correct?

environment climate-change

share|improve this question

edited yesterday

Schmuddi

3,15421624

asked yesterday

SSimonSSimon

5771213

• 
  
  
  

  
  1
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Maxim That only goes back a few decades. In any case the last hundred years are not the most important. There was huge deforestation in North America between 200 and 100 years ago.
  
  – DJClayworth
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Related question: Is only 4% of original forest left in the US?
  
  – Oddthinking♦
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  

add a comment | 

In April 19, 2019, there was a public debating event called "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism" featuring Canadian psychologist Jordan B. Peterson and psychoanalytical philosopher Slavoj Žižek as the two speakers. During this so-called "debate of the century", Peterson (1:55:32 in the video of the event) reiterates an argument made earlier by Žižek that there were more forests now in the Northern Hemisphere than 100 years ago.

Is this claim correct?

environment climate-change

share|improve this question

edited yesterday

Schmuddi

3,15421624

asked yesterday

SSimonSSimon

5771213

share|improve this question

edited yesterday

Schmuddi

3,15421624

asked yesterday

SSimonSSimon

5771213

share|improve this question

edited yesterday

Schmuddi

3,15421624

asked yesterday

SSimonSSimon

5771213

edited yesterday

Schmuddi

3,15421624

edited yesterday

Schmuddi

3,15421624

asked yesterday

SSimonSSimon

5771213

asked yesterday

SSimonSSimon

5771213

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

4

There are several news reports 1, 2, 3, which are all mentioning this study, that is unfortunately not open-source.
The findings were

The research suggests an area covering 2.24 million square kilometers - roughly the combined land surface of Texas and Alaska, two sizeable US states - has been added to global tree cover since 1982.

But it is also mentioned, while the northern hemisphere has more trees, south America has lost a lot and the diversity of the trees went down.

Image Reference

---

I know this is not a hundred years ago, but only 35 years. Given the fact that he held a speech and the claim sounds very similar (only time is offset, but on the same scale) and he retweeted a similar news story, were the claim was

“Deforestation has stopped in wealthy countries. Europe’s forest area grew by more than 0.3% annually from 1990 to 2015. In the United States it is growing by 0.1% annually.”

I am pretty certain he didn't mean exactly a hundred years ago.

share|improve this answer

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

MaximMaxim

8652822

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Wow. Thank you. Is it true that most people live in Northern hemisphere?
  
  – SSimon
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Unfortunately, the time span that is covered by the article you refer to is too short to address the claim asked in the question. The 1980s were a time in which the impact and the dangers of deforestation became very visible. It's not surprising that we see an absolute increase since then. But what about the preceding 65 years, a period in which environmentalism was not exactly well-developed? What if the absolute loss of forested areas during that time in the Northern Hemisphere was much larger than the gain since 1982?
  
  – Schmuddi
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @SSimon Yes. But that isn't really relevant since this is a global issue: oxygen is a gas and difuses freely across the entire planet, so you can't make a useful breakdown by hemisphere.
  
  – terdon
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I don't understand the labeling in that figure. Is the net gain for e.g. Europe larger than the gross gain?
  
  – Anyon
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Anyon It is written net change not net gain. That means the positive and the negative gain (total change). The net gain is the positive surplus
  
  – Maxim
  17 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

4

There are several news reports 1, 2, 3, which are all mentioning this study, that is unfortunately not open-source.
The findings were

The research suggests an area covering 2.24 million square kilometers - roughly the combined land surface of Texas and Alaska, two sizeable US states - has been added to global tree cover since 1982.

But it is also mentioned, while the northern hemisphere has more trees, south America has lost a lot and the diversity of the trees went down.

Image Reference

---

I know this is not a hundred years ago, but only 35 years. Given the fact that he held a speech and the claim sounds very similar (only time is offset, but on the same scale) and he retweeted a similar news story, were the claim was

“Deforestation has stopped in wealthy countries. Europe’s forest area grew by more than 0.3% annually from 1990 to 2015. In the United States it is growing by 0.1% annually.”

I am pretty certain he didn't mean exactly a hundred years ago.

share|improve this answer

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

MaximMaxim

8652822

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Wow. Thank you. Is it true that most people live in Northern hemisphere?
  
  – SSimon
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Unfortunately, the time span that is covered by the article you refer to is too short to address the claim asked in the question. The 1980s were a time in which the impact and the dangers of deforestation became very visible. It's not surprising that we see an absolute increase since then. But what about the preceding 65 years, a period in which environmentalism was not exactly well-developed? What if the absolute loss of forested areas during that time in the Northern Hemisphere was much larger than the gain since 1982?
  
  – Schmuddi
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @SSimon Yes. But that isn't really relevant since this is a global issue: oxygen is a gas and difuses freely across the entire planet, so you can't make a useful breakdown by hemisphere.
  
  – terdon
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I don't understand the labeling in that figure. Is the net gain for e.g. Europe larger than the gross gain?
  
  – Anyon
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Anyon It is written net change not net gain. That means the positive and the negative gain (total change). The net gain is the positive surplus
  
  – Maxim
  17 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

4

There are several news reports 1, 2, 3, which are all mentioning this study, that is unfortunately not open-source.
The findings were

The research suggests an area covering 2.24 million square kilometers - roughly the combined land surface of Texas and Alaska, two sizeable US states - has been added to global tree cover since 1982.

But it is also mentioned, while the northern hemisphere has more trees, south America has lost a lot and the diversity of the trees went down.

Image Reference

---

I know this is not a hundred years ago, but only 35 years. Given the fact that he held a speech and the claim sounds very similar (only time is offset, but on the same scale) and he retweeted a similar news story, were the claim was

“Deforestation has stopped in wealthy countries. Europe’s forest area grew by more than 0.3% annually from 1990 to 2015. In the United States it is growing by 0.1% annually.”

I am pretty certain he didn't mean exactly a hundred years ago.

share|improve this answer

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

MaximMaxim

8652822

• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Wow. Thank you. Is it true that most people live in Northern hemisphere?
  
  – SSimon
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  Unfortunately, the time span that is covered by the article you refer to is too short to address the claim asked in the question. The 1980s were a time in which the impact and the dangers of deforestation became very visible. It's not surprising that we see an absolute increase since then. But what about the preceding 65 years, a period in which environmentalism was not exactly well-developed? What if the absolute loss of forested areas during that time in the Northern Hemisphere was much larger than the gain since 1982?
  
  – Schmuddi
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @SSimon Yes. But that isn't really relevant since this is a global issue: oxygen is a gas and difuses freely across the entire planet, so you can't make a useful breakdown by hemisphere.
  
  – terdon
  yesterday
  
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  2
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  I don't understand the labeling in that figure. Is the net gain for e.g. Europe larger than the gross gain?
  
  – Anyon
  yesterday
  

  
  
  
  


• 
  
  
  

  
  

  
  
  
  
  
  

  
  
  @Anyon It is written net change not net gain. That means the positive and the negative gain (total change). The net gain is the positive surplus
  
  – Maxim
  17 hours ago
  

  
  
  
  

 | 
show 3 more comments

There are several news reports 1, 2, 3, which are all mentioning this study, that is unfortunately not open-source.
The findings were

The research suggests an area covering 2.24 million square kilometers - roughly the combined land surface of Texas and Alaska, two sizeable US states - has been added to global tree cover since 1982.

But it is also mentioned, while the northern hemisphere has more trees, south America has lost a lot and the diversity of the trees went down.

Image Reference

---

I know this is not a hundred years ago, but only 35 years. Given the fact that he held a speech and the claim sounds very similar (only time is offset, but on the same scale) and he retweeted a similar news story, were the claim was

“Deforestation has stopped in wealthy countries. Europe’s forest area grew by more than 0.3% annually from 1990 to 2015. In the United States it is growing by 0.1% annually.”

I am pretty certain he didn't mean exactly a hundred years ago.

share|improve this answer

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

MaximMaxim

8652822

share|improve this answer

edited yesterday

answered yesterday

MaximMaxim

8652822

answered yesterday

MaximMaxim

8652822

answered yesterday

MaximMaxim

8652822