Three weeks ago I made note of the Defra report,

Global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security

It was the note that The Conversation said had been slipped into the public domain under the cover of darkness or something*, which is why they didn’t notice it, or write an article about it.

Anyway, in my note, the only ecosystem I mentioned was the Amazon Rainforest. However, the document itself listed 6 ecosystems that were at risk of collapse, and 2 of them were the Boreal forests of Canada and Russia. This snip comes from page 8 of the assessment. “Realistic Possibility” means a 40-50% chance. “Low” confidence means something which is not defined in the document. Note also the start date of “from 2030” – i.e. in 4 years.

[In the interests of fairness I must note that it is not completely off the wall to propose that global warming might cause forests to gradually disappear under some circumstances. The centre of continents are usually dry, after all, and the Boreal forests do occur in such places. So if things grew warmer, moisture deficit might mean that new trees could not become established. However, we have to take note too that thanks to CO2 fertilisation, the pleasant side effect of fossil-fuel use that only climate deniers have noticed, photosynthesis would be easier than before.]

Following closely behind the excitable nonsense of the Defra report, stamped with the highest imprimatur known to this blessed kingdom, came another news item on the Boreal forest. Said Jo Nova,

Climate pollution causes boreal forests to grow 12% — recklessly spreading greenery in Arctic

Since the advent of Landsat coverage in 1985, things have got greener. Quoting Phys.org**, she says:

The analysis revealed that boreal forests both grew in size and moved northward. The forests expanded by 0.844 million km² (a 12% increase) and shifted northward by 0.29° mean latitude, with gains concentrated between 64°N and 68°N.

It seems unrealistic to propose a collapse beginning in 4 years, if this new evidence has any merit. Rather, it smacks of the danger being imminent only because it is necessary to alarm the public on a regular and compounding basis.

My question to Clisceppers: in what universe is current improvement portrayed as imminent doom? What on Earth would they say if the data on the Boreal forest was actually bad?

Notes

The featured image comes from Figure 2 of Feng et al. This is a more complete look at it.

*They actually said, “A UK climate security report backed by the intelligence services was quietly buried – a pattern we’ve seen many times before.” The author, whose name I forget, made a witless crack about climate deniers. Robin engaged in comments, but the article’s originator ceded the field.

**Only 3 years ago Phys.org were running with another article, this one saying that

Boreal forests may be on verge of contraction: New study

Here, the Canadian Boreal was on net contracting, because even as it grew northwards, it was eroded southwards.

/message ends