MD May 12, 2017 09:26 PM Sometimes boots on the ground is a good idea. exodous May 13, 2017 01:24 PM Surprise surprise, environmental 'scientists' have under-reported the about of forests on the earth. I bet you anything the guy or gal that discovered pointed it out was one of those dreaded deniers. It was probably noticed before but wasn't reported because environmental 'scientists' want us to be panicked at the time. RandallBrackett May 13, 2017 07:47 PM But the forest science is settled! Clearly these guys are small-global-forest deniers. 97% of Plant Conservation Scientists agree that the 'updated' dry land forest estimates are clearly funded by the logging lobby, in order to justify additional harvesting. Adrian Pineda May 15, 2017 12:47 PM It just goes to show how ignorant all the worlds Professors and Environmental Scientists have been, for this entire century and into the last. I'll be waiting to see who is first to admit they were wrong in their teachings, published articles, books and Earth Day protests. Not to mention all those people given an AA/AS, BA and Ph.D's based on factually wrong statistics and information. I think it will be a long wait. Kpar May 15, 2017 01:59 PM Thanks, exodous and RandallBrackett, for pointing out what I was thinking while reading this article. Good on ya. Douglas Bennett Rogers May 15, 2017 03:32 PM On the plus side, these trees represent sequestered carbon. On the minus side, they increase path length precipitable water and lower the earth's albedo. Path length precipitable water becomes important in the desert. RioNidoSanClementes May 23, 2017 03:34 AM I don't believe many of these areas of trees meet the technical definition of a forest, in which most of the tree tops must be touching each other., providing a continuous canopy. They are more likely to be woodlands (further spaced apart, fewer trees with quite a lot of sun reaching the ground, or even savannas-grass lands with widely spaced trees. The trees are also very small & stunted looking, so they're not going to sequester nearly the amount of carbon that a forest in Canada or Brazil would. I'm very curious to know who funded this study. ljaques June 1, 2017 06:42 PM Thanks, exodous and RandallBrackett, for pointing out what I was thinking while reading this article. I'm wondering if the forest deniers were also overlooking the vast petrified forests, too. Talk about hardline carbon sinks... MK23666 September 21, 2017 06:20 PM Yeaaaaaaa! Climate scientists got it wrong on forest numbers and have to re-calibrate their climate change estimates. 10% more forest discovered ... doesn't that make the condition actually worse tho? MartinVoelker October 17, 2017 09:14 AM The glee with which commenters make the wrong conclusion that this somehow means you can't trust scientists shows they don't understand how science works. In science you can only work with the data that is available and when new data becomes available it improves our understanding. Meanwhile budgets for data gathering from NASA, NOAA or NCAR are threatened.