I would like to emphasize that the number of trees and ecological biodiversity are things that are not necessarily tied together. If you’ve ever lived in a country that farms trees, you have seen the vast difference in the makeup of the forest biome compared to an older forest.
"Our best-performed and cross-validated random forest model ... "
Someone had fun with that abstract.
As an aside, though darker trees absorb more sunlight than snow/ground, and the albedo effect starts to dominate in this region (in terms of global warming) vs the CO2 benefit of more trees:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46577-1/figures/1
... so the mitigation potential is perhaps backward from what they state in the paper.
I would like to emphasize that the number of trees and ecological biodiversity are things that are not necessarily tied together. If you’ve ever lived in a country that farms trees, you have seen the vast difference in the makeup of the forest biome compared to an older forest.
There's another effort to directly count and weight all trees in the word [1].
[1] The satellite that will 'weigh' world's 1.5 trillion trees:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crldwjj6d6no
"Our best-performed and cross-validated random forest model ... "
Someone had fun with that abstract.
As an aside, though darker trees absorb more sunlight than snow/ground, and the albedo effect starts to dominate in this region (in terms of global warming) vs the CO2 benefit of more trees: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-46577-1/figures/1 ... so the mitigation potential is perhaps backward from what they state in the paper.
(disclaimer that I work in a related area)