FINAL ATTEMPT-REPOST Why aren't Mexico's overwintering monarchs in the news yet this winter?

[Neil Jones]

In message <3C6B4884.5BF2 at saber.net> Paul Cherubini writes:
> But are Brower's animations accurately depicting a loss of 44% of the nat> ive
> forests since 1971?  No I don't think so. Here's why:
> 
> If you take this the top pair of these close up satellite photos
> http://www.saber.net/~monarch/changes1.JPG and match them against
> Brower's animation you get this comparison:
> http://www.saber.net/~monarch/close.JPG
> 
> Now study and compare the right half of each close up satellite photo
> and corresponding animation.
> 
> You will see many thinned or cleared patches of forest areas (tan colors)
> in the 1973 satellite photo that are mistakenly represented as
> green areas (intact forest) on the 1971 animation !
> 
> And conversely you will see many solid red areas (intact forest)
> on the 2000 satellite photo that are mistakenly represented as
> grey and yellow colors (degraded or clear cut areas) in the 1999
> animation !

Your analysis is flawed. You are not comparing like with like. False colour
photographs taken from satelites can, despite the precautions taken in this 
case, fail to distingush trees from other vegetation . Secondly the Brower
Survey was done at a higher resolution than the satelite photographs _and_
is _specifically_designed_ to analyse the forest cover. 
Thining of the trees will not always show on a photograph taken from high
above the earth outside the visible spectrum because of the resolving power 
of the lens.

Then of course we have to apply Occam's Razor. :-) 

Which is the simplest scenario?

1. Mr Cherubini is correct and there is a massive conspiracy afoot.
That in this case apparently uniquely in the poorer parts of the world
there is no problem with deforestation.
That the World Wide Fund for Nature, the US Geological Survey, the respected
journal Conservation Biology and some very highly honoured and knowledable 
academics have hatched a scheme to dupe the public for some rather 
nebulous gain

Or

2. That Mr Cherubini's theories are wrong.


-- 
Neil Jones- Neil at nwjones.demon.co.uk http://www.nwjones.demon.co.uk/
"At some point I had to stand up and be counted. Who speaks for the
butterflies?" Andrew Lees - The quotation on his memorial at Crymlyn Bog
National Nature Reserve

 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl