Posted on 04/14/2007 12:34:24 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - The effect of deforestation on climate depends on three things — location, location and location.
Environmentalists concerned about global warming have long encouraged preservation of forests because they absorb carbon dioxide, the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
But the issue, like most things, may be more complicated than it first appears.
New research in this week's online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, confirms the effectiveness of tropical forests at reducing warming by absorbing carbon. But it suggests that in snowy latitudes, forests may actually increase local warming by absorbing solar energy that would otherwise be reflected back out into space.
That doesn't mean forests in cold areas should be chopped down, stressed Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution department of global ecology, located at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif.
"I am a little concerned about this being misapplied as an excuse to chop down the forests in the name of saving the environment," said Caldeira, a co-author of the report.
"A primary reason we are trying to slow global warming is to protect nature. It just makes no sense to destroy natural ecosystems in the name of saving natural ecosystems," he said.
But, he added, efforts to increase the forested areas in northern regions may be ineffective in combating warming and can be a distraction from the real answer, which is the need to reform our system of energy production.
The result does "suggest it's more important to preserve and restore tropical forests that had been previously recognized," he added.
Tropical forests help cool the planet in two ways, Caldeira pointed out — by absorbing carbon dioxide and by drawing up soil moisture which is released into the air forming clouds.
Those clouds reflect solar energy back into space, he said, while reducing the amount reaching the ground.
Steven W. Running, a professor of ecology at the University of Montana, praised the researchers, but questioned their conclusion.
"I don't think the conclusions they draw are ready for prime-time policy, and particularly their conclusion that reforestation in high latitudes might be counterproductive," Running said in a telephone interview.
"What they are doing is sparking a lively scientific discussion that is very necessary and I applaud them for that," he said. But until the scientific community can "chew this over" it shouldn't be used in setting policy, he said.
"This is challenging work" said Running, who was not part of the research team. "This is a real top group of scientists and they are doing some really intriguing earth systems model analysis that is exceedingly difficult to do," he added. It shows how complex Earth system feedback is.
Govindasamy Bala of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, a co-author of the paper, added: "Apart from their role in altering the planet's climate, forests are valuable in many other aspects. Forests provide natural habitat to plants and animals, preserve the biodiversity, produce economically valuable timber and firewood, protect watersheds and indirectly prevent ocean acidification."
The research was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy.
___
On the Net:
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: http://www.pnas.org
A view of the Canadian Rockies in the Banff National Forest. A recent study reveals that planting new trees in snow-covered northern regions may actually contribute to global warming as they have the counter-effect of tropical forests.(AFP/File/Jeff Haynes)
Chainsaw tax credits for anyone north of 20 degrees latitude.
That would be very 'inconvenient'.
A file photo of former Vice President Al Gore testifying before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on global warming, on Capitol Hill in Washington, March 21, 2007. Gore's "Live Earth" concert to raise awareness about global warming will be held on July 7 at Giants Stadium in New Jersey, just across the Hudson River from Manhattan, organizers said on Tuesday. REUTERS/Jim Young
I think one of the best South Park episodes was about the rain forest - their opinion changed once they actually visited the forest instead of just hearing from activists.
This is the song they sang after...
>>There’s a place called the rainforest that truly sucks ass!
Let’s knock it all down and get rid of it fast!
You say save the rainforest, but what do you know?
You’ve never been to the rainforest before!
Getting Gay With Kids is here!
To tell you things you might not like to hear!
You only fight these causes cause caring sells!
All you activists can go f**k yourselves!<<
Let’s see.
Global-warming extremists claim we should (we could) return 20-28% of our land to forests - referring of course ONLY to the US, where ONLY the US will follow the extremists’ rules about global warming and emissions. (The rest of the world, as it is now, is either not covered by Kyoto (by design) or simply fails to follows Kyoto’s rules.)
But, what is the difference in CO2 (absorption, retention, then release by decay of plant matter) between a field planted for crops and human consumption (or animal feed then human consumption) and a “forest” of trees on top of relatively barren ground. After all, almost nothing grows on the floor of a developed forest: it is barren because the trees absorb almost all of the light. So you end up with a tree cover and dead ground underneath.
Global warming advocates, in fact, prefer trees -> lumber -> houses -> treated and preserved wood BECAUSE that wood represents CO2 that is NOT being released back into the environment as the natural trees decay!
Regardless, another huge global warming extremists want more ethanol (corn & biomass) grown, which will further require MORE crop areas planted.
So, which is it? What really IS the actual impact of “trees” on global warming? Do they not know? Or don’t want to answer?
Or just want people (American/Christian/capitalistic/male/white/oil-and-coal-comsuming) dead?
"All right, that does it!! Blast these stupid-ass rainforests!! This place f***ing sucks!! I was wrong!! F*** the rainforest!! I f***ing hate it, I f***ing hate it!! "
Weather Trends International Forecast Highlights
The answer is in the question, Robert.
I’ve done a fair amount of business consulting with Weyerhaeuser. Their research shows that mature evergreen forests take in relatively little CO2 compared with younger, or reforested areas. It may be self-serving but seems quite logical. 90% of a tree or plant’s physical mass comes from the air, specifically the CO2 in the atmosphere. A young tree is putting on real mass whereas a mature evergreen is in much more sedate growth.
Another thing which has the same effect is the deposition of dust and other dark particulates on snow and/or ice. I suspect that some of the extra glacial melting may be due to that.
That is a very good point.
New!!: Dr. John Ray’s
GREENIE WATCH
Please ping me if you find one I’ve missed.
OKSooner and I are doing the POGW
ping list while xcamel is on vacation.
Yahoo, Yahoo, Yahoo, where did your mother and I go wrong?
Dear Abbey:
I hung a sign on my white pine that said “carbon sink.” Now all the hippies are lining up washing their hands and faces with pine needles. Should I tell them this latest news?
Old growth doesn’t help, neither do damaged trees that should be salvaged
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Carbon_Conservation/index.html
Carbon Storage and Substitution
Younger forests are more efficient at fixing carbon than older forests because they grow at faster rates and not as many trees are dying, rotting and thereby putting carbon back into the atmosphere. More of the energy in older forests is consumed by the functions of trees just staying alive—by transpiration and respiration. More of the energy in younger forests goes to adding wood.
Forests in southern New England start to decline in net growth and carbon fixation at about 100-120 years old. From a carbon point of view, it’s at this age that decadent and declining trees need to be removed, and put into long-term carbon storage in the form of building materials and furniture, or used to replace fossil fuel fuels....
What typically happens with older forests is that they start to degrade and lose their commercial value for different reasons. Hemlocks will get ring-shake. Pines will get red rot. Many hardwoods will get heartwood discoloration. Pines will also have their tops broken off or be uprooted by storms. All species will become more susceptible to damage by storms, insects and diseases.
From a carbon management point of view, forests shouldn’t be allowed to reach this stage. Of course carbon management is not the only criterion to be used in making forest management decisions. But as climate change accelerates with more burning of fossil fuels, carbon management will be an increasingly important criterion in forest management decisions....
On salvage:
Timber that isn’t salvaged in time to retain its commercial value will likely just stay in the forest and rot. This material will release even more carbon back into the atmosphere. The net effect is like a very slow burning fire. There is also increased risk of fast-burning fires because of the increased fuel load from all the branches and stems that litter the forest floor after such storms.
Our puny species is only contributing about 0.29 percent of the green house effect (concentration of gases adjusted for the relative green house effect they have). Nature contributes the other 99.81 percent (95% being water vapor--which strangely enough has not yet been ruled a "pollutant").
380 ppm just isn't going to do it. Nature has had it as high as 7000 ppm in the distant past.
How is DoE coming with the research on alternative energy? Any solar satellites up and running yet?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.