Scientists Now Blaming Global Warming On, I Kid You Not, Trees (1 Viewer)

[cstu]

Not all trees are created equal when it comes to fighting climate change – and that some actually may do more harm than good, climate scientists say.

A new study, published Thursday in the journal Science, shows that an expansion of forests towards dark green conifers in Europe has stoked global warming. The findings challenge the widespread view that planting more trees helps human efforts to slow the Earth’s rising temperatures. Apparently, not all trees have the same mitigating effect.

"Two and a half centuries of forest management in Europe have not cooled the climate," a team of scientists led by France's Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement wrote.

While the area of Europe's forests has expanded by 10 percent since 1750, the continent’s summer temperatures have increased 0.12 degree Celsius (0.2 Fahrenheit). The scientists say that’s largely because many nations have planted conifers such as pines and spruces whose dark color traps the sun's heat.

Lighter-colored broad-leafed trees, such as oak or birch, reflect more sunlight. But fast-growing conifers, which are used for everything from building materials to pulp, have long outpaced them.

The authors of the study said such changes have outweighed the role Europe’s forests have played in curbing global warming by reducing their ability to absorb carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas from burning fossil fuels.

"It's not all about carbon," lead author Kim Naudts told Reuters, saying forest management policies should take into account factors such as their color and changes to moisture and soils.

Since 1750, Europe's forests have gained 76,000 square miles, an area bigger than Greece, the study said. Over the same period, conifer forests expanded by 244,000 square miles while broad-leaved forests shrank by 168,000 square miles.

The researchers calculated that the increase in temperature caused by the trees equates to 6 percent of the global warming attributed to the burning of fossil fuels. They warned that similar effects were likely in regions where the same type of afforestation has occurred, such as China, the United States, and Russia.

“Two and a half centuries of forest management in Europe have not cooled the climate,” the study concludes. “The political imperative to mitigate climate change through afforestation and forest management therefore risks failure, unless it is recognized that not all forestry contributes to climate change mitigation.”

 

[bostonfred]

Here's five ways to write that headline, depending on your bias

Scientists learning more about how to fight global warming

Planting trees is good for the environment - but only the right kind of trees.

New research shows that large amounts of evergreens can continue to global warming.

Research shows that some efforts to fight global warming have actually made things worse

Scientists now blaming global warming on trees

 

[tommyboy]

Is there anything it can't do?

 

[Das Boot]

Here's five ways to write that headline, depending on your bias

Scientists learning more about how to fight global warming

Planting trees is good for the environment - but only the right kind of trees.

New research shows that large amounts of evergreens can continue to global warming.

Research shows that some efforts to fight global warming have actually made things worse

Scientists now blaming global warming on trees

6. European tree planting practices combat global cooling

 

[Aerial Assault]

7. Although climate change is definitely real, there's a whole busload of stuff that scientists don't understand

 

[rockaction]

Reagan did the same thing and was ridiculed. That might be a satire site. I don't know, I didn't read the full thing. It may obviously be the point about an ill-fated policy moment. Anyway, the argument was that it's the CO2 emission from the intake of oxygen.

eta* Good old Uncle Ronnie. That is the CSM, a legit paper. Is it April Fools yet for me? Do I need to spell g-u-l-l-i-b-l-e in the dictionary?

 

[tommyboy]

8. Us journalists don't have a clue about global warming but we like to put out click bait for the people

 

[cstu]

8. Us journalists don't have a clue about global warming but we like to put out click bait for the people

Quality of journalism aside, the article did reference the actual study published in Science magazine that says this:

Second, the conversion of broadleaved forests to coniferous forests has changed the albedo and evapotranspiration of those forests, also leading to warming.

You need a subscription to read the whole study but it's laughable that they are saying the trees create more warming by being dark than they reduce by absorbing CO2.

 

[FUBAR]

8. Us journalists don't have a clue about global warming but we like to put out click bait for the people

Quality of journalism aside, the article did reference the actual study published in Science magazine that says this:

Second, the conversion of broadleaved forests to coniferous forests has changed the albedo and evapotranspiration of those forests, also leading to warming.

You need a subscription to read the whole study but it's laughable that they are saying the trees create more warming by being dark than they reduce by absorbing CO2.

I'd agree but I barely passed microbiology and didn't stay at a holiday Inn last night.

 

[chauncey]

Sounds legit

 

[chauncey]

Dupe

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Trees should be ashamed of themselves. They really should.

 

[rockaction]

Dupe

Really, dupe again? You wanna...

THROW?

 

[rockaction]

THROW

 

[rockaction]

RUBE

 

[rockaction]

Reagan did the same thing and was ridiculed. That might be a satire site. I don't know, I didn't read the full thing. It may obviously be the point about an ill-fated policy moment. Anyway, the argument was that it's the CO2 emission from the intake of oxygen.

eta* Good old Uncle Ronnie. That is the CSM, a legit paper. Is it April Fools yet for me? Do I need to spell g-u-l-l-i-b-l-e in the dictionary?

Dude, I think you might, you know, need some of that schizophrenia pruning they're talking about. Just a trim.

Why? Reagan blamed global warming, or climate change, on trees, and was roundly mocked. I thought it might be satire.

This should not be hard to understand. It's lucid if you know anything about '80s politics. Sorry, and catch up, Mr. Fish.

eta* It's my way of laughing about a political statement and remembering the irony of scientists yelling at Reagan without having to go back and look up every point of exactitude. Seems perfectly rational to me.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

Here's five ways to write that headline, depending on your bias

Scientists learning more about how to fight global warming

Planting trees is good for the environment - but only the right kind of trees.

New research shows that large amounts of evergreens can continue to global warming.

Research shows that some efforts to fight global warming have actually made things worse

Scientists now blaming global warming on trees

Killer tree infestation devastates Europe.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

What's more dangerous, Chlorophyll or chlorofluorocarbon?

 

[spreagle]

Ban Christmas trees?

 

[rockaction]

hat's more dangerous, Chlorophyll or chlorofluorocarbon?

If you get dinoflagellate/in your immune system it ain't great