Reforestation Causes Global warming?

[EcoInteractive]

Hi Everyone,

Our organization is involved in reforestation projects as part of our carbon neutral program.

It has come to my attention that there is a lot of criticism of reforestation for the purposes of managing a carbon neutral program. In our particular case, we have the right conditions in place to answer the general criticism (our program is in a tropical rainforest and managed by a creditable conservation organization).

That said there are scientific reports that indicate that reforestation in northern latitudes actually adds to the warming of the earth.

http://carbonneutraldigest.com/?page_id=35

Test of the Lawrence Livermore Report:
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/324200.pdf


My question to all of you is this: Is anyone aware of any scientific evidence to the contrary? Like I said, we can answer the critics as far as our particular program, but it would still be good for us to know if there is a diversity of opinion on this matter.

Your general comments are welcome!




For those interested in more information on this important topic visit:

http://EcoPreservationSociety.wordpress.com

.

[Hydrotopia]

This is specious.

If their theory were correct, when earth was totally covered in trees it would have had a real over-warming problem. It didn't. This sounds like more cooked information from the usual suspects. Deforestation accounts for 20% of GW gases. This kind of specious information will cause tropical deforesters to think they are doing a good thing.

Also, you won't have as much snow creating the albedo effect when CO2 heats things up.

Another thing their "study" overlooks is that trees soak up huge amounts of CO2 during their early growth cycle. This reduces CO2 and therefore cools earth.

[EcoInteractive]

If their theory were correct, when earth was totally covered in trees it would have had a real over-warming problem. It didn't. This sounds like more cooked information from the usual suspects. Deforestation accounts for 20% of GW gases.

Well I am on your side, but I am looking for scientific info to the contrary.

I have done a search and most of the scientific data that I have found comes down on the side of trees contributing to warming, at least in Northern Latitudes. This is not the case in the tropics according to the reports I have found.

One of the interesting things they point out is that the US actually did go through a cooling period when the when the great plains were deforested.

Deforestation does account account for a large percentage of GH gases, that is primarily caused by burning, which releases the stored carbon in the trees.

The arguments in the White Paper are compelling. I would like to see some hard information to the contrary.

Thanks for your reply.

[Hydrotopia]

With examples like Mr Hansen and others, I'm skeptical of any "studies" coming from any Institutes. You'll find those who promote real GW science suddenly have problems (like Hansen).

If you read this study correctly it is saying suburban sprawl and its grass lawns are good for GW.

[inkabinkaboo182]

It kind of makes sense, but I'm no scientist. I guess their thinking is that the dark trees have lower Earth's albedo so much that it increases warming.

But here's where that theory falters - If you plant trees above areas that are dark (ie, pavement, roofs), then they will increase Earth's albedo, and absorb carbon. Or, you could plant them in a field of grass or soil and it would have the same effect, or keep the albedo the same, but absorb carbon.

Also, I wonder if the study took this into account - trees hold soil in place, which improves the quality of the soil, which means more carbon can be sequestered in the soil.

[EcoInteractive]

With examples like Mr Hansen and others, I'm skeptical of any "studies" coming from any Institutes. You'll find those who promote real GW science suddenly have problems (like Hansen).

If you read this study correctly it is saying suburban sprawl and its grass lawns are good for GW.

According to their studies, Urban areas along with tropical regions are the areas that benefit from tree planting.

We are very involved in promoting reforestation. These reports (there are others) have used scientific modeling that we do not have available. Of course they are absolutely counterintuitive to our beliefs. That said, we want to be able to answer the critics. Many of these critics are Environmentalist after all. So it is important to us that we have sound reasoning behind our arguments to the contrary.

[EcoInteractive]

It kind of makes sense, but I'm no scientist. I guess their thinking is that the dark trees have lower Earth's albedo so much that it increases warming.

But here's where that theory falters - If you plant trees above areas that are dark (ie, pavement, roofs), then they will increase Earth's albedo, and absorb carbon. Or, you could plant them in a field of grass or soil and it would have the same effect, or keep the albedo the same, but absorb carbon.

Also, I wonder if the study took this into account - trees hold soil in place, which improves the quality of the soil, which means more carbon can be sequestered in the soil.

Here is an abstract from another Harvard study that seems to point in the same direction.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005GeoRL..3223705G

They note that there are positives and negative effects from tree planting and the more research is required. But there conclusions is that preliminary indications are that tree lead to a warming effect, basically the same conclusions of the previous report.

[inkabinkaboo182]

I wonder - did they take into account the GHGs produced when building the cities, or just the effects of the cities once they were built?

[EcoInteractive]

I wonder - did they take into account the GHGs produced when building the cities, or just the effects of the cities once they were built?

I don't think so.

I think the report is focused on the effects of reforestation at various latitudes.

[CNDigest]

Thanks for linking to my site, that is always appriciated. The issue is where you put the trees, not the trees themselves.

Scenario 1: Snow Melts and Trees Grow
Snow is white and reflects light and heat. Trees are darker and absorb heat. Think about wearing a black shirt in the summer. Planting a forrest where snow use to be is a BAD idea

Scenario 2: Replacing Grassland with Trees
Grasses are often lighter and reflect more heat. When the trees come in then absorb more heat and increase the green house effect

[EcoInteractive]

Thanks for linking to my site, that is always appriciated. The issue is where you put the trees, not the trees themselves.

Scenario 1: Snow Melts and Trees Grow
Snow is white and reflects light and heat. Trees are darker and absorb heat. Think about wearing a black shirt in the summer. Planting a forrest where snow use to be is a BAD idea

Scenario 2: Replacing Grassland with Trees
Grasses are often lighter and reflect more heat. When the trees come in then absorb more heat and increase the green house effect

You bet M. Thanks for all the valuable information and all of your help. I would encourage all to check it out!

[jcoffman]

since water vapor is considered the most abundant green house gas, could the transpiration of the trees be causing this warmup?

The atmosphere is already warmer. The increase in trees, increases the water vapor thus raising the temp. even more?

[inkabinkaboo182]

The water cycle keeps the amount of water in the air constant. The carbon cycle usually does this for carbon, but humans have taken it out of the ground and pumped a lot of carbon back into the cycle. That is why global warming's occurring.

[EcoInteractive]

The water cycle keeps the amount of water in the air constant. The carbon cycle usually does this for carbon, but humans have taken it out of the ground and pumped a lot of carbon back into the cycle. That is why global warming's occurring.

This brings up an interesting point. Because if A) trees are releasing more water into the air and B) the amount of the water in the air it constant, then there can only be one conclusion: Trees create more precipitation. More rain means more vegetation, more vegetation means more CO2 out of the air. Also, would not more precipitation mean more snow in the northern areas? Another question, does increased precipitation have a cooling effect on the planet? Are these legitimate issues with this analysis in this scientific white paper?

[CarolinaJim]

Planting with deciduous trees anywhere should be ok. Planting in areas of negligible snowfall should be ok.

I have included a link to a color biome map which may be useful for this discussion.

http://fp.bio.utk.edu/botany120lect/Biomes/biomemap.htm