Nature Newsblog
« Everest: Arrival at base camp | Main | Arctic fox failed to move north at end of ice age »
Modelling study no excuse for deforestation, researchers warn.
Large-scale deforestation — long fingered as a contributing factor in climate change — could cool Earth, say the researchers behind one of the first attempts to model the phenomenon at a global scale.
Posted by Nicola Jones on April 10, 2007
Categories: | Permalink
| Comments (12)
| TrackBacks (0)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.nature.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2269
Subscribe to this blog's feeds:
Comments
This headline is sensationalist. It is touting a possible scientific 'projection' as fact. And it is far too shortsighted. Think beyond 2100. These boreal forests could support species; a rare hare perhaps, that the ravaged people of the world depend upon for their 'last supper' in 2115!
Posted by: Rachel Q. | April 10, 2007 03:40 PM
The logic escapes me.
"In high latitudes...the trees, which absorb sunlight, would be replaced by snow-covered fields in winter that reflect the light."
I interpret that as the trees absorb the heat that would otherwise be reflected and held in the atmosphere, thereby reducing global warming. What am I not understanding?
Posted by: Dr. Gerry Buchoff | April 10, 2007 08:06 PM
The article indicates that removal of the forests at higher elevations would result in more sunlight being reflected by the snow. Considering the glacial melting and forecast decrease in overall snow cover, the first question I would ask is....What snow?
Posted by: Shaelyn | April 11, 2007 01:54 AM
trees provide nearly all of the oxygen we breathe. totak deforestation would mean that most of us if not all of us would slowly die from lack of oxygen.
Posted by: fred mclendon | April 11, 2007 02:53 AM
Instead of getting worried about large-scale deforestation, which obviously would be misanderstood with aiding the timber industry, why not trying to focus on the other hand: stopping the cut back in general and promoting mass replantation in tropical regions, wouldn't it be better accepted? and equally eficient? Let's get less dependent on wood, and invert the process of Amazonia. Of course, this lays on the need for political will of governments, worlwide.
Posted by: J. Pedro Grilo | April 11, 2007 04:24 AM
I did have respect for all your climate awareness information until I saw this deforestation scandal.
Two wrongs never make a right! Didn't your mother teach you that?
Switch to hydrogen fuel generated from renewable sources and quit serving self interests for the love of money.
Simple is always the best solution. Hydrogen is the simplest element. So stick with K.I.S.S. management.
Sincerely,
Andrew John Heath
Posted by: Andrew John Heath | April 11, 2007 06:27 AM
the headline does sound sensationalistic. I don't understand why you need to state "total" destruction of forests... I've read about this elsewhere (effect of trees in certain places with snow), so I knew of this study, but "total" destruction implies destroying forests EVERYWHERE (boreal, tropical, etc.)
Posted by: Joy Chien | April 11, 2007 08:26 AM
Hello - the editor here.
The 'total' is in the headline because the destruction of 'a' forest or 'some' forest would not necessarily cool the planet... it depends, as you have all noted, on where the trees are. The key point is that removing ALL forests would leave the world 0.3 °C cooler in 2100, which I personally find counter-intuitive.
Do note that the researcher only proposes this as a thought experiment - no one is saying we should cut down all the planet's trees! That would obviously be insane. (Ideally we could, perhaps, cut down all the trees, petrify them somehow, throw them in the sea, and then plant new ones. That might suck up a lot of carbon dioxide. But it would also, obviously, be an insane thing to do...)
Posted by: Nicola Jones | April 11, 2007 09:59 AM
This advance in climate modeler's understanding of the impact of albedo change on radiative forcing makes one wonder when, given that climatic bracket creep is already driving treelines northward. Nature will take notice of fashionable firms that offer to stem the CO2 effluence of affluent lifestyles by planting trees without reference to latitude.
One prominent client praising such carbon offsets is the proud owner of a 22 megawatt hour per month manse in Tennessee . Where, one wonders ,are the trees supposedly rendering Al Gore "carbon neutral ' growing?
If he knows at all, will he now exhort the rest of the black clad greens on the cover of Vanity Fair to join him in tripling rain forest holdings to offset any Norway Spruce, Scotch pines , or Canada balsam playing hob with their Ecoportfolios?
Posted by: Russell Seitz | April 12, 2007 09:21 AM
Besides change in albedo, we have to ask if the modeler took into account the release of carbon stored in the soils as well as the trees. This would increase global warming by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere. We then need to quantify how much this could lead to reduced snowfall and then negate the snow albedo effect in the model. One really needs to model the whole system, not just pieces.
Posted by: Nancy Kiang | April 13, 2007 06:28 PM
Well, I looked at the paper. It's a good, thorough study that includes both the carbon cycle and climate and vegetation change. How good the results are hinges on how well the climate model can capture precipitation of snow, maybe, which is a weakness of most climate models. Perhaps, however, it's more useful to investigate what will plausibly happen rather than simulating extremes cases, since getting rid of boreal forests is not an option. The researches do note this in their paper:
"Finally, we must bear in mind that preservation of ecosystems is a primary goal of preventing global warming, and the destruction
of ecosystems to prevent global warming would be a
counterproductive and perverse strategy. Therefore, the cooling
that could potentially arise from deforestation outside the tropics should not necessarily be viewed as a strategy for mitigating climate change because, apart from their potential
climatic role, forests are valuable in many aspects. They provide natural habitat to plants and animals, preserve the biodiversity
of natural ecosystems, produce economically valuable timber and firewood, protect watersheds through prevention of soil erosion, and indirectly prevent ocean acidification by reducing atmospheric CO2. In planning responses to global challenges, therefore, it is important to pursue broad goals and to avoid narrow criteria that may lead to environmentally harmful consequences."
Posted by: Nancy Kiang | April 13, 2007 06:54 PM
Does the report distinguish between evergreen and deciduous trees? Above a certain altitude most trees may be pretty much evergreen, but wouldn't any deciduous trees in snowy areas absorb far less sunlight during winter months once their dark foliage has gone? Is this a significant aspect?
Posted by: S Hinton | April 17, 2007 02:36 PM