Snowy Forests "increase warming"

Planting trees in snowy areas may worsen global warming as their canopies absorb sunlight which would otherwise be reflected by the snow, a study says.

The report in US journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences says the pine forests of Europe, Siberia and Canada may contribute to warming.

Only tropical forests effectively cool the earth by absorbing carbon dioxide and creating clouds, the report says.

But the report's authors stress they are not advocating chopping down trees.

They say forests are a valuable resource and remain vital for bio-diversity, providing a home for animals and plants.

'Lively discussion'

Scientists have long argued that planting and preserving forests helps reduce global warming because trees absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and convert it to oxygen.

Trees also absorb water from the ground, helping to form clouds that shield the earth from sunlight.

But the report's findings, discussed last year at an American Geophysical Union meeting and now published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggest planting forests indiscriminately may be counter-productive.

"Our new study shows that only tropical rainforests are strongly beneficial in helping slow down global warming," Govindasamy Bala of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory says.

In cooler areas of the earth, tree cover helps store sunlight reflected by snow on the ground and this "cancels or exceeds" the net cooling effect, Mr Bala told the AFP news agency.

Another author of the report, Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution, said the report suggested it is "more important to preserve and restore tropical forests than had been previously realised".

But, he told the Associated Press news agency, he was "a little concerned about this being misapplied as an excuse to chop down the forests in the name of saving the environment".

Computer models produced by the report's authors suggested deforestation in higher latitudes could reduce global warming.

Steven W Running, a professor of ecology at the University of Montana, praised the report's authors for "sparking a lively scientific discussion".

But Mr Running, who was not involved in the report, said it was too early to base policy on the report's conclusion that certain types of reforestation might be counter-productive.


The report suggests deforestation is not always harmful

_____________________________________________

Can you believe this?

   

Yup,everyone and there dog is on the global warming bandwagon all of a sudden.
Houseflys are out early this year...must be global warming.
TV has been plastered with nothing but the big global warming scare lately and people are eating it up.

   

You heard the article. We must get rid of the trees. Though they said not to cut them down, so that must mean that we have to burn them.

EVERYONE, GET A LIGHTER AND START TORCHING!

   

I'm slowly losing my respect of the "scientific community" they are moving into the mad scientist goofball category. Professor Frankenstein anyone.

Lively scientific debate means more funding.

   

No shit - he just argued the case that trees in snowy areas increase global warming. What difference does it make whether they were planted or not?

What a dumbass.

   

This might be true. I'm surprised all the "scientists" of Canadaka are so quick to dismiss it.

   

Considering all the bald patches the pine beetles have given us in my part of BC, they might even be able to collect data to prove or disprove this theory.

It would be kind of like one of the unexpected consequences of 9/11. A scientist had a few days to collect data re his theory that plane exhaust was countering some of the effects of global warming by blocking sunlight. Of course, a couple of days data does not a theory prove. He just can't convince the airlines to stop flying again, poor guy.

   

Oh give me fuckin' break. The trees are at fault, has the whole world lost its mind?

   

No kidding. Bush and co are bound to use this as justification for his "Healthy Forests" clearcutting scheme. However, points to remember when tempted to use this as an endorsement for a logging free-for-all are:

1) This does not apply to forests that are not in snowy areas. In most temperate areas, for most of the year, the land is as dark as the forest cover, and absorbs the same amount of heat.

2) Natural, biodiverse forests absorb more carbon than monoculture tree plantations. I don't know if this was taken into account in this recent study. But it's an important point to remember as reason to keep the forests.

3) Forests maintain the water cycle, so cutting them down will have a devastating effect on a wider ecology, which would probably have equal or more impact than the CO2 or heat absorption effect.

4) This report's argument will be happily taken up by Carbon Offset companies who are making a quick buck out of planting trees in Africa. However, Offset tree planting schemes are highly controversial, as they are well documented as having disasterous socio-economic and environmental effects on local communities. Whether offsets work or not is disputed to say the least, but what is generally agreed is that most clients, consumers and companies are resorting to them as a conscience salve, which allows them to carry on as usual. This means that offsets are worse than doing nothing, because if it weren't for offsets, people might actually try to reduce their footprint in real terms, instead of deluding themselves that they can carry as usual and it's all fine.

5) Of course, lumber companies like Weyerhauser are going to be overjoyed at this report, and will try and use it as justification for cutting down more forests, ignoring the needs of the native communities such as Grassy Narrows that use and protect the forests. Even in a fucked up world where bastards like Weyerhauser could claim that their actions are "environmental", the social costs of this logging are unacceptable, and once again treat natives as if they are less than people.

Basically, lets hope that reason prevails in the interpretation and application of this report. But seriously, the guy who wrote it is a total idiot for presenting it in a way that can so easily be manipulated to the bad. Just another fire for some of us to fight now.