Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[nwdiver]

I always hear from some people that what good will it do for me to, blah blah i cannot make a difference I’m just one small person. So I would say to them what would happen if everyone that says that did their small part, guess what it is then a big part.

There's a difference between 'doing your part' and doing something infinitesimally small like planting a tree and thinking you've 'done your part'. 1 step forward and 5 steps back is not progress.

 

[jerry33]

I always hear from some people that what good will it do for me to, blah blah i cannot make a difference I’m just one small person. So I would say to them what would happen if everyone that says that did their small part, guess what it is then a big part.

This is called the tragedy of the commons. No single raindrop thinks it's responsible for the flood.

 

[EinSV]

Climate scientists are starting to weigh in on the overreaction/misleading presentation of the simplistic "planting trees best way to cure climate change" message that some have taken from the Science article:

• 
  Michael E. Mann

@MichaelEMann
Replying to
@prizzotweet
This study is already being misrepresented and overstated. In very best case (likely unachievable) we are talking about offsetting only 1/3 current emissons. As my colleague & friend
@GreatLakesPeck
just pointed out:
Quote Tweet

Jonathan Overpeck
@GreatLakesPeck
· 22h
+ Just to be super clear - to save the planet, we need to rapidly exit the fossil fuel burning era, plus reduce other greenhouse gas emissions ASAP, AND remove CO2 from the atmo via many more, not fewer, forest trees. CO2 capture won’t work by itself.


Michael E. Mann on Twitter

So let's replant and protect forests AND rapidly replace fossil fuels with cheap carbon-free renewables, "electrify everything" in transportation, etc.

 

[mspohr]

Climate scientists are starting to weigh in on the overreaction/misleading presentation of the simplistic "planting trees best way to cure climate change" message that some have taken from the Science article:

• 
  Michael E. Mann

@MichaelEMann
Replying to
@prizzotweet
This study is already being misrepresented and overstated. In very best case (likely unachievable) we are talking about offsetting only 1/3 current emissons. As my colleague & friend
@GreatLakesPeck
just pointed out:
Quote Tweet

Jonathan Overpeck
@GreatLakesPeck
· 22h
+ Just to be super clear - to save the planet, we need to rapidly exit the fossil fuel burning era, plus reduce other greenhouse gas emissions ASAP, AND remove CO2 from the atmo via many more, not fewer, forest trees. CO2 capture won’t work by itself.


Michael E. Mann on Twitter

So let's replant and protect forests AND rapidly replace fossil fuels with cheap carbon-free renewables, "electrify everything" in transportation, etc.

Michael Mann has his opinion but as a scientist, he should defer to the people who have spent a lot of time studying this issue.

• Nobody is saying plant trees and continue to burn fossil fuels.
  
  
  Jonathan Overpeck
  
  @GreatLakesPeck

+ Just to be super clear - to save the planet, we need to rapidly exit the fossil fuel burning era, plus reduce other greenhouse gas emissions ASAP, AND remove CO2 from the atmo via many more, not fewer, forest trees. CO2 capture won’t work by itself.

 

[mspohr]

Here's a link from the authors' website which gives the full non-paywalled Science article:

https://www.crowtherlab.com/wp-cont...705_The-global-tree-restoration-potential.pdf

Nevertheless, under the assumption that most of this additional carbon was sourced from the atmosphere, reaching this maximum restoration potential would reduce a considerable proportion of the global anthropogenic carbon burden (~300 GtC) to date (1). This places ecosystem restoration as the most effective solution at our disposal to mitigate climate change.

If these restored woodlands and forests were allowed to mature to a similar state of existing ecosystems in protected areas, they could store 205 GtC.

Interesting here:

We need to stop cutting down trees as well as stop burning fossil fuels.

 

[Merrill]

There's a difference between 'doing your part' and doing something infinitesimally small like planting a tree and thinking you've 'done your part'. 1 step forward and 5 steps back is not progress.

I’m talking about doing as much as you can do in many areas to help with the environment.

 

[EinSV]

Michael Mann has his opinion but as a scientist, he should defer to the people who have spent a lot of time studying this issue.

That’s not the way the scientific process works — any climate scientist can read and critique the Science paper. Many have and there has been a flood of public criticism already — especially at the statement in the abstract that planting trees is the “most effective solution” to climate change because, by itself, it is not a solution at all.

That statement is not only incorrect, but easy fodder for fossil fuel Merchants of Doubt to spin to inhibit action where it is most urgently needed — phasing out fossil fuel use.

Yes we should plant trees and protect forests, but that will not, by itself, come anywhere near solving the problem.

 

[nwdiver]

Planting trees to sequester carbon may not be 100% FUD;

But the headline absolutely is;

'Tree planting 'has mind-blowing potential' to tackle climate crisis'


But no doubt it got more clicks than....

'Tree planting 'has a mathematically insignificant effect' on the climate crisis'

 

[mspohr]

That’s not the way the scientific process works — any climate scientist can read and critique the Science paper. Many have and there has been a flood of public criticism already — especially at the statement in the abstract that planting trees is the “most effective solution” to climate change because, by itself, it is not a solution at all.

That statement is not only incorrect, but easy fodder for fossil fuel Merchants of Doubt to spin to inhibit action where it is most urgently needed — phasing out fossil fuel use.

Yes we should plant trees and protect forests, but that will not, by itself, come anywhere near solving the problem.

It seems that you are worried that people might plant trees and forget about the threat of fossil fuels so you are trying to argue that planting trees is useless when we have a rigorous scientific study that says otherwise.
A flood of misinformed public criticism is irrelevant. Show me a rigorous scientific study that has a different conclusion.

Do you think the fact that we have cut down 50% of the trees on earth might have had some effect on the climate? Don't you think it might be a good idea to start replacing those trees?

 

[mspohr]

Planting trees to sequester carbon may not be 100% FUD;

But the headline absolutely is;

'Tree planting 'has mind-blowing potential' to tackle climate crisis'


But no doubt it got more clicks than....

'Tree planting 'has a mathematically insignificant effect' on the climate crisis'

The claim in the study was that restoring forests has the potential to bring CO2 to 1930 levels.
Do you have a scientific study that shows otherwise?
Or are you just making assertions without any evidence?

 

[nwdiver]

The claim in the study was that restoring forests has the potential to bring CO2 to 1930 levels.
Do you have a scientific study that shows otherwise?
Or are you just making assertions without any evidence?

??? Where did it claim that? It said 0.9B Hectares of additional forest could 'store' 205B tons of carbon. If we wanted to restore atmospheric CO2 to <300ppm we'd need to stop adding CO2 and remove >700B tons.

 

[SageBrush]

Mann: "So let's replant and protect forests AND rapidly replace fossil fuels with cheap carbon-free renewables, "electrify everything" in transportation, etc."

Exactly

 

[nwdiver]

Mann: "So let's replant and protect forests AND rapidly replace fossil fuels with cheap carbon-free renewables, "electrify everything" in transportation, etc."

Exactly

That's a little giving dental advice 'Brush more than twice a day and quit Meth'

Both will help... but one is WAAAAAY.... WAAAAAAAY more critical to do than the other. Meth is 98% of the problem and all the brushing in the world isn't gonna fix the damage caused by Meth.

 

[SageBrush]

That's a little giving dental advice 'Brush more than twice a day and quit Meth'

Both will help... but one is WAAAAAY.... WAAAAAAAY more critical to do than the other. Meth is 98% of the problem and all the brushing in the world isn't gonna fix the damage caused by Meth.

I agree with your overarching point that cutting fossil to zero is priority #1 but after that your analogy fails. An addict that stops Meth use and "only" brushes once or twice a day is in good shape teeth wise; if we cut emissions to zero we are not yet in good shape. We still have too much carbon in the air that needs to be returned to the ground.

Like you, I worry that 'planting trees' will turn into a panacea for those who are willing to continue fossil combustion and they are in grave error.

 

[nwdiver]

if we cut emissions to zero we are not yet in good shape. We still have too much carbon in the air that needs to be returned to the ground.

I disagree with that to an extent. If we somehow cut emissions to zero today that solves ~98% of the problem and focusing resources on more efficient logging and expanding our 'working forests' will be more effective than re-forestation.

There's an unfortunate aversion to logging and forest fires to an extent that in some places like California they are almost universally shunned when they're critical tools for proper management and effectively using forest land for carbon sequestration. WA has taken a more nuanced approach. There is actually a class of land in WA where you are REQUIRED to log your land periodically to ensure sufficient working acreage. Some friends bought 25 acres and were only permitted to develop 5. The remaining 20 are legally mandated to remain a 'working forest'. Once the trees are ready for harvest they're gonna lose their private forest until the new trees regrow.

We need to get more comfortable with tree farms and forest fires. Is it unsettling to see acres of forest cut down and replanted? Yes. But it's necessary. Is it unsettling to see dense smoke and fire from a prescribed burn? Yes. But it's necessary. We need to do a better job managing the forest land we have before we start looking to plant more trees.

 

[SageBrush]

I disagree with that to an extent. If we somehow cut emissions to zero today that solves ~98% of the problem

We can review that plan tomorrow.

As for reforestation Vs active forest management: these are not mutually exclusive.

It is true though that the natural carbon kinetics of a forest are complicated. The only think I can say with some confidence is trees kept as wood are better than trees that are burned.

 

[ReddyLeaf]

Link to the original Science article study:
The global tree restoration potential

If a tree falls in a forest, will replanting it help curb global warming? Scientists say planting a trillion trees globally could be the single most effective way to fight climate change.


According to a new study in the journal Science, planting billions of trees around the world would be the cheapest and most effective way to tackle the climate crisis. Since trees absorb carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warming, a worldwide planting initiative could remove a substantial portion of heat-trapping emissions from the atmosphere.

The researchers say a program at this scale could remove about two-thirds of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions caused by human activities since the start of the industrial revolution, or nearly 25% of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

I would like to add: planting them and the leaving them alone to grow to their full potential. Unfortunately, humans are great at destroying nature, but not all that good at letting it be.

 

[nwdiver]

I would like to add: planting them and the leaving them alone to grow to their full potential. Unfortunately, humans are great at destroying nature, but not all that good at letting it be.

Sure. That's great for having natural areas but less good for carbon sequestration. The growth rate of trees peaks around ~30 years depending on species. If the goal is carbon sequestration then they should be harvested and replanted around this point.

 

[WannabeOwner]

A new study finds we’ve already installed enough fossil fuel infrastructure to commit to more than 1.5 degrees Celsius of planetary warming, even without new planned installation

In a recent conversation with an Eco Build designer the topic of getting bricks for a new building came up. I, naively, said "The building will be there for 400 years, why is it [CO2 creation side effect] a concern?" to which the answer was that we have to prevent all CO2 production now to assist with getting it under control. If that is successful and we reach a new equilibrium then in 50 years time people will be able to build a house out of (new) bricks again

made me think about everything that I need to stop using which has any CO2 generation, rather than thinking I'm OK if it has long-life

I also have to know what trees to top and how far down

Dunno if this helps.

Interested how long is shadow on your land/garden?

I don't know how to put a location into the map, other than to zoom right out, pan to your part of the world, and zoom back in again.

Then draw a shape around trees/etc. and make sure that [shape] is selected when you set the height ... then experiment with where the shadow falls, relatively to your PV location and time of day/year.

I'm sure there are better tools, apologies if you already have them

 

[SR22pilot]

Wow, the AGW believers seem to be adopting some of the same attitudes as the deniers. By that I mean "I am locked into my opinion and I'm not changing for anyone." "Planting trees will save us." "Planting tree is meaningless." How about, we should do everything that helps. Going to EV's won't save us but it is part of the solution. Reforestation does help. It is part of the solution. Clean energy helps but not if we burn fossil fuels in cars. Heck, population in and of itself is an issue. Cattle are a problem but kelp based feedstock helps. Maybe if we think about all the things that help a little bit and do those they will add up. No, I don't think a trillion trees would have almost zero impact. It would have a lot but not nearly enough.

As it is, I think out great grandkids will be angry as they suffer through funding massive carbon capture campaigns while they look back at how we could have solved the issue while, at the same time, stimulating the economy.