If CO2 production affects the whole world (even desolate/underdeveloped areas) & is not localized...?

Question

...then why is planting trees promoted as a way to "offset" carbon emissions? Isn't that a localized solution for something that supposedly spreads and affects the whole world?

And if planting trees helps make you more "carbon neutral," then why do AGW advocates also claim that forests are being harmed by global warming--shouldn't they be offsetting and benefitting off of the increased levels CO2?

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/14908/newsDate/7-Mar-2002/story.htm

Can someone explain the science behind this (I don't understand it)?

Answer 1

Okay...some science here...

Yes, trees DO HELP with the carbon emissions, but there are more trees being cut down every day then are being planted.  Trees are being harmed by the incredible amount of pollution in the air, NOT the CO2!  Also, there is just too much CO2 for the trees in certain areas to handle.  There are parts of the world that don't have the climate for many trees, such as deserts and, of course, our oceans, which make up 2/3rds of this planet.  Our oceans also take in CO2, but, again there is more being generated than this planet can handle.  Hence you have this imbalance in Nature that is causing the droughts, and flooding, and the heavier storms, etc. as the earth tries to offset what we have done are are doing...but earth is losing this battle and we and the rest of the creatures on this planet are going to ultimately lose also if we don't act quickly and with all of our dedication and technology...and that means ALL countries, ALL peoples!  Ideology has NO place in this!  We are literally all in this together...there is Earth, and no where else for us to live!

Answer 2

(oh my, this is a mistake.  you don't want to learn anything.  money is your only concern.  and money today -- next year doesn't make any difference.  no matter what anyone says, you're gonna pick the  "AGW is a load of BS. More carbon dioxide = better plant life" answer.)

okay, the science -- why CO2 causes warming is here.

http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/clim...

in general what is says is that clouds (water) is the strongest influence in global warming.  without it, the average temp would be way below freezing.  however, a change of less than 10 degrees down puts the world in a major ice age, and up destroys much of the agriculture.

outside of water, CO2, which is rising, has the largest influence.  the reason is that it allows light to pass through it, but intercepts infrared radiation.  so energy comes in, but doesn't go out.  just like when you're cold in the winter, you put an extra blanket on, to reduce the body heat you lose, so you stay warmer in bed.

people who say that warming is the result of the sun are correct.  however, what they leave out is that, the additional CO2 makes the earth retain more of the solar energy, raising temperatures.  the sun is, in fact, cooling ever so slightly.  but the night time energy loss is being reduced by the extra CO2 in the air.

mature forests contain large amounts of carbon.  but they are generally carbon neutral.  that is, as trees grow, they absorb carbon, but when they die and decay, they release that carbon.  planting trees in areas that do not have significant amounts of permanent vegetation does absorb and store carbon.  so planting trees helps.  not destroying forests helps. cutting down a forest, for any reason, food, ??? does not help.

that process affects the entire planet because it absorbs carbon from the air.  one might note that air makes it way around the world every few days, so when a bit of carbon is incorporated by a tree, that air moves on, and the process continues.  maybe a couple months later, that same air comes around again, and that same tree has another chance to remove more carbon from that same patch of air.  that's why it's global.

as to why forests are being harmed, the warming is changing the patterns of precipitation.  the Sahara desert is expanding.  the American south west has been in drought conditions for 10 years or more.  maybe you're read about the dust bowl days.  it's completely possible that they'll return, and not recover.  ever.  at least not in our or our children's lifetimes.

last, the science, one more time.  in relation to energy, CO2 is like a one-way window.  very short wavelength energy, like light passes through CO2 just like a clear window.  longer wavelength energy, infrared radiation -- heat -- is intercepted by CO2.  When it is intercepted, CO2 then radiates it again -- the CO2 does not continue to get warmer and warmer.  it's kind of like a baseball player, it catches the heat and then throws it -- radiates it.  some that is radiated continues out into space.  some comes back to the earth.  but as there is more and more CO2, more and more comes back to the earth.

sort of like, if you didn't allow baseball outfielders to move.  when they caught a ball, they threw it in a random direction.  most balls hit to the outfield would continue and make it to the fence.  but if you put more and more players out in the field, they'd catch more balls, and throw them some way or other.  and when there was a noticeable increase in the number of fielders, there would be a noticeable increase in balls that were thrown back to the infield to put the batter out.

Answer 3

I don't follow your logic dumdum (but then I usually don't) planting more trees would mean more uptake of carbon dioxide and less total CO2 in the atmosphere.  Carbon dioxide is relatively well-mixed in the atmosphere so local actions diffuse to global effects. I don't think we could plant enough trees to offset the total amount of CO2 we are adding though.

EDIT: dumdum, your lack of logic is amazing.  Did I say that carbon credits wouldn't help? I don't think so, what I said was that I didn't think we could plant enough trees to offset all the CO2. I'm pretty sure no one (including Gore) has claimed that we could plant enough trees to to offset all the carbon dioxide being emitted.  It would be great if we could, but I think tree planting is just one of many ways to offset carbon dioxide release.

Another EDIT for dumdum: you asked 'If the wind is so powerful and disperses the CO2 all over the world--even desolate areas amd forests, would that negate the "greehouse effect?"'

The answer is NO, that just means the level of CO2 is too high everywhere--the greenhouse effect is all over the world.

Answer 4

Seems to me that your basic lack of understanding of the fundamental underpinnings of science invalidates any opinion you might offer.

Answer 5

Ok...! Only native trees in that area can help "absorb" (as some say) the CO2 that is emitted. If we plant non-native or evasive trees then it will just make the matter worse. I don't know exactly why, but that's what I was told.

Answer 6

Because if everyone plants trees in their localized area it will globally offset, more or less, CO2 emissions.

It goes back to the whole "Think globally, act locally" paradigm.

Forests are being harmed by deforestation (man made), which contributes to global warming.

Yes, some cities have been planting trees:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/londo...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

http://www.buffalocity.gov.za/news2005/s...

"while everyone else has to make more sacrifices"

Such as? Buying CFL's? That's pretty much the only 'sacrifice' we've had to made, hopefully Congress will pass an emissions caps (which would affect ONLY big business)

Droughts, yes. Fires because of droughts, yes. Different kinds of bacteria, I've never heard of this. Trees do use CO2, and those trees that can handle the climate change certainly profit from excess levels. Those species that can't handle the climate change (a great example: coral reef), are being hurt by it. Trees are still be hurt by man, however, through deforestation.

Gases and emissions have their way of working through the atmosphere. Just look at CFCs which caused the ozone hole: CFCs were mostly emitted in cities, however the ozone hole was over Antarctica. People are spread out all over the world, people all over the world emit CO2. That's how it affects the whole world.

We've had fuel taxes since the Great Depression, long before AGW became as profound an issue as it is today. Price gouged? Thank Big Oil for that. Told to consume even less? More like encouraged to do so. I've yet to see any legislation that forces you to, say, recycle or ration food.

"Do you have a more scientific explanation?"

For what? You've asked me about a dozen different questions.

Answer 7

I'm having a little trouble following your logic too, but if I understand what you are asking, of course the first answer is wind, which eventually distributes local concentrations of gasses around the globe

As far as forests being harmed by global warming, the link explains it pretty thoroughly.  Increasing temperatures increase the range of insects and diseases and trees without natural defenses are attacked.  Colder climate tolerant trees are very sensitive to minor changes in temperature...look at tree lines at various altitudes and you can see that demonstrated.

I'm not aware of any AGW or GW believer stating that global warming has caused spontaneous fires.

And I'm also not following the logic behind your comment about pegminer's remark; first, you're plainly trying to put words in her mouth, and second, the carbon credit tax is certainly not solely about planting trees.  Does anyone have a link to the details that are being proposed in the carbon credit tax plan?

EDIT: I'm sorry, I don't really understand what's not to get-the phenomenon of the wind and convection currents is very well known and understood, it is like you are asking for a more 'scientific' explanation of why we get pink paint when we mix together red and white paint.  The only unknown as regards CO2 in the atomsphere is exactly how much we can continue to release without affecting the natural balance and what exactly will happen if we do.  That is expressed in terms of statistical probability, and most of the scientific community believes that the risk is high enough that we should take action.  But nobody can decide what action should be taken and how.  Everything we're yakking about here is just talk talk, nobody at YA really knows for sure one way or the other.

Answer 8

Trees that have adequate levels of water do absorb enormous amounts of CO2. But trees without adequate water make water shortage so much worse.

Planting trees is very ineffective in controlling CO2 levels when trees have inadequate water.

Trees with adequate water could be absorbing all the CO2 that our industrial world produces, but more and more our forests are stricken with drought, even moving into desert conditions. And yes, rising temperatures do contribute to the droughts affecting those forests.

No point in planting more trees if there is not enough water for those we already have. Deal with getting them water.

Answer 9

Pollution in China can be measured (even visibly seen at times) on the west coast of the US, because the atmosphere is one big system.  Winds mix it up well, over time. So obviously it doesn't matter where on the planet CO2 is removed, it's still removed from the atmosphere and that's a good thing. Therefore, trees are clearly a carbon offset (though of somewhat limited duration, since trees eventually die and decay releasing some CO2 back into the atmosphere).

As your article states, global warming may harm forests through fires, droughts and pest infestations. There's no scientific mystery to this.

Trees are helpful to combat global warming.  Global warming may harm trees.  There's no logical or scientific inconsistency there.

Answer 10

Those in favor of man-made global warming have very confusing science, because it's a load of BS.  More carbon dioxide = better plant life.  In reality all the excess carbon dioxide is making Earth's biosphere boom with plant life and growth.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/200...

Answer 11

If tree-planting is the 'fix', then why not spend the billions of $$$ being wasted on ethanol subsidies and ..... plant trees??!!

I've noticed ads run by so-called 'green' businesses offering to have trees planted to off-set your carbon footprint..... for an outrageous fee.... of course.