Before jumping into detailed discussion of the points raised in the publication here, including "trees leak methane in the Amazon" -- is it possible that this article is getting promoted because it feeds into a "they dont know what they are talking about" meme of anti-science know-nothing'ness ?
There appear to be several sets of weasel-words candidates .. Such as "many scientists applaud X but some urge caution" without naming either side's strengths and weaknesses, notable refutation on either side, or any raw counts of how many "some" are...
Recently it was discovered that USA oil and gas industry self-reporting of methane emissions on extraction in the Permian Basin might be five times less than actual numbers, and might have doubled in the last two years. This was detected by satellite sensors and NGO analysis.
> is it possible that this article is getting promoted because it feeds into a "they dont know what they are talking about" meme of anti-science know-nothing'ness ?
I would go further and say it's not only possible, it's likely.....similar to how articles from the opposing viewpoint are promoted, also often full of weasel words to some varying degree depending on the specific topic. Much of science discussion in the mainstream is actually a bit of a meme war, but this has probably always been true.
Daniel Dennett: Memes 101 | How Cultural Evolution Works
Doesn't methane dissolve relatively quickly in the atmosphere so it's not a long term threat like CO2 so once you run the numbers amortize it all a tree that leaks methane but eats carbon is a net win so long as the carbon actually stays out of the atmosphere?
OP here. No climate scientist, just someone who's been following climate change for a couple decades. Not a climate change denier by a long shot, if anything I've actually already made a bunch of large life decisions under the assumption that climate change is going to change this world quite a bit in the next few decades.
The main accusation you make, that I (and other who are promoting this article) are suggesting that the scientists don't know what they are talking about, I actually plead guilty for that. I really do think we don't know what we're talking about anythign other than the primary assertion that we are warming this planet through our actions. I don't believe we actually have a real handle on the rate (we could be drastically under or overestimating) of climate change, and I definitely don't think we have an inkling on whether geoengineering efforts would work the way we expect it to.
The main light bulb for me from this article is it has made me consider even planting trees as a geoengineering effort, as vicarious as other proposals like dumping iron in the ocean or particles into the stratosphere. Right now I would consider any effort at controlling global warming other than actually just reducing emissions as geoengineering.
The most apt analogy I have found for geoengineering efforts like this was given by the comedian Bill Burr in a podcast, where he shits on a Ted talk about genetically engineering malaria mosquitos (https://youtu.be/vEZ0z0WSrUA ).
I have seen similar over-confidence among my fellow scientitsts in biology, in complicated subjects like cancer, immunology and metabolism. Time and again, people will assert they have understood a system, make a drug, and it won't work, and then they will blame the failure on the same complexity they said they had conquered.
We have made tremendous progress on all these scientific fronts (biology, climate science, etc) but the systems under study have become so complex, I would consider it a criminal offense if any scientist makes a claim that they really have figured out all the ramifications of their geoengineering plans. Criminal because I am worried that any major geoengineering effort if it goes wrong might be irreversible. Orders of magnitude more studies are needed IMO to make sure we understand these systems, and I don't think we are going to invest that effort until things get far, far worse. Until then I would prefer we err on the side of caution.
Btw it's not just methane, they actually talk about a bunch of other potential issues (like VOCs) in that article. Also, this is nature mag, if you think nature mag is anti-science or climate change denying I'm not sure who else you think is your ally.
'notable refutation on either side, or any raw counts of how many "some" are...' - Why does it matter to dig into why one side is right or wrong? Earth atmosphere is complex beyond imagination of any person/society and you should expect science (or anyone else)to be wrong most of this time at what they have to say about this topic.
Don't be hell-bent on trying to comprehend mechanics of Earth atmosphere and finding 'scientific' solution to climate change. If you are aware of what has worked well until now for earth's climate then why not just follow it?
The math doesn't work out. Since the beginning of the Industrial revolution humankind has emitted about 550 GtC (gigatons of carbon) into the atmosphere. All plant life on earth contains about 450 GtC. Assuming all of it is forests (which isn't the case, a lot of it is algae, plankton and weeds) and assuming 100% capture rate (which also isn't the case due to forest fires, rotting and reduced albedo), earth's tree cover would more than double to capture all carbon emitted so far.
Clearly, that is not realistic. A more realistic (but still implausibly ambitious) goal would be increasing the earth's forests by 10%, storing 45 GtC for us. Well, it is better than nothing but at the current (increasing!) rate of 10 GtC emissions added per year that nets us another 4.5 years.
I've come to terms with the fact that nothing is going to stop anthropogenic climate change and we'll just have to adapt to it. It's not a technical problem but a political game-theoretic problem.
Major CO2 cuts would require a global all-cooperate (in a game theory sense) scenario and that's unlikely given that the payoff is very high for defecting. This is because global cuts in fossil fuel use would make fossil fuels incredibly cheap, increasing the economic advantage for nations that use them. This is going to be hugely appealing to developing nations with large populations. We already see this with China and India and pretty soon you're going to see it in Africa.
The only way I can see CO2 emission growth halting or reversing is a huge breakthrough in energy generation that results in something dramatically cheaper and easier to deploy and scale than fossil fuel. It would take Mr. Fusion (Back to the Future reference), solar and batteries that are just absolutely dirt cheap, or something equivalently awesome. I don't see anything like this arriving before CO2 hits 800-1000ppm.
We are pretty adaptable. A bio professor of mine was fond of saying that humans are like cockroaches and that this was a compliment coming from a biologist. We should be preparing to move Miami.
Considerable academic studies and literature on this subject exists. Recent capture rate from current global forestation is estimated to be approximately 2.5 GtC/year. Current global carbon stock of forests is estimated to about 861 GtC [1] ( virtually twice that hastily sourced figure for total plant life even without those assumptions about algae etc )
Sequestration of current forests, despite the fact they are currently being depleted rather than maintained or increased is estimated by studies to be equal to about 5% of current overall anthropogenic emissions. [2]
For in-depth advice see Chapter 11 of IPCC AR5 [3]
"
Reducing emissions from deforestation; reducing emissions from forest degradation; conservation of forest carbon stocks; sustainable management of forests; and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (REDD) consists of forest-related activities implemented voluntarily by developing countries that may, in isolation or jointly lead to significant
climate change mitigation. REDD was introduced in the agenda of the UNFCCC in 2005, and has since evolved to an improved understanding of the potential positive and negative impacts, methodological issues, safeguards, and financial aspects associated with REDD implementation.
"
Did you take into account that trees have died since the start of the industrial revolution, taking their carbon with them, and that new trees grew and are sequestering more carbon? I.e. if there were 200 GtC of trees and the average tree lived 100 years that is 400 GtC sequesters in 200 years. (I don't know exact figures.)
I read The Hidden Life Of Trees a while back. I believe the author suggests that old growth forests are bigger carbon sinks because they have deeper humus [1]. I don’t know the merits of that idea but it helped me realize that when people talked about forests, I was only thinking about the trees themselves, not taking the soil into consideration, too. If that idea has merit and the research does eventually conclude that forests are a carbon sink strategy, then it suggests that preserving old growth forests might be more effective than planting new ones.
Forest are much more than store carbon. Them affect the local climate, and maybe(??) the global(??). Help the local fauna. Clean the air of more than just pollutants, make the soil more fertile, combat erosion, help the river flow to not get so dry, and that is from the top of my head with my limited understanding of the subject.
Trees are batteries that store carbon. The carbon is restored into the atmosphere when a tree dies and decays, or is burnt.
A long time ago trees didn't decay because the Earth didn't have "fungus" that made them rot and decay. So they just piled on top of each other and turned into coal.
So in that case, rather than seeing forest planting as a complete all-in-one solution to climate change, should we instead see it as just one component of a greater solution? Use trees to solve the carbon sequester problem, look to other technologies for solutions to the albedo and heat absorption problems?
You have to cut down the trees at maturity and preserve them and re plant in order to actually reduce carbon in the atmosphere. We should probably be doing this (as long as we're careful not release more co2 than we capture doing all this)... But we should also be putting government money behind scaling climeworks and other direct carbon capture tech... We should also be seriously studying other more drastic measures.
If the albedo effect is so big can't we just paint the oceans white? How many ping-pong balls would it take to stop global warming? Or maybe empty water battles connected into rafts and painted white?
> Unger says she received death threats, and that some colleagues stopped speaking to her.
That is totally fucked up. I don't recall hearing about death threats against scientists pre Internet. Maybe against some research on primates, but I'm not sure. Yet another consequence of Eternal September :(
> “I have heard scientists say that if we found forest loss cooled the planet, we wouldn’t publish it.”
That is also totally fucked up. But I guess that it's not that surprising. I mean, Kuhn and all.
[+] [-] mistrial9|7 years ago|reply
There appear to be several sets of weasel-words candidates .. Such as "many scientists applaud X but some urge caution" without naming either side's strengths and weaknesses, notable refutation on either side, or any raw counts of how many "some" are...
Recently it was discovered that USA oil and gas industry self-reporting of methane emissions on extraction in the Permian Basin might be five times less than actual numbers, and might have doubled in the last two years. This was detected by satellite sensors and NGO analysis.
http://www.edf.org/NewMexicoMethane
[+] [-] mistermann|7 years ago|reply
I would go further and say it's not only possible, it's likely.....similar to how articles from the opposing viewpoint are promoted, also often full of weasel words to some varying degree depending on the specific topic. Much of science discussion in the mainstream is actually a bit of a meme war, but this has probably always been true.
Daniel Dennett: Memes 101 | How Cultural Evolution Works
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fG-3f4f0hA
Replace religion with "fundamentalism, of any kind":
https://pics.ballmemes.com/the-one-thing-that-i-think-is-rea...
[+] [-] dsfyu404ed|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ramraj07|7 years ago|reply
The main accusation you make, that I (and other who are promoting this article) are suggesting that the scientists don't know what they are talking about, I actually plead guilty for that. I really do think we don't know what we're talking about anythign other than the primary assertion that we are warming this planet through our actions. I don't believe we actually have a real handle on the rate (we could be drastically under or overestimating) of climate change, and I definitely don't think we have an inkling on whether geoengineering efforts would work the way we expect it to.
The main light bulb for me from this article is it has made me consider even planting trees as a geoengineering effort, as vicarious as other proposals like dumping iron in the ocean or particles into the stratosphere. Right now I would consider any effort at controlling global warming other than actually just reducing emissions as geoengineering.
The most apt analogy I have found for geoengineering efforts like this was given by the comedian Bill Burr in a podcast, where he shits on a Ted talk about genetically engineering malaria mosquitos (https://youtu.be/vEZ0z0WSrUA ).
I have seen similar over-confidence among my fellow scientitsts in biology, in complicated subjects like cancer, immunology and metabolism. Time and again, people will assert they have understood a system, make a drug, and it won't work, and then they will blame the failure on the same complexity they said they had conquered.
We have made tremendous progress on all these scientific fronts (biology, climate science, etc) but the systems under study have become so complex, I would consider it a criminal offense if any scientist makes a claim that they really have figured out all the ramifications of their geoengineering plans. Criminal because I am worried that any major geoengineering effort if it goes wrong might be irreversible. Orders of magnitude more studies are needed IMO to make sure we understand these systems, and I don't think we are going to invest that effort until things get far, far worse. Until then I would prefer we err on the side of caution.
Btw it's not just methane, they actually talk about a bunch of other potential issues (like VOCs) in that article. Also, this is nature mag, if you think nature mag is anti-science or climate change denying I'm not sure who else you think is your ally.
[+] [-] dgjrhgi|7 years ago|reply
Don't be hell-bent on trying to comprehend mechanics of Earth atmosphere and finding 'scientific' solution to climate change. If you are aware of what has worked well until now for earth's climate then why not just follow it?
[+] [-] bjourne|7 years ago|reply
Clearly, that is not realistic. A more realistic (but still implausibly ambitious) goal would be increasing the earth's forests by 10%, storing 45 GtC for us. Well, it is better than nothing but at the current (increasing!) rate of 10 GtC emissions added per year that nets us another 4.5 years.
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/5/29/17386112/al... https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions
[+] [-] api|7 years ago|reply
Major CO2 cuts would require a global all-cooperate (in a game theory sense) scenario and that's unlikely given that the payoff is very high for defecting. This is because global cuts in fossil fuel use would make fossil fuels incredibly cheap, increasing the economic advantage for nations that use them. This is going to be hugely appealing to developing nations with large populations. We already see this with China and India and pretty soon you're going to see it in Africa.
The only way I can see CO2 emission growth halting or reversing is a huge breakthrough in energy generation that results in something dramatically cheaper and easier to deploy and scale than fossil fuel. It would take Mr. Fusion (Back to the Future reference), solar and batteries that are just absolutely dirt cheap, or something equivalently awesome. I don't see anything like this arriving before CO2 hits 800-1000ppm.
We are pretty adaptable. A bio professor of mine was fond of saying that humans are like cockroaches and that this was a compliment coming from a biologist. We should be preparing to move Miami.
[+] [-] strainer|7 years ago|reply
Sequestration of current forests, despite the fact they are currently being depleted rather than maintained or increased is estimated by studies to be equal to about 5% of current overall anthropogenic emissions. [2]
For in-depth advice see Chapter 11 of IPCC AR5 [3]
" Reducing emissions from deforestation; reducing emissions from forest degradation; conservation of forest carbon stocks; sustainable management of forests; and enhancement of forest carbon stocks (REDD) consists of forest-related activities implemented voluntarily by developing countries that may, in isolation or jointly lead to significant climate change mitigation. REDD was introduced in the agenda of the UNFCCC in 2005, and has since evolved to an improved understanding of the potential positive and negative impacts, methodological issues, safeguards, and financial aspects associated with REDD implementation. "
[1] https://www.globalcarbonproject.org/global/pdf/pep/Pan.etal....
[2] https://forestsnews.cifor.org/12135/clocking-the-worlds-fore...
[3] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5...
[+] [-] mikem170|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mehrdadn|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thaumasiotes|7 years ago|reply
> Clearly, that is not realistic.
It's perfectly realistic in terms of what the trees can do; it's happened before.
The question is whether we want to cede so much space to trees, which I agree that we don't.
[+] [-] kaycebasques|7 years ago|reply
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humus
[+] [-] foxhop|7 years ago|reply
https://geographyiseasy.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/layers-i...
[+] [-] mamcx|7 years ago|reply
Combined to NOT deforest so hard, and is a win.
Forest are a force multiplier.
[+] [-] pistoriusp|7 years ago|reply
A long time ago trees didn't decay because the Earth didn't have "fungus" that made them rot and decay. So they just piled on top of each other and turned into coal.
Plant more trees. https://onetreeplanted.org/
[+] [-] umvi|7 years ago|reply
By extension, wooden building materials are carbon batteries as well. Plant more trees and build more things out of wood.
[+] [-] agumonkey|7 years ago|reply
Having people planting and caring more about forest will not only help absorb a bit of CO2 but also make these people do less emitting.
Is it useless on a large scale ?
[+] [-] jajag|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hiby007|7 years ago|reply
Video on Ocean Seeding - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xofhzc1NZ8s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization
[+] [-] dicroce|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Consultant32452|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ajuc|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] User23|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] mirimir|7 years ago|reply
That is totally fucked up. I don't recall hearing about death threats against scientists pre Internet. Maybe against some research on primates, but I'm not sure. Yet another consequence of Eternal September :(
> “I have heard scientists say that if we found forest loss cooled the planet, we wouldn’t publish it.”
That is also totally fucked up. But I guess that it's not that surprising. I mean, Kuhn and all.
[+] [-] lukeschlather|7 years ago|reply
Galileo? I imagine Darwin had his fair share. And those are obviously just the most famous examples.
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]