
How much can forests fight climate change? - ramraj07
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00122-z
======
mistrial9
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.

[http://www.edf.org/NewMexicoMethane](http://www.edf.org/NewMexicoMethane)

~~~
ramraj07
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](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.

~~~
mehrdadn
> we could be drastically overestimating

Would you mind explaining this bit? Besides [1], which hardly changes the big
picture and came out literally last month, what evidence have you seen in the
last couple decades of following climate change that suggest to you that the
likelihood that we have been "drastically overestimating" the rate is anything
comparable to the likelihood that we have been correct (if not
underestimating)? From as far back as I can remember, the predictions have
only stayed about the same or gotten more dire. They used to say weather
patterns would get more intense, with more storms etc., and they indeed have.
They say sea levels would rise and I really have no reason to believe they
cannot calculate the rise correctly. I would think that if climate scientists
had no idea what they're talking about, we could point to their erroneous
predictions and prove them wrong?

[1]
[https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/03/one-p...](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/03/one-
part-of-greenland-ice-growing/)

~~~
ramraj07
I definitely am not refuting the estimates by climate scientists about our
worsening climate rates; I will totally assume that the rate they suggest is
the expected value until proven otherwise.

However, I will also not be surprised if things get far worse extremely fast,
or if they actually suddenly start getting better (or slowing down). My only
rationale for this belief is that as we go into warmer and warmer climate, we
are also going into a territory that the scientists themselves have no real
data for - literally uncharted territory. I'm sure they have run models to
extrapolate their predictions but the actual fact that we are already
experiencing climate that has not been seen for however amount of time means
any prediction has to be taken with a slight grain of salt.

Practically speaking, we always hear of the finding that global warming might
release methane bodies or it's turning into a runaway chain reaction. We don't
even know how many other chain reaction scenarios exist that have not even
been considered. Similarly (though with orders of magnitude less likelihood
even for me), there exists possibilities that excessive warming into uncharted
temperatures might trigger some feedback that might slow this warming too. I'm
not counting on it but I am not ready to % exclude it yet either.

~~~
jussij
> there exists possibilities that excessive warming into uncharted
> temperatures might trigger some feedback that might slow this warming too.

I very much doubt this is the case.

What is happening to the world can be explained by science and using
scientific principles the changes can be predicted by modelling.

The hard part is creating the model, only because the problem domain is very
complex. But what we have seen, is over time that modelling has been getting
better.

Now if there was some _possibilities that excessive warming into uncharted
temperatures might trigger_ some sort of cooling effect then surely that would
have come out in the modelling.

------
bjourne
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.

[https://www.vox.com/science-and-
health/2018/5/29/17386112/al...](https://www.vox.com/science-and-
health/2018/5/29/17386112/all-life-on-earth-chart-weight-plants-animals-pnas)
[https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions](https://www.co2.earth/global-
co2-emissions)

~~~
api
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.

~~~
taffer
> that's unlikely given that the payoff is very high for defecting.

Trade policy (e.g. through the WTO) can be designed in a way that allows
countries to internalise the damage caused by greenhouse gas emissions by
imposing higher tariffs on countries that do not cooperate.

~~~
ls612
But you still need everyone else to cooperate. And in a multipolar world (or
at least a world with some viable political blocs outside of the US led order)
that will be difficult to say the least.

~~~
sooheon
What makes you think the US is not the defector?

~~~
api
Most of the world is defecting at the moment. Few are truly serious about
cutting emissions dramatically.

The US is relatively high (but by no means the highest) in per capita CO2
while China is the #1 emitter in total and also per dollar GDP (last I
checked). The per dollar GDP number would make China the largest emitter in
terms of carbon intensity of its economic activity.

------
kaycebasques
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.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humus)

~~~
foxhop
It's not just the humus, an aged forest also has at least 7 layers of carbon
sequestration.

[https://geographyiseasy.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/layers-i...](https://geographyiseasy.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/layers-
in-the-tropical-rainforest.jpg)

------
mamcx
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.

Combined to NOT deforest so hard, and is a win.

Forest are a force multiplier.

------
pistoriusp
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.

Plant more trees. [https://onetreeplanted.org/](https://onetreeplanted.org/)

~~~
umvi
> Trees are batteries that store carbon. The carbon is restored into the
> atmosphere when a tree dies and decays, or is burnt.

By extension, wooden building materials are carbon batteries as well. Plant
more trees _and_ build more things out of wood.

~~~
cedex12
Beside the reasonable point that building out of wood allows "sequestrating"
carbon long(er?) term, are there studies working the maths out and confirming
that?

It seems the intuitively clear solutions often can be deceiving since there
are hidden aspects balancing things out and I'm wondering if it's the case
here.

~~~
strainer
A study is not really required to confirm that wooden constructions contain
and retain their carbon. Even over many hundreds of years the wood in Tudor
houses is chemically stable (without preservatives - as long as it has correct
ventilation)

Studies may look into possible mistakes or optimizations that could be made,
but the basic material reality is evidenced in plain sight.

~~~
cedex12
Right, and I asked (or tried to, at least!) about that latter question: stuff
like transport, isolation, etc that could make wood less interesting than
other construction materials, environmentally.

------
agumonkey
I rarely, if ever, see people talking about ~bidirectional benefits (think two
variables, or force moment).

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
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?

------
hiby007
I think from long time scientists are studying the topic of Ocean Seeding and
Iron Fertilization.

Video on Ocean Seeding -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xofhzc1NZ8s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xofhzc1NZ8s)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization)

------
dicroce
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.

~~~
Consultant32452
Increasing the total biomass of trees also reduces atmospheric CO2, even if
you just let the natural cycle of life go on.

------
ajuc
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?

------
User23
How much can climate change help forests?

------
mirimir
> 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.

~~~
lukeschlather
> I don't recall hearing about death threats against scientists pre Internet.

Galileo? I imagine Darwin had his fair share. And those are obviously just the
most famous examples.

~~~
mirimir
It was the Catholic Church that went after Galileo, not individual haters. And
based on some searching, I find nothing about threats against Darwin. Indeed,
it seems that he was quite the popular figure, at least in the UK. Even after
he declared agnosticism.

Recently, of course, Christian and Muslim haters have threatened people who
support evolution.

~~~
lovemenot
I haven't heard of any threats directed against Darwin personally. If this is
so, one possible reason is that he was extremely circumspect in the timing of
publication, since he was well aware of its likely social and theological
impact.

Darwin's personal preference to not be an asshole, was one reason _On the
Origin_ took twenty years to reach publication.

After publication, Darwin was fortunate to acquire celebrity bull-dogs such as
Huxley, who would take up the cause and allow Darwin to continue his
gentlemanly pursuits, out of the direct firing line.

~~~
mirimir
Maybe he didn't get death threats because the sorts of idiots who make death
threats didn't read his stuff. And maybe because pastors were too civilized to
encourage their flocks to make death threats.

