Nature’s carbon cycle carries on regardless.
– – –
Roughly a third of the climate cooling that forests achieve by removing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere is offset through changes to atmospheric composition and decreased surface reflectivity, researchers report.
The findings suggest that the benefits of wide-scale forestation efforts may be overestimated and do not represent a single solution for addressing climate change, says EurekAlert.
They also highlight the urgency of simultaneously focusing on emissions reductions. Planting trees has been widely promoted as a nature-based solution to remove anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere to help mitigate ongoing climate warming.
However, wide-scale forest expansion may drive feedbacks within the Earth system that lead to warming.
For example, changes to atmospheric composition (via the release of biogenic volatile organic compounds that affect greenhouse gasses and organic aerosols) and decreased surface albedo could offset the cooling effects of atmospheric CO2 removal (CDR) by forestation.
However, the effects and their impact on climate remain relatively unexplored. Using two state-of-the-art climate models – UKESEM1 and CESM2 – James Weber and colleagues compared extensive global forestation scenarios and evaluated their impact on climate and the climatic benefit from CDR.
According to the findings, when forestation is simulated under a scenario with few other climate change mitigation strategies, the higher volatile organic compound emissions from vegetation increase greenhouse gasses ozone and methane in the atmosphere.
This, combined with changes to surface albedo and light-scattering organic aerosols, results in a net warming effect, which offsets ~31% of the cooling benefit from CDR.
Full article here.
– – –
Research article: Chemistry-albedo feedbacks offset up to a third of forestation’s CO2 removal benefits
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
I’ve been arguing about this nonsense for years now. Trees can: Disrupt wind Flow: Speed & Direction. Affect daylength in hilly areas when grown on the skyline ( Valley Mountain ridge/slopes) most noticeably in Winter at higher latitudes. Soil drainage and mineral uptake / leaching. ……
“However, wide-scale forest expansion may drive feedbacks within the Earth system that lead to warming.”
Is this the same as saying that for Nature, warming is a Good Thing™
the higher volatile organic compound emissions from vegetation increase greenhouse gasses ozone and methane in the atmosphere.
Trading in CO2 for ozone and methane. Not quite the plan.
[…] Posted on February 23, 2024 by Rashid Faridi Is tree planting overrated as a climate benefit? Researchers think so […]
Oh yes it is …! :-)
Ah, more “settled science”…
Does using paper to replace plastic in supermarket and other carry home bags cause harm to the environment due to the removal of these oxygenating trees that are vital to our atmosphere?
Earth is a ‘water planet’. It’s ~1/3 land mass and ~2/3 ocean and sea. There is little we can do to prevent ‘climate’ change on our land masses, so we need to look after our oceans and seas.
‘INSOLATION’ (‘IN’coming ‘SOL’ar radi’ATION’) spans the spectra from gamma rays to infra red (and perhaps some other ‘longer wavelengths’ that I shall not go into here).
The ‘shorter wavelengths’ from gamma rays to UVB (ultraviolet B) affect only our atmosphere (although UVB can strike Earth’s surface during given weather conditions, whereas UVA usually does strike Earth’s surface and is a good source of vitamin D for our human population), but I digress. These ‘shorter wavelengths’ affect only our ‘atmosphere’, yes/no? No!
Changes to our ‘atmosphere’ also affects the ‘climate’ that we observe at Earth’s surface. Just consider ‘cloud formation’.
More ‘down to Earth’. ‘INSOLATION’ to Earth’s surface where IR ‘percolates’ through the atmosphere isn’t the ‘entire’ story. Atmospheric and surface understanding needs to be fully understood between land surface and ocean surface (inclusive of oceanic processes) before we can possibly hope to understand Earth’s ‘processes’.
IMHO, if we don’t pollute our rivers, the seas and oceans shall be more able to deal with our population. ‘Trees’ don’t ‘cut it!
Kind regards, Ray Dart (AKA suricat).
Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.
At least we know, this was published but not actually endorsed!
saighdear says:
I’ve been arguing about this nonsense for years now. Trees can: Disrupt wind Flow: Speed & Direction. Affect daylength in hilly areas when grown on the skyline ( Valley Mountain ridge/slopes) most noticeably in Winter at higher latitudes. Soil drainage and mineral uptake / leaching. ……
I say:
If it is hot there is more shade, if it is cold the wind is blocked, people often plant trees around their homes for these same reasons, trees effect on soil drainage do reduce flooding.
Windmills can Disrupt wind Flow: Speed & Direction. Windmills and Solar Pannels can disrupt soil drainage and mineral uptake / leaching / storm runoff and most importantly, disrupt grid reliability and stability because they are, in the best of times, intermittent, in the worst of times, no wind and no sun.
Locally some people want to live among the trees and others want to live in the open. For local climate this does make some difference. For global climate, all of this matters little, CO2 is a trace and has a trace of any influence on climate warming or cooling using its greenhouse effect. Climate has always changed, climate is changing, climate will always change. Water in all of its changing states with alternating periods with higher oceans and less ice on land and lower oceans with more ice on land has orders of magnitude influence more than the influence of a trace gas. We have a world of “so called” climate scientists studying the butterfly effect on temperature, CO2, and none of them even considering the elephant in the room, water in its abundance and its changing states.
all this is childish and completely ineffective
Mother Nature creates about 97% of all the “greenhouse” gases, thus we puny humans create some 3%. Even if we cut our output by two-thirds there would be no noticeable effect.
Just one big grift.
Trees: London would need 1,330 more Hyde Parks ‘full of trees’ to combat its carbon emissions
Planting trees is an effective way to temper carbon emissions, but without cutting those emissions back we’d need to get planting on an “extreme scale”
Published 22nd Feb 2024
https://www.nationalworld.com/news/environment/trees-london-would-need-1330-more-hyde-parks-full-of-trees-to-combat-carbon-emissions-4528035
Better add about another third to that due to this new research, say +400. *Effective*?
Caroline Lucas: The Tories are either lying or are asleep at the wheel
22nd February 2024
The Tories are putting their faith in fairytale technologies, but things are just as bad when it comes to policies built on solid ground.
https://goodlawproject.org/caroline-lucas-the-tories-are-either-lying-or-are-asleep-at-the-wheel/
The whole human-caused climate thing is a fairytale anyway.
popesclimatetheory: Spot-on analysis! CO2 as a climate change force is a fiction. Methane isn’t a climate-change force, it is a climate change farce.
One benefit from ‘tree planting’ would be in an ‘urban/town/city environment’ near to roads where ‘heavy traffic’ persists. The trees would help ‘filter’ the ‘carbon particulates’ from internal combustion engine exhausts, but the ‘down side’ is the ‘seasonal pollen’ that these trees would generate.
However, the ‘hydrological cycle’ requires ‘particulates’ to enable clouds to form. ‘CCN’ (Cloud Condensation Nuclei) are a requirement for the formation of clouds and a ‘steady rate’ for the hydrological cycle to remain ‘stable’ would offer a more ‘predictable’ outcome to ‘weather and climate’, but to what degree are CCN needed during ‘changing seasonal periods’ (temperature/humidity alteration)?
It’s chaotic!
Kind regards, Ray Dart (AKA suricat).