Cochise
08-27-2007, 12:23 PM
File under: "So much for those carbon offsets"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070812/sc_livescience/treeswontfixglobalwarming
The plan to use trees as a way to suck up and store the extra carbon dioxide emitted into Earth's atmosphere to combat global warming isn't such a hot idea, new research indicates.
Scientists at Duke University bathed plots of North Carolina pine trees in extra carbon dioxide every day for 10 years and found that while the trees grew more tissue, only the trees that received the most water and nutrients stored enough carbon dioxide to offset the effects of global warming.
The Department of Energy-funded project, called the Free Air Carbon Enrichment (FACE) experiment, compared four pine forest plots that received daily doses of carbon dioxide 1.5 times current levels of the greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere to four matched plots that didn't receive any extra gas.
The treated trees produced about 20 percent more biomass on average, but since water and nutrient availability differed across the plots, averages don't tell the whole story, the researchers noted.
"In some areas, the growth is maybe five to 10 percent more, and in other areas it's 40 percent more," said FACE project director Ram Oren of Duke University. "So in sites that are poor in nutrients and water we see very little response. In sites that are rich in both, we see a large response."
These differences are key since the weather isn't always cooperative with human needs—if a drought takes hold, trees won't be able to do much in the way of carbon storage.
"If water availability decreases at the same time that carbon dioxide increases, then we might not have a net gain in carbon sequestration," Oren said.
Fertilizing forests to spur more carbon dioxide uptake is impractical, Oren added, because of the ramifications to the local environment and water supply.
"In order to actually have an effect on the atmospheric concentration of CO2, the results suggest a future need to fertilize vast areas," Oren said. "And the impact on water quality of fertilizing large areas will be intolerable to society. Water is already a scarce resource."
The results of the study, presented yesterday at a national meeting of the Ecological Society of America, also noted that only a few parts of a tree will store carbon for long periods of time.
"Carbon that's in foliage is going to last a lot shorter time than carbon in the wood, because leaves decay quickly," said Duke graduate student and project member Heather McCarthy. "So elevated CO2 could significantly increase the production of foliage, but this would lead to only a very small increase in ecosystem carbon storage."
And, NASA corrects temperature change calculations so that now the argument that 1998 was the hottest year on record is no longer valid. I wonder if it also topples the theory that the 1990s were the hottest decade and returns the title to the 1930s. An excerpt from the TO Star:
http://www.thestar.com/article/246027
Red faces at NASA over climate-change blunder
In the United States, the calendar year 1998 ranked as the hottest of them all – until someone checked the math.
After a Toronto skeptic tipped NASA this month to one flaw in its climate calculations, the U.S. agency ordered a full data review.
Days later, it put out a revised list of all-time hottest years. The Dust Bowl year of 1934 now ranks as hottest ever in the U.S. – not 1998.
More significantly, the agency reduced the mean U.S. "temperature anomalies" for the years 2000 to 2006 by 0.15 degrees Celsius.
NASA officials have dismissed the changes as trivial. Even the Canadian who spotted the original flaw says the revisions are "not necessarily material to climate policy."
...
And finally, from the Sierra Club - your tailgate party is killing us. The dangers of barbecuing: What you don't know could kill you (and destroy the human race)
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200507/hearth.asp
...Grilling with charcoal, the traditionalist's choice, gives off more health-harming carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and soot than other methods.
"Charcoal grills and lighter fluid also contribute more to ground-level ozone, which is produced when nitrogen oxides and volatile organic chemicals [VOCs] combine in hot weather conditions," says Ana Gomez, of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Her agency hosts ozone-free barbecues using cleaner-burning propane or electricity. Says Gomez, "We want to remind residents that grilling can be done without these adverse environmental effects."
You can avoid emissions altogether with a slower-cooking solar stove. This flameless device also eliminates heterocyclic amines, a type of carcinogen formed when meats are grilled or broiled at extremely high temperatures. Ditto for carcinogenic hydrocarbons that form when fat from meat, Þsh, or poultry drips onto hot coals and deposits back onto the food via smoke and flame-ups. If you grill, reduce your exposure by choosing lean meats and trimming fat. Marinades made with vitamin- and antioxidant-rich citrus juices, olive oil, and herbs are tasty and may also prevent carcinogens from forming.
If you can't give up that smoky flavor, consider using lump charcoal instead of briquettes. "Lump charcoal comes from a genuine tree and isn't ground up or processed in any way," explains Rob Bailis, a PhD student in the University of California at Berkeley's Energy and Resources Group. Those popular pillow-shaped briquettes are also made of wood — mostly scraps and sawdust from lumber mills — but many contain coal dust and other unhealthy additives that help them bind together or light more easily. In many developing countries, unregulated charcoal production is a major source of air pollution, as well as deforestation.
Look for lump charcoal made from invasive tree species or harvested from sustainably managed forests, including brands certiÞed by the Rainforest Alliance's SmartWood program. While you're at it, trade in your lighter ßuid — which releases smog-forming VOCs — for a chimney charcoal starter. Just load charcoal into the chimney pipe, tuck in crumpled newspaper below, and light. Then get ready for some good eatin'.
Shouldn't we be recycling that crumpled newspaper instead of using it to light an earth-destroying barbecue grill?
Thought that one was funny. If you wandered around trying to worry about all this stuff, you wouldn't have time to do anything else.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070812/sc_livescience/treeswontfixglobalwarming
The plan to use trees as a way to suck up and store the extra carbon dioxide emitted into Earth's atmosphere to combat global warming isn't such a hot idea, new research indicates.
Scientists at Duke University bathed plots of North Carolina pine trees in extra carbon dioxide every day for 10 years and found that while the trees grew more tissue, only the trees that received the most water and nutrients stored enough carbon dioxide to offset the effects of global warming.
The Department of Energy-funded project, called the Free Air Carbon Enrichment (FACE) experiment, compared four pine forest plots that received daily doses of carbon dioxide 1.5 times current levels of the greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere to four matched plots that didn't receive any extra gas.
The treated trees produced about 20 percent more biomass on average, but since water and nutrient availability differed across the plots, averages don't tell the whole story, the researchers noted.
"In some areas, the growth is maybe five to 10 percent more, and in other areas it's 40 percent more," said FACE project director Ram Oren of Duke University. "So in sites that are poor in nutrients and water we see very little response. In sites that are rich in both, we see a large response."
These differences are key since the weather isn't always cooperative with human needs—if a drought takes hold, trees won't be able to do much in the way of carbon storage.
"If water availability decreases at the same time that carbon dioxide increases, then we might not have a net gain in carbon sequestration," Oren said.
Fertilizing forests to spur more carbon dioxide uptake is impractical, Oren added, because of the ramifications to the local environment and water supply.
"In order to actually have an effect on the atmospheric concentration of CO2, the results suggest a future need to fertilize vast areas," Oren said. "And the impact on water quality of fertilizing large areas will be intolerable to society. Water is already a scarce resource."
The results of the study, presented yesterday at a national meeting of the Ecological Society of America, also noted that only a few parts of a tree will store carbon for long periods of time.
"Carbon that's in foliage is going to last a lot shorter time than carbon in the wood, because leaves decay quickly," said Duke graduate student and project member Heather McCarthy. "So elevated CO2 could significantly increase the production of foliage, but this would lead to only a very small increase in ecosystem carbon storage."
And, NASA corrects temperature change calculations so that now the argument that 1998 was the hottest year on record is no longer valid. I wonder if it also topples the theory that the 1990s were the hottest decade and returns the title to the 1930s. An excerpt from the TO Star:
http://www.thestar.com/article/246027
Red faces at NASA over climate-change blunder
In the United States, the calendar year 1998 ranked as the hottest of them all – until someone checked the math.
After a Toronto skeptic tipped NASA this month to one flaw in its climate calculations, the U.S. agency ordered a full data review.
Days later, it put out a revised list of all-time hottest years. The Dust Bowl year of 1934 now ranks as hottest ever in the U.S. – not 1998.
More significantly, the agency reduced the mean U.S. "temperature anomalies" for the years 2000 to 2006 by 0.15 degrees Celsius.
NASA officials have dismissed the changes as trivial. Even the Canadian who spotted the original flaw says the revisions are "not necessarily material to climate policy."
...
And finally, from the Sierra Club - your tailgate party is killing us. The dangers of barbecuing: What you don't know could kill you (and destroy the human race)
http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/200507/hearth.asp
...Grilling with charcoal, the traditionalist's choice, gives off more health-harming carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and soot than other methods.
"Charcoal grills and lighter fluid also contribute more to ground-level ozone, which is produced when nitrogen oxides and volatile organic chemicals [VOCs] combine in hot weather conditions," says Ana Gomez, of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Her agency hosts ozone-free barbecues using cleaner-burning propane or electricity. Says Gomez, "We want to remind residents that grilling can be done without these adverse environmental effects."
You can avoid emissions altogether with a slower-cooking solar stove. This flameless device also eliminates heterocyclic amines, a type of carcinogen formed when meats are grilled or broiled at extremely high temperatures. Ditto for carcinogenic hydrocarbons that form when fat from meat, Þsh, or poultry drips onto hot coals and deposits back onto the food via smoke and flame-ups. If you grill, reduce your exposure by choosing lean meats and trimming fat. Marinades made with vitamin- and antioxidant-rich citrus juices, olive oil, and herbs are tasty and may also prevent carcinogens from forming.
If you can't give up that smoky flavor, consider using lump charcoal instead of briquettes. "Lump charcoal comes from a genuine tree and isn't ground up or processed in any way," explains Rob Bailis, a PhD student in the University of California at Berkeley's Energy and Resources Group. Those popular pillow-shaped briquettes are also made of wood — mostly scraps and sawdust from lumber mills — but many contain coal dust and other unhealthy additives that help them bind together or light more easily. In many developing countries, unregulated charcoal production is a major source of air pollution, as well as deforestation.
Look for lump charcoal made from invasive tree species or harvested from sustainably managed forests, including brands certiÞed by the Rainforest Alliance's SmartWood program. While you're at it, trade in your lighter ßuid — which releases smog-forming VOCs — for a chimney charcoal starter. Just load charcoal into the chimney pipe, tuck in crumpled newspaper below, and light. Then get ready for some good eatin'.
Shouldn't we be recycling that crumpled newspaper instead of using it to light an earth-destroying barbecue grill?
Thought that one was funny. If you wandered around trying to worry about all this stuff, you wouldn't have time to do anything else.