It actually depends on where the trees are planted. In the northern Boreal forests it has been shown that cutting down the trees would actually be beneficial and cause global cooling. This is because the effects of albedo at these latitudes (i.e. the amount of incoming radiation that is reflected by the surface back into space) would be significantly increased due to the effects of the smoother land surface and a more uniform snow pack. The affect of increased albedo outweighs that of greater CO2 in the atmosphere resulting from decreased photosynthesis.
However, in the tropical forest, the affect of CO2 uptake via photosynthesis is greater than the effect of albedo. Thus if all the trees were to be cut down then the increase in CO2 from the decrease in photosynthesis would outweigh that of greater albedo.
Therefore research is still ongoing, in term of direct radiative forcing affect. However, mass planting is essentially a good thing as it provides habits and develops ecosystems.
A few other things.. Kano - You answered your own question, trees sequester CO2 and put it into the ground and out of the atmosphere, this is a good thing. It is then cycled via the carbon cycle and eventually released back into the atmosphere. This cycles is naturally in equilibrium, disruption to this cycle (i.e. burning of fossil fuels), releases CO2 into the atmosphere which needs to be removed (hence the question). Zippi62, those examples are limited on both spatial and temporal scales, it does not in any way disprove the importance of carbon as a driver of global temperature.
Can the planting of mass trees reverse global warming? In theory yes, in practice no.
There is not that much suitable land available to grow trees.
Now if the oceans were seeded with iron filings, it would promote plankton growth which would in turn use up vast amounts of CO2
Hah Look at the AGW warmists no the trees die an give back CO2, shows they no nothing about it.
Just look at a forest, how many thousands or million of tons of carbon do they hold, how long they live, hundreds of years, new trees grow to replace old trees, a forest is a huge carbon sink, plus the top soil they produce holds huge quantities of CO2 as well.
Yes great idea, we don't have global warming, but even so more trees would be good for our planet.
Trees will eventually die and give back the carbon, so you would have to not just plant trees, but keep increasing the number of trees.
Plus, if the warming is not coming from CO2 in the first place but instead is a continuation of the warming that has been happening for centuries, then planting more trees would not reverse that.
If we plant a billion new trees and decrease deforestation, more atmospheric CO2 can be absorbed. As to reversing CO2, not really, but we can lessen maybe the current effects and hopefully reduce the effects of GW in the future.
Al Gore seems to think so. When he was asked how he got carbon credits he said he planted trees. Also when asked what he did to offset all those houses he heats, he said he planted trees.
But the real answer is no. Trees do not control the temperature. And the only global warming is by those factors set in motion by God and no man or group of men can overturn that.
Yes. It's all down to available leaf area. We would need to triple the amount of trees on the planet if we used broad-leaved trees, or 5 times as many if we used coniferous trees. That would involve reclaiming large areas of former forest that are now dessert - including the Sahara. We have the technology but not the financial incentive to do it. It would cost nearly as much as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars put together, and politicians seem to think that killing people is far better use of resources than saving the planet.
Thats a very good sales pitch if you're in the tree business Prince but apparently its a false assumption.
The amazon rainforest is probably the most studied extremely large forest in the world & contrary to conventional wisdom ,several recent research projects indicate its essentially carbon neutral.
typical results in this link.
http://phys.org/news/2013-05-amazon-rive...
In addition to the effect of decay in the rivers The respiration of the living trees themselves is to take in Co2 during daylight hours & release a large part of it back to the atmosphere at night.
I suggest you research recent science news articles on Amazon rainforest respiration for more information on this recent counter-intuitive discovery.
I like trees as much as anyone & think more trees is much better than fewer trees, but the truth is the truth whether we like it or not.
Have you checked the temperature records of the Medieval Warming Period (MWP) and the Little Ice Age (LIA) lately?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...
"The late Holocene records clearly identify Neoglacial events of the Little Ice Age (LIA) and Medieval Warm Period (MWP). Other unexplained climatic events comparable in duration and amplitude to the LIA and MWP events also appear in the MS record, suggesting intrinsically unstable climatic conditions during the late Holocene in the Bransfield Basin of Antarctic Peninsula."
MWP - "This record reveals a period of sustained aridity that began from AD 880, followed by increased warming from AD 1100 that lasted beyond the arrival of the Spanish in AD 1532. These increasingly warmer conditions would have allowed the Inca and their immediate predecessors the opportunity to exploit higher altitudes (post-AD 1150) by constructing agricultural terraces that employed glacial-fed irrigation, in combination with deliberate agroforestry techniques. There may be some important lessons to be learnt today from these strategies for sustainable rural development in the Andes in the light of future climate uncertainty."
Science clearly shows that CO2 is not the main driver of temperatures in the past.
No, but plankton and algae do gobble up co2.
The rain forrests put out massive amounts of co2 due to animal activity and plant and animal decay.
Based on the rationale that trees take in C02..........
Global warming ended in 2012. All seasons have returned to normal naturally. Mike
I'm all for planting trees BUT --- What global warming?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...
Top climate scientists say there is no man-made Global Warming.
The Great Global Warming Swindle
you realize how much CO2 is produced by burning fossil fuels? The numbers do not add up, we could not plant enough trees to reverse the current warming.
No, any alleged warming is not due to co2, you can however alter the co2 level by planting more plants.
Yes, but I don't know how permanent a solution it would be.
Trees die at some point and give all the CO2 back.
Trees sequester a lot of carbon but it would not be enough to reverse global warming. Still, every little bit helps.
Reversing global warming is like reversing a parked car.
no claro que no los da?os ya están hechos solo ayudaría un poco un poquito y habría menos contaminación y pues de a qui que crezcan los arboles tendría que esperar tiempo, por eso no solo debemos de plantar arboles si no dejar de contaminar crear conciencias hay mucho mas metodos como el plancton las algas etc esto lo tenemos que hacer juntos para salvar a nuestro planeta ya que no solo nos hacemos da?os si no afectamos a terceros como los son los animales plantas etc, pero sinceramente la destrucción del planeta ya es un hecho ya que jamas haremos algo por tanta ignorancia que hay, el hombre por egoísmo, por ambición, no va aparar ... con decirte que por usar el Internet ya estamos contaminando ... al parecer nosotros los humanos nos empe?amos en destruir nuestro planeta tan solo por comodidad
Grass is actually FAR beter. So, take this to the extreme. Burn or destroy ALL forests and plant grasses. CO2 sequastrations will be dramatically enhanced.
No. The trees will die and the carbon will revert to atmospheric carbon dioxide.
i heard about that but m also not sure
