Slashdot Mirror
Pine Forest Vapor Particles Can Limit Climate Change
Solo-Malee writes "New research suggests a strong link between the powerful smell of pine trees and climate change. Scientists say they've found a mechanism by which these scented vapors turn into aerosols above boreal forests. These particles promote cooling by reflecting sunlight back into space and helping clouds to form."
Idiotic heathens! Pine: you can hang yourself or, should you happen to have chosen to be a faggot, be impaled thereon.
--
Sheshbazzar
So we just need to produce pine fresh aerosol to fix the global warming? Well thats ironic to say the least.
So pine forests actually fight Tropical forests?
I wonder who'll be the first to make it into a holywood movie.
Worth it for Support. Ideal way though
The world keeps amazing us because the way it works is ever more complicated than we thought.
-- Cheers!
Am just wondering do the trees sense the amount of sunlight or stress from heat lack of water?? Or do they always release the smell??? In which case it isn't really be done to prevent climate change.
The blight of the Mountain Pine Beetle has caused collosal damage to the pine forests of western North America, thwarting any supposed vapor particle limitation of climate change:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
Pine tree air-freshener in my Range Rover!
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Still retains that pine fresh smell
Why new research into climate change? Haven't we been told the science was settled?
How you gonna stop? Where are you when you do? How you can move out of the way of that stuff out there? How is GPS going to work? These need to be answered before I start on my warp drive.
or myst as it may be; http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=weather%20manipulation%20spraying&sm=3 or twisted as it may be; http://www.globalresearch.ca/weather-warfare-beware-the-us-military-s-experiments-with-climatic-warfare/7561
Everyone knows this - it's why you see that bluish haze above northern forests (Maine, looking at you) in the summer, the turpenes coming off the trees make natural smog in the sunlight.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
a rough draft then; http://youtu.be/CEdOqYEwcT8
"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do."
Terpenes are a well known component of aerosol away from cities, and studied since many years. Nothing new in the headline, after all...
I learned 2 things from this article...
(1) Apparently cars with pine tree air fresheners really *are* cool...
(2) The actual cause of winter is all the christmas tree smell caused by growing them in the first place, and winter goes away after we cut them down, hold them hostage for a couple of weeks, and then release them, after which it starts warming up again...
Science: It's not just for breakfast any more!
And here it seems the whole human population went with 'New Car Smell' instead of 'Pine Forrest'. Now you tell us it was a big mistake.
Some trees emit a huge amount of water vapor which acts as a cooling agent and also causes clouds to form. Some trees can pump 30,000 gallons of water a day into the air. I would suspect that these trees are even better than pine trees at keeping things cool. Some of the invasive species that florida tries to hold back use copius amounts of water. The dreaded kudzo vine is also one heck of a water pump.
like snowmonkeys http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=polar%20vortex%20weather%20modification%20&sm=3 we can admire ourselves & them until we melt down? pretense is useless,,, never a better time to consider ourselves in relation to one another & our surroundings...... Slashdot only allows....
The clouds can only be helped forming in conditiions where these aerosols are introduced in an area where there's not enough cloud condensing nuclei for the available water to accrete around.
Shit, boy, this is schoolyard physical geography here.
Read the abstract, I'm not sure what's news here? It's certainly not the discovery that "trees make their own rain". Nor is it news that light coloured aerosols tend to reflect sunlight back into space, whereas dark coloured ones tend to absorb it and deposit most of it as heat into the ocean. Both those things have been known for decades, maybe the news is something to do with the chemistry or a better estimate of the aerosol's effect on climate, the later of which is notoriously difficult.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Ah, confirmation of my suspicion that "climate change" is just a mealy-mouthed way to continue to say "global warming" and meddle in the lives of poor and ordinary people but not, of course, the rich and powerful or the scientists themselves.
More reflected sunlight means less warming in the daytime, but that doesn't limit "climate change." It limits "global warming." The problem is that global temperatures have been flat for some 17 years, something not predicted in any of the global warming simulations. Talking about "climate change" gives these scientific alarmists an out if those flat temperature flip into a long-term cooling trend, perhaps due to changes in the sun.
The expression "climate change" actually means nothing and accusing opponents of denying it is bosh. The climate is always changing. There are a few decades of warming followed by a few of cooling. It's being mealy-mouthed. And of the two, warming is clearly better than cooling. In fact, we as humans would benefit from a bit warmer climate.
Those inclined to such hysterias are, of course, free to live on their beliefs much like the end-of-the-world religious cults of the nineteenth century. But they should leave the rest of us alone and perhaps go plant some pine trees. That'd at least do all of us some good.
I thought we cut all of those trees down to make newspaper - before the newspapers went away
Does this affect the CO2 produced by combustion of HC in an O2 atmosphere? No.
Does this affect the IR properties of the CO2 interatomic bonds? No.
Does this affect thermodynamics? No.
Does this affect radiative physics? No.
Does this affect the Hadley Cell? No.
Storm formation? No.
How clouds form? No.
Stop warmer air holding more water? No.
.
.
.
Do you actually know what this science even IS?
That all we need to do is to replace existing robots with Robot 1-X?
Although I have built instuments out of pine (pinecaster anyone?), I also prefer hardwoods, even basswood, over pine.
"Inspiration exists, but it has to find us working." -Pablo Picasso
The contents of this message have been doubly encrypted by ROT13
If we don't know all there is to know about what can effect climate, how can the "science be settled"?
The haze you see in the NE is largely that it is a smog trap for pollution from the rest of the country. Pine aerosols may be a very small and beneficial part of an otherwise asthmatic toxic soup.
Shouldn't it be "Pine Forest Vapor Particles Can *Cause* Climate Change"?
Can you show that "bored indians" are significant contributors to forest fires any more than "bored white men", "bored black men", "bored Hispanics", etc.??
There is no such thing as 'catastrophic man made global warming' - which is why the liars behind this massive SCAM renamed it 'climate change'. The whole thing is becoming a sick joke. It seems that you can get a nice, comfortable research grant for anything nowadays, as long as you include the magic words 'climate change'.
www.climatedepot.com
The nannies do not want you or your trees vaping as the young'uns might start smoking.
"The problem is that there is a political movement that is more concerned with reducing human impact on the environment than with actually saving it"
WRONG.
Those greenies you are infering to here are not doing that. You're just pretending they are so you can continue to hate them for not believing like you.
For a start: are there already clouds there? If so, how will more clouds form if the water vapour is already condensing to clouds? The aerosols can't suck water out, and no matter how much aerosol you drop into a chamber with less than 100% RH, NO WATER VAPOUR CLOUD WILL FORM.
Secondly, what do you think these aerosols will do? Are they chemically neutral? No. So they'll infect the soils (making them more acid, therefore less fertile for other plants, such as food plants). Are they able to fit in your brachea? Yes. So they'll cause repiratory failuyres, just as if these particulates were the PM10s et al from those smelly dirty diesels.
Thirdly, pumping out aerosols is not putting brakes on, it's opeining the doors in the knowledge that it will increase air resistance. Since our "accelrator" here is our increasing use of fossil fuels, braking would be reducing our use of fossil fuels.
But there is a political movement that is more concerned with reducing the interference in the pursuit of profit than with actually pursuing happiness.
Turns out that all those past doom and gloom climate simulations didn't account for all the factors, and never will.
Anyone that thinks they can model the climate over the long term is simply wild ass guessing due to over simplification.
Call it 'Global Warming'. The climate is, was, and always will be changing.
A Tree Farm is not a forest
If you've ever been in the chipper room at a pulp plant, you can appreciate how wonderful that smell is, much better than PineSol or anything else that ever came out of a bottle.
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
I've been faithfully following science stories on the BBC site for years now, and this one stands out like a sore thumb. Until now, they almost always interviewed independent UK scientists to help them interpret the impact of the original research in a new and noteworthy publication. Specifically, they almost always interview a scientist who downplays the impact, and usually also one who is more excited about it. I've always assumed this was part of their journalistic standard, and a shining example for a lot of other news outlets; interpreting scientific papers is tricky, and including varying opinions of independent scientists is paramount to giving the audience the full picture.
Now here, there's suddenly none of that; they only interviewed the first author of the paper, who naturally has a tendency to exaggerate the the impact of their research. No ill will, mind you; being passionate about one's work is a prerequisite to stay motivated as a scientists in the face of frustrating work and inhumanely long working hours. This passion will naturally bias any scientist in favor of their own research. Moreover, this kind of exaggeration is implicitly required by most granting agencies: they almost always require applicants to demonstrate wider impact, which in the case of fundamental research implies wild speculation.
Either way, since the BBC didn't do its job, allow me to cast myself in the role of the "skeptical" scientists they failed to interview. My field of research is not athmospheric science, but I'm familiar with both the underlying physical mechanisms and with fields that rely heavily on models. Here is what I learned by reading some of the paper and references. The problem they sought to tackle is that (local) athmospheric models fail to to accurately predict the amount of aerosols produced in the atmosphere from the low-volatility organic compounds emitted by boreal forests. This appears to be a well-known problem in their field, as testified by the cited references (especially ref. 2, Hallquist et al. in the open access journal "Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics" 2009, vol. 9, pp. 5155–5236). So all TFA does is provide new insights in the underlying physical processes that could likely be used to rectify the (local) athmospheric models; this is nice work and worthy of publication in Nature. As customary, the authors begin and end their paper by speculating about the wider impact of their research, which is a natural thing to do, as explained above. In this case, they speculate that (global, long-timescale) climate models may suffer from the same flaw as the above athmospheric models, and that adjusting them accordingly will lead to less extreme climate change predictions (note how nobody spoke of qualitatively different outcomes). This sounds very much unwarranted to me; in my field, coarser, higer-level models are not build on lower-level models, but on the empirical observations the latter try to explain, and judging by the Hallquist paper, the fact that boreal forests produce more aerosols than expected has already been part of our empirical knowledge for many years. Which is unsurprising: we have satellites in space that very accurately measure the planet's local albedo.
TL;DR version: the authors speculate that their cool fundamental findings might have impact on a different subdiscipline (climate science), but from the information I could find, this speculation seems both unwarranted and unlikely. Not being deeply familiar with the science, the journalist converts this speculative part (of an otherwise good paper) into a misleading headline. They make the capital mistake of only interviewing the paper's first author, who does a poor job at putting their speculation into perspective. This is particularly unfortunate because it's such a sensitive subject; given this curious break of routine practices, the journalist (and by extension, the BBC) is exposing themselves to accusations of politically/financially motivated bias.
Yet hare-brained
They make for a good laugh all of the time they open their mouths! I love the way it starts...."New research suggest"