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."
The world keeps amazing us because the way it works is ever more complicated than we thought.
-- Cheers!
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"!
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.
Actually, it's not aerosols that were bad for the ozone layer but rather the chlorofluorocarbons used as a propellant to aerosolize the contents most spray cans up until the late 1970s. The most well known of these was freon, created by DuPont.
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!
As a Luthier, I can heartily suggest planting more HARDWOOD forests. To balance nature a bit from the overplanting of pine by the lumber industry and to ensure a future supply of hardwood for NICE things like furniture, guitars, baseball bats, etc. quit planting damn pines! Hardwoods are dissappearing in favor of the quicker growing weed; the pine tree. In nature, we had forest fires from dry weather, lightning strikes and bored Indians to control pine forests. Now we are out of balance and the price of hardwood is a sure reflection of that. Houses need to be built from better materials anyway, papercrete, dirt,rock,recycled materials and things more suited to lasting construction than found in stick houses.
Think Hardwood.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
weve already been warned that GLOBAL warming causes LOCALIZED cooling.
FTFY.
Seriously, what about the polar vortex don't you understand? Although the eastern USA had historic lows last month, the global average temperature was the hottest January on record.
If you really want to understand how the science works (which I doubt), watch Peter Hadfield's excellent series of YouTube videos. He cuts through the hype on both sides of the debate. This should be required viewing for policy makers and "armchair experts" alike.
It's also fairly entertaining.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
Yes, the climate is changing, and evidence suggests it is following a warming trend. However, I *personally* do not fully attribute that change to anthropocentric causes. In light of these three statements, I am firmly opposed to knee-jerk high cost outcome-vague reactionary measures that serve to drastically affect the economic stability of the nation, or even the world. I am however, in favor of further study, while implementing 'gentle' changes, ie, more efficient power generation, reduction of emissions as quickly as is cost feasible, development of more efficient homes, tools, and machines to reduce our energy needs, etc. The bizarre and potentially harmful ideas people are floating as serious solutions to global warming are absolutely terrifying. I have seen serious proposals ranging from genetically re-engineering cows and kangaroos(?) to produce less methane, to blanketing the seas with iron oxide to cause algae blooms to absorb carbon, to anchoring giant mylar bags of C02 to the ocean floor, to scattering reflective particles in the stratosphere to reflect sunlight back into space. These, along with a host of other ideas, are beyond insane. I don't claim that global warming is a complete farce, but ideas like this, in the off chance that we are actually *wrong* could do immense and possibly irreparable damage to the environment in their own ways. Effectively, in terms of climate change 'repair' we need a planetary version of the Hippocratic oath. "First, Do No Harm." any corrective action we take simply must not put the planet at further risk down the road. However, that is not an excuse to do nothing, greater energy efficiency across the board, and cleaner energy production are a must, and a long term benefit to humanity, no mater the final result of 'climate change science'. All that said, Planting more trees is about the most sound and reasonable activity we can take to help balance our planets climate. Macedonia probably should be the figurehead for this. http://www.reuters.com/article...
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
"However, I *personally* do not fully attribute that change to anthropocentric causes."
Argument from personal incredulity is a fallacy.
"I am firmly opposed to knee-jerk high cost outcome-vague reactionary measures that serve to drastically affect the economic stability of the nation, or even the world."
However, you have no idea whether these claims
1) knee-jerk
2) high cost
3) outcome-vague
4) reactionary measures
are actually the case. Care to cite any that are any of these?
You also presume without evidence they will serve to drastically affect the economic stability of the nation or the world.
According to an ACTUAL investigation into the costs, it'd cost 2% of global GDP (at the time of the report: your procrastination has increased the costs and reduced the mitigation) to fix.
Comare to the US DoD military budget and it's a pittance.
You must be new here, or don't you remember the whole Aerosols are bad for Ozone and contribute to global warming form the 80's and 90s.
An aerosol is "a colloid of fine solid particles or liquid droplets, in air or another gas". The particular aeorsol (CFCs) referred to by parent is explained by a sibling post, so no need to repeat here. Point is, that an aerosol can be almost anything gaseous or that can be made fine enough to behave sort of "gas like", including dust, VOCs, smoke, etc. That's how the term is used in TFA: terpenes -- not CFCs -- are the substances "dissolved" in air.
I am not a crackpot.
Prepare to get roundly vilified for your reasonable approach to climate change. The Priests of AGW don't take kindly to heretical thinking such as reason and logic.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia