Global warming - or not as the case may be

Ok, I'm not going to doubt the claims from scientists about average temperature rises and all that, but here's a very interesting article about the latest piece of science:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26340038

I've always believed that nature is sort of self regulating. That no matter what we do, one way or another, nature will balance things out in the long run.

Now it seems that scientists have found that pine forests produce vapour that increases cloud cover and cools the temperature. But, the warmer it gets, the more photosynthesis happens, and the more of these cooling particles are released, thus mitigating the effects.

I guess it would be a bit tough if someone was to cut down all the forests though.

 

I think its for the benefit of the end consumers of the news. They have to aim for the 'lowest common denominator', i.e. slightly dense people, in order to ensure that the greatest possible percentage of readers will grasp what they're trying to say.

 

I still think we just need to plant more trees though.

 

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/

 

The trouble is, there are powerful but somewhat short sighted people who don't want us to have more trees.

My piece of land is right on the eastern edge of the North Yorks moors national park. On my land, there are trees. Lots of them. All sorts of native species and all at different stages of their lifecycle, from young saplings to very mature trees that break every time the wind blows because they're so old and brittle.

On the other side of the road, where the moors really begin, it is pretty and I'll admit that, but its almost entirely bereft of trees. It never used to be. Centuries ago it was all forest apparently, but like in many parts, the trees were cleared for farming. Now its all just open moorland. That's all it will ever be because every year, any new tree saplings that might have emerge are burned off when the hole moor is set alight on purpose so that the grouse and pheasants have nowhere to hide when the wealthy trigger happy brigade turn up with good money to shoot things the heather is rejuvenated to keep it healthy and pretty.

Some say the ground is too high for trees, but we know trees can grow there, and their seeds are still present in the ground. We know this because an experiment was conducted back in the 1980s when sections were fenced off and protected for a couple of years or so. Very quickly the protected sections were full of all sorts of young trees and shrubs, but for some reason, the experiment was abandoned.

 

Agree.....and stop chopping down what we have!

 

The forest commission have a program to increase afforested area of UK from 10% to 12% (figures from memory). They are falling behind their milestone dates, but nonetheless they are set on that trajectory.

 

The forestry commission is not the group of people I was hinting about. As far as I can tell, they do excellent work. It's more the national park authorities I was thinking of.

 

Indeed, I assumed you were referring to some "lesser body" but a 20% increase in the afforestation will fulfil your general wish "I still think we just need to plant more trees though" - I was just waving my magic wand for you