Four recent studies tell us that forest thinning for the production of wood pellets and clear-cutting for wind parks are really dumb ideas.
Reforestation and afforestation (R&A) are among the most prominent ideas for the sequestration of CO2 and thus viewed by alarmists as a climate solution. But others doubt forests play much of a role. [bold, links added]
Wood Pellets Mean Double-Barrel Warming
Another solution proposed for climate protection is to burn wood pellets instead of oil and natural gas for heating buildings. Wood pellets are viewed as renewable and thus are supposed to be brakes on climate change.
But now recent studies suggest that burning wood pellets coming from harvested trees in forest thinning operations may instead be accelerating warming.
HAT-TIP: Die kalte Sonne here.
Cloud-Albedo Effects Due To Land-Atmosphere Interactions
In their study, “Cloud cooling effects of afforestation and reforestation at midlatitudes” the team of authors led by Sara Cerasoli carefully analyzed R&A at midlatitudes.
Using both satellite data and atmospheric boundary-layer models, they show that by including cloud-albedo effects due to land-atmosphere interactions, the R&A cooling at midlatitudes becomes prevalent.
This means that scientists earlier had not adequately taken the clouds that formed due to forests into account.
These high albedo clouds play a major role in terms of having a cooling effect. Moreover, clouds tend to form over intact forests than they do over forest-free areas.
Forests, along with the clouds they help create, act to cool surface temperatures. Thus efforts to keep forests intact at midlatitudes would help cool the earth’s surface.
On the contrary, efforts that lead to the thinning or even the destruction of forests — e.g. wood-pellet production — will serve to lessen the cooling effect, or even cause warming.
The paper states:
While an increased water vapor in the atmosphere due to forests may result in greater radiation absorption (16), the impact is minor compared to the radiative effect caused the change in albedo, so that evaporative cooling is essentially a nonradiative effect.”
Forests Mean More Cooling Cloud Formation
A similar result was reached in another paper published last year in Nature Communications: “Revealing the widespread potential of forests to increase low-level cloud cover” authored by Duveiller et al.
Using global satellite data, they found “that for 67% of sampled areas across the world, afforestation would increase low-level cloud cover, which should have a cooling effect on the planet.”
The authors also found that forest type plays a role, “notably in Europe where needleleaf forests generate more clouds than broadleaf forests.”
10% Forest Canopy Opening Led To 0.46°C Warming!
Also, a recent study in the journal Ecological Solutions and Evidence by Jeannette S. Blumröder et al (2021) found a profound surface temperature impact by forests. The authors found:
Logging 100 trees per hectare increased maximum temperature by 0.21–0.34 K at ground level and by 0.09–0.17 K in 1.3 m above ground. Opening the forest canopy by 10% significantly increased Tmax, measured 1.3 m above ground by 0.46 K (including pine and beech stands) and 0.35 K (only pine stands).”
The study found that poor forestry practices in Northern Germany led to a decreased temperature cooling capacity by the forest that had increasing wood harvest activities.
“The maximum temperature was higher in forests with relative low-stand volume. Therefore, high stock and dense canopy would provide insurance against heat and drought events.
“From all the variables, researchers identified the degree of canopy openness and the quantity of logged trees, both directly controlled by forest management, as the main factors for the reduction of maximum temperatures in the forest interior. They found the maximum temperature to be higher in forests with more cut trees and more open canopy.”
Big Difference Between Forest- And Free-Air Temperatures
Yet another paper published last year, ForestTemp – Sub-canopy microclimate temperatures of European forests by Haesen et al, found that “the tree canopy functions as a thermal insulator” and that “sub-canopy air temperatures differ substantially from free-air temperatures, being on average 2.1°C (standard deviation ± 1.6°C) lower in summer and 2.0°C higher (±0.7°C) in winter across Europe.”
There’s no doubt that intact forests play an important role in temperature. In the spring and summer, thinned-out forests heat up markedly more than those with a completely closed canopy.
Forest thinning and clearing operations, e.g., for harvesting trees for wood pellet production or wind park construction, not only lead to higher surface temperatures, but also to a rapid injection of CO2 into the atmosphere when the wood pellets are burned.
In the end, it means wood pellets are backfiring. They lead to forest degradation, and even more rapid CO2 emissions and pollution from their burning. The practice just couldn’t possibly be dumber.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
Thats right cut down trees to make Wood pellets just like cutting them down to make away for Wind Turbines and Solar Panels are must logical as showing Save Energy ads on TV
Michael Moore’s documentary exposed the green fuel required for generators. In the early hours of the morning a logging truck began unloading. When he was seen filming he was advised to go away, or words to that effect. Chopping down trees is better than natural gas? We have too much political bullshit
Leave it dense. Bugs and disease will thin it out on it’s own in time. While a dense canopy cools the setting, it leaves it quite vulnerable. Properly thinned timber fills in the “blanks” fairly quick. I cannot see leaving a stand densely populated being healthy for it. A hardwood forest will thin itself back to about 35 trees per acre over time anyways, and these wolf trees will choke off anything coming up under it. I have seen it actually. Most evergreens only sequester carbon of any significance for their fifteen years of life and hardwoods their first eighty.