Tag: trees

 +25°C …It’s The Exploding Global Urbanisation, Stupid! Why Heat Waves Are Setting Records

Global artificial impervious surface area is as large as Spain, Germany and France combined … adding up to 25°C to surface temperatures

From NoTrickZone

By P Gosselin

Global artificial impervious surface area is as large as Spain, Germany and France combined … adding up to 25°C to surface temperatures 

The intensity of the recent heat waves has had a lot to do with the widespread urban heat island (UHI) effect. Surface temperatures vary widely, depending on the surface properties.

Near surface temperatures. The surface temperature of an urban parking lot can easdily reach 50°C, while – for the same weather – the surface of a rural grass field will reach only 30°C. Under the canopy of a forest, the surface temperature will remain near  25°C. Image: NoTricksZone/Grok.

When we look at microclimates and the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, the type of ground cover changes everything when it comes to absorbing and radiating solar energy.

When the surface of a grass field sits at 30°C, the difference in temperature compared to the temprature under a forest canopy and the temperature just above a paved parking lot is profound.

According to studies, that difference is up to 25°C.

The more urbanized the earth’s surface becomes, the warmer the surface measuremnts will be.

UHI: Global impervious surface area growth is accelerating

So how fast has the global surface area of concrete, asphalt, and steel become?

In the field of satellite remote sensing and global geography, the surface area covered by asphalt, concrete, buildings, and other man-made structures is referred to as Artificial Impervious Surface Area (ISA).

When we look at microclimates and the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, the type of ground cover changes everything when it comes to absorbing and radiating solar energy.

When the surface of a grass field sits at 30°C, the difference in temperature compared to the temprature under a forest canopy and the temperature just above a paved parking lot is profound.

According to studies, that difference is up to 25°C.

The more urbanized the earth’s surface becomes, the warmer the surface measuremnts will be.

UHI: Global impervious surface area growth is accelerating

So how fast has the global surface area of concrete, asphalt, and steel become?

In the field of satellite remote sensing and global geography, the surface area covered by asphalt, concrete, buildings, and other man-made structures is referred to as Artificial Impervious Surface Area (ISA).

According to high-resolution global satellite mapping data, approximately 1.3 million to 1.35 million square kilometres of the Earth’s land surface was covered by these artificial, heat-absorbing materials in 2020:

This represents an area that is three times greater than it was in 1950 and an area that is roughly as large as the combined size of France, Spain, and Germany. This is having a major impact on global surface temperature measurement and urban heating.

To understand why, it’s important to look at the profound differences between surface types. Assune a warm summer day where the near surface temperature of a rural grass field is 30°C:

1. Under a deciduous tree canopy
The corresponding near surface temperature would be ~23°C to 26°C (4°C to 7°C lower than the grass). Trees are nature’s air conditioners. They cool the ground via two main mechanisms:

  1. Shading: The canopy intercepts up to 80–90% of direct solar radiation, preventing the soil from heating up.
  2. Evapotranspiration: Trees actively pump water from the soil and release it through their leaves. This phase change from liquid water to vapor absorbs latent heat, cooling the surrounding microclimate.

2. In the middle of an urban asphalt parking lot
Research shows that the corresponding near surface temperature would reach ~45°C to 55°C (15°C to 25°C higher than the grass) under the same sunny weather.

Dark, dry and dense materials like asphalt are incredibly efficient at turning sunlight into pure thermal energy. Asphalt absorbs roughly 85–95% of the solar radiation that hits it.

Unlike the grass or trees, there is zero moisture to evaporate, meaning all absorbed energy goes directly into raising the surface temperature. Asphalt acts like a giant battery, storing immense amounts of heat and continuously radiating it back into the immediate air layer. This is why nightime low temperatures in cities remain stubbornly high.

With temperature hundreds of stations sited within or near urban areas and huge manmade infrastructure, it’s no wonder that heat waves have been breaking temperature records over the past decades. It’s the growing heat absorption.

Sources:

1. Asphalt vs. Grass Surface Differences
Armson, D., Stringer, P., & Ennos, A. R. (2012). “The effect of tree shade and grass on surface and globe temperatures in an urban area.” published in Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. This study explicitly found that open grass surfaces reduced maximum surface temperatures by up to 24°C compared to bare artificial surfaces (concrete/asphalt) under identical sunny conditions.

2. Tree Canopy Cooling Capacity
Rahman, M. A., et al. (2018). “Vertical air temperature gradients under the shade of two contrasting urban tree species during different types of summer days.” published in Science of The Total Environment. This research details the precise temperature declines under tree canopies. It highlights that the combination of deep shade and active transpiration creates a microclimatic buffer that drops air temperatures nearest to the ground surface by 3°C to 7°C compared to open unshaded areas, directly mitigating the near-surface heat.

3. The 5 cm Near-Ground Gradient
Source: Jenerette, G. D., et al. (2016). “Microclimate Variation among Urban Land Covers: The Importance of Vertical and Horizontal Structure in Air and Land Surface Temperature Relationships.” published in Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology.
Findings: This study measured microclimatic conditions at the near-surface boundary layer (0.1 meters / 10 cm and below) across multiple land covers including asphalt, turf grass, and tall trees. It confirmed that the correlation between land surface temperature (LST) and near-ground air temperature is hightest at the 10 cm layer for asphalt and bare surfaces, proving the existence of the massive, localized near-ground temperature spikes (exceeding 20°C variations horizontally across land types) that dissipate rapidly as you move higher into the ambient air.

Hot town, summer in the city

What is going on here? How is it that directly in the heart of NYC, where it is coolest, and what does this tell us about “climate change.”

From CFACT

By Joe Bastardi

New York City’s Central Park had highs of 91 and 90 on June 11 and 12.

Newark airport: 97,96

LaGuardia: 96,98

JFK: which is closest to the ocean, 95,93

What is going on here? How is it that directly in the heart of NYC, where it is coolest, and what does this tell us about “climate change.”

This is a map of NYC on the morning of the 13th. The heat wave is over.  It’s cooler to the northwest and warmer to the southeast, as you would expect in an NW flow with a new air mass coming in.

So, after a night of cooling, it’s cooler in open areas away from the city.

So why was NYC so much cooler in the heat of the day?

TREES. Lots of trees. Central Park is comparatively untouched in terms of foliage compared to America 250 years ago.  It’s built up all around there of course, but it does show how even a small area of woods and foliage can impact temperatures

There were no airports, of course, 250 years ago. I suspect the areas with airports were wooded. Well, they are not now. Quite the opposite. And this is what Anthony Watts discusses in his ideas on the “siting” of the thermometer. Surround them with concrete, chop down every tree around so there is nothing but sun beating down on what is nothing like it was, 50 years ago, never mind 250 years ago, and what do you think is going to happen?

Which is why the idea that trees make no difference (planting more, as I have been an advocate of, simply because I am an old greenie) is nonsense. If you are paranoid about CO2, and it seems a lot of younger people are with their so-called “climate anxiety,” trees not only are a cooling agent in extreme heat, but a great way to get rid of CO2. Many countries, many states, are net-CO2 sinks (they get rid of more than they emit) because of foliage. I mean, I don’t care about that aspect. I do care about the fact that in this hot shot, Central Park is proving my point about how the only man-made aspect of a heat wave like this, compared to 60 years ago, is all the areas we have chopped down.

Example: July 3, 1966

Central Park: 103

Newark: 105

La Guardia: 107

JFK: 104

First of all, that is truly hot and puts into perspective that a heat wave like this was putting our grid in peril, when it could not hold a candle to what happened in this example or others I can pull out. And we are in real trouble with a grid that can’t handle the increasing demand. While this is not the subject of this matter, Steve Goreham was speaking loudly about what was going on a few years ago with people who seemingly were oblivious to the threat this posed to our country, almost as if they wanted it to crash. It is getting attention now, but let’s hope it’s not too late.  Three-to-five-day heat waves in the early part of summer should not threaten our grid, not because it’s getting so hot, but for other reasons. And my cynical self, after talking to Steve, makes me think it has not been an accident.

But it is this way. I had him on my ill-fated radio show a couple of years ago and was rattled when he was done.

But back to this problem.

If the foliage around NYC were the same as it was when America came to be, temperatures would not be as high. You can see the change in the last 60 years. The average difference was a bit over two degrees from the airports to the city. Now it’s close to five. The trees keep it cooler,

Now, suppose 60 years ago you had as many thermometers in wooded areas as you do in the open areas now. And you wanted to compute and average the high temperature within 25 miles of NYC. What do you think would happen if you had equal representation?

Is it man chopping down trees and pouring concrete? Yes.

Is it from increased CO2? No.

If you want to argue it is, then you must admit that the trees in Central Park are removing the CO2 that is making other places hotter.

Anyone on the major meteo media outlets addresses things like this, they will tell you 100 million people are in danger because of what is the kind of heat that should happen from time to time in the summer, but again, they do not show the bigger picture.

My point here is that many factors are at play in what one sees during any given weather event, let alone across the entire climate. If you believe that CO2 is the cause-of-all-evil person, then you have to admit that trees are its kryptonite — both getting rid of it and keeping it cooler.

Remember, in 1966, the song that dominated the charts as summer wore on was “Summer in the City.”

Opening line:  Hot town, summer in the city. 

And for good reason. When it got hot, it was truly hot. The heat threshold is lower today, and it likely has something to do with the shape we are in as Americans. The NWS has lowered its threshold, meaning what farmers put up with every day is now dangerous for the average American in their eyes.

You know, sometimes you have to take the advice of a good old-fashioned liberal rock ‘n’ roller, John Mellencamp, in “Minutes to Memories.”

“Suck it up, tough it out, and be the best you can.” Maybe that’s good advice for the next 250 years to move forward, weather, climate, or whatever.

And plant more trees. It’s good for the environment.

___________________________________________________

Joe Bastardi

Joe Bastardi is a pioneer in extreme weather and long-range forecasting. He is the author of “The Climate Chronicles: Inconvenient Revelations You Won’t Hear From Al Gore — and Others” which you can purchase at the CFACT bookstore. His new book The Weaponization of Weather in the Phony Climate war can be found here. phonyclimatewar.com

Scientists new plan to save the world by chopping down boreal forest and tossing it in the Arctic Ocean

The great northern boreal forest has expanded by 12% since 1984. Which means it has locked up all this extra carbon in it. Instead of waiting for it to catch fire and burn, the thinking is that we could cut it down now, and throw the logs in a river that leads to the Arctic ocean where they will sink (eventually, maybe) and take carbon to the sea floor.

From CFACT

By Joanne Nova

The latest plan to get better weather in a hundred years, is to cut down trees and dump them in the ocean.

The great northern boreal forest has expanded by 12% since 1984. Which means it has locked up all this extra carbon in it. Instead of waiting for it to catch fire and burn, the thinking is that we could cut it down now, and throw the logs in a river that leads to the Arctic ocean where they will sink (eventually, maybe) and take carbon to the sea floor.

New Scientist thought this was a good idea. Future anthropologists may file modern eco-science with arsenic cures, and radium toothpaste.

In order to save the environment, we need to cut down 180,000 square kilometers of forest and toss it into the river (every year).

How many trees do we have to kill to stop a cyclone in 2100AD?

…

These researchers and journalists are the kind of people who’ll check everything — except the core underlying assumptions that their fantasy is based on:

Humanity will need to find ways to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to compensate for industries that are hard to electrify – or even to begin reducing atmospheric CO2 levels. Direct air capture machines are expensive, however, and planting trees can backfire if they die or burn.

Several companies are burying wood, and US firm Running Tide sank 25,000 tonnes of wood chips off Iceland, although it was accused of endangering the environment and later shut down.

How many solar powered chain-saws are there in the world? Is that zero?

They have six Arctic rivers in mind, and say that if we can only cut down 30,000 square kilometers of forest on each river, that will bury about 1 billion tons of carbon, which is about 3% of our anthropogenic total emissions (ie. not much).

Previous research shows that waterlogged wood had lasted 8000 years in low oxygen Alpine lakes. How long will it last as a shipping hazard?

The only thing this study shows is how effective government funding is.

This article originally appeared at JoNova

No, Washington Post, Climate Change Isn’t Killing Washington, DC’s Trees—Urban Stress Is

In The Washington Post’s (WaPo) article, “Climate change is coming for D.C.’s trees, and the city won’t look the same,” the authors claim that climate change is killing off Washington, DC’s tree canopy. This is false. While the article mentions other effects that contribute to the decline of the urban tree canopy, they miss or dismiss the primary causes, preferring to blame climate change instead.

Scenic view of cherry blossom trees in full bloom along a waterfront, with the Washington Monument in the background, reflecting in the water during sunset.

From ClimateRealism

By Anthony Watts

The Washington Post headline reading 'FALSE' over a background of tree leaves, discussing the impact of climate change on D.C.'s trees.

In The Washington Post’s (WaPo) article, “Climate change is coming for D.C.’s trees, and the city won’t look the same,” the authors claim that climate change is killing off Washington, DC’s tree canopy. This is false. While the article mentions other effects that contribute to the decline of the urban tree canopy, they miss or dismiss the primary causes, preferring to blame climate change instead.

The authors argue that rising temperatures and erratic weather patterns are forcing arborists to abandon native species in favor of more “climate-tolerant” trees from the southern United States. The Post asserts that without urgent adaptation, the District’s iconic maples, lindens, and elms could “vanish by 2100.” It also states that “urban development and climate change have contributed to the annual loss of thousands of D.C. trees and threaten the long-term survival of some of the region’s native tree populations.” That may sound convincing, however, in fact, it is deeply misleading.

The majority of DC’s tree stress has little to do with global climate change. Rather, urbanization is the culprit. The city’s heat, pollution, and dense infrastructure have transformed what was once a temperate forest into an artificial microclimate. This is the urban heat island effect (UHI) at work. As Christy and Spencer demonstrated in their peer-reviewed study in the Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, as much as 65 percent of apparent “warming” in urban areas is attributable solely to human development, not global greenhouse gases. Pavement, buildings, and waste heat raise nighttime temperatures, putting added stress on trees that evolved in cooler, more permeable soils.

As Climate at a Glance: Urban Heat Islands notes, “most of the apparent warming in U.S. cities results from localized effects of urbanization, not global climate change.” This localized heating can be several degrees higher than in nearby rural areas, making it a huge stressor for trees already dealing with limited water and root space.

In one sense, WaPo is right that “the city won’t look the same.” But that change will come from bulldozers, power lines, and misguided policy, not carbon dioxide. Construction sites, compacted ground, and impervious surfaces also disrupt local hydrology. Runoff channels water away from roots, while soil compaction limits oxygen exchange. WaPo acknowledges this fact in passing, but downplays the implication that “urban development and construction … can compact soil and hurt root health.” These are direct human management problems, having nothing to do with planetary climate collapse.

Air pollution compounds the problem. Elevated levels of ground-level ozone and particulates can clog or damage the stomata on tree leaves, the small pores that allow trees to “breathe.” When trees are bathed in exhaust, industrial emissions, and urban dust, their stomata often close prematurely to prevent water loss, impairing photosynthesis. The resulting “stomatal overload” is a documented stress response common in polluted environments, especially in cities like DC that sit in traffic corridors. The WaPo ignores this entirely, instead blaming “hotter summers and milder winters.”

Another unacknowledged factor in the arboreal landscape in DC is the city’s own planting choices. Many of the trees in DC’s streetscape — London plane trees, Japanese zelkovas, littleleaf lindens, and the famous Japanese cherry blossom trees — are non-native ornamentals, chosen for aesthetics or fast growth rather than ecological fit. Non-native species often struggle with local pests, soil chemistry, and seasonal patterns. When they fail, journalists may hasten to blame climate change, but really it’s simply poor arboreal planning.

To make matters worse, the city’s tree canopy data are influenced by shifting species selection policies. The Urban Forestry Division is now prioritizing trees from warmer regions like the Southeast—species such as the overcup oak and the swamp white oak—based on assumptions that DC’s future climate will resemble Atlanta’s. But these projections are built on notably flawed computer climate model outputs, not observation. The same models that exaggerate global temperature trends now serve as landscaping guides. There’s a certain irony in “saving” DC’s trees by importing ones that never belonged there.

Meanwhile, the biggest real threat to Washington’s trees isn’t carbon dioxide, it’s the chainsaw. The Post itself reports that “the District has removed more than 37,000 trees over the last five years,” many for development projects. When you cut down a 100-year-old oak to make way for a bike lane or stadium, the resulting loss of shade and soil stability is not the atmosphere’s fault, it’s the city’s.

The “climate change is killing trees” narrative also conveniently omits that CO₂ is plant food. Hundreds of studies and field research show that elevated carbon dioxide concentrations enhance tree growth, improve drought tolerance, and increase biomass. NASA satellite data have even documented a global “greening” trend over the past 40 years as a result of higher CO₂ levels. If carbon dioxide were truly the villain, DC would be losing green cover, not gaining it. Yet the District’s canopy has remained stable at roughly 37 percent for years, exactly the same figure the article cites, despite massive clearing for development.

If Washington, DC wants a healthier urban forest, the answer isn’t to “fight climate change,” it is to manage urban stress. Expand green space. Loosen compacted soils. Plant tree species adapted to the local environment, not projections of future ones. Also, stop pretending that every environmental problem is a symptom of global warming, aka climate change.

The Washington Post’s story may make for poetic reading, but it’s science fiction masquerading as environmental journalism. The real issue is not a mildly warming world—it is a city that’s paved, polluted, and hostile to trees.

Rising temperatures threaten UK trees

Trust the BBC to publish this load of nonsense!

A picturesque pathway through a forest during autumn, lined with benches and surrounded by trees displaying vibrant fall foliage.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Paul Kolk

Trust the BBC to publish this load of nonsense!

Screenshot of a BBC News article titled 'Rising temperatures threaten UK trees – but these resilient species could help save our forests', featuring a weather section.

Some of the United Kingdom’s most valued trees are struggling to keep pace with climate change and increasing extreme weather.

“We are very concerned that changing conditions are putting our trees under significant stress,” warns Dr Eleanor Tew from Forestry England.

To future-proof our forests, a ‘species for the future’ list has been released highlighting thirty trees likely to thrive in a warmer climate.

It includes familiar names like oak, birch, and alder, alongside less common species such as coast redwood and Corsican pine, which it is hoped will lead to a more resilient woodland.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/articles/c0jdp9wynn7o

Oak, birch and alder? What, like the trees that have always grown in the British Isles?

Has anybody seen our forests “under stress”? I take my dog for walk round the local woods most days, and all the trees look as healthy as they ever have.

It is worth noting that Dr Eleanor Tew has no experience in actual forestry work.

Since leaving Cambridge University, she has worked for Forestry England. Her work focuses on the practical application of forest resilience and natural capital concepts, embedding these into day-to-day decision-making.  Her academic background is in ecology, conservation and environmental economics, with a PhD from the University of Cambridge exploring natural capital optimisation in UK forestry.

Maybe she should spend a couple of years doing actual forestry work; then she might stop writing this sort of nonsense.

Trees Remember an Ice Age Solar Storm

More than 14 thousand years ago, there was a solar storm so big, trees still remember it. Dwarfing modern solar storms, the event would devastate technology if it happened again today. Spoiler alert: It could.

ChatGPT

From Spaceweather.com

By Dr.Tony Phillips

May 21, 2025: (Spaceweather.com) More than 14 thousand years ago, there was a solar storm so big, trees still remember it. Dwarfing modern solar storms, the event would devastate technology if it happened again today. Spoiler alert: It could.

Above: Subfossil trees along the banks of the Drouzet river in France [ref]

The record-strong storm is described by a paper in the upcoming July 2025 edition of the peer-reviewed journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters. It occured in 12,350 BC and is classified as a “Miyake Event.”

Miyake Events are solar storms that make the Carrington Event of 1859 look puny. Trees “remember” them in their rings, which store the carbon-14 created by gargantuan storms. At least six Miyake Events have been discovered and confirmed since Fusa Miyake found the first one in 2012. The list so far includes 664-663 BC, 774 AD, 993 AD, 5259 BC, 7176 BC, and 12,350 BC.

The Miyake Event of 12,350 BC is especially intriguing. It appears as a carbon-14 spike in Scots Pine trees along the banks of the Drouzet river in France, with a matching beryllium-10 spike in Greenland ice cores. The event was global and, based on the size of the spikes, very big.

At first, no one could say how big the storm was because it happened during the Ice Age.

Carbon-14 storage is complicated. When a solar storm creates carbon-14 in the upper atmosphere, the radioisotope doesn’t immediately appear in the woody flesh of trees. Getting there involves months to years of atmospheric circulation influenced by climate and geography, and even then the carbon-14 has to arrive during the tree’s growing season, otherwise it won’t be “taken up.” High-altitude trees are favored because they encounter the carbon-14 first, while different species each have their own sensitivity.

All these factors are a harder to tease out in the Ice Age. Most known Miyake Events occurred after the Ice Age, during the Holocene, a period of relatively stable and warm climate starting about 12,000 years ago. Climate scientists have atmospheric circulation models for the Holocene, so interpreting Miyake Events in 7176 BC, 5259 BC, 664-663 BC, 993 AD, 774 AD was relatively straightforward. Not so, the event of 12,350 BC.

To solve this problem, Kseniia Golubenko and Ilya Usoskin from the University of Oulu in Finland developed a chemistry-climate model (SOCOL:14C-Ex) specifically for Ice Age solar storms. It takes into account ice sheet boundaries, sea levels, and geomagnetic fields that existed during the Pleistocene’s Late Glacial period. Using this model, they were able to interpret tree ring data for 12,350 BC.

According to their paper, 12,350 BC is the biggest Miyake Event yet.  It produced a hailstorm of solar particles 500 times greater than the most intense solar particle storm recorded by modern satellites in 2005. During the 2005 event, an airline passenger flying over the poles might have received a year’s worth of sea-level cosmic radiation in just one hour. During the 12350 BC event, the same dose would have been received in a mere eight seconds.

This would seem to set a new standard for worst-case scenarios in space weather. However, the real news is deeper: The door to the Ice Age has been kicked open by SOCOL:14C-Ex. Older tree rings may now be interpreted with confidence, potentially revealing even worse storms.

Stay tuned for more news from the trees.

Surprise! We thought trees emitted methane, but instead they absorb it… (What else don’t we know?)

Methane is supposedly 80 times more powerful as CO2 over the short term, and we are already feeding our cows seaweed and dubious additives like Bovaer® to reduce it, and we’re trying to make steaks in labs, and create burgers out of crickets. But it turns out, the experts were wrong, yet again, and trees are absorbing more methane than they emit. So just like that, there is a major new sink to remove methane from the air, and it’s been there all the time.

wallup.net

From JoNova

By Jo Nova

Quick! Set up a trillion-dollar market and figure out the science later

We got it wrong for so long

Methane is supposedly 80 times more powerful as CO2 over the short term, and we are already feeding our cows seaweed and dubious additives like Bovaer® to reduce it, and we’re trying to make steaks in labs, and create burgers out of crickets. But it turns out, the experts were wrong, yet again, and trees are absorbing more methane than they emit. So just like that, there is a major new sink to remove methane from the air, and it’s been there all the time.

The funny thing is that for years everyone was measuring the air at the bottom of the tree trunk and finding methane emissions, but when Vincent Gauci et al measured 1 – 2 metres further up the tree, not only did the methane emissions shrink to nothing, but the gas also started to disappear from the air around the trunk. Apparently, bacteria under the bark were dining on the methane.

The team looked at trees in Brazil, Panama, United Kingdom and Sweden and estimate that all the worlds trees might already be absorbing as much as 50 million tons of methane, about as much as” is coming out of all the worlds landfill sites”, or roughly equivalent to half the worlds cows.

Scientists got this wrong, every way they could

Researchers used to think trees did nothing much with methane, but around 2006 some scientists were surprised to discover that trees emitted methane, especially in swampy areas.  In 2017 a paper showed wetland trees gave out a lot of methane, “like a chimney”:

““In the seasonally flooded part of the Amazon, the trees become a massive chimney for pumping out methane,” says one researcher.“

The bad news back then, was that most of the world’s estimated 3 trillion trees emitted methane at least some of the time. If it had have been Porches instead, we’d have heard all about it.

Since methane is supposedly responsible for a quarter of global warming, you’d think the science industrial complex would have been all over this so they could save the world. Apparently forest scientists even used to entertain students by setting fire to the gases hissing from the trunks in the Amazon, so it’s not like “nobody knew”. Everyone knew, but apparently no one really wanted to announce bad news about their forest friends and give the deniers ammunition to cut down a tree, so people didn’t want to look.

Among the first was Vincent Gauci, then at the UK’s Open University and now at Birmingham University. “When I was first working on this, it was poo-pooed,” he says. When Pangala, then also at The Open University, made her first measurements of trees emitting methane in the swamps of Borneo, she had the same experience. Despite finding that the trees increased standard estimates of emissions from the swamps sevenfold, “it took 18 months to get it published,” she says. “We were rejected by several journals. They just weren’t interested.” — e360Yale

So prejudice and politicized funding stopped humans from figuring what trees were really doing for ages.

The same Vincent Gauci went back and did the study higher up the trees only to find the exact opposite of what they expected and had read in peer reviewed papers:

Trees may be even bigger climate heroes than we thought

By Laura Allen, ScienceNewsExplores

Trees, too, were known to release methane, especially those growing in wet soils. These trees take up the gas from soil and emit it through their trunks.

Vincent Gauci studies methane emission from trees. He’s an environmental scientist at the University of Birmingham in England. Gauci knew trees in wet places, such as the tropics, give off methane from their trunks. Next, he wanted to study its release from trees in drier soils. He expected these upland trees would give off methane, though less than those at wetter sites. But that’s not what he found.

“We were surprised to see the exact opposite,” says Gauci. The trees were actually taking in methane. Think of how many trees there are on the planet, he notes. That could add up to a lot of methane being removed from the air.

Very little is known about these microbes, says Gauci. In fact, little is known about gas exchange in tree bark and branch surfaces. And those surfaces add up to a huge area. “If we were to unwrap all the trees and roll them flat, they would basically cover the entire Earth’s land surface,” he says.

This discovery may have doubled the amount of methane that the land absorbs (that we know about).

This research is important and eye-opening, says Kazuhiko Terazawa, a forest ecologist. He studies trees and methane at the Hokkaido Research Organization in Japan. The study’s estimates for how much methane trees might take up surprised him. If correct, he says, this means the land absorbs nearly twice as much methane as people had thought it did.

Not surprisingly, the methane was taken up a lot faster in the tropics than in colder places like England and Sweden. What took just a few minutes in Panama took 20 minutes in Europe. Naturally, bacteria work faster in the warmth. It follows then, though no one said as much, that in a warmer world, methane will be removed from the atmosphere even faster.

Using data from the four sites, the team estimated how much methane all the world’s forests may be absorbing. It might be as much as 50 million tons, they calculated. “It’s a sizable chunk,” says Gauci. That’s about as much methane as wafts from all the world’s landfills.

In preindustrial times some 50 million bison may have roamed North America emitting methane for thousands of years without reaching a “tipping point”, turning Earth into Venus or causing the sixth mass extinction.

From the press release: Trees act like a chimney…

POST NOTE: There is bound to be a benefit to the trees.

For all we know, the microbes that feed on methane probably help the trees in some way. Perhaps they defend the bark from fungus, or produce some nutrient trees need, or perhaps they help in moisture control. Who knows? In which case, the trees acting like chimney-pumps for methane are just feeding the good guys in the bark higher up the tree.

If I had to bet, I’d put money on the healthy tree biome stopping fungal rot of some sort, or perhaps producing some phytochemical trees need, like a pesticide that makes chewing bark less fun for beetles.

UPDATE: And lets not forget it was only this year that we realized 90% of the latest surge in methane comes from microbes around the world, not from us.

REFERENCES

Bark-dwelling methanotrophic bacteria decrease methane emissions from trees, Nature Communications, DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-22333-7

Gauci, V., Pangala, S.R., Shenkin, A. et al. Global atmospheric methane uptake by upland tree woody surfaces. Nature (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07592-w

70% of Africa’s forest is gone. Without affordable energy it will vanish

In 2023, charcoal and firewood remain the dominant fuel for many households in Africa. Rapid population growth has seen an exponential rise in demand. Trees are not being cut down by people who don’t
care about the environment, but by those with few alternatives.

From Net Zero Watch

London, 24 October: Net Zero Watch is today publishing two important new papers on African energy needs and the disastrous implications of energy poverty. Written by Zimbabwean journalist Geoff Hill, the two publications were launched in Parliament yesterday evening.

70% of Africa’s forest has been cut down and the rest is falling fast. In Africa, an area the size of Switzerland is cleared of forest every year, with an estimated 90% of the wood used for cooking or heating.

Linked to this, on a continent that’s home to the Nile, Zambezi and Congo rivers, why do hundreds of millions struggle for water? Even where plumbing exists, often the dams are full but the pipes are dry.

Both problems stem from a lack of electricity: Trees are cut for charcoal and water can’t be pumped to a reservoir. In two powerful new papers, Hill looks at not only the causes, but ways the UK could help.

Speaking in the House of Lords, Hill said:

“With the Internet, people everywhere have the same expectations. Electricity, water on tap and the lifestyle we see on television. There is no room for an ‘us and them’ mentality among donor nations. Expectations are largely equal, no matter where you live.”

Paper 1: Africa’s burning issue: charcoal and the loss of forest (pdf)

Hill-Africas-burning-problemHerunterladen

“In Africa, an area the size of Switzerland is cleared of forest every year, with an estimated 90% of the wood used for cooking or to heat the home… There is a need for reliable energy, and at a price local people can afford. Without this, the forest will continue to fall and, ultimately, vanish.”

Paper 2: Clean water for Africa: A dream whose time has come (pdf)

Hill-clean-water-for-AfricaHerunterladen

“To give Africans a better quality of life, we need to do more than blame the climate. There are solutions, and most of them involve electricity. That’s the key to granting everyone the basic human right of clean water.”

—-

Geoff Hill is a Zimbabwean writer working across Africa. His media career began at the Manica Post in Mutare in 1980 and he has worked on all six continents, including as special reports manager for The Australian. Since 2002 he has been Africa correspondent for The Washington Times, as well as director of the African risk firm, Something of Value Ltd, and is fluent in English, Afrikaans and Shona (Zimbabwe).

Hill has served as deputy chair for the Foreign Correspondents’ Association of Southern Africa, and from 2011 to 2013 he was vice president at the International Association of Genocide Scholars.

Tree planting fiasco: half a million have died next to one 21-mile stretch of road

They also told us the cost of replanting will be around £2.9m. That’s taxpayers’ money.

From Tallbloke’s Talkshop

April 18, 2023 by oldbrew 

DCIM\100MEDIA\DJI_0162.JPG

A14 road

Competence got left behind in the rush to look climate friendly by absorbing a token amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
– – –
The government agency responsible for our main roads, National Highways, has admitted that over half a million trees have died beside a single 21-mile stretch of new carriageway, reports Sky News.

They estimate the cost of replanting at £2.9m.

Many tree experts say this is symptomatic of a focus on tree planting over tree care. Only growing trees capture carbon or improve habitat.

The upgrade of the A14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon, cost £1.5bn and was opened in 2020.

A number of mature trees were destroyed during construction and planting new ones was part of the development consent order, the permission to build.

National Highways planted 850,000 saplings but three years later, Sky News has seen an internal review that points to ‘an unusually high fatality rate’ and reveals that three-quarters of them have died.

National Highways point to poor soil and extreme heat as the main causes.

But these “die-off” figures were compiled before last summer’s record temperatures and it is likely more saplings will have perished in that heatwave.

National Highways, declined to do an interview with Sky News but subsequently did publish a press release admitting “an unusually high failure rate among the planted trees” and added: “Replanting is expected to begin in October with the first batch of 162,000 trees already on order from a local nursery.

“All replanting work will be subject to a five-year establishment period.”

They also told us the cost of replanting will be around £2.9m. That’s taxpayers’ money.

Their internal document suggests the replanting plan will use more mulch to hold water, better tree guards, improved topsoil, and reviewing both the type of tree planted and the sapling’s age.

Full report here.