( Originally posted in Spacedream. )
Well, not according to this article in Livescience. According to Ram Oren of Duke University who did the FACE study:
“If water availability decreases at the same time that carbon dioxide increases, then we might not have a net gain in carbon sequestration,” Oren said.
Now, I’m no scientist, to say the very least. However, the problem I have here is two-fold.
First of all, anything that absorbs any carbon has to be a good thing, or Al Gore would not be telling us all to give money for carbon offsets. It’s a lot cheaper to plant a tree than it is to give cash. Especially when that cash could go to much better uses such as more insulation, more efficient heating and air, or purchasing a hybrid vehicle.
Secondly, I don’t recall anyone saying plant trees to absorb carbon. What they are saying is plant trees to make shade. Now, shade is a good thing. There’s a such thing that is proven called urban warming. Urban warming happens when you cut down all the trees and use lots of concrete and blacktop. Seems concrete and blacktop absorb heat and cause the entire area to get hot. So, it seems to me that planting trees would undo what concrete and blacktop has done. It also seems to me that most of the weather stations are in areas that are affected by, drum roll please, urban warming. So, it seems to me that if you especially plant trees where those weather stations are, thereby putting them in the shade as they were 100 years ago, global warming will be reversed.
And additionally, it also seems to me that Al Gore has told us that one of the problems we’ll have with runaway global warming is too much water. Miami, New York, Los Angeles, will all be covered in water. So, Oren’s concern that there will not be enough water seems a bit contradictory to what Al Gore is saying.
And we all know what happens when you deny Al Gore don’t we?