From a Georgia Tech Press Release:
Reducing Greenhouse Gases May Not Be Enough to Slow Climate Change
Georgia Tech City and Regional Planning Professor Brian Stone publishes a paper in the December edition of Environmental Science and Technology that suggests policymakers need to address the influence of global deforestation and urbanization on climate change, in addition to greenhouse gas emissions.
According to Stone’s paper, as the international community meets in Copenhagen in December to develop a new framework for responding to climate change, policymakers need to give serious consideration to broadening the range of management strategies beyond greenhouse gas reductions alone.
“Across the U.S. as a whole, approximately 50 percent of the warming that has occurred since 1950 is due to land use changes (usually in the form of clearing forest for crops or cities) rather than to the emission of greenhouse gases,” said Stone. “Most large U.S. cities, including Atlanta, are warming at more than twice the rate of the planet as a whole – a rate that is mostly attributable to land use change. As a result, emissions reduction programs – like the cap and trade program under consideration by the U.S. Congress – may not sufficiently slow climate change in large cities where most people live and where land use change is the dominant driver of warming.”
According to Stone’s research, slowing the rate of forest loss around the world, and regenerating forests where lost, could significantly slow the pace of global warming.
“Treaty negotiators should formally recognize land use change as a key driver of warming,” said Stone. “The role of land use in global warming is the most important climate-related story that has not been widely covered in the media.”
Stone recommends slowing what he terms the “green loss effect” through the planting of millions of trees in urbanized areas and through the protection and regeneration of global forests outside of urbanized regions. Forested areas provide the combined benefits of directly cooling the atmosphere and of absorbing greenhouse gases, leading to additional cooling. Green architecture in cities, including green roofs and more highly reflective construction materials, would further contribute to a slowing of warming rates. Stone envisions local and state governments taking the lead in addressing the land use drivers of climate change, while the federal government takes the lead in implementing carbon reduction initiatives, like cap and trade programs.
“As we look to address the climate change issue from a land use perspective, there is a huge opportunity for local and state governments,” said Stone. “Presently, local government capacity is largely unharnessed in climate management structures under consideration by the U.S. Congress. Yet local governments possess extensive powers to manage the land use activities in both the urban and rural areas.”
The Environmental Science and Technology article is available at http://pubs.acs.org/journal/esthag.
For more on land use change in the USA, see this NASA resource
1. In the first place there is not enough “warming” for anyone to worry about this century or last. (Earth could use more warming just as our planet could use more CO2.) I think it is time that WUWT and other real science blogs stop using the phrase “global warming” or “climate change” by itself and put “alleged” or “false” or some other qualifier in front of every use, even in peerreviewedarticles. The only exception should be when the authors’ are writing about the transition from “The Little Ice Age”, if this designation does not need to be reexamined.
2. Second, everyone needs to look at E.M Smith’s investigation of GISSTemp — http://chiefio.wordpress.com – and its pure lies and fabrications. Mr. Smith finds that most of the dirty work originates with Hansen. No scientists should use GISSTemp’s fabrication of “average global temperature” or “global temperature anomalies” until a group of trustworthy scientists find those thermometers (with verification by Anthony Watts and crew) world wide that can be trusted to develop such a measurement.
3. Third, like other WUWT readers I noticed “climate management” and felt shivers down my spine. Reading Oct 30 “Science Mag” this a.m. I found an editorial by Eric J. Barron, director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, email-barron@ucar.edu. He claims that “the U.S. is moving rapidly into AN AGE OF CLIMATE-RELATED DECISIONS INVOLVING mitigation and adaptation….” What does this mean? “It is critical to create A SINGLE, CREDIBLE, AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE (my emphasis) of climate information to support decision-makers.” Maybe he is applying for the job of CLIMATE CZAR!?!
He seems to want this authority to delve down into the regional and local levels. Could this be maoism (remember Anita Dunn)? Or easterngermanycommunism where the authorities, informed by your neighbors, tell you to toe their line or else? Scientists who want anything left in the U.S. that is not totalitarian-driven science had better speak up and quickly. No city or region or state should imaginatively apply themselves to mitigation or adaptation of climate without Barron’s say-so.
“Will U.S. cities or states simply pick one climate model as a basis for decisions? Will the information be defensible as the best available? THE LEVEL OF AUTHORITY REQUIRED DICTATES THAT A NATIONAL CLIMATE SERVICE BE ESTABLISHED (my emphasis).”
“The 2009 WORLD CLIMATE CONFERENCE has called for a GLOBAL APPROACH to climate services [isn’t this a wonderful euphemism], although few nations have developed formal plans. This recommendation is a positive development, but it is insufficient. The research strategies and investments needed to define impacts and vulnerabilities and to enable wise decisions are not in place.” (P. 643) Wow! He must believe that the SCIENCE IS SETTLED!
As Cervantes wrote in the first “modern” novel when he was trying to articulate the transition from one way of life (romantic chivalry) to another (realism): “FOREWARNED, FOREARMED; to be prepared is half the victory.” Scientists and citizens of individual countries, look where “globalization” is trying to take us. By the way, who funds the National Center for
Atmospheric Research? Which corporations give the most?
Whatever the percentage, trying to moderate urban temperatures with trees is simpler and more likely to succeed than trying to reduce CO2. The bit thats missing is water, particularly ground water. Although water vapour is considered a Global Warming gas it actually helps cool things down.
Consider the following from a Times article about the restoration of part of the Aral sea http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article1975079.ece
Even the climate is changing for the better. “It’s true. In April, May and June we now have rain,” exclaims Nazhmedin Musabaev, Aralsk’s jovial Mayor. There is more grass for livestock. Summers are a little cooler.
The latest National Geographic has an article about harvesting monsoon rains in India. There is a watershed program facilitated by a nonprofit organisation called the Watershed Organisation Trust (WOTR). This involves contouring the land and replanting trees. The aim is to capture the monsoon rains when they come by slowing up the runoff and allowing the water to get into the water table. Global warming is mentioned like it always is but there is nothing in the article to attribute the plight of drought stricken Indians with CO2. This program is not a socialist plot, it doesn’t blame the West or ask for handouts from ‘Rich’ countries. It also is trying to address the problem of an expanding population that has brought about a lot of the drought issues by clearing land and trees and extracting ground water faster than it can be replenished. So far it appears to be having some success, with ground waters being replenished and farmers being able to grow food even with a poor monsoon.
The amount of warming that has happened in the 20th Century (assuming that it really even happened) is too small to be of any concern . . . except of course for alarmists. So what is half of nothing to worry about?
Phil. (09:36:15) : Yet in the Northeast US the forests have grown back significantly in the last 50 years! Compare this aerial photograph of Princeton, NJ from 1947 with current Google earth images.
http://gisserver.princeton.edu:81/navigatorMapViewer.htm?map=819
Difficult to judge with just that photograph. Yes there seem to be more trees, but are trees more effective at cooling than grass and agricultural crops?
Agriculture may require more irrigation which could also be a factor. There are certainly a lot more houses and buildings than 1947.
And is Princeton representative of most cities in the US? It could be a lot less urbanised.
G. Karst (09:14:57)
You forgot the 2000% from the blowhard politicians. 😉
Willis Eschenbach (14:13:14)
Willis:
In my neighborhood, the trees in the forest are so dense, that a 50% reduction would still leave the forest with over twice the number of trees that are safe for a healthy forest. Fortunately (or unfortunately if nature chose to thin your property) a tiny beetle the size of a grain of rice did most of the forest thinning by killing tens of thousands of trees.
For almost 20 years, the forest service tried to thin the forest, but were stopped by the tree huggers. At the end of that time, drought, bark beetles and fire did the job for them.
Stone recommends slowing what he terms the “green loss effect” through the planting of millions of trees in urbanized areas and through the protection and regeneration of global forests outside of urbanized regions.
I’ve planted many thousands of trees over the last seven years working part time for a local small forestry business. It feels good and gets me away from the computer screen part of the time. I recommend it as a therapeutic activity good for the individual, society and the environment.
woodNfish (13:27:41) :
re: John F. Hultquist (12:34:18)
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/media-archive/Lawsuit%20Filed%20to%20Prevent%20Timber%20Harvest%20at%20Power%20Fire%20Site.pdf
This is the lawsuit referred to.
The reforestation is inhibited by the attempt at blocking the harvest.
DaveE.
D. King (13:05:55) :
That’s what I was afraid of 😉
DaveE.
**************************
Stephen Skinner (14:53:18) :
Whatever the percentage, trying to moderate urban temperatures with trees is simpler and more likely to succeed than trying to reduce CO2. The bit thats missing is water, particularly ground water. Although water vapour is considered a Global Warming gas it actually helps cool things down.
********************
I’m sorry, but I just don’t see the problem with the “warm” climate we now enjoy. What is your opinion of living in an ice age or even a few degrees cooler on average. If you must have something to fear, that would be it IMO.
I think everyone here accepts that UHI’s are real. Personally, I have no problem greening up urban areas. Of course, doing so might compound the ozone problems that a lot of urban areas deal with during the summer months. Someone should do a study on that.
However, I would much rather spend money on that type of thing rather than shutting down American business in order to reduce CO2 emissions.
One important point from this article is that all of the attention that the AGW folks are getting is detrimental to the rest of the science. There may well be some real issues to deal with, but all of the money is going towards proving AGW caused by greenhouse gases. I think that the great lesson to be learned from this whole debacle is to keep politics out of science. That includes government funded scientific work.
CPT. Charles (09:12:06) :
“Stone envisions local and state governments taking the lead in addressing the land use drivers of climate change, while the federal government takes the lead in implementing carbon reduction initiatives, like cap and trade programs.”
There ya go: ‘land use’ regulation, and cap and trade.
Central Planning uber alles.
How predictable.
Anecdotal illustration: any tree with a trunk over 6″ in diameter has been designated a Heritage Tree in Portland OR. It requires a city
permit to cut it down, on private property. ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.
I guess everyone else knows better what to do with your land than you do.
If one accepts the theory that the USA is warming and that 50% of that warming is down to land use changes, then the remaining 50% must be a mix of “emissions based” warming and natural warming. This new theory reduces the percentage of warming due to to man made emissions dramatically. Settled science? very unlikely. Brian Stone has just thrown a huge spanner in the works. Wonder what James Hansen and co will have to say about that!
And 0% of which is being talked about in the news.
Land use planning for land you do not own is a criminal undertaking. And I should know as I was once the head of a cities planning comission.
Richard (16:08:18) :
Difficult to judge with just that photograph. Yes there seem to be more trees, but are trees more effective at cooling than grass and agricultural crops?
Using gliding as a means of measuring, there is virtually no lift over forest or water. Agricultural land can provide good lift. When the sun gets low enough that thermals cease, then it is possible to find a small amount of heat coming off woods or lakes, but only for a short while.
go walk in a sunny meadow, then move to a treed area. 5 to 10 degrees cooler. I heard of a study that said the dark colour of treed actually created by lack of refraction? a better rain likelihood.
I have noticed where trees are absent, so is rain.
flat or high lands, seems similar, Permaculturists manage to create effective microclimates, trees keep condensation /dew returning to the ground, and then shade it from evaporation in the day. so it is possible.
Planting food trees would be too sane I guess?
and watch out for the GM Eucalypts planned for american use. arbor something is doing trials in NZ ties with ex monsanto etc. nasty!
aargh..should read treed areas!
Maybe churches should ring their bells to warn us of cooling. But that’s not what the Copenhagen campaign calls for:
Church bells to ring out warning on climate change
wups, posted on wrong thread.
The AGW bandwagon offers something for everyone, tree-huggers included. Not that there’s anything wrong with hugging trees. I love trees, and have planted and/or encouraged tree growth on my small bit of land, including a Maple now doing a good job of shading our south-facing home when we need the shade, and allowing the much-welcome sun through when we most need it.
What I despise is agenda-based pseudo-science, which is all this paper is, and government meddling into what should be private affairs.
I’m glad it’s warmer.
I think focussing on the USA from 1950 to present is distracting.
The land use change question is: what were the atmospheric changes that resulted from global land use change from 1850 to present. There was wide expansion of agriculture, both extensively and intensively. Forests overall retracted. Urban heat islands were created. An area the size of Texas was paved (all the worlds building footprints, parking lots, patios and the global road network which is about 20 million miles long)
Perhaps half of the change in temp from 1850 to present can be attributed to these land use changes, but the effect in the next 100 years may be quite different.
In 2010, the net stock of global forests may be increasing, cropland area is about the same as additional food is being provided by increased productivity. Pasture and rangeland is retracting as more animals are fed crop grains and improved pasture grasses. Paved land is still increasing, recently in China with extensive city and road buidling.
Or, most of the land use change impact from 2010-2100 will be found outside the USA.
And, reforestation and increase in overall vegetation has already started and does not need any public policy intervention.
The USA exurban pattern is interesting, but the impact is an open discussion. The non-urban part of metropolitan areas (or the 600,000 square miles of metropolitan area that is not part of the area of 100,000 square miles of urban land), has about 30 million people that are scattered in small clusters of houses on large lots, typically from 1 to 5 acres.
As most of these residents work in cities and do not farm, they might be expected to be rather passive with what they do with their property. Lots of grass managed with riding mower, trees planted to outline their lots, some gardening. Heat island effect limited, given the house footprint and driveways at most pave about five to ten percent of the lots. Probably comparing the environmental impact of large lawns versus pastured grass, corn or soybean fields. Overall, probably nowhere near as significant as urban heat islands created in downtowns, suburban employment centers, airports, etc.
The Eastern US has been hammered by this. Most of the people and media are there. Ergo “runnnnnnnnawayyyyyyyy globallllllll warrrrmmmmmmingggggg!”
“Anecdotal illustration: any tree with a trunk over 6″ in diameter has been designated a Heritage Tree in Portland OR. It requires a city
permit to cut it down, on private property. ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.”
With the result being that people who understand the system, will cut down their 5.5″ trees.