By P Gosselin on 15. March 2022
4 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.
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. Clouds tend to form more 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.
To 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.”
Changes in cloud fractional cover (CFrC) following potential afforestation as derived from satellite data, expressed in relative terms with respect to the average cloudiness over every grid cell. Source. Figure 1 here.
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).”
Thinned out forests lose their cooling capacity. Source: Jeannette S. Blumröder et al, Figure 2.
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 provided an 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 temperature
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 on 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.
The insanity of the drive to plant trees to sequester CO2, and stripping forests of old growth hardwood for Biomass plants is unfathomable!
The problem is that it is NOT insanity. It is the corruption of the few manipulating the many using “science” as the tool. Given enough grant money academia is more than willing to create any model that is needed. The only real caveat to this, as far as academia is concerned, is that the end results must further the destruction of the Capitalist West and further the creation of the New World Order.
The really crazy thing and I doubt anyone could get this message across..
In order to most effectively capture CO2 in soils and Biomass – Fungi are the boys to call on
Because almost all of any ‘mushroom’ exists below the surface in fibres, tendrils or what-do-you-call-thems
There, they are immune from the damaging sunlight, UV and Ozone
Those ‘fibres’ or ‘roots’ are more akin to Lignin than Cellulose – thus very robust and long lasting. Even when dead.
They store not only Carbon, (¿¿coal, oil, natural gas??) but incredible amounts of water.
…and contrary to a now popular children’s fantasy, water controls weather and climate.
But but but, in many ways fungi are more similar to animals than plants. esp that they breathe in Oxygen and breathe out CO2
see the problem? = similar to how you persuade a belligerent & out-of-his-head drunk not to drive himself home
or Andrew Dessler of anything
One very simple way to determine if a green energy proposal is economically feasible and does not result in a net loss to mankind is to look if government or ratepayer funding is needed for the project. Did anyone ever notice how the amount of net taxes green energy pays is never mentioned? Fossil on the other hand pays substantial taxes to all levels of government.
Well, I can tell you that I never received a penny in subsidies for any of the 30+ years I heated my home through New Hampshire winters with pellets. My place had a propane-fired furnace, but I installed a pellet stove and saved a bundle each winter. Most of my neighbors got at least some heat if not all of it from wood in the form of cordwood, largely harvested from their own property. I could have done the same, but was too lazy to cut, split and stack 4 cords/year. Wood is stored solar energy,
Wood is a great fuel for home heating but using wood for the commercial production of electricity is counterproductive. I will even grant you that solar cells have many legitimate uses in remote areas. But in general large scale intermittent green energy causes more harm than good.
In theory, it’s net-zero. How can net-zero be wrong?
Like climate models, the theory is good only so long as you don’t consider everything. Tree converts CO2 to wood, power plant converts wood to CO2.
Harvesting and replanting require fossil fuels. Producing and applying the trace elements that you are removing from the soil requires fossil fuels. Transporting the wood to the pelletizing plant requires fossil fuels. Pelletizing requires fossil fuels. Loading and transporting the pellets to the power plant requires fossil fuels.
Well actually no, the forests being thinned are usually a younger forest. And the thing being missed in this study is the fact thinning forests reduces the fire hazard. In doing so helps prevents wild fires which are far more destructive to the environment and civilisation.
Good point, but I’m not sure that much ‘thinning’ is done outside of managed forest plantations. The bureaucrats lock up national parks to ‘protect’ natural growth, and then wonder why we have such horrendous wildfires. But they have no problem with thousands of square kilometres of native trees and scrub being bulldozed to bare soil across Australia to make way for renewables. This is a factor that I have a huge problem with, that they see no value in the vast areas of vegetation destroyed. Or the native wildlife that is destroyed or displaced along with it.
1 green solution = 10 new problems
No doubt they do it good faith etc Or do they?
They certainly don’t think anything through
“For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction” is true even in social sciences — it is called unintended consequences.
Interesting reports cited, and it leads to the conclusion that this is one more hit against the idea that “the science is settled”. Go Nuclear!
“The practice just couldn’t possibly be dumber.”
Give them time, they’ll find a dumber practice.
Hold my beer.
Is it right that the nice Vladimir ‘The Poisoner’ Putin is to get the next Noble Peace Prize, as he hasn’t nuked Kyiv yet?
Asking for a friend.
He can’t afford to let this thing drag on too much longer.
Discontent is growing at home.
His economy is crumbling.
Military supplies are running low.
It won’t be long before he feels the need to make a dramatic gesture to prove he is still the toughest bully on the block.
The wood burning practice may or may not yet be dumb maximized but various other ‘”green” practices are already way more dumb/destructive.
The problem I have with this report is the assumption that cooler is always better or healthier for the forest and the world. They make it sound like a full canopy is the only forest we should be trying to maintain or that we shouldn’t try to thin forests for fire suppression. Limiting this to temperature only is just the start of seeing all the effects of forest canopy cover, before demanding we stop any cutting or thinning.
From the article: 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).”
Would a tree even notice a temperature increase of 0.46K? Humans would not notice such a change.
CO2 Derangement Syndrom is a serious illness, and those who suffer from it are going to make the rest of us suffer in various ways. Like having to read a study such as this, for one example.
So the shadier it is, the cooler it is at ground level….astonishing…..
Every time we interfere with nature, we cock it up. There is a long list of mankind trying to help and causing further problems. Leave mother nature alone and she will fix it.
It’s always fun using their own, bogus arguments about supposed manmade warming against them. The bottom line though is, if we remove the fictional ideas, leaving us with the simple idea of whether or not biofuels, and specifically using biofuels to create electricity make economic sense, no, they do not. The only reason there are biomass plants such as Drax is because of the totally bogus “green energy” scam. Now, there is the issue of what to do with junk wood – dead, or dying trees, etc., but there are wood products from those being developed. And there is a market for wood pellets being used for pellet stoves, which is a completely legitimate market.
The problem is that folks treat albedo as a magic mirror that reflects heat and has no other effects. Clouds are responsible for around 2/3 of albedo. Clouds reflect incoming radiation from the sun but they also reflect and absorb outgoing long wave infrared radiation (LWIR) from the surface.
So, is the net effect of clouds warming or is it cooling? A quick web search will find results all over the place.
The standard equation for the Earth’s surface temperature without greenhouse gases treats clouds like a magic mirror and ignores the fact that clouds absorb and reflect upwelling LWIR.
When people invoke albedo effects, they’re ignoring the effect of clouds on outgoing radiation. That will make their results significantly wrong.
So, is the net effect of clouds warming or is it cooling?
In the urban heat island that is London one can confirm that by [cloudy] day it is cooler and by [cloudy] night it is warmer.
If my name were Mann I’d claim that this fact applies to the entire globe.
Thanks to Willis, the answer is that clouds are a cooling effect where it is warm, and vice-versa….the miracle of cloud control of planetary Albedo….-ve means cooling
I did say urban heat island. Willis hasn’t changed observations here yet
I just took your rhetorical question “cloud…warming or cooling?” as a teaching opportunity for newbs…speaking of which, why is an open C with pinky on the 3rd fret of high e string considered a “cheat” of a C minor chord ? Seems fine to me.
Yet unthinned forests can lead to big wildfires.
So Drax really is a vampire operation and pox on North American forests.
And a very expensive one at that.
“So Drax really is a vampire operation …”
What would you expect from an operation named after a James Bond villain (see Moonraker).
If you haven’t seen it, please watch M. Moore´s planet of humans about that!
(While I have to say I am not entirely convinced that the first part about solar cells and wind parks is very objective or correct and also the more relevant part about biofuel kinda starts slow this movie should be eye opening about the idea to remove biomass from this planets surface to produce energy, it´s a so dumb idea that it is criminal IMHO)
Where is the Spotted Owl when you need one? I’m sure the Sierra Club could locate some if they were on board.
Notice that when corn ethanol loses favor the Dems try to move away from the Iowa Caucuses and their stupid preening statements for more ethanol expansion. There is hope for the crushed, pulverized, pelletized, and burned forests yet.
Why oh why is the UK raping American forests?
“The UK’s £1billion carbon-belcher raping US forests…that YOU pay for: How world’s biggest green power plant is actually INCREASING greenhouse gas emissions and Britain’s energy bill”
“The hydraulic pressure from my power washer is not an ‘explosion’, you might point out. Water pressure does not cause ‘a sudden and rapid expansion’, which is how many dictionaries define ‘explosion’. But according to the BBC’s most senior green journalist, environment editor Roger Harrabin, there is no difference between hydraulic pressure and explosions – and Roger’s word is good enough for me.
Harrabin began to deploy the word ‘explosions’ in his reports in 2011, when the UK’s coalition government and the public began to warm to a new and emerging energy resource: shale gas.”
You could say Roger helped to strangle shale gas at birth.
About those thinning forests….
But now recent studies suggest that burning wood pellets coming from harvested trees in forest thinning operations may instead be accelerating warming. – article
OK, burning wood pellets produces wood ash and CO2, and wood ash is full of nutrients that can go back into the soil, and we all know that plants require CO2 to live, so….
One of the forest preserve areas in my county is a farm that was donated to the county for the parks and recreation services. It is full of sugar maples. Very pretty in the fall when the leaves turn. Unfortunately, there are so many of them that the trunks are spindly, the canopies on the younger trees are thin because they can’t get to open sky to get sunshine, which trees need, and the entire tree population needs to be thinned out. At some point, if they aren’t thinned out, those spindly trees will begin to die back and become fire hazards. But no one seems to be paying attention to this part.
So thinning forests is beneficial to the forest itself, and warm weather benefits all living things, so…. what was the problem again?
Depends on what you like.
Forestry for lumber manages trees rather closer together (in a *relative* way). This produces the tall straight tree trunks the sawmills like. Note that you can overdo this and end up with a forest of stunted, falling over trees.
Maples are a whole different thing. We like to see maples given plenty of room. That way they produce magnificent canopies and huge thick trunks that people love.
If you are going to sugar the trees, you get *huge* amounts of maple sap from relatively few trees. That means a lot less work.
As usual, Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder.
Sugar maples are a true joy.
Read my mind, except that around here, they don’t collect the sap for sugaring the way it’s done in New England, or thin out the saplings and sell them to the public for planting, or move them to other areas. I don’t think that’s good husbandry, that’s all.
I have a mesquite in my front yard that I trim back every year (they are very fast growing), and that gives me enough wood for the fire pit in the back yard. I scatter the ash from that in various places around the house.
But I don’t use a huge bulk carrier burning bunker fuel to move the wood or the ash around. Looking at the power ratings on my electric chainsaws, and the time it takes me, the local power company burns something quite a bit less than 100cf of natural gas.
Note that the ashes from Drax are not shipped back to the US – so there is a loss of nutrients here that eventually must be replaced.
Wildfire is limited by constraining it to low, slow, and cool by burning excess fuel. Burn excess fuel as pellets remotely rather than laboriously stacked local piles.
Thanks for the post. We stopped in at the Seldom Seen Farm over the weekend to check out the process(es) used in making Maple Products from the sap of maple trees. Next time we stop by I can ask a few questions on how their forest thinning efforts have affected things, .
Quote:Forest Thinning (For Wood Pellet Production) Has A Profound Surface Warming Impact
In other news just in from the Dept. Of Climate Science..
“Fish Can Swim”
Even worse, that exposed forest floor absolutey belches Carbon Dioxide and water vapour.
In simply mind-blowing quantities
In similar Dark Age vein= how the ARGOs were scuttled when they didn’t find any warming in the ocean.
How the OCO2 Sptunik was cancelled when it revealed the vast plumes of CO2 hanging over what’s left of The Large Forests and not where it was expected over cities and China.
Global Greening My Arse
These clowns are driving humanity, probably also all of Life on Earth, right over a cliff edge.
So, we’ve had 20% increase in forest cover plus thickening of existing trees courtesy of the Miracle ExxonMobil Great Greening of the planet. Okay, that has caused a 0.46°C cooling of the planet over the newly forested ground and, another 0.46 conservatively for the thickened forests, say a total of ~1°C over total forest area. Total forest cover is ~35% (old references say 31%). Therefore the Greening effect has cooled the land on earth about 0.35°C!
This is only because of cloud formation. In addition, photosynthesis is an endothermal (uses up heat) process. The Great Greening cooling effect can easily be enough to have caused the “Dreaded Pause”, temporarily interrupted by the 2015 el Niño and perhaps continuing. (a rough estimate of the endothermic heat sequestered is somewhat more than the burning of the carbon in the new growth would yield, which is about 32 million Btu of heat per tonne of carbon)
The greatest climate disasters are always the result of government policy.
Sane individuals understand that CO2 is plant food. So this practice makes the usual amount of sense, coming as it does from enviro-liberals who are mental defectives. Killing trees (users of CO2) and creating wood pellets to burn (which releases CO2) is the depth of stupidity.
I had expected Joe Zorzin to show up here, but not so far.
I think the whole idea of forest management is fraught with complications and the particulars of location and species, and even the season. I know the West very well. I see well managed and poorly managed forests that are within a hundred miles of one another — the difference is generally who manages the forest. The USDA has some good managers and some poor ones.
Western forests have been damaged in every single state with poor practices the bulk of which are allowing the forest to become too thick with trees. We have become so enamored of very thick forests that to see one that has been thinned for maximum productivity is almost shocking.
Forests that are too thick put trees under water stress and have canopies that prevent precipitation from reaching and entering the soil. Trees now become susceptible to pests like the pine bark beetle and they are susceptible to much worse fires as well. It matters not one iota that a thick forest shades the soil as the sunshine is absorbed probably even more effectively by dark needles on conifers. A thinned forest reflects more sunlight from snow covered ground. In other words the whole point about albedo changes is complex.
As any green organisation will tell you, shipping wood pellets to the UK for generation is not green and doesn’t reduce CO2.
It always heartens me to see Watts readers siding with Greenpeace on this issue.
What’s about Watt readers ?
Nobody wants wood burning because it’s silly ^100
Your heart be stilled, griffter….indigenous people (Indians) burned forest land centuries ago in North America…and the land benefited…..but the UK must grow its own pellets.
Why don’t you and your groups go help Ukrainian refugees without the dogma and advocacy propaganda. Do something useful!
Don’t forget to bow low.
Boris Johnson Visits U.A.E., Saudi Arabia, Seeking More Oil
British leader is acting as an emissary for the West after Gulf leaders shunned entreaties from President Biden to discuss energy policy amid Ukraine war
It just goes to show that we here at WUWT go with the facts.
What’s your excuse griff?
I just finished marking a big woodlot for an improvement cutting. The improvement cutting will upgrade the overall quality of this forest stand. This thinning will be primarily from below which means that most of the trees removed will be from the lower crown classes. This type of thinning accelerates the natural mortality of a forest stand as it develops over a long period of time by removing those undesirable trees that are of lower quality and/or are losing the race for survival due to natural competition. This thinning will remove about 1/3 of the basal area and consist of the lower quality white pine and hardwood sawtimber, pulpwood, and cordwood trees that have poor stem form and/or insufficient live crowns that will not support good diameter growth. The trees that are retained will be the higher quality white pine and hardwood sawtimber and pole timber with good stem form and superior live crowns which will support good diameter growth. Most of the low grade timber will be used for firewood which will reduce the need for imported heating oil while some of the low grade will go to a wood pellet manufacturer and some to a biomass power plant. The objective is to grow high quality sawtimber for lumber mills but we need low grade markets in order to grow more high quality sawtimber.
If you want to learn about forestry, ask a real forester who practices forestry for a living.
By the way, I think P. Gosselin and his No Tricks Zone has done outstanding work exposing climate alarmism but he should leave forestry to the experts like myself.
Mike, I would not claim to be anything other than a woodland hobbyist. I was born in a wooden shack, on a wooded small holding. No running water, no bathroom, no electricity and no energy, beyond paraffin lamps and candles. That was the first six years of my existence. I have many similarities to Dr. Patrick Moore, and relate to his remote life as a child. I now own broadleaf woodlands here in the UK. I am currently sawing oak logs 10ft and 12 ft long into 2×4 and 2×8 etc on my sawmill. These have all been killed by Honey Fungus and I have about another 20 full size oaks 60ft to 100ft tall to deal with. That is in just one of my woods. English oak is a prized material for obvious reasons, it is worthwhile activity.
I am an engineer by profession. I would not deny the wisdom someone such as you, with your actual hands on experience, and what that brings to the climate debate.
I have great concern however, about the wisdom of the green lobby championing pelletising wood, for trans ocean shipment, then burned here in DRAX power plants. I am sure the use of low value thinnings and underbrush for that market is valid, perhaps they should be consumed locally, for best environmental advantage?
What is very troubling to me, is the felling of large woodlands for the sole purpose of feeding DRAX. The power stations in Yorkshire UK are built on top of the finest coal deposits in Europe. Despite their location to such an energy rich resource, they burn wood. Why do they do that? It’s because they are paid through government grants to do it, for no other reason..
The lunacy of energy policy decisions in the Western World over the past thirty years has no equal. We must challenge the green energy lunacy wherever and when ever we can.
Let us hope we can return to a more sane energy provision regime as quickly as possible.
Look at it like this.
The eco warriors have declared war of wildlife. That can be the only explanation why they would champion building bird mashing wind turbines in remote regions.
Those regions where humans are virtually never present now kill birds 24/7.. With no humans to kill off the wildlife the standing monuments can do the job continuously and ensure empty skies wherever they are constructed.
The other creature the eco warriors have decided need continuous killing is bats. They too are a constant victim of the monuments to wildlife destruction. Of course it does not end there. Chopping down whole forests to make wood pellets for DRAX and strip clearing ranges to allow full wind turbine construction, hence destruction to take place ensures there are none of those pesky little varmints running around at ground level that we have so much trouble with. The advance of massive wildlife free solar estates are also doing a fine job of removing any wildlife in the vicinity. The complete cover of the land also makes sure there is very little chance for insects to survive either so there is always that positive to focus on.
No birds, no bats, no insects, yes the ecowarriors are really on to something. I wonder what they are thinking of putting into the seas to kill off fish and other marine life?..
Forest thinning for fuel pellets is great!
Automatically opposing anything done for apparent environmental reasons – that’s what is dumb.
To use advantageously a resource that would otherwise be unused is very sensible.
And to imaging that CO2 in-out calculations offer anything relevant or meaningful to the question is the biggest mistake of all. It’s of no consequence whatsoever.
It makes sense if it doesnt make the cost of pellets more expensive. My lady has just enough funds to get bye but lives in a home that has electrical heat which she cant afford. So we put in a pellet stove that can heat the home when electrical costs are high. This has worked reasonably well except for the upward pressure on pellet costs because of Drax and friends.
4 % of Global Electricity Comes from ‘Renewable’ sources – ‘Green Energy’
45% of that comes from Bio-Fuels . . .
79% of Global Electricity is Non-Renewable. 17% from hydro. 4% from Wind, Solar and all Renewables combined . . . Green Electricity . . . is said to be . . . Emissions Free . . .
Not by a long shot! Clean Energy – Bio-Fuels –‘Wood is currently the largest contributor to this Bio-Fuel energy market, accounting for as much as 45 percent of all renewable energy consumed’. ‘Why Burning Trees for Energy Harms the Climate’ – The World Resources Institute https://www.wri.org/blog/2017/12/insider-why-burning-trees-energy-harms-climate#:~:text…
From . . . Page . . . 8 & 9
Electric Cars – Burn 31% More Energy than Gas Cars (Revised) | Jim Le Maistre – Academia.edu
“Fossil fuels are made from decomposing plants and animals. These fuels are found in the Earth’s crust and contain Carbon and Hydrogen, which can be burned for energy. Coal, oil, and natural gas are examples of fossil fuels” National Geographic . . .
Fossil Fuels come from Decomposing Plants & Animals.
Bio-Fuels . . .made by nature . . .when ‘WE’ make Bio-Fuels ‘WE’ make . . . Fossil Fuels!
We are . . Emulating Nature . . .Scientifically . . . In Factories! . . .45% of All renewables!
Page 9 . . . The Environmentalist & The Neanderthal | Jim Le Maistre – Academia.edu
It seems reasonable that reducing forest cover would reduce cooling and increase the earth’s temperature. But not all thinning reduces cover in the long run; thinning out forests that are already overgrown would reduce the number of fires, thus increasing average cover in the long run. I like the idea of generating electricity from the waste, rather than heating homes directly, since the pollution controls on power plants tend to be more sophisticated than on home heating appliances, but taking the wood that normally burns in forest fires each year and harnessing the heat to make electricity seems like a no-loose proposition. It probably won’t solve all our energy problems, but anything that contributes reliable power will likely be helpful. Clearing forests for wind farms is an entirely different subject and it may well lead to more warming than cooling. If there is a role for wind farms, it probably involves floating off-short turbines that can be relocated to maximize output year-round.
Deforestation leads to cooling. Not warming.
Scroll to the end of my review to see the results of greening