I think there are other benefits to having a lot of trees around you.
As a resident of the Houston area, I am abundantly familiar with the idea of an urban heat island. The difference between a hot day inside the 610 loop and one 50 miles north is quite significant.
I moved from what is effectively the middle of the world's largest parking lot to the middle of a forest and I feel like I've transported myself 1000 miles instead of 50.
I've also developed a strong sense that the forest seems to have some kind of influence over the weather patterns. Not a strong or active one, but it definitely seems like a thing when you're watching Doppler radar.
steve_adams_86 · 4h ago
The science behind how forests impact weather is still developing, so I can’t make wild claims like I want to. Yet the evidence is extremely compelling. Trees seem to induce rain, reduce turbulence from winds, and as this article mentions, cool the air far more than we thought.
Trees seem to be—unsurprisingly—specialist organisms in the art of maximizing local hydrological features. They help create wetter environments so more trees can live there, and things can get a little more wet still, for more trees, then more water, and so on.
The research I’ve read is mostly along the lines of “we’ve observed these really interesting patterns and we suspect these are the underlying mechanisms”, but as I recall, proving the cause and effect of such large scale phenomenons isn’t trivial. I’m also not someone who researches this stuff, so my take on it is essentially irrelevant. The bottom line is: lots of evidence and research supports your observation, and it’s an extremely interesting field of research. I think it’s the key to making life better for a lot of life on the planet.
d4mi3n · 4h ago
There's been a lot of study on this topic which is interesting! As you say, they collect moisture in a lot of ways. Part of this is done by the structure of the tree [1] (the surface area of the leaves is surprisingly large and catches a lot of moisture and other particulates in the air), rain drops hitting tree leaves cause droplets to break into a fog or mist, and some varieties of trees found in rainforests will also release various chemicals and compounds [2] that can encourage cloud formation and rainfall. It's fascinating stuff!
I'm convinced this is a very strong effect. The forest definitely protected my home from some nasty windstorms we've had. Out toward the lake where there is less coverage, essentially everyone was knocked off the grid for a whole day while I was unaffected - Despite having my power being delivered by similar overhead lines that follow a very narrow clearing through the middle of the forest. You'd think it would be a shooting gallery but it's the opposite thing. Isolated trees seem way more lethal to grid infrastructure.
mrmlz · 2h ago
I mean... this cannot be a surprise to anyone that a physical object affects wind?
bregma · 44m ago
I experience the opposite effect.
Where I live the forest effectively disappears every autumn, and then it gets really cold. Six months later the forest grows back and then it gets really hot. The ambient temperature is obviously intimately correlated with the presence or absence of the forest.
defrost · 36m ago
Amusing but obviously flawed - the science here is about the long time period correlations of mean forest coverage and mean regional tempretures (as you very likely are aware), not the short term seasonal cycle.
I chuckled .. others downvoted. Humour on HN is hard :/
somenameforme · 4h ago
This becomes even more apparent when you move to cities that are more integrated with local forests in part. You drive by the foresty adjacent area, not even in the forest, and the temperature drops dramatically, easily 5+ C. And as CO2 increases, so too is greenery. [1]
About the weather patterns. We live near a large area of natural dunes. In school we were taught that the natural dunes reflect sunlight, leading to rising air. Although I can't remember the exact meteorology (rising air generally leads to rain) they showed us the precipitation patterns and the surrounding areas get more rain and the dunes less. As a layman, I except forest vs. concrete will lead to similar situations. More rain near forests, less near concrete. Is that what you see on radar?
I now see that u/steve_adams posted pretty much the same point. I wonder how I was taught this 25 years ago in high school, with local graphs for evidence, and it still isn't scientific consensus. Super local weather models aren't a thing? (This is in jest, they obviously are a thing. Perhaps it's harder than I imagine.)
metalman · 57m ago
Houston eh!, well let me tell you that I use the GOES sattelites for local weather observation, and general real time views of varios conditions..... and Houston is the one city that stands right out,
instantly visible and radiating in the infra red, never been there, but your spoke roads must be fucking HUGE, to be vissible from geosynchronous orbit, the whole thing working as a
heat absorber/radiator.
as a "controll" try as I might, Mexico city
(others),remain invisible in the same images
nothrowaways · 4h ago
> restoring forests to their preindustrial extent could lower global average temperatures by 0.34 degrees Celsius
Sharlin · 1h ago
Which would be an absolutely huge (and practically impossible) change in, say, Western Europe. Maybe 80–90% of all farmland would have to be reforested. It was difficult enough to get people to agree on the 20% goal of EU's Nature Restoration Regulation.
ImHereToVote · 3h ago
Why stop at pre-industrial. We can go extra-natural. Naturally most forests were grazed at by large roaming herbivores.
TimByte · 3h ago
Restoring forests is clearly valuable, especially in the tropics, but it's not a get-out-of-jail-free card for emissions. The fact that even replanting all lost trees would only offset about 0.34°C puts things in perspective.
baxtr · 3h ago
What’s 0.34 Celsius in years? I think it’s at least a decade which isn’t that bad.
morsch · 5h ago
Actual title and subtitle:
Does planting trees really help cool the planet?
Forests offset warming more than thought, but not enough
jopicornell · 5h ago
By itself
vixen99 · 4h ago
A major volcanic eruption is the only significant event which would lead to a reduction.
dr_dshiv · 4h ago
Heat balance can also be achieved by investing $10b a year to mimic volcanic activity
pjerem · 3h ago
Disclaimer : Will cause white sky and unknown health effects.
Don’t get me wrong : we may or may not have to do this one day but it can only be a temporary solution in a too late transition scenario. It’s not a solution on top of our current fossil based economy else that would just be a time bomb.
drak0n1c · 3h ago
Is it possible to genetically engineer fast-growing but sterile trees that are 5x the height and width of mature hardwoods? Plant one in every sizeable park, greenbelt, and plaza. Would add some nice green variety to skylines and suburbs and make for comfortable shade for much of the surrounding area and trails. The only downside is liability and danger of falling limbs, especially during storms.
MrVandemar · 3h ago
I doubt it.
Where would these enormous fast-growing trees get their hefty nutrient requirements from?
card_zero · 2h ago
Specifically, the partial pressure of carbon dioxide.
"the efficiency of photosynthesis ... is usually below 1%, ... However, plants are efficient in using CO2 at atmospheric concentrations,"
This engineered tree would have to pump CO2 into itself.
MrVandemar · 49m ago
Nutrients are largely material that plants draw from the earth, not atmospheric gasses.
orcul · 2h ago
Yeah, too bad we cut them.
pandemic_region · 5h ago
Trees baby, trees is the campaign slogan we'll never hear anywhere.
11235813213455 · 3h ago
"Have trees, not babies nor pets to save the planet"
Deestan · 4h ago
This is a good example of a headline that is both accurate and dishonestly misleading.
Like if we discovered spitting at a housefire would slow it down more than expected, it's still not preventing it from burning to the ground. It's just going to allow some asshat to say "See? Let's defund the fire brigade."
somenameforme · 4h ago
It states that reforestation would result in a reduction in excess of 25% of all observed warming since preindustrial times. And there is every reason to believe there's even more feedback systems we are, as of yet, unaware of that could increase that further (though also potentially decrease it of course).
In any case it's certainly not spitting at a fire.
lo0dot0 · 2h ago
It's also not possible to tap into the full amount of reduction because of the land use
steve_adams_86 · 4h ago
I see where you’re coming from, and maybe you meant to be hyperbolic, but the impact of forests on quality of life for humans goes beyond cooling effects, which on their own are more significant than you’re giving credit. I think there’s more to gain here than you’d get in the house fire scenario.
I also don’t see anyone wanting to defund other efforts because trees make a difference. We may see local improvements, but I doubt we’d see global improvements such that anyone would think we’re home free. I could be wrong.
I see this as more of a quality of life improvement that could help make the inevitable bigger fight more bearable.
qtwhat · 5h ago
or does it mean we should stop Reforestation??? ^^
As a resident of the Houston area, I am abundantly familiar with the idea of an urban heat island. The difference between a hot day inside the 610 loop and one 50 miles north is quite significant.
I moved from what is effectively the middle of the world's largest parking lot to the middle of a forest and I feel like I've transported myself 1000 miles instead of 50.
I've also developed a strong sense that the forest seems to have some kind of influence over the weather patterns. Not a strong or active one, but it definitely seems like a thing when you're watching Doppler radar.
Trees seem to be—unsurprisingly—specialist organisms in the art of maximizing local hydrological features. They help create wetter environments so more trees can live there, and things can get a little more wet still, for more trees, then more water, and so on.
The research I’ve read is mostly along the lines of “we’ve observed these really interesting patterns and we suspect these are the underlying mechanisms”, but as I recall, proving the cause and effect of such large scale phenomenons isn’t trivial. I’m also not someone who researches this stuff, so my take on it is essentially irrelevant. The bottom line is: lots of evidence and research supports your observation, and it’s an extremely interesting field of research. I think it’s the key to making life better for a lot of life on the planet.
1. How Trees Bring Water: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY8ds4BiG1A
2. Amazon Seeds Its Own Rain: https://www.science.org/content/article/amazon-seeds-its-own...
I'm convinced this is a very strong effect. The forest definitely protected my home from some nasty windstorms we've had. Out toward the lake where there is less coverage, essentially everyone was knocked off the grid for a whole day while I was unaffected - Despite having my power being delivered by similar overhead lines that follow a very narrow clearing through the middle of the forest. You'd think it would be a shooting gallery but it's the opposite thing. Isolated trees seem way more lethal to grid infrastructure.
Where I live the forest effectively disappears every autumn, and then it gets really cold. Six months later the forest grows back and then it gets really hot. The ambient temperature is obviously intimately correlated with the presence or absence of the forest.
I chuckled .. others downvoted. Humour on HN is hard :/
[1] - https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/co2-is-making-...
I now see that u/steve_adams posted pretty much the same point. I wonder how I was taught this 25 years ago in high school, with local graphs for evidence, and it still isn't scientific consensus. Super local weather models aren't a thing? (This is in jest, they obviously are a thing. Perhaps it's harder than I imagine.)
Does planting trees really help cool the planet?
Forests offset warming more than thought, but not enough
Don’t get me wrong : we may or may not have to do this one day but it can only be a temporary solution in a too late transition scenario. It’s not a solution on top of our current fossil based economy else that would just be a time bomb.
Where would these enormous fast-growing trees get their hefty nutrient requirements from?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_photosynthesis#Some...
"the efficiency of photosynthesis ... is usually below 1%, ... However, plants are efficient in using CO2 at atmospheric concentrations,"
This engineered tree would have to pump CO2 into itself.
Like if we discovered spitting at a housefire would slow it down more than expected, it's still not preventing it from burning to the ground. It's just going to allow some asshat to say "See? Let's defund the fire brigade."
In any case it's certainly not spitting at a fire.
I also don’t see anyone wanting to defund other efforts because trees make a difference. We may see local improvements, but I doubt we’d see global improvements such that anyone would think we’re home free. I could be wrong.
I see this as more of a quality of life improvement that could help make the inevitable bigger fight more bearable.