The current issue of Frontiers in Ecology contains a short article "Planting temperate forests won't temper global warming" (Vol. 5, No. 1, page 6). This article reports on a presentation by ecologist Ken Cadeira at the December 2006 meeting of the American Geophysical Union. This presentation said that temperate forest absorb enough solar radiation to nullify any advantage from pulling C02 from the atmosphere. Tropical forests, however, not only pull CO2 from the atmosphere, they reflect solar radiation because of their self-generated cloud cover. I hope someone on this list can answer some of my questions relating to this report:
1. Did this research consider all temperate forests, including those that have persistent cloud cover, e.g., coastal forests in our Pacific Northwest? 2. Does this imply that we shouldn't regenerate temperate forests after tree removal through logging or fire since this increases albedo? Should we be converting our temperate forests to farm crops and pasture? 3. How about boreal forests? Does this study imply that complete boreal forest tree removal, leaving only snow as ground cover 3 to 6 months per year, will be the best strategy for combating rising global temperatures? 3. I haven't seen the research reports this is based on, so I wonder, how completely did this study consider the extreme complexity and variability of temperate forest mechanisms? 4. Does this finding mean we should be planting species such as blue spruce, white fir, white pine and white alder instead of black spruce, red fir, black pine, black cottonwood and red alder? Warren Aney Senior Wildlife Ecologist (503)246-8613
