h a l f b a k e r yLike you could do any better.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
With global-warming, the zone at which any given genus of trees will flourish has moved towards the poles. So a species of pine, say, that flourished at 45-55degN is now happy at 48-60degN.
Find the best cold-weather, carbon-sequestering growth and transplant it as far north as it will go into the
tundra.
Sterilize them first if they're non-native species to avoid future complications.
Start superseeding starting at the top and don't stop. When the greenhouse effect lessens, the trees freeze and die, but they've done their job.
Note that there should be a "barren band" in between the new growth and the old "treeline" to keep the ecosystem as fauna free as possible.
eurasia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasia
for the continental part of the discussion [mylodon, Dec 13 2007]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
//Sterilize them first if they're non-native
species.// I'm not sure if it's possible to
castrate a sequioiaia. |
|
| |
Sequoias aren't particularly good at carbon-sequestration, nor do they flourish in an arctic environment. Some northern species of bamboo on the other hand... |
|
| |
I've read that afforestation of the far north is likely to be counterproductive, because the benefit of the carbon sequestration is more than cancelled out by the reduced albedo. (A snowy plain is whiter than a snowy forest, so it reflects more solar heat and absorbs less). |
|
| |
To avoid this effect, you need to put your carbon sinks in latitudes without much snow. |
|
| |
//afforestation of the far north is likely to be counterproductive// |
|
| |
Making wood out of CO2 takes energy, specifically the chlorophyll absorption part of the spectrum. That's a *good* thing; the energy is *not* used to warm the globe, in fact it's taking away the stuff that is. |
|
| |
But I'm sure the process isn't perfect, so the question is... |
|
| |
How much more heat is transferred to the air/ground for an acre of trees as opposed to an acre of snow. |
|
| |
Even then, they're still sucking the CO2 out of the atmosphere; perhaps the temporary extra heat is worth it in the longer run. |
|
| |
(Warning: I'll stand on any soapbox I see laying around, I'm *not* a scientist, though I like to play one on the Internet) |
|
| |
I think you'd get a better result growing tropical hardwoods. Tropical areas have far higher carrying capacity and hardwoods are a much denser accretion of carbon than the wood of conifers. |
|
| |
That said, there has been a noted trend in the last ten years, that tropical hardwoods are growing more slowly as the temperature increases. This is seeing an increase in tropical softwood growth rates, which are less beneficial for sequestration purposes. (Stephen Leahy, IPS News, Canada, Oct 2007) |
|
| |
//Tropical areas have far higher carrying capacity// |
|
| |
True: that's why there's already trees there, or man-made barren areas whose owners are loath to give up. |
|
| |
//hardwoods are a much denser accretion of carbon than the wood of conifers// |
|
| |
I was surprised when I did a little research on this last year to find that evergreens don't grow any further into northern latitudes than deciduous trees |
|
| |
However, the evergreens might act a little faster to establish some anti-erosion and soil enrichment. I'm also wondering how far north switchgrass grows? |
|
| |
Alternatively, what if we were to do some coastline terraforming of northern Africa? Is there some Sahara expansion reversal potential there? |
|
| |
//Alternatively...Sahara//
why "alternatively" ? why not "as well as..." |
|
| |
Similar idea. The rate of growth in tundra areas is painfully slow. |
|
| |
// carbon sequestration is more than cancelled out by the reduced albedo.//
So, we plant silver birch. |
|
| |
//I'm not sure if it's possible to castrate a sequioiaia.//
some funguses inhibit tree reproduction.
|
|
| |
//growth in tundra areas is painfully slow//
The treeline (all treelines) will slowly be moving northward due to global warming, but the idea of this post is to beat it to the punch in the "virgin land" of the sub-arctic instead of waiting for all those seeds to travel all those hundreds of miles. |
|
| |
////I'm not sure if it's possible to castrate
a sequioiaia.//
some funguses inhibit tree reproduction.// |
|
| |
So, sequoias + castration = sequestration.
All makes sense now. |
|
| |
O_O
worst
pun
ever
... [marked-for-tagline] |
|
| |
My talk radio station has a similar idea in a political parody commercial they're particularly proud of: |
|
| |
Plant trees on the Mexican border. Stops global warming, keeps the border secure! Win win. |
|
| |
How long can a tree last without light? |
|
| |
Even with the long summers, the sun is just skating across the horizon. Trees not on the edge of a forest won't see the light of day. |
|
| |
Bamboo is more effective at carbon sequestering than any kind of tree, and it grows much faster too. |
|
| |
Not above the arctic circle it doesn't. |
|
| |
[Flyingtoaster] -- barren band? What? Have you read nothing about ANWR? It is the Serengeti of the north! |
|
| |
actually there is a high latitude strain of bamboo... not sure if it shares all the other properties of its more temperate brethren. |
|
| |