Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth Science

Pine Forest Vapor Particles Can Limit Climate Change 124

Posted by samzenpus
from the can-you-smell-what-ain't-cooking? dept.
Solo-Malee writes "New research suggests a strong link between the powerful smell of pine trees and climate change. Scientists say they've found a mechanism by which these scented vapors turn into aerosols above boreal forests. These particles promote cooling by reflecting sunlight back into space and helping clouds to form."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Pine Forest Vapor Particles Can Limit Climate Change

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27, 2014 @06:36AM (#46355583)

    So we just need to produce pine fresh aerosol to fix the global warming? Well thats ironic to say the least.

  • Complicated (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tsa (15680) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @06:58AM (#46355647) Homepage

    The world keeps amazing us because the way it works is ever more complicated than we thought.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27, 2014 @07:06AM (#46355667)

    So we just need to produce pine fresh aerosol to fix the global warming? Well thats ironic to say the least.

    Why? An analogy I have seen is climate as a car speeding towards a cliff, and that waiting to get more data isn't enough.
    The suggested solution have been to remove the foot from the pedal and eventually the car will come to a halt.
    If I were to agree with the analogy I wouldn't just release the gas, I would hit the brake. That would be an active solution.
    Actively trying to prevent global warming by releasing chemicals that reverse the effect of greenhouse gases would be like braking.

    The problem is that there is a political movement that is more concerned with reducing human impact on the environment than with actually saving it, they give fuel to the other side that doesn't care about the environment but just want the hippies to leave their back yard.

    If people were really concerned about the environment then it would be irrelevant if global warming was man made or not, if a natural climate changed with lead to catastrophic consequences we would still have to do something about it.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27, 2014 @08:14AM (#46355879)

    Aha! So it's actually ENTOMOgenic climate change.

    Someone get the torches and the pitchforks, we've got some scapebeetles to lynch.

  • by Jarik C-Bol (894741) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @09:34AM (#46356257)
    Yes, the climate is changing, and evidence suggests it is following a warming trend. However, I *personally* do not fully attribute that change to anthropocentric causes. In light of these three statements, I am firmly opposed to knee-jerk high cost outcome-vague reactionary measures that serve to drastically affect the economic stability of the nation, or even the world. I am however, in favor of further study, while implementing 'gentle' changes, ie, more efficient power generation, reduction of emissions as quickly as is cost feasible, development of more efficient homes, tools, and machines to reduce our energy needs, etc. The bizarre and potentially harmful ideas people are floating as serious solutions to global warming are absolutely terrifying. I have seen serious proposals ranging from genetically re-engineering cows and kangaroos(?) to produce less methane, to blanketing the seas with iron oxide to cause algae blooms to absorb carbon, to anchoring giant mylar bags of C02 to the ocean floor, to scattering reflective particles in the stratosphere to reflect sunlight back into space. These, along with a host of other ideas, are beyond insane. I don't claim that global warming is a complete farce, but ideas like this, in the off chance that we are actually *wrong* could do immense and possibly irreparable damage to the environment in their own ways. Effectively, in terms of climate change 'repair' we need a planetary version of the Hippocratic oath. "First, Do No Harm." any corrective action we take simply must not put the planet at further risk down the road. However, that is not an excuse to do nothing, greater energy efficiency across the board, and cleaner energy production are a must, and a long term benefit to humanity, no mater the final result of 'climate change science'. All that said, Planting more trees is about the most sound and reasonable activity we can take to help balance our planets climate. Macedonia probably should be the figurehead for this. http://www.reuters.com/article... [reuters.com]
  • Re:Ha ha ha! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 27, 2014 @10:27AM (#46356781)

    > Fucking Asians.

    Mmmm. One of my favourite hobbies :)

  • Re:Complicated (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bunratty (545641) on Thursday February 27, 2014 @11:01AM (#46357093)
    No, science never proves things correct. The point of science is to try to prove things wrong [youtube.com]. You come up with a testable hypothesis and try to make an observation that disagrees with a prediction that it makes. When you fail to do so, you have gathered evidence that the hypothesis is correct, but you can never prove the hypothesis is correct without a doubt. This is why intelligent design (God did it), the idea that climate "just changes" (Nature did it), and string theory can be considered not science, because they make no predictions that can be tested -- any observation we can make is consistent with the hypothesis so it cannot be falsified.

"Irrationality is the square root of all evil" -- Douglas Hofstadter

Working...