Pine Forest Vapor Particles Can Limit Climate Change 124
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."
Mother Nature Seems To Love Irony (Score:5, Interesting)
The blight of the Mountain Pine Beetle has caused collosal damage to the pine forests of western North America, thwarting any supposed vapor particle limitation of climate change:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
From anyone who's ever hiked - duh (Score:5, Interesting)
Everyone knows this - it's why you see that bluish haze above northern forests (Maine, looking at you) in the summer, the turpenes coming off the trees make natural smog in the sunlight.
Re:Ha ha ha! (Score:5, Interesting)
As a Luthier, I can heartily suggest planting more HARDWOOD forests. To balance nature a bit from the overplanting of pine by the lumber industry and to ensure a future supply of hardwood for NICE things like furniture, guitars, baseball bats, etc. quit planting damn pines! Hardwoods are dissappearing in favor of the quicker growing weed; the pine tree. In nature, we had forest fires from dry weather, lightning strikes and bored Indians to control pine forests. Now we are out of balance and the price of hardwood is a sure reflection of that. Houses need to be built from better materials anyway, papercrete, dirt,rock,recycled materials and things more suited to lasting construction than found in stick houses.
Think Hardwood.
Re:Freebreeze to the rescue (Score:3, Interesting)
"However, I *personally* do not fully attribute that change to anthropocentric causes."
Argument from personal incredulity is a fallacy.
"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."
However, you have no idea whether these claims
1) knee-jerk
2) high cost
3) outcome-vague
4) reactionary measures
are actually the case. Care to cite any that are any of these?
You also presume without evidence they will serve to drastically affect the economic stability of the nation or the world.
According to an ACTUAL investigation into the costs, it'd cost 2% of global GDP (at the time of the report: your procrastination has increased the costs and reduced the mitigation) to fix.
Comare to the US DoD military budget and it's a pittance.