Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Pine Forest Vapor Particles Can Limit Climate Change

samzenpus posted about 8 months ago | from the can-you-smell-what-ain't-cooking? dept.

Earth 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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Ha ha ha! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46355577)

Idiotic heathens! Pine: you can hang yourself or, should you happen to have chosen to be a faggot, be impaled thereon.
--
Sheshbazzar

Re:Ha ha ha! (4, Interesting)

flyneye (84093) | about 8 months ago | (#46355903)

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:Ha ha ha! (1)

gtall (79522) | about 8 months ago | (#46356179)

The Asian pine beetle might take out a significant portion of the U.S. pine forest. We'd need a replanting effort to fill in the gap. Good luck getting that through our scientifically illiterate Congress. And the accountants masquerading as CEOs won't find next quarter's profit in replanting hardwood.

Re:Ha ha ha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46356497)

Fucking Asians.

Re:Ha ha ha! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46356781)

> Fucking Asians.

Mmmm. One of my favourite hobbies :)

Re:Ha ha ha! (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 8 months ago | (#46359429)

The Asian pine beetle might take out a significant portion of the U.S. pine forest.

One reason for the spread of pine beetles has been mild winters over the last few decades, allowing more larva to survive. The harsh winter of 2013-2014 may have put a serious dent in the pine beetle population.

+1 #planthardwoods (1)

syn3rg (530741) | about 8 months ago | (#46356575)

Although I have built instuments out of pine (pinecaster anyone?), I also prefer hardwoods, even basswood, over pine.

"Inspiration exists, but it has to find us working." -Pablo Picasso

"Bored Indians"? Please explain (1)

littlewink (996298) | about 8 months ago | (#46357375)

Can you show that "bored indians" are significant contributors to forest fires any more than "bored white men", "bored black men", "bored Hispanics", etc.??

Re:"Bored Indians"? Please explain (2)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 8 months ago | (#46359375)

Can you show that "bored indians" are significant contributors to forest fires any more than "bored white men", "bored black men", "bored Hispanics", etc.??

It is well established [wikipedia.org] that fire significantly changed North American ecosystems following the arrival of native Americans around 12000 BCE. For instance, the tall grass prairie was created and maintained by fire, creating ideal grazing for bison, but pushing many other megafauna to extinction. Although there is no solid evidence that these native Americans were acting out of boredom, it is highly unlikely that they were white, black or Hispanic.

Re:Ha ha ha! (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 8 months ago | (#46357503)

Of course the reason that hardwoods are rapidly disappearing is because their wood is so popular with craftsmen, and they can't grow or reproduce fast enough to keep up with demand. It often takes centuries to grow the same amount of hardwood as pine can produce in a few decades, and almost nobody cares about planting a crop that won't be ready to harvest for at least several generations. Hell, I had a great-(great-?)-grandfather who planted a Walnut "plantation" as a family investment. The plan apparently didn't get passed down well enough though, the grandkids sold the whole place off as undeveloped land.

Re:Ha ha ha! (2)

budgenator (254554) | about 8 months ago | (#46358351)

Did anyone tell those impatient spoilded brats those trees were likely worth 5000.00 - $10,000.00 each standing? A slab of curly walnut 2.5 X 40 - 56 X 103 inches retails for $2690.00! [bigwoodslabs.com] Even a pine log cut from old-growth climax forrests are worth big bucks, you'd be amazed at how many scuba divers root around in the muck looking for dunderhead logs that were too dense to float from logging a century ago.

Re:Ha ha ha! (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 8 months ago | (#46357545)

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.

We'll have plenty of cardboard from Ikea, plenty of plastic guitar hero guitars, and plenty of aluminim for bats for the next few centuries. No problem that I can see.

Re:Ha ha ha! (1)

kwbauer (1677400) | about 8 months ago | (#46360755)

"bored Indians"... Really? In what sense is a "bored Indian" more natural than a lumberjack going about his business? The only sense I can think of is when one chooses to use "Indian" to mean "a savage" or some such similar nonsense.

Freebreeze to the rescue (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46355583)

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

Re:Freebreeze to the rescue (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#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.

Re:Freebreeze to the rescue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46355701)

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.

I think the climate of the 90s has been pretty good for the western world. But that being said I don't think nature will suffer as much as man if that is your concern with climate change. Some animals will die but others will find larger areas to roam...

Re:Freebreeze to the rescue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46356611)

Or we'll just nuke each other and all this global warming bullshit is a huge exercise in futility.

Don't worry about us destroying mother nature. She's set safe gaurds in place. a.k.a. Creating a species guaranteed to destroy itself when it reaches critical mass.

Re:Freebreeze to the rescue (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 8 months ago | (#46356747)

Don't worry about us destroying mother nature. She's set safe gaurds in place. a.k.a. Creating a species guaranteed to destroy itself when it reaches critical mass.

This may be true, but is ultimately just hypothetical speculation, since we have no examples from history of species on earth that destroyed themselves.

Re:Freebreeze to the rescue (1)

Minwee (522556) | about 8 months ago | (#46358537)

This may be true, but is ultimately just hypothetical speculation, since we have no examples from history of species on earth that destroyed themselves.

Noted paleontologist Gary Larson thinks otherwise [hubimg.com] .

Re:Freebreeze to the rescue (1)

Kremmy (793693) | about 8 months ago | (#46360239)

This article shows us how we've already destroyed ourselves. We've eradicated the vast majority of forests from the planet. This article is pointing out how those forests were our biosphere. Without them, it's only a matter of time before there is no environment suitable for life as we know it on this planet.

Re:Freebreeze to the rescue (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 8 months ago | (#46357931)

The animals aren't the biggest issue though. The big issue is plants. You may have noticed they're slightly less mobile, and IIRC the "climate line" is currently moving by an average of a quarter-mile per year. Easy enough for most non-arctic animals to migrate to remain within the same climate band, but *very* few plants can spread that fast. Most are doing good to make in a couple hundred feet. It's the die-off of the plants at the bottom of the food chain that will be a bigger problem for most animals.

Re:Freebreeze to the rescue (1, Informative)

sjwt (161428) | about 8 months ago | (#46355787)

You must be new here, or don't you remember the whole Aerosols are bad for Ozone and contribute to global warming form the 80's and 90s.

Re:Freebreeze to the rescue (4, Informative)

alzoron (210577) | about 8 months ago | (#46355891)

Actually, it's not aerosols that were bad for the ozone layer but rather the chlorofluorocarbons used as a propellant to aerosolize the contents most spray cans up until the late 1970s. The most well known of these was freon, created by DuPont.

Re:Freebreeze to the rescue (3, Informative)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about 8 months ago | (#46356757)

You must be new here, or don't you remember the whole Aerosols are bad for Ozone and contribute to global warming form the 80's and 90s.

An aerosol is "a colloid of fine solid particles or liquid droplets, in air or another gas" [wikipedia.org] . The particular aeorsol (CFCs) referred to by parent is explained by a sibling post, so no need to repeat here. Point is, that an aerosol can be almost anything gaseous or that can be made fine enough to behave sort of "gas like", including dust, VOCs, smoke, etc. That's how the term is used in TFA: terpenes -- not CFCs -- are the substances "dissolved" in air.

Re:Freebreeze to the rescue (4, Insightful)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | about 8 months ago | (#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:Freebreeze to the rescue (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46356471)

"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.

Re:Freebreeze to the rescue (4, Funny)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about 8 months ago | (#46358693)

Prepare to get roundly vilified for your reasonable approach to climate change. The Priests of AGW don't take kindly to heretical thinking such as reason and logic.

Re:Freebreeze to the rescue (1)

Kremmy (793693) | about 8 months ago | (#46360295)

This article paired with the fact that we've destroyed most of the forests on this planet tells me that we've probably outright killed our environment, us, humans, massive deforestation, the ecosphere doesn't flow like it used to. we gummed up the gulf of mexico with oil, that slowed ocean currents world wide. Yeah climate change isn't all us but we sure as hell have been the ones to destroy our own environment.

Re:Freebreeze to the rescue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46356869)

Leave it to some AGW Kool Aid drinker to ruin a good joke.

Re:Freebreeze to the rescue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46357247)

An older anology involves a little chicken and an acorn.
Maybe there is a catastrophic risk, even though there is no data to agree with any of the computer models and science that predicted it.
There is definitely a detriment to humanity caused by imposing any of your solutions that would mitigate the possible risk. Catastrophic in itself.

And the US and Europe going it alone will, by all models, be irrelevant. So why inflect the guaranteed harm when it will not solve the possible problem? Are you masochistic? Do you ask the USA to all be senselessly masochistic?

Global Warming sounds more like a cult all the time. Now you want a sacrifice on the alter for offending the Nature Spirt by our very existence. Grow up.

Re:Freebreeze to the rescue (2)

Immerman (2627577) | about 8 months ago | (#46357795)

>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.

I think you're missing the forest for the trees - if global warming were not man-made then it would still be a crisis, but a crisis we would have no particular reason to believe we could fix - after all we're talking millions(billions?) of times more energy per year being added to the system than produced by all of humanity. As it happens though we can see that virtually all of that extra energy is being added as a direct result of the greenhouse effect of human CO2 emissions, and anything we do we can stop doing. So we *know* we can stop global warming, and do so without resorting to any potentially catastrophic geo-engineering projects. Or at least we could have 50 years ago, the exact location of the tipping point is still somewhat in question.

Oh dear, you're so deluded. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46357855)

"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"

WRONG.

Those greenies you are infering to here are not doing that. You're just pretending they are so you can continue to hate them for not believing like you.

For a start: are there already clouds there? If so, how will more clouds form if the water vapour is already condensing to clouds? The aerosols can't suck water out, and no matter how much aerosol you drop into a chamber with less than 100% RH, NO WATER VAPOUR CLOUD WILL FORM.

Secondly, what do you think these aerosols will do? Are they chemically neutral? No. So they'll infect the soils (making them more acid, therefore less fertile for other plants, such as food plants). Are they able to fit in your brachea? Yes. So they'll cause repiratory failuyres, just as if these particulates were the PM10s et al from those smelly dirty diesels.

Thirdly, pumping out aerosols is not putting brakes on, it's opeining the doors in the knowledge that it will increase air resistance. Since our "accelrator" here is our increasing use of fossil fuels, braking would be reducing our use of fossil fuels.

But there is a political movement that is more concerned with reducing the interference in the pursuit of profit than with actually pursuing happiness.

Re:Freebreeze to the rescue (1)

thedonger (1317951) | about 8 months ago | (#46357977)

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.

Too bad the environment is not so discreet a system as your car. If we are brilliant at one thing, it is underestimating the unintended consequences of our actions. So no, let's not rush out an fill the air with pine forest vapor.

Re:Freebreeze to the rescue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46355873)

Careful, this may be one of those things where cooling causes warming, weve already been warned that warming causes cooling. Those frisky climatologists need some attention and adulation that they just arent getting. We should lock them all in a gymnasium for a month until they can agree on something besides the usual.
I honestly think the sideshow gets put on to raise funding, after all, scientists should produce something besides charts. Answers, feasable suggestions, invention, further discovery,but, no, we have scientists that adjourn to the bar after a day of printing graphs. Please, give so we can wipe out Alcoholism amongst scientists.

Re:Freebreeze to the rescue (5, Informative)

taiwanjohn (103839) | about 8 months ago | (#46355943)

weve already been warned that GLOBAL warming causes LOCALIZED cooling.

FTFY.

Seriously, what about the polar vortex don't you understand? Although the eastern USA had historic lows last month, the global average temperature was the hottest January on record.

If you really want to understand how the science works (which I doubt), watch Peter Hadfield's excellent series of YouTube videos. [youtube.com] He cuts through the hype on both sides of the debate. This should be required viewing for policy makers and "armchair experts" alike.

It's also fairly entertaining.

Re:Freebreeze to the rescue (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46356171)

"Seriously, what about the polar vortex don't you understand? Although the eastern USA had historic lows last month, the global average temperature was the hottest January on record."

Check the math. This is not actually true.

Re:Freebreeze to the rescue (2)

dkf (304284) | about 8 months ago | (#46356297)

Check the math. This is not actually true.

Link please. While I'm happy to check math, computing it all from the raw data (which I don't know the locations of in the first place) is rather more effort than I've got time for.

Re:Freebreeze to the rescue (1)

asylumx (881307) | about 8 months ago | (#46357029)

AC is right, but not to the degree that is implied. Jan 2014 was the 4th warmest global temp on record, and warmest since 2007. https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]

Re:Freebreeze to the rescue (1)

budgenator (254554) | about 8 months ago | (#46359423)

You can't get the raw data, at least not all of it. Even if you did get it it a nightmare of to get it into anything like a useful format it's filled missing and malformed data. You can get the produced and adjusted data, Wood For Trees [woodfortrees.org] is probably the best place. You can make all kinds of interactive graphs of with boat loads of different datasets and processing filters.

Re:Freebreeze to the rescue (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about 8 months ago | (#46358971)

Seriously, what about the polar vortex don't you understand?

Probably just as much as the global warming alarmists do, seeing as they predicted the opposite result [blogspot.com] before it happened, but of course are now claiming that they knew all along that this was a possibility. That assertion has been thoroughly debunked [wiley.com] , by many actual scientists [columbia.edu] , but that doesn't stop anti-science people like you from making your specious claims to support your ideological agenda.

Re:Freebreeze to the rescue (1)

NikeHerc (694644) | about 8 months ago | (#46359381)

Although the eastern USA had historic lows last month, the global average temperature was the hottest January on record.

And AGW almost caused a hurricane last fall.

I never failed to be amused at how AGW fanatics warp every single data point to say the sky is falling.

Re:Freebreeze to the rescue (1)

gtall (79522) | about 8 months ago | (#46356193)

Regardless of whether you believe in global warming or not, humans have managed to add enough CO2 to the atmosphere to change the PH of the oceans. You may recall the oceans being at the base of the food chain. Science, learn it or else.

Re:Freebreeze to the rescue (1)

CheezburgerBrown . (3417019) | about 8 months ago | (#46356805)

Citation desperately needed

Which climate will rule the earth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46355597)

So pine forests actually fight Tropical forests?
I wonder who'll be the first to make it into a holywood movie.

Re:Which climate will rule the earth? (1)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 8 months ago | (#46355767)

Which ones are the Ents?

Climate Change? (-1)

Quandell (3511345) | about 8 months ago | (#46355599)

Worth it for Support. Ideal way though

Complicated (5, Insightful)

tsa (15680) | about 8 months ago | (#46355647)

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

Re:Complicated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46355677)

If people would stop there hard lined views that border to be religious extremism. When it comes to everything science says has to be true.
There are so many things that cause the planet to work, and have yet to be understood.

I would say that the CO2 put off from forest fires probably counters any of the good effects from Pine Forest Vapor Particles. No doubt that should be looked at as well. Still interesting study/finding.

Re:Complicated (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 8 months ago | (#46356165)

If people would stop there hard lined views that border to be religious extremism. When it comes to everything science says has to be true.
There are so many things that cause the planet to work, and have yet to be understood.

Trouble is... people will read that as "Science is wrong!"

(Or, worse "Science is just an opinion and I've got an opinion too!")

Re:Complicated (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 8 months ago | (#46356183)

Summing up: "Science" may be wrong about some things but the scientific method is always correct (and *always* leads to the truth).

Re:Complicated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46356263)

The point of Science is to assume things are wrong until proven correct.

Re:Complicated (3, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | about 8 months ago | (#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.

Re:Complicated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46357767)

Oh no, a Popper ideologist.

Re:Complicated (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46360423)

Hardly, as a teenager I wrote a report on cloud formation and possible climate change scenarios based on aerosols. I found lots of information by reading books. This was in the late 1980s.

My ideas were mine, but the words were mostly from the books mind you.

People always need someone to trust and believe in, rather than think for themselves and risk being wrong occationally. This seems to never change.

The masses are always wrong.

Don't they alwas release pine smell. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46355673)

Am just wondering do the trees sense the amount of sunlight or stress from heat lack of water?? Or do they always release the smell??? In which case it isn't really be done to prevent climate change.

Re:Don't they alwas release pine smell. (1)

taiwanjohn (103839) | about 8 months ago | (#46355751)

FTFA:

"In a warmer world, photosynthesis will become faster with rising CO2, which will lead to more vegetation and more emissions of these vapours," said lead author, Dr Mikael Ehn, now based at the University of Helsinki.

"This should produce more cloud droplets and this should then have a cooling impact, it should be a damping effect."

So yes, they always put out some of these volatiles, but the amount varies depending on climatic conditions and the health of the trees.

Where's the news in this? (2)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 8 months ago | (#46356085)

Read the abstract, I'm not sure what's news here? It's certainly not the discovery that "trees make their own rain". Nor is it news that light coloured aerosols tend to reflect sunlight back into space, whereas dark coloured ones tend to absorb it and deposit most of it as heat into the ocean. Both those things have been known for decades, maybe the news is something to do with the chemistry or a better estimate of the aerosol's effect on climate, the later of which is notoriously difficult.

Re:Where's the news in this? (1)

deadweight (681827) | about 8 months ago | (#46356203)

Is this basically turpentine causing this?

Re:Where's the news in this? (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 8 months ago | (#46356925)

Don't know, IANAChemist. :(

Re:Where's the news in this? (1)

budgenator (254554) | about 8 months ago | (#46359827)

Yes [wikipedia.org] , and I suspect that any plant with a "smell" will do it.

Mother Nature Seems To Love Irony (5, Interesting)

Freshly Exhumed (105597) | about 8 months ago | (#46355707)

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]

Re:Mother Nature Seems To Love Irony (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46355879)

Aha! So it's actually ENTOMOgenic climate change.

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

Re:Mother Nature Seems To Love Irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46355979)

No torches, the genocide has to be CO-neutral!

Re:Mother Nature Seems To Love Irony (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 8 months ago | (#46356329)

Aha! So it's actually ENTOMOgenic climate change.

Nope. Those beetles are able to survive in these regions because of the lack of hard freezes to kill them back (global warming) and they're able to attack the trees because they have been weakened by drought (global warming, deforestation).

The pines are losing out to man-made climate change like everything else.

From my house, you can see somewhere from dozens to hundreds of dying pines. I can see a lot of pines from here on a hill in Lake County, CA. None of them look good.

Re:Mother Nature Seems To Love Irony (2)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 8 months ago | (#46356857)

Trees all across the globe have been "migrating" pole-wards (and upwards) since about 1970, however insect pests can migrate faster. It may be just coincidence but the notorious tree-ring proxy record becomes unreliable around 1960 ( in that it diverges from the instrumental record ).

Last I heard there were over 30 thousand species of plants and animals where the records are good enough to show they have significantly shifted their range in response to the warmer climate. Trees on low plains will need to (rapidly) adapt to dryer conditions, trees on the coast will have to adapt to rising salinity. Our crops and the infrastructure used to grow them will also need to either rapidly adapt or migrate.

If humans were rabbits we would have eaten ourselves to extinction by now. Rabbits and other mammals such as deer, when left unchecked on an island will breed and eat until the entire population collapses in a mass famine. Humans however go to war over resources so total population collapse is not necessarily a foregone conclusion. The famous humans on Easter Island did not die out when they cut the last tree down but they did have a very violent disagreement that reduced their population by about 90%. When Europeans first arrived the population still had not recovered, there were a few hundred people living on the island, compared to a few thousand in its heyday.

There's no escaping the fact that the Earth is one big fucking island floating around in space. The fact that we can't find aliens with something like SETI kind of disturbs me, it seems at odds with what we know about the chemistry of life and its subsequent evolution into multicellular critters. Maybe the answer to the question "where are they" is that technological species that can make radio telescopes only last a few centuries/millennia?

Woohoo, I'm AGW-neutral! (4, Funny)

srussia (884021) | about 8 months ago | (#46355719)

Pine tree air-freshener in my Range Rover!

An as always... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46355729)

Still retains that pine fresh smell

Settled science (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46355775)

Why new research into climate change? Haven't we been told the science was settled?

Re:Settled science (1)

Sique (173459) | about 8 months ago | (#46355845)

Of course. That's why so many people demand cutting grants to climate scientists.

Yes, it is settled. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46356157)

Does this affect the CO2 produced by combustion of HC in an O2 atmosphere? No.
Does this affect the IR properties of the CO2 interatomic bonds? No.
Does this affect thermodynamics? No.
Does this affect radiative physics? No.
Does this affect the Hadley Cell? No.
Storm formation? No.
How clouds form? No.
Stop warmer air holding more water? No.
.
.
.

Do you actually know what this science even IS?

Re:Settled science (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 8 months ago | (#46356201)

Why new research into climate change? Haven't we been told the science was settled?

We still need to refine the climate models so we can predict exactly how big a disaster the idiots are going to create.

Re:Settled science (1)

Sique (173459) | about 8 months ago | (#46356929)

Interesting thing: If the disaster prediction differs from the actual outcome just a few decimals after the period, scientist still will be told: "I said so, you were wrong from the beginning!"

OK let's talk warp speed (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46355815)

How you gonna stop? Where are you when you do? How you can move out of the way of that stuff out there? How is GPS going to work? These need to be answered before I start on my warp drive.

custom made gorillas in the synthetic mist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46355819)

or myst as it may be; http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=weather%20manipulation%20spraying&sm=3 or twisted as it may be; http://www.globalresearch.ca/weather-warfare-beware-the-us-military-s-experiments-with-climatic-warfare/7561

From anyone who's ever hiked - duh (4, Interesting)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 8 months ago | (#46355839)

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:From anyone who's ever hiked - duh (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 8 months ago | (#46356181)

hat bluish haze above northern forests (Maine, looking at you)

Duh, that's pot smoke (Maine, looking at you). :p

Re:From anyone who's ever hiked - duh (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 8 months ago | (#46356685)

To be fair, he said 'blue', not purple [youtube.com] .

Re:From anyone who's ever hiked - duh (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | about 8 months ago | (#46356891)

This is also old news in fine particle research circles (but so is every bit of science news by the time it reaches Slashdot :) Also, most of the current news you see on fine particles is about their negative effects -- for example, burning organic fuels kills a lot of people directly, rather than via global warming. On the other hand there are decades-old experiments on cloud seeding which also have an environmentally questionable reputation.

Not so (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46356911)

The haze you see in the NE is largely that it is a smog trap for pollution from the rest of the country. Pine aerosols may be a very small and beneficial part of an otherwise asthmatic toxic soup.

results of evironic vandalism unfictionalized? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46355863)

a rough draft then; http://youtu.be/CEdOqYEwcT8

Ronald Reagan was right! (1)

ctrl-alt-canc (977108) | about 8 months ago | (#46355881)

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." [rationalwiki.org]
Terpenes [wikipedia.org] are a well known component of aerosol away from cities, and studied since many years. Nothing new in the headline, after all...

Re:Ronald Reagan was right! (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about 8 months ago | (#46356601)

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." [rationalwiki.org] Terpenes [wikipedia.org] are a well known component of aerosol away from cities, and studied since many years. Nothing new in the headline, after all...

Yes, these are the terpenes that Reagan and James Watt (Reagan's Secretary of the Interior, not the inventor) were referring to. While they were sorta correct that you can't eliminate all the VOCs that contribute to smog by curtailing their emission by human activities, it was presented in the "complete solution or nothing at all" sort of fallacy. The whole thing got widely ridiculed -- albeit for the wrong reasons, even though it deserved it -- and Reagan distanced himself, throwing Watt under the bus. Or at least that's how I remember it. Memory might be kind of hazy, mostly due to all the smog back then.

I learned 2 things from this article... (4, Funny)

tlambert (566799) | about 8 months ago | (#46355901)

I learned 2 things from this article...

(1) Apparently cars with pine tree air fresheners really *are* cool...

(2) The actual cause of winter is all the christmas tree smell caused by growing them in the first place, and winter goes away after we cut them down, hold them hostage for a couple of weeks, and then release them, after which it starts warming up again...

Science: It's not just for breakfast any more!

Crap, wrong choice at the dealership (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46355915)

And here it seems the whole human population went with 'New Car Smell' instead of 'Pine Forrest'. Now you tell us it was a big mistake.

Vs. A Water Pump (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46355949)

Some trees emit a huge amount of water vapor which acts as a cooling agent and also causes clouds to form. Some trees can pump 30,000 gallons of water a day into the air. I would suspect that these trees are even better than pine trees at keeping things cool. Some of the invasive species that florida tries to hold back use copius amounts of water. The dreaded kudzo vine is also one heck of a water pump.

gorillas to be missed? freezebreeze to the rescue (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46355967)

like snowmonkeys http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=polar%20vortex%20weather%20modification%20&sm=3 we can admire ourselves & them until we melt down? pretense is useless,,, never a better time to consider ourselves in relation to one another & our surroundings...... Slashdot only allows....

Cloud seeding requires lack of seeding (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46356019)

The clouds can only be helped forming in conditiions where these aerosols are introduced in an area where there's not enough cloud condensing nuclei for the available water to accrete around.

Shit, boy, this is schoolyard physical geography here.

Mealy-mouthed terms (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46356103)

Ah, confirmation of my suspicion that "climate change" is just a mealy-mouthed way to continue to say "global warming" and meddle in the lives of poor and ordinary people but not, of course, the rich and powerful or the scientists themselves.
More reflected sunlight means less warming in the daytime, but that doesn't limit "climate change." It limits "global warming." The problem is that global temperatures have been flat for some 17 years, something not predicted in any of the global warming simulations. Talking about "climate change" gives these scientific alarmists an out if those flat temperature flip into a long-term cooling trend, perhaps due to changes in the sun.
The expression "climate change" actually means nothing and accusing opponents of denying it is bosh. The climate is always changing. There are a few decades of warming followed by a few of cooling. It's being mealy-mouthed. And of the two, warming is clearly better than cooling. In fact, we as humans would benefit from a bit warmer climate.
Those inclined to such hysterias are, of course, free to live on their beliefs much like the end-of-the-world religious cults of the nineteenth century. But they should leave the rest of us alone and perhaps go plant some pine trees. That'd at least do all of us some good.

trees (1)

vrhino (2987119) | about 8 months ago | (#46356119)

I thought we cut all of those trees down to make newspaper - before the newspapers went away

Who would have thought? (1)

EdwinFreed (1084059) | about 8 months ago | (#46356337)

That all we need to do is to replace existing robots with Robot 1-X?

What?!?!! Isn't the "science settled"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46356665)

If we don't know all there is to know about what can effect climate, how can the "science be settled"?

misleading title (1)

moke (574418) | about 8 months ago | (#46357077)

Shouldn't it be "Pine Forest Vapor Particles Can *Cause* Climate Change"?

And so the gravy train continues... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46357399)

There is no such thing as 'catastrophic man made global warming' - which is why the liars behind this massive SCAM renamed it 'climate change'. The whole thing is becoming a sick joke. It seems that you can get a nice, comfortable research grant for anything nowadays, as long as you include the magic words 'climate change'.

www.climatedepot.com

Banned in NYC (1)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | about 8 months ago | (#46357457)

The nannies do not want you or your trees vaping as the young'uns might start smoking.

Wow, Complexity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46358641)

Turns out that all those past doom and gloom climate simulations didn't account for all the factors, and never will.
Anyone that thinks they can model the climate over the long term is simply wild ass guessing due to over simplification.

Grow some stones (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46358665)

Call it 'Global Warming'. The climate is, was, and always will be changing.

A forest? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#46359357)

A Tree Farm is not a forest

powerful smell of pine trees (1)

NikeHerc (694644) | about 8 months ago | (#46359573)

If you've ever been in the chipper room at a pulp plant, you can appreciate how wonderful that smell is, much better than PineSol or anything else that ever came out of a bottle.

You can do better, BBC (1)

OneAhead (1495535) | about 8 months ago | (#46360619)

I've been faithfully following science stories on the BBC site for years now, and this one stands out like a sore thumb. Until now, they almost always interviewed independent UK scientists to help them interpret the impact of the original research in a new and noteworthy publication. Specifically, they almost always interview a scientist who downplays the impact, and usually also one who is more excited about it. I've always assumed this was part of their journalistic standard, and a shining example for a lot of other news outlets; interpreting scientific papers is tricky, and including varying opinions of independent scientists is paramount to giving the audience the full picture.

Now here, there's suddenly none of that; they only interviewed the first author of the paper, who naturally has a tendency to exaggerate the the impact of their research. No ill will, mind you; being passionate about one's work is a prerequisite to stay motivated as a scientists in the face of frustrating work and inhumanely long working hours. This passion will naturally bias any scientist in favor of their own research. Moreover, this kind of exaggeration is implicitly required by most granting agencies: they almost always require applicants to demonstrate wider impact, which in the case of fundamental research implies wild speculation.

Either way, since the BBC didn't do its job, allow me to cast myself in the role of the "skeptical" scientists they failed to interview. My field of research is not athmospheric science, but I'm familiar with both the underlying physical mechanisms and with fields that rely heavily on models. Here is what I learned by reading some of the paper and references. The problem they sought to tackle is that (local) athmospheric models fail to to accurately predict the amount of aerosols produced in the atmosphere from the low-volatility organic compounds emitted by boreal forests. This appears to be a well-known problem in their field, as testified by the cited references (especially ref. 2, Hallquist et al. in the open access journal "Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics" 2009, vol. 9, pp. 5155–5236 [atmos-chem-phys.net] ). So all TFA does is provide new insights in the underlying physical processes that could likely be used to rectify the (local) athmospheric models; this is nice work and worthy of publication in Nature. As customary, the authors begin and end their paper by speculating about the wider impact of their research, which is a natural thing to do, as explained above. In this case, they speculate that (global, long-timescale) climate models may suffer from the same flaw as the above athmospheric models, and that adjusting them accordingly will lead to less extreme climate change predictions (note how nobody spoke of qualitatively different outcomes). This sounds very much unwarranted to me; in my field, coarser, higer-level models are not build on lower-level models, but on the empirical observations the latter try to explain, and judging by the Hallquist paper, the fact that boreal forests produce more aerosols than expected has already been part of our empirical knowledge for many years. Which is unsurprising: we have satellites in space that very accurately measure the planet's local albedo.

TL;DR version: the authors speculate that their cool fundamental findings might have impact on a different subdiscipline (climate science), but from the information I could find, this speculation seems both unwarranted and unlikely. Not being deeply familiar with the science, the journalist converts this speculative part (of an otherwise good paper) into a misleading headline. They make the capital mistake of only interviewing the paper's first author, who does a poor job at putting their speculation into perspective. This is particularly unfortunate because it's such a sensitive subject; given this curious break of routine practices, the journalist (and by extension, the BBC) is exposing themselves to accusations of politically/financially motivated bias.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?