Is planting trees actually good for the planet?

[UNOE]

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2927/examining-the-viability-of-planting-trees-to-help-mitigate-climate-change/

Key questions scientists will need to address are how global reforestation might affect Earth’s surface albedo (reflectivity) and evapotranspiration. In the near term and locally, says Saatchi, forest restoration may actually have a warming effect. As the trees mature, the new forest canopy cover would presumably make Earth’s surface albedo darker, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere during periods of snow cover, causing it to absorb more heat. Increasing forest cover, particularly in the tropics, will increase evapotranspiration, causing a cooling effect. With Earth already warming significantly due to greenhouse gas emissions, will forest reforestation on a global scale have a net warming or cooling effect on our planet, and will the benefits of reforested areas absorbing more carbon outweigh their increased heat absorption?

[1715113275]

1715113275

[1715113275]

1715113275

[franky1]

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2927/examining-the-viability-of-planting-trees-to-help-mitigate-climate-change/

Key questions scientists will need to address are how global reforestation might affect Earth’s surface albedo (reflectivity) and evapotranspiration. In the near term and locally, says Saatchi, forest restoration may actually have a warming effect. As the trees mature, the new forest canopy cover would presumably make Earth’s surface albedo darker, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere during periods of snow cover, causing it to absorb more heat. Increasing forest cover, particularly in the tropics, will increase evapotranspiration, causing a cooling effect.

as you can see they are actually talking about rain, snow, shadows and evaporation.. the true reasons for land temperature changes.(water cycle not carbon)

below is just the upper atmosphere that does not have the same extent of causality of ground temperatures as water.

With Earth already warming significantly due to greenhouse gas emissions, will forest reforestation on a global scale have a net warming or cooling effect on our planet, and will the benefits of reforested areas absorbing more carbon outweigh their increased heat absorption?

.. anyway
different tree's in different climates can help
for instance small foliage tall trunk trees are better for the northern hemisphere.
where as large foliage for the equator

as for the carbon absorbtion (separate issue due to lung health) bamboo can be planted tighter together and traps more carbon per year than say an oak. and by harvesting and replanting keeps the location in an optimum carbon sink. due to most growth related to younger tree's than older trees.

if you imaging the wide diameter of a oak foliage and the multiple trumps of bamboo than can be planted in that same diameter. the maths makes bamboo better option

..
the true cause of temperature rise is most water/rain ends up in drains and sewers and not just settling on land. thus less evaporation thus less clouds thus less rain thus drought

..
here is the big revealer.. when nasa studied terraforming the moon/mars they were not looking for carbon. they were looking for water. they know water is more important

[akram143]

Planting trees can be never act as the deforestation we made for the last few centuries because it takes decades for a tree to get completely grown which could help the ecosystem to get stabilized but new plants and trees take underground water to grow which is another problem since most places already drought climbing up due to climate changes.

[UNOE]

Should the extra CO2 make it easier for the plants to grow&expand?

[Jet Cash]

Saatchi id a globalist organisation, so of course they will try to reduce reforestation. Trees stabilise the land and help to resyore th groundwater that is needed for farming. At the moment, the glabalists are trying to reduce farming to create famine,

Don't let them win, plant a tree.

[bobitza]

Growing greenery is really good for our planet. Planting trees helps to keep the air fresh and cool. Without greenery the environment will be polluted, people will breathe polluted air. Increasing disease, dangerous diseases. People should plant more trees to protect the environment.

[squatz1]

Yes. It is possible that planting trees is good for the planet because it actually is good for the planet. I made that as simple as possible because it seems that some of you are unable to understand basic science. This has been proved over and over. See all of the science stuff and articles from various news sources documenting that FACT.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/04/planting-billions-trees-best-tackle-climate-crisis-scientists-canopy-emissions
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/01/silver-bullet-to-suck-co2-from-air-and-halt-climate-change-ruled-out
https://apnews.com/8ac33686b64a4fbc991997a72683b1c5 - trillion trees, yes I know.

This is the simplest method we currently have to fight climate change, and who hates trees?

Most people know that trees are good for them. They absorb carbon dioxide, thus purifying the air for our breathing pleasure. Carbon dioxide is also one of the main greenhouse gases, which trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to rising temperatures and climate change.

[Tash]

When i die, i become a tree. It be a hard choice of which particular tree, oak, birch... but i think will settle for some kind of nut.
"Green cemeteries" is still in the start up phase and the burial of the body in embryo shape is not even legal in some countries.
https://www.capsulamundi.it/en/
Will certainly invest in a cemetery forest plot when available. Instead of wasting wood on coffin it rater be in a sacred forest.

[merchantofzeny]

When i die, i become a tree. It be a hard choice of which particular tree, oak, birch... but i think will settle for some kind of nut.
"Green cemeteries" is still in the start up phase and the burial of the body in embryo shape is not even legal in some countries.
https://www.capsulamundi.it/en/
Will certainly invest in a cemetery forest plot when available. Instead of wasting wood on coffin it rater be in a sacred forest.

I'd prefer the cremated variant. I find the whole body under a tree a bit morbid. If this every becomes a thing in my country there's a change that the trees can get uprooted and expose the skeletons.

I'd prefer my ashes just scattered up the mountains to fertilize the forest but I see the benefit of sticking remains under a tree. It's no longer just a tree - it's a living remain of a loved one. That gives people more incentives to keep the tree alive.

[bhabygrim]

I think that planting trees is actually good for the planet it would give us shelter and clean air.
If you could compare the air in a city with less tree and the countryside the air in country side is much more fresh and clean it is also colder in that area.

[akram143]

I think that planting trees is actually good for the planet it would give us shelter and clean air.
If you could compare the air in a city with less tree and the countryside the air in country side is much more fresh and clean it is also colder in that area.

It is because of pollution, is that tree helps to educe pollution of air?

[Jet Cash]

Apart from producing oxygen, and stabilising the water table,trees have other important functions. They provide homes for a variety of wildlife, and help to return minerals into the soil. Trees used to be used to clean the soil in decommissioned petrol filling stations, but it takes 20 or 30 years for the trees to do this naturally. Modern builders are not prepared to wait that long, so they cut down the trees, and build on the land. This means that the new occupiers of the land are poisoned slowly. Of course this helps to fund the big pharma companies.

[sovie]

Tree's benefits are enormous, you can plant them without any fear of any side effects. The problem is we think too much for planting trees but no attention is paid while cutting these trees. There is no artificial way to fix the amount of carbon in the air, only trees can remove carbon from the air.

[Jet Cash]

The only downside  to trees is that people use leaf blowers to blow their leaves onto their neighbour's garden. Then the neighbour uses his leaf blower to blow them back. The lazy far gits should get some exercise, and pick up the leaves.

[TheCoinGrabber]

I don't think it's realistic to simply rely on planting trees to reduce to co2 levels but having trees really have benefits. For me in a hot location, the biggest would be temperature control. Have enough of them in the right places and it could cut down on electricity used for cooling.

The only downside  to trees is that people use leaf blowers to blow their leaves onto their neighbour's garden. Then the neighbour uses his leaf blower to blow them back. The lazy far gits should get some exercise, and pick up the leaves.

First time I saw a leaf blower (I don't live in the US) I thought it was absolutely stupid and lazy. My same view on dishwashers. Like, would it kill you if you use your hands for 5-10 minutes?

[chaoscoinz]

The article makes sense, I think we should wait a few years or so until the science and mathematics becomes more advance before planting a shit load of trees in a desperate attempt to resolve a green problem that we've haven't quite gotten to the root of yet (no pun intended). The technology is advancing, I know we need to at least prepare a temporary solution to at least alleviate the issue, while we spend the time advancing our sciences to a point that we can actually directly fix the problem.

Just my two cents! 

[gabmen]

Well the simple answer to what the op asked is obviously yes. Though i doubt that what's indicated in the article will actually happen. We're expanding our structural and industrial growth, hence we won't have that much space to plant trees on to have that effect that the article mentioned. For me, just plant when and where you can.

[Spendulus]

The article makes sense, I think we should wait a few years or so until the science and mathematics becomes more advance before planting a shit load of trees in a desperate attempt to resolve a green problem that we've haven't quite gotten to the root of yet (no pun intended). The technology is advancing, I know we need to at least prepare a temporary solution to at least alleviate the issue, while we spend the time advancing our sciences to a point that we can actually directly fix the problem.

Just my two cents! 

Wait a minute. You mean we might or might not have some huge global warming problem and we don't even know if planting trees is good?

[panganib999]

The article makes sense, I think we should wait a few years or so until the science and mathematics becomes more advance before planting a shit load of trees in a desperate attempt to resolve a green problem that we've haven't quite gotten to the root of yet (no pun intended). The technology is advancing, I know we need to at least prepare a temporary solution to at least alleviate the issue, while we spend the time advancing our sciences to a point that we can actually directly fix the problem.

Just my two cents!  

We don't need a sht load of trees, we just need to plant trees. That's it. Even a single tree per person alive is already quite a lot imo. Just like how having none or little is bad, having too many may also be bad for the ecosystem. Also, the tech advancement you're saying is the cause for problems that are arising in the ecosystem, and the tree plantings are the ones that are solving it lmao. If it stopped, I'd say that any type of fix done after that period of time would need hundreds of years before it could take into effect. We can plant trees while finding for a direct fix imo, no need to stop doing such because we don't know it's effects, as long as we regulate it, I'd say all is fine.

[Spendulus]

The article makes sense, I think we should wait a few years or so until the science and mathematics becomes more advance before planting a shit load of trees in a desperate attempt to resolve a green problem that we've haven't quite gotten to the root of yet (no pun intended). The technology is advancing, I know we need to at least prepare a temporary solution to at least alleviate the issue, while we spend the time advancing our sciences to a point that we can actually directly fix the problem.

Just my two cents!  

We don't need a sht load of trees, we just need to plant trees. That's it. Even a single tree per person alive is already quite a lot imo. Just like how having none or little is bad, having too many may also be bad for the ecosystem. Also, the tech advancement you're saying is the cause for problems that are arising in the ecosystem, and the tree plantings are the ones that are solving it lmao. If it stopped, I'd say that any type of fix done after that period of time would need hundreds of years before it could take into effect. We can plant trees while finding for a direct fix imo, no need to stop doing such because we don't know it's effects, as long as we regulate it, I'd say all is fine.

Has anyone ever told you that trees sort of plant themselves? It's pretty cool how it works, too. Humans may plant the wrong ones, but nature sees to it that the right ones live in every single spot.