Forests Protect the Climate. A Future With More Storms Would Mean Trouble.

...as the world continues to warm until the next Ice Age.

In the tropics, man, plants grow rapidly. Cat 5 hurricanes happen. All part of nature’s progression. Forget the Global Warming hand-wringing. Climate scientists will always find funding.

How long have we known that a beneficial side effect of photosynthesis is absorption of carbon dioxide and emission of necessity for human life, oxygen? I used to travel by plane often and view the grey rooftops, highways and parking lots across our nation. Just imagine if they were all covered with green growth. And if we had tree "farms" to meet our building needs instead of cutting down old growth and raping nature with "clearcuts". We also don't need more malls and homes whose square footage is slowly creeping toward 5,000. Yeah, it is perhaps a boon to our economy that we are such a consumer society, but think how much happier and healthier we would be if we didn't have so much "stuff", and had the time to enjoy the beauty of nature and the luxury of the warmth of family and friends. Not to mention this rotating rock we all live on would be preserved for future generations. Ah, dreams!

This is interesting, and it relates to another aspect of Puerto Rican culture. Puerto Rican cuisine does not make extensive use of corn tortillas like Mexico and Central America, and it's not because of the Spanish. It turns out that corn was not a reliable staple because of frequent hurricanes. Instead, yucca was used. (Source Wikipedia)

I just traveled from Princeton to Boston during the end of the recent storm. I'd guess that over a million trees were knocked down. Our extreme weather is not helping our stressed tree population. Ground-level ozone is not helping either: our trees have the arboreal equivalent of asthma from our pollution. This is serious stuff. Time to stop singing la la la la la I can't hear you and start paying attention. Even if you don't like/can't understand the scientific conclusions, surely the evidence is piling in. Our recent troubles are related to stuck patterns (a blocking high at Greenland, for example) which cause repeated events. We are facing our fourth northeaster since January 4. This is no joke.

Academics need something to do, Times Climate writers need to write, but isn't this really a little silly? If you have natural forests that a storm hits, those trees will eventually regrow. Sometimes natural disasters are the way evolution works, the strongest survive and the next generation of whatever gets stronger. On the other hand, trees cut down to make way for suburban developments, agriculture, etc. don't grow back do they? At least not to their previous level (ok, you cut down 20 trees so you can build your house and plant your garden and put a little oak tree in the front yard...not a wash). As far as storms increasing in strength. No evidence that is happening although the Times and certain climate scientists try to push that notion. All they've got though are computer models that spit out projections based on what is put into them. But let's say for whatever reason we have a period of more intense hurricanes, more frequent, the worst climate scenario imaginable. Whether or not they destroy more trees than our typical hurricanes have in the past is a matter of conjecture. Depends on where they hit doesn't it? But let's say future monster hurricanes destroy 5% more trees than would have happened without (theoretical) CC. What % of the world wide tree population would this make and how many more trees would be destroyed vs what humans cut down? And remember, those trees will grow back -- unless humans decide to build where they were.

Every forest should have a Gov. Brown. He makes inevitable deforestation a quick and dirty event.

Let's see, hurricanes and forest fires destroying forests, waming ocean temperatures destroying coral beds, the draining of various aquifers for agricultuer... obviously wise men would curtail the more destructive human activities and perhaps the most destructive of all S-E-X which well ledas to more of the most destructive creatures destroying other species and one would imagine in the end themsevles. I pray for an aerosol form of birth control to control this plague.

Wow, Nature's just not cutting us any slack. We were all warned as kids about messing with things, next time maybe we'll listen.

Innovations in combating the climate threat are needed in the way this article describes. However, transformations are also needed that are systemic and consider the interaction of global social and physical systems. One such transformation in combating looming climate catastrophe is making the unjust, unsustainable and, therefore, unstable international monetary system work and be transformed by basing it on a carbon standard, such as the specific tonnage of CO2e per person. The conceptual, institutional, ethical and strategic dimensions of such carbon-based international monetary system are discussed in Verhagen 2012 "The Tierra Solution: Resolving the climate crisis through monetary transformation" and updated at www.timun.net. An outstanding economics author and a globally known climate activist stated about the Tierra global system: “The further into the global warming area we go, the more physics and politics narrows our possible paths of action. Here’s a very cogent and well-argued account of one of the remaining possibilities.” Bill McKibben, May 17, 2011

This entire story is a huge loaf of baloney. Incidences of extreme weather are slightly below historical trends. Therefore, trees are not being damaged at an accelerated rate. This is hogwash--the type of phony environmental reporting that discredits the entire climate change meme.

Greatest threat to forests? Five letters. Starts with H and ends in N.

The doom and gloom newspaper at it again.

Is this a serious article? I have no doubt the tree loss from these incremental storms do not amount to a fraction of the direct and measurable losses from human deforestation in Brazil and elsewhere. Warren Buffett recently said that the ten-year period before this last year saw the fewest major hurricanes in recorded history. Climate change is a real and urgent issue today. Because of its seriousness, it deserves better than the data-deficient, highly opinionated sensationalism that The New York Times and other major outlets increasingly publish.

Crazy Headline. "Forests Protect the Climate, but Storms Are Threatening Them" !!! Written by same kind of people, who say costs are spiralling out of hands, so let cut down the number of workers (While gulping down million dollar salaries, off course.) Pathetic, Pathetic, Pathetic. Hey NY! - Forget the brains of Henry Foundation - You tell us- are storms the CAUSE OF deforestation, or are storms are CAUSED BECAUSE OF deforestation? New age science, huh! So, the enemy is the storm not cutting trees. I don't know... I mean, there weren't so many storms earlier, still, the forest cover of the planet was reducing; are you suggesting that the storms were deforesting the earth by proxy???

"extreme weather" is always expected by the left it just has never materialized! No increase in worldwide tropical cyclone energy, no increase in flooding, no increase in tornadoes , no increase in most any 'extreme" weather but we better spend trillions just in case it ever does!

Global plant mass has increased by 25% to 50% over the last several decades due in part to increases in CO2.

Our North American forests have been continually decimated for several centuries now. Logging continues to be the way of life especially out west and the upper midwest. Are millions of chopsticks and toothpicks and such really worth this harmful devastation today?

As evidenced by this fine piece, trees may be the ultimate symbol of our interconnectedness. See the many invocations of the Tree of Life in world religions. Here's a prayer that we don't convert this into the Tree of Death.

If only Arbor Day (April 27) was advertised and celebrated with even one percent of the energy, enthusiasm, and excitement seen every year with the Super Bowl, the World Series, Mardi Gras, and Halloween, think of how beneficial those results could be for the planet.

thank you for the informative article, but I think the article would have benefited from a more basic explanation of the photosynthesis/respiration process 'which removes carbon' from the atmosphere. I believe the national ignorance about climate change and carbon impact stems from a large part of the population being woefully uninformed about these basic building blocks of life on earth.

The forests are the lungs of the planet, locking away huge amounts of carbon dioxide that we emit. Reduced carbon absorption by forests means accelerated carbon release into the atmosphere. It’s extremely worrisome that the planet’s forests and oceans are being pushed to such extremes, and that the resilience of these systems are in question. It's at least hopefully to see new fronds sprouting from some of the standing trees, but this hurricane was a huge blow to El Yunque National Forest, the only tropical rain forest in the United States National Forest System. We should be doing everything we can to protect our forests and oceans that sustain us. We could not have a worse president at a worse time.

global warming is a problem, which we have to raise awareness, value what we have is a way to take care of it,

Oh please, while climate changes will obviously eradicate forests, it is nowhere near as bad as the annihilation of forests carried out by us. Humans, directly, are dead set on eliminating all major forests, and have been ever since the industrial era, and more inefficiently before that. Yes, we're going to lose a lot of forests and all that implies, and our deserts are going to get larger. There is no avoiding that now, but it can't be stressed enough, humans are primarily to blame. The planet, and life itself, will get through this, as it has through much more devastating eras. Humans might not, but that's our bad.

Everything aspect of the biosphere, including the forests, have been negatively affected by human overpopulation. This is the fundamental environmental problem which causes all other ecological problems, one of which is anthropogenic global warming. Logging has probably destroyed more of the Earth's forests than human induced climate change.

There was so much death in New Orleans after the levees broke that there was little discussion of the tree destruction. Nonetheless, the loss was immense and had consequences.

As a hillbilly that me state that here the the hills of Va, WV Md Pa, THe forests are in greater danger from fracking, mountaintop removal mining and strip logging. Our non-environmental frinds need to realize that I can plant an acorn and 20 yrs from now a tree will be there but I can not plant a mountain. When It's dead its dead.

Oh, I love trees, except when they fall on our antiquated above ground electric power lines, and when when they fall on peoples houses.

The loss of such a treasure for the island is heart wrenching. In addition to the good trees do for the air quality, to be able to roam in a forest is a balm for the soul. Is there a fund to plant more trees to replace the ones lost?

I have been walking the wooded hills of southeastern Pennsylvania for 60 years. Granted that anecdote is not data, but I have made some troubling observations. I have noted no uptick in storms, but where in years past I'd follow deer trails through an abundant understory, it has now become usual to struggle through tangles of deadfalls and broken limbs across many wide stretches of woodland. I've also noted a great increase in the number of Pileated Woodpeckers, which feed on insects deep in the wood of large diseased and dying trees. Decades past I had to work to see a Pileated. Now I see one near every time I walk. Just anecdotally, I'd conclude that much of the second growth woodland in this area is unhealthy. Is this a response to stress from rising temperatures as trees find themselves out of their climate zone? An increase in insects because of less winter kill? Is an increase in CO2 leading to faster growth and weaker wood? Or am I just becoming pessimistic with age?

The problem may be much worse. The carbon cycle requires vegetation to perform an essential metabolic process to convert carbon dioxide to oxygen. This involves biochemical reactions that evolved for - and are optimized for - narrow physiological conditions. There is reason to believe that increasing the partial pressure of CO2 will interfere with this process. In simple terms : more atmospheric carbon dioxide equals less efficient production of oxygen. This is the terrestrial equivalent of ocean acidification. It could result in a rapidly accelerating feed-forward cycle of cascading disruption of metabolism within all living animals. It is also possible that this mechanism involves 'tipping points' beyond which the hypothesized process becomes irreversible - and we have no basis for evaluating whether or not we have taken the planet past one or more such critical points. This is what runaway climate decompensation means - it is by far the greatest challenge facing humanity.

I worked the field of psychology and I eventually came to an interesting perspective. It is amazing to see how many people believe that other people around them actually want to live. Take a closer look at those other people around you... make it easier on yourself... do they look like they actually want to live?

This looks like fine work. I especially like that her web site is so careful to credit by name and summary her students present and past. More than just fair, it suggests care for detail. The article does not mention some of the complexity of her work. What is knocked down does not return instantly to carbon. It rots slowly, and when it does the carbon goes into the soil, not the air, unless it all burns. The route and time back to carbon in the air can be long and complicated. What grows back grows faster with more sunlight, and the healing takes in more carbon than a steady state of growth. Even if what grows is smaller, the total mass of carbon that grows is defined by available sunlight over area, not by size of individual trees. The carbon already stored in the growth is a function of time, not size of individual plants or trees. There could even be a brief inhale, as the forest takes in even more carbon. Of course the exhale come, even if it is slower. Damage to forests is serious. However, as specifically to carbon, it might well not be so bad. That requires careful study, which she seems to be doing. I'll bet she could have explained all of this to the reporter, but it just did not make it into the article.

This is a good example of a positive feedback loop. Warming causes--or actually exacerbates the forest damage. And that damage in turn causes more warming as the forest carbon sink is reduced. As a layman interested in climate change, these feedback loops--and there are many--is one reason we should be very alarmed. The total affect of them is beyond current science but could push us to a point of no return in just a few years.

Although the numbers of people who really care are increasing, too many people just see trees as things that grow or get in the way or 'whatever'. What happens during major storms isn't necessarily tree failure. In the Pacific NW, major storms have destroyed countless trees. Atypical winds shear off tops or whole trees, and widespread tree failures can occur, not because the trees fail, but because the soil 'fails'. The soil become so saturated that the roots can't 'hold on', and over the tree goes. Increased drought periods stress trees. Increased wet winters stress trees. Disease and pest cycles can upswing. Mountain Pine Beetle has decimated thousands and thousands of acres of forests in western Canada. Tree planting, of right species, right place, isn't taking place at high enough numbers. I've been an arborist for more than 20 years and I see things every day, like species decline or cumulative drought stress, that disturb me. Locally, some of us are trying to get a tree protection bylaw from our local government; all they want is to make it easier for developers. So, now we work ahead on our next election and try to get better people in. Can we do this in time? I'm not sure.

As well as hurricane effect, the increasingly severe droughts related to climate change cause severe reductions in the forests ability to sequester carbon, even if the forest appears to be healthy. Much less obvious but still important.

Hurricanes occur naturally, but the human community are able to respond, I think. One possible response could be the creation of an industry which will manage the biomass, biodiversity and areal coverage of the forests. I can imagine every nation doing this, beginning with the enlistment of a scientific team like Dr. Uriarte's team who will monitor and report the condition of the forests. They can then collaborate with other workers who will design the best way to maintain or enhance the forest's biomass and areal coverage and maintain the forest's biodiversity. Another team will then actually enact that strategy. As I see it, that could kill two birds with one stone: it will help maintain a natural resource more sustainably, while allowing the community to impute a cost to the environmental services provided by forests (and oceans, etc.). It will also serve to provide jobs that cannot be exported or outsourced. It should be possible to pay for that work and the required ongoing research by levying taxes for pollution, etc. So my modest proposal is to have every nation create such an industry.

Hurricanes are a natural phenomenon that have been occurring as long as there has been land and ocean. We're not going to stop that. Nature has a way of taking care of itself, if only we let it.

In January a weather event knocked down 100 old growth trees on the Olympic Peninsula. There wasn't a signature on radar nor were there any strong winds detected by nearby stations, and the theory behind the trees getting toppled was that wind shear caused the trees to get knocked down. "Warm air moved above cool surface air. Different wind directions, dropping pressure and other factors led winds to reverse direction in a rotor wave between the two ridges." https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/mysterious-wind... Old growth trees in the National Forests are surrounded by the tree farm-sized trees, about 1/3 the size of the old growth trees, and the smaller trees have a lower diversity plus they exhibit lower productivity than old growth stands. The event occurred in the National Park which was established by Grover Cleveland in 1897 so old growth stands just don't compare to the trees that existed prior to logging, and the National Forest is really just a large tree farm and gun range. There are old growth stumps all over Washington that were twice as large as any old growth tree I've seen. Intact forests resist climate change better than any ecosystem I've ever seen. Boreal forests hold onto 1/3 of the world's permafrost. Furthermore,"large trees accumulate more carbon than small trees, conserving old growth forests could lead to big returns for stabilizing the global climate." http://www.wri.org/blog/2017/01/intact-forest... Save these trees!

A growing forest, with it's yearly increase in bio-mass, absorbs and sequesters more carbon than a mature forest whose trees have pretty much reached their growth maximum. So while the premise behind this doom-saying might be reasonable for a few years, pretty soon (and for decades to come) the pessimistic assumptions will be off by 180 degrees.

Without trees were are all dead. I've been writing comments for years about the need to plant trees and if it was obvious to me, an ordinary citizen, I do not know why governments have not made it happen. FDR planted 3 billion trees in the 30s and now I suspect we need many more than that. What are we waiting for?

Fools like Trump and Pruitt are denying that climate change even exists; scientists all over the world are working to improve their predictions of the linkages between global warming and extreme weather events; field heroes such Maria Uriarte are doing the tedious, backbreaking, but absolutely essential work of examining the effects of those extreme weather events. And Trump and Pruitt are somehow identified as our "leaders"? I'm not buying it — I'll follow Uriarte and her fellow scientists instead, thankyouverymuch.

This is interesting, but our media rarely talks about deforestation in North America. Logging operations in Canada and the US are nowhere near sustainable, and the clearcuts and small tree farms result in much higher local land and stream temperatures. Google Earth North America and you will get the picture. Logging is subsidized by both governments. After a forest is destroyed by clearcutting, the owners get tax writeoffs for whatever replanting they do, whether it succeeds or not (many fail after 3-4 "rotations". The main wood products demand is housing, since, incredibly, we are building homes from two by fours in the 21st century. They are maintenance intensive, fuel heavy, and last an average of 60 years. In cities like Moscow and London, great fires burned down most of them centuries ago. Codes then specified inert materials only in dense areas. We don't do that here, which leads to things like the Chubb Fire in Santa Rosa, or other huge fires in Oakland and Malibu. The fires spread from the 20 tons of wood in the homes. Let's use steel, concrete, or bricks instead. The Koch Brothers won't like it, but it is necessary.

So as the rest of the US has done, plant more trees. This area might need some planting to help it recover. How about not cutting down rain forests around the world to help.