New ESA satelite Science July 2021. “ESA Earth observations are increasingly showing that trees and forests are impacting climate by affecting biophysical surface properties,” says one of the co-authors of the study, Alessandro Cescatti.
The paper describes how cloud generally increased over the whole year in afforested areas in temperate, tropical, and arid regions, sometimes by as much as 15%.
However, during the boreal winter and spring across North America, Russia, and Eastern Europe, when these regions have prolonged snow cover, the authors found a reduction in cloud cover over forests compared to open land. The boreal summer, on the other hand, has strong and consistent increases in cloud fraction by about 5%.
“Without global cloud and land-cover type observations from satellites this study would not have been possible on a global scale,” says Martin Stengel, who was not involved in the study but leads the Climate Change Initiative Cloud project. “The authors of this study appreciated the high-spatial resolution of the initiative’s products.”
Dr. Cescatti added, “Studies like this one, based on robust satellite observations, are fundamental to characterize the complexity of the climate system and provide benchmarks for climate model developments.”
The team emphasizes that land-based climate mitigation through afforestation, forest restoration, and avoided deforestation should not be reasoned purely in terms of carbon capture. Instead, policies should include the wider climate benefits that forests offer, including increasing cloud cover for localized cooling and generating rainfall, giving forests additional hydrological value.
RESEARCH: “Revealing the widespread potential of forests to increase low level cloud cover” by Gregory Duveiller, Federico Filipponi, Andrej Ceglar, Jędrzej Bojanowski, Ramdane Alkama and Alessandro Cescatti, 15 July 2021, Nature Communications.
Also: forest/grassland transition zone is especially vulnerable to projected drastic temperature and precipitation shifts and growing extremes due to its high ecohydrological sensitivity. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms7603
Forests sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide, accumulate biomass, control water erosion and dust storms, reduce river sedimentation, and mitigate small floods. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/8/085001https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/8/085001
Climate Impacts from Afforestation and Deforestation in Europe
IPCC refers to this article explains that forest felling matters: Quote: Vegetation change should be taken into account when simulating past, present, and future climate.
Also: Evapotranspiration increased in response to land use (mainly large-scale re- and afforestation) and climate change in most of Europe. https://hess.copernicus.org/preprints/hess-2018-634/hess-2018-634.pdf
Also: The hydrological legacy of deforestation on global wetlands; https://science.sciencemag.org/content/346/6211/844.abstract
Quote: “Deforestation has created new wetlands or increased the water level in existing wetlands. Recognition of this effect has implications for landscape management” Therefore local measurements and caution is needed before giving forest felling out permits. Biophysical forcings of land-use changes from potential forestry activities in North America, Therefore Estonia must act too. See: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262638858_Biophysical_forcings_of_land-use_changes_from_potential_forestry_activities_in_North_Americahttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/262638858_Biophysical_forcings_of_land-use_changes_from_potential_forestry_activities_in_North_America
Global IPCC climate report august 2021 explains that forestry matters. Page 3158
Latvia & USA gets carbon neutral by using trees. No windmills needed!
Protecting Estonian Forests Is Critical for Climate Mitigation, USA tells!
forests provide a “carbon sink” that absorbs a net 7.6 billion metric tones of CO2 per year, 1.5 times more carbon than the United States emits annually. What about Estonia?
Update Nov 2nd, 2021 World Leaders decide. Estonia, no.31
Latvian carbon absorbtion by the forest to acieve the climate goal.
Latvia uses their forest to acieve the climate goals their national plan shows!
Forest rich counties do not need windmills to get the EU green deal done!
The only real green is the green of the forest!
Conclusion: To travel one year a car you need 10 X 121 trees. That’s 1210 or one hectare forest.
Estonian CO2 capture figures:
Forest land and forestry is the key sector for GHG sequestration and is compensating for other sectors GHG emissions. LULUCF sector acts as a sink due to forest land and forestry: in 2019 the LULUCF sector (land use, land-use change and forestry) total uptake was -725.99 kt CO2 equivalent.
Estonia goes wrong by burning the forest.
Estonian government in early 2021 announced plans to reach carbon neutrality by 2050 and to stop producing shale oil in 2035.
In Estonia Oil shale accounted for 72% of Estonia’s total domestic energy production, 73% of total primary energy supply and 76% of electricity generation. An unique satiation.
Renewable energy already covered one-third of consumption in the second quarter 2021.
A 1,000-hectare forest can absorb 15,000–26,000 tones of carbon dioxide per year
Fish rivers dry. Salmon cooked. Climate change is already disrupting US forests cand coasts this researsh shows. So is Estonia!
Windmills cause local climate change, this new research shows. NEW law aplies to this research above. Forces to ACT.
This is the EU law violated that stopped all building of windmill parks 2021 in the EU!
New field research is needed according to the new EU law to receive or keep a valid wind park permit.
The competent authority must set standards for each KMH. Standards must be properly be substantiated for the specific KMH. Need a thorough environmental assessment is needed Actual measurements and real research are needed for a specific wind farm. acting unlawfully justify a claim because of improper governmental management. See other posts or the link to your language version of the EU law. eesti Keel, Euroopa Liidu Kohus PRESSITEADE nr 77/20 Luxembourg, 25. juuni 2020 Kohtuotsus (kohtuasi C-24/19).
Simply explained the law demands that humans are protected by maximum risks levels set upfront
Risk levels must be a part of the permit. Just like we do with other stuff, like a vaccine for example. In the EU we do not accept the Russian Sputnik vaccine, because it was not tested upfront. This law demands we test and limit the risks upfront just as we do with medicine. Doesn’t it sound logical? Windmills can kill: “Eitapjatuulikutele” or “no killer mills” is our name!
EU councils of state demand EU nations to set the values that do not harm people.
All over the EU windfarms are stopped. The Dutch court ordered a stop on all new building permits until the parliament decides on the critical values that must be based upon science upon real measurable data. Not a model. So, first, build 400-meter test windmills, then measure and research upon open science( Estonia has not we explained in other posts). Then set values. When governments (like Häädemeeste parish on august 5th 2021) try to bypass these rules they are liable because of improper management and ignoring the law. It’s above all very undemocratic, just before elections, after the Sea planning was killed, the parish rejected KMH, The Green deal offers an alternative (see other recent posts). If they still do so, the permits they all cheat on are void (as if they did not exist). Here is the Dutch newspaper that explains. https://www.nu.nl/economie/6142649/kabinet-moet-bouwregels-voor-windmolens-aanpassen.html
This EU law applies also uneconomic use of resources, article 5 of the Estonian constitution.
Estonians remember the soviet times when uneconomic usage polluted and killed people. To prevent that from happening again all activity must be economically sound in Estonia. Demand-driven, not pushed by plans or the state like in the old times. For example. Estonia now builds 7 times more wind energy than it needs. Making more than you need is uneconomic too.
It’s also not the task of Estonian Energy to risk business outside the country too. Risks like this are for the taxpayer. You cannot copy a windmills success from wind west-EU to 7 times less windy and icy Estonia and expect to make a profit. Happy to have art 5. and this EU law to protect the people. This law protects against dumb businessmen who make their profit based on subsidations and selling Estonian land and sea (&forest) abroad. Please support us & Estonia by telling this story around or donate!