Trees absorb less carbon as climate warms - 22 Jan 2010  
email to friend  E-mail this to a Friend    Print

A new study by the University of Colorado at Boulder in the USA indicates that forests actually soak up less CO2 in longer, warmer growing seasons. Contrary to what was previously understood, this new research shows that decreased snowpack associated with climate change causes a corresponding decrease
in CO2 absorption by sub-alpine forests.

In analyzing the water content of the stems and needles of trees, the researchers found that even as late as September and October, 60% of the moisture contained in the trees could be traced back to spring snowmelt.
As noted by evolutionary biology professor Russell Monson, “Snow is much more effective than rain in delivering water to these forests.

If a warmer climate brings more rain, this won't offset the carbon uptake potential being lost due to declining snowpacks.” Professor Monson and fellow University of Colorado at Boulder scientists, many thanks for these detailed findings about the intricacies of water and carbon absorption in the forests.

Let us act now to preserve the delicate balance of life on our planet. Supreme Master Ching Hai has long emphasized the need for prayer and compassionate living to overcome the dangerous impacts of global warming, as in this August 2009 videoconference with Supreme Master Television staff.

Supreme Master Ching Hai: Even living forests, alive forests, if the atmosphere is too hot, the forests also cannot absorb CO2 and they could even release CO2 themselves as well.

Supreme Master Ching Hai: We just need to be patient, and praying a lot, praying a lot to all the gods and goddesses, all the divine beings, all the angels, to manifest themselves physically onto this planet and help each and every citizen of the world to awaken to a compassionate lifestyle so that they can escape from this planetary climate change.

Supreme Master Ching Hai:There’s only one escape route that I have told you already Be Veg. That’s the path to go, then maybe we still can have time.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100107183136.htm