Home  -  Articles  -  Forums  -  Blog  -  Billboard  -  Projects  -  Newsletters  -  EcoWorld.org  -  Register!  -  About EcoWorld
Air  -  Water  -  Earth  -  Plants  -  Trees  -  Animals  -  People  -  Energy & Technology  -  Goods  -  Funds  -  Media  -  Tours

Join EcoWorld
REGISTER with EcoWorld, and help us build the Global Environmental Community

Recent Commentary
Bright Source’s Power Tower
Polaris Venture’s Bob Metcalf
Fossil Fuel Reality
Affordable Green Homes
Novel Thermal Storage
Volvo’s Future Car
Miles Electric Vehicles
ESS Compliance Software
Financing Photovoltaics
Trees, Water & Climate
Antarctica’s Ice Mass
GM’s Volt on track for 2010
Unions - Ideals vs. Reality
Strategic Green
Venrock’s Matt Trevithick
Aquabirds & Aquabuoys
Revisiting Biofuel
Greens and James Inhofe
100% EVs vs. Series Hybrids
Rational Environmentalism
Farallon’s Fur Seals
Hydrogen Hydrogen Oxygen
Natural Gas Series Hybrids
Freeways, Cars & Trucks
Photovoltaic vs. Thermal
E-Cards
Send an
Electronic
Postcard
EcoWorld Tours
EcoWorld '05 EcoTour Survey
OneWorld Journeys
EcoWorld Forums
Biofuel Forum
Electricity Forum
Reforesting Forum
EcoWorld Feature Articles
Optimizing Biofuel
China's Eco-Crisis
India's Hydro Power
French Nuclear Debate
Markets Solve Scarcity
India's Water Consciousness
EcoWorld EV Gallery
Free Market Greens
Biofuel's Mixed Blessings
Reforesting the Tropics
China's Energy Demand
India's Solar Power
Our Endangered Oceans
India's Green Future
Global Warming Priorities
CO2 Taxes
China's Renewable Energy
Biofuel Bonanza
Inconvenient Truth Rebuttal
Reforesting the World
Inconvenient Skeptics
Solar Energy in Egypt
Saving Wild Species
Factory Farmed Biofuel
Global Warming Facts
Electrifying Central Asia
India's Nuclear Power
Climate Catastrophe?
Bioethanol vs. Biodiesel
Asia's Embattled Tigers
Factory Hog Farming
China's Wind Power
Ethanol in Africa
Biodynamic Farming
Global Warming
Growing Biofuel
India's Biodiesel Scene
Saving Giant Sea Turtles
India's Water Future
Clean Coal Technology
Central American Biocorridors
Arctic Rivers Save Aral Sea
Profitable Reforestation
Earth Projects
Arctic to Aral
India's Rishi Valley
Mesoamerican Biocorridor
Clean the Ganges
Refill the Aral Sea
Deforesting to Reforesting
more Projects . . .
Maps & Information
Countries - Watersheds
EcoRegions

Knowledge is Power!
Support EcoWorld
Buy Books Here
(Amazon Affiliate)

The Hydrogen Economy:
The Creation of the
Worldwide Energy Web
and the Redistribution
of Power on Earth

Blue Gold:
The Fight to Stop
the Corporate Theft
of the World's Water
Today is May 12, 2008
Editor's Commentary

Trees, Water & Climate

On the U.K. based website The Independent, their science section published a report on March 19th entitled “Dams:  Deep Trouble.”  Below this ominous title, the tag line read “Are vast dams around the world masking the full extent of sea level rise?”

The story goes on to state “over the past 50 years, new dams and reservoirs have held back some 10,800 cubic kilometers of water, which would have been enough to raise global sea levels by about 30mm.”  We crunched the numbers and came in at 32mm, and while the 10,800 km3 of water in reservoirs seems a bit high, let’s go with it.  But the implication - that we’ve stopped building dams and therefore we’ll see a sea level rise of somewhat more than an inch - is underwhelming.

The Independent can be commended for noting other factors that may have been equally significant, such as draining of wetlands and aquifer depletion.  But the 800 pound gorilla is deforestation, alluded to in the Independent’s article, but the focus of this post.


Rabbits will find the tall grass.
(Photo: EcoWorld)

We believe if there is climate change - which is manifested regionally and consists of three only indirectly related phenomena; drought, extreme weather, and global warming - it is the result of deforestation far more than the result of human CO2 emissions.  And with respect to deforestation and sea level rise, it is clear that deforestation, at least theoretically, has had a far more dramatic impact on sea level rise than construction of large reservoirs.

There is an extremely interesting website called “Ten Billion Acres,” that advocates “reforesting planet earth for the sake of human survival.” They take the position, with detailed arguments that are at the very least thought provoking, that “were there enough Trees in the equation, Climate Change would not be occurring other than that which would be normal for the Earth’s and Oceans’ cycles during this Era.”  “Ten Billion Acres” refers to the amount of deforestation experienced on earth in the last 500 years - accelerated in the last 150 years.  We’ve verified these numbers - ten billion acres is approximately 15 million square miles or 40 million square kilometers - so how much land-based water was lost when these trees were cut down?

It is shockingly difficult to get online data on the water content of trees, but thanks to Google Books, there is a 1896 study available that documents the water content of a variety of representative species of trees through the cycle of seasons.  The study is entitled “On the variation of water content in trees,” by James Barkley Pollock of the University of Wisconson.  And it is clear from the data presented that the water content of trees is at least 50%, averaged across all trees and all seasons.

If you assume, for a global average, a forest has one tree for every five square meters, and that each tree has 10 cubic meters of mass (you can roll that around, this average assumes a rather dense forest of rather small trees, but overall these are probably somewhat conservative assumptions), then with a 50% water content, land based water that’s been lost to the oceans through deforestation would total 40,000 cubic kilometers, 4x the water volume sequestered in large reservoirs.  And this number is grossly understated, since trees also sequester water underground as well as play a crucial role in replenishing aquifers.  So why aren’t sea levels much higher?

At the least, these calculations indicate we still understand very little regarding the global hydrologic cycle.  The volume of subsurface water, and the impact of depleting these aquifers still requires significant investigations.  Our conclusion is that once again, the emphasis on CO2, or reservoirs for that matter, is misplaced.  We should be figuring out how to increase forest canopy, particularly in the tropics where deforestation has the most significant impact on rainfall, aquifer health, climate, and global atmospheric quality.  And we should be figuring out how to restore positive inflow to every aquifer on earth, where negative drawdowns have been grossly unsustainable ever since the invention of the mechanized pump.

Related Links:
Hydraulic Redistribution
Ogalalla Aquifer (Wikipedia)
CO2 & Global Warming
Aquabirds & Aquabuoys

One Response to “Trees, Water & Climate”

  1. ecolectic » Blog Archive » Bury trees to sequester CO2??? Try charcoal… Says:

    [...] which is mostly water, even trees, averaged over variety, climate, and season, still consist of roughly 50% water. Why waste all the space underground (presumably in old mines, empty oil and natural gas [...]

Leave a Reply


Google

Learn Much More!
Click & Buy Books
(Amazon Affiliate)
Cradle to Cradle:
Remaking the Way
We Make Things

World Encyclopedia
of Trees


Natural Capitalism:
Creating the Next
Industrial Revolution


Encyclopedia
of Mammals

Support EcoWorld!
Click & Buy Books
(Amazon Affiliate)
Copyright 1993 through 2007 EcoWorld Inc., All Rights Reserved
EcoWorld, EcoWorld Tours, and "EcoWorld - Nature & Technology in Harmony" are registered Trademarks of EcoWorld Inc.
Credits, acknowledgements, disclaimers, and how to obtain permission to reprint EcoWorld content.