Global Warming is Natural and Trees are Bad

I've written quite a bit on "global warming" on this blog, and a few of those articles are due to the hilarity of what scientists "discover" about global warming. One of my favorite ones was when scientists theorized that limiting pollution actually increases global warming due to fewer particles in the atmosphere to block the sun's radiation.

Wandering around the internet today brought me to two more hilarious bits of information proving that man-made global warming is simply a fantasy. The first is a report that trees create as much as 30% of the methane in the atmosphere - the number two greenhouse gas. It appears that methane in the atmosphere is natural, and it's levels are maintained by natural processes. Hmmm...

The other hilarious news piece I wish to highlight is this article by the Guardian describing a peculiar practice that I had never heard of before. Evidently people who "feel bad" about the amount of carbon dioxide they produce have been known to plant trees or pay others to do so in order that the person's carbon can be "taken care of." Besides the facts above that planting trees actually increases methane in the atmosphere, the Guardian article described how trees planted in great numbers in regions not previously forested dry up streams and damage soil fertility. Scientist were evidently taken aback by this development.

Really?

Let me tell you all a bit of scientific fact. Trees are not always good. In fact, in many ways they can be more harmful than good.

Take Iowa for example. Any Iowa can peek out their window and see trees. Trees around houses and in field fence lines and along rivers and streams. However, no one in Iowa will ever see a tree that is more than 200 years old, and most likely will never see a tree over 100 years old. Why? Because there weren't any trees in Iowa 200 years ago. Every tree you see in Iowa is a recent and unnatural addition to the landscape.

I'm not saying not to plant trees around your house as a windbreak or have trees along roads or in parks. However, trees in unnatural locations have a lot of drawbacks.

First off, trees (as is commonly misunderstood) do not hold topsoil or prevent erosion. Trees only do this in regions and landscapes that have extreme gradients. If you have a 1-5% slope in a farm field and allow trees to grow up in the field erosion will increase dramatically. The tree's roots are unable to hold topsoil, and instead only hold large clumps of soil together in environments where grass cannot do the job.

My dad's farm in Iowa had no trees on it when he moved there in the early 1970's. As the years went by wet spots and creeks grew full of trees, and a number of these creeks eroded nearly 10 feet into the ground making enormous ditches where small springs had been before. In the 1980's and 90's my dad cut down the trees and kept them down. Since then all of the creeks have naturally filled in - 10 foot ditches the result of tree soil erosion healed completely in less than 10 years.

The other drawback of trees is that they deplete soil fertility. Trees, unlike grass, do not replace a great portion of their biomass from year to year. The trees pull nutrients out of the ground and their yearly dropping of leaves only serves to create a layer of fertile soil .5 - 1 inch thick. Over time trees will suck the fertility out of soil whereas grasses will build topsoil.

To make a ridiculously long story slightly shorter than it already is suffice it to say that trees are not necessarily good for anyone, especially when they are planted in an environment they did not originally exist in.

Toss that out to an mindless environmentalist and watch them freak.

UPDATE:

Maybe I should have been a bit more specific. Parts of Iowa have been forested historically (Northeast, southeast, and southwest Iowa.) However, Iowa from around Interstate 80 north has been grassland for the past 10,000 years. The last major glaciation in North America took place then, and all trees were destroyed just farther than the glacier extended (right to about Des Moines). After this ice age trees began to creep bag into Iowa from Missouri through connecting river systems. However, outside of the aforementioned NE, SE, and SW portions of the state trees were unable to spread away from rivers and unable to line anything but the largest creeks due to periodic prairie and grass fires.

I should have stated that any trees you see in the flat ground in the northern half of the state are all recent additions to the landscape. It's a good thing, too. The prairie grasses that covered the vast majority of the state are part of the reason for the excellent farm ground in Iowa.