<p>I read in the latest IPCC report that felling trees growing in Northern areas lays bare snow cover that, since it's white, reflects sun rays so it's kinda good (or at least, has a substantial positive aspect about it). However, I may have misinterpreted that part, and I generally prefer natural environments left untouched. Is cutting down boreal forest good or bad for our climate (I mean it's obviously bad for the ecosystems)? Generally, I assume, you don't burn that limber but use as building materials etc., so the trapped carbon remains trapped for prolonged periods of time.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Recent radiative forcing estimates arising from biophysical processes generally fall at the lower end of the AR5 assessed range. For instance, based on historical simulations from 13 CMIP6 models, Smith et al., (2020) estimated that the ERF from surface
albedo changes (including snow cover and leaf area) was -0.08 [-0.22 to 0.06] W m–2
since 1850. Similarly, based on simulations from 13 CMIP5 models, Lejeune et al., (2020) estimated the radiative forcing from
transitions between trees, crops, and grasslands was -0.11 [-0.16 to 0.04] W m-2
since 1860. Andrews et al.,
(2017) identified an ERF of -0.40 W m–2 since 1860, ascribing much of the effect to increases in albedo
(<strong>including the unmasking of underlying snow cover</strong>); notably, however, the analysis was based on a single
model with a known tendency to overestimate the ERF (Collins et al., 2011).</p>
</blockquote>
<p><em>(p. 2-28)</em></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-28T02:20:48.167Z
The IPCC report is very voluminous. Please indicate the specific section you are referring to and quote the relevant part(s) (limited to a few sentences, I assume) verbatim.
njuffa
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-28T15:39:35.397Z
@njuffa I edited the question
Sergey Zolotarev
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-29T04:57:50.197Z
cutting down trees to expose the snow in winter when it is dark for 16-24 hours a day might not be the best way to reduce the heating,but manage to make the ground white in summer and you have solved the global warming problem.
trond hansen
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-01-28T04:02:45.337Z
Deforestation is a major source of atmospheric carbon. Estimating how much is complicated. A forest sequesters a lot of carbon in the soils as well as in the standing biomass. Even if the lumber is sequestered in buildings, there will be a large release of carbon from the roots and soil. You also have to consider what is replacing the forest - certain land uses may have more or less albedo than boreal forest. Uneven-aged forest management (i.e., not clear-cutting) where wood is used for building is thought to be able to sequester carbon, but even-aged management destroys topsoil.
Eonema
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-01-28T04:04:42.430Z
To answer this question, you'd have to estimate the carbon cost of cutting the forest. If it's a net emission (which it may not be), you'd calculate the radiative forcing of the emitted CO2-equivalents and compare to the change in albedo. My guess is that it doesn't work out in our favor in most scenarios.
Eonema
<climate-change><forest><deforestation>
Is cutting down boreal forest good or bad for our climate?
Sergey Zolotarev
# Is cutting down boreal forest good or bad for our climate?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-10-27)

I read in the latest IPCC report that felling trees growing in Northern areas lays bare snow cover that, since it's white, reflects sun rays so it's kinda good (or at least, has a substantial positive aspect about it). However, I may have misinterpreted that part, and I generally prefer natural environments left untouched. Is cutting down boreal forest good or bad for our climate (I mean it's obviously bad for the ecosystems)? Generally, I assume, you don't burn that limber but use as building materials etc., so the trapped carbon remains trapped for prolonged periods of time.

> Recent radiative forcing estimates arising from biophysical processes generally fall at the lower end of the AR5 assessed range. For instance, based on historical simulations from 13 CMIP6 models, Smith et al., (2020) estimated that the ERF from surface
> albedo changes (including snow cover and leaf area) was -0.08 [-0.22 to 0.06] W m–2
> since 1850. Similarly, based on simulations from 13 CMIP5 models, Lejeune et al., (2020) estimated the radiative forcing from
> transitions between trees, crops, and grasslands was -0.11 [-0.16 to 0.04] W m-2
> since 1860. Andrews et al.,
> (2017) identified an ERF of -0.40 W m–2 since 1860, ascribing much of the effect to increases in albedo
> (**including the unmasking of underlying snow cover**); notably, however, the analysis was based on a single
> model with a known tendency to overestimate the ERF (Collins et al., 2011).

*(p. 2-28)*

**Tags:** climate-change, forest, deforestation

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: The IPCC report is very voluminous. Please indicate the specific section you are referring to and quote the relevant part(s) (limited to a few sentences, I assume) verbatim.  
> **username_0**: @username_1 I edited the question  
> **username_2**: cutting down trees to expose the snow in winter when it is dark for 16-24 hours a day might not be the best way to reduce the heating,but manage to make the ground white in summer and you have solved the global warming problem.  
> **username_3**: Deforestation is a major source of atmospheric carbon. Estimating how much is complicated. A forest sequesters a lot of carbon in the soils as well as in the standing biomass. Even if the lumber is sequestered in buildings, there will be a large release of carbon from the roots and soil. You also have to consider what is replacing the forest - certain land uses may have more or less albedo than boreal forest. Uneven-aged forest management (i.e., not clear-cutting) where wood is used for building is thought to be able to sequester carbon, but even-aged management destroys topsoil.  
> **username_3**: To answer this question, you'd have to estimate the carbon cost of cutting the forest. If it's a net emission (which it may not be), you'd calculate the radiative forcing of the emitted CO2-equivalents and compare to the change in albedo. My guess is that it doesn't work out in our favor in most scenarios.  

---

## 0 answers

