Forests come with many climate benefits. Trees take carbon out of the atmosphere and store the carbon in the trees and in the soil, thus reducing global warming. Less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere also reduces ocean acidification. The top layer (canopy) of rainforests contains giant trees that can grow to heights of 75 m (about 250 ft) or more. The canopy prevents much sunlight from reaching the ground, thus cooling the surface locally. Trees hold the soil together and can pump up water from deep in the soil and, through evaporation, keep the surface and soil cool, thus also avoiding erosion and reducing fire hazards.
The above image shows that organic matter aerosol optical thickness (55 nm) as high as 0.93 τ was recorded over North Australia on October 14, 2025 06:00 UTC.
A recent study led by Hannah Carle finds that a transition from sink to source has occurred for the aboveground woody biomass of the Australian moist tropical forests. Forests need to be supported and not just for their capacity to sequester carbon. The net climate benefit of trees is huge and is underestimated. While trees can cause some warming, they also cause more cooling. Their BVOCs are responsible for some depletion of hydroxyl, but this should be no reason to withhold support for forests. Instead, climate action should strongly support forests, while greater hydroxyl abundance is best accomplished by cleaning up industry sectors such as agriculture, transport and electricity generation.
The IPCC downplays the temperature rise in efforts to hide some of the most effective and necessary action, e.g. by presenting the impact of land use, gases and aerosols in most peculiar ways. Instead of comparing the climate impact of forests versus agriculture in commonly comprehensible language, such as a rise in degrees Celsius, the IPCC uses technical terms to make things less comprehensible for the typical reader (and voter).
![]() |
[ from earlier post ] |
![]() |
[ Temperature Rise, click on images to enlarge ] |
The observed temperature rise (O) is actually masked by aerosols (M) and the IPCC only includes the rise from the period 1850-1900, ignoring the rise before the period 1850-1900 (P) and the rise that took place to negate the natural fall in temperature. Aerosols could fall out of the air soon, so when adding things up (E1+E2), the historic temperature rise from pre-industrial (O+M+P) is huge.
![]() |
[ from earlier post ] |
![]() |
[ from earlier post ] |
UN secretary-general António Guterres recently spoke about the need for “a credible global response plan to get us on track” regarding the international goal of limiting the global temperature rise. “The science demands action, the law commands it,” Guterres said, in reference to a recent international court of justice ruling. “The economics compel it and people are calling for it.”
What could be added is that the situation is dire and unacceptably dangerous, and the precautionary principle necessitates rapid, comprehensive and effective action to reduce the damage and to improve the outlook, where needed in combination with a Climate Emergency Declaration, as described in posts such as this 2022 post and this one and as discussed in the Climate Plan group.
https://thebulletin.org/2024/05/missing-the-forest-for-the-trees-the-role-of-forests-in-earths-climate-goes-far-beyond-carbon-storage
https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/carbon-dioxide-levels-increase-record-amount-new-highs-2024
WMO Greenhouse Gas Bulletin - No. 21 (issued October 15, 2025)
https://wmo.int/files/greenhouse-gas-bulletin-no-21
discussed on Facebook at:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/arcticnews/permalink/10163357891699679
• Record low Arctic sea ice volume minimum highlights methane danger
• Transforming Society
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2022/10/transforming-society.html
• Climate Plan
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climateplan.html
• Climate Emergency Declaration
https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/climate-emergency-declaration.html