yeah. it'll sequester alright.

What is the meaning of Verboten?Just curious and what are non-attainment days?My yard is in trouble then, most of my trees are oaks!I'm joking I know it's not that bad, but seriously what does all this smog stuff mean with oaks and eucalyptous?

Nonetheless, oaks and eucalypts, among others, emit Biogenic Volatile Organic Compounds which contain precursors to smog, and if too many are present in an air basin may negatively impact air quality and non-attainment days (like here on the Front Range).

Interesting.

Non attainment days means days air quality standards aren't met?

Dan, I'd really love a link to some reading. Personally I'm thrilled anything is planted in the suburbs.

Also, to find common ground, man made atmospheric global warming or not we agree on the urban heat island effect. At least in so far that I can stick tender ol Japanese Maples right next to my driveway and house!

Non-attainment days are days when the Air Quality measurements are above levels set for the measured and actionable pollutants, O3 the one on topic here. Some trees emit BVOCs as defense - mainly terpenes - and these are combined with other ozone precursors to make smog. Here's some reading, tornado, on air quality (pp 49-50, citations for detailed BVOCs). There is later work on C sequestration that I can link to if interested.

I'm writing a paper right now, so I can bust this stuff out in a hurry and likely am a bit prolix wordy. So I'll shut up now. HTH.

Dan

It might be best to first start with curbing the largest waste of energy in most of our lives, the home itself. If everyone conserves, the immediate payoff is obvious, lower bills. The long term payoff is also rather obvious for all of us -- less consumption = better environment.

Noow would also be a good time to get trusted local advice on tree location and type to not only make the place look better but provide shade in the summer (letting sun in on south side during winter) and protection from winds in winter (normally evergreens).

Here is a link that might be useful: Light reading.

Ken,
Were you drunk or on hallucinogenic drugs when you made that post? I sure hope so, cause either that or you've just completely lost it! I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and picture you just barely able to see the keyboard from your chair.

To hogmany's (excellent) points, one of the reasons we use trees for shade is inadequate insulation of our building envelopes.

We will have to change a bit and allow solar access to our roofs for solar energy collection, so the way we plant trees will be changing soon (I said "will": some people are looking for grant/stimulus money to cut down trees for solar access to roofs). Hopefully we can start to really insulate buildings as well.

Right tree, right place, right reason.

Dan

Maybe solar panels shouldn't be placed on roofs. Ya ever think about that?

You know, maybe they should be stacked in open field somewhere that serves another purpose like sewage treatment plant. We can use solar energy without going off grid. The energy corps are never going to let everyone go off grid. Keep planting trees to shade your home is what I say. The air conditioners are the worst energy hog in most homes and it will have to work harder if not shaded, maybe cancelling out any energy you can produce yourself by having full sun exposure.

You can cool your home with a 15 watt fan powered by duracell batteries if you live in the shade.

Maybe solar panels shouldn't be placed on roofs. Ya ever think about that?

Thank you for your opinion. There are hundreds of thousands of acres of roofs sitting idle collecting heat that don't need utility easements for miles to collect energy, that don't need to create new costly transmission and distribution infrastructure to collect energy, and avoid aesthetic challenges, and obviate NIMBY ululation, and prevent habitat fragmentation, and avoid vast new capital investment projects, and preclude dependency on an outdated and aging grid, and avoid Eminent Domain challenges, and PV arrays on roofs provide shade, and well-placed ornamental and shade trees will still provide good Leaf Area Indices and stormwater amelioration and shade ground surfaces and deliver nearby nature and attention restoration, and and and and. The dominant BigBox retailer understands and others are moving to catch on, and Calif has a requirement (albeit at the expense of mature trees, but that's a subset of the issue).

If you wish, I can link to a podcast and webcast where I think about it out loud, and I'm at ISA and SMA detailing it as well if you are interested to see it in person. Trade articles coming soon and hopefully some educational material from key partners gets produced PDQ.

Dan

We should also consider which trees will survive the global cooling conditions that many communities are facing.

Josh

Excellent {{gwi:372435}} of the talking point, Josh!

To the point of the OP, we've already had a tree zone change from the climate change already experienced, so be mindful of this, as well as the strong likelihood of lower total soil moisture, which means trees adapted to periodic drought and able to utilize stronger episodic moisture. We have a male Kentucky coffeetree in the planting strip in front of the house for this scenario.

Dan

Dan,
It sounds like you know a lot more than I do about this subject and I'm definitely interested in what you have to say.

The area in which I live, unless you are in a subdivision or live on farm, most homes are in the shade for most of the day, surrounded by tall trees. These homes stay relatively cool, making it unnecessary for the biggest energy consuming appliance in the house, the AC, to be running as much as homes that are out in the open with a sunny unused roof.

Can you demonstrate how it makes more sense to run an air conditioner than it does to consume a fraction of the energy and forgo having a pv system?

Because if you don't have the need for an AC (which is a matter of life and death for folks in warm climate in an exposed homesite), then the rest of the appliances with the exception of maybe microwave, toaster and laundry can run on natural gas, LP (I know that's not eco-friendly but it is off-grid), or some other power source like a small wind turbine.

I wonder if you're more concerned with going off-grid than consuming less energy. If it's a matter of going off-grid, that's easy. Live in the shade and do without air cond.

If you're trying to consume less energy so that the average person can afford a pv system then you need to figure out how to bypass the a/c. Living in shade is the only way I can think of to do that aside from living in a cave.

Or maybe only concerned with solar systems for rich people who need to heat their pools and light their tennis courts, then they are a prime candidate for panels on the roof. That way they can go off grid.

Please educate me.

Can you demonstrate how it makes more sense to run an air conditioner than it does to consume a fraction of the energy and forgo having a pv system?

As I explicitly stated above, we use trees in place of adequate insulation. Our current building envelopes are very inefficient.

In new construction - by ~2035-2040 half the buildings in the US will have been built since 2000 - R-28 walls and R-40 roofs with low-E windows shaded by appropriate awnings are very efficient. Folks in strawbale, SIP, or similarly thick-walled buildings know this intimately.

As alternative energy costs fall and cheap energy goes away, a mixture of solutions will need to be implemented, including somehow changing basic human nature and trying to get some to consume less and do without. I know, I know - which is why we'll need many houses with PV arrays or solar hot water for those incapable of altering their lifestyles.

Solar access generally means access during high insolation - CA and other places say 10a - 2p, others 9a - 3p. Appropriately-placed trees for the other times are...appropriate and often necessary to shade older, grossly inefficient building envelopes in such scenarios.

HTH.

Dan

That makes sense.

I'm in the planning stages of designing a new home. Do you have any suggestions?

live in a hut

MP:

Depending upon where you are and what you are comfortable with, minimum IBC standards are 6" walls which yield R-19 and roof minimum IIRC R-30; 8" walls with US insulation give about R-23-25, any of this should be easily permitted in most places in the US. Europe is increasing these standards and there are interesting papers out on the payback, but diminishing returns above walls ~R-28, roofs R-40; differing window paybacks from U and E depending upon latitude and total annual insolation.

Right now solar hot water is very doable, PV arrays should be leased from a company willing to pay to use your roof for solar interception, rather than purchasing the array (IMHO, in 5-7 years this will change). I don't think micro wind will pencil out in any urbanized area as the turbulence is too high.

Interestingly, Alaska has much new construction with walls and roofs being SIPs, presumably with R-30+ walls. Much easier to CAD-CAM and install, little construction waste to the landfill. I also recommend some sort of architecturally contextual awning over windows to allow winter solar gain and summer shading.

As far as tree selection and placement, I discuss this here at about 18:30. Quality not the best and this particular webcast not the best format, but series is very useful. But the two slides from that time are your key, esp the 'solar safe zones' slide. Specifics on genera I can link to later when something gets published, but small-stature close to the house and only after ~50' can the 9-3p plane be planted with a large tree.

HTH.

Dan

What about if the house has a lot of glass? Lots of windows.

Excellent for winter heating (even traditional houses with lots of glass need to choose trees carefully as the branches impede winter sun and solar gain) and requires low-E glass and lined curtains and/or operable shutters. Trees in this scenario and presuming 9-3p solar access to the roof can still provide aesthetics and LAI up from the ground and all the other benefits if planted using the 'solar safe zone' concept (Dano'sTM). If you are doing solar gain with those windows you want Chiras' The Solar House and careful consideration of glazing type.

Sheesh, this is like a pre-pub, for free! ;o) And I get to think out loud, so thank you MP.

Bringing this back around to contextualize the OP's question and topic: right tree, right place, right reason. MP has a different reason than the OP. There are lots of reasons. This translates to lots of flexibility needed when planting trees.

Trees provide multiple, overlapping, mutually reinforcing benefits. There are some conflicts but none are show-stoppers with some thought and planning. And talking to the neighbors.

[/soapbox]

Dan

We should also consider which trees will survive the global cooling conditions that many communities are facing.

Josh

You mean like England getting cooler if the gulf stream quits flowing that way?

Thanks for the good reading Dan, I'm about 20 pages through.

De nada tornado. There is more recent work on carbon sequestration, mental health benefits, and a little bit on public health as well. Everything else since then reinforces what is in the document & doesn't change the findings.

Dan

Small house, small roof, small budget. Don't think I'll be in the market for installing solar panels. I am more presently concerned about fixing the bathroom floor.

We had a mulberry tree in the front yard that we had to take out. I did not realize how much that tree helped to keep the house comfortable in the summer. Huge, huge difference.

I have noticed an effect from trees on hot days. When the breeze blows lightly, I can feel cool air in the lee of trees. It's not just trees, large shrubs also have that effect.

I have since planted two plane trees. They're still not very big but I hope since they will get very tall and wide they will be even more effective than the mulberry was. I also want to tie a hammock up between them. Give me a good book and a cold glass of tea and I'm in paradise.

Good choice on the planetrees. Of course I am a little biased towards them. If you want a tough tree that grows super fast then in a few years time you will begin to recover the benefits that your prior tree provided.

My house right in the middle of Sacto had a ~65-ft tall planetree with a red-tailed hawk nest in it. In the Central Valley, with many days over 100ºF, I rarely had on the A/C. But I'm cheap and surely the roommates were warm and would have preferred the A/C on.

Dan

When someone says they want a tree that will grow tall and provide shade in their lifetime, the first thing that comes to mind is platanus. They tolerate z3 cold on down to texas heat. They grow in scraped, compacted clay on down to sand in florida near the ocean. They seem to thrive in places that never cease to amaze. I just wish someone would develop some cultivars that are more compact. A mature size of 25x50 would be superb. It would also be nice to have some cultivars that do not shed as bark and litter. Some people don't care for the free soil amendments. And if something could be done about the peach fuzz on the leaves. Some purple leaved cultivars would be nice too. I know, that's asking a lot.

A year ago to this very day, I was standing at the edge of a field admiring a sycamore that was a civil war witness tree.

Back to the topic, we need some r&d in the area of rapid growing trees that are highly adaptable and the perfect size and shape for small homesites and provide shade to the structure but not overhang the roof. Strong and disease resistant too. As it is we don't have a lot to choose from.

If these universities would just divert resources from their turfgrass programs to this cause, we'd get this done.

no tree is going to affect the output of solar flares.. there is no proof of global warming.. period

but planting trees sure wont hurt
===========================================
Ken
Remember this is a tree forum. All of us here looking to benefit from each other knowledge about Trees. I have no interest to learn about your political views. If I want to hear about all the naysayers vies I go to Sara Palin Forum. Please keep your political views to yourself.

So you signed up just lately to harass Ken? Maybe you should take your own advice and not say anything political.

Lkz5ia,
Foolishpleasure signed up almost a month ago and way before this thread was started! Foolishpleasure has also contributed to other threads, so your criticism is completely unwarranted. I signed up many years ago, and agree that Ken's post seemed more about politics than science or trees.

I think we can all agree that planting trees is a worthwhile endeavor, whether or not the Sky is Falling.
If the globe warms, we'll have shade; when the globe cools, we'll have firewood.

Josh

I think Ken was just trying to balance out the politics. The OP stated they wanted to protect their area from global warming conditions as if it were fact. Say something politically charged, you're going to get a response. foolishpleasure didn't take exception with the OPs political post, but predictably has a problem with Ken's.

foolishpleasure didn't take exception with the OPs political post

Nothing political about the OP at all. The science is clear. Thanks!

Dan

greenman28 wrote:
"I think we can all agree that planting trees is a worthwhile endeavor,"

Acutally I don't even think you could get this board to even agree on that! But I do love your plan...
"If the globe warms, we'll have shade; when the globe cools, we'll have firewood. "
It just makes sense. You're hedging your bets ;-)

Nothing political about the OP at all. The science is clear. Thanks!

Dan

Thanks for setting me straight - you've convinced me with that response!

Excellent. Good to hear the scientific findings are being disseminated in those parts and people choose to believe them rather than conspiracy theories.

Dan

Count me in! {{gwi:372436}}

Nothing, whatsoever, that Rosessecretgarden wrote seems even the slightest bit politically motivated or written to stir up controversy. She didn't make any assumptions, assign any blame, or argue with anyone's point. The assumptions and politics appear to have started with Ken's post. I don't for a minute think he was trying to cause problems, but that is where the politics began.

I think some people are so enthusiastic about their point of view that they don't even stop to think about what is actually being said before assuming someone is saying something they really aren't. This zealousness is probably at the very root of many of our most serious problems these days.

People that are intolerant of other people's views and accuse them of being "drunk or on hallucinogenic drugs" when they disagree with them could be the root of our most serious problems.

True.

I mean we agree what CO2 or greenhouse gasses do to temperatures in an enclosed environment. We can guess what it does on a planet wide level. There is some degree of "scientific guessing" needed though.

Heck, if the sun was cooling and we needed to avoid an ice age I know what gasses they'd be releasing fast as they could in Iowa to keep the ice away lol

Being conservative in general I choose not to push my luck and error on the side of environmentalism more often than not.

Cdsetx8,

You just have no clue about what you're talking about. I've known Ken for a long time and was just ribbing him a little for his response. You really need to take off the blinders dude!

I certainly don't agree with Ken's theory, but my response to him was about the way he responded and had nothing to do with intolerance.

I know sometimes it's hard to judge what people mean when they say something online, but you might want to be a little more tolerant yourself until you understand what's going on yourself.

Just to clarify,

I certainly don't agree with Ken's theory,

The testable hypotheses haven't been validated/falsified. There is no evidence to support the belief. None. Which is why the OP was perfectly reasonable in their question, which was based on evidence.

It can't rise to the level of 'theory' until the hypotheses have survived testing. They have not. As the link way upthread by hogmany and my link about the numbered/points for excuses reveal.

The world has moved on and is discussing adaptation and mitigation, which the OP's question shows.

Dan

I am personally awaiting Fimbulvetr, heralding the Swallowing of the Sun and Moon and the awakening of the Fenris-wolf.
That is the myth I choose to believe. ;)

Josh

If the world "has moved on" why do those web sites that were linked exist? Seems like someone thinks its still up for debate. Just to be clear, if the OP stops at Which trees helps improve the environment in best ways? without assuming that everyone believes in global warming the way they do, Ken would not have provided his side of the argument, and we wouldn't have been subjected to all of your theories.

Unfortunate ppl get subjected to my theories all the time!

So we are supposed to avoid discussing aspects of reality that reality denialists don't believe in, or else we are making the thread political. I suppose we also should be sensitive to the flat-earthers, and the followers of the invisible pink unicorn.

why do those web sites that were linked exist

Websites are durable.

Thanks!

Dan

Golf clap for Eukaryote.

And [killfile] for denialists.

Dan

If we're too dumb to get it, then why try to convince us?

And if you're not trying to convince us, then why the "scientific" pretense?

How can one participate in a debate that's over?

Josh

So we are supposed to avoid discussing aspects of reality that reality denialists don't believe in, or else we are making the thread political. I suppose we also should be sensitive to the flat-earthers, and the followers of the invisible pink unicorn. I wouldn't go that far. Those that believe in global warming are more closely related to the birthers or the 9/11 conspiracy crowd. still nonsense though - you're right

"Those that believe in global warming are more closely related to the birthers..."

Actually, I bet if you checked, you'd find that those groups are almost entirely mutually exclusive. From what I've seen, they represent opposite extremes.

Brandon you may be correct. Thanks to our limited number of political parties folks who believe "A" almost have to believe in "B" if they want to be able to support a politician.

Who knows if the earth is "supposed to be" cooling down and entering another ice age right now, or if this is a natural warming time and that's why every ice sheet I've ever seen is getting smaller.

What we can test, what I "know" is the effect of greenhouse gasses in an enclosed environment. They retain heat.

In the bigger global environment I'm not sure where the tipping point is.

SO,

conservatively I choose to error on the side of reasonable caution. I'm not talking something crazy like banning fossil fuels, just some regulations and tax incentives.

Nothing crazy, just the type of regulations which would hold improve fuel economy for vehicles a bit. Make it difficult to build new camaros with near double the power of the 93 model but only similar economy, that type of thing.

Sensationalists get folks all riled up about this. Radio talk show types.

Rosessecretgarden,

I really hope you got your question at least partly answered. I don't think further advice can really be given without answering Toronado's questions (see first response to your post) about where you live and what type of trees you like. If you are planting something near your home or where people/valuables might be, choose a long-lived tree with strong wood. (That's the kind of advice Ken usually gives. Weak wooded trees hanging over houses are the source of many of his nightmares.) As always, check with your local EPPC or appropriate government agency for a list of species that are invasive to your area, and stay away from them.

I'm sorry for the inappropriate responses to your sincere concern. Sometimes the lid just comes off of the can of worms and things go down hill from there. Good luck with whatever you choose!