Christmas & Climate Change Debate - Prof. vs Blondie Cartoon

In today's paper, two statements were made about Christmas trees and the environment. One made by a professor of which I believe is a very passionate environmentalist and then a cartoon writer who may tend to prefer tradition over the environment. But which one put a better statement that helped to reduce a carbon footprint? The answer is the cartoonist. Let me explain.


I was pleasantly surprised this morning that the front page article about real versus artificial trees featured a family that is close to our family. It was nice reading that continued on A3 but the secondary headline on that page caught my eye.

"Debate: Professor says real trees can reduce global warming"

At this point, I knew that my enjoyment was probably over and my scientist hat would have to come on because the statement in most cases would not be correct. That part of the story was extremely flawed. I am going to leave names out of this because I have dealt with enough paper interviews to know that one of two things may have happened. I'm going to protect the professor as he may have been misquoted or misunderstood by the reporter. I'll also protect the paper because they could also have been misled due to the fact that this was a professor of forest ecology and tree physiology, and while he may be passionate about the topic, he really is not fully qualified to talk about climate change and greenhouse gasses.

The story attributes (but did not quote the professor) that real Christmas trees are always a better option because they do everything that a regular tree does, which includes reduction of global warming. He is quoted as saying "they take up CO2 and reduce CO2 level in the atmosphere, thus reducing global warming". The attribution is very vague and I'm not a fan of the statement, but his direct quote is true. Trees do take in CO2 which is a greenhouse gas and they are quite effect at this as a chart of CO2 levels shows and definitive reduction each year during the Northern Hemisphere growing season. However, the end of the paragraph shows a very grave error. "When people get rid of real Christmas trees, they decompose and release their nutrients back into the soil". Yes, a properly disposed and mulched tree will help garden soil, but the CO2 that was stored in the tree is then release back into the atmosphere. The same CO2 levels chart shows that there is a definitive increase during the winter when tree matter decomposes. Therefore, there really no "net gain" in combating greenhouse gasses. In fact, the burning of trees (which many do) and the placement in landfills will speed the negative effects of these live trees.

As you can tell, my Monday morning paper reading became a little more annoying than usual. But when I finished up with the comics, I found an environmental message in a Blondie cartoon, that while still had inaccuracies, it sent a better environmental message than the professor. Dagwood was at a tree farm in front of an "earth friendly" tree. He asked how that was possible and the salesman responded "it's silk! So it doesn't mess up the ozone's natural balance like nasty ol' planet-trashing pine trees". While ozone is very important, saving life by being in the upper atmosphere and being harmful near the ground, it is not really a factor in this fight. I think the writer was putting out a statement about the environment that technically is true; though Dagwood decided to take the guild-infested pine tree anyway.

So why do I say that the cartoonist put a better environmental statement than the environmentalist? It's simple and I will use myself as an example. My wife introduced to me to the tradition of cutting down a live tree each year. Meanwhile, my sister puts up the same artificial tree that my parents did from when I was a kid. Hands down, she is doing more for the environment in this case. She is not driving a car to get the tree. She is reusing plastic that will last forever. I try to make up for our family tradition in other ways. But I will not state that I am doing the environmentally correct thing to justify the live tree like our friendly professor. What I will do is what he failed and that is taking the opportunity to point out the perfect scenario. If you want to do your share, buy a live tree with a root ball. Once Christmas is done, plant the tree someplace where it will store decades of CO2 before breaking down after dying. Being truly environmental usually takes effort. Unfortunately, more effort than people are willing to do.

NOAA activates GOES-15 satellite; deactivates GOES-11 after nearly 12 years in orbit

For 12 years, GOES-11, one of NOAA’s geostationary satellites, tracked weather and severe storms that impacted the U.S. West Coast, Hawaii and the Pacific region. Today, NOAA began the process to deactivate the satellite, which is approaching the end of its useful life, and replace it with a new, more advanced spacecraft.

The new geostationary satellite, GOES-15, has taken the place of GOES-11 and now becomes NOAA’s GOES West spacecraft in a fixed orbit over the Pacific Ocean, midway between Hawaii and the West Coast and 22,300 miles above the equator. GOES-15 provides more data, with better resolution and image stability than GOES-11. GOES-15 joins NOAA’s other operational geostationary satellite, GOES-13, which serves as the GOES East spacecraft. The GOES are not only used for weather applications, but also track space weather, oceanographic changes, forest fires and other hazards, and provide scientific data collection and information for search and rescue operations.

Aware that GOES-11 was nearing the end of its fuel supply, NOAA personnel spent the past several months planning for the end of its mission. Deactivation of GOES-11 began today when data observations were shifted to GOES-15. On December 15, NOAA will fire the spacecraft’s booster, moving GOES-11 approximately 185 miles (300 km) above its current geostationary orbit, where it will be officially decommissioned.

“With its steady eye on dangerous weather conditions, GOES-11 served America well, providing the critical images and atmospheric measurements NOAA meteorologists needed to produce life-saving forecasts,” said Mary Kicza, assistant administrator for NOAA’s Satellite and Information Service.

Launched May 3, 2000, GOES-11 was originally planned for a five-year mission, but lasted nearly seven years longer. “GOES-11’s extended service is testimony to the great work of Space Systems/Loral, NASA and the team of NOAA staff and contractors who acquired and managed the spacecraft ,” Kicza added.

In addition to GOES-15 and GOES-13, NOAA has two other geostationary satellites in orbit – GOES-12, which provides data for South America, and GOES-14, which is in a storage orbit as a ready backup or replacement.

NOAA is planning the next generation of geostationary satellites, called GOES-R, with the first set to launch in 2015. GOES-R is expected to more than double the clarity of today’s GOES imagery and provide more atmospheric observations than current capabilities with more frequent images. In addition, data from GOES-R instruments will be used to create many different products NOAA meteorologists and others will use to monitor the atmosphere, land, ocean and the sun.

Skier's Outlook

While some ski resorts were treated to an early season record snowfall in October, November was a warm month and a lot of skiers were disappointed with no resorts open at the end of the month. So now we look to the future. It’s very interesting because the main overall controller of the nation’s winter is the same this year as last year. There is a La Nina again in the Pacific Ocean. As you can see from the following graphic this tends to bring stormy weather to the Northwest and cold weather to the Northern Plains into the Midwest. There is also a strong signal for dry and mild weather for the southern United States. The signature is much weaker for the eastern part of the nation, but La Nina does make the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast more prone to mild weather.

Though as we saw last year, other things can trump the La Nina. What affects our weather has more to do with the Atlantic and the Arctic. Last year, a pattern of warmer weather over the arctic helped to push cold air into the east which helped feed some storms along East Coast. So far this year, we have not had as favorable conditions, but the warm pattern of November has changed and there are indications that the arctic is becoming poised to send cold air into the East before Mid-December and a colder pattern seems likely for at least a couple of weeks. This will set the stage for resorts to get open and in at least decent shape for the big holiday week. While a near to colder average pattern may last into early January, a turnaround to milder weather looks like it may occur for later January into February. Hopefully, the resorts will be able to build up nice before then with manmade and natural snow. The good news is that years similar to this usually try turn colder again by March. This may help for a later season than last year. As for storminess, there is always the chance for a big one, but the coastal systems may tend to not blow up until they reach New England. We may have weaker and sloppier events farther to the south.