How can the earth’s vegetation and biota be used to help offset already high atmospheric CO2 levels in order to minimize or mitigate the effects of climate change on the biosphere?

Because Earth’s climate is already changing, and regardless of how policy changes human inputs of CO2, we are going to lose biodiversity if we do not start to understand how we can used biodiversity to mitigate high atmospheric CO2. We already have examples of the use of forests and tree planting to bank carbon. However, a large component of biota occurs in grasslands and earlier successional systems which are not being promoted as potential carbon banks. If we procede to approach the climate change issue with just planting trees we will end up losing those biota that cannot live in forests.

What climate change driven mechanism is killing the trees?

Recently I have begun documenting on my blog, witsendnj.blogspot.com, the current effects of climate change in New Jersey, where the vegetation is in such rapid and universal decline that only a
very significant agent, such as climate change, can explain it. This will be taken seriously because I believe that once people understand that the trees in their own backyards and parks, and the food on their grocery store shelves are at risk, they will wake up and support government action to reduce CO2 emissions.

Below is a link to an early post that summarizes my motivation in starting the blog. If you go to later entries, you can find pictures and more recent observations.

Frankly, the decline I am observing from week to week is worse than my worst imaginings when I first became concerned last year.

Here’s the link to the post I mentioned:

http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2009/05/effects-of-climate-chaos.html

Trees are the foundation of our ecosystem. They are in peril and without them, society will be endangered as well.

I have discovered there is now a unique and revolutionary tool to diagnose tree health, which is an infrared camera developed in Italy, seven years ago, and being widely employed in the UK. Its utility is similar to an x-ray or cat scan for a human in detecting cancer, only it reveals the tree’s ability to transpire.

This is where I first read about it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/8118269.stm

I would like to see a broad inventory of trees using this imaging.

What is the optimum level of atmospheric carbon dioxide for maximum forest, crop and pasture growth, without compromising human health?

Evidence suggests that historical atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were markedly higher than at present, and that these higher levels were associated with very high plant productivity – such as during the carboniferous age. Even today, greenhouse producers pump carbon dioxide into their production units to facilitate plant growth, suggesting our current atmosphere is carbon dioxide poor. A sensible approach to atmospheric carbon dioxide management requires a clear understanding of the optimum levels necessary for plant productivity witout compromising human health.

How much is known about the differences in evapotranspiration rates of various types of vegetation cover (ex. primary/secondary tropical forest, oil palm, rice agriculture, anthropogenic grassland), and to what extent does evapotranspiration affect cloud cover at medium to large scales in tropical islands?

The extent and type of cloud cover may play a critical role in the impact of climate change at local and medium scales (viz., increased cloud cover may mitigate climate change-related increased thermal stress). However, it seems little is known about, for example, if or how primary forest cover may enhance cloud formation versus land converted to other agricultural uses such as oil palm, etc.