[Terrapreta] Some clarifying answers

[Michael Bailes]

I found all of it very confusing.

 The shorthand used in Amazon Dark Earths is also confusing. Why can people
just say 'tonnes per hectare' instead of using Mickey Mouse "maths
equations"?

 And when one researcher quotes in acres or meters you have to sit and
figure for half a day before getting a meaningful comparison in the
research. What ever happened to plain English?
****************
On the Old forests thing  there is some new research that is casting doubt
on the role of older forests on carbon sequestration
See:
 http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1204-forests.html
It would be good if they are right
**********************************
On the decomposition thing do we know what is going on re soil zoology
vis-a-vis CO2?
Are the fungi and "wee beasties" storing or exhaling CO2?
Does anyone know?

Michaelangelica


> Fast growing young forests are good carbon offsets, because the bulk of
> the carbon which they take in as CO2, stays perched in the trees above and
> swollen into the roots systems below many hectares of land.  When forests
> get older, they are no longer net carbon sinks, because they have
> decomposition of the plant material which puts CO2 back into the
> atmosphere.  A forest can sequester lots of carbon for a good twenty years.
> Terra Preta soil has carbon which stays almost permanently, certainly with
> half-life of many thousands of years.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070307/41010a67/attachment.html