[Terrapreta] Fw: CO2 rising

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Brian,

David Yarrow and Lou Gold disagreed with you and questioned whether this was true.  So have others.  What grasslands are on the Equator?  It seems to me, that there is far more land area NOT on or near the Equator than there is north or south of the Equatorial regions.  It seems to me, that there are more mountainous areas NOT in the Equatorial region.  Do you think, to generalize, that there are more Equatorial forests, than in other places?  Do you think (no, strike that, do you feel) that in general, more forests, with big tall trees, sort of of float above the ground and like get nutrients from the litter on top of the ground or from the "amazing aerial fertilizer"?  Do more forests grow near or on rocky mountains than on flat ground?  Is 9.5 a bigger number than 4.7?  Are you a rocket scientist?

SKB
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Brian Hans<mailto:bhans at earthmimic.com> 
  To: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 10:53 PM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Fw: CO2 rising


  http://www.uwex.edu/wgnhs/earlyv.htm<http://www.uwex.edu/wgnhs/earlyv.htm>      <----- 1854-1890's.

  http://www.geology.iastate.edu/gccourse/chem/carbon/images/carboncontent1.gif<http://www.geology.iastate.edu/gccourse/chem/carbon/images/carboncontent1.gif>

  Who said more carbon in grasslands than forests?

  I will repeat myself; Forests primarily hold carbon above ground. Prairies and other grasslands and ag primarily hold carbon below ground. And as you move north/south, that generalization becomes less true because soil biota doesnt have the timeframe to digest because of temp. The data that I linked shows that relationship. This isnt rocketscience...

  Brian




  "Sean K. Barry" <sean.barry at juno.com> wrote:
    Hi Brian,

    I might be mistaken, but wasn't Minnesota and Wisconsin covered by a boreal forest before humans cut it all down and Swedes/Germans began farming it.  Is it true that the forests disappeared by themselves?  I didn't think so.

    I would like to see the papers that say there is more carbon in grassland than in forests?  All I have ever read before was that forest contain huge amounts of carbon in the biomass and in the soil.

    SKB
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Brian Hans<mailto:bhans at earthmimic.com> 
      To: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
      Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 5:59 PM
      Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] Fw: CO2 rising


      ? 
      So...prairies dont hold their biomass underground and forest generally dont hold their biomass above ground? You got something to back that hypothesis up? I offered my data...where is yours?

      And are you saying that prairies and savannas are NOT an succession ecosystem? You think prairies are just waiting for forests to cover them? If this is your position, you would be highly mistaken. Prairies and savanna ecosystems are absolutely endgame succession ecosystems that are fire dominated. Its why prairies are in Florida and Alabama as well as Wisconsin and Ohio, because they are a distinct succession ecosystem. They also occure in the Pampas, African savanna and the Russian Steppe. Sure some of the areas like the steppe are dry but much of the pampas and eastern prairies of USA arnt. 

      And all of those grassland ecosystems hold most of the biomass below ground... and forest dont. I dont get what is to argue about this point. 

      Brian Hans



      David Yarrow <dyarrow at nycap.rr.com> wrote:

        ----- Original Message ----- 
        From: David Yarrow<mailto:dyarrow at nycap.rr.com> 
        To: bhans at earthmimic.com<mailto:bhans at earthmimic.com> 
        Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 2:41 PM
        Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] CO2 rising


        not true.  a very bad generalization.  all i will grant you is that grasses arose recently in botanical evolution because they are highly successful competitors to repopulate exposed, unforested soils -- especially drylands with lower levels of rainfall and soil mineral nutrient supplies.  the grasses and their herbaceous companions quickly cover these denuded niches in the biosphere to shade and cool the land, filter rain and snowfall, and begin to rebuild subsoil biomasses -- living, dead, and decaying.
          ----- Original Message ----- 
          From: Brian Hans<mailto:bhans at earthmimic.com> 
          To: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org<mailto:Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
          Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 8:40 AM
          Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] CO2 rising


          forests tend to hold their biomass within the above ground parts and prairies/grasslands/ag. tend to hold biomass closer to or below the ground level. 
        _______________________________________________
        Terrapreta mailing list
        Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
        http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
        http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
        http://info.bioenergylists.org

      _______________________________________________
      Terrapreta mailing list
      Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
      http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
      http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
      http://info.bioenergylists.org
    _______________________________________________
    Terrapreta mailing list
    Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
    http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
    http://info.bioenergylists.org

  _______________________________________________
  Terrapreta mailing list
  Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/
  http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
  http://info.bioenergylists.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070922/f85a979e/attachment.html