[Terrapreta] CO2 rising

Sat Sep 22 12:07:02 EDT 2007

Brian-------Here in the Pacific Northwest (Washington, Oregon,  
Northern California and Southern British Columbia-not consider PNW)  
the old growth forests had a huge carbon residual that were deposited  
the rivers and in the wetlands of glacial outwash areas. Some of the  
large rivers had miles of log jams and wetlands were a tangle foot of  
large downed trees that were very difficult to travel through. I  
didn't see them although I have read accounts of early travelers and  
removed some of the remaining smaller old growth stumps that had  
hundreds of years remaining as stumps. They were decayed on on  
surface and solid as a "pitched" rock. Housing projects in eastern  
King County (east of Seattle, WA) use the largest of the bulldozers  
to spike and split the largest remaining old growth douglas fir and  
western red cedar stumps.

With the technical process of decay not is question, the volume of  
wood nor the size of these trees is not being described in these  
posts so a perspective on the quantity of carbon in these forests is  
being lost on these discussions. I would suggest that what is not  
understood is the amount of wood that has been associated with water.  
Dead trees that were under and in standing water. In part the  
misunderstanding could be due to our local seasonal rains and cloudy  
weather (i.e. lower ground temperatures with slower decay rates)  
which mark this temperate maritime climate, the force of river water  
to move and deposit large trees in our river systems and the impact  
of the beavers on impounding water over a large portion of our  
lowland streams.

Beaver pelts were the first resource/commodity from the North  
American continent. They dam water and habited a large portion of the  
this continent. Without a scientific background, I would suggest that  
the release of that dammed water increased the decomposition of  
organic matter.

There is a wood leachate that occurs when wood is under water and the  
wood is not in decomposition as being described in these posts. I  
have no problem with a full grown tree being carbon neutral but a  
tree is not the context of a forest. Science does a great job at  
specifics. Does it do well at looking at the general condition? I  
think not. Maybe that is because of complexity. Let us work both from  
the specific to the general (the scientific method) and from the  
general to the specific (an observational method).

My friends we are in this event together, we need all the skills that  
humanity has produced to pull a win out of a changing climate. These  
postings have given me a sense of priorities that I think we should  
look at. Thanks-------Larry

P.S. Did I forget to mention the cooling effect that a large tree  
canopies have on soil organics? I do think this is important also...  
10 degrees F?

----------------------------------
On Sep 21, 2007, at 5:40 AM, Brian Hans wrote:

> Lou,
>
> All that decaying matter in an old-growth forest is turning into  
> something. If not soil, then what?
>
> Virtually 100% CO2 and other off gases of carbon. If the carbon was  
> turning into 'soil' then wouldnt forest floors be 10ft thick black  
> soils? Ofc they are not, why would that be?
>
> I learned during my days in the Doug Fir forests of Oregon that a  
> cubic meter of that "soil" can
> contain more than 35,000 separate species and 2 billion individual  
> organisms. Your statement
> baffles me. Please elaborate.
>
>
> Just as a forest isnt a carbon sink...neither is its floor. http:// 
> www.geology.iastate.edu/gccourse/chem/carbon/images/carboncontent2.gif
> This chart is shows the loss of carbon to the system (a neg number  
> = positive carbon fixing). Notice how the tropical forests stack up  
> vs other ecosystems? Put plainly...the farther away you move from  
> the equator, the less soil digestion of C and the more soil  
> production. Why is this? Ofc is has to do with temp...boreal forest  
> soil organisms done have 365 day 80F temps to go to work...they  
> have to take the winter off (hard to decompose whilst frozen).
>
> Another point here, grasslands do a better job of sinking carbon  
> into the soil than does a forest y/y. Again clearly on the graph,  
> one can see how forests generally dont make soil whilst grasslands  
> and ag. does. Anyone who has tried to farm a newly cut forest can  
> attest to the fact that the soils are very poor and thin VS a  
> grassland. It can be said that prairies (grasslands in general but  
> prairies in specific) are like an iceburg...most of the mass in  
> under the soil line. My suspicion is that it has to do with soil  
> biomass amount vs trees soil biomass + productivity of grasses y/y  
> vs trees.
>
> Anyone knows that tropical forest soils are very poor. But that  
> ideal can be extrapolated to most forests...why? Because 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.
>
>
> Not sure if that answers your baffling but its the best I can do  
> this morning.
>
> Brian
>
>
>
> On 9/21/07, Brian Hans <bhans at earthmimic.com> wrote:
>
> This is not a full 'study'. No methodology, conclusion, data... but  
> the results are obvious in my opinion...forests and especially old  
> growth forests are not carbon sinks.
>
> Prairie is a carbon sink because its producing soil, forests arnt  
> producing soils. This important distinction gets blurred with the  
> advent of TP...whereas forest can INFACT become soil forming carbon  
> sinks. But...so can prairies, deserts, boreal, your herb garden in  
> the back...etc thru the advent of TP.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Terrapreta mailing list
> Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org
> http://bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/ 
> terrapreta_bioenergylists.org
> http://terrapreta.bioenergylists.org
> http://info.bioenergylists.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/terrapreta_bioenergylists.org/attachments/20070922/bc019ade/attachment.html 