[Terrapreta] CO2 rising

[Sean K. Barry]

Hi Brian, Michael,

I think it is important to differentiate between what is means to be a 'carbon sink' versus 'standing carbon'.  Some people equate these (I often do) and some people do not.  I think it is true that old growth forests do not take in more new carbon than they release.  They will not continue to 'sink' carbon into new tree growth faster than it is released from the forest floor and soil by decomposers.  But, they do hold a tremendous amount of carbon.  I've pointed out a table before
from a white paper.   Here it is again ...

I referred a Table displayed in a document, "The Encyclopedia of Energy" ...

TABLE II
Estimated Distribution of World's Biomass Carbon
                        Forests            Savanna and grasslands    Swamp and marsh    Remaining terrestrial    Marine
Area (106 km2)
                           48.5               24.0                            2.0                            74.5                        361
Percentage            9.5                 4.7                             0.4                            14.6                        70.8

Net C production (Gt/year)
                           33.26              8.51                           2.70                           8.40                        24.62
Percentage            42.9               11.0                            3.5                            10.8                        31.8

Standing C (Gt)
                           744                   33.5                                  14.0                           37.5                        4.5
Percentage            89.3                 4.0                             1.7                            4.5                         0.5

Note. Adapted from Table 2.2 in Klass, D. L. (1998). ''Biomass for Renewable Energy, Fuels, and Chemicals.'' Academic Press, San
Diego, CA.

I refer to the two numbers I have highlighted in bold.  These are estimates of the total amount of carbon that is held in two types of land forms; Forest and Savanna/grasslands.   744 is fully 20 times 33.5!  This indicates clearly that Forest land holds 20 times more 'standing carbon' than does Savanna/grasslands.

Straight up from those numbers are 'Net Carbon production numbers'.  This is how much carbon per year that they do 'sink'.
Look at those numbers ... Forests put more carbon onto the land than Savanna/grasslands.  Surprised as some may be, 33.26 is a bigger number than 8.51!

Now, either this entire paper is a blatant exaggeration of what really goes on, or Forest land contains more carbon and 'sinks' more carbon than Savanna/grasslands.  Divide the rates of C production by the land area and Forests still outperform Savanna/grasslands as both 'carbon sinks' and  with 'standing carbon'.

I think this is persuasive.  Who will argue against it?   Stay on this table.  Does it show what I say it does?  I believe you MUST dismiss this Table if you must argue for an alternative view.  When you do that, make sure to look at the bibliography that is at the end of the paper.  You dismiss all of that too.  SIngle cases can be found which look differently (old growth forests), but they can still fit into this overall model.

Regards,

SKB

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Michael Bailes<mailto:michaelangelica at gmail.com> 
  To: terrapreta<mailto:terrapreta at bioenergylists.org> 
  Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 12:39 AM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] CO2 rising


        On 9/21/07, Brian Hans <bhans at earthmimic.com <mailto: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. 


  All very interesting because it is so counter intuitive
  Like Southern Oceans dissolving more CO2 because they are COLDER
  (No, not being an Irish dyslectic as in pH post)
  Heaven help us when we start intentionally mucking about with the weather/planet/ecosystem/Gaia 

  Australian aborigines developed the forests of Australia by the use of fire.  Fire cleared the forest allowed grass to grow. (thereby attracting food-kangaroos), made hollow log shelters for delicious echinas or goannas and other animals and deposited ash and some carbon.
   Australian soils are very old and very geologically stable, highly weathered and deficient in phosphorus. Ash from burning helped provide this. 
   Many plants  evolved seed germination that depended on fire. Most native trees are not killed by fire, except now where there are no aborigines to care for the land, forest litter builds up and fires become to hot and wild. 
  Bush-fire control people often do controlled burning in winter but often this is difficult due to the  wheather (too windy to wet too dry etc)or danger of smoke over roads & expressways, damage to houses, farms etc etc 

  I am reminded of farmer friends near Tarmor in the S W wheat belt of NSW. When settlers first went to the area 150 or so years ago it was covered in grasses higher than a man. Excitedly settlers stared to grow whet in the area. My friends get a crop of wheat probably once every five years;. and that is not when there is the 1in 1,000 year drought we have on now.  Normal rainfall is 8" inches a year. That's in good years. 

  How much biomass do grasses have underground?

  I think this is an interesting comment

    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?

  This might be important in our "tarred over" cities, suburbs and malls re the albedo effect.

  The comment about beavers too is interesting.They would seem to have had a huge impact on the environment  (no double entente intended :)) 

  Michael the Archangel

  "You can fix all the world's problems in a garden. . . . 
  Most people don't know that"
  FROM
  http://www.blog.thesietch.org/wp-content/permaculture.swf<http://www.blog.thesietch.org/wp-content/permaculture.swf> _______________________________________________
  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/20070923/a5b88a59/attachment.html