[Terrapreta] CO2 rising

[David Yarrow]

you're stuck in generalizations.  forests are not all one type.  there are dozens of forest types, with widely varying characteristics, species, ages, processes, etc.  

growing on vertical cliffs and steep talus slopes in the niagara river gorge is a forest of 700-1000 year old white cedars and associated herbaceous, insect and other species with little organic detritus blanketing the rocks.  

at the other end of NY in the hudson valley is a forest of 300-700 year old mixed hardwood & hemlock trees growing in a deep, inaccessible ravine with no soil, but many feet of organic humus with thick mats of moss, ferns, liverworts, lichen and other primitive plants.

above that ravine, growing on bare, polished bedrock tables, is a forest of pitch pine and scrub oak -- 100-150 years old -- old for their species -- with a thin covering of understory, moss and soil.

three ancient forests with extremely varied characteristics, including age, species, rooting structures, associated species, soil forming and carbon fixing features.

David Yarrow
"If yer not forest, yer against us."
Turtle EyeLand Sanctuary
44 Gilligan Road, East Greenbush, NY 12061
dyarrow at nycap.rr.com
www.championtrees.org
www.OnondagaLakePeaceFestival.org
www.citizenre.com/dyarrow/
www.farmandfood.org
www.SeaAgri.com
 
"Happiness can be found even in the darkest of times, 
if one only remembers to turn on the light."  
-Albus Dumbledore
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Brian Hans 
  To: Terrapreta at bioenergylists.org 
  Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2007 4:53 PM
  Subject: Re: [Terrapreta] CO2 rising


  I cannot find that data Sean quotes from, maybe you can link it for us?  Also...that particular data flies in the face of the two links I made, one from Biopact and one from Wisconsin forests. Somewhere there is a rub.

  Im curious...if forest sink 2.75 tones of carbon/year...what happens to that in a mature forest? If a mature forest like that of the Amazon has been around for 10,000's of thousands of years... 10000x 2.75t = 27500t of carbon held. Obviously that isnt true or the soil would be 100's of feet thick and the trees 1000's of feet tall...and we all know that is not true...so where is the rub here?

  Also...I could say the same for a prairie... 1.41t/a/y sink ...after 1000 years there isnt 1410 t/a/y of sunk carbon...where is the C going?  

  We are missing something because if you play those numbers out thru time...they dont add up. 

  Brian





    I've beat on this hard, people.  The Table II shows it all.  Forests hold 20 times the amount of carbon at grasslands and Forests 'sink' approximately TWICE as much carbon every year as grasslands do.  If you argue against this, then you argue against one of the more widely accepted analysis of this subject.  That paper, "The Encyclopedia of Energy" is a compendium of sources which all say this same sort of thing.  It does not fly into the face of many others.  It agrees with others.  It is not counter-intuitive.  It is comprehensive.

    Regards,

    SKB

    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/20070923/962c01db/attachment.html