Carbon sequestion -true or false

[jim king]

Subject :  Forest carbon emissions
Is it possible that the scientific community is way off base when talking about forests as carbon sinks  ¿ 
Can tropical forests such as the Amazon be compared to temperate climate forests as carbon sinks ?  Temperate forests trees have a longevity of at least double a tropical forest thus less rotting vegetation and less co2 produced not only do to the longevity of a temperate forest but the temperate forest has many months a year frozen and I would assume minimal rotting in those periods.  A tropical forest is continually regenerating and thus dying and rotting vegetation in abundance.  The net result is in my opinion that a tropical forest with the short life span of the trees compared to temperate forests are not to be compared as equals.
Now you add to this that in the flood season millions of acres in the Amazon are flooded and when the rivers recede those millions of acres of flood land and permanent swamps give off  huge amounts of green house gases.
On any given acre of Amazon forest can be found at least 20 decomposing trees plus the other tons of dead vines , leaves etc.. 
With 1,400,000,000 acres of Amazon forest that will be a minimum 28,000,000,000  rotting trees plus the other vegetation which would be at least the equivalent to the tree volume.  This comes to 168,000,000,000 cubic meters of rotting trees plus another amount equal in other rotting vegetation.  The accumulated rotting vegetation for exceeds the growth rate of new seedlings and other vegetation.

Add to this the millions of acres of wetlands and emerging wetlands  giving off greenhouse gases how can a tropical forest be a carbon sink ?  In my opinion the tropical forests in their natural state are net producers of green house gases contrary to what you see published by all of the Jungle disappearing fear monger groups.
Giving the rotting vegetation a very low estimate of 336,000,000,000 cubic meters of rotting vegetation plus the millions of acres of rotting swamps I do not see how the regeneration of seedlings can negate the massive volume of accumulated rotting vegetation and green house gases emitted.
  The main point is that there is always much more rotting vegetation in various forms than regeneration.  My estimates on rotting vegetation I believe are very low but after 20 plus years of climbing over 2 to 5 foot diameter rotting , moldy , slippery logs I am very convinced of my idea.
Can some one set me straight on this concerning tropical forests ? 

In my opinion the solution is the harvest of mature trees and turn them into products and properly manage the forest to eliminate this huge production of green house gases.

I am talking about forestry management and not the promoted idea of global warming.

[Samuel]

Jim;

Here is Alberta we are in the process of developing an enhanced Forest Management protocol to deal with exactly what you are stating.  Mature/over mature forests can contribute very much to GHG releases and it seems to me some of the policy makers have it ass-backwards trying to set baselines on natural over-mature forests.  Young, vibrant forest sequester much more carbon and if properly managed, give you a shorter rotation as well.  This can be said for any forest type including the tropics.

[jim king]

Samuel:

I am happy to hear that my years of observation are being considered by professionals also.

Thanks for the reply.  This whole thing is really a mess created by people who have a lot of theory and agendas but are very ignorant of reality.

Jim

[Samuel]

I may be able to enlighten you further later this week as I am sitting on a conference call on Tuesday as part of a Bi-National committee to discuss a North American Forest Carbon Protocol being led by Forest Products Association of Canada and the American Forest and Paper Association and these are questions that I am going to be asking for sure.

[jim king]

Samuel:

If you can slip it in the conversation can you ask about how the tropics as I mentioned in my first post ?  Milions of acres of rotting swamp and when the river drops 40 feet every July plus highland permanent swamps and leaves all the low lands in a rotting state plus the vegetation accumulation is the Amazon a net producer of CO2 and other gases ?

I dont see how it could possibly be positive  be a carbon sink.  I was studying the internet for a few hours last night on this subject and there are a lot of people in the scientific world who agree with my opinion.  They simply dont have the way to promote thier agenda the way the WWF and others do.

Some day we will know if those three crop a year soybean fields the Brazilians planted on the east fringe Amazon are better at carbon sequestation than the mature rotting forest.  That would be a shocker to the world wouldnt it ?

[Ron Wenrich]

I saw a few reports that said that the rain forests were carbon sinks due to more wood being produced on the trees than the material that rotted.  That was the case in most years.  But, when temperatures were hot, the trees grew less than when it was cool.  They also said that when rainfall was down the trees grew less.  I'm thinking that when its hot, its probably dry.  The studies were done on old growth jungle, and it was still taking in more carbon than it was releasing.  Long term study.

[Ianab]

If rainforest was actually a carbon sink, there would be a big lump of carbon sitting someplace under it...

My understanding is that tropical rainforest has a very thin layer of soil over the underlying subsoil as the moisture and high temp means things decay fast.

If you want to look for a carbon sink, look at peat swamps or areas with perma-frost. Organic material that gets buried in those areas is going to get locked in and be there long term. Let it get covered over over and wait a few million years and you have a new coal deposit. But "Save the Peat Swamp" doesn't have the same ring to it.

The only practical way to use a forest as a carbon sink is if you take the wood and lock it up someplace. Building a house is OK short term, but in a 100 years or so the house will be torn down and the carbon gets free again. But if you are still growing trees it can be recycled again.

Ian

[jim king]

I saw a few reports that said that the rain forests were carbon sinks due to more wood being produced on the trees than the material that rotted.  That was the case in most years.  But, when temperatures were hot, the trees grew less than when it was cool.  They also said that when rainfall was down the trees grew less.  I'm thinking that when its hot, its probably dry.  The studies were done on old growth jungle, and it was still taking in more carbon than it was releasing.  Long term study.

Ron:  I have to assume these studies are made by the same people who make the forestry laws here and never set foot in the jungle.  It is simply not possible that contiouous rotting  the accumulation of debris on the jungle floor from many many years can be overcome by the seedling growth.

The temperature and rainfall are quite constant every day of the year except for the three or 4 days of a cold wave every July that comes up from the Antarctic called "Santa Rosa".  You can follow the Weather on an hourly basis in any part of the Amazon by Googeling  for example "Iquitos weather".

Current conditions as of 9:00 AM PET
Mostly Cloudy
Feels Like:70 °F
Barometer:30.09 in and rising
Humidity:88 %
Visibility:4.97 mi
Dewpoint:64 °F
Wind:--
Sunrise:6:01 AM
Sunset:5:57 PM
68°High: 92° Low: 69°

» Detailed Forecast
» Records and Averages
» Get Yahoo! Weather on your desktop

Today Tomorrow Thu Fri Sat 6-10 Day

Isolated T-storms
Isolated T-storms
Scattered T-storms
Scattered T-storms
Scattered T-storms Extended Forecast
High: 92°
Low: 69° High: 93°
Low: 71° High: 87°
Low: 72° High: 85°
Low: 72° High: 85°
Low: 72°

Get Alerts:EmailWeather Bulletins

In all of my years here I have seen one dry year by our standards and was here for the 100 year high flood .  The flood did much more damage that the dry year.

The jungle has a cap of rotting leaves of a couple of inches as the leaves are very hard and decay slowly creating at best an inch if top soil over a clay base in most ares .  The daily rainfall leaches the nutrients out of the soil and they all end up in the ocean in a few days..  That is why the trees here only have roots a couple of feet deep and are continuosly falling.  The accumulation of debris affect is due to 60% of the trees being extremly hard and slow to decay.

As for the millions of acres of swamp the below information from some studies seems to sum up the swamps production of green house gases.

CO" emissions  forests and swamps


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=methane-emissions-wetlands-tropics
Wetlands are thought to be responsible for 70 percent of global atmospheric methane from natural sources—but not all wetlands are created equal. Water level, soil temperature, vegetation and topography all affect a wetland's methane production, complicating  estimates of emissions from specific areas.

It can also be said that there is to date no sure proven method of calculating forest green house gas production.  It appears to be mostly theories put forward by groups whom have an agenda producing all the information to promote a particular interest.

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/ss501
Recent changes in global atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Wetlands contribute a significant amount of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere through natural emissions or loss of peat upon land use change or drainage. Wetlands are typified by flooding for long periods of time which results in sequestration of carbon over time as peat consolidates. These soils are commonly referred to as Histosols. On a worldwide basis, wetlands are estimated to contain 33% of the world's soil carbon, even though they only occupy about 4% of the land surface (Gorham 1991; Eswaran et al. 1993). Wetlands are estimated to contain 771 billion tons of greenhouse gases, or 1/5 of all carbon on Earth, which is about the same amount of carbon contained in the atmosphere.

All this said even if the tropical forests are nuetral they could never compensate for the problem of green house gases created by the industrialized and developed and developing countries such as the US, Europe and China.

This is one of the reason why am scratching my head trying to figure out what is behind the "Carbon credit" programs.

As for carbon under the jungle there is a 1 foot layer of coal type substance waving from a couple of feet down to 100 feet down under the jungle surface.  Nobody knows why but maybe it was created when the Andes mountains were formed and changed the flow of the river from going west to flowing east.  We also have quite large oil deposits of heavy crude about a mile down.

[Ron Wenrich]

The one study was in Costa Rico.  The guy has lived there for 35 years, at the study site.  Are their jungles different than yours?  Very possibly, they are.  It would be akin to comparing the hardwood forests in the Appalachian area with that in the glacial areas.  But, the stand structure would function the same, just not at the same rate.

The carbon sink is the accumulation of woody debris.  Its not in the seedlings, per se.  Its increased biomass, growth on existing trees, and the expansion of the root systems.  Carbon also exists in the increase of fauna...insects, birds, etc.  So, you're not going to find a lump of carbon underneath it.

You may find an increase in the amount of topsoil.   Apparently, the Amazon flushes itself out every year like many other large rivers throughout the world do.  That doesn't mean the sink didn't form, it just means it moved.  In that case, it would move to the oceans where it may end up as sediment.  How would you measure that and extrapolate the data to specific jungle types? 

What the study brought up was that if the tropics heat up, it would not be able to function as a large carbon sink, which is what policy makers are eying up.  It would be nice to see a study of the amount of carbon sequestered over a wide range of forest types and ages.  They have only been looking at the old growth jungles, from what I could find.

I'm not on any side of this issue.  I can see both aspects and I'm not in a position to condemn any one stance.  There is data to support the carbon sink aspect of the tropics.  They were actually surprised to see that the old growth forests were still acting as a carbon sink.  They thought that it would be acting as a carbon source, just like you.  Their data said otherwise.

[jim king]

Ron:

The Amazon has a nery small proportion that would be equal to Costa Rica.  We have millions of acres of flood plain and very few hilly drained areas such as Costa Rica.  Every thing here is a rotting mess, basically a big swamp.

The carbon sink is the accumulation of woody debris.  Its not in the seedlings, per se.  Its increased biomass, growth on existing trees, and the expansion of the root systems.

Do you consider the fallen and rotting mass as part of the carbon sink ?

You may find an increase in the amount of topsoil.   Apparently, the Amazon flushes itself out every year like many other large rivers throughout the world do.  That doesn't mean the sink didn't form, it just means it moved.  In that case, it would move to the oceans where it may end up as sediment.  How would you measure that and extrapolate the data to specific jungle types?

We have no increase in top soil.  What all washes into the ocean I have no idea how to measure.  You cannot see your hand 6 inches under the water in the Large sweet water rivers such as the Amazon.  The millions of black water acidic rivers
are somewhat more clear but still not clear as you know Nort American rivers to be.
The eroision and the run off of debris is incredible.  I have seen islands dissapear over night and large acreages dissaper when the river changes its mind.  The Amazon is not beautiful.

It will be interesting to hear the results of the Canadians on this subject as Samuel has mentioned.  It is sad that we are all in reality talking theory as to my knowledge there is no way to measure the gases given off in a tropical rotting forest.  I cannot agree that with the majority of the Amazon being muture forest and the mature trees stop growing or dying that they are continuing to be a carbon sink.

As I can see it most studies are like feasability studies, they always say what they were intende to say.  I have never seen a bad feasability study presented for financing.  I think the same goes for these eco studies done from a desk far away from the real situation.  Totally agenda driven by some interest.  

I would guess in a thousand years from now we may know the truth and I am coming back to what is reality.

[mrcaptainbob]

I sure appreciate the level of this discussion. It can be devise, but this is good dialogue. And very informative. Thank all of you.

[SPIKER]

While I see that the amazon is not like other areas there was/is a study that has been on-going just like this on some of the northern Californian Redwood & Sequoia forests buy a guy who has set up controlled sections measured the mature trees and the smaller ones by scaling them and taking actual measurements to determine the actual volume of the bio-mass.   and also did the same thing on new growth forest that was logged previously.   As it has turned out the old growth is actually taking in more carbon for size of area than a 10? year old regrowth forest after it had been cut.   The study was started to prove that the regrowth captured more carbon but after years of study it seemed to prove old growth forest actually take in more carbon per acre.   This was a program on Discovery channel a while back and you can actually find it on-line (wish I could remember what it was called)  I actually watched it on Laptop downloaded form NET and I think I got the link from this site back in January or February.

Mark

[jim king]

Spiker:

I can see the logic behind this with trees that keep growing 100s or 1000s of years but here a mature tree has about a 50 year lifespan and then falls over and rots resunting is the huge anount of rotting mass on the jungle floor.

Again I would say that the whole forestry thing is too generalized and it is impossible to compare various forest types and think that thay all operate the same.

[fuzzybear]

Spiker:

I can see the logic behind this with trees that keep growing 100s or 1000s of years but here a mature tree has about a 50 year lifespan and then falls over and rots resunting is the huge anount of rotting mass on the jungle floor.

Again I would say that the whole forestry thing is too generalized and it is impossible to compare various forest types and think that thay all operate the same.

  I would have to agree 100%
  Too many "scientist" are trying to apply one size fits all beliefs. This is impossible in real life. The make up of forests change drasticaly even within it's own boundries.
  Here on top of the world you can have 2 valleys side by side and they are totally different. There are areas here that are total permafrost and the next valley NEVER freezes. I have been out in -30 weather and made my way into valley passes that half way down I am stripping to a t-shirt with temps rising to +20.
   There are tropical valleys with plants that were supposed to have been killed off by the last ice age....but they survived.
   When a "squint" says they have it figured out I laugh...because it will all change in a short period of time.
  Science will never truelly understand how diverse this planet is untill they actually explore and document every place on earth, and maintain the research.  Believe it or not there are places on this planet that modern man has never set foot.

[Ron Wenrich]

I don't think scientists are trying to make a one size fits all type of conclusion.  What they are trying to do is to understand all forest types, which works best under certain parameters, and the best application.  It requires getting a lot of data, and trying to interpolate it. 

The redwood study is interesting in the fact that more carbon is sequestered in the mature forest, rather than the young forest.  That also falls in line with the one from Costa Rico.  But, it doesn't mean that it applies to the Amazon, sugar pine stands in Arizona, or oak forests in the Northeast.  It applies mainly to those areas where there have been studies.

Scientists have been speculating that lots of carbon can be sequestered in trees.  The problem may be that we need mature forests to do that.  I don't know if that's the case, but I can see how that would work.  There is a thicker level of canopy that can capture carbon and put it onto a taller tree, which would have more area for carbon based cellulose.   But, you would need data to support the argument.  Right now they are gathering that data.

I would be more interested in seeing how much carbon is sequestered by different management protocol.  That would be even aged management, uneven aged management, and non managed stands.  I would also like to see on a species basis.  Some species are probably more efficient than others, and at different age classes.

First you have to do the science.  Then you have to figure out how to apply it.  I'm not sure we're past the first step.  Heck, we haven't even been able to implement the science from 50 years ago, let alone the stuff they're doing now.

[jim king]

Believe it or not there are places on this planet that modern man has never set foot.

That statement includes the vast majority of thr Amazon

First you have to do the science.  Then you have to figure out how to apply it.  I'm not sure we're past the first step.  Heck, we haven't even been able to implement the science from 50 years ago, let alone the stuff they're doing now.

I have the same problem , the more I know the less I understand.  It appears I am in the same situation as the scientists.

[BrandonTN]

Jim, in response to your initial post/idea, I would say what others have said that, even though dead plants/trees in tropical forests are constantly decaying rapidly, they are still carbon sinks because of the sheer vast amount of living plant biomass. At some point, there would be a point in the forest's age when it would start sequestering at a declining rate, but at the prime sequestering rate, I'd think that it'd be a carbon sink when it was vigorously growing.

Carbon aside, there is no question that tropical forests are great oxygen producers.