Skip to comments.European forests near carbon saturation point (uh-huh)
Posted on 08/21/2013 6:25:40 AM PDT by Olog-hai
A new study has warned that Europes forests are showing signs of reaching saturation point in their ability to absorb carbon dioxide.
Forests currently soak up about 10 percent of Europes emissions, but woodlands from Spain to Sweden are getting older and are packed with trees that are less efficient at soaking them up.
The information comes in a study published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
(Excerpt) Read more at euronews.com ...
So the trees will turn to coal or crude oil then. Awesome!!
So big deal. Just cut the old growth timber and the problem is solved.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has grown much and still is less than 2%. The earth has been cooling for 15 years. Maybe we need to burn more wood.
Okay, the easy fix is to log the forests so new trees can grow and absorb more carbon.
Great, cut them down and make furniture. That furniture will hold the old carbon in place, while the new forest soaks up the new carbon.
Paging the Sierra Club.
And the ‘dopes’ in Seattle will buy this completely as they fight over that last bag of free munchies
I read somewhere that grasses are the predominant producer of oxygen, not trees.
So, harvest the older trees and plant two new ones for each removed. Problem solved.
I’d like to tell the old growth trees...
I’m so sick of these ecofascists and their steady lying.
Locally I’m fighting 3 different enviro groups who use lying and bribery to get their way. The Raisin Valley Land Trust, Waterkeepers, and Raisin River watershed council are keeping up a steady barrage of lies about the devastated wildlife and promising grant writers to give us free money. To make matters worse, the state and feds help them by giving tax breaks to those who sell out our freedoms.
Less than 2%??? It’s far, far less. Currently at about 400 parts per million, the percentage is 0.04%.
The tree whisperer overheard the following conversation between a cranky old growth oak and an old fart ancient maple. “I am so full and tired,” said the ancient oak. “My branches weigh heavily on my trunk and they are so filled with leaves and acorns I am afraid the birds will break me when they come to roost and feed.”
“I know exactly how you feel,” said the maple. “The more carbon I consume the more sap I produce. Every bug in the forest is feeding on me. If this keeps up I will be so filled with tunnels and holes I will bleed to death.”
And as the trees carried on their sad conversation acorns sprouted everywhere and the maples’ helicopter seeds were blown far and wide.
It is a truth more fundamental than all the other realities of nature that plants and animals exist in a perfect balance that keeps both healthy.
The more plants the more animals. The more animals the more plants. They are the ultimate marriage, existing in a perfect symbiosis. One cannot destroy the other.
The more plants animals consume the more plants grow up and flourish. This is the divine plan and no foolish animal who thinks he is God can change it.
Actually, the atmosphere if about 0.039 per cent CO2. Yep, it’s a trace gas.
2% is up in the range of water vapor in the atmosphere.
By the way, water vapor *IS* a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, and no one disputes that. We should ban water vapor, right?
Maybe Jackyl will hold a benefit concert.
Academic “modernity” has it, that “forestry” is bashing human existance.
Traditional forestry is hands on -— tree trimming, thinning out the branches (grooming), and generally taking actual care of the trees - particularly near water and/or in flat areas, where water collects, and old growth tends to collapse upon itself and choke further growth which results in bog development and spindly pines.
I’m surprised somewhat, because we used to cultivate/care for trees, but now, I see a tree crew just do one of three things: cut away branches near a cable, cut away low branches, or cut down a tree. I rarely see a crew who can eyeball a tree and realize that a few branches could be cut out, that either relieve stress and/or allow light. They don’t seem to know how to *thin* a tree; they almost never know how to top a tree.
Thinning particularly helps sunlight get to the forest floor, and where water run-off is not fast, this helps greatly.
Basically, “modernity” of the leftists/academics favors forest rot and fires, which destroys, but tradtional forestry maintained both old and new growth.
Around here, we have a lot of ash trees that need help. We can trim them and spray them ... and save them ... but there are so many neo-green-eco-nuts who are busy chatting the latest “modernity” instead of doing: tree trimming/thinning.
“A declining volume of trees, deforestation and the impact of natural disturbances are to blame.”
I was watching some show, I think it was “How do they do that”, and it was about men that were employed by the state to go out and cut down trees that were looking too old. They did this to improve safety for people hiking in the woods. It was in Germany or some Scandinavian country. That’s when you’ve taken things too far.
(There, solved it for ya, Europe)
Less than 2%??? Its far, far less. Currently at about 400 parts per million, the percentage is 0.04%.
Thanks for that. That is far better than my poor memory told me.
Bwa ha ha ha ha ha
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.