While we are increasing our industrial gases to the atmosphere, we are steadily removing the major oxygen sources and carbon eating forests of the world. Instead the deforestation, by burning and rotting etc release large portions of carbon into the atmosphere. Let's take up smoking and cut our lungs out at the same time!
The forests also directly by their very hugeness effect global weather patterns.
When we are going to stuff it up, let's stuff it up real good. Do we know how long these rainforests take to grow? Do we know how little money would help stop the subsistence farmers from clearing? Nah, lets Keep up the greed and the short-sighted self-serving idiocy. Its not our problem - no, not yet.
Mankind right now is truly losing the plot, millions of plots in fact yearly.
>>>>>>
"The loss of forests has a great effect on the global carbon cycle. From 1850 to 1990, deforestation worldwide (including that in the United States) released 122 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere, with the current rate being between 1.6 billion metric tons per year (Skole et al. 1998). In comparison, all of the fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas) burned during a year release about 6 billion tons per year.
Releasing CO2 into the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect, and may raise global temperatures (see Climate Change fact sheet). The role of fossil fuel burned by cars and by industry is well known, but tropical deforestation releases about 25% of the amount released by fossil fuel burning. Tropical deforestation, therefore, contributes a significant part of the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere."
The sun is the principal source of heat and energy, with very slow entropy. It is the principal source of energy for plant life, as you are no doubt aware.
There are differing rates of entropy and living systems can show apparent reversal of entropy for a period. Entropy is simple in concept but has indirect and direct complex pathways in reality, especially in living systems.
I am unclear as to your point in regard to deforestation.
I must point out that a large proportion of carbon going into the atmosphere is soil carbon due to poor farming practices. This can be reversed and can potentially remove all the carbon in the atmosphere that man has put there.
My sister is a farmer and knows more about it, and I cant seem to find the website she pointed me too, but I have found this one:
http://www.carboncoalition.com.au/
She also pointed out to me that in a country like Zambia, most of the carbon going into the atmosphere is from bush fires (started deliberately by humans).
Originally posted by KazetNagorra It's a common misconception rainforests take CO2 out of the atmosphere.
Any references? My understanding was that coal came from rain forests and that they also act as a carbon sink because when atmospheric carbon rises they experience enhanced growth. I could well be wrong and would welcome references to the contrary.
Originally posted by Taoman While we are increasing our industrial gases to the atmosphere, we are steadily removing the major oxygen sources and carbon eating forests of the world. Instead the deforestation, by burning and rotting etc release large portions of carbon into the atmosphere. Let's take up smoking and cut our lungs out at the same time!
The forests also directly by their v ...[text shortened]... part of the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere."
http://www.trfic.msu.edu/rfrc/status.html
If this is depressing information, I probably should not tell you about the Indirect Land Use Change theory.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra It's a common misconception rainforests take CO2 out of the atmosphere. They don't, although removing them does release CO2 into the atmosphere.
I don't know why you would make that statement.
CO2 is taken up by all photosynthetic organisms, converted into plant mass (generally cellulosic material) or saccharides or other carbon based materials.
Originally posted by mlprior I don't know why you would make that statement.
CO2 is taken up by all photosynthetic organisms, converted into plant mass (generally cellulosic material) or saccharides or other carbon based materials.
Yes, and after the plant dies the CO2 is generally released into the atmosphere again, unless some of it fossilizes (a rare and slow process). Hence, carbon cycle.
Originally posted by twhitehead Any references? My understanding was that coal came from rain forests and that they also act as a carbon sink because when atmospheric carbon rises they experience enhanced growth. I could well be wrong and would welcome references to the contrary.
I'm not sure under which conditions fossilization is fastest, but in any case it is negligibly slow compared to man's use of fossil fuels.
Originally posted by KazetNagorra Yes, and after the plant dies the CO2 is generally released into the atmosphere again, unless some of it fossilizes (a rare and slow process). Hence, carbon cycle.
True that most of the carbon will eventually return to the atmosphere as CO2 once a tree dies, though it takes a long time, mostly through heterotrophic decomposition.
Your previous statement was:
"It's a common misconception rainforests take CO2 out of the atmosphere. They don't, although removing them does release CO2 into the atmosphere."
I don't agree with that. Photosynthesis does take CO2 out of the atmosphere and holds that carbon as plant material. A tree can hold carbon for hundreds of years, both above and below the ground in the root system.
Originally posted by mlprior I don't agree with that. Photosynthesis does take CO2 out of the atmosphere and holds that carbon as plant material. A tree can hold carbon for hundreds of years, both above and below the ground in the root system.
I think he meant that there is no net absorption of CO2 (or rather that it is negligible). A healthy rain forest is both absorbing CO2, some of which will be stored for hundreds of years and releasing CO2 some of which has been stored for hundreds of years.
Unless the total mass of the rainforest is growing how can it be absorbing more carbon? (And by total mass I mean all the root system, dead wood and decaying leaf litter).
The way forward is to farm rain-forests and replant. Providing the farmed wood is not burnt we will be capturing more carbon.
Incidentally the biggest carbon sumps are the oceans - not the photogenic forests.
Originally posted by wolfgang59 The way forward is to farm rain-forests and replant.
As I mentioned before, changes in farming practice that increase soil carbon, would not only have a greater effect but would be possible at practically no cost and would also make farming more sustainable for the future.Current practices result in long term damage to the soil and loss of carbon from the soil.
Deforestation Rant
03 Feb '11 17:23
Back to Top