Breaking news! Trees store carbon!

Who would have ever guessed trees store carbon by utilizing the gas of plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide, and in an “immense, profound” way? From the Institute of Arctic Biology, where they seem to see no positive benefit to this, but worry about fires and insect damages instead. In a previous story, it was shown by NASA that the biosphere is booming thanks to CO2.

A conifer forest in the Swiss Alps (National Park) Image: Wikipedia

World’s forests role in carbon storage immense, profound

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

14 July 2011

FAIRBANKS, Alaska — Until now, scientists were uncertain about how much and where in the world terrestrial carbon is being stored. In the July 14 issue of Science Express, scientists report that, between 1990 and 2007, the world’s forests stored about 2.4 gigatons of carbon per year.

Their results suggest that forests account for almost all of the world’s land-based carbon uptake. Boreal forests are estimated to be responsible for 22 percent of the carbon stored in the forests. A warming climate has the potential to increase fires and insect damage in the boreal forest and reduce its capacity to sequester carbon.

“Our results imply that clearly, forests play a critical role in Earth’s terrestrial carbon balance, and exert considerable control over the evolution of atmospheric carbon dioxide,” said A. David McGuire, co-author and professor of ecology at the University of Alaska Fairbanks Institute of Arctic Biology and co-leader of the USGS Alaska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit.

The report includes comprehensive estimates of carbon for the world’s forests based on recent inventory data. The scientists included information on changes in carbon pools from dead wood, harvested wood products, living plants and plant litter, and soils to estimate changes in carbon across countries, regions and continents that represent boreal, temperate and tropical forests.

The authors note that understanding the present and future role of forests in the sequestration and emission of carbon is essential for informed discussions on limiting greenhouse gases.

– 30 –

ADDITIONAL CONTACTS: A. David McGuire, professor of landscape ecology, Institute of Arctic Biology, USGS Alaska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, 907-474-6242, admcguire@alaska.edu

AUTHORS: USDA Forest Service, Newtown Square, PA, USA. Key Laboratory for Earth Surface Processes, Ministry of Education, Peking University, Beijing, 100871 China. State Key Laboratory of Vegetation and Environmental Change, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100093 China. Woods Hole Research Center, Falmouth, USA. University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Victoria, Canada. School of Geography, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT, UK. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Austria. Global Carbon project, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Canberra, Australia. Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement (LSCE) CEA-UVSQ-CNRS, Gif sur Yvette, France. Duke University, Durham, NC, USA. Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA. U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, AK, USA. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, USA.

NOTE TO EDITORS: Email is the best method for contacting McGuire. The abstract for the paper, “A Large and Persistent Carbon Sink in the World’s Forests,” is available at: www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/07/13/science.1201609

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

81 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bill Illis
July 20, 2011 8:15 am

SasjaL says:
July 19, 2011 at 3:56 am
Bill Illis says:
July 18, 2011 at 4:48 pm
Sorry, your calculation is missing important figures and is therefore misleading .
———————
Oceans annual should be more like:
Absorption: 94 bt
Release: 91.7 bt
Net: -2.3 bt
Forests/Vegetation annual (deforestation included) should be more like:
Absorption: 124 bt
Release: 122.9 bt
Net -1.1 bt
———————-
Has anyone compared how human spread geographically and evolved on Earth (with deforestation), with the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
Might be a very small signal starting about 4,000 BC but it was more when the Industrial Revolution started around 1780 that CO2 started going up alot. There is also a clear temperature signal with the LIA, MWP, Roman Warm Period and the Dark Ages showing up in the trends.
CO2 back to 1500 and to 10,000 BC
http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/7021/co210kbc.png
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/6318/co21500ad.png

Andy G55
July 20, 2011 7:40 pm

I have often wondered why they don’t have plantation timber and food crops around the power stations. Capture the CO2 and pipe it to the crops at ground level so it filters upwards.
The trees and crops would LUV it !!

Andy G55
July 20, 2011 7:47 pm

For a long time the plants and CO2 have been on a balance, if the CO2 dropped a bit, plant life struggled and reduced. Natural releases of CO2 from volcanoes etc allowed plant life to make some headway until the balance point was reached again. The standard food vs population scenario.
Then along came man, and started digging up long buried carbon deposits that were once on the surface when plantlife flourished in abundance. The balance is again tipped in plant life’s favour, and it shall flourish once again..

Andy G55
July 20, 2011 8:00 pm

I should also add that burning wood has basically no impact on environmental CO2. That wood would eventually die and release its CO2 anyway (unless it got buried first).
It is the digging up of long buried timber in the form of coal and other deposits that is returning the atmosphere to its more natural level.

Brian H
July 25, 2011 4:48 pm

Even better would be to dig the coal to roast limestone and maximize CO2 release. It’s time we fauna made up for past parasitic laziness.

SasjaL
July 28, 2011 5:09 pm

Bill Illis says:
July 20, 2011 at 8:15 am
My primary point was that you left out the major source of carbon emissions – volcanoes. These cozy items are leaking out carbon dioxide whether they are active, passive (dormant) or “dead” … (Wikipedia | Vulcano: “Volcanic activity releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year.” Oops! Somebody needs to censor this … [/sarc])
From a statistical (and scientific) point of view, “your” graphs are incomplete and therefore faulty and misleading! (Similar to “PhD” M.E. Mann’s hockey stick …)
If the scale of the y-axis is limited, the perspective becomes distorted and as a result many misinterpret it. The lowest value should (must) be set to zero …
The same applies to the x-axis, where the start value should (must) be the time when the earth got its climate … (Earlier and larger peeks are missing …)
Only then, we can take a look at it …
Btw, where in the graphs it is possible to see the lagging (approximately 800 years) of the carbon dioxide level relative the temperature level? (Most important!)