[counting dancing angels on the head of a pin~cr]
S.J. & JESSIE E. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF NATURAL RESOURCES, UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY
CREDIT: JAMES ST. JOHN
Having a solid estimate of the amount of carbon that forests can pull from the atmosphere is essential for global accounting of climate change—leaders are counting on forests to pull a good chunk of human-produced carbon back to earth. But in reality, forests’ ability to sequester carbon isn’t as straightforward as it might appear on paper. In a new research synthesis, Justin DeRose from Department of Wildland Resources and colleagues from across North America offered an alternative strategy to counter the uncertainty of calculating the carbon that forests can sequester, using tree ring data from forest inventory plots.
Oceans, soils and forests are ‘carbon sinks’—they have the ability to pull more carbon from the atmosphere than they put into it. Countries around the world depend on carbon sinks in their tally for achieving net-zero emissions. But the complex and delicate ecology of these systems are still somewhat unpredictable. Questions remain about how exactly forests will respond to the changing climate, and how to calculate what forests can do to help balance carbon accounts.
The global total for carbon pulled from the atmosphere by carbon sinks is traditionally estimated indirectly, by figuring the difference between human-produced emissions, the amount of carbon in the world’s oceans and the level of atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Supplementing that indirect calculation with data from existing (and future) collections of tree rings could provide an on-the-ground, direct record of the carbon gained by individual trees and forests, with the specificity of an annual time stamp, DeRose said. And from there, researchers could scale up to estimate forest-wide and continent-wide carbon savings. Some existing tree ring data from recent inventories exists, but more work is needed to to interpret what this data offers as applied to carbon sequestration. For such a system to work, a few things need to happen first, DeRose said.
Tree ring samples, along with the collection of associated forest data, could be collected nationally by efforts like the U.S. Forest Inventory and Analysis Program. The goal of these programs historically has been to understand forest change, but they are a perfect tool to also help answer questions about carbon and climate systems. Although tree core samples have been collected during some inventories, their continued collection in all forests will require a concerted effort.
“We need to get organized,” said DeRose, “with a more cohesive, forward-looking approach, nationally, continentally, and globally.”
Tree ring data collected from these forest inventories provide a wealth of tree- and plot-level information, DeRose said. Building a systematic, large-scale sample of tree rings could create a record of tree growth across space and time, from microsite to macrosystem and from years to centuries, with added detail to tease out the environmental and human-influenced drivers of growth.
“Adding tree ring data to the carbon equation would provide a much more nuanced, richer perspective about how forests are responding to the changing climate system,” he said.
The authors of the synthesis make the case for sampling tree rings in the forest inventories across North America to bring together key data to quantify and understand how forests are changing, and how much carbon they can hold as the world continues to fight global climate change.
JOURNAL
BioScience
DOI
METHOD OF RESEARCH
Data/statistical analysis
SUBJECT OF RESEARCH
Not applicable
ARTICLE TITLE
Adding Tree Rings to North America’s National Forest Inventories: An Essential Tool to Guide Drawdown of Atmospheric CO2
ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE
8-Dec-2021
Forests cannot do anything to reduce atmospheric CO2, because Drax the Destroyer is trying to burn every tree in America.
Drax is the UK’s largest power station at 4 gw, and because of EU rules against coal it has reinvented itself as a wood-burner. So now it burns 10 million tonnes of American and Estonian trees every year, which are logged, transported by road, pulped and pelleted, shipped across the Atlantic, and then railroaded to Drax the Destroyer.
Who knows how much energy that takes, in comparison to using the coal that resides under this power station..! Some estimates say that Drax is now outputting 50% more CO2 than when it was a coal-burner.
And what is the problem here? CO2 is plant-food, and the most important gas in the atmosphere. Without CO2, all life on Earth dies. During the ice ages, upland vegetation died due to a lack of CO2, causing vast CO2 Deserts to form, which caused the 10,000 years of dust storms prior to each interglacial warming period. It was the thick dust that lowered ice sheet albedo, and allowed interglacial warming.
Conversely, the extra CO2 in the modern era is greening the planet, especially in arid locations (extra CO2 reduces stomata openings and thus reduced transpiration in arid locations). Thus extra CO2 is feeding a billion people with extra agricultural output. Indeed, it was the very high levels of CO2 during the Jurassic era that allowed dinosaurs to evolve. More CO2 = bigger plants = bigger herbivores = bigger carnivores. So traditional images of dinosaurs standing in semi-desert landscapes are completely wrong.
Think about it – oil and coal companies have saved the biosphere from certain extinction. Three cheers for fossil fuels, for releasing all that essential CO2 back into the atmosphere.
/rant.
Ralph
Good comments, Ralph. The greening of the earth has been documented by NASA at about 10% in the “we’re all going to die” era. As regards “…dinosaurs standing in semi-desert landscapes…” a lot of the time I see fossilized dinosaur bones, and accompanying petrified tree trunks, in the Neuquen Basin, in Argentina, the environment was tree-and grass lined river banks and over-bank flood plains. Between these river environments it appears it was fairly dry, and even had a lot of sand dunes.
15-20% Nasa says since the beginning of the satellite era.
“Forests cannot do anything to reduce atmospheric CO2, because Drax the Destroyer is trying to burn every tree in America.”
That’s a moronic statement. You have not the slightest clue.
If you can refute “it burns 10 million tonnes of American and Estonian trees every year” then I might believe you but I suspect Ralph is simply using hyperbole to make a point. Perhaps you also need to look at how much CO2 is produced in the process and transport of these pellets.
maybe it is 10 million tonnes- so what?
and as for CO2 produced moving the pellets around, also, so what? If the question is, “does burning pellets result in lower carbon emissions”- probably not- most forestry people don’t care- it’s not about lowering carbon emissions and saving the planet, as I’ve said here many times- from the point of view of forestry people- it’s about getting rid of the weeds in the forests- because we are not idiotic and turning good sawlogs or veneer logs into pellets, despite the fact that that’s claimed all the time- it’s only the “junk wood” on managed forests that gets converted to pellets or chips or firewood- and that wood needs to be removed in a managed forest- look up the word “silviculture”
most forestry people are highly skeptical of the AGW- and fossil fuels are heavily used by the industry- so, in conclusion, the reason to burn pellets isn’t to save the planet- it’s to help manage forests- maybe Drax brags that it’s about saving the planet, but I doubt it- and yes, to those who argue better to use the coal under the Drax facility or nearby- sounds great- go for it- nobody in forestry would say otherwise- if Drax or the British government want to not use fossil fuels- and they realize America produces a lot of pellets and they decide to burn pellets, don’t blame forestry- blame Drax and the government
but, as to the suggestion burning wood is worse than coal- that’s false but I’m too busy to get into that- hey, I like coal- in my previous home, I had what looked like a very big wood stove, but it burned coal which I purchased from a local firm – the coal was about the size of wood pellets- and the stove needed power to drive a chain to move the coal- and instead of a chimney, it had a “power vent” or whatever it was called- can’t recall but it needed a fan to push the smoke outside- the stove burned very well as the smoke was not visible
Omg, every time Drax comes up, you begin a tirade defending forestry. Drax is a greenwashing exercise, green lipstick on a big fat climate pariah pig. It’s not using twigs and scraps from the forests, it’s mowing them down and wasting more precious energy pelletizing and shipping them over the ocean. No one is attacking sound forestry here, because the whole Drax issue doesn’t involve sound forestry or a basic knowledge of math or science – it’s politics, and therefore, by definition involves insanity.
Joseph
LMAO, are you actually serious or are a super sarc machine?
The issue here is not harvesting trees for human use, but harvesting trees and burning them in Drax as a futile and hypocritical exercise
The junk trees (the “weeds”) provide that volume of pellets each year. Wow, we are managing our forests.
Most come from the southeast coastal plain – a vast area and much of that area is now intensily managed forest- drive around down there- you can go for hours and see row after row of trees- it’s like the corn fields of the midwest. Without a biomass market for the junk trees- they’d burn the wood in huge piles out in the open. They do clearcut- after a few thinnings- then replant. It’s nothing like forestry in the north or west in how intense it is. They also are moving to planting genetically engineered trees. It’s not an ecologically nice kind of forestry- mostly monoculture with just a few species. Here in the northeast, we don’t plant trees- too expensive and the trees may not survive against the natural regeneration. There is some clearcutting in the northeast, especially in northern New England but not much in the rest of the northeast. Because most of the northeast forests have been high graded in the past (cut the best and left the rest)- the condition of the forests is vastly inferior to the original forests with at least half the trees having no potential to become quality sawtimber. To improve the forests we really need to get rid of those low quality trees. Much of it was once removed for the paper industry but that industry has been dying for decades and now not much of it is left. Some people might suggest use it for firewood- but there is many orders of magnitude more of it than the market for firewood- so what’s need is a very big market. We’re talking many millions of acres. There are some biomass power plants in New England but the clean and green crowd hate the biomass industry and hate all forestry- so new biomass power plants can’t be built here because the “haters” have succeeded in convincing the politicians that biomass will destroy the climate- and, what they really want is to lock up all the forests based on a new fantasy called PROFORESTATION- so the forests will do nothing but sequester carbon to SAVE THE PLANET. Of course that means the end of wood products being produced locally- instead, they are imported from places where the forestry work is not regulated like it is here. We can still do forestry without a biomass market but it’s not as good. What we have to do when not near a biomass market is kill the “wood trees” in place by girdling them with a chainsaw. Then they’ll rot in place and emit carbon over a 10-20 period. But this work is not cheap- and many foresters and loggers don’t bother. Most private forest owners wouldn’t know the difference between good and bad forestry- especially if they make a nice profit on it. The full potential for biomass is many orders of magnitude greater than it is. But, this isn’t to save the planet- it’s to improve the forests because humans love wood products and because of that we need to manage the forests as well as possible. Here, those who bitch the most about biomass and forestry live in the biggest wood homes. One forestry hater was a professor of piano at an ivy league college who has several pianos made of tropical hardwoods. Hypocrisy anyone?
For the simple answer, you have to look at the millions of acres of forest that produce that wood, the growth rates overall and mortality rates, the other products being harvested, and the raw materials that would be used if this wood was left to grow/decay. Then consider the alternative land uses to either 1) Leave these forests to grow/rot, 2) manage them for multiple uses/products/wildlife/etc, 3) convert to non-forest like agriculture or housing. See how simple it is?
There are costs with the transport of coal and natural gas. The Drax people may not have an ideal thing, but I suppose they’re still trying keep costs low as they can. Drax has been able to escape some of the more pointless regulations. They can’t turn to natural gas or nuclear so much.
From what I heard, Drax is right over a coal mine. Makes the whole issue even more insane.
They should have left Drax coal-fired and planted trees to compensate, if they really wanted to impress the green mob, or avoid carbon taxes. Planting trees, fertilizing the ocean, reclaiming deserts, whatever, would have been much more net-positive for the environment, while also being cheaper for the rate and taxpayers, and better for the economy if it does something useful.
Yes, Drax was specifically built on a coal mine, with the coal going direct from mine to power station. That is why so many power stations were built in the Notts-Derby region.
Lugging your very low-density fuel from America to Drax makes no sense whatsoever, and it is only possible because of Lefty politics and Green subsidies.
R
>>No clue.
Oh, I have many clues.
Firstly, why are we reducing food production, to grow energy? Especially when growing energy is so inefficient in comparison to other renewables. It was initially stated that this would be unusable wood being burned, but that is not the case – it is prime lumber.
Secondly, why are we using a Dark Age technology, rather than Uranium or Thorium? Why do brain-dead Iiberal luvvies want to take us back to the Dark Ages, while fantasising that we can maintain 21st century economies on the back of this?
Thirdly, the energy used to process and transport wood pellets is enormous, and undermines any utility of using wood. Five ships and twenty train-sets had to be built and operated, to transport the wood (because wood is not very energy dense). And the wood is not very energy dense either, hence the increased CO2 output merely from combustion, let alone transport.
Fourthly, the reduction in wood supply has increased prices and promoted use of aluminium, concrete, and composites, for manufacture. And both of these are much more energy intensive, than simply using the wood in construction and manufacture. Burning wood has increased energy demand.
The negative impact of burning wood goes on and on…
Ralph
Oh, I have many clues.
***** Nah
Firstly, why are we reducing food production, to grow energy?
***** who is doing that? if you’re talking about corn going into gas, yes, I’m talking about wood chips
Especially when growing energy is so inefficient in comparison to other renewables.
***** the trees grow themselves
It was initially stated that this would be unusable wood being burned, but that is not the case – it is prime lumber.
***** now I know you’re nuts- prime lumber is worth thousands of times more than “junk wood” for energy
Secondly, why are we using a Dark Age technology, rather than Uranium or Thorium?
***** because it exists
Why do brain-dead Iiberal luvvies want to take us back to the Dark Ages, while fantasising that we can maintain 21st century economies on the back of this?
**** NOBODY is saying wood chips are going to run a society- it’s just one small source of energy- not gonna save the planet, not gonna be a major energy source
Thirdly, the energy used to process and transport wood pellets is enormous, and undermines any utility of using wood.
***** it’s all measured by following the dollar signs- nothing is free, nothing is without any damage to something- nothing is perfect- compared to covering the landscape with wind/solar “farms”- which is truly idiotic
Five ships and twenty train-sets had to be built and operated, to transport the wood (because wood is not very energy dense).
***** the cost is capitalized over long time frames
And the wood is not very energy dense either, hence the increased CO2 output merely from combustion, let alone transport.
***** some of us like CO2 emissions- it’s plant food
Fourthly, the reduction in wood supply has increased prices and promoted use of aluminium, concrete, and composites, for manufacture.
***** ABSOLUTELY CRAZY. Just the opposite- since the wood for energy is just the weeds in the forest, it helps IMPROVE the mgt. of the forests, thus resulting in MORE wood products, thus LOWERING the costs of wood products- if there’s any reduction of wood supplies, it’s not due to the use of wood for energy- YOU MIGHT like to act like an adult- and do your homework
And both of these are much more energy intensive, than simply using the wood in construction and manufacture.
***** the wood that goes to energy is JUNK WOOD, wrong species, diseased trees, half rotted trees, crooked trees, immature trees removed in a thinning, etc., etc.— do YOU GET IT?
Burning wood has increased energy demand.
**** You need to get back on your meds.
The negative impact of burning wood goes on and on…
***** You are way too whacked out for me to waste any more time on.
They are not using ‘weeds’, they are using thinned and mature trees.
https://biv.com/article/2020/04/trees-harvested-biomass-energy-under-scrutiny
Ralph
They are WEED TREES, you little twit. Enough already, go back to your playground.
Western Red Cedar is valuable construction and craft wood, but not much use for heating. Exactly what trees in BC are considered weeds, the forests are mostly coniferous.
I’ve never worked out there so I don’t know- but coniferous trees can be used for biomass because they burn. The problem is that young forests are too dense to allow the trees to grow as fast as possible and that’s what we want- fast growing high quality trees. Fast growing for the same reason we want any investment to grow- fast, not slow. Here in the northeast, if you don’t think the forest, the growth rate for the better trees will be reduced by 300% or more- so thinning is important. When I say weed trees- it isn’t necessarily specific species- it’s individual trees, at least here in the northeast. As I walk through the forest I’ll look for trees that look like they can continue to add value at a high rate of interest regardless of species or current size. Those that aren’t earning interest I might mark, but not necessarily depending onother concerns like being near wetlands/steams or near trails or just because I like a mix of species. It’s complicated. Forestry isn’t just about cut the big ones and leave the little ones- or, cut certain species and leave other species- at least not when done right. We really need to have a good understanding of ecology, silvics, silviculture, long term economics, and the logistics of harvesting.
Back on coniferous species- here, logging crews that have a biomass market- like cutting low quality pine and hemlock for biomass because they can harvest a lot of fiber quickly and the trees are usually straight with small branches, unlike hardwoods which often have much of their volume in twisting branches that will break off while removing them.
>>You little twit.
>>Go back to your playground.
Why are Greeneys so dumb?
I provide real evidence that mature trees are being used for biomass, but the Greeney brain had been so addled by fantasy propaganda that they cannot process contrarian information. So they squark like unthinking parrots.
R
Exactly, we’re in the 21st century and greenwits are pushing windmills and burning wood. And they don’t seem to care about the animals that take up residence in the forest and trees while the resource is growing, only to get killed and displaced every few decades when it’s all cut down.
It’s basically a hand-out, like ethanol mandates.
>> animals in forests.
Unless they change these forests, they do NOTHING for wildlife. We have a large Forestry Commission pine forest on our hills, and I have never seen a single animal in them. Not even a mouse or squirrel – they are completely dead regions.
But given the financial incentives, will they ever plant mixed forests including some fruiting species?? I doubt it.
R
Wow, not even birds? Though I can see it happening if the surrounding area is forested or devoid of life as well for some other reason. If an old forest with animals, insects and birds (yes they are all animals, but you know what I mean…) gets cut down and some die and some scurry and fly away to nearby regions, and then the cycle repeats with the next region and so on – I assume some kind of rotation ensues, different plots every decade or so, and eventually coming back to a plot after a few decades of growth. I can see how life was scared off and doesn’t really want to come back if there is still noise and humans about, and if like you said there is nothing to eat.
Actually that took a worry off my mind. If an area has been setup as a managed forest for logging and such, good that they can produce a desirable product with affecting animals. I had assumed wildlife would eventually come back, given the decades it takes for a forest to mature, and I probably have an antiquated image of a clear-cut stand of trees. I was driving up in Northern Ontario ages ago, 1992ish, on some washboard mining/logging road and saw a clear-cut stand of trees.
I’ve got nothing against logging however, just hate seeing trees wasted for firewood, and can’t believe all those GWatts of Drax can be fed from scrap, odds and ends.
Not even birds.
What is there for them to eat?
The only birds I have seen are a few raptors, that patrol the surrounding farmland and come back to the forest to roost and nest. But there is no animal life that feeds from the forest, because the forest is barren.
R
Yeah, I’ve designed wood burners, if you have to haul the fuel more than 50 miles it can’t compete, so the gov steps in and hands out OPM
It so much more efficient to let the trees just burn in place, no? Of course all those western state forest fires provide jobs for people. Like any union or craft, those fire fighters are gonna fight tooth and nail against any reasonable forest management that HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED MANY TIMES to markedly reduce forest fires. Right?
Also, don’t forget the huge hordes of camp followers that make their living supplying, under exclusive licenses, the fire fighting crews. Would you take the food from their children’s mouths?
Besides, the forest fires are undoubtedly the politicians’ and activists’ way to supply essential CO2 while maintaining their up front fund raising circus.
Hyperbole for effect – just like EVERY SINGLE CLIMATE SCIENTIST.
Good job defending Drax. We can do worse than burning wood. One might be surprised how much of this goes on the United States at scale. A lot of forrest trash will either rot or burn in natural fires. Wood is just a lesser form of coal. But it’s easier to get at usually. Many people here burn wood. I do it 25 nights a year or so. It’s a nice back up source for some hope in a power outage.
I’m not so much defending Drax as defending the enterprises producing pellets/chips. I realize that Drax is a politically complicated item in the UK- that there is coal in the UK that could be used. Fine by me. But the continued claim that forests are massacred to produce nothing but pellets- including high quality sawlogs is insane and false. I suspect those here who hate Drax so much have psychiatric issues. The only places where forests are clearcut and all the wood goes to biomass- are young forests being clear cut to establish solar “farms” and which are too young to have any sawlogs.
Joseph is a typical Lefty, who has to resort to abuse because he has no data, information, nor rationality.
Look, it has been admitted many times that they cannot find enough rejected or inferior wood, and so they are pelleting both thinned and mature trees. This is what the raw material for Drax pelletisation looks like.
https://biv.com/article/2020/04/trees-harvested-biomass-energy-under-scrutiny
Ralph
50 years as a forester is no data? and, I’m not a lefty- I’m a middle of the road dude- right on some, left on some, in the middle on most
not enough wood? that’s absurd- the USDA wrote a report a few years ago called “A Billion Tons” or something like that
they do not pellet mature trees unless the trees have no value as sawtimber- that is lumber or furniture or even paper products- so you have no idea what you’re talking about
that link is nuts- it says “live whole trees”- yes, they are alive and yes, they are whole trees- what do you think is used, dead unwhole trees? They are not “mature timber” that has use for lumber or furniture- can you read? how many times do you need to hear this? That web site is nothing but lame, propaganda, but you wouldn’t understand that would you? What do think it should be, only twigs and branches? Nobody ever said it was that. Try again, little boy, it’s trees that have no value as TIMBER, FURNITURE or even PAPER. Because if it did, then the wood would go there. If any web site says anything else, it’s a lie- by idiots who hate seeing any trees cut- fools- and often, they live in big wood homes, with nice wood furniture and tons of paper products. it’s like those who cry over fossil fuels but love heating their big homes, and flying in private jets and crusing in their yachts- hypocrites. I think I’ve wasted too much time on you- so keep whining like a child about the trees being cut.
Sorry, if you thought I was attacking wood burning or pelletizing. But you have to realize the scale that’s involved with Drax, 7GW, that’s like a whole nuclear power PLANT, of several reactors, or in the same ballpark of all the hydro power in Ontario – Niagara Falls included.
And all the ships crossing the whole Atlantic, and trains involved (I didn’t know about that until I read another post) to replace a clean, efficient, easy to use power source that is practically underneath Drax.
Nobody was attacking the idea or concept of pelletized wood burning.
actually, somebody here was attacking the pellet industry- with a link to an anti biomass site showing a truck loaded with junk logs- that’s the claim I face here in New England every day- they say we’re clearcutting entire forests for pellets, which is false, and that it’s good timber, which is false, and that it’s “worse than coal” which is false- so some here may just dislike Drax and not biomass, but some here do just hate the idea of burning wood in a power plant, even if its cogen- the craziest of all anti biomass people are here in the northeast and I’ve been battling them for years- with a few other foresters- yet, the forestry establishment gave up- after trying to build some biomass powerplants and losing- they now sing the climate song- the forestry burreacrats don’t care- they’ll get paid one way or the other- the academics are simply too stupid to know better of if they do, they love their near 6 figure incomes- ergo, I’m a bit sensitive to this issue
by the way, for 35 years I live in an area with no biomass market- then I moved to an area with it- and I see that the harvesting work is far better with it- so whether or not burning wood is good or bad for the climate, it’s great for forestry, which is my main argument- as for the climate, I’m convinced nobody really knows one way or the other- but— I see nothing to panic about and I like it slightly warmer
What Drax is not: Green. It’s fossil fuels younger brother or cousin. I am in favor of it. Burning wood can be argued to be not optimal. But it’s better than solar panels and wind turbines and will help keep costs lower than if instead of Drax there was some amount of other renewables. Drax does baseload. In the winter. And if we are exporting wood pellets to the U.K. good for us, good for our workers. Guess who works producing the wood pellets? Rednecks.
I don’t think it’s good for me to benefit if the other party gets hosed. Fine if people in the UK were being the pellets of their own free will to use in their home stoves (that might be a thing soon if the government tries to cut off the gas), but not right if their own government forces a much more expensive option on them and lies about the justification.
We aren’t talking about war crimes here. Some place wants to burn wood to keep their homes heated with electric heat. Why am I to stand in their way?
“CO2 is plant-food, and the most important gas in the atmosphere.”
Oxygen ?
😉
Depends on whether you are talking to the plants, or to the animals.
Wouldn’t be there if plants didn’t have CO2 to photosynthesize.
Plants can live without Oxy.
Nothing can live without CO2.
Apart from fungi – but they would soon run out of food if all the plants died.
Ralph
plants also respire and they oxygen for that- but they produce far more than they consume
Plants (flora) convert CO2 to release Oxygen. Without CO2 being converted by flora the atmosphere would not have enough Oxygen to support fauna much larger than insects as the flora would die off if CO2 were lowered substantially to please the ignorant “Warmist” that think CO2 is the cause of AGW or ACC. Earth is reaching 8 Billion humans that exhale more CO2 in a 24 hour day – from eating flora and fauna that digestion breaks down into carbon, minerals, water and other compounds that the excess carbon in the bloodstream is converted by attaching Inhaled Oxygen into CO2 during breathing – than all the fossil fuels ever burned by humans…that all the flora need to live. So yes. Carbon Dioxide is the “most important molecule in our atmosphere”.
Yup, oxygen is the most important gas in the atmosphere, at least for anything larger than a few bacteria, anyway.
Plants switch to direct oxygen after dark, when they can’t metabolize CO2 without the sunshine. Everything else(that isn’t an anaerobe) uses O2 day or night.
There are quite a few animals and plants that are anaerobic and derive energy from other sources, mostly bacteria of various sorts.
Without CO2, there would be no O2.
The base of the biosphere pyramid is CO2.
R
Also the air pressure, or at least the partial pressure of oxygen may have been about 50% higher in the time of the dinosaurs – only way to explain how super large insects common in the era managed to breathe. IIRC the atmosphere at the time was as high as 30-35% oxygen. Not that I personally remember the level back then, but remember reading articles on the research, based on fossils of the insects, looking at the tubes in the skin they use for breathing.
while I remember, I never had any way of making an accurate measurement.
The topic brings up the whole issue of “managing” our forests, something which anyone familiar with forest fires probably favors. When I was younger it seemed like a good idea once or twice to “bushwhack” through blighted lodgepole pine forests. As a shortcut it left something to be desired. I am wholeheartedly in favor of man’s efforts to remove dead wood in these forests.
There are over a million acres of pine beetle infested forests across Colorado, one tree in every 14 (Thanky, Wiki!) Downed trees are just fire fodder. Want them to burn where they are or in a fireplace or industrial furnace? Standing dead trees and infected living trees need to be selectively cut and hauled off to the chippers.
I would go so far as to do what the Japanese do to encourage a thriving understory: climb trees and prune them by hand. Teams of oldsters like to prune pine forests for something exciting and rewarding. Over the years people could harvest dead wood easily in excess of a million tons.
@ 28 pounds per cubic foot, a 30-foot tree might weigh in at half a ton. Around 800 million dead trees, that’s 400 million tons. Don’t know if a ton is the same as your “tonne”, but if harvested @ 10 million tonnes a year, Colorado has enough dead trees to pacify even the appetites of the mighty DRAXX for around 40 years.
I know that other fuels need to be consumed to harvest and chip it, but I’d guess less than for coal. It’s ready fuel, mostly “cured” standing. Seems kind of crazy to NOT use it.
Why is the discussion about wood burning only and always about Drax? Doesn’t anyone else burn pellets?
Most of us can’t afford them.
Yup.
Drax only exists because of huge subsidies. But then they will turn around and say renewables are cheap.
And they still have not budgeted the cost of backup systems. The UK needs some 15,000 gwh of stored energy, to cover 10 days without wind and solar, and without that we will eventually have Texas-style blackouts. Renewables as a complete system are hugely expensive.
R
They wasted little time.
“a solid estimate of the amount of carbon that forests can pull from the atmosphere is essential for global accounting of climate change”
No it isn’t. But here’s where this is going
“Reliable estimation of future carbon sequestration, which is critical for designing strategies to reach net-zero atmospheric CO2 accumulation”
And
“Conceptual model of how the collection of tree rings from NFIs would result in better carbon accounting to meet the obligations for the Conference of the Parties of the climate change convention”
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/advance-article/doi/10.1093/biosci/biab119/6449092?login=false
All part of the narrative.
You spotted it!
Congratulations!
Cheers!
And…”but more work is needed”…Show me the money.
So, instead of getting tree ring data (which i believe they do by ‘coring’, which even if ‘minor damage’, still damages it), why don’t they just MEASURE THE TREE CIRCUMFERENCE every year ? MUCH easier, and no damage to the tree.
Sure, they don’t have info on the tree rings in previous years – but is that needed in going forward, when talking about ‘future sequestration’. OR they could do a SMALL amount of tree rings, for the past, with the rest being done by physical measurement of the tree size, for some level of correlation . . .
No, they want to turn this into a ‘mega project’ and make a career out of it . . .
Actually in FIA data, they remeasure the same, numbered trees every ten years or so- so they have some growth data. But forests are more complex, and adding tree ring data would not give more accurate numbers since we would still have mortality and ingrowth to account for.
Grant money requires “mega” to be awarded. I guess. The grift must go on.
Have you observed many trees? Seems similar to the problem of accurately measuring a coastline. What scale would provide useful data?
There are dozens of things that can affect tree growth. CO2 is merely one of them.
A few decades ago they were trying to pretend that temperature was the only factor that mattered. Now it’s CO2.
I think it says it all in the summary at the foot of the page..
“SUBJECT OF RESEARCH
Not applicable”
LOL
Whenever I see articles on tree rings, I cringe in horror with the memories of how many trees died in vain to produce hockey sticks.
That said, I like forests. They’re relaxing places for a quiet walk, the more the merrier…_
Will all readers in the U.K. please circulate and support the petition to Parliament for a referendum on NetZero by 2050. Thanks…_
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/599602
I signed it a while ago.
All you’ll get with 100,000 signatures is a lot of hot Parliamentary air in a debate. And they’re all signed up to Net Zero anyway.
Parliament hasn’t recovered from the last referendum. It certainly isn’t going to risk another.
Yes, it would be a hot air debate.
But any viable war strategy has to utilise propaganda, the campaign to get this petition supported will be made up of many new converts.
We won’t be on the back foot forever, because you can’t fool people forever.
I will be pleased if we hit 25,000+, support can only grow, especially when this years fuel bills are delivered…_
There are studies estimating how much CO2 is sequestered by a tree.
Northeast, maple–beech–birch forests
a) 25 year old forest: 12,000lbs of carbon/25 = 480 lbs of C per acre
per year x 44/12 =1,760lbs of CO2 per acre per year
b) 120 year old forest: 128,000lbs of carbon/120 = 1,066 lbs of C
per year per acre x 44/12 =3,909lbs of CO2 per acre per year
c) 25 year old forest: 1,760lbs of CO2 per acre per year/700 trees
= average of 2.52lbs of CO2 per tree per year (rounded to 3
lbs)
https://medcraveonline.com/FREIJ/FREIJ-02-00040.pdf
What happens when the tree dies and decays back into the elements and compounds that it is comprised of?
Probably nothing much different than when a tree goes up in flames during a wildfire. Just slower.
Yes, or you could route the wood through your wood burning stove and use the energy released to heat your home – cutting down the risk of forest fires in the process.
estimate or guesstimate?
SWAG?
Missing some numbers here: 128k pounds of wet wood per acre is reasonable, maybe a bit more – but you have to subtract 40% for water and you have “wood” at 27% Carbon. So about 10 tons of carbon per acre, total. But the bad news for carbon alarmists is that this number stabilizes at not much higher, even with older forests. Mortality rate approaches growth rate by 120 years. And many of our poorer quality forests are actually rotting or burning faster than they grow. By “locking up” mature forests, there is no “net gain” from additional growth, merely storage. As a forest manager, I would argue that this land is too valuable for mere carbon storage, and we need to manage for the wider range of benefits including wood products. If carbon is really the most important pollutant, then we should use more wood products, not less. And for those who oppose the use of wood for fuel, even at the Drax plant- The value of wood for fuel is quite low. Wood with higher usefulness is sorted and sold for lumber or even paper pulp. So only the byproducts are sold for energy use. AND we need more markets for this poor quality wood particularly so that we can culture these forests to grow a higher percent of mature and valuable trees for better uses. Good forest management for multiple types of products, wildlife habitat and water quality is absolutely sustainable.
From the article (Emphasis, mine): “Although tree core samples have been collected during some inventories, their continued collection in all forests will require a concerted effort.”
–
–
Something I’ve always puzzled over about core samples, and the picture at the head of the article is as good of an example as any, is how much would the interpretations vary depending on the direction taken to extract the core?
In the picture above, it seems to me you’d come to different conclusions if the core was taken at 12:00 vs 3:00 or 6:00 or 9:00.
I don’t buy into trees as treemometers, but if you’re going to study the entrails of trees, I’d rather see someone basing their pronouncements on cross sections rather than core samples.
If you’re gonna tap into a tree, at least make sure it’s a Sugar Maple so you get some good** out of it.
–
–
**Maybe send the sap over to the Chemistry Department and see if they can make something out of it. If they ask to also send over flour, baking powder, and buttermilk, they are probably onto something. 😉
“…how much would the interpretations vary depending on the direction taken to extract the core?”
Makes a big difference which is why it’s idiotic to core a tree- when all you have to do is measure it from the outside using specialized tapes made for the purpose. Then you measure it years later and take the difference. And the height needs to be measured too, of course. And an estimate of whether or not the tree has internal rot- something that these students, interns and other low lever workers are not well trained for. Even experienced foresters can’t tell for sure. Only Superman with his X-Ray vision can tell for sure. I’ve been a forester for 50 years and I can only roughly estimate internal rot/decay when marking a tree for harvesting. I’ve measured, literately, millions of trees for harvesting in that time. There are subtle clues to estimate this defect. One of the few forestry academics I have any respect for. Dr. Alex Shigo- focused on this problem and produced a wonderful book, “Discoloration and Decay in Living Trees” or something like that- can’t recall the name. I had the book and loaned it but never got it back. He sliced up trees (vertically, horizontally and every other way) and followed the decay. He showed how decay is a series of infections from different fungus, bacteria, insects. The person sawing up a log really needs to get a feel for this decay- because if the log is sawn one way vs. another, the difference in value produced is huge. I’ve watched in amazement at sawyers rapidly sawing a log- after the first cut, they can spin the log- that’s the time to get it right- the goal is to saw off much of the decay all together and leave the “good” wood for better grades of lumber.
Your reply here showed up when I posted my thanks below. I appreciate even more this direct reply. So, thanks again and👍👍
I can suggest 2 really good places online to learn about forestry. The first is a web site produced by the late consulting forester Karl Davies who “passed” in 2003. He was from Northampton, Mass. He and I were good friends, stiring up trouble with the forestry establishment in this state. I put up the first forestry web page in the region in ’97. It was wild and crazy- on purpose, rather than just trying to get more clients. It included lots of essays challenging forest policies. Karl put his site up shortly after and it was far superior. After he passed, his fiance kept it up and it’s still online at http://daviesand.com/. Most of it is still relevant- though of course some of the links won’t work.
The other great site- which I consider the best forestry site on the planet- is by consulting forester Mike Leonard, from Petersham, Mass. It’s a Facebook photo album showing great forestry. What’s good about it is that it shows the work- not just talking about it in the abstract. Hundreds of excellent photos with brief by spot on explanations: https://www.facebook.com/MikeLeonardConsultingForester/photos/?tab=albums
What’s really absurd is that all these web sites, beginning with mine- have never been recognized by the forestry establishment- just like they don’t acknowledge my videos on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/user/JoeZorzin). I was talking to a state “service forester”- the folks who regulate forestry in the state- about this- and he said, they don’t acknowledge it because they can’t do it themselves!
Thanks Joe once again for the plug. I’d much rather be spending most of my time out in the woods practicing forestry but the forest bureaucracy keeps piling on more redundant paperwork. The big winners in the forestry sector are the forest bureaucrats and the “nonprofits” who feed off forestry issues. Example: NEFF (the New England Forestry Foundation) just got a $475,000 grant to administer “climate smart forestry” for a group of towns in northwestern Massachusetts. I asked what the difference is between “climate smart forestry” and the forestry I practice and they refused to answer. I have to take some of the “climate” courses they offer so I too can become a “climate smart” forester. I don’t have time for their BS. But the carbon offset racket is ramping up big time. There is a new organization called “Forest Carbon Works” who are just middle men who sell the offsets (CO2 “indulgences”) to corporations who get tax deductions for the purchase of these credits and claim they are reducing their carbon footprint through these purchases. What’s in it for the landowner? The Forest Carbon Works site says payments range from $20/acre/year to $100/acre/year. I would bet it’s at the low end for those with modest acreage. For large acreages, you have to hire a “project manager” for $100,000 and there is no guarantee you’ll be able to sell the “credits”. Finally, the state of Massachusetts is pushing new “strategies” for their “Natural Working Lands” initiative which will impose new bureaucracies to help get to “net zero” by 2050 by counting on forests to sequester 15% of CO2 emissions. That means they only have to cut emissions by 85% to achieve net zero. From “green certification” to “carbon offsets”, it’s all 100% pure unadulterated BS.
First of all- even if we assume that there is a climate crisis and that we need to find ways to increase carbon sinks- and we assume the forests are a great carbon sink- the idea of doing tree ring analysis in the FIA program is nuts- the kind of thing an idiot academic would come up with.
Now, it’s a fact that FIA data is almost worthless because the sampling rate is absurdly low- something like 1/6000. And, much of this work is done by interns, students, low level workers who have little understanding of forests the way an experienced forester will. And, they do measure the diameters of the trees. The FIA plots are the same plots done over and over again. They are marked with special paint and GPS to find them. So, if a tree is measured from the outside at exactly the same height- over time- we can find out how much it’s growing- you don’t need to drill in and remove a sample. And, if you do that, it takes a lot of time to do correctly and to analyze it- when all you need to do is measure the outside of the tree and compare to the last time it was measured. And, you can’t keep going back to the same tree and drilling it multiple times before you cause major injury, possibly introduce infection that could cause the tree to slow down its growth and possibly die.
Also, many trees have ongoing rot- not easy to determine even with a core extraction. An experienced forester might be pretty good at estimating it- but not the people doing this work. If you don’t estimate this decay- any measurements of how much carbon is in the tree and how much will be over time will be poor quality data.
Now, where are they going with this? What they really want is a new concept called PROFORESTATION- which is to lock up all the forests so they’ll do nothing but sequester carbon. A truly brain dead idea for countless reasons which I won’t get into at this time. This concept was imagined by Bill Moomaw, professor emeritus at Tuffs- who I know all too well. I can elaborate if anyone cares to know more.
Hey, thanks, Joseph. You’ve addressed some of the things I’ve wondered about tree core sampling. 👍
What do you mean?
I looked out the window a couple of years age and saw that climate was changing.
Only a year ago, I looked out the window and observed that the climate was changing catastrophically.
A couple of months ago I looked out the window and observed that the climate was changing apolitically.
I need to change my underpants!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“I need to change my underpants!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
What? After two years? Just turn them inside out.
You are right about the problem of small sample sizes. I do not know why scientific journals accept studies with small sample sizes and accept their reliability.
The repeated outside measurement of trees sounds like common sense but would this not need to be correlated with other important factors like rainfall and good summers? The strength of the outside measurements is that it provides a far more complete record of useful physical observations versus a spectrum of models. We need far more observations and less artificial models when it comes to understanding climate. How have farmers managed surprisingly well for thousands of years without all the models and modern scientific knowhow? They have been good at observation and drawing conclusions from patterns.
Just a mention here- tree ring data in most temperate forests do NOT show much influence by temperature or rainfall. This is because the limiting factor for radial growth of most forest trees is competition from other trees for sunlight only. This is not well reported and forest scientists like to study things that are different- like trees in deserts where rainfall is important. I look at dozens of tree ring samples every week for 40 years- as an expert forester in Vermont – and rarely see any affect of weather.
Please forward your observations to:
M.Mann*
Dept of Dendrobfuscation
Penn State U
*If out to lunch, leave message with his assistant Heidi D. Klein
I can vouch for that. There is a little pine tree next to road that has been there 50 years now and is still only 3” diameter. It sits in the shadows of a cherry tree. The other trees have all died or been taken down and they were 10” or better but they had sunlight.
.
Well said. Thank you RH.
Forests are composed of lots of competing trees and other plants. The trunk or lower bole of an individual tree is only one piece of that tree only. Tree ring analysis does not measure all the trees or other other tree parts or plants. Tree ring analysis is not the right tool for measuring biomass increment, let alone the past weather.
Tree rings analysis is useful for one thing: measuring the age of trees. The age distribution in a forest is a map or record of forest development. Did all the trees seed in at once, or over a period of time. Are there age cohorts, perhaps by species?
There are many clues (evidence) about the history of forests to be found in tree rings. I always count tree rings on stumps when I find them. It’s a compulsion. I have increment bored thousands of trees, seeking the history, unravelling the development pathways via the age distribution.
Hence I am in favor of this project, but for an entirely different reason.
Thanks to you and others who have pointed out some valuable matters relating to trees and forests. Sadly I did not have botany as an option at school. Perhaps we need to have more subjects at school including botany and biology and exclude all the political and social garbage – not to mention all the climate alarmism – being fed to kids.
Perhaps you don’t understand the advanced purposes for schools that have been developed over the past century and a half or so.
I believe the purpose of the FIA data isn’t to prove anything about what’s causing anything- it’s only to keep track, across America as to what’s out there- so they don’t try to correlate with anything else. It’s “just the facts ma’am”. People may try to use this info for whatever they’re modeling but with such a low sampling rate, it’s next to useless- and yes, for modeling, they’d need to measure other variables. One thing they don’t seem to get right is the quality of the trees or to pass judgement over any forestry work peformed on those plots. Some of those plots are in managed areas and some are not- so about all that can be concluded is a rough approximation of the total tree resource out there- very rough. I’ve been in discussions with state officials and academics who’d quote the number to several decimal places which is extremely stupid when the sampling rate is 1/6000. They actually seem to be unaware of error bars- which in this case is probably 30% +/-. When I challenge them on this- they get the deer in the headlights look. I’ll be the first to say, forestry research is not exemplary. :-}
Naw, it must have been dumb luck.
CO2 is important, but not as some apocalyptic temperature control knob. It is the essence of life, plant life to be more precise. Plants die when CO2 reaches ~150 ppm. And plant death means all life dies too. Forests are not the main sequestering agent for carbon, calcium carbonate rocks produced from shell and skeleton building of marine organisms are the dominant sequestration of carbon.
The problem is as Patrick Moore points out in the following paper, that earth’s ecosystem has been on a downward slide of this major sequestration of atmospheric carbon into marine sediment and then Calcium Carbonate rocks (limestone, marble, chalk, etc) for 140 million years. Releasing carbon dioxide from fossil fuels is actually restoring the atmosphere to previous levels, required to sustain and enhance life from the plant biomass! And to prevent the extinction of all life if the downward slide of atmospheric carbon dioxide continued without mankind’s actions! (we are not the enemy of nature, we are it’s savior in this respect)
http://ecosense.me/ecosense-wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/CO2-Emissions.pdf
Quote:”leaders are counting on forests to pull a good c….
Is that a fact?
If so, please explain Drax power station and dozens more like it across Europe
While you’re about it, tell us about Biofuel, Biomass and in your own time as long as it’s sometime before yesterday, explain the term “Net Zero”
Quote:”Treasure in tree rings
Wrong wrong wrong
As is the way when most folks go treasure hunting, they take a shovel, spade or some other sort of digging instrument
If you really do think you want trees to capture carbon ## show them some love and feed them. It is quite surprising what they like to eat and no, not especially, it is not gaseous.
If you live near Scotland, it comes by the truckload
## If when you do go treasure hunting with a spade, you may notice ‘some quantity’ of water. Not liquid water – Damp Water
Contrary to Popular Opinion, it is actually that stuff which controls climate
IOW: Scientists, educate yourselves. Spend some time down on a farm, in a garden or a real-glass greenhouse. Get your hands dirty.
(The Vitamin B12 bacteria that’s in that dirt might just save your life, at least stop your going crazy that’s fo’sure)
Also go for walks and observe. Notice water wherever it it is.
Ask yourself, is the water you see causing temperatures to rise or is the water having a cooling effect.
Ask yourself why it is that when ‘scientists’ claim water is having a (climate) heating effect, it is ALWAYS in places nobody goes and when it’s in a form you cannot see.
Then take your Snake Oil home and do with it as you please & will. (I don’t really want to know. Please no.)
You could please everybody else on this planet by simply binning it.
(Why does ‘Burning Man Festival‘ come to mind at this juncture – or is that just me – could hardly be more appro either way)
Peta, you’ve been schooled on this before. The bacteria that produce B-12 cannot survive the human gut. Humans cannot produce B-12 no matter how much vegetable matter (or dirt) we eat. We get B-12 from eating animals and animal products. That’s why the Vegan Society warns true Vegans to take a B-12 supplement because the lack of B-12 will cause nerve damage, possibly including mental problems. It’s right there linked in many articles on Veganism. You just need to do one minute of searching on the web. I know, and I’m not Vegan.
Is there a reason you never learn anything, even things that you have been schooled on? Do you have mental health problems?
Carbon sequestration is all very well but at some point all that carbon will end up in the atmosphere again. Sometimes over an afternoon
Australia had a lot of tax credits associated with “carbon farming” and was very proud of how they were using nature to counteract emissions. Then they had a drought and huge wildfires.
California cut forest management and they had wildfires.
Growing trees is a great thing (I like trees, everyone likes trees) but it is not a good long term method of reducing CO2.
There is no evidence showing that CO2 needs to be sequestered.
CO2 is a benign gas essential for life on Earth.
It seems like it took only a handful of Bristlecone Pine tree rings (or maybe just one or two) to ‘prove’ a hockey stick temperature profile, so why should it take a concerted study of thousands to reinforce it? Besides that, it seems like simply counting trees and estimating their size and moisture content would be no less accurate, and maybe even more accurate.
The real issue is what happens to their ‘carbon’ after they are cut or fall. A high percentage goes quickly back into the eco system.
All this hysteria about having to reduce CO2 emissions is a total waste of time. Mind you there are many making a lot of money with it at the expense of the rest of us.
It is now all about global political control of energy being the agenda of the Communist Party which has taken over the policies of the UN and its acolytes such as the IPCC et al.
Never against collecting data, as long as it’s used in a scientifically correct manner without biased interpretations, “corrections” or manipulations.
Expect pushback from “Earth Firsters” for disturbing sacred “burial grounds.”
Think bacteria are not important in the large scheme? Think again! Think of all the tears that could come from honoring lost bacterial lives.
It is all a bit of a tree ring circus innit?
“Justifying our research grant request with the obligatory climate change reference”
Great, more misuse of tree rings…
The old hammer and nail theory is evident again; that if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Now, it’s tree ring researchers ignoring everything that affects plant growth so they can allege tree rings provide accurate estimates of carbon sequestration.
Accurate? Not even for government use.
Forest service time would be better spent preventing forest fires than in damaging old growth forest. While it is hard to prove successful prevention of any event, it would surely be better for everyone, including carbophobics, to prevent the release of millions of tons of carbon compounds in to the atmosphere and destruction of forest habitat.
When somebody who is familiar with ecology starts talking about “delicate and sensitive ecosystems” we can only presume that they are projecting their own traits into the ecosystem. Ecosystems are more or less sensitive to perturbation but what part of an ecosystem is delicate? How can an agglomeration of soil, biota, topography and climate be described as delicate in any sense that has any scientific meaning? If ecosystems are dramatically changed by minor perturbations then that is just their nature, being inherently unstable doesn’t imply that anybody or anything has an obligation to protect them from change.
It actually about nostalgia.
That wood slice image makes a nice iPhone wallpaper
From the above article:
“Oceans, soils and forests are ‘carbon sinks’—they have the ability to pull more carbon from the atmosphere than they put into it.”
Well, this “peer reviewed” blurb from Utah State University totally ignores one of the largest carbon sinks around: natural rain.
Natural rainwater at ground level has a pH in the range of 5.0 to 5.5, its acidity resulting from absorbing CO2 as it falls through the atmosphere.
Considering the area of Earth’s surface, especially across tropical and temperate latitudes, that experiences rain frequently, this represents a largely unrecognized carbon sink with most of that captured carbon ending up in the oceans, in biomass, or in eroded rock . . . but such is NOT “pulled from the atmosphere”.
If forests are carbon sinks then why have there been examples of CO2 mapping using OCO-2 data that show that the highest levels of low altitude atmospheric CO levels are present at the locations of the largest amount of forestation? If the forestation was primarily a sink then there should be lower levels of atmospheric CO2 at these locations.
It would also seem that trees would be a natural path for carbon to transition from the soil to the atmosphere.
Plants typically absorb CO2 and release oxygen, but they also “exhale” CO2, particularly at night, when photosynthesis ceases due to the lack of sunlight.
I suspect that OCO-2 monitors and averages CO2 concentrations over complete day/night cycles.
Also, dense tree/plant foliage (such as a large forest) acts to block horizontal and vertical wind circulation from dispersing the plant-generated CO2 over areas significantly outside of the boundaries of such vegetation.
I don’t think your explanation explains the OCO-2 mapping that showed that the areas of the Amazon Rain Forest, the Congo Basin, Eastern China, Southeast Asia and Indonesia were the areas of the highest level of atmospheric CO2 presence on Earth. What you said is generally accepted but it is based on previously inadequate world-wide CO2 measurement.
Your comment about air circulation does not make sense. First, it ignores how the. Highest CO2 level on Earth got there in the first place and second, why, in the absence of air currents, the heavier than air CO2 wouldn’t descend to Earth and leave the atmosphere thus causing an area of reduced CO2 presence.
Of course! Everyone knows that in the absence of air currents, heavier-than-air O2 (diatomic oxygen) will “descend to Earth and leave the atmosphere”.
It’s been demonstrated in the laboratory numerous times . . . NOT.
How about outside of the artificiality of the laboratory? But we are so deficient in the local measurement of atmospheric CO2 that I doubt that information is available.