- This topic is empty.
- Posts
My source for an example is Forests Not Equal When It Comes to Climate
From 1750 to 1850, roughly 190,000 square kilometres of Europe’s forest were cut down to for fuel and to clear land for agriculture. Forests have since rebounded on an area more than twice that size, but fast-growing conifers have replaced deciduous trees on roughly 633,000 square kilometres of forest owing to interest in timber harvesting. Although European forests continue to take up carbon, the shift in composition means that they now hold 3.1 billion tonnes less than they did in 1750.
I have not idea whether or not this claim is true because 1) the bias of the experts for the climate claim hoax and 2) it has not been thoroughly peer reviewed. The later will happen of someone found creditable in the expropriate scientific discipline object to it and makes case against it.
The reason this is junk science is that it only covers one aspect of the carbon cycle. Trees consume carbon dioxide in order to grow and then store it in there body. If you build a house of fast growing wood and that house last for 100 years without any decay in the word and then decays completely into carbon dioxide on that 100th year then 100% of that carbon is stored for that 100 years. The same with a slow growing tree. The effects on global warming depend both on how long the carbon is stored for each type of trees and on how much carbon the trees remove from the atmosphere.
I have questions about this study because I assume fast growing means the tree with that attribute gains mass faster than the one without it and there is a relation between mass and the carbon stored in the wood. It may be that certain trees pick up more mass despite be slow growing because they are more dense.
The flaw in this as far as the contribution of trees to climate change is caused by the scientific ignorance of the media.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
