Zeke, I still think the number is high based on the ability to sequester CO2. You can not put numbers on something that does not have a fairly close finite definition. Well, you can but so can everyone else. Now if we say "The available plant life that impacts the global sequestration of CO2 has been estimated to have fallen by X% (high)-Y% (low) (based on such and such figures) is one thing. To throw around numbers tied to some ambiguous definition will not help the cause. The biggest point that came from Al Gores movie is "peer reviewed data" that is convincing people that were not convinced before.
I do agree, you have seen a large degradation of forest, and while our trees are mostly a 50/50 mix of cottonwood and evergreen, they probably make up for the degradation to some extent. The fact remains as you have mentioned that we have seen some loss, but I would like to find the numbers from peer reviewed data. However, as Joe mentioned earlier algae is probably more responsible for sequestration, has the ability to bloom fast and sequester more faster (damn the consequences) than trees. Also algae dies and is sequestered by the ocean instead of, returning the carbon, next season as the leaves and needles compost. This whole argument, shades the real threat. What I wish people would see is the cycles involved and what man is doing to accelerate or de-accelerate them. Wishing you great times in the great outdoors, Jim ----- Original Message ----- From: Zeke Yewdall<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org<mailto:biofuel@sustainablelists.org> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 1:59 PM Subject: Re: [Biofuel] Chicken Little Strikes Again! CO2 is rising!C02isrising!A scientific Rebutal This may seem high, but then when I think about that forest around my parents' property in eastern Washington, every piece of land surrounding us has been logged at least once in the last 25 years -- many in the last 10 years. From the satellite photo of the area (about 2 meter resolution) you can clearly see our property lines by where there are and are not tall trees. Yes, there are still 50 foot trees left all over the rest of it, but the 100 foot trees are mostly gone. Maybe in the Dakota's trees have increased alot, but how big are those trees? I grew up in the Northwest, and can't say that I've seen many trees in Colorado that really seem to count as trees compared to what I'm used to. If it's not 2 foot diameter and 80 foot high..... know, I'm a tree snob, but from a carbon sequestration standpoint, the very large trees in the temperate and tropical rainforests, as well as the temperate broadleaf and boreal coniferous band, probably do alot more than the more arid forest that occupies alot of the rest of the world. And those ones are the ones that I think have been destroyed or "degraded" more. Zeke >> ... At the same time, 85% of the world's forests (which are natural >> carbon sinks) have been destroyed or degraded. ... _______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
_______________________________________________ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/biofuel_sustainablelists.org Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (50,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
