John Foster wrote:

> >"More" on "a net tonnage basis" over what time frame, and does it include
> >the off-site storage of ex-forest C?
> >Chris Perley
>
> I am sorry Chris but I cannot understand your question. Maybe you can
> explain more clearly what it is that you ask. The scientific
> article that I
> am referring to was published in Nature last Summer. Is that the
> pop article
> that you are referring to? May be you could find a copy  of the article in
> nature rather than rely on my interpretation and it could save
> you a lot of
> work.


Nature wrote the article talking about "old, wild" forests?



> >CP Not necessarily.  You assume that the "young" forest is
> replacing the "old"
> >one.  It need not be so.  It also depends on what type of "older" forest.
> >You are implicitly valuing the "taller" forest types over the "shorter"
> >forest types.  Some "old" forests are not very "productive".
> Your argument
> >could work against natural forests.
>
> I am not too sure if you have any experience with forests
> themselves, but as
> you might be able to expect, almost 99% of forests that were harvested in
> the Pacific Northwest here contained huge amounts of Carbon that
> was stored
> in the wood. As a result of short-rotation forestry, the Annual Allowable
> Cut is now declining, and will continue to decline in the PNW. The old
> forests contained much more biomass than the young mini rotated
> forests ever
> will contain.

For heaven's sake John read my posts before you reply.CP


We term this phenomenon the 'fall down' in timber supply.
> There is not one region in the province here nor any region in
> the PNW where
> the inventory in terms of volume will increase after the old forests are
> clearcut. So I am not sure if you understand the reality here or
> not, or if
> you understand the reality of the entire boreal forests of the world being
> subject to clearcutting.


What?  "...entire boreal forests of the world being subject to
clearfelling".  A slight overstatement John?
CP


>
> There are exceptions as you indicate where man-made forests could increase
> the biomass, and sequester more carbon that native forests. These types of
> situations are extremely rare.

they are not that rare.  Many shrub hardwood associations (generally low
biomass relative to high forest) can be replaced by plantations for more
biomass - even on short rotations.  Eg Mallee eucalypts replaced by Euc
grandis or somehting else.   Anyway it doesn't matter if they are rare -
they exist.  Your criterion of choice (higher total biomass is better) would
work against them in favour of a higher producing forest association.  The
criterion of biomass as a measure of forest "worth" is crap.  I am just
pointing out the corollaries to your position, which seemed to be to beat up
on plantation because they are plantations.

Anyway you are not getting the point and this is a pointless discussion.  My
point was that talk about "plantations bad" and "old, wild forests" good for
carbon sequestration was a lot of simplistic cant.

CP



One of these situations though is
> present in
> New Zealand where the establishment of commercial Radiata pine on sandy
> sites occurs, where, actually, no forests grew before. Typical
> afforestation
> occurs on sites that once supported forests.


And have been in grass for decades or even centuries.  So what? Or is it the
forester's fault for the destruction of the forest in the past - even
perhaps if it was some natural process that caused the deforestation?  CP


However there are occasional
> situations elsewhere that were forests appeared from out of nowhere. For
> instance in Peru there are places that have never had trees
> growing but now
> have trees.

Can't resist.  Please define "never". CP


These areas were subject to 'fog harvesting', or techniques
> utilizing fog nets to collect condensation. I have been to this area and
> this is the driest place on earth, but the humidity is very high. There is
> lots of fog or garuah and thus one can harvest moisture from the
> air as some
> villages are starting to do now.
>
> I see your point there Chris. I was not making an arguement at all but
> explaining the facts that constitute science....

Science?  You think that article that generalised about C sequestration in
plantations relative to "old, wild forests" without pointing out the
complexities was science?  It slides into the pop realm by catering to the
tastes and prejudices of some people.  CP




You are making an
> arguement,
> and arguements don't convince me in the face of reality.
>
> An arguement does not convince. [William James]
>
> Facts alone convince, well most people.
>