Where Has All the Carbon Gone?
Steven C. Wofsy
The combustion of fossil fuels continues to rise, but the amount of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere has not increased accordingly. As Wofsy explains in his Perspective, this discrepancy is explained by the ability of trees and organic matter in forests to sequester carbon (Pacala et al., Fang et al.). Those making land use decisions should factor into their calculations the enormous benefits of forests as carbon sinks for removing anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere. 1
Well I am awfully glad you asked Steve. You see Steven, besides all of our other many blessings as a nation, The United States of America has been doubly blessed -- Ain't no doubt about it baby got to go and shout it ain't no doubt about it we are doubly blessed -- by geographical graces. Hooray for Manifest Destiny! (and boobies!) Actually now that I mention it, topographically speaking with the Rockies to the west and the Appalachians to the east they do form one hell of a nice rack with middle America representing killer cleavage. If I was a continent, I would throw America a bang.
Steven C. Wofsy
The combustion of fossil fuels continues to rise, but the amount of CO2 accumulating in the atmosphere has not increased accordingly. As Wofsy explains in his Perspective, this discrepancy is explained by the ability of trees and organic matter in forests to sequester carbon (Pacala et al., Fang et al.). Those making land use decisions should factor into their calculations the enormous benefits of forests as carbon sinks for removing anthropogenic CO2 from the atmosphere. 1
Well I am awfully glad you asked Steve. You see Steven, besides all of our other many blessings as a nation, The United States of America has been doubly blessed -- Ain't no doubt about it baby got to go and shout it ain't no doubt about it we are doubly blessed -- by geographical graces. Hooray for Manifest Destiny! (and boobies!) Actually now that I mention it, topographically speaking with the Rockies to the west and the Appalachians to the east they do form one hell of a nice rack with middle America representing killer cleavage. If I was a continent, I would throw America a bang.
Where was I again? Right. Geography.
As I was saying, like most things American, our landscape kicks ass too.
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans, white with foam
God bless America, My home sweet home.
America's geography rules. We have got HUGE tracks of land. It seems that the North American eco-system soaks up carbon like a donkey drinks Tullamore Dew. In other words...a lot, more so than any other land mass in the world, with the noticeably non-industrialized Siberian peat marshes coming a distant second.
Interesting this is. I wonder why most people have never heard of it, a case of actual scientific discovery that sheds a positive light on the great eco-satan America. Oh yeah, that is why.
Scientists Find Evidence of Large Carbon Sink over North America
Princeton, N.J. -- Researchers from Princeton University, with collaborators from the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration and Columbia University, have found evidence of higher-than-expected absorption of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide by ecosystems in North America.
The findings of the research team, the Carbon Modeling Consortium, are published today in the journal Science. The carbon-absorbing zone, known to geoscientists as a carbon "sink," soaked up high amounts of carbon dioxide during the period studied, from 1988 to 1992, confirming earlier studies. Evidence has been accumulating in recent years that a large component of this sink must be on land. Today's findings suggest that the North American continent plays a much larger role than what would be proportional to its size.2
Consistent Land- and Atmosphere-Based U.S. Carbon Sink Estimates
For the period 1980-89, we estimate a carbon sink in the coterminous United States between 0.30 and 0.58 petagrams of carbon per year (petagrams of carbon = 1015 grams of carbon). The net carbon flux from the atmosphere to the land was higher, 0.37 to 0.71 petagrams of carbon per year, because a net flux of 0.07 to 0.13 petagrams of carbon per year was exported by rivers and commerce and returned to the atmosphere elsewhere. 3
Now these findings are about a decade old and to this date have yet to be disproved. The only argument is crunching the numbers of the net result. Some studies have suggested that the carbon entering the west coast is greater than that which leaves the east coast, in which case we are the planet's filter so a thank you from the world would be in order -- and others have it slightly lower but still a significant net result for The United States of America's carbon contribution to the climate in which case we are the only country in the world that even comes close to the Kyoto reduction targets so a big piss off to the world would be in order.
In other words, if for arguments sake let us assume that the alarmists are not full of shit and that it is only man's and man's alone carbon contribution and not all the other natural occurrences of carbon being released into the atmosphere that is to blame for the as yet unproven anthropogenic global warming calamity, then following the Algorian lead -- the USA has got it covered, we do not need to buy no stinkin' carbon offsets.....we are a carbon offset.
Now all you limo lib hollywood algore indulgence apologists can put that in your smokestack and uh um smoke it, and since its apparent that the cutting down and replanting of forests is far better for the environment than actually hugging trees... dont forget to support your local logger.
EE-Aw!!!
3 comments:
People keep going on and on about carbon as if it's the end of the world... what about our ancestors, who totally demolished all the forests on this island (I am writing from the UK) ... for FIREWOOD to keep themselves warm, as well as to cook. Did THEY worry about their carbon footprint when they were doing that? I think not. I have not flown in a plane in over five years. I don't feel I've had my due of carbon-usage compared to other people. When I have, maybe I'll start cleaning my life up ...
O dear, what a rant that was ..!
I found you quite by chance, btw. You're welcome to drop by my blog and have a poke through my innermost thoughts. Mine is more a kind of secret diary online ...
You also might be able to help me with my 4am Giant Wasps Problem ...
Do pop by. I promise it will entertain your head off!!!
Gleds
Kind of interesting but from your second link "The researchers stress that all of these mechanisms are temporary. It is thus inevitable that this sink will eventually go to zero." And, as you say, the studies are 10 years old.
One more reason not to clear-cut the forests, however.
Now youre just getting desperate.
Way to miss the point. If anything this just goes to show that even in the face of overwelming physical evidence the ability to forecast 10 years let alone 10 days into the future is a crap shot at best.
The sink remains as strong as ever.
Post a Comment