Dr. Gower and his fellow researchers studied a million-square-kilometre stretch of forest around Thompson, Man. The team took field measurements of how carbon moved between the forest and the atmosphere and then used computer modelling and forestry records to suggest how that cycle has changed since the 1950s.
Trees absorb carbon dioxide as they grow and release it when they burn or decompose.
Although results varied for individual years depending on the severity of the forest fire season, Dr. Gower found that the forest once absorbed, on average, slightly more carbon than it emitted — about five or 10 grams per square metre of forest per year.
Now, however, the direction of that flow has reversed. On average, the forest actually emits about two grams per square metre per year.
“(The forest) is actually contributing to rising carbon emissions,” Dr. Gower said.
The cause, he said, is forest fires. Climate change, according to most models, leads to increased forest fires because it creates hotter and drier conditions.
“The warmer climate has increased fire frequency and extent,” said Dr. Gower. “Those wildfires have caused this transition in the boreal forest from a carbon sink to a carbon source.”
Not only do the fires themselves release vast quantities of carbon dioxide, they expose soil to sunlight, which speeds decomposition and more carbon dioxide release. If enough warming occurs to melt permafrost, that may release more carbon yet.
In fact, Dr. Gower said we may already be in a feedback loop of increased carbon emissions from the boreal forest.
...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071031.wtrees1031/BNStory/National/
Note: http://www.theglobeandm...
Looks Like Ronald Reagan Was Right, Trees Do Create Pollution!
Posted on Thursday, November 01 at 10:50 by N SayContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Page 1
Dennis Baker
CO2 is *not* a pollutant, never has been and never will be. That's like saying H2O is a pollutant. Life requires water, therefore it is a great thing to have around, and the same is true about CO2 since most life processes happily eat up the stuff.
Having too much water in a specific area may pose a problem for us humans, but under no circumstances can H2O be considered a pollutant.
If there's too much CO2 around for the liking of us humans, again that's just an arbitrary thing that matters only to us humans, as life will continue on happily with or without what we whimsically consider to be ideal CO2 levels.
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is still well within normal levels when the historical accounting of past levels is taken into account. The evidence shows that life will continue to flourish at much higher levels of CO2 than currently exist.
I'm sure everybody picked up on the obvious, but just in case some people didn't read through it, the 'villain'is forest FIRES, NOT forests. Trees don't emit CO2, a burning tree does. It's not rocket science.
Studies like this creep up every so often on here, there seem to be some people that don't think the press does a good enough job with getting out the anti environmental message.
This is hardly 'news'. Its been known for quite some time. The effect though will be the opposite of the intention. The study clearly shows that we desperately need policies to attend to global warming. Forest fires have increased by hundreds of times in the past 20 years.
But how many people will read 'oh, trees are polluters, we better cut them down'. That's clearly the intention of at least the Globe's piece, although the vive title may have been sarcastic, but sarcasm is hard to pick up on online.
If people read through it they'd also notice that second to the fire, the LACK of trees also contributes CO2 which is a call not just for more forest fire services, but less clearcutting.
---
"George Bush has declared the war on terrorism to be the cause of his generation. The cause of Canadian sovereignty will be ours." - John Godfrey, MP for Don Va
But that reminded me of a CURRENT website, damn, I can't find it, but at the New Brunswick government website on the environment for kids, get this, they actually talk about 'seaspray' as being a form of pollution! Buttering kids up so that the Irving smoke doesn't seem so bad I guess.