Protected Forest Areas May Be Critical Strategy for Slowing Climate Change

This may be one of the most cost-effective ways of slowing climate change-

I should add, however, that I think we will find that treating areas with other kinds of land cover the right way might prove to be very important too.

Protected Forest Areas May Be Critical Strategy for Slowing Climate Change. ScienceDaily

20 Responses to “Protected Forest Areas May Be Critical Strategy for Slowing Climate Change”

  1. RLMiller Says:

    The thick, wet forests of the Pacific Northwest, from Tongass to Rogue River, are even better at sequestering carbon than the tropical forests of Indonesia and Brazil.
    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/03/carbon-storage-pacific-northwest-forests.html
    Something to keep in mind when evaluating logging proposals?

  2. Talks with Bears Says:

    Now that Climategate II has surfaced, how about we work on settling the science behind this issue before we close down more industries and put more people out of work?

    • mikarooni Says:

      Yep, I bet the guy who poached those five cow elk worked in one of those industries.

    • RLMiller Says:

      Not quite sure what “Climategate II” you mean…do you refer to the fact that British lawmakers have just exonerated the CRU scientists? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36104206/ns/us_news-environment/

      Or the fact that the IPCC’s most egregious error was in lowballing the amount of sea level rise?
      http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/22/sea-level-rise-global-warming/#more-19762

      Or the fact that good science can never be 100% settled?
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-the-science-settled.html

      Or maybe the fact that people on this blog care about protecting the wild animals who live in the forests of the West, and carbon sequestration abilities of those forests is one of many reasons not to log those forests?

    • Ralph Maughan Says:

      Talks with Bears,

      Climategate itself was mostly hype by polluting industries, and the scientists apparently did nothing wrong.

      Even if they did, increasing levels of carbon dioxide cause the retention of heat in the lower atmosphere. Where that goes is not completely settled, nor is there agreement on the effects.

      Carbon dioxide itself dissolves in water, producing carbonic acid (the fizz in soda pop). As the level changes, so does the ecology of a pond, a river, lake, or the ocean. This might be considered good or bad according to whether it goes up or down. This effect of carbon dioxide is unrelated to the gas’s greenhouse effect.

      Carbon dioxide is a vital part of the carbon cycle which all graduate level biology students have to know about. Carbon dioxide itself is neither bad nor good. It’s all about the level. If too low, the Earth would freeze over. If too high, it is expected to warm.

      When carbon dioxide levels are stable, that means various natural “sinks” like vegetation and water take as much out of the atmosphere as sources of emission put into the atmosphere.

      One point of this article is that if you want to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere there is more than one to do it. Emission controls are only part of the answer. Conservation and enhancement of the sinks is the rest. Temperate rain forests are one of the most effective sinks.

      You were concerned about putting people out of work. A cost-effective method such as conserving temperate rain forests is one answer to your question. Cost-effective means the most return for the effort expended.

      I hope your question is answered.

    • Talks with Bears Says:

      I am referring to the data obtained thru the Freedom of Information act that shows the NASA data to be less accurate than even the data “provided” in the climategate fiasco. Remember what they taught in school – crap in crap out.

      Hope that clears it up for ya.

    • Ralph Maughan Says:

      Talks with Bears,

      The article is about temperate rain forests as carbon sinks. What the researchers at East Anglica (or wherever) did or did not do is not related to forests.

    • mikarooni Says:

      “crap in crap out. Hope that clears it up for ya.” Boy, that’s some chip on that old shoulder there, Redneck.

  3. monty Says:

    Recently Bill Gates has finally given a major speech about climate change. You can read his speech by “Goggly”: TED!Maybe Bill has more credibility with the forces of “darkness” who deny the science of climate change. Take the time to read his speech.

    • Talks with Bears Says:

      Monty – what “forces of darkness” are there to climate change? The climate has always changed. The science of human influence on climate was once known as “manmade global warming” that has been replaced with “climate change” – nifty political move but not playing with those folks that actually think. BTW – “science” built on corrupt data is not science.

    • JB Says:

      Good grief.

    • Ralph Maughan Says:

      Yes, well I see everyone has their talking points, but this thread was started because of forests as carbon sinks.

    • JB Says:

      Actually, the “nifty” political move was the change in conservative talking points from “global warming is not real” to “global warming is not human-caused”. I doubt it will matter to folks currently living a few feet above sea level.

      FYI: The scientific community advocated for discussions of “global climate change” rather than “global warming” because localized variation in the predicted effects.

  4. Ralph Maughan Says:

    Well the point of this thread for me was to point out the great value of the rainforests along the Pacific Coast. Logging along the B.C. coast and Alaskan Coast is possibly the most damaging kind of forestry for the Earth as a whole.

    I think it’s possible that logging in other places has little more than local effects and could even be slightly beneficial in terms of greenhouse gases.

    Of course, you have to weigh in the use of the wood. Wood fiber used for construction stores carbon for a much longer time than wood fiber used for paper or burned for fuel.

    • JEFF E Says:

      I would venture that the logging in the Amazon basin has worldwide consequences.

    • Ralph Maughan Says:

      Jeff E

      It certainly does, and I think that’s what most people think of when they think conserving the forest.

      The thing about the Amazon is that almost all the carbon is in the trees. It is not stored in the soil as shown by the infertile shrubland that replaces any large logged part of the Amazon.

      In the Pacific Northwest, half or more of the carbon is not in the big trees but permanently locked up in soil. I mean the big trees store a lot of carbon, but the soil retains it too and continues to add it even when there is no net growth in the forest as a whole.

  5. monty Says:

    Ralph, I agree we lost the “thread” of your original point.
    Talks with Bears: If I had to go to court about climate change & was limited to one climate change expert, I would choose Bill Gates with his vast resources and his science background and ability to “think” and sort fact from fiction. Who is your expert witness?

    • Talks with Bears Says:

      Monty – first I have heard of Bill Gates being an “expert” on climate change. He has a big credibility advantage over most “experts” on the subject – Bill Gates does not need the federal/UN grant money. That fact does put him way up list at least to be objective. I will read his speech when I have a moment.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: