Clear the old growth timber? ahahahahahahahahahahaha
Yeah, that'll go over real well. Isn't that sort of like killing off all the old whales to free up food for the younger ones? "Say mom, could you and dad come down to the basement for a minute? I've got something I need to show you"?

That's an idea that will never fly. Never.

All of this is based on the assumption that AGW theory is correct and that humans have the power to intervene. Just like God. But I've said it before; It is unwise to make control inputs into a system which you do not understand. You go whacking down the old forests and then discover the hard way that they were resistant to some disease or insect and now you've gone and screwed it ALL up. Bad old humans anyway. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Best to have a Texas cage debate and after it's over we can send Gore, Suzuki, and Prince Charles on a hike through polar bear territory. Of course they'll be in no danger because everyone knows that polar bears are practically extinct.

Ciao

Aaron

One tree removes 1500 pounds of CO2 over a period of 55 years? Is that all? The way the liberals worship trees, one would think that it would be 1500 pounds per day. The same tree does put 1500 pounds of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere each day in the form of water vapor.

I thought we were already doing this.

"save the spotted owl"

It was hysterical when the eco-nuts said the spotted owl needed X-amount of forest, etc.

Then the owl was found nexting behind the K in a KMart sign.

A recent headline in my hometiown paper highligthed a study that predicted that AGW would suppress the number of Atlantic Hurricanes. At the time I was kind of disgusted. Such flip-flops are sure to reduce the standing of AGW theory amonst laymen, and rightfully so, because the ostensibly left-leaning media seems determined to illustrate that AGW theory can be used to predict anything. More hurricanes, less hurricanes, rain surplusses, or rain deficits (in the same areas), the hearbreak of psoriasis, etc. I am a [retty strong believer in mainstream AGW theory, but it does seem to me that the skeptics' claims that much of AGW reserach is junk has some merit.

What a novel idea! Oh wait we do this already and have for many years. Too bad the environmentalists protest every time a tree gets cut down, especially old growth.

This is a fantastic idea. I've always said that not only do we need to reduce emissions, but we need to figure out a way to increase, or restore, CO2 uptake. Mass reforestation projects across the globe are necessary, and this tree farming idea is good, too.

Forests are a renewable resource which should be harvested and replanted just as farmers grow the food we eat. If the article is correct then we could reduce CO2 painlessly.

But, proponents will have an uphill battle accomplishing this because environmentalists will surely oppose it. Many of our old growth forests have gone up in flames because environmntalists have prevented the U.S. Forest Service from building roads to bring in heavy equipment to thin out dead or dying trees and remove brush. The build up of this fuel is catastrophic because it nearly always results in devastating forest fires.

But, it's a great idea if you can overcome the powerful and well funded tree-hugger lobby.

Please read carefully Comments to idea presented here (mentionned article is on link: http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_04forests)

All Comments basically point-out to non-sense what is in article - from presented function of old trees to suggestion to destroy ecosystem by loging and manufacturing from old trees.

It's clear that somebody did not done homework...

Can you imagine the angst of the tree huggers about now? The thought of having to pay $1.50 at the tree museum must be pretty galling considering it's the green movement that will eventually put them there.
Has anyone figured out the carbon benefits of actually paving paradise and putting up a parking lot?

It's not that simple.

The following quotes come from a Sept. 2004 newswire.com article:
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/sep2004/2004-09-30-09.asp

"The scientists analyzed data collected by the U.S. Forest Service, which measured and cataloged 2.7 million trees on 250,000 plots of land across the country. They calculated the VOC emissions for each tree and each plot and used their findings to map VOC levels nationally. The scientists compared survey data taken in the 1980s with data taken in the 1990s to determine how levels were changing over time.

They found that areas where farmland was abandoned during the last century have early generations of trees that produce higher levels of VOCs than older growth forests.

In the South, pine plantations used for their fast growing supplies of timber are filled with sweetgum trees, which are major producers of VOCs. The researchers found that every tree that grows quickly, a desirable quality for wood production, is a heavy emitter of VOCs."

Trying to reduce the carbon emissions by cuttting down trees and plainting new one, all to the benefit of the lumber industry obviously, would lead to another pollution problem namely more smog due to higher level of VOC emissions from the newer faster growing trees.

John Muir would turn in his grave if he knew that modern "environmentalists" are willing to destroy the sanctity of the forest in order to pacify their own neuroses.

That issue (June 2008) of Wired has a whole series of controversial articles, all focused on the notion that cutting carbon is the ONLY thing environmentalists or anyone else should be concerned about. The splashy cover on their slick, carbon-rich, overdesigned magazine has this in bold type:
Attention Environmentalists:
Keep your SUV.
Forget organics.
Go nuclear.
Screw the spotted owl.
If you're serious about global warming,
only one thing matters:
Cutting carbon. That means facing
some inconvenient truths.

At least they also include a dissenting article:

http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/sb_carbon

Funny, I thought we as a world have been farming the forests for years.

Wasn't it Weyerhauser or somebody like that that trumpets their planting of 5 trees for every one they cut?

Not a botanist or nothing, but doesn't 1,500 pounds of CO2 over 55 years seem a little low? I mean that's less than 30 pounds per year average so according to the calcs of the followers of the Goreacle, it would take a kajillion trees to offset the emissions of mankind for any given year. I would think that the result would be more than an 80 ppm increase over 10 years or whatever.

Yes, there are many ways to manage a forest, some cleartcut and some select cut there are advantages and disadvantages to both, with select cut you normally damage some of the trees that are left and they sometimes rot in the center but this method prevents the most damage to the area and it does not look like a disater area and it opens up some sunlight for smaller trees and they also have more moisture, clear cut, you take everything and use it all from lumber to pulp and your in and back out and it will grow over with new seedlings and weed themselves out to where only the strong survive and this also makes great wildlife habitat,{great deer drives} and sounds like it takes in more co2 also according to the study. Also some spots where appropiate and possible are planted over with pines which are a fast growing species used for alot of framing lumber. So it works out to where the logger is not evil as some have them pictured, they manage what they do and they are responsible for the roof over your head now and they do not get the respect they deserve, a very hard dangerous job that many have lost their lives over. Great show on the history channel called ax men, really shows some of how difficult a job it can be. In the case of old growth forest, I'll actually be a little bit of a nut and say there is enough other timber to be cut without disturbing some of them. But for the most part here in the east basically everything is mostly 2nd to 3rd growth forest, so see, nature regenerates itself and is there for us to use not just look at.

Back in the 60s the term "decadent" forest was used to describe what is now call "old growth" forest. This study indicates that the old term "decadent" forest more accurately reflects the nature of these forests than the more modern and politically correct term "old growth" forest.
It is interesting to note that these "old growth" or "decadent" forests are similar to Al Gore. On the surface they appear to help in reducing the amount of carbon dioxide released into the environment but on closer inspection you see that they actually do more harm than good.

I live in a log cabin and till now have felt somewhat ashamed with its extravagant use of wood, but I see now that I'm on the vanguard of solving the global warming problem.

if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to the one on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, CO2 must be reduced from its present 385 ppm to, at most, 350 ppm
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/20080410_YankeeTicketPrices.pdf

Dr. James Hansen - science adviser to Vice-President Al Gore (science adviser to President Obama.)

Apparently we have already reached a global warming tipping point, which is why the tropics just had their coldest April on record, January saw the most snow ever recorded in the northern hemisphere, Antarctic sea ice has been at record high levels for the last eight months, and temperatures are forecast to decline for at least twenty years from 1998.

These folks are real geniuses - obviously they know something that mother nature doesn't.

"But I've said it before; It is unwise to make control inputs into a system which you do not understand."

What a joke. Of course, unearthing 28 billion tons of sequestered CO2 and emitting it into the atmosphere isn't "making control inputs." Not in Aaron's warped world.

The Denial Machine apparently didn't read the numerous studies linked within the report. Then again, when do they actually read anything?

In N.MN., logging is done by either clear cutting or select cutting. Select cutting takes out a certain number of older trees, allowing younger trees to come up. The older trees canopy makes it difficult for the smaller ones to make it.You can keep coming back to these areas every few years and keep taking trees. They use a feller buncher to manuever around and take certain trees. This practice was resisted by the loggers, because of the expense of new equipment to do it back in the 90's. Profit margins are always tight, right down to the end product.

Clear cutting is the most common way of logging. They replant these areas with pine or let Poplar trees, which clone themselves, overtake the area. If the area is to be replanted with pine, then the clones have to killed off, if they are present, or else they will choke out the pine. Poplar is used in the paper mills. Pine in the lumber mills.

Clear cutting is beneficial for the deer and grouse populations which is commonly hunted here.

Tree farms have been springing up all over the state over the past few years. They plant hybrid trees that grow fast and can be harvested much sooner than regular trees. The state helps out with money to start up these farms. Some farms plant both crops and trees.

So I guess the practices in this state are already helping in the CO2 arena, but not at all for that purpose.

Loggers/mills and "tree huggers" are at odds most of the time, but I guess on this subject of CO2, they would be on mutually beneficial ground.

cut the forest, save a few of the old trees, replant what you cut, and screw the spotted owl with the spotted poop...the dinosaurs did it that way too and managed to live for a very long time...interjecting co2 in common sense forest harvesting is the same as the greenie sponsored idea not to clear underbrush....many a forest then burned, releasing who knows how much boogie man co2...it ought to be plainly obvious by now, whatever the greenies want to do will make no scientific sense, costs taxpayers dollars and after they have been proven later what idiots they are, will blame big oil, big coal, or big weyerhauser...thanks for the article brett, its another topic that begs for independent, not government political based science to lead the way on how best to use the resource...the idea that we should base decisions on voodoo co2 meltdown is a emotional slap in the face to scientific analysis...its just like the ad popup on this thread...fight global warmin or leave air pollution unchecked...duh, what a lame, emotional, money pilfering attempt to promote AGW...the united states of america is at its best when free speech, ingenuity, science and open debate guide these decisions....have a nice day dudes...

As I have said a few times, our farm is surrounded by dense forest. We have done some select cutting which went very well and quickly changed the floor of the forest the next year. Our forest is fairly mature having not been logged in many years and so the diversity of the forest has changed over the year with just about nothing left but a variety of oak, and some maple. Now that sunlight can peak in many seedlings of pine and some birch are springing up. We also have some thick, rich grasses which I wish we could grow in our horse pastures. We have also clear cut parts which required stump removal which is not cheap and a bit difficult to safely remove them. So it is either burn or bury.

I think every forest needs thinning. The hollow tree trunks make for a nice house for many critters. I am sort of neat freak and so after the thinning it can look pretty messy for some time. However since we heat only by wood all that clutter got picked up and put into our outdoor furnace.

A managed forest is necessary.

Redneck

Your Gore and decadent comparison is funny! I hope both sides of the debate at least agree on that since humor is needed here from time to time.

Back to the trees and how much C02 they release/trap, when I watched Heidi Cullen from TWC, I noticed she would say X put out 350 tons of C02 as an example. I thought that sounded like an awful lot. It was always in tons or pounds. Than I started noticing she never gave a percent compared to the rest of the atmosphere. Without knowing how much tonnage the entire atmosphere holds makes these statements useless to me at least.

Just an observation.....

So then the Amazonian deforestation to support new agriculture to raise biomass for biofuels is a good thing?

Reply: No, they are using the land for farming, not replanting of young trees in the Amazon.

I would find it incredibly depressing if these old growth forests were to be cut down. I am skeptical of AGW, however, I care passionately about the environment and I am very concerned about the massive loss in animal/plant diversity which is certainly due to people (unlike I believe GW).

Josh, Darren

Your correct loggers and (and paper companies for that matter) are not evil. I worked for a world wide paper company when I lived in Maine. They go to great pains to make sure that the future of the company is secured by replanting after clearcut and selective harvests.

Reply: I remember those Georgia Pacific commercials back in the 70s and 80s about replanting.

FYI
http://www.sappi.com/SappiWeb/Knowledge%20bank/How%20paper%20is%20made/

There has been all sorts of conjecture by the Hysterics about why the earth saw vastly elevated levels of CO2 back in the ages before man was a factor. I guess after the alleged meteor hit the earth and destroyed life as know at the time, the forests began to grow back and all these 'new growth forests' kicked up levels of CO2 to 'unacceptable' levels. Guess the Hysterics now have their counterpoint to that of the Skeptics point that the earth has seen far greater levels of CO2 in the past than as now.

Actually my tongue was firmly in my cheek when I posted about the Amazonian deforestation.

:)

Brett, Patrick Henry: off subject, and you have probably seen this, but an interesting piece: