4 ms·

I mean.. I get your point.. but 9% is still a lot, and even if it's net-zero, the carbon sequestration going into that process can't be negligible. It may be a

by ctrl-j 7y ago

I mean.. I get your point.. but 9% is still a lot, and even if it's net-zero, the carbon sequestration going into that process can't be negligible. It may be a click-bait factoid, but it's not like that factoid isn't an important one.

Misdicorl 7y ago
There is no active sequestration for a static forest. Only if the forest is expanding in size will sequestration occur. Obviously reducing the size via burning has the opposite effect
- cm2187 7y ago
  But doesn't it regrow from the hashes?
  - Misdicorl 7y ago
    Eventually. See my other comment
  - marvin 7y ago
    From the ashes? Not if it's turned into a ranch! And I'm not qualified to answer what happens when you burn down an entire millenia-old ecosystem. Seems plausible that it might not go straight back to its old self in a human-relevant timeframe.
    - cm2187 7y ago
      Well my question is rather if it becomes a growing forest again, ie capturing co2.
    - didbsivdf 7y ago
      “Not if it's turned into a ranch!” That’s not obvious to me. Most plants are C2 plants, but grass is a C4 so it captures sunlight more efficiently. Not to say burning the Amazon isn’t a terrible idea.
      - Armisael16 7y ago
        Plants pretty consistently are ~40-50% carbon by mass, so the amount of biomass on the ground is a fairly solid indicator of the amount of carbon sequestered. Unless the ranchers have a truly massive amount of hay at all times I don't see how a ranch can approach a forest.
        hanche 7y ago
        Don’t forget the soil. Old prairie has immensely thick soil, with a high carbon content. Think deep plant roots. With the right management, ranchers could mimic the prairie ecosystem, restore and build soil, and sequester carbon into the soil. It’s not easy, but the most successful farmers have been astoundingly successful. Not that any of this is a valid excuse for burning down the Amazon.
Misdicorl 7y ago
As a follow up to my above, it's the weight of the forest that matters. Older forests typically fit bigger and denser and heavier trees, so the age of a forest still matters a lot. But a fairly established forest like the Amazon is not changing the amount of oxygen out carbon dioxide in the air unless it's expanding or contracting
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by ctrl-j 7y ago

Misdicorl 7y ago

There is no active sequestration for a static forest. Only if the forest is expanding in size will sequestration occur. Obviously reducing the size via burning has the opposite effect

cm2187 7y ago
But doesn't it regrow from the hashes?
- Misdicorl 7y ago
  Eventually. See my other comment
- marvin 7y ago
  From the ashes? Not if it's turned into a ranch! And I'm not qualified to answer what happens when you burn down an entire millenia-old ecosystem. Seems plausible that it might not go straight back to its old self in a human-relevant timeframe.
  - cm2187 7y ago
    Well my question is rather if it becomes a growing forest again, ie capturing co2.
  - didbsivdf 7y ago
    “Not if it's turned into a ranch!” That’s not obvious to me. Most plants are C2 plants, but grass is a C4 so it captures sunlight more efficiently. Not to say burning the Amazon isn’t a terrible idea.
    - Armisael16 7y ago
      Plants pretty consistently are ~40-50% carbon by mass, so the amount of biomass on the ground is a fairly solid indicator of the amount of carbon sequestered. Unless the ranchers have a truly massive amount of hay at all times I don't see how a ranch can approach a forest.
      - hanche 7y ago
        Don’t forget the soil. Old prairie has immensely thick soil, with a high carbon content. Think deep plant roots. With the right management, ranchers could mimic the prairie ecosystem, restore and build soil, and sequester carbon into the soil. It’s not easy, but the most successful farmers have been astoundingly successful. Not that any of this is a valid excuse for burning down the Amazon.

Misdicorl 7y ago

As a follow up to my above, it's the weight of the forest that matters. Older forests typically fit bigger and denser and heavier trees, so the age of a forest still matters a lot. But a fairly established forest like the Amazon is not changing the amount of oxygen out carbon dioxide in the air unless it's expanding or contracting

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]