2 ms·

> Not true ... warming potency, bio sources (like fossil fuels), deforestation, energy use, animals' inefficiencies in converting plants into calories/protein

> Not true ... warming potency, bio sources (like fossil fuels), deforestation, energy use, animals' inefficiencies in converting plants into calories/protein It doesn't matter. If you run a fixed number of coal fired power plants for a hundred years, your hundred first year will make the climate change worse, because you added extra carbon to the atmosphere. If you run fixed amount of meat production for a hundred years, hundred first year does nothing to the climate, because the system as a whole is in a steady state (methane and NO2 are settled at their levels set by decay/production ratio and there's no new carbon added to the cycle). It is still categorically different, you're talking of one-off events vs constant in/out flows. > mature forests still serve as carbon sink The only way it can happen is if carbon gets stored somewhere. Where do you think it gets stored? In other words, for it to be true, purely from conservation of matter perspective, you should see a material difference after fully logging a hundred year forest vs a fifty year forest. It's not the volume of wood itself, it's fairly constant after a while between wildfires and rotting. It's not the soil, it only accumulates a fraction of mm per year [0] and not all of it is carbon. Where do you think the carbon goes? > Not true. What do you mean "not true"? Here's a random article [1] estimating all wild animal biomass at 20Mt, of which more than half is water, and even if all of the rest is carbon we're talking at most 10Mt of carbon stored in all animal bodies. For comparison, total yearly CO2 emissions are over 34 billion tonnes per year. Any CO2 stored in animal biomass of a new forest is not even a drop in the bucket. I'm not sure why do you feel the need to be sarcastic about substituting LLM musings for your own thoughts, especially after saying that you don't have time to engage. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016706113003601 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00167... [1] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2204892120 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2204892120

myshpa 3y ago
> It doesn't matter You're still focusing on carbon and carbon only, and ignoring other aspects of the problem (like increase in warming due to much potent greenhouse gases, pollution etc. etc.). > Where do you think the carbon goes? I'm talking about difference between pastures and forests. Old-growth forests may seem stagnant, but they still store massive amount of carbon in the wood, soil, dead wood and litter that slowly decomposes, and below-ground biomass (massive trees with extensive roots = massive microbiome). When a mature forest is logged for animal ag, not only it releases the carbon stored in the trees' biomass, but it also disrupts the soil and can result in substantial carbon emissions. The rate at which mature forests continue to absorb CO2 is a topic of research, some studies argue that older forest continue serving as significant carbon sinks, other that they don't. But both camps see their value due to large amounts of carbon they store and the biodiversity they enable. > It's not the soil, it only accumulates a fraction of mm per year I thought we're talking about carbon storage, not soil formation. > CO2 stored in animal biomass of a new forest is not even a drop in the bucket Sure, because wildlife has no value except as being a storage medium for CO2. /s > after saying that you don't have time to engage Yeah, I really shouldn't.

myshpa 3y ago

> It doesn't matter You're still focusing on carbon and carbon only, and ignoring other aspects of the problem (like increase in warming due to much potent greenhouse gases, pollution etc. etc.). > Where do you think the carbon goes? I'm talking about difference between pastures and forests. Old-growth forests may seem stagnant, but they still store massive amount of carbon in the wood, soil, dead wood and litter that slowly decomposes, and below-ground biomass (massive trees with extensive roots = massive microbiome). When a mature forest is logged for animal ag, not only it releases the carbon stored in the trees' biomass, but it also disrupts the soil and can result in substantial carbon emissions. The rate at which mature forests continue to absorb CO2 is a topic of research, some studies argue that older forest continue serving as significant carbon sinks, other that they don't. But both camps see their value due to large amounts of carbon they store and the biodiversity they enable. > It's not the soil, it only accumulates a fraction of mm per year I thought we're talking about carbon storage, not soil formation. > CO2 stored in animal biomass of a new forest is not even a drop in the bucket Sure, because wildlife has no value except as being a storage medium for CO2. /s > after saying that you don't have time to engage Yeah, I really shouldn't.