European forests, many of which were planted after World War II, are reaching an age where the trees' contribution to the environment becomes negative. You can no longer rely on them in the carbon balance
The important role of forests as carbon dioxide absorbers and thereby moderating global warming is known and appreciated. A study published in: Nature Climate Change. Refers to European forests and their absorption capacity.
It is known from the daily press that the human population of Europe is aging, now it turns out that the European forests are also aging. This aging leads the forests to saturation in their ability to absorb carbon dioxide, and it threatens one of the main causes of global warming recession.
According to the researchers, "from Spain to Sweden, forests are aging, the trees in which are less good at absorbing emissions that cause warming, sea level rise, heat waves and floods."
In addition to aging, the forests are damaged by storms, insects and fires. In addition to the "natural" vulnerabilities, there are forests on the continent where trees are cut without supervision or proper management. As a result, Europe loses the possibility that its cities will absorb emissions in the current amount. Today, forests absorb about 10% of emissions on the continent (carbon dioxide emitted from factories and industries, power plants and cars).
But the researchers see the first signs of saturation. When the trees reach the age of about 75 years, growth stops, meaning that the trees produce more carbon dioxide than they absorb.
According to calculations, the saturation point will be reached in 2030, unless the governments act to reverse the trend.
Today Europe is greener than ever, greener than it has been for many centuries. This is mainly because of the great planting movement that took place after World War II. Forestry provided a sustainable carbon dioxide sink that was supposed to last for many generations. However, data shows that since 2005 there has been a decrease in plantings - and the trees are getting old. Trees that absorb carbon dioxide from the air and use it to build root and branch tissues lose their ability to absorb as they age. When the trees die, the carbon dioxide that was "stored" is released and returns to the atmosphere.
According to a team of UN climate experts, "emissions of carbon dioxide (which is a greenhouse gas) as a result of burning fossil fuel, is the main cause of warming and the rise in temperature since 1950. As part of the global effort to mitigate global warming, the European Union plans to cut measured emissions in 1990 by 20%. The cut will be completed by 2020, when each country will measure the absorption of carbon dioxide in its territory until it reaches the required amount.
Under the Kyoto Convention, countries chose the amount of carbon dioxide to emit or absorb, but in the near future these countries will be obligated to the emission amounts and therefore also to the proper management of forests.
It is worth noting that a mature forest is considered an important habitat for biological diversity, so for conservation policy makers a dilemma arises between the ecological value of the forest and its efficiency in carbon dioxide absorption.
According to the researchers, the policy makers will have to allow some of the old forests to exist as important habitats for biodiversity, while in other areas mature forests must be cut and thinned (to be used for the timber industry) and young trees must be planted that will absorb carbon dioxide.
One of the problems in forest management is that large forest areas belong to private individuals so that any change and any process will require the broad agreement of the owners of the areas. The researchers propose pan-European legislation that would require forest management, which would combine the requirements to mitigate global warming with the issue of preserving biological diversity.
Since 2011, delegations from forty countries have been dealing with the issue with the intention of reaching a framework agreement that would allow legislation and activity in accordance with the research data and its conclusions.
According to the researchers, the obligation can be met by properly managing the forests and the problem of aging can be prevented. Proper management means selective thinning, felling and planting new forests.
The carbon cycle - the transition between the soil and everything that grows and lives in it (geosphere and terrestrial biosphere), the sea and everything that lives in it (hydrosphere) and the atmosphere - is an essential factor for life on the planet.
Imprisonment of carbon and delaying its return to the carbon cycle is a property of components in the cycle such as soil, sea, rocks and more. Since the industrial revolution, due to the burning of mineral fuel and changes in agricultural processing, human activity has changed the carbon cycle, causing the emission and addition of amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere that was previously trapped.
Changes in the use of land or territory, such as urbanization, deforestation, quarrying and mining, have caused the reduction of the biosphere that absorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by assimilation (photosynthesis). When the sources of carbon dioxide absorption do not "keep up" and are unable to absorb the additional carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by humanity, there is saturation.
16 תגובות
the guide of the universe
The whole claim about cutting down 80 year old forests is completely unfounded, it would be a waste of time on your part to try to understand the crooked logic of cutting down forests (of forest trees) because they are only 80 years old after they were planted. Read my first response, it is to the point and accurate. Ignore noisy commenters who do not understand what they are talking about but make voices of supposedly understanding. Forest trees prolong life and 80 years old is an excellent age for them functionally. As long as the trees are green, they are very active in terms of photosynthesis and CO2 capture. The confinement of co2 by mature trees is done only by the green foliage, when it gets old it withers, falls off and allows young foliage to grow. Parts of a tree that are not foliage do not contribute to photosynthesis.
Do not confuse forest trees with cultivated trees whose life cycle is completely different (usually shorter, more vulnerable and requiring human intervention).
-------
In addition to what I said above, the forest *as an organism* has the ability to self-renew, meaning:
* If individual trees or clusters of small trees weaken for one reason or another, the robust trees take over the resources of the weak and fill their place, or alternatively new trees grow in their place.
** If a piece of forest is damaged due to some serious malfunction (such as fire or disease) there is self-renewal of the forest by new trees. If a large plot is severely damaged there is no obstacle to replanting it to speed up regeneration.
*** Situations in which the forest is not capable of self-renewal on a large scale are very rare situations, because evolution gave the forest the ability to survive by self-renewal. The forests exist and have survived for billions of years without the help of humans, it is a foolish pretense to believe that they need humans to function well.
---------
In addition to the above. In groves or sparse forests, it is possible to speed up the thinning somewhat by pruning and thinning non-functioning trees. In a dense forest this is not technically possible. Woodland and sparse forest are not relevant to the matter of trapping co2. Again: the self-renewal mechanism of dense forests works by itself and you don't need to plant anything. A forest planted in a way that does not regenerate itself is a failure of the planters.
Why do different researchers make unfounded claims like here? Apparently in certain areas it pays off for them financially. Anyone who has not been to academia does not understand that publishing idle articles can be a good income. I noticed that in the fields of global warming there are quite a few idle publications.
If you have any doubt about my words, try searching on Google in English under the keywords, natural forest maintenance. Read the stuff of seasoned foresters, not the stuff of climate scientists who are reinventing botany.
Something doesn't make sense to me until the end. According to this thinking, does the Amazon increase the burden of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Until today I thought he was a green lung that reduces carbon dioxide and adds oxygen. Is it time to cut down the sequoia trees in California? I read Dr. Dror Bar Nir's article and it still doesn't make sense to me.
Perhaps it is possible to extract carbon dioxide straight from the air and carbon and perhaps also provide it. To produce plastic products, industry, or perhaps food - synthetic sugar, or carbohydrates and gluten.
Gilgamesh and Nadav
Regarding the "skeptic" - to me, personally, it seems that he is simply looking for attention. Maybe to show that he does understand something, because from time to time all kinds of commenters put him on his mistakes. He often comments on all kinds of topics. I don't think he gets paid for it. I also don't think anyone would pay a fool like him.
In contrast to all this: people like you can bring benefit to the public - if only you would respond more and provide links and proofs and confirmations to the things written and said.
It is important for you to know (if you are still young. {I think you are around the ages of 25-40}): Life is a school. And everything is politics. Everything else is history.
The more you respond to the matter to commenters like him - the more you will improve the knowledge level of the readers on this site, which will lead to an improvement in the standard of living of those readers and their immediate environment. at least.
For Ruhaim and Nadav, there are a lot of forces at work here and the power of environmental organizations is not small. Only in our tiny country that lacks natural resources and is rich in enemies and weak populations have things been done in the name of the environment against the economic interest and not necessarily positive. The construction of a nuclear power plant was prevented, the fish cages in Eilat were destroyed, dozens of infrastructure projects were delayed for years due to high courts and billions were invested in solar energy and the restoration of streams and nature reserves. So there are good things and there are less good things, but the fact is that there is a lot of power in the hands of environmental organizations and that you don't see position papers from their side regarding relatively simple projects that might help like planting trees. There is a feeling that there is a Pavlovian reaction to every change and every progress, so it is no wonder that there are such and such skeptics who directly respond by dismissing the claims of the environmentalists. Where is El Gor who will knock on the table and say why they don't plant trees? All the time you just hear what not. No nuclear energy, no infrastructure, no cars, no meat, no fish caught in the sea and no fish raised in fish farms. If we were to hear a bit of what it is, and in a logical way that takes into account the economy and human culture, $20 billion was the daily budget in an international program to prevent climate change.
For Ruhaim and Nadav, there are a lot of forces at work here and the power of environmental organizations is not small. Only in our tiny country that lacks natural resources and is rich in enemies and weak populations have things been done in the name of the environment against the economic interest and not necessarily positive. The construction of a nuclear power plant was prevented, the fish cages in Eilat were destroyed, dozens of infrastructure projects were delayed for years due to high courts and billions were invested in solar energy and the restoration of streams and nature reserves. So there are good things and there are less good things, but the fact is that there is a lot of power in the hands of environmental organizations and that you don't see position papers from their side regarding relatively simple projects that might help like planting trees. There is a feeling that there is a Pavlovian reaction to every change and every progress, so it is no wonder that there are such and such skeptics who directly respond by dismissing the claims of the environmentalists. Where is El Gor who will knock on the table and say why they don't plant trees? All the time you just hear what not. No nuclear energy, no infrastructure, no cars, no meat, no fish caught in the sea and no fish raised in fish farms. If we were to hear a little about what it is, and in a logical way that takes into account the economy in human culture, $20 billion was the daily budget in an international program to prevent climate change.
It's amazing to me to see how much money the organizations that oppose any change in environmental policy have and how much effort they invest.
For example: in almost every article by Dr. Assaf Rosenthal has safkan who directly responds to the first response in order to determine the discourse and the manner of the discussion and also invests considerable effort to challenge Assaf's legitimacy and presents him as a charlatan.
This is not a simple task:
1. First, the articles on the science website are published together around 12 at night. In order to respond directly, you need to make some kind of software that monitors what is published and sends notifications in order to respond directly.
2. After that, you have to persevere and keep responding every time. But not just any response, you need to think of an appropriate response that is both relevant to the content of the article and that will cause readers to question the facts and the legitimacy of the writer. Sometimes even the "skeptic" looks for contradictory data and bothers to "check" Assaf.
From all of this I conclude that: "The skeptic" works systematically and with a purpose behind him, he sets himself the goal of fighting everything related to environmental change. It is not new that the capitalists spend a huge amount of money on lobbyists and persuading politicians (such as buying Republican congressmen, using Fox News as a propaganda mouthpiece, but even here in Israel, in everything related to environmental legislation, there will be lots of lobbyists involved in the relevant committees and among the members of the Knesset).
And from this I assume that the safkan is simply a hired lobbyist (or a company) that represents certain interests and receives money for it. He has alerts that look for environmental articles on the web and he responds to them straight away.
Because there is something I don't understand: I do understand why some people go out to fight for values they believe in such as preserving nature, vegetarianism, settlement, refusal, social struggle, etc. But it doesn't make sense to have a person go to war for proving the fact that scientists are lying and that there is no man-made global warming. The only reason to go to war like this is financial interest.
Gilgamesh
And where will 20 billion dollars come from? Who will bring them?
(hint: politics)
This is the first time I've heard of the idea of absorbing CO2 by planting trees. Why not just plant lots of trees? How many trees can be planted with a budget of say 20 billion dollars? A zero sum in relation to the costs of climate change damages.
My article on the same topic:
Old trees are not "green" - and also emit methane
http://drorbn.blogspot.com/2012/09/blog-post_10.html
Is it possible to have a source that backs up what is written here - that it does not cost money to read it?
According to the logic here, the remaining emission from the Amazon forests is actually an ecological disaster.
For a long time I managed not to enter Dr. R's articles, now I entered by mistake and was punished again
The troll "Counselor de la Shemata"
continues to boggle the mind.
As a troll he hides behind a fake nickname. Those who know nothing engage in trolling matters, because the original understanding in any field is very low.
Why don't they develop artificial installations capable of doing the work of the forests?
Spring.
Instead of publishing articles, why don't you let a "skeptic" write articles here on all kinds of topics (from biology to physics to philosophy)? It seems that he, alone, knows much more than the scientists who deal with these fields..
come on. Trees get old at 80 years old? Stop breathing?
Sensational discoveries.
Most trees live for hundreds of years and their photosynthesis process (which is their respiration) continues until a good return.