Jouni. Your comments are still wishful thinking and misinterpretation of
what I wrote.
you wrote:
<<Nick, you are thinking too much of yourself, but actually your
understanding is thinner than you might think.
For example, IPCC does not differentiate old growth forests from
modified forests and not even from forest plantations, although old
growth forest can store up to one order of magnitude more carbon than
what IPCC has valued.>>
What you are still missing, despite your blizzard of rhetoric, is that
climate science (and the forestry scientists in particular) who wrote the
IPCC bit about forestry and mitigation are not as ignorant as you believe.
Just about every man and his dog knows that old growth forests have an awful
lot more carbon locked up in them than newly planted ones. If you imagine
that lone "geniuses" like yourself can point out such an obvious "solution"
to excess atmospheric greenhouse gases that they have all missed, you must
have an excess ego. The big flaw in your plan is that you can't just create
old growth forest with all the extra carbon stored below ground (that new
growth plantation forests lack) - transparently obviously, it takes a long
time to form! You yourself wrote:
<<This is because it may take up to 500-1000 years, for old growth forest to
regain it's ability to store carbon.>>
Exactly!! So how can it be a solution to urgent current needs?
If you claim that old growth forest is specifically being destroyed under
IPCC guidelines so that new growth forest can be planted, then you have to
provide real evidence beyond mere assertions, because this looks like an
outrageously false slur. I have never seen it before and I sit on a
governmental environmental advisory think tank.
As a consequence, your apparent promoting of the concept of creating more
old growth forest to absorb CO2 in any reasonable time frame - certainly
over the crucial decades ahead - is a waste of time. Worse, it might fool
the naive, or politically motivated, into thinking that there is a simple
method that avoids having to take serious action.
Please realise that your "IPCC scientists are idiots who don't understand
science and ignore simple solutions" idea is a crazy one. It is rather like
believing that there is a conspiracy to suppress inventors who claim to have
100 mile per gallon carburettors because the scientific establishment is too
stupid to understand them or are so corrupted by self interest.
You wrote:
<<Because of this false reasoning, that young forests are better carbon
sink, as they supposedly absorb faster carbon from atmosphere we are failed
completely to prevent extensive logging all around the Earth.>>
You are not thinking clearly. Newly growing forest absolutely does (there is
no "supposedly" about it) absorb more atmospheric CO2 than old growth
forest. Because of this, if one wants to use forestry as a part of one's
mitigation strategy to stabilise or reduce atmospheric CO2 levels in
timescale we have available to us (very short), it is the "weapon of
choice".
Following on from your false accusation of false reasoning you wrote:
<<Instead, IPCC has recommended to clear the forest for biofuel
plantations>>
I think you might have to provide a reliable source for this outrageous
statement!
In case you didn't realise, I fully support protecting old growth forests -
I'm an environmentalist, damnit and I don't know any other environmentalists
who support felling it! - if we had 500 -1500 years to stabilise the
atmosphere, it would be an extremely good strategy, assuming that we could
find space for it and still grow enough food... but we don't have that time.
Nick Palmer
On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it
Blogspot - Sustainability and stuff according to Nick Palmer
http://nickpalmer.blogspot.com
