We may have to rethink the value of the Amazon Rainforest.

[Woodznutz]

It seems that such forests actually produce a huge amount of CO2.

"But given the vast majority of deadwood decay occurs in the tropics (93%), and that this region in general is set to become even warmer and wetter under climate change, it’s safe to say climate change will increase the amount of carbon deadwood releases each year."

Decaying forest wood releases a whopping 10.9 billion tonnes of carbon each year. This will increase under climate change

This is the first time researchers have calculated the amount of carbon released from the world’s decaying wood. They found insects play an enormous role.

theconversation.com

 

[theHawk]

Forests feed on CO2.

 

[Woodznutz]

Forests feed on CO2.

Living trees also produce CO2.

"During photosynthesis, plants use things like water, sunlight, and carbon dioxide to create food and oxygen. Because of this, most plants including trees can only create oxygen during the day. At night, the process is reversed. Trees give off carbon dioxide and absorb oxygen in a process called respiration."

In view of this forests with substantial amounts of decomposing trees likely produce more CO2 than they absorb.

 

[White 6]

Living trees also produce CO2.

"During photosynthesis, plants use things like water, sunlight, and carbon dioxide to create food and oxygen. Because of this, most plants including trees can only create oxygen during the day. At night, the process is reversed. Trees give off carbon dioxide and absorb oxygen in a process called respiration."

In view of this forests with substantial amounts of decomposing trees likely produce more CO2 than they absorb.

Last I heard, living trees had leaves and processed CO2 by Chlorophyll producing oxygen in the exchange and sugars that feed the tree, so trees are a good thing, required for the biosphere.

If the rainforest areas are going to be warmer and wetter, as you say, carbon trap in dead fall decay is overall a good thing, so leave them alone, as the growing/living trees produce oxygen. Problem comes in areas, not rain forest, but conifer forested areas where average temp is increasing, but rainfall decreasing such as California, making deadfall a fire hazard to the forest and surrounding populated areas, but again, not for any supposed CO2 problem, but for fire hazard.

 

[Woodznutz]

Last I heard, living trees had leaves and processed CO2 by Chlorophyll producing oxygen in the exchange and sugars that feed the tree, so trees are a good thing, required for the biosphere.

If the rainforest areas are going to be warmer and wetter, as you say, carbon trap in dead fall decay is overall a good thing, so leave them alone, as the growing/living trees produce oxygen. Problem comes in areas, not rain forest, but conifer forested areas where average temp is increasing, but rainfall decreasing such as California, making deadfall a fire hazard to the forest and surrounding populated areas, but again, not for any supposed CO2 problem, but for fire hazard.

Dead trees should be used for fuel to produce heat and electricity, not to fuel wildfires.

 

[White 6]

Dead trees should be used for fuel to produce heat and electricity, not to fuel wildfires.

I understand and yes that is possible, actually done quite a bit in Germany back in the day, at least, as their forest were the cleanest and densest, I had ever seen back in the 80s and 90s. It must be remembered though, burning is an immediate unlock of the trapped carbon and carbon dioxide so if one was a global warning extreme person, it would be view (at best) as a two-edged sword, as wood burns fairly dirty, at best. I am no extremist on the issue, either way. If climate change is the issue, at worst case, it is not going to kill us all while we are alive in the near future or in the next two generations, and you and I are not going to give up our fairly clean, and efficient, natural gas heated forced air split system home HVAC systems (not to mention every business, office building and government installation in this country or any other), to go back to burning wood, certainly not deadfall wood gathered from the Amazonian rainforest floor to provide our heat and comfort. At least, I'm not. So, pardon me, if I can't get too worked up, to jumping onboard.

 

[Woodznutz]

I understand and yes that is possible, actually done quite a bit in Germany back in the day, at least, as their forest were the cleanest and densest, I had ever seen back in the 80s and 90s. It must be remembered though, burning is an immediate unlock of the trapped carbon and carbon dioxide so if one was a global warning extreme person, it would be view (at best) as a two-edged sword, as wood burns fairly dirty, at best. I am no extremist on the issue, either way. If climate change is the issue, at worst case, it is not going to kill us all while we are alive in the near future or in the next two generations, and you and I are not going to give up our fairly clean, and efficient, natural gas heated forced air split system home HVAC systems (not to mention every business, office building and government installation in this country or any other), to go back to burning wood, certainly not deadfall wood gathered from the Amazonian rainforest floor to provide our heat and comfort. At least, I'm not. So, pardon me, if I can't get too worked up, to jumping onboard.

We can burn wood where and how it is practical to do so. A single large forest fire likely puts more pollutants into the air than all the domestic wood fires in the world combined, while providing no benefits.

 

[White 6]

We can burn wood where and how it is practical to do so. A single large forest fire likely puts more pollutants into the air than all the domestic wood fires in the world combined, while providing no benefits.

You would have to find an economically viable means of monetizing the effort and the not only isn't one, but won't be one. They don't even monetize it in California, where the wild fires are burning millions of dollars of developed property annually. To talk about doing it to the Amazon Rainforest is beyond rationality. But, good luck to you, Woodznutz.

 

[Woodznutz]

You would have to find an economically viable means of monetizing the effort and the not only isn't one, but won't be one. They don't even monetize it in California, where the wild fires are burning millions of dollars of developed property annually. To talk about doing it to the Amazon Rainforest is beyond rationality. But, good luck to you, Woodznutz.

My point is that the Amazon Rainforest might actually be "the lungs of the earth" as is often erroneously presented (lungs use oxygen and expel CO2). There is no practical way of utilizing that wood.

I have advocated burning wood from dead trees for many years. It is a wasted resource. I have harvested and burned such wood from one of our State Forests for many years.

I have posted this picture many times here in support of utilizing dead trees that would otherwise rot away in the forest releasing their carbon into the air. All this wood was easily accessible.

 

[White 6]

My point is that the Amazon Rainforest might actually be "the lungs of the earth" as is often erroneously presented (lungs use oxygen and expel CO2). There is no practical way of utilizing that wood.

I have advocated burning wood from dead trees for many years. It is a wasted resource. I have harvested and burned such wood from one of our State Forests for many years.

I have posted this picture many times here in support of utilizing dead trees that would otherwise rot away in the forest releasing their carbon into the air. All this wood was easily accessible.
View attachment 737368

Well you are getting your way, then as slash and burn agriculture is still very much alive in the Amazon Rainforest. Now getting them to transport all the dead wood out to the colder climates for use in wood stoves, is something else entirely.

 

[Yarddog]

Living trees also produce CO2.

"During photosynthesis, plants use things like water, sunlight, and carbon dioxide to create food and oxygen. Because of this, most plants including trees can only create oxygen during the day. At night, the process is reversed. Trees give off carbon dioxide and absorb oxygen in a process called respiration."

In view of this forests with substantial amounts of decomposing trees likely produce more CO2 than they absorb.

The solution is a simple one. Mass produce pods to send Liberals flying into the depths of space, where there are no plants and animals to produce the dreaded CO2 ! Complete vacuum is the only environment they can find happiness in and express their theories.

 

[Woodznutz]

Well you are getting your way, then as slash and burn agriculture is still very much alive in the Amazon Rainforest. Now getting them to transport all the dead wood out to the colder climates for use in wood stoves, is something else entirely.

I think they make charcoal, and lumber of course, from those trees. Illegal timber harvesting is a big problem as well. The dead trees rot so fast in that climate that they have no commercial value.