Yes! Question everything-guilt offsetting versus creative Joy planting "for" quality of Life + a shift in lifestyle! 🌳🌲🌳 FOR-rest Beautiful Charly! #PocketFullOfAcorns 🌳🌲🌳Good news is valuable to share to maintain enthusiasm, "Emissions are 44% lower than 1990 levels'..." 🌳🌲🌳 7:52 Tom on constructive construction ~ Leaving room for Bluebells, carpenters & sculptors! #woodforthetrees
Very interesting. When I read Isabella Tree's book on rewildong, she mentioned that good regenerated soil also is a massive contributor to carbon sequestration. How would te numbers look when you add regen farming and rewilding into the calculations?
Soil organic carbon, both living biomass and decaying organic matter, is potentially a huge carbon sink, and modern UK farming has depleted SOC in some places, predominantly where arable farming has succeeded the grassland management of the last century (consider also maize on Somerset red-soil in the Tone valley). I would wager it cannot be any more than above ground biomass (assuming young broadleaf trees to have a root:shoot ratio around unity). The species that this NATIONAL strategy calls for in its contract with landowners is, in England at least, that farmers plant a mixture of broadleaved species and maybe a few conifers. Frankly, for an estimate of carbon sequestration over the next 20 years (remember this means a nett influx of atmospheric CO2) of 10t eCO2 per ha per year sounds mighty high. I bet if you drilled in to the detail you would find half of that 10t is below ground! Can anyone from the video comment on this? What do you think Ailien?
I actually wrote to my MP some years ago regarding the planting of trees and other land use practices associated with permaculture practices which could mitigate some of the issues we are currently facing, such as carbon sequestration and flooding downstream of drained uplands and the building of urban conurbations, which can cause severe water spikes downstream as hard surfaces drain into water courses more rapidly than if the water was allowed to seep through the soil, recharging aquifers etc. The response was that the government was looking at (high cost) technical solutions, so it’s down to big business at the end of the day. I have since revised my opinion of the carbon narrative, we currently have much lower levels of CO2 than we have had in the past and it is more likely that climate change is driven by the impact of solar cycles rather than human activity, some of which only complete over a period of thousands of years. It is disturbing that few models if any take into account solar activity. Baring in mind that ‘climate’ is a constantly changing phenomena and we have seen both W armer and colder cycles in the historical and fossil records, I would suggest that the whole climate argument is a massive red herring, driven by big money, that is not to say that pollution isn’t an issue though. Most of the argument and fear mongering comes from climate models, which are still in their infancy and are wildly inaccurate, you only have to miss one minute feedback loop and the model is worthless. If you compare past model predictions with what has actually occurred climate wise over the past decades, they are significantly inaccurate and are biased toward the extreme. A classic is Michael Mann’s famous ‘hockey stick’ model which kicked off the whole climate thing with Al Gore, it was thrown out of when he took one of his detractors to court for calling him a fraud and refused to show his working and data sets for comparison. Apparently you could have put the Premier League football results into his model and got the same result. See the case of Michael Mann vs Dr Tim Ball, a distinguished USAF meteorological scientist of many years of experience. I believe it was a Canadian ruling and was a long drawn out and expensive case designed to put Dr. Ball out of business, but he kept on at it. The ruling received little or no comment from the mainstream media or governments and organisations pushing the climate change narrative.
Feels like I am late to the party. AGREED: "It is disturbing that few models if any take into account solar activity. It is disturbing that few models if any take into account solar activity..." I am aware of the other interesting points you raise. Nice one. But is this, UA-cam, the best forum? The message from these UK foresters is "[We MUST reduce emissions TO ZERO]. By planting 30,000 ha *per year for 30 years* we reach 900,000 ha new forest sequestering 40m t eCO2 balancing 26% territorial emissions." I am going to have to run the exchequer costs on that scenario before the weekend. Meantime, shall we discuss CO2 as plant food, increased rates of growth and therefore greater transpiration rates? The impact of increased cloud cover over the North Sea and Scandinavia as a result of increased transpiration of the UK's new landscape of arable farmland and young broad-leaved forest would surely be a miniscule but sustained increase in tropospheric humidity, possibly both increasing albedo and summer precipitation in the Baltic and Scandiavian countries?
@@simonmasters3295 never too late mate, it is always good to question ‘the narrative’ as we should all understand that the people driving it are doing so out of self interest, and would be quite happy strip mining the entire planet.
"As we all know, trees absorb carbon, or in technical lingo, sequester carbon". No we don't know. Trees do not sequester carbon. Sequestered carbon is (as your animation says) carbon that is locked away from biosphere processes: coal, oil, gas, lignite. Trees and woodlands capture carbon. Quite good at it and coppice is especially good. Trees also store carbon for the life of the individual tree: it stores carbon in its body as 'wood' (including the root system) and storage lasts for a while after the tree dies, before it rots. Woodlands multiply up the amount stored. But woodlands are extremely good at carbon cycling. No carbon is actually sequestered. Just stored temporarily: Although an old oak stores carbon for longer than a human life, it is NOT sequestered. Peat bogs (as you say in passing) sequester carbon. Maerl beds sequester carbon. Trees and woodlands (and forests) do not. "In the right circumstances and over long periods of time, carbon from these dead plants gets trapped in layers of sediment and becomes fossil carbon". THAT is carbon sequestration - part 3 of a process which goes: 1) carbon capture 2) carbon storage 3) carbon sequestration with part 3 operating on tiny percentages of the carbon captured and taking geological ages. Storage of carbon as 'wood' in a tree can be extended by harvesting timber and converting it into wood products which do not rot (as a tree left in a woodland eventually will). Think of the timber beams in Ely Cathedral or the vernacular medieval cottages in Sussex. The wood is there and un-rotted, so kind of sequestered because decay causing organisms cannot get at it to cycle the carbon it contains. Kind of an anthropogenic semi-sequestration, but in reality just extended carbon storage. Here's a short, chopped-together vid shot by to explain the differences between capture, storage and sequestration. It is a lo-fi, no-budget thing that explains with examples and gives examples of actual biological shortcuts to carbon sequestration, no trees involved. The short-cut closest to real sequestration is marine and there are other routes, also marine that aren't mentioned. ua-cam.com/video/ZadE0OWwtWY/v-deo.html A challenge to you: watch it and see what you think. I think the distinction is damned important.
Trees & plants both capture and sequester carbon. Capture is done via the Stomata, Carbon Dioxide intake, and sequestering is done via the Calvin cycle, Carbon fixation. It really doesn't matter where the Carbon ends up after capture or sequestration. What you want to avoid is burning whatever final form this carbon takes. Combustion of hydrocarbons is what produces Carbon Dioxide and of more of the problem. And to sequester just means to isolate or separate. It's not some permanently locked away thing. Doesn't matter if it is a few hundred-year-old trees or a 50M year-old forest that is now oil or coal.
@@LibreGlider Sorry, you're missing the point. 'Sequester' does mean to isolate or separate: to separate from biospheric processes in this instance. Fossil carbon (oil, coal, gas, lignite) is separated from the biosphere in the earth's crust. You can add in fossil carbon in carbonate rocks like chalk and limestone/marble and carbonate-cemented sandstones, but you can't use those for fuel. Use of fossil carbon as fuel is where the problem has arisen - millions and millions of tonnes since the late 18th century. Trees only store carbon (produced by photosynthesis) temporarily. A vanishingy small percentage of the carbon you see stored in a forest will make its way into sequestration in the Earth's crust via geological processes. The rest is and remains available for use by life - cycling in the biosphere. Combustion of wood fuel or biodiesel is just speeding that cycling. Burning coal or gas is burning sequestered carbon and adding to the problem. By (falsely) claiming that trees sequester carbon, one aids the argument of vested interests that there is no problem and if there is planting trees can fix it. It can't. Not enough land, not enough trees and the trees' capacity for carbon storage is finite. Watch this: ua-cam.com/video/ZadE0OWwtWY/v-deo.html for a more detailed analysis.
In Australia we have 24 billion Standard trees. Each tree absorbs 21.82kg of CO2 Australia produce 463 million tons of CO2/year You do the Math. This is not counting all the other plant life and the Mangroves.
The temperate climate in the UK has traditionally meant that our forests here are very damp, making forest fires impossible. But as climate changes, that might no longer be the case. Derek Gow talks about this in our film on why we need more trees. ua-cam.com/video/lFREO94UQGo/v-deo.htmlsi=H2dKM5mTm52NH5ga&t=578
The video is very misleading - it states that newly planted trees sequester C by 20T/ha/yr. This is far from correct - a newly planted forest releases C for up to 20 years. This is due to slow growth initially (a tree, the thickness of a pencil and 100 leaves doesn't absorb much C) and C released from the soil.
It's not the solution, but it certainly is something to do, forests protect soil, hold water, attract water, create rain, act as cooling fins, hot air in, cool air out, they are life & nature, the main terraforming force on this planet is nature, the forests have birthed us.. so we should stop treating them like shit and help them any way we can. I spend a couple months per year in nature and returning to the city is hard after that, everything smells foul, is too loud, visually too loud as well, as spending time in the forests you open up your senses again and become hyper aware and alert, when you then go back to a city you need to dull all those senses again just to be able to navigate it.
Wonderful film, clearly stating the current situation and challenges we face, trees are only part of the solution. Great work
Thank you. This was very useful. Kudos to your team.
That is an eye opening film. Thank you
Nicely done, thanks for continuing the films.
Yes! Question everything-guilt offsetting versus creative Joy planting "for" quality of Life + a shift in lifestyle!
🌳🌲🌳 FOR-rest Beautiful Charly! #PocketFullOfAcorns
🌳🌲🌳Good news is valuable to share to maintain enthusiasm, "Emissions are 44% lower than 1990 levels'..."
🌳🌲🌳 7:52 Tom on constructive construction ~ Leaving room for Bluebells, carpenters & sculptors! #woodforthetrees
Wonderful! 🌲🌳💟🌲🌳💟🌲🌳 💟
Very interesting. When I read Isabella Tree's book on rewildong, she mentioned that good regenerated soil also is a massive contributor to carbon sequestration. How would te numbers look when you add regen farming and rewilding into the calculations?
Soil organic carbon, both living biomass and decaying organic matter, is potentially a huge carbon sink, and modern UK farming has depleted SOC in some places, predominantly where arable farming has succeeded the grassland management of the last century (consider also maize on Somerset red-soil in the Tone valley). I would wager it cannot be any more than above ground biomass (assuming young broadleaf trees to have a root:shoot ratio around unity).
The species that this NATIONAL strategy calls for in its contract with landowners is, in England at least, that farmers plant a mixture of broadleaved species and maybe a few conifers. Frankly, for an estimate of carbon sequestration over the next 20 years (remember this means a nett influx of atmospheric CO2) of 10t eCO2 per ha per year sounds mighty high. I bet if you drilled in to the detail you would find half of that 10t is below ground!
Can anyone from the video comment on this?
What do you think Ailien?
I actually wrote to my MP some years ago regarding the planting of trees and other land use practices associated with permaculture practices which could mitigate some of the issues we are currently facing, such as carbon sequestration and flooding downstream of drained uplands and the building of urban conurbations, which can cause severe water spikes downstream as hard surfaces drain into water courses more rapidly than if the water was allowed to seep through the soil, recharging aquifers etc. The response was that the government was looking at (high cost) technical solutions, so it’s down to big business at the end of the day. I have since revised my opinion of the carbon narrative, we currently have much lower levels of CO2 than we have had in the past and it is more likely that climate change is driven by the impact of solar cycles rather than human activity, some of which only complete over a period of thousands of years. It is disturbing that few models if any take into account solar activity. Baring in mind that ‘climate’ is a constantly changing phenomena and we have seen both W armer and colder cycles in the historical and fossil records, I would suggest that the whole climate argument is a massive red herring, driven by big money, that is not to say that pollution isn’t an issue though. Most of the argument and fear mongering comes from climate models, which are still in their infancy and are wildly inaccurate, you only have to miss one minute feedback loop and the model is worthless. If you compare past model predictions with what has actually occurred climate wise over the past decades, they are significantly inaccurate and are biased toward the extreme. A classic is Michael Mann’s famous ‘hockey stick’ model which kicked off the whole climate thing with Al Gore, it was thrown out of when he took one of his detractors to court for calling him a fraud and refused to show his working and data sets for comparison. Apparently you could have put the Premier League football results into his model and got the same result. See the case of Michael Mann vs Dr Tim Ball, a distinguished USAF meteorological scientist of many years of experience. I believe it was a Canadian ruling and was a long drawn out and expensive case designed to put Dr. Ball out of business, but he kept on at it. The ruling received little or no comment from the mainstream media or governments and organisations pushing the climate change narrative.
Feels like I am late to the party.
AGREED: "It is disturbing that few models if any take into account solar activity. It is disturbing that few models if any take into account solar activity..."
I am aware of the other interesting points you raise. Nice one. But is this, UA-cam, the best forum?
The message from these UK foresters is "[We MUST reduce emissions TO ZERO]. By planting 30,000 ha *per year for 30 years* we reach 900,000 ha new forest sequestering 40m t eCO2 balancing 26% territorial emissions."
I am going to have to run the exchequer costs on that scenario before the weekend.
Meantime, shall we discuss CO2 as plant food, increased rates of growth and therefore greater transpiration rates? The impact of increased cloud cover over the North Sea and Scandinavia as a result of increased transpiration of the UK's new landscape of arable farmland and young broad-leaved forest would surely be a miniscule but sustained increase in tropospheric humidity, possibly both increasing albedo and summer precipitation in the Baltic and Scandiavian countries?
@@simonmasters3295 never too late mate, it is always good to question ‘the narrative’ as we should all understand that the people driving it are doing so out of self interest, and would be quite happy strip mining the entire planet.
Understood and thank you very much. Any info on existing and new warmer areas globally that can grow what's needed without causing local extinctions ?
2 edits are possible?
The fast one is 2 minutes max?
Great video!
Glad you enjoyed it. Please share it widely and stay tuned there is another one in process.
"As we all know, trees absorb carbon, or in technical lingo, sequester carbon". No we don't know. Trees do not sequester carbon. Sequestered carbon is (as your animation says) carbon that is locked away from biosphere processes: coal, oil, gas, lignite. Trees and woodlands capture carbon. Quite good at it and coppice is especially good. Trees also store carbon for the life of the individual tree: it stores carbon in its body as 'wood' (including the root system) and storage lasts for a while after the tree dies, before it rots. Woodlands multiply up the amount stored. But woodlands are extremely good at carbon cycling. No carbon is actually sequestered. Just stored temporarily: Although an old oak stores carbon for longer than a human life, it is NOT sequestered. Peat bogs (as you say in passing) sequester carbon. Maerl beds sequester carbon. Trees and woodlands (and forests) do not. "In the right circumstances and over long periods of time, carbon from these dead plants gets trapped in layers of sediment and becomes fossil carbon". THAT is carbon sequestration - part 3 of a process which goes: 1) carbon capture 2) carbon storage 3) carbon sequestration with part 3 operating on tiny percentages of the carbon captured and taking geological ages.
Storage of carbon as 'wood' in a tree can be extended by harvesting timber and converting it into wood products which do not rot (as a tree left in a woodland eventually will). Think of the timber beams in Ely Cathedral or the vernacular medieval cottages in Sussex. The wood is there and un-rotted, so kind of sequestered because decay causing organisms cannot get at it to cycle the carbon it contains. Kind of an anthropogenic semi-sequestration, but in reality just extended carbon storage.
Here's a short, chopped-together vid shot by to explain the differences between capture, storage and sequestration. It is a lo-fi, no-budget thing that explains with examples and gives examples of actual biological shortcuts to carbon sequestration, no trees involved. The short-cut closest to real sequestration is marine and there are other routes, also marine that aren't mentioned. ua-cam.com/video/ZadE0OWwtWY/v-deo.html A challenge to you: watch it and see what you think. I think the distinction is damned important.
Trees & plants both capture and sequester carbon. Capture is done via the Stomata, Carbon Dioxide intake, and sequestering is done via the Calvin cycle, Carbon fixation. It really doesn't matter where the Carbon ends up after capture or sequestration. What you want to avoid is burning whatever final form this carbon takes. Combustion of hydrocarbons is what produces Carbon Dioxide and of more of the problem.
And to sequester just means to isolate or separate. It's not some permanently locked away thing.
Doesn't matter if it is a few hundred-year-old trees or a 50M year-old forest that is now oil or coal.
@@LibreGlider Sorry, you're missing the point. 'Sequester' does mean to isolate or separate: to separate from biospheric processes in this instance. Fossil carbon (oil, coal, gas, lignite) is separated from the biosphere in the earth's crust. You can add in fossil carbon in carbonate rocks like chalk and limestone/marble and carbonate-cemented sandstones, but you can't use those for fuel. Use of fossil carbon as fuel is where the problem has arisen - millions and millions of tonnes since the late 18th century.
Trees only store carbon (produced by photosynthesis) temporarily. A vanishingy small percentage of the carbon you see stored in a forest will make its way into sequestration in the Earth's crust via geological processes. The rest is and remains available for use by life - cycling in the biosphere. Combustion of wood fuel or biodiesel is just speeding that cycling. Burning coal or gas is burning sequestered carbon and adding to the problem.
By (falsely) claiming that trees sequester carbon, one aids the argument of vested interests that there is no problem and if there is planting trees can fix it. It can't. Not enough land, not enough trees and the trees' capacity for carbon storage is finite. Watch this: ua-cam.com/video/ZadE0OWwtWY/v-deo.html for a more detailed analysis.
In Australia we have 24 billion Standard trees.
Each tree absorbs 21.82kg of CO2
Australia produce 463 million tons of CO2/year
You do the Math.
This is not counting all the other plant life and the Mangroves.
What about wildfires?
The temperate climate in the UK has traditionally meant that our forests here are very damp, making forest fires impossible. But as climate changes, that might no longer be the case. Derek Gow talks about this in our film on why we need more trees.
ua-cam.com/video/lFREO94UQGo/v-deo.htmlsi=H2dKM5mTm52NH5ga&t=578
The video is very misleading - it states that newly planted trees sequester C by 20T/ha/yr. This is far from correct - a newly planted forest releases C for up to 20 years. This is due to slow growth initially (a tree, the thickness of a pencil and 100 leaves doesn't absorb much C) and C released from the soil.
It's not the solution, but it certainly is something to do, forests protect soil, hold water, attract water, create rain, act as cooling fins, hot air in, cool air out, they are life & nature, the main terraforming force on this planet is nature, the forests have birthed us.. so we should stop treating them like shit and help them any way we can. I spend a couple months per year in nature and returning to the city is hard after that, everything smells foul, is too loud, visually too loud as well, as spending time in the forests you open up your senses again and become hyper aware and alert, when you then go back to a city you need to dull all those senses again just to be able to navigate it.
Wow, nicely said
Simple plant more trees and have a negative population growth 😊