i am interested in knowing the mechanism by which teak trees of
various ages absorb, retain
and emit carbon from the atmosphere which may throw sufficient light
on amount of atmospheric carbon sequestrated by teak trees in the form
of its biomass or in the soil beneath

(anurag) wrote in message . com...
i am interested in knowing the mechanism by which teak trees of
various ages absorb, retain
and emit carbon from the atmosphere which may throw sufficient light
on amount of atmospheric carbon sequestrated by teak trees in the form
of its biomass or in the soil beneath

The major mechanism of Teak absorbing Carbon is as CO2 gas through
leaves, fueling photosynthesis. A small secondary mechanism is
absorption through the roots as carbonic acid. It is retained as wood.


The carbon content of living teak trees is probably slightly higher
than 50% of the total mass. The annual rate of sequestration as wood
(lignin, cellulose, hemicellulose) would be about half the measured
increase from one point in time to a second point in time after one
year interval.

It is probable that 40% of the total annual productivity of
photosynthesis is released underground, where it becomes diffused in
mycorrhyzial and microbial communities. This portion of the
carbon-cycle is mostly released back into the atmosphere as CO2
exhalations. Probably no more than 10% of this portion is sequestered
deep underground as carbonic acid (CO2 dissolved in water). 10% of 40%
leaves a small net "loss" of no more than 4% circulating in the deep
underground until there is a reaction fixing tthe carbon as a
carbonate in the rocks.

Emissions of carbon occur at night when plant metabolism exhale CO2 in
an aerobic process similar to what you do -- that is, they burn sugar,
consume O2 and the waste product is CO2.

Eventually decay or fire will breakdown the sequestored carbon as CO2
again.

Lion Kuntz
http://LionKuntz.com

Eventually decay or fire will breakdown the sequestored carbon as CO2
again.

Lion Kuntz
http://LionKuntz.com

Ok Lion, then it appears that the carbon cycle and carbon sequestering
both function optimally as per natures years of trial and error, this
trial and error allowing for the flourishing of multicellular
life....IOW, nature knows what she is doing.

All the best.

David Wilson.

In article ,
writes:

Ok Lion, then it appears that the carbon cycle and carbon sequestering
both function optimally as per natures years of trial and error, this
trial and error allowing for the flourishing of multicellular
life....IOW, nature knows what she is doing.

Currently, fossil fuel burning puts 1,600,000,000,000 metric tons of
carbon into the atmosphere every year. A metric ton is 1000 kg or 2200
lbs. None of that has anything to do with nature, it is all industrial
pollution, and almost all urban in origin. Nature doesn't "know"
anything about it.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

Larry Caldwell wrote in message t...
In article ,
writes:

Ok Lion, then it appears that the carbon cycle and carbon sequestering
both function optimally as per natures years of trial and error, this
trial and error allowing for the flourishing of multicellular
life....IOW, nature knows what she is doing.

Currently, fossil fuel burning puts 1,600,000,000,000 metric tons of
carbon into the atmosphere every year. A metric ton is 1000 kg or 2200
lbs. None of that has anything to do with nature, it is all industrial
pollution, and almost all urban in origin. Nature doesn't "know"
anything about it.


Yes nature knows Mr Caldwell, and if we keep abusing her, she will bite.
Those are anticipated and documented facts.

In article ,
writes:

Yes nature knows Mr Caldwell, and if we keep abusing her, she will bite.
Those are anticipated and documented facts.

You sound like one of those gaia nuts. Do you really ascribe malice to
nature?

Early Gnostic Christians believed God was insane because of what he did
to the human race. I suppose your goddess could be psycho too.

Larry Caldwell wrote in message ...
In article ,
writes:


You sound like one of those gaia nuts. Do you really ascribe malice to
nature?


LARRY, YOU'VE BEEN A COMPLETE IDIOT THROUGHOUT THIS THREAD, I SUGGEST
YOU GROW A BRAM YOU PRIMITIVE MORON.

In article ,
writes:
Larry Caldwell wrote in message ...
In article ,
writes:

You sound like one of those gaia nuts. Do you really ascribe malice to
nature?

LARRY, YOU'VE BEEN A COMPLETE IDIOT THROUGHOUT THIS THREAD, I SUGGEST
YOU GROW A BRAM YOU PRIMITIVE MORON.

I really have been trying to make a positive contribution. I explained
why the carbon sequestration issue is a fraud being perpetrated by
industrial nations. There is no place to hide 1.6 trillion tons of
carbon a year, anyplace in the biosphere, and certainly not in anything
living. Calcium carbonate sequestration may be promising, but nobody is
working on that.

You, on the other hand, have done nothing but make spooky statements
about what "mother nature" is going to do, when you don't have a clue.
Your thought processes are stuck somewhere in the paleolithic.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

Larry Caldwell wrote in message t...
In article ,
writes:
Larry Caldwell wrote in message ...
In article ,
writes:



I really have been trying to make a positive contribution. I explained
why the carbon sequestration issue is a fraud being perpetrated by
industrial nations.

Didn't you say we need to chop down old growth and replace with new
growth, if so, then as i said, it ignores the role of bio-diversity.




You, on the other hand, have done nothing but make spooky statements
about what "mother nature" is going to do, when you don't have a clue.

I "know" intuitively as i'm NOT spiritually dead, rendered so by the
anti-spirituality device, hardcore reductionist science.


Your thought processes are stuck somewhere in the paleolithic.

Hey wait up Larry, i called you the PRIMITIVE moron first, LOL.

As long as you're not a fossil fuel troll, we'll get along.

David Wilson.

In article ,
writes:
Larry Caldwell wrote in message t...
In article ,
writes:
Larry Caldwell wrote in message ...
In article ,
writes:

I really have been trying to make a positive contribution. I explained
why the carbon sequestration issue is a fraud being perpetrated by
industrial nations.

Didn't you say we need to chop down old growth and replace with new
growth, if so, then as i said, it ignores the role of bio-diversity.

You were talking about carbon sequestration, not bio-diversity. If you
want to sequester carbon, you have to put it someplace that it won't
break down for centuries. Strangely enough, the only industrial carbon
sequestration project our society has undertaken is sanitary landfills.
All those disposable diapers will be down there for a very long time.

Evidently you don't appreciate the irony of the situation. The best way
to sequester carbon is to produce and preserve large quantities of wood
fiber products, while replacing decaying old growth with young, rapidly
growing trees. Since wood is a carbohydrate, you will need to produce
more than 1.6 trillion metric tons a year. Somewhere around 3 trillion
metric tons of wood a year should just about keep up with industrial
pollution. An acre of forest at the very peak of its growth curve might
sequester 0.5 metric ton of carbon per year. That is a deficit of about
3 orders of magnitude. All the earth's forests taken together sequester
about 0.1% of annual industrial carbon production. You may as well ****
in the ocean and call it a flood.

As for bio-diversity, successful agriculture depends on methodically
stamping out bio-diversity, clear down to the level of plant viruses and
endophytes. Every time you eat harvested food, you are subsidizing the
end of bio-diversity. In forestry, a closed canopy forest is one of the
least bio-diverse ecosystems in the woods. The understory of a closed
canopy forest is almost sterile compared to the riot of growth that
breaks out when the canopy is broken. Successful bio-diversity depends
on a variety of habitats.

You, on the other hand, have done nothing but make spooky statements
about what "mother nature" is going to do, when you don't have a clue.

I "know" intuitively as i'm NOT spiritually dead, rendered so by the
anti-spirituality device, hardcore reductionist science.

If you want to abandon reason and logic, I don't see that you have any
grounds to be offended. "Intuition" just relieves you of the
responsibility to actually study and think about the issues.
Superstition is the sign of a feeble intellect.

On a global scale, the fundamental problem facing humanity is
overpopulation. The human race has already exceeded the carrying
capacity of the planet, and all life systems, anywhere in the world, are
being steadily damaged by human actions. Undeveloped countries are, if
anything, more destructive than developed nations. If you like bio-
diversity, just take a look at the Indian subcontinent at the beginning
of the 20th century and at the end. The most biologically diverse area
on the planet was destroyed in a single century. The same thing is going
on in Central America and Indonesia right now. Borneo will be completely
deforested in this decade.

Perhaps the human race will never face the problem of overpopulation. It
may well be that all we can do is try to preserve some natural areas and
as many species as possible. The success of that process depends on a
political, cultural and social stability unprecedented in recent history.
The most likely outcome a century from now is a world populated by
several billion humans, several trillion rats, countless cockroaches, and
very little else.

The overall effect on liveability is uncertain. Loss of forest
transpiration will doubtless cut rainfall in several areas, but massive
irrigation projects have increased evaporation so much that downwind
precipitation has increased in other areas. Increased CO2 levels may
actually increase agricultural yields, while other forms of pollution
will injure all life forms, both marine and terrestrial.

Keep an eye on the human life span curve. When it starts to flatten, or
even decline, you know the problem is correcting itself.

Your thought processes are stuck somewhere in the paleolithic.

Hey wait up Larry, i called you the PRIMITIVE moron first, LOL.

As long as you're not a fossil fuel troll, we'll get along.

I am less tolerant.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc