It's global warming, and fortunately, this year an extended cold spell should kill off some of the spruce tree boring beetles that have been so common in British Columbia and other places in recent years.

BTW, none of the other research I've seen says it stores as much carbon per unit area as even temperate forests, let alone "twice as much as tropical forests". I'm guessing this is because peat bogs aren't usually considered part of the forest.
The peat bogs, unfortunately, are much more threatened than the rest of the forest, because of the amount of peat mined for horticulture.

Nice clean snow will reflect sunlight.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Banana Republican is wrong to minimize the damage to the forest caused by the various extracton industries.  And BioD is right to urge a reform in house-building fashions in the US.

But BR is right to add that the forest is threatened also by certain pressures associated with global warming, including growing populations of tree-killing insects.

And I would add to the message from Steve Kallick and company which David Roberts has here forwarded to us, that not only is the Boreal Forest precious on account of its carbon-storage properties, but also it is the permanent or seasonal home of countless North American animals.  (Kallick & co. do indeed mention "ecosystem" a couple of times, but without elaborating.)  We in the US share many migratory birds, in particular, with northern Canada.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

>Nice clean snow will reflect sunlight.

And it was cold yesterday, so global warming is a myth. Nobody says trees cause global warming. The point is pulling up grass and replacing it with trees contributes marginally to global warming - at least outside of the tropics. More than marginally only if was done on a huge geoengineering scale.

And as a poster said, much of the carbon in Boreal forests is in the soil.

Log all those trees!  Leave the bog.  It'll reflect sunlight in winter.  

The study claimed trees in areas that have snow on the ground produce a net yearly heat gain due to absorption of sunlight.  Overcoming the cooling effect of trees in summer due to transpiration.

So anyone who believes that study ought to be in favor of removing the trees over these northern bogs.  Get the chainsaws! We'll cure global warming.

All he studied was a computer model that he made up with his own flawed assumptions.  The only places his analysis would indicate tree planting could be counterproductive is on land where there is snow for 6 months of the year or more.  No carbon offset orgs are planting trees in those regions.

So again, what was the point of this so-called study?  It only does one thing.  Encourages logging.

"The point is pulling up grass and replacing it with trees contributes marginally to global warming - at least outside of the tropics."

Ever planted a tree?  I generally make a cut with the spud and insert the tree.  No grass is ripped up.  Huh, the study said trees were only a warming influence where there was snow on the ground?  How can grass reflect sunlight?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Anyways, my question to you is whether you guys consider soil C fluxes with burning versus cutting and also consider albedo effects with radiation fluxes as they couple with C fluxes in cut/burned/intact forests. Basically, I find that study out of BC on albedo effects on regional/global scale pretty fishy, that is, I don't think they looked at the whole picture.

Yes, new trees can replace the old ones over time. But even when done right that takes one heck of a long time. If you are releasing one third of the carbon by a tree (both in the tree itself, and in the soil) over the course of centuries than it can easily take a century to replace it.  And that "done right" is highly problematic.

Now there is one issue, the issue you raise of fire. Yes if a tree is going to burn, better to harvest it.  Also if it is going to rot. So, are you saying that there are acres that are all going  to burn or rot, and we should clear cut them? Or are you saying there are acres that have some trees and brush in them that are especially vulnerable, and we should thin just those trees and that brush to protect the rest? If so, what percentage of trees are suggesting thinning? Half the trees, plus most of the brush? Ten percent of the trees plus most of the brush? In short, what amount of thinning do you think is needed in someplace like the boreal forest?

So where possible you want to leave trees where they are to preserve both the c

Gar,
I would like to see more region-specific citations on the amount of soil eroded or degraded by harvesting operations, the importance of foresters in these operations, and presence of incentives (financial, social, or political) for the harvesting to be properly conducted. I have a ton of information that points to a lack of implementation of silvicultural practices leading to degradation on private lands rather than poor management due to foresters (not timber pimps). Of course, there are state and federal stands that are mismanaged, but that is a) governmental ineptitude and complacency, b) monetary, umm, 'incentives' to overseeing agencies from large logging operations, c) sometimes plain mistakes or environmental disturbances, such as blowdowns or ice storms.

Furthermore, thinning in the boreal forest will prevent fire, but the next step, in a fire dominated system, is to regenerate even-aged stands created by previous fires. For that, a clearcut would usually be necessary, probably in some cases a ground fire treatment afterward may be preferable, but impractical.

No. I was pointing out that until you stop using a resource faster than it is being replaced, you have not reached sustainability. The fact that Canada has had to open new forests to feed our demand is evidence that America is using lumber faster than it can regrow it ...the definition of unsustainable.

An FSC stamp means that the logging operation met a set of standards at the time it was logged. It does not guarantee that the land from which the logs came will not one day be sold for development, or poorly logged the next time around, tossing the certificate to the wind for profit. Better than nothing, but analogous to putting a band aid on an amputation.

Sustainable certification is nothing but a stamp of approval for acceptable forest management at the time of logging. The stamps also do not mean that the wood did not come from an old growth forest. Logging old growth reduces the amoung of old growth ecosytems from the mix, converting them into logged forests. I realize that the deal struck was to permanently protect certain areas as old growth, but I strongly suspect that if you can't draw the line now, as with ANWR, you won't draw it later. I would lobby to leave remaining old growth forests alone, although it is already a done deal.

Calling old growth forests landscapes belittles them. I would call them unique ecosystems. Downtown Seattle is a landscape.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

However, with certifications, a forest management plan is created, with preferences for future options based on the region, type of stand, forest, etc. At the same time, after the management plan is created, a certification program auditor checks for compliance with current practices. This ensures at least current accountability, and if the landowner wants to pursue forestry as a source of income, they will likely remain in the program as it is rather expensive to get into it. Also, the land tracts that get certified are usually very large in size, with many stands ready to be cut throughout the entire rotation age (whatever it is). Overall, this ensures sustainability on the land being certified at least within the framework of business as usual. Of course, if a giant asteroid crashes into earth, or there is a gigantic volcano explosion in the area, there might be other caveats, but that's not the point.

What you are talking about is unsustainable wood use, from a perspective of someone who wants to maintain old-growth forests. Well, from a carbon management program, it would be better to maintain these forests at the top of their productivity, most likely at about 30 year rotation age with selection logging in the boreal forest, although I am not sure how often that is employed due to fire hazards with selection system creating a fuel ladder. With clearcuts, on the landscape scale, the rotation age would increase, but as scale increases, it becomes more of a research issue to figure out what is the appropriate rotation age for highest productivity. Old growth productivity and diversity actually decrease compared with maturing stands, by the way...

Oh and landscape: collection of ecosystems encompassing multiple stands. Stand: a contiguous land area with similar species assemblage, history and may or may not be bounded by external boundaries. Ecosystem: well, this is kind of a tough one, depends on scale, but most ecologists would place it at about stand level.

P.S.: the main problem with certifications is that there is little financial incentive to enter into the programs, i.e. not enough people buy the wood.

http://www.sierraclub.org/wildlegacy/blog/2008/07/canada- ...