PART FOUR: OOMANS’ IMPACTS ON FORESTS AND THE CONSEQUENCES FOR GLOBAL WARMING

Part three analyzed the ways in which the Earth’s Forests are likely to have responded, during the quartenary period, to rises and falls in global temperatures and thus the degree to which they helped to stabilize/destabilize the Earth’s climate. This analysis did not include any assessment of oomans’ impacts on Forests. This final chapter explores the impact that oomans are having, and could have, on Forests. Given that oomans are capable of making two changes to Forests i.e. deforestation or Reforestation, the purpose of this chapter is to explore these two extremes in their ideal types i.e. what might happen to the Earth’s climate if oomans deforested the Earth and what might happen if oomans decided to Reforest the Earth. Previous chapters analyzed the Forest matrix i.e. the totality of Forests’ influences on the climate. This section is concerned only with whether oomans’ impacts on Forests are likely to moderate or exacerbate global warming. The format of this chapter is the same as that in previous chapters. The analysis of anthropogenic deforestation/Reforestation on the climate will be explored through the four components of global warming.

4.1: Anthropogenic Deforestation.

4.1.1: The Changes to the Earth’s Photosynthetic Effect as a Result of Anthropogenic Deforestation.

If oomans chop, or burn, down Forests this will reduce the Photosynthetic effect. This will not necessarily mean a permanent reduction in the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity (although there will be cases where this will be true) but, depending on the relative speeds of Forest regrowth and anthropogenic deforestation, it could cause a significant temporary reduction, or suppression, in the scale of the Earth’s Forests. By reducing the extraction of Carbon from the atmosphere, this will exacerbate global warming.

4.1.2: The Changes to the Earth’s Greenhouse Effect as a Result of Anthropogenic Deforestation.

Anthropogenic deforestation has an affect on the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

4.1.2.1: Forests no longer Extracting Carbon from the Atmosphere.

Deforestation means that Trees would no longer extract Carbon or water from the atmosphere which will thus mean there is no reduction of global warming.

4.1.2.2: The Dumping of Carbon into the Atmosphere.

If oomans chop down Forests this will lead to an increase in Carbon emissions boosting global warming. If they burn down Forests this will lead to a much greater release of Carbon which will give an even greater boost to global warming.

4.1.2.3: Evapotranspiration and Respiration.

Deforestation would cause Trees to release all the water they contained into the atmosphere thereby boosting global warming. Rainforests absorb far more water vapour than temperate or taiga Forests so deforestation of the former would dump far more water vapour into the atmosphere than in the latter cases. Deforestation might also put additional stresses on the remaining parts of the Forest which might increase their rate of respiration. However, deforestation would also stop Forests from pumping water from underground into the atmosphere.

4.1.3: The Changes in the Earth’s Albedo Effect as a Result of Anthropogenic Deforestation.

Anthropogenic deforestation also has an affect on the Earth’s albedo effect.

4.1.3.1: The Impact of Anthropogenic Deforestation on Forests’ own Albedo Effect.

4.1.3.1.1: The Change in Temperate Forests’ Albedo Effect brought about by Anthropogenic Deforestation.

From Temperate Forests to Pastureland/Grasslands.

If deforestation results in the emergence of Grasslands this produces an increase in the land’s albedo effect because Grasslands reflect more sunlight than Forests. “When temperate Forest is cleared for pasture, for example, the albedo of the surface increases from, say, about 0.16 to about 0.21 ..” [1]

From Temperate Forests to Crops.

“When temperate Forest is cleared for pasture, for example, the albedo of the surface increases from, say, about 0.16 to about 0.21 - although, if the land is ploughed, it changes little, or even falls while the soil is bare.” [2]

4.1.3.1.2: The Change in the Taiga’s Albedo Effect brought about by Anthropogenic Deforestation.

According to greenpeace, “The northern boreal Forests make up almost a third of the Earth's forests, covering about 15 million square kilometres, and ranging across Russia, Canada, the United States, Scandinavia, and parts of the Korean Peninsula, China, Mongolia and Japan.” [3] During winter months, the taiga Forest is often covered in snow but where the Trees become exposed they absorb more solar energy than the snow which increases local temperatures. Thus the deforestation of the taiga Forest would increase the area’s albedo effect and induce global cooling.

Bill Burroughs.

“The snow-covered Forests of the northern hemisphere can absorb more sunlight during the winter months than the adjacent Treeless snowy areas and are therefore warmer. Not only do the exposed surfaces of the Trees absorb heat, but this heat also accelerates the melting of the snow that settles on them.” [4]

William James Burroughs.

William james burroughs cites works pointing to the same conclusion, “Gordon bonan and colleagues .. have simulated the effect of removing all the forests north of 45N and replacing them with bare soil. Because forests with stable snow cover reflect almost half the sunlight falling on them, whereas open areas covered by snow reflect more than two-thirds of the sun’s rays, chopping down boreal forests has a cooling effect in the winter half of the year. The resultant cooling is startling. At 60N the average fall in temperature is 12C, and even in late summer when there is no snow and the soil absorbed as much sunlight as the forest it replaced, the cooling was still 5C.” [5]

4.1.3.1.3: The Change in Tropical Rainforests’ Albedo Effect brought about by Anthropogenic Deforestation.

From Tropical Forests to Crops.

Michael allaby suggests there isn’t a major change in the albedo effect if tropical forests are cut down for growing crops, “The clearance of tropical rain forest to grow crops involves little change (in albedo) ...” [6]

From Tropical Forests to Pastureland/Grasslands.

Allaby has argued, “The clearance of tropical rain forest to grow crops involves little change (in albedo) but if that change is from forest to pasture for feeding livestock, the albedo could double.” [7] ; “The conversion of tropical rainforest to pasture has an even larger effect (than the conversion of temperate Forests to pastureland), increasing the albedo from about 0.11 to 0.21 ..” [8]

From Tropical Forests to Deserts.

The deforestation of tropical Rainforests often leads to desertification. Since deserts have a higher albedo effect than Forests it is believed this cools the Earth. Allaby argues .. “the deterioration of grassland into sandy desert involves a still greater increase, from 0.21 to about 0.33.” [9] William james burroughs argues .. “an expansion of the major deserts of the world will lead to more solar radiation being reflected into space. So while deserts are regarded as hot places their expansion could lead to a general cooling, unless associated with some compensating changes in cloudiness.” [10]

4.1.3.1.4: Conclusion.

Deforestation has a bigger effect on the taiga Forests’ own albedo effect than tropical Forests’ because the latter is usually cloaked in clouds. However, all Forests are darker than deserts. Deserts have a higher albedo effect than Forests but a lower albedo effect than clouds so, in general, "The loss of forests increases surface albedo, so more sunlight is reflected into space." [11] The implication of these views is that, as far as Forests’ own albedo effect is concerned, the deforestation of the taiga, temperate, and tropical Rainforests would help to combat global warming. These are the reasons why greens do not oppose deforestation since it would help to combat global warming.

4.1.3.2: The Albedo Effect of the Reduction in Clouds caused by Anthropogenic Deforestation.

Having looked at Forests own albedo effect, this section explores the albedo effect that Forests create through the formation of clouds.

Tropical Rainforests.

Tropical Rainforests generate more clouds than temperate Forests whilst, in turn, temperate Forests generate more clouds than taiga Forests. James lovelock argues that the deforestation of the tropical Rainforests would reduce the Earth’s cloud cover and thus warm the Earth, “Through their capacity to evaporate vast volumes of water vapour through the surface of their leaves, Trees may serve to keep the ecosystems of the humid tropics and the Planet cool by providing a sunshade of white reflecting clouds. Their replacement by cropland could precipitate a regional disaster.” [12]

Taiga Forests.

Deforestation of the temperate Forests and taiga Forests would reduce the Earth’s cloud cover and thus warm the Earth. The consequence of deforestation would be the same as for tropical Rainforests but the effect would be much smaller

4.1.3.3: The Albedo Effects of the Aerosols Generated by Anthropogenic Deforestation.

Deforestation creates aerosols in three ways.

Forest Fires.

Forest fires release an array of different aerosols.

Wind Erosion.

Soils exposed by deforestation suffer wind erosion.

Increasing Wind Speeds.

As a result of changes in the heat effect brought about by deforestation there is an increase in wind speeds which pick up, and blow away, even more dust (see below). This is more the case in tropical areas than sub-tropical areas. Peter bunyard states, “The greater contrast between the temperatures of day and night brings about stronger wind currents so that the vegetation-sparse, dried out soil begins to get swept upwards into the atmosphere as dust.” [13]

The Difficulties of Assessing the Consequences of Aerosols.

Aerosols have an albedo effect but their impact on local/global temperatures is far from being straightforward since, just like clouds, they have a double-sided albedo effect, “High altitude dust alters the energy budget of the atmosphere both by reflecting sunlight back into space and acting as a greenhouse blanket.” [14] Dust .. “storms have always been a feature of desert climates, but there is evidence that they are happening more often, partially because of human activities. This trend has wide-ranging implications, and not just for the inhabitants of dry lands. Airborne desert dust affects the planet’s radiation budget, that is, the balance of warming and cooling processes that act together to keep the planet at a stable temperature. Dust can affect both incoming and outgoing radiation, depending on the volume of dust involved, the size of the dust particles and their height in the atmosphere.” [15]

4.1.3.4: The Albedo Effect of the Stratospheric Ice Crystals created by Anthropogenic Deforestation.

Deforestation generates a further albedo effect through the creation of stratospheric ice crystals. The decay, or the razing, of Forests releases methane into the atmosphere. Methane drifts into the stratosphere where it is oxidized by hydroxy radicals to form water, "About 10% of the methane escapes destruction in the lower atmosphere and rises into the stratosphere where it is oxidized forming water molecules. About half of the water vapour in the stratosphere today is estimated to have originated as methane." [16] ; “About 55% of the water vapour in the air is a byproduct of the oxidation of methane, and only 45% results from the evaporation of surface water.” [17] The depletion of stratospheric ozone is causing a drop in stratospheric temperatures and so when water vapour reaches the stratosphere it is increasingly being frozen into ice crystals. Some commentators believe the mush of ice crystals spreading around the stratosphere has an albedo effect, but others disagree, "What is special about methane is that it can pass into the stratosphere unchecked. There it slowly oxidizes to give two molecules of water for each molecule of methane, and because it is so cold, ice crystals condense from the stratospheric air and form clouds. Unlike ordinary clouds, these are almost transparent to sunlight coming in, but quite opaque to the infra-red radiation going out, so they act just like a greenhouse gas. The stratospheric ice clouds are already forming and grow thicker by the year." [18]

4.1.3.5: Conclusions about the Albedo Effects of Anthropogenic Deforestation.

The changes in Forests’ albedo effect brought about by deforestation are far from being fully understood let alone quantified. The above analysis suggests that deforestation contributes to both global warming and global cooling but there is no conclusive proof about which predominates. There are some major changes - the deforestation of the taiga would result in an increase in snow covered ground which boosts global cooling; the albedo effect of stratospheric ice crystals may be reflecting sunlight back into space and helping to keep a lid on solar radiation emanating from the Earth’s surface; the loss of clouds over the amazon Rainforests and to a lesser extent, temperate Forests and, to an even lesser extent, the taiga Forests, would boost global warming.

4.1.4: The Changes in the Heat Effect as a Result of Anthropogenic Deforestation.

This section explores the way that deforestation affects Forests’, and thus the Earth’s, heat effect.

4.1.4.1: Anthropogenic Deforestation reduces Evapotranspiration and Respiration.

Deforestation leads to Trees’ dumping all of their water vapour into the atmosphere. This would increase the amount of water vapour and thus heat released into the atmosphere. But, it is not known how significant this would be. On the other hand, the Trees that have been cut down or razed would no longer pump up vast amounts of water vapour from underground.

4.1.4.2: Anthropogenic Deforestation induces further Deforestation.

The changes that deforestation introduces to Forests’ heat effects are not merely the termination of evapotranspiration and respiration. They also induce further deforestation. This happens because of a number of factors.

4.1.4.2.1: Deforestation Increases the Difference between Daytime and Night Time Temperatures.

It was pointed out in the first chapter that Forests store water and heat and are able to moderate the heat of daytime temperatures and the cold of night time temperatures. Deforestation leads to an increase in the difference between daytime and night time temperatures. Peter bunyard states .. “when forest is cleared, the contrast between day and night temperatures becomes more extreme ..” [19] ; “In the sahel - those arid lands between the sahara desert and the lush Rainforest of equatorial africa - rainfall has diminished by 15% since the mid-1960s .. Robert mann .. is convinced that the drying out of west africa is a consequence of the massive deforestation - primarily the result of commercial logging and the subsequent use of Forest land for agriculture - that has occurred at an accelerating speed over the past century. He points out that, because the air has become drier, midday temperatures that used to peak at 35C are now rising to as much as 65C.” [20] As surprising as it might seem, deserts are extremely cold places, “Deserts may be the hottest places on the Earth’s surface during the heat of the day, but at night they can become bitterly cold. The clear night skies and the light colour of the sand and limestone rocks makes deserts radiate so much heat that it is even possible to wake up in a desert and see the ground covered in frost.” [21] The same also applies to areas afflicted by deforestation and desertification.

4.1.4.2.2: Rising Heat Drives away the Storm Clouds.

The considerable quantities of solar radiation absorbed by deforested land rises into the atmosphere and pushes away clouds that would provide rainfall for the rejuvenation of Forests, "The process of desertification is self perpetuating. Bright sand reflects sunlight, which produces high pressure regions that block out weather systems and contribute to lower levels of rainfall." [22]

4.1.4.2.3: Winds Blow away the Storm Clouds.

Deforestation increases the difference between night-time and daytime temperatures and this generates wind conditions that blow dust into the atmosphere .. “when forest is cleared, the contrast between day and night temperatures becomes more extreme, so leading to gustier winds that dry out soils and send dust swirling into the air.” [23] This also inhibits rainfall thereby and causes further deforestation, "As nick middleton of the oxford university school of geography has reported, the frequency of dust storms in the western sahel has increased seven-fold since the beginning of the drought in 1968. Though dust storms have long been regarded as symptomatic of prolonged drought, the photograph taken from the space shuttle reveal that dust may be the cause of extended drought. If the dust mechanisms suppressing rainfall are the primary causes of the continuing sahelian drought, then the measures required to return the climate to more favourable conditions will involve restoration of the disturbed land surface in large areas of recent denudation disclosed by the record of orbital photography." [24]

4.1.4.2.4: Dust Interferes with the Formation of Storm Clouds.

Such vast quantities of dust can be drawn into the atmosphere as a result of deforestation that it can inhibit storm clouds rising through the atmosphere. This reduces rainfall further boosting deforestation. Cumulus clouds rise through the air, sometimes reaching the base of the stratosphere, but only as long as the temperature inside the clouds is greater than the temperature outside. However, as gordon wells points out, "Astronaut photographs of cloud formations embedded in dust storms over the western sahel indicate the operation of a distinctly different process. Though incipient cumulus clouds are formed near the surface, as they rise into the dust veil, the clouds become increasingly stratoform. Few cumulus clouds penetrate the top of the dust pall, and almost none ascend to the altitudes necessary for ice nucleation that leads to the production of raindrops. .. dust veils form strong temperature inversions, as the dust creates a thermal blanket trapping the infrared radiation emitted by the land surface during the daily heating cycle. The dramatic change in the otherwise uniform cooling of the atmosphere with increasing altitude serves to inhibit rainfall. A comparison of the number of dust storm days in a region and the surface of meteorological station precipitation reports for the period shows a striking correlation between the presence of a dusty atmosphere and limited rainfall." [25]

4.1.4.2.5: The Heat Effect is more Critical than the Albedo Effect.

One group of researchers believes that deforestation leads to an increase in local temperatures not so much because the albedo effect of the exposed ground is higher than that of Forests but because Forests no longer maintain moisture in the air to moderate temperatures, “Temperatures in western canada rose when Forests were cleared and have remained high, say two canadians. Trevor lewis and kelvin wang studied temperature data from boreholes to work out how surface temperatures had changed in the past. They found permanent increases of 1-2C at the times the Forests were destroyed. Climate models predict that deforestation warms the land, just as clearings within a moist tropical Forest feels stiflingly hot. However, no one had collected the data needed to resolve a dispute between the two main theories used in the models. If increased surface reflectivity after cutting is the main cause of warming, temperatures should fall again as weeds cover the ground. But lewis’s findings back the alternative theory - that the dominant cause of warming is disruption of moisture transport that cools humid forests, so the change lasts until the forest returns.” [26]

4.1.4.2.6: Deforestation Boost El Ninos.

Alain-claude galtie suggests that deforestation could be boosting el ninos, “The massive and continuing destruction of tropical forests may be responsible for the abrupt change in the behaviour of el ninos. Tropical forests, particularly intact, are responsible for prodigious releases of energy in the form of water vapour into the atmosphere - equivalent to the energy that would be released by exploding some 5-6 million atomic bombs every day just over the amazon basin. Rainforests therefore appear to act as thermal machines and, above all, as regulators of atmospheric and oceanic systems which control the climate.” [27] ; “What very few scientists seem to understand is that the increased loss of forest is the sole main cause of the ‘el nino’ effect which creates world climate instability. Climate change has increased in frequency and ferocity as more and more tropical forest is lost.” [28] In turn, el ninos boost further deforestation.

4.1.4.2.7: Deforestation affects the Earth’s Jet Streams.

Peter bunyard believes that deforestation in amazonia may affect the Earth’s jet streams .. “changes in the energy transfer from the tropics to the sub tropics brought about through destruction of the amazon rainforest will, in the mid and high latitudes, lead to the generation of strong, turbulent, jet streams of air (Rossby waves) that drive like a wedge between the major circulation cells of the global circulatory system.” [29] Changes in the jet stream may lead to further deforestation.

4.1.5.2.8: The Importance of the Heat Effect over the Greenhouse Effect.

Peter bunyard believes, as regards deforestation, that the heat effect is as powerful an influence on the climate as the greenhouse effect, “Any reduction in the mass movement of water vapour as a result of rainforest destruction will perturb climate every bit as powerfully as the addition of greenhouse gases.” [30] Without Forests to moderate temperatures, not merely between day and night but between summer and winter, temperature extremes become more common. Forests’ cloud cover not merely keeps solar radiation away from the Earth’s surface but Forests absorb solar energy and then release it during the night time and even push water vapour into the atmosphere to redistribute it around the Earth. Without Forests there is nothing to stop solar radiation burning up the surface of the Earth and then nothing to stop temperatures from plummeting at night time.

4.1.4.3: The Impact of Anthropogenic Deforestation on the Heat Effect of the Earth’s Major Forests.

4.1.4.3.1: The Impact of Deforestation on the Heat Effect of the Tropical Rainforests.

Equatorial Forests are involved in the creation of the storm clouds which transport vast quantities of heat around the Earth. Deforestation of these Forests has a considerable impact on the global redistribution of heat, “Droughts in west africa over the past 20 years may have been caused by the destruction of rainforests in countries such as nigeria, ghana, and cote d’ivoire, according to a new study. Further deforestation in the region “could cause the complete collapse of the west african monsoon”, says xinyu zheng at mit. West african coastal rainforests, which receive copious amounts of rain from winds coming off the atlantic ocean, have helped to maintain rainfall in the drier lands of the interior. At the beginning of this century, the west african forests covered around 500,000 square kilometres. Since then, up to 90% have disappeared to make way for farms and other kinds of human activity such as mining.” [31] According to peter bunyard, deforestation in the tropics is reducing the transportation of heat .. “without intact forest, the amount of solar energy that can be carried away towards the higher latitudes is reduced by a fifth or more.” [32] He also suggests, “Combined with a seizing up of the gulf stream that loss of heat transfer would be a devastating blow to the climate of north europe and scandinavia.” [33] This seems to suggest there will be a rise in temperatures in the tropics and a fall in the temperate regions.

4.1.4.3.2: African Tropical Rainforests.

“The continuous removal of Trees over large areas will reduce the absorption of incoming solar energy; daytime air and soil surface temperatures will increase, windspeed will rise etc so rainfall will become more erratic. The drought in africa is not a short term cycle, it is part of a long term human induced trend of increasing aridity and it cannot be arrested until a considerable proportion of the Tree cover which has been removed right across africa over the past 150 years is replaced.” [34] Peter bunyard states, “In the sahel - those arid lands between the sahara desert and the lush Rainforest of equatorial africa - rainfall has diminished by 15% since the mid-1960s .. Robert mann .. is convinced that the drying out of west africa is a consequence of the massive deforestation - primarily the result of commercial logging and the subsequent use of Forest land for agriculture - that has occurred at an accelerating speed over the past century. He points out that, because the air has become drier, midday temperatures that used to peak at 35C are now rising to as much as 65C. The greater contrast between the temperatures of day and night brings about stronger wind currents so that the vegetation-sparse, dried out soil begins to get swept upwards into the atmosphere as dust.” [35]

4.1.5: Greens’ Dismissal of Concerns about Deforestation.

Many greens believe the deforestation of the Taiga Forests would not boost global warming. However, they believe the deforestation of the Tropical Rainforests would do so. Paradoxically, greens believe, as will be seen in the next section, that the Reforestation of the Taiga Forests would boost global warming.

4.1.5.1: The Taiga.

4.1.5.1.1: The Greens who Believe the Deforestation of the Taiga would Cool the Earth.

Bill Burroughs and the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

"The snow-covered forests of the northern hemisphere can absorb more sunlight during the winter months than the adjacent treeless snowy areas and are therefore warmer. Not only do the exposed surfaces of the trees absorb heat, but this heat also accelerates the melting of the snow that settles on them. The computer model used by the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder Colorado .. considered the impact of removing all of the forests north of 45 north and replacing them with bare soil. The amount of cooling was startling. Clearly, further deforestation at high latitudes in Eurasia and north America will cool the climate. Moreover these results predict that the removal of the boreal forests could be more damaging than the destruction of the tropical rainforests." [36]

Caring for the Earth.

"Boreal Forests warm the subarctic zone by providing a dark mass that absorbs heat from the sun." [37]

Greenpeace.

“Drawing on the latest research on forest ecology, the impacts of recent climate change, and studies on projected future climate change, this report shows that between 50 and 90 percent of the existing boreal forests are likely to disappear as a result of a doubling of atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. This doubling is expected to take place over the next 30-50 years, and is likely to create abrupt changes in the Earth's climate that would result in severe forest decline. The rate of decline is still uncertain, but is likely to be rapid in many regions, and driven by massive fires, insect outbreaks and storms. Serious disturbance of the boreal forest ecosystem can be traced back to an abrupt shift in the global climate in 1976. Since then higher temperatures have sparked larger and more frequent fires throughout the boreal forest, and the number of storms and damaging insect outbreaks has increased. These disturbances have been accompanied by a decline in conifer populations in the southern part of the boreal forest. Studies of the global carbon cycle suggest that boreal forests are not absorbing as much carbon as they did before 1976. As a result, the atmosphere already appears to contain 10-15 billion tonnes of carbon more than it would have if forests had continued to absorb carbon at the pre-1976 rate. If boreal forests continue to decline, estimates suggest that burning and rotting of boreal forests could contribute to the release of up to 225 billion tonnes of extra carbon into the atmosphere, increasing current levels by a third. This would accelerate the rate of climate change.” [38]

Summary.

Greens believe the deforestation of the Taiga Forests would cool the Earth because if the Trees were removed snow and ice would cover the ground and significantly increase the area’s albedo effect. Greenpeace seem to believe the biggest threat to the Taiga Forests is not logging but global burning which will trigger off Forest respiration, die-back, storms, Forest fires, and Insect attacks.

4.1.5.1.2: Criticisms of Greens’ Proposition.

Greens’ conclusion that the deforestation of the Taiga Forests would cool the Earth was reached without taking into consideration the following factors.

4.1.5.1.2.1: Taiga Deforestation would Increase the Greenhouse Effect.

The burning or logging of the Taiga Forests would dump Carbon and water into the atmosphere which would boost the greenhouse effect.

4.1.5.1.2.2: The Deforestation of the Taiga would maintain the Greenhouse Effect.

Once the deforestation of the Taiga Forests had taken place, there would be no local Photosynthesizers to extract Carbon and water vapour from the atmosphere to reduce the greenhouse effect.

4.1.5.1.2.3: The Deforestation of the Taiga would reduce Carbon Storage.

Deforestation of the Taiga would not merely end the Taiga’s storage of Carbon in the form of Trees, it would also undermine the storage of Carbon in soils and Wildlife.

4.1.5.1.2.4: The Deforestation of the Taiga would reduce the Carbon Pump.

Deforestation of the Taiga Forests would also halt chemical weathering - Trees extracting Carbon from the atmosphere and pumping it into the soils. Given that this is the main way of permanently removing Carbon from the atmosphere, the end of this life sustaining process would have a correspondingly major impact on global warming. A decrease in rock weathering would decrease the amount of Carbon reaching the oceans, decreasing marine Photosynthesis, thereby warming the Earth. None of the greens proposing that the deforestation of the Taiga Forests would cool the Earth take this impact into account.

4.1.5.1.2.5: The Deforestation of the Taiga would reduce Cloud Cover.

Deforestation would reduce the release of water vapour and thus reduce the formation of clouds. This would decrease the albedo effect of clouds, allowing more sunlight to reach the ground thereby warming the Earth.

4.1.5.1.2.6: The Deforestation of the Taiga would reduce the Heat Effect.

The disappearance of the Taiga Forests would mean that Forests’ stores of water could no longer act as a moderator between solar radiation and the surface of the Earth. Forests’ storage of water equalized local temperatures by storing and redistributing heat. The loss of Forests’ ability to equalize temperatures would give rise to much greater temperature extremes.

4.1.5.1.3: Conclusions.

4.1.5.1.3.1: Gross Green Ignorance.

Greens are justified in believing that the razing of the Taiga Forests could cause global cooling. The increase in the area’s snow cover would increase the albedo effect and thereby cool local temperatures. However, this conclusion seems to have been reached without considering any of the countervailing factors mentioned above. Unfortunately, the impact of the above factors does not seem to have been estimated. Their order of significance is not known. Their contribution to combating the cooling of the albedo effect has not been calculated. It has to be suggested that greens are wrong to draw conclusions about the deforestation of the Taiga Forest when they have measured only a small number of the factors involved and are a long way from being able to present a comprehensive analysis.

Greens seem to believe not merely that if oomans clear cut the Taiga Forests this would produce global cooling but that deforestation will take place whether oomans do it or not. They believe that the biggest threat to the Taiga Forests is not logging but global burning which will trigger off storms, Forest fires and Insect attacks. The implication of this perspective is that oomans ought to clearcut the Forests not merely to combat global burning but because the Forests will disappear anyway as a result of global burning. In this perspective global burning is transformed from a ooman-induced phenomena that can be altered to a force of nature which cannot be changed. Because it is believed that it is not possible to combat global burning (for example, by carrying out extensive Reforestation) then all that oomans can do is suffer the consequences of this force of nature - even though they were responsible for triggering off this phenomena. The paradox here is that on the one hand greens argue that deforestation of the Taiga will produce massive global cooling whilst on the other hand they regard deforestation of the Taiga as being inevitable because of global burning. Are greens now saying that global burning isn’t going to be a problem because once it has reached the point where it has devoured the Taiga Forests, a cooling effect of deforestation will kick in and reverse global burning?

4.1.5.1.3.2: Greens Supporting the Logging Industry.

It is bad enough that greens are presenting conclusions based upon highly selective evidence but what is worse is the political implications of these conclusions. By arguing that deforestation would bring about global cooling they are implying that one way of combating global burning would be by deforesting the Taiga. It isn’t often that you hear greens demand ‘Log the Forests to combat global burning’. This must sound like sweet music to the logging industry. But it’s an even bigger bonus for pharmers who would get to pharm the land. The reason that greens promote an analysis which supports the clear-cutting of the Taiga Forests to combat global burning is because they want to eradicate this Forest for the sake of organic ‘livestock’ pharming.

4.1.5.1.3.3: Scale of Boreal Deforestation not Known.

What confuses this situation quite considerably is that there is no consensus about whether there has been an increase or decrease in the Taiga Forests over the last few decades. Some commentators believe the Taiga Forests have been in decline because of over-exploitation and pollution - which, according to greens, would mean they are helping to combat global burning. Other commentators argue these Forests are expanding - which, according to greens, would mean they are helping to boost global burning. Until such a basic fact as the scale of the Taiga Forests is known it seems a little premature drawing conclusions about the impact of the Taiga’s deforestation on the climate. Of course, theoretically, it would be possible to work out what the impact of the Taiga’s deforestation would be before discovering the scale of the Taiga Forests but the lack of such basic information seems to symbolize the gross ignorance of the greens encouraging the deforestation of the Taiga.

4.1.5.2: The Tropical Rainforests.

4.1.5.2.1: The Greens who Believe the Deforestation of the Tropical Rainforests wouldn’t warm the Earth.

Michael Allaby.

Allaby suggests there isn’t a major change in the albedo effect after deforestation, “The clearance of tropical rain forest to grow crops involves little change (in albedo) ..” [39]

4.1.5.2.2: Criticisms of Greens’ Proposition.

The deforestation of the Rainforests would contribute to global warming in the following ways:-

4.1.5.2.2.1: The Deforestation of the Rainforests would Increase the Greenhouse Effect.

The burning or logging of the Rainforests would dump Carbon and water into the atmosphere which would boost the greenhouse effect.

4.1.5.2.2.2: The Deforestation of the Rainforests would maintain the Greenhouse Effect.

The deforestation of the Rainforests would reduce the amount of Carbon extracted from the atmosphere - which would allow more Carbon to remain in the atmosphere and thus warm the Earth.

4.1.5.2.2.3: The Deforestation of the Rainforests would reduce Carbon Storage.

Deforestation of the Rainforests would not merely end the Rainforests’ storage of Carbon in the form of Trees, it would also undermine the storage of Carbon in soils and Wildlife.

4.1.5.2.2.4: The Deforestation of the Rainforests would reduce the Carbon Pump.

Deforestation of the Rainforests would halt chemical weathering. Given that this is the main way of permanently removing Carbon from the atmosphere, it would have a correspondingly major impact on global warming. A decrease in rock weathering would decrease the amount of Carbon reaching the oceans, decreasing marine Photosynthesis, thereby warming the Earth.

4.1.5.2.2.5: The Deforestation of the Rainforests would reduce Cloud Cover.

Tropical deforestation would reduce the release of water vapour and thus reduce the formation of clouds. This would decrease the albedo effect of clouds, allowing more sunlight to reach the ground thereby warming the Earth.

4.1.5.2.2.6: The Deforestation of the Rainforests would reduce the Heat Effect.

Rainforests store water and are able to equalize local temperatures. The disappearance of the Rainforests would give rise to greater temperature extremes.

4.1.5.2.3: Conclusions.

4.1.5.2.3.1: Gross Green Ignorance.

Once again, these contributions to global warming have not been measured. Given the major role played by Rainforest clouds in cooling the Earth it is possible that, overall, deforestation would lead to a significant increase in global warming. Of the Earth’s two great Forest systems, the deforestation of the tropical Rainforests seems likely to produce a bigger warming effect than the deforestation of the Taiga Forests.

4.1.5.2.3.2: Greens’ Ideology.

Whilst many greens living in temperate and Taiga Forest countries believe the deforestation of the Taiga Forests would not boost global warming, they are quite willing to believe the deforestation of the Tropical Rainforests would do so. This coincidence does seem remarkably beneficial for greens living in temperate and Taiga Forest countries. This impression given by these arguments is that greens’ views on deforestation’s impact on the climate seem to depend on where greens are living.

4.2: Anthropogenic Reforestation.

The previous section noted greens’ support for deforestation - especially that of the Taiga and temperate Forests. Not surprisingly, greens are equally opposed to Reforestation in the Taiga and temperate Forests - although they condone Reforestation in tropical areas. This section assesses greens’ belief that Reforestation would boost global burning.

4.2.1: Greens’ Opposition to Reforestation.

4.2.1.1: The Taiga.

4.2.1.1.1: The Greens who Believe the Reforestation of the Taiga would Cool the Earth.

Peter Bunyard on Richard Betts.

“Richard betts from the hadley centre (suggests) more vigorous growth in high latitude, boreal regions (as a result of the increasing concentrations of Carbon dioxide) can accentuate warming by bringing about earlier snow melts, thus exposing the leaf-darkened surface to the sun. Should global warming cause the northwards spread of conifer forests that will bring about more warming.” [40]

Robin McKie quoting Richard Betts.

Mckie also quotes betts .. “planting trees that gobble up carbon dioxide is a dangerous game, as researchers at Britain's Hadley climate centre revealed. 'Yes, trees do soak up gases produced by factories but they also contribute to global warming,' said a meteorologist, Richard Betts. 'Trees have dark leaves and bark and stand out against light backgrounds, particularly in higher, snowy latitudes. As a result, they stop sunlight being reflected back into space. Our calculation show that in places like Canada and Siberia, planting new trees would actually increase global warming.'” [41]

Can UK - the Hadley Centre, Brutish Met Office.

Can uk printed the following story because it believes that Reforestation would boost global burning, “Just prior to the COP6 negotiations at the Hague, the science journal Nature (9.11.2000) published the alarming findings of the latest Hadley Centre climate model. The Hadley Centre, part of the Met Office, is one of the world’s leading climate research institutions. It has been developing intricate climate models for many years, with each new model introducing greater complexity than the last. The new model is the first to model feedback effects of climate change on vegetation, soils and the oceans. The model focuses attention on the controversial issue of using forests (‘sinks’) as a method for absorbing CO₂ emissions. The United States is keen for carbon dioxide absorbed by forestry practices to count against its emissions reductions targets set by the Kyoto protocol. Other negotiating parties at the COP6 talks, including the EU, say that the science of sinks is too uncertain, and they should not be used until they are proven to reduce atmospheric CO₂ levels. The model would suggest that forest sinks are definitely not a solution to the problem of climate change. The new model predicts that large forests will switch from being net carbon absorbers to net carbon emitters around 2050, as a result of dieback caused by increased global average temperatures. As the forests decay, they will release CO₂ into the atmosphere, accelerating the process further. Atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ could be as high as 980 parts per million (ppm) by 2100, leading to localised warming of 8 degrees centigrade over some land areas. Previous models, without feedback between atmosphere and vegetation show carbon concentrations of only 700ppm. However the findings are enough to demonstrate that the only solution to climate change will be cutting emissions at source, rather than depending on mother nature to fix the problems we have created.” [42]

Bill Hare on the Ipcc.

“Other terrestrial feedbacks identified by the IPCC include: Effects of land-surface changes. Albedo changes from the replacement of tundra by forests in northern high latitudes with warming may amplify the initial greenhouse gas forcing.” [43]

Norman Moss on the Ipcc.

.. “the ipcc says, ‘Forests spreading into tundra in a warmer world would absorb a greater proportion of solar energy and increase the warming.” [44]

4.2.1.1.2: Summary of Greens’ Views.

There are three main reasons for greens’ opposition to the Reforestation of the Taiga and temperate Forests.

Increase in the Heat Effect.

Greens believe the Reforestation of the Taiga would boost global burning because it would lead to an increase in the absorption of solar energy. This would happen because firstly, in the winter months exposed Trees would absorb more solar radiation than the surrounding snow covered land and, secondly, in the summer months the Forests would absorb considerable amounts of solar radiation.

Respiration and Forest fires.

It is believed that a rise in global temperatures would cause an increase in Forest respiration, Forest fires, and Insect attacks and, eventually, this would cause the Taiga Forests to release more Carbon than they absorbed. This would mean that Reforestation projects would be unlikely to succeed.

Fuelling Global Burning.

Given the increase global burning, greens believe that Reforestation would be like adding fuel to the fire. Indeed, this would literally be a case of adding fuel to Forest fires thereby causing greater conflagrations and further global burning. Greens believe that global burning is going to destroy the Taiga Forests so promoting Reforestation would just end up contributing more global burning.

4.2.1.1.3: Criticisms of Greens’ Belief that Reforesting the Taiga would Boost Global Cooling.

Greens’ opposition to the Reforestation of the Taiga Forests is based on evidence from a limited number of factors. There are other factors which need to be taken into account.

4.2.1.1.3.1: Reforestation would decrease the Greenhouse Effect.

Reforestation of the Taiga would extract Carbon and water from the atmosphere and thus reduce the greenhouse effect thereby helping to combat global burning. Although considerable amounts of water vapour are absorbed by Forests during Photosynthesis it is commonly believed this does not reduce the Earth’s greenhouse effect to the same extent as the absorption of Carbon because the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is far greater than the amount of Carbon. During Photosynthesis, the proportion of water vapour extracted from the atmosphere is far smaller than the proportion of Carbon extracted from the atmosphere. However, there are commentators who believe that Photosynthesis does have a considerable impact on the concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere and thus the climate, “According to results published yesterday, Plants may respond to extra Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by conserving water. This would create a drier world, with fewer clouds and less rainfall, scientists said yesterday. Although the rainfall cycle depends on evaporation of seas and lakes, huge quantities of water are transpired through the leaves of plants. (In experimental, Carbon rich, atmospheres there was a reduction in) the transpiration of water by 9%. The implication is that there would be less water for cloud formation and a reduction of rainfall by 6%. This was the reverse of computer models, which suggested a warmer, wetter world.” [45]

4.2.1.1.3.2: Reforestation would boost Carbon Storage.

Reforestation of the Taiga would boost the storage of Carbon in the form of Trees, soils, and Wildlife.

4.2.1.1.3.3: Reforestation would boost the Carbon Pump.

Reforestation of the taiga would boost rock weathering, thereby increasing the permanent removal of Carbon from the atmosphere. Greens are worried that Reforestation would add fuel to the fire of global burning but this is not true given that much of the Carbon extracted from the atmosphere would be pumped underground and would not end up being dumped back into the atmosphere after a Forest fire. Greens admit that Reforestation would combat global burning by extracting Carbon from the atmosphere but argue that this is futile because the Carbon would eventually end up back in the atmosphere. This forgets firstly, that for the length of time that Carbon is stored in the shape of Forests it would not be in the atmosphere contributing to global burning and secondly, and much more importantly, much of the Carbon absorbed by Reforestation would be pumped into the soil out of harms way even if there was a Forest fire. There are many technologically minded greens who support technological sequestration i.e. burying Carbon in used oil fields or rock strata but Forests are a far more efficient way of burying Carbon.

4.2.1.1.3.4: Reforestation would boost Cloud Cover.

Reforestation would boost the release of water vapour and thus increase the formation of clouds. This would increase the albedo effect of clouds and thereby cool the Earth. However, the amount of water vapour released by northern Forests is far less than in tropical Rainforests, so the effect would not be as significant.

4.2.1.1.3.5: Reforestation would boost the Heat Effect.

Reforestation would help to equalize local and, to a lesser extent, global, temperatures by storing and redistributing heat.

4.2.1.1.3.6: Reforestation would provide Shading for Snow.

Whilst it is true that Taiga Forests absorb more solar radiation than snow covered ground, the fact is that Trees also provide shade for much of the snow on the ground which makes it more difficult for sunlight to melt the snow. Lance olsen has argued, “The keyword here is shade, because the cooler temperatures of shaded places stop the moisture under trees from evaporating as rapidly as it would in direct sunlight. We see the same thing with snow, because the snow that falls into the shade of a forest melts and runs away a lot more slowly than the snow lying in a sunny clearing or clearcut.” [46] What this suggests is that the presence of Trees would keep the taiga cooler because of the shade they provide for snow - rather than warming the Earth because of their exposed dark hue. Thus Reforesting the taiga would not necessarily lead to a rise in global temperatures.

4.2.1.1.3.7: Reforestation and Forest Fires.

Greens believe that over the next few decades global burning will get worse and will trigger off major fires throughout the Taiga Forests. As far as they are concerned, Reforesting the Taiga would be like adding fuel to the fire and perhaps even encouraging more Forest fires. Forest fires would certainly boost the greenhouse effect but it would also create Charcoal which would permanently bury Carbon. Forest fires cause havoc and death but from the perspective of Carbon burial they are not an unmitigated disaster.

Overall Conclusion.

Greens’ proposition that the Reforestation of the Taiga Forests would boost global burning is based on very limited evidence. It is only when the all relevant factors have been assessed and estimated that such a conclusion could be proved or disproved. There are commentators who believe Reforestation of the Taiga Forests would combat global burning, “Temperatures in western canada rose when Forests were cleared and have remained high, say two canadians. Trevor lewis and kelvin wang studied temperature data from boreholes to work out how surface temperatures had changed in the past. They found permanent increases of 1-2C at the times the Forests were destroyed. Climate models predict that deforestation warms the land, just as clearings within a moist tropical Forest feels stiflingly hot. However, no one had collected the data needed to resolve a dispute between the two main theories used in the models. If increased surface reflectivity after cutting is the main cause of warming, temperatures should fall again as weeds cover the ground. But lewis’s findings back the alternative theory - that the dominant cause of warming is disruption of moisture transport that cools humid forests, so the change lasts until the forest returns.” [47]

4.2.1.2: The Tropical Rainforests.

Most greens believe that Reforestation of the tropical Rainforests would be acceptable because then it wouldn’t be necessary in their own backyards i.e. countries with temperate or Taiga Forests.

4.2.2: Reforestation should not Mean Tree Plantations.

Reforestation to combat global burning should be natural. Land should be set aside for Reforestation and then allowed to Reforest itself. It would be a disaster to cut down old growth Trees and replace them with Tree plantations in the mistaken belief that this would increase the extraction of Carbon from the atmosphere. Old Forests are the best at absorbing and burying Carbon, not young Trees - no matter what the propaganda of greens and Forest scientists might suggest.

4.2.2.1: The Older the Forest, the greater the Carbon Storage.

The longer a Forest survives in its natural state, the greater its store of Carbon, “So long as harvest does not occur, considerable Carbon accumulation continues to take place in litter, soil organic matter, and the below ground portion of Trees." [48] When natural Forests are replaced by Tree plantations there is a considerable drop in Carbon storage, "When Forests are harvested much of the standing Wood is converted into CO₂. This happens when waste is burnt, wood decays, paper is manufactured and so on. The amount of CO₂ that is produced by those processes is so great that it would take 200 years for young trees to absorb an equivalent amount as they grow. Worldwide the conversion of old growth forests to managed logging may already have contributed 2% of the total carbon released by changes in land use over the past century." [49] ; “Over the past 20 years, scientists have turned increasing attention to the vast amounts of carbon that is stored in trees. For any tree that had been storing carbon for, say, 700 years, a lot of carbon is set loose when any such tree is toppled by the saw. Knowing this, some scientists have said that deforestation has potential to loose more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than we liberate in our burning of fossil fuels.” [50] If natural Forests are cut down to make way for Tree plantations to combat global burning this is more likely to boost global burning than to moderate it. Where Tree plantations are regularly harvested the loss of Carbon is even more marked, "Even where forests are harvested on a renewable basis, there is carbon loss of anywhere from 10-25% in temperate and boreal forests. The same reduced carbon storage is found in "recovered" forests that regrow on abandoned agricultural land." [51]

4.2.2.2: Scientific Support.

See section 3.1.1.1.4: Old Growth Forests’ are better for Carbon Storage than Tree Plantations.

4.2.3: Concluding Comments.

4.2.3.1: Greens’ belief that once the Forests have gone they could no longer boost the Greenhouse Effect.

As surprising as it might seem some greens will be glad to see the back of the Earth’s Forests because they are major contributors to the greenhouse effect - Forest fires releasing vast amounts of Carbon into the atmosphere; old Forests releasing Carbon as they decay; and increasing respiration as a result of rising global temperatures. The worldwide fund for nature points out that once all the Earth’s Forests have been eradicated, they would no longer contribute to the greenhouse effect, "The contribution of forests to global warming is growing, as the rate of tropical deforestation is now estimated to have reached at least 17 million hectares per year. Yet towards the end of the century, and into the first decades of the next, this rate will drop dramatically if forest resources continue to be depleted, and many nations, such as Thailand, Nigeria, Cote d'Ivoire, the Philippines and Costa Rica are reduced to having virtually no forest outside protected areas. If there is no forest left to burn, then there will be no significant contribution to greenhouse warming." [52] Like the world’s worst Earth rapist loonies, greens believe that Forests are one of the world’s biggest polluters so, quite obviously, the sooner they’ve been eradicated the greater the drop in the pollution released into the atmosphere - the safer it will be for the green eco-nazis to promote organic pharming. No wonder most of these green lunatics live in brutland whose environment closely resembles that of a frying pan filled with lard as a result of the green desertification brought about by the Animal exploitation industry.

As surprising as it might seem, most greens are conventionally minded and support technology as much as any other consumer. They believe it is possible to combat global burning solely through technological changes. The corollary of this belief is that they also believe that if oomans scalp the planet of its Forest cover this wouldn’t be of any major concern because firstly, there would be no further Carbon emissions from the Forests; secondly, there would no longer be the threat of a self perpetuating global burning disaster being fed by decaying old Forests which are too old to do anything except dump Carbon into the atmosphere; thirdly, the loss of the planet’s Forests would not disrupted the Earth’s life support system - the climate might deteriorate a bit but it wouldn’t become so unstable as to unravel; and, fourthly, greens believe it would be feasible for oomans to thrive on a planet without Forests. Greens believe that Forests make no contribution to the stability of the climate (except to the extent that they release Carbon emissions) so whether they exist or not is completely irrelevant to the climate. As far as they are concerned, Forests are basically just pretty little ornaments put on Earth to provide landscape values for bipeds and have nothing to do with the Earth’s life sustaining processes or its climate stabilization system.

In response to these views, it is quite true that once the Earth’s Forests have gone they would no longer boost the greenhouse effect. However, this doesn’t mean to say their absence wouldn’t contribute to global burning. The destruction of the Earth’s Forests would end their contribution to the Photosynthetic effect and the greenhouse effect but the deforested areas would continue to have an impact on the climate through the albedo and heat effects. Firstly, the eradication of Forests would reduce the formation of clouds causing a decrease in the Earth’s albedo effect, thereby boosting global burning. And, secondly, it would also reduce Forests’ stores of water that help to moderate temperature extremes which would lead to a boost in the heat effect. The changes to the heat and albedo effects would boost global burning. However, they might even accelerate the momentum of global burning. The destruction of a significant portion of the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity, i.e. the planet’s life support system, could even give such a powerful boost to the momentum of global burning that it would be impossible to stop the rise in global temperatures which would lead to the demise of oomans and perhaps all other life forms.

Since life first emerged on Earth, the surface of the Earth has been coated with living systems. Over the last three-four hundred million years, this has been primarily in the form of Forests. The role of this coating of life on Earth is to cool global temperatures as the sun gets hotter and hotter - its role is not, as is often suggested, to keep heating up the Earth as it moves around the cold and unforgiving expanses of outer space. The role of life is to act as a cooling mediator between solar radiation and the surface of the Earth which, without this mediation, would burn up causing a huge increase in global temperatures.

When oomans burn, slaughter, and torch, living systems off the surface of the Earth and replace them with dead, or at best comatose, systems such as concrete, crap, and crops (which includes pastureland) all this does is boost global burning. Without the parasol of life on Earth, the planet’s global temperatures would lapse into triple figures. In contradistinction to the impression given by scientists working for the inter-governmental panel on climate change who talk about a planet without global warming and how cold the Earth would be if it did not enjoy the benefits of global warming, the Earth’s natural state is not the cold of outer space but the boiling temperatures of venus. [53]

4.2.3.2: Reforesting the Earth to Prevent a Climate Disaster or to Stabilize the Climate?

The climate is becoming increasingly unstable. Lovelock believes the Earth’s current average temperature is a massive 5C above its point of climate stability. It is within 3C of the point where the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity, its aeons old climate stabilization system, would collapse and start contributing to global burning. Reforestation is vital in order to reduce global temperatures.

The real argument is not about whether there ought to be any Reforestation but whether it should be carried out on a massive scale, in order push the climate into an ice age where the Earth’s climate would be at its most stable, or whether it should be carried out on a more moderate scale to depress global temperatures enough to prevent an anthropogenically-induced, runaway global burning disaster. The first option would mean the reappearance of ice sheets across the north continents - which is not likely to meet with much enthusiasm amongst the livestock consumers grazing there. The second option would be concerned primarily with preventing the Earth from veering off into a runaway global burning disaster i.e. preventing global average temperatures from passing 18C. If oomans insist on maintaining the climate at 5C degrees above its natural point of stability, and within 3C degrees of the point where the Earth’s climate stabilization becomes redundant, this would be an extremely difficult and complex operation. It would require extensive Reforestation - not to mention a wide range of other political and economic transformations.

4.2.3.3: The Political Component of Stabilizing the Climate.

The Reforestation issue raises the question of the political component in the stabilization of the climate. If oomans suddenly arrived on Earth and were sophisticated enough to believe they had to maintain climatic stability then they would work out which areas would have to be kept as Forests, which areas ought to be devoted to Wildlife so that they could inhabit the rest of the Earth without having a dire impact on the Earth’s life sustaining processes. However, the fact is that oomans do not have such a luxury. If there is to be a just distribution of rights and responsibilities towards stabilizing the climate then each country is going to have to balance their Carbon budgets - even if in some cases this would actually makes matters worse climatically simply because this is the only way of gaining political acceptability for the creation of a sustainable planet.

4.2.3.4: Oomano-imperialists Destroying the Earth’s Life Support System.

Over the last few centuries, but increasingly since the end of the last world war, oomans have inflicted a colossal degree of damage on the Earth’s Forests. Forests are being cut down, or burnt, at a rate which is far beyond replacement level over the short term - it would take centuries for Forests to recover from the damage oomans are inflicting on them.

Over the last few decades, it seems probable that oomans have done far more damage to the Earth's Forests than global warming. This situation is likely to persist for a few more decades. It is likely that much of the remaining large-scale tracts of Forests will have been decimated long before global burning could cause them serious damage. Oomans are currently a far bigger threat to the Earth’s Forests than global warming. It is possible that global burning will never inflict as much damage on Forests as the damage that oomans are inflicting on Forests. The damage oomans are inflicting on Forests is so serious that Forests are a mere 3C away from losing their regulatory role over the climate. Whatever Forests’ natural response may be to counter global burning, it is likely to be rendered ineffective by oomans’ decimation of Forests.

The speculation that oomans are more of a threat to Forests than global burning may need to be revised after the 1997-1998 el nino, one of the most virulent in two decades. It had a major impact on virtually every country in the tropics and some beyond. The scale of the damage which el ninos could inflict on Forests around the world is so great that it could overtake the damage being caused by oomans. If the damage the Earth inflicts on it’s life support system begins to overtake that carried out by oomans, then ooman survival on Earth will be in serious jeopardy.

ADDENDA.

1: General Issues about Forests and the Climate.

1.1: Are Forests the Highest Form of Plant Life?

1.1.1: Forests as the Highest Form of Plant Life.

Lovelock once proposed that Trees are the highest form of Plant life. No other Plant species has the genetic complexity and multitudinous ecological and geophysiological functions as Trees, “We might be the highest form of Animal life, but without doubt Trees are the highest form of Plant life.” [54]

1.1.2: Peatbogs as the Climax Form of Plant Life.

According to lee klinger of the u.s. government’s national centre for atmospheric research in colorado, from an evolutionary point of view, the lowly Peatbog could be the true “climax” Plant community into which all ecosystems evolve, [55] “Conventional ‘succession theory’ holds that Plant communities naturally and predictably evolve to a stable ‘climax’ vegetation, which is usually Forest. According to the textbooks, Peatlands are merely an occasional stepping stone on the way. But klinger claims to have found widespread evidence that the true end point of most succession is the Peat bog.” [56]

Lovelock seems to have been persuaded by klinger’s arguments. In the second edition of his book, ‘The Ages of Gaia’ he adds a caveat to his previous position, “We might be the highest form of Animal life, but without doubt Trees are the highest form of plant life. After writing this I have been reminded by lee klinger that Trees are not the climax of Plant life. The last Plant system to succeed are the Sphagnum mosses of Bogs. According to lee all or nearly all Forests, if left unpeturbed, will evolve to this state. He sees this evolutionary process to be a significant part of geophysiological regulation.” [57]

It could be suggested that although some Forests have been superceded by Peatbogs not all do so - in which case it is difficult to propose that Peatbogs are the 'climax' Vegetation. In addition just because Forests die and are replaced by Peatbogs doesn’t mean that Bogs are superior to, or a natural successor, to Forests. Perhaps the true climax ecosystem is the Earth itself not a particular type of ecology. There is no necessity for Forests to end up as Peat-bogs. The Earth determines which ecosystems, or combination of ecosystems, should grow/decline in order to stabilize the climate. Forests could survive for millions of years as long as firstly, they are not damaged by internal factors or, secondly, the Earth’s climate doesn’t change dramatically.

1.1.3: Forests and Wildlife.

In terms of the vast array of Wildlife living in the Earth's Forests, especially the Rainforests, then Forests should be regarded as the climax terrestrial ecosystem. [58] However, Soils are a close rival because they too contain a wide array of Animals. But, then again, many soils would not survive without Forests.

1.2: Which Forest Has the Biggest Impact on the Climate?

Some commentators believe the amazon Rainforest has the biggest influence on the Earth’s climate. On a number of occasions lovelock has suggested the deforestation of the tropics would be a disaster for the Earth, “The foremost personal and public fear is that of cancer. Consequently, any environmental chemical or radiation thought to cause cancer is given attention out of all proportion to the real risk it poses. Nuclear power, ozone depletion and chemicals such as dioxin and polychlorinated biphenyls are regarded as the most serious environmental hazards because of this fear, but also because nuclear radiation and halocarbons are so easy to measure. I think that the potential hazards of the gaseous greenhouse and land abuse have, until recently, been ignored because they perturb the Planet, not necessarily individual people, and because they are much more difficult to measure. To me the vast, urgent and certain danger comes from the clearance of tropical Forests.” [59]

There are times, however, when he suggests the taiga Forests may play a more significant role than tropical Forests. Firstly, in the second edition of his book lovelock updates the quote provided in the last paragraph and seems to imply he has changed his mind, “When i wrote the first Gaia book, nearly 16 years ago, it seemed that there might be critical ecosystems whose damage or removal might have serious consequences for the present collection of organisms which inhabit the Earth and find it comfortable. The Forests of the humid tropics and the ecosystems of the waters of the continental shelves seemed at that time to be those most likely to be crucial for keeping the environmental status quo.” [60] The questioning of his earlier view becomes more blatant when he discusses Daisy world, “How much is the Earth like daisyworld? We can speculate that the blankets of white marine stratus clouds reflecting sunlight back to space above the algal blooms of the ocean, are the white daisies, and the dark conifer Forests of the northern temperate regions are the black daisies.” [61] By pairing off the taiga and marine algal blooms as climate stabilizers rather than the taiga and tropical Rainforests he seems to suggest the taiga is a more important part of the Earth’s climate than the amazon Rainforest.

1.3: Some Indirect Evidence suggesting the Importance of Forests’ Influence on the Climate.

Global temperatures have remained remarkably steady since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago despite the huge scale of the deforestation which has taken place over this time. This seems to suggest that Forests are not an important influence on the climate. However, if it's the case that over the last millenia or so, astronomic forcing has been pushing the Earth toward the next ice age then this forcing might have been countered by anthropogenic global warming. This leaves open the possibility of deforestation playing a role in boosting global temperatures and, furthermore, suggests that Forests (and deforestation) have an important influence on the climate. [62] Although the extent of astronomic cooling, or the degree of anthropogenic global warming, are not known, it is logical to assume the more powerful that astronomic factors have been in pushing the climate towards an ice age, the greater the importance of deforestation. If, as has been suggested by one commentator, the first attempted reappearance of the next ice age was made as far back as the medieval period, then it is even more likely that deforestation has been important for offsetting global cooling, “Climate models .. are also only beginning to include the effects of long-term changes in the power output of the sun. The sun may have been responsible for relatively cool periods during the 16th, 17th, and 19th centuries (the so-called "Little Ice Age") when the northern hemisphere may have been about 0.5C colder than it is today. Some of the warming over the past century (about 20-30% of it, according to some recent model results) may still be a recovery from that time.” [63]

1.4: The Different Perspectives from which Forests can be Assessed.

Part two looked at Forests’ impact on the climate through the Photosynthetic effect, greenhouse effect, the albedo effect, and the heat effect. Another way of analyzing Forests’ multiple impacts on the climate would be through the Earth’s life sustaining processes i.e. the oxygen cycle, the Carbon spiral, the water cycle, and the heat effect. Unfortunately, as far as is known there are no scientific calculations for these contributions and, even worse, no guesstimates as to which is the most important - as if such an issue was unimportant.

1.5: The Hierarchy of Forests' Individual Influences on the Climate.

This section explores the significance of Forests’ various influences on the climate. There is no scientific evidence to back up this assessment. However, it is a useful exercise to speculate about this hierarchy of influences in order to appreciate what needs to be learnt about Forests’ impact on the climate. Such speculations can always be replaced when more precise information is acquired. The hierarchy of Forests’ influences on the climate starts with the biggest influence:-

* the albedo effect of the clouds generated by evapotranspiration, "Clouds are immensely important in controlling the climate. Their impact on temperature is far more important than the direct effects of greenhouse gases or of vegetation." [64] This implies that the tropical Rainforests are a more important influence on the Earth’s climate than the taiga;

* the albedo effect of Forests. Forests have a dark hue which absorbs solar radiation and thus warms the Earth - especially the taiga Forests;

* Forests release huge amounts of water vapour. This water vapour contains massive quantities of heat which are dumped into the atmosphere through condensation. This increases global warming. Once again this suggests that tropical Rainforests are more important than the taiga;

* the extraction of atmospheric Carbon through Photosynthesis reduces the greenhouse effect;

* the permanent burial of Carbon through rock weathering. This reduces the greenhouse effect;

* Forest fires dump Charcoal into the atmosphere which settles on the ocean floor. This permanently decreases the greenhouse effect;

* the release of water vapour as a greenhouse gas. This boosts the greenhouse effect; and, finally,

* the release of Carbon into the atmosphere. This boosts the greenhouse effect.

If scientists do not know the significance of such factors in the Earth's life sustaining processes then it is not possible to formulate policies to combat the destabilization of the climate.

1.6: The Current Limits to the Understanding of Forests’ Influence on the Climate.

What the above analysis of Forests’ role in stabilizing/destabilizing the climate reveals is a significant number of issues which have yet to be properly evaluated. For example,

* the factors by which Forests’ influence the climate cannot yet be measured;

* although it is suspected that Forests have a fundamental role in stabilizing the Earth’s climate, it is not yet possible to quantify this role;

* it is not yet possible to compare Forests’ influence in stabilizing the climate to the influence of other geophysiological factors such as marine micro-organisms;

* it is not known whether the current scale of the Earth’s Forest cover is powerful enough to offset the changes in solar energy reaching the Earth as a result of changes in the earth’s orbit.

It is possible that Forests’ role in stabilizing the climate is greater than other geophysiological phenomena but this cannot be verified.

2: Comparing the Quantities of Photosynthesis Carried out by Forests and Oceans.

2.1: Photosynthetic Facts.

2.1.1: Phytomass on Land and in the Oceans.

There is less Phytomass in the oceans than there is on land.

2.1.2: The Photosynthetic Productivity of Land and Oceans.

Although there is less Phytomass in the oceans than on land, the Photosynthetic productivity of marine Plants is far greater than that of terrestrial Plants. Eugene p odum states, “Plant biomass may be 10,000 or more grams of dry matter per square metre in a Forest, in contrast to 5 grams or less in the open water of ponds, lakes and oceans. Despite this biomass discrepancy, 5 grams of Phytoplankton are capable of manufacturing as much food in a given amount of time as are 10,000 grams of large plants, given the same input of light energy and nutrients. This is because the rate of metabolism of small organisms is much greater per unit weight than that of large organisms. Furthermore, large land Plants such as Trees are composed mostly of woody tissues that are relatively Photosynthetically inactive; only the leaves Photosynthesize, and in a Forest, leaves comprise only 1 to 5 percent of the total plant biomass.” [65]

2.2: Greens’ Views about the Quantity of Photosynthesis Carried out by Forests and Oceans.

Putting aside the fact that marine Phytomass is less pervasive but more productive than terrestrial Phytomass, the more critical issue is whether the oceans carry out more Photosynthesis than Forests. Determining this answer would help to solve the question as whether it is the oceans or Forests which are absorbing anthropogenic Carbon. This is one of the most contentious issues concerning the anthropogenic boost to global warming . [66]

Scientists’ Views in the 1940s.

In the 1940s it was commonly assumed there was more Photosynthesis in the oceans than on the land.

Malcolm Slesser.

However, some commentators at that time believed the opposite, "Commonly quoted values are 190 x 10¹⁰ GJ primary production on land with another 110 x 10¹⁰ in the seas, whereas the world's energy use is around 15 x 10¹⁰ GJ/yr." [67]

Roger Revelle

In the late 1950s roger revelle’s work on the relationship between marine, and terrestrial, Photosynthesis became influential. He made three critical points.

Firstly, that oceanic absorption of anthropogenic Carbon emissions was limited. He .. “disproved an idea, popular among conservatives, that the oceans through their mass could absorb almost any human output of CO₂..” [68] This had enormous implications for ooman pollutants.

Secondly, he argued the oceans absorbed only half of anthropogenic emissions, “In 1957 .. Roger revelle and hans suess, working at the scripps institute of oceanography in san diego .. found that the oceans absorb only 50% of the excess Carbon dioxide produced by man.” [69] ; “Revelle showed that ocean absorption of human-generated carbon dioxide appears limited to about the level of the world economy exceeded early in the postwar era.” [70]

Finally, he proposed the idea of a missing Carbon sink because it was not possible to determine which Photosynthesizers were absorbing a significant proportion of anthropogenic emissions, “When in 1958 revelle produced the first precise atmospheric CO₂ data, he was immediately struck by something: Half of artificial production was missing. Seven or eight billion tons of carbon dioxide are put into the air each year by human action, but when researchers test the atmosphere, only about 3 billion tons read as present. Where does the missing Carbon go? This missing-carbon problem has haunted greenhouse science ever since.” [71]

Lester Brown.

Subsequent research further diminished the role of the oceans in absorbing atmospheric Carbon. Lester brown believes, "Although an estimated 41% of Photosynthetic activity takes place in the oceans, it is the 59% occurring on land that underpins the world economy." [72]

Researchers.

In the early 1990s some researchers suggested the oceans have only a minor role in extracting Carbon from the atmosphere, "The oceans are soaking up considerably less CO₂ than researchers previously thought. We are saying it is probably less than 1 Gt each year." [73]

Tyler Volk.

In the mid-1990s tyler volk suggested that terrestrial Photosynthesis is greater than marine Photosynthesis, “Global photosynthesis currently uses 60 billion tons of carbon on land and 40 billion tons in the ocean each year, for a total of 100 billion tons of carbon.” [74] He cited the work of the mauna loa scientists who have been measuring the concentration of atmospheric Carbon since the late 1950s. They have produced a famous graph showing rising concentrations of atmospheric Carbon. However, within this overall upward trend it can be seen that, each year, there is a regular increase, and then a decrease, in the concentration of atmospheric Carbon. In the first half of the year there is a huge increase in atmospheric Carbon as a result of industrial emissions and Phytomass respiration. In the second half of the year there is a slightly smaller decrease in the concentration of atmospheric Carbon as a result of Photosynthesis. The increase in the concentration of atmospheric Carbon has always been greater than the decrease which thus results in a rising trend over the last forty years. . “most researchers would peg total marine photosynthesis (at) 40 billion tons of carbon per year, or 88 billion tons of biomass. It is immediately evident that marine photosynthesis is less efficient than terrestrial: The ocean covers between two and three times the area of land, yet the biomass it produces is smaller.” [75]

Volk points out that this annual cycle of Photosynthesis and respiration becomes increasing pronounced in northern latitudes, “The further pole ward one treks, the more the gases (from Photosynthesis and respiration) pulse with the thermal seasons.” [76] ; “The higher the latitude in the northern hemisphere, the more extreme the seasonality of photosynthesis and respiration, the more vigorous the amplitude of the CO₂ cycle.” [77] He believes this shows that the oceans are not absorbing large amounts of atmospheric Carbon.

Anthony Huxley from the World Wildlife Fund.

These prevailing views began to change in the late 1990s. Commentators proposed that the oceans absorbed more Carbon than Forests. Anthony huxley from the World Wildlife Fund argued, “The marine algae .. releasing no less than 70% of the world’s atmospheric oxygen.” [78]

John Houghton.

John houghton estimates that of the 7.5Gt of Carbon released into the atmosphere each year, half stays in the atmosphere and that, “If 2Gt of the rest ends up in the oceans there remains an imbalance of about 1.7Gt or so to be accounted for.” [79] The evidence for the conclusion that the oceans absorb more Carbon than the land derives from a study of Carbon isotopes. There are three isotopes of Carbon. In the atmosphere they exist in the following proportions:-

¹²C - 98.9%;

¹³C - 1.1%;

¹⁴C - present in only very small amounts.

Houghton argues, “When Carbon dioxide is taken up by plants and other living things, less ¹³C is taken up in proportion than ¹²C. Fossil fuel such as coal and oil was originally living matter so also contains less ¹³C (by about 18 parts per thousand) than the Carbon dioxide in ordinary air in the atmosphere today. Adding Carbon to the atmosphere from burning Forests, decaying vegetation or fossil fuel will therefore tend to reduce the proportion of ¹³C. (All the ¹⁴C in fossil fuels has decayed). As Carbon from fossil fuels is added to the atmosphere the proportion of ¹⁴C in the atmosphere is also reduced. By studying the ratio of the different isotopes of Carbon in the atmosphere, in the oceans, in gas trapped in ice cores and in Tree rings, it is possible to find out where the additional Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has come from and also what amount has been transferred to the ocean.” [80]

Greenpeace.

Greenpeace supports this evidence, “Around twice as much Carbon is emitted by fossil fuel burning and deforestation as ends up in the atmosphere. Some 7 billion tonnes of Carbon comes from fossil fuel and forest-burning, and we know that only 3.4 billion tonnes of Carbon stays up in the atmosphere as Carbon dioxide each year. How much of the rest goes into the land-plant sink, and how much goes into the ocean sink, has in detail always been a mystery. A new estimate for Carbon uptake suggests 2.1 billion tonnes of Carbon goes into the oceans, with a billion tonnes of Carbon going into the land sink. This new estimate differs with earlier studies which estimated that only a billion tonnes of Carbon are being taken up by the oceans, with more than two going into land plants. This new study uses Carbon isotopes. Both fossil fuels and plants are lighter in Carbon-13 than atmospheric Carbon dioxide, so that the decrease in Carbon-13 over time in ocean waters gives a measure of how much anthropogenic Carbon dioxide is being taken up by ocean waters.” [81]

Greenpeace highlights another piece of evidence suggesting the oceans are a more important Carbon sink than Forests. The rise in the level of atmospheric Carbon dioxide in 1992 was smaller than usual as a result of the mount Pinatubo eruption the previous year, “1992 was in fact the largest anomaly record from the mauna loa (hawaii) monitoring station in 35 years of data. Reductions in fossil-fuel burning are clearly not the reason. So where did the Carbon go? It seems that the pinatubo eruption may well have played a role. Important clues come from Carbon isotopes in the gas. Photosynthesis takes up the lighter isotope preferentially, and so tends to force the ratio of the heavier-to-lighter isotope up. Ocean uptake, however, has an insignificant effect on the ratio. The fact that the ¹³C/¹²C ratio does not show any anomaly, therefore, indicates that the ocean was responsible for the additional uptake of Carbon dioxide. One possible explanation is that the fallout from the eruption of mount pinatubo in 1991 caused a rapid fertilization of the oceans, leading to a bloom in Phytoplankton. Pinatubo erupted material containing some 500 million tons of iron, whereas fixation by Phytoplankton of the 4 billion tonnes of Carbon estimated to have been “withdrawn” from the atmosphere between may 1991 and the end of 1992 would require only a fraction of a million tonnes ...” [82]

John Gribbin.

John gribbin implies the amount of atmospheric Carbon being absorbed by the world’s oceans could be even larger than that suggested above, "The existence of the surface layer, a layer just 1 millimetre thick, is generally as much as 0.3C cooler than the bulk of the water in the upper layer of the ocean. Standard models which take no account of the influence of this cool layer suggest that the uptake of Carbon from the air by the oceans is about 2.2 GtC per year. By allowing for the effect of the 'cool skin' .. there will be an additional global uptake of CO₂ equivalent to about 0.7 GtC per year." [83]

Paul Brown.

Brown believes, “At the moment it is calculated that the oceans remove about 3 billion tonnes more Carbon dioxide a year than they put back into the atmosphere.” [84]

Peter Bunyard.

Bunyard agrees with tyler volk that, “Photosynthesis on land captures sixty billion tonnes of the total carbon and the oceans the remaining forty billion tonnes.” [85]

Gregg Easterbrook.

(About 200 billion tons of CO₂ are released into the atmosphere each year). “How is it removed? About 100 billion tons of CO₂ is breathed in by land plants, primarily trees. Another 100 billion tons or so is withdrawn from the air by ocean plankton and algae or via the chemical weathering of rocks. The remaining CO₂ is absorbed by desert soils.” [86]

New Scientist.

It should be pointed out, however, that when some commentators talk about the oceans extracting Carbon from the atmosphere they do not mean this is done entirely by Photosynthesis. A significant proportion is removed by the oceanic conveyor belt, “Each year the oceans dissolve up to 2 billion tonnes of CO₂ from the atmosphere. The oceans ‘bury’ CO₂ by removing it from the surface layers of water. One key way of doing this is through convection currents, the biggest of which is the ‘conveyor belt’ that begins in the north atlantic. As ice forms here, saltier - and therefore denser - water is left behind. This denser water falls to the ocean floor, drawing water in behind it and setting up a current that begins a 1000 year journey around the world. When it returns to the north atlantic, it contains less CO₂.” [87]

2.3: Oomans’ Disturbance of the Forest-Ocean Relationship.

2.3.1: The Anthropogenic Imbalance in the Relationship between Forests and the Oceans.

The scientific evidence concerning the relative uptakes of Carbon by terrestrial and oceanic Photosynthesizers is poor and is far from being resolved. However, it would not be surprising if it was discovered that the oceans are currently carrying out more Photosynthesis than Forests because of the impact made by various ooman activities.

2.3.1.1: The Decimation of Forests.

Oomans are decimating the Earth’s Forests. Oomans have cut down nearly a third of the Earth’s Forests since the end of the ice age, a significant proportion of which has taken place since the end of the last world war. It is hardly surprising the current level of Photosynthesis carried out by Forests is not as great as it was in the past.

2.3.1.2: The Artificial Productivity of the Oceans.

Whilst oomans are dramatically reducing Forests’ Photosynthetic capabilities, they are also dramatically increasing the amount of nutrients being dumped into the oceans. This is happening because of a number of factors.

* Firstly, the dumping of vast quantities of ooman and livestock manure into watercourses leading into the world’s oceans.

* Secondly, deforestation is causing soil erosion and vast quantities of soil are being washed into rivers and then into the oceans.

* Thirdly, what soil is left on the land after deforestation is often blown into the air causing huge dust storms providing even more nutrients for the oceans.

* Finally, the razing of Forests releases nutrients into the atmosphere some of which also end up in the oceans.

2.3.2: The Current Decline in the Productivity of the Oceans.

The most recent contribution to this debate was made by gaians who pointed out that oceanic productivity is declining in comparison to that of terrestrial Photosynthesis. They argue that as the oceans warm up there is an increase in oceanic stratification which prevents nutrients from rising from the sea floor to feed on Phytoplankton at the surface of the sea .. “the contribution from land to the stabilizing of global temperatures is from vegetation drawing down Carbon dioxide. As temperatures increase, so Plants suffer from drying out of soils and from water stress. Their efficiency in taking Carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is thereby significantly reduced. Kump and lovelock conclude that ocean warming is now proceeding rapidly, especially in the tropics and lower latitudes, with the result that Plankton activity is declining. The oceans are therefore losing their ability to regulate the climate. Terrestrial vegetation will lose its ability to regulate the climate once the average surface temperature reaches around 18C - ipcc estimates that a century from now, the Earth will have temperatures close to that critical point.” [88]

2.3.3: The Political Implications of the Forest-Ocean Controversy.

The debate as to whether the world’s Forests carry out more Photosynthesis than the oceans is by no means a mere academic dispute. It has serious political implications. Firstly, those who believe the oceans absorb more atmospheric Carbon than the Earth’s Forests, tend to argue that anthropogenic Carbon emissions are not a serious problem. They support full scale economic development because even if oomans dump huge amounts of Carbon into the atmosphere they will be soaked up by the oceans. Secondly, even worse, is the argument that oomans could continue cutting down Forests in the belief that the loss of terrestrial Photosynthesis poses no threat to the greenhouse effect since, once again, the oceans would take up the Photosynthetic slack. It is believed that as Forest Photosynthesis declines, the nutrients that would have been taken up by Forests would be transported to the oceans thereby boosting marine Photosynthesis. This is often but not always true. But, even when it is true, it takes time for nutrients in the soil to travel from the land to the sea and then to disperse around the oceans. In addition, some nutrients end up boosting Algal growth which often destroy other marine Photosynthesizers.

The commentators who give primacy to oceanic Photosynthesis have a means of escaping blame if their proposition eventually turns out to be wrong. They argue that it doesn’t matter if they are wrong because it should be possible for oomans to counter rising temperatures by fertilizing the world’s oceans. They argue this would stimulate Photosynthesis and extract huge amounts of Carbon from the atmosphere. This is a rather bizarre argument given that, over the last fifty years or so, oomans have been overstimulating oceanic Photosynthesis by dumping vast quantities of ooman and Animal manure into the oceans creating vast blooms of toxic Algae.

Another political implication is that the commentators who believe in the superiority of oceanic Photosynthesis, and who quietly support the fertilization of the oceans, dismiss the idea of Reforestation as a means of combating the greenhouse effect. It should be pointed out that even if it was shown that the oceans are currently carrying out more Photosynthesis than Forests, there are a number of reasons why this would not necessarily undermine the importance of Reforestation in combating global warming.

* Firstly, Forests are a major determinant of the level of Photosynthesis in the world’s oceans because of chemical weathering;

* Secondly, as has already been noted above, oomans have disturbed the relationship between oceans and Forests to such an extent that the oceans are now artificially more Photosynthetically productive than Forests;

* Finally, Forests have a major impact on global warming not only through the Earth's Carbon spiral but through the water cycle and the albedo effect. Dismissing Reforestation as a means of combating global warming just because its impact on the Carbon spiral is currently secondary to that of the oceans could be a mistake.

2.4: Forests’ Role in Determining the Photosynthetic Productivity of the Oceans.

Although it has not yet been proved whether Forests or the oceans carry out the most Photosynthesis, Forests seem to have a considerable influence on the level of Photosynthesis taking place in the oceans. Paradoxically, this may be the reason why the oceans might be carrying out more Photosynthesis than Forests.

2.4.1: Forests Provide Nutrients for Marine Photosynthesis.

Forests provide huge quantities of nutrients for marine Photosynthesizers through Forest fires and water/wind erosion of decaying Trees.

2.4.2: Forests Boost Rock Weathering and the Algal Deposition of Carbon in the Oceans.

Forests contribute to Carbon deposition on the ocean floor by boosting rock weathering which provides Carbon for marine micro-organisms. Forests speed up the process of rock weathering and provide huge amounts of Carbon for Plankton to use in the formation of their shells. According to lovelock, Carbon deposition permanently removes Carbon from the atmosphere and thus has a considerable influence on the climate. Forests determine rock weathering and it may be that Forests are also a major influence on the scale of oceanic Plankton, “The dominant political philosophy of the market should make it easier to appreciate the value of Gaian services. If the algal ecosystems do make clouds, and if land plants do control rock weathering, then their value is as great as that of life itself, and is so far beyond price as to be inaccessible” [89]

2.4.3: Forests Boosting the Deposition of Charcoal in the Oceans.

Forests also contribute to Carbon deposition on the ocean floor by creating charcoal aerosols which are blown into the oceans and sink to the sea floor. The discovery of extensive charcoal deposits on the seabed has boosted the importance of Forests’ influence on the climate in comparison to that of the oceans. It was commonly believed that sedimentary rocks were composed of Carbon deposited by marine Algae but it is now known that much of this sediment is composed of charcoal deriving from Forest fires. Forest fires produced vast quantities of charcoal aerosols which end up in the oceans and settle on the sea floor, "For years, everyone has assumed that Plankton and other marine organisms play a key role in regulating the amount of Carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere. But they may have been given more credit than they deserve, according to a new study which suggests that half of the Carbon found in ocean sediments may not have been removed from the atmosphere by marine life but in fact came from Forests. David verardo, a geologist at the university of virginia in charlottesville, was addressing this question by studying organic matter in sections of a core of sediment drilled from the bottom of the atlantic. Amazingly, about half of all the Carbon in the core turned out to be charcoal .. In some sections, charcoal accounted for as much as 90% of the Carbon. His explanation is that high winds, generated by the large temperature gradients which huge ice sheets created, transported an unusual amount of debris and charcoal dust from fires far out to sea." [90]

As a result of Forests’ two contributions to Carbon deposition on the seafloor it could be that Forests make as significant a contribution as marine micro-organisms.

3: Outstanding Forest Issues to Resolve.

3.1: The Constant Rate of Carbon Burial.

Lovelock believes there has been a constant rate of Carbon burial throughout the Earth’s history, “The rate of Carbon burial has been constant throughout the Earth’s history; there is very little difference between the archean and now.” [91] He reiterated the same point towards the end of his life, However, this suggestion contradicts lovelock’s hypothesis of a constant rate of Carbon burial throughout most of the Earth’s history, “At present about 100 million tons of Carbon are buried each year, equivalent to the release of 266 million tons of free oxygen gas to the air. The rate of Carbon burial has been constant throughout the Earth’s history; there is very little difference between the archean and now. This is curious when you consider that the mass and the activity of the biota may have been less in the archaen.” [92]

3.2: The Uncertainty Regarding the Significance of the Role Played by Forests in Stabilizing the Climate.

However, there is some uncertainty over lovelock’s analysis of the significance of Forests’ geolutionary role in stabilizing the climate. He argues that Forests have played a more dramatic role - it was only the emergence of Trees 400 million years ago that significantly increased the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere, "The proterozoic period .. is poorly understood. Scientists know that for the most part it was a world of microorganisms like the archean. Unicellular life was hardly vigorous enough to bury the larger quantities of Carbon needed to sustain a high level of oxygen by counteracting its rapid removal by reaction with the rocks. I think that oxygen did not increase much above 1% until the evolution of large Plants and Animals." [93] The evolution of large Plants and Animals happened during the late paleozoic. This suggests there must have been a corresponding increase in the amount of Carbon extracted from the atmosphere and the rate of Carbon burial. [94] In turn this suggests that Forests have a far more important role in the Earth’s climate than is implied by the proposition of the constant burial of Carbon. [95]

3.3: The Paradox of Increasing Photosynthesis and Constant Carbon Burial.

The idea of the constant burial of Carbon is contradicted by the spread of terrestrial Photosynthesizers an aeon ago and by the spurt of Carbon extraction following the emergence of Trees some 400 million years ago. A few aeons ago, the increase in the scale of continents on Earth, and the emergence of oxygen breathing Plants which could survive on land, seemed to mean there had been a vast increase in terrestrial Plants. It seems logical to assume this would have brought about an increase in the scale of Photosynthesis on Earth. This seems even more likely given that most marine Photosynthesis takes place in coastal waters making use of the nutrients washed off the land and into waterways and then eventually into estuaries.

Lovelock’s explanation for this proposition is as follows, “The puzzle can be solved if we remember that because there was only a trace of oxygen present, the proportion of oxic consumers to anaerobes would have been less than now. This means that the methanogens and other organisms of the anoxic sector were digesting nearly all the products of Photosynthesis, but buried the same amount of Carbon as now. The high rate of Photosynthesis today must, in part, be due to the rapid recycling of Carbon by the oxygen-breathing consumers.” [96] He seems to argue that the rate of Carbon burial has remained constant because the increasing numbers of Animals, oxygen-breathing consumers, boosted the recycling of Carbon i.e. Animals eat Plants and return nutrients to the soil for Plants to regrow, rather than Carbon being pumped underground and then undergoing rock weathering for burial on the sea floor. Unfortunately this seems to contradict another of his arguments that terrestrial Phytomass has increased the rate of rock weathering, “If the soil of a well-vegetated region almost anywhere on Earth is examined, the Carbon dioxide content is between 10 and 40 times higher than the atmosphere. What is happening is that living organisms act like a giant pump. They continuously remove Carbon dioxide from the air and conduct it deep into the soil where it can react with rock particles and be removed. Were life not present, the Carbon dioxide from the atmosphere would have to reach the calcium silicate of the rocks by slow inorganic processes like diffusion.” [97]

It is possible the spread of large Forests, capable of extracting greater amounts of Carbon from the atmosphere than smaller Plants, slowed down rock weathering, and the eventual deposition of Carbon on the ocean floor by storing large quantities of Carbon in the form of Trees. And yet the emergence of larger Animals to match these larger Plants meant they could rapidly break down these new Photosynthesizers and, so, once again, quickly return the Carbon to the soil. Without scavengers and herbivores it would take far longer for the Carbon locked up in Phytomass and zoomass to be broken down and return to the soil. Without the presence of large Animals, the Planet may have been littered with dead Phytomass and dead bodies, and Carbon would have taken far longer to be returned to the soil. And yet the size of Trees suggests it would have been easier for them to pump Carbon even deeper into the soil leading to a considerable increase in rock weathering. The increase in the scale and size of Plants, and the increase in the size and spread of Animals consuming this Phytomass, must have boosted rock weathering because there is no other way of explaining the rapid increase in the concentration of atmospheric oxygen. These issues need to be clarified before it possible to assess Forests’ role in stabilizing the climate over the last four hundred million years.

4: Technical Notes.

This section was originally written as the introduction to this work. However, it was feared it might seem technical so it has been transferred to the addenda out of harm’s way.

In the early 1990s the mundi club promoted 'the Carbon theory of value' to highlight the obvious fact, ignored for one reason or another by virtually the entire climatological establishment, that the concentration of atmospheric Carbon is determined not merely by Carbon emissions but by the scale of the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity. Even worse, most of the green movement was taking its cue from the politically castrated scientists presiding over the work of the inter-governmental panel on climate change (ipcc) and, as a result, they too ignored the geophysiological need for Reforestation. The purpose behind the elevation of this fact into a theory was to boost the importance of Forests in the debates over combating global burning. It is ironic then that during the years spent elaborating this theory, evidence was accumulated suggesting that the role played by Forests in the Earth's life support system was less significant than originally suspected. Forests were relegated down the hierarchy of the Earth's premier division Photosynthesizers by Algae/Photoplankton, Coral reefs, and even Peatbogs.

The role of Forests seemed even less significant when it was realized Photosynthesizers’ contribution to global warming didn't seem as substantial as that made by such widescale phenomena as oceans, clouds, ice sheets and water vapour. What this seemed to imply was that the global Carbon spiral, the key component of the Earth’s life support system, was a smaller contributor to global warming than the Earth's water cycle.

It was at this point, however, that it was realized that Forests make a significant contribution to the Earth’s climate not only through the global Carbon spiral i.e. Photosynthesis and the release of Carbon emissions, but through the albedo effect and the heat effect. Whilst these last two contributions had little to do with Photosynthesis itself or the global Carbon spiral they were the products of Phytomass. And they did have a substantial impact on the Earth’s climate. This resurrected the importance of Forests’ role in the climate. If the Earth’s major Photosynthesizers were evaluated not merely through their contribution to the global Carbon spiral but their overall contribution to the climate, then Forests could well be most important of all the Earth’s Photosynthesizers. It then began to be suspected that Forests may have a bigger impact on the climate not merely than other Photosynthesizers, but bigger than other influences on the climate such as clouds, oceans or ice sheets.

The suspicion that Forests may be the most important influence on the climate gives a back-handed legitimacy to the Carbon theory of value. Although Forests’ total impact on the climate cannot be assessed by the Carbon theory of value, the possibility that Forests are the dominant influence on the climate means that the theory is at least dealing with the right phenomena as opposed to climatologists who believe in the importance of oceans or clouds. What is more, the Carbon theory of value is better at emphasizing the climatic role of Forests than the computer models which climatologists are currently using to generate predictions about the future course of global burning.

If it had begun to seem that the 'Carbon theory of value' was irrelevant because of the considerable impact of the water cycle on the climate, it now seems the theory has enough validity to makes it worthwhile to continue exploring its potentialities especially since, as was pointed out in the first issue of 'Carbonomics', it is capable of being used in a great many ways e.g. as a geophysiological evaluation of the Earth’s life support system and as a means of determining political policies to counter global warming.

In order to test out this line of reasoning it was decided that what needed to be done was to explore the totality of Forests’ impact on the climate and then compare this with the assessment of Forests’ impact on the climate through the global Carbon spiral. Given that a Carbon spiral analysis is, ultimately, only an abstraction, the value of comparing the Carbon spiral with real phenomena might reveal the nature of the relationship between them. To put it crudely, it might be discovered that Forests’ impact on the climate through the global Carbon spiral is ‘x’ whilst the totality of Forests’ impact on the climate is ‘2x’. Outlining Forests' total influence on the climate should help to ascertain the limitations of the 'Carbon theory of value' as an indicator of climate change and the health of the Earth's life support system.

What is presented here is a description, not a theory, of the totality of Forests' impact on the climate. In many ways it is tempting to try and use these facts to generate a 'Forest theory of value' rather than persist with the 'Carbon theory of value' but it is believed this would not be worthwhile. Paradoxically, having highlighted the Earth's Carbon spiral in order to elevate the role of Forests in the Earth's life support system, it turns out that what is important is the Carbon spiral rather than Forests for no matter how important Forests may be to the climate it is Photosynthesizers as a whole which have determined the Earth’s climate over the aeons. A 'Forest theory of value' might be more aesthetically appealing to Tree-lovers but it would be less comprehensive than a 'Carbon theory of value' and it would be less useful for combating global burning.

5: A Checklist to assess Theorists’ Views Concerning the Merits of Reforestation.

There are many theorists on both the right wing of the political spectrum and the green segment of the political spectrum who dismiss Reforestation as a means of combating global burning. A wide range of research results are presented by greens e.g. friends of the Earth, greenpeace, showing that Reforestation is of little help in combating global burning. However, these results are almost invariably inadequate since they measure only a small part of a Forests’ multiple impacts on the climate. The following section is designed to act as a quick checklist for those who wish to determine whether researchers’ pronouncements about Forests are based on a full scale analysis of Forests or not. Research into Forests should contain an analysis of the following factors if they are to be regarded as being comprehensive.

There are three main ways by which Forests keep Carbon from returning to the atmosphere and boosting global warming. Firstly, Forests store Carbon; secondly, Forests pump Carbon into the soils and, thirdly, Forest fires create Charcoal.

5.1: Forests as Carbon Stores.

There are three main ways by which Forests store Carbon and thus reduce global warming. Firstly, Forests store Carbon in the form of Trees, in the form of soils, and in the form of Wildlife.

Carbon in the form of Trees.

It is not known what proportion of Carbon absorbed is then retained in the form of Trees.

Carbon in the form of Soils.

Carbon is absorbed by Soils. Marland has indicated the proportion of Carbon that ends up in the soil after being absorbed through Photosynthesis, “A hectare of Sycamore Trees in the u.s. soaks up from the atmosphere about 7.5 tonnes of Carbon per year, says marland. Of that, up to 5 tonnes may end up in soils rather than the Trees themselves.” [98] So, when greens argue that Trees do not store much Carbon what they are neglecting is the two-thirds of absorbed Carbon ending up in soils.

Carbon stored in Wildlife.

Animals create more and more ecological niches which enable more and more species to survive and flourish. It is a process, like russian dolls, which packs more and more species into Forests and thus more and more Carbon. If greens do not provide a measure of the Wildlife living in the Forest then they are in effect failing to measure the amount of Carbon that is being stored in the Forest.

5.2: Forests as Carbon Pumps.

Lovelock believes that rock weathering is the main means by which Carbon is permanently buried on the sea floor, “I had long thought that the observation that CO₂ in the soil throughout the world was concentrated between 10-30 times more than in the atmosphere was important evidence for gaia. Biogeochemists accepted the evidence and agreed that it was due to the metabolism of soil micro-organisms, but they failed to see its significance globally. I saw the high concentration of soil CO₂ linked with faster rock weathering and a greater removal of CO₂ from the air, which in turn leads to a cooler global climate. We proposed that the weathering of the rocks by carbon dioxide and rainwater was part of a self-regulating process, which involved the living organisms in the soil.” [99] He concludes that it has a central role in stabilizing the climate, “The abundance of CO2 in the air depends on the balance between the amount being injected from beneath the crust through volcanoes and the amount lost from the air by chemical reaction at the Earth’s surface.” [100] What this implies is that since Forests have a major role in chemical weathering, they also have a major role in moderating global burning.

5.3: Forest Fires and the Creation of Charcoal.

The third way in which Forests keep Carbon out of the atmosphere is, ironically enough, through Forest fires. Forest fires clearly contribute to the greenhouse effect and yet, at the same time, they also create charcoal which permanently removes Carbon from the atmosphere because it is a highly inert substance. Charcoal does not decompose, and cannot be consumed by micro-organisms, so it does not release its Carbon back into the atmosphere.

The implication of this view is that as global temperatures rise, natural Forest fires around the Earth are nothing to worry about. They may be boosting the greenhouse effect but they are also contributing to the burial of Carbon. Thus fire fighters shouldn’t be wasting their time trying to stop Forest fires but should allow them to burn themselves out. Massive amounts of Carbon would be dumped into the atmosphere but the burnt out Forests would soon recover and start extracting the Carbon from the atmosphere. If america wants to reduce its Carbon emissions it shouldn’t attempt to strangulate Forest fires but should concentrate upon reducing anthropocentric emissions.