Green Proponents.

Some of brutland’s leading green organizations support this contention.

Norman Moss

“The oceans are the biggest sinks, but no one can claim credit for them and the amount of Carbon they absorb is not known.” [61] Is it not strange that greens can state with such confidence that, “The oceans are the biggest sinks” even though .. “the amount of Carbon they absorb is not known”?

Greenpeace International.

“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.” [62] Greenpeace also quoted evidence from the eruption of mount pinatubo in 1991that the oceans were a more important Carbon sink than Forests. The rise in Carbon dioxide emissions in 1992 was smaller than usual. “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 ...” [63]

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

There are many conventional Earth rapists who deduce from the proposition that the oceans absorb more Carbon than Forests that there is no need to worry about oomans’ dumping excessive quantities of Carbon into the atmosphere because most of it will be absorbed by the oceans. Given that green Earth rapists also believe the oceans absorb more Carbon than Forests then this pushes them towards a similar conclusion. But they are embarrassed to have arrived at a similar conclusion to that of the Earth rapists’. So, they continue to demand reductions in greenhouse gases.

The fact that greens believe the oceans are the main absorbers of atmospheric pollution means the priority they give to reducing greenhouse pollution is much less significant than it seems. This also has a detrimental impact on the effectiveness of green campaigns. Why should people bother to reduce atmospheric pollution if they believe the oceans will absorb it? Greenpeace’s views about the importance of the oceans leaves them open to the charge that if the oceans are absorbing so much pollution then the threat posed by pollution can’t be that serious. This puts greens in an extremely weak position when demanding huge cuts in atmospheric pollution because anti-green loonies just point out that pollution can’t be a significant threat because, as greens themselves agree, most of it is absorbed by the oceans.

8: ‘There’s no need to worry about Deforestation because the Oceans will absorb the Carbon put into the Atmosphere by Forest Fires’.

Greens’ Proposition.

Another implication of the above proposition is that burning down Forests also poses no threat to the destabilization of the climate because the oceans absorb Carbon emissions from Forest fires. Some greens believe, or hold views that lead them to the belief, that the greater the decline in Forest Photosynthesis, the greater the increase in oceanic Photosynthesis. The razing of Forests doesn’t reduce global Photosynthesis because the oceans take up the Photosynthetic slack.

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

Forests don’t seem to have played much of a Role in the Climate since the End of the Ice Age.

Given the fact that oomans have cut down nearly half of the Earth’s Forests since the end of the ice age without causing a significant increase in global burning it is hardly surprising that many commentators argue that Forests are not important climate stabilizers. It is unfortunate that oomans’ damage to terrestrial Photosynthesis has created the illusion that the oceans are more Photosynthetically productive than Forests. However, one of the reasons for this is that a significant proportion of this deforestation has taken place since the end of the last world war. This deforestation is now helping to boost global burning.

Since the Oceans absorb so much Carbon then why bother Reducing Carbon Emissions or stopping Deforestation or Pretending to support Reforestation?

It is strange that greens believe the oceans absorb Carbon dumped into the atmosphere and yet still demand reductions in Carbon emissions. It is also strange that greens’ believe the oceans absorb Carbon dumped into the atmosphere and yet still pretend to support Reforestation. If the oceans play such a critical role in the Earth’s life support system, then what does it matter if Earth rapists dump Carbon into the atmosphere or cut down Forests? The more that greens believe in the superiority of oceanic Photosynthesis over terrestrial Photosynthesis the more they tend to dismiss the idea of Reforestation as a means of combating the greenhouse effect.

Forests may be down but they’re not Out.

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 potential importance of Reforestation in combating global warming. Firstly, as has already been noted above, oomans have disturbed the relationship between oceans and Forests to such an extent that it only appears to be the case that oceans are more Photosynthetically productive than Forests. Secondly, Forests are a major determinant of the level of Photosynthesis in the world’s oceans. Cut down all the world’s Forests and the amount of Photosynthesis in the oceans will also decline. Finally, the major impact which Forests have on global warming is not 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 Forests’ impact on the Carbon spiral is currently secondary to that of the oceans could be a mistake.

The Oceans cannot absorb all Anthropogenic Emissions.

There are a number of reasons why the oceans cannot absorb all anthropogenic Carbon emissions and, similarly, why Carbon pollution from Forests fires cannot all be absorbed by the oceans:-

* As oceanic temperatures rise, the rate of marine Photosynthesis increases whilst the scale of marine Photosynthesis decreases but, overall, there is a decrease in marine Photosynthesis. Once oceanic temperatures rise above 10C, the oceans begin to stratify into layers which prevents deep waters containing nutrients from rising to the surface and stimulating the growth of marine Algae;

* The warmer the oceans become, the less capable they are of retaining the Carbon they have absorbed from the atmosphere;

* Forests promote rock weathering which provides oceanic Phytomass with most of their nutrients so if oomans cut down the Earth’s Forests this will ultimately reduce marine Photosynthesis.

Even if the Oceans are currently absorbing more Carbon ...

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 reducing global burning:-

* if vast areas of Forest are cut down, the proportion of global Photosynthesis carried out by terrestrial Photosynthesizers declines and the proportion carried out by oceanic Photosynthesis increases. All that this means is that terrestrial Photosynthesizers are temporarily less important than oceanic Photosynthesizers.

* Forests have multiple impacts on global burning - not merely the Photosynthetic effect but the albedo effect and the heat effect. Greens dismiss Reforestation as a means of combating global burning because it is believed to absorb less greenhouse gases than the oceans, but this ignores Forests’ other roles in influencing the climate.

* as has already been noted above, Forests promote rock weathering and thus provide a major boost to oceanic Photosynthesis.

The greater the Decline in Forest Photosynthesis, the Greater the Increase in Oceanic Photosynthesis.

Greens’ proposition that the greater the decline in Forest Photosynthesis, the greater the increase in oceanic Photosynthesis, is geophysiologically incorrect. If the rock weathering carried out by Forests goes into decline this will reduce oceanic Photosynthesis.

Conclusion.

Woodwell believes that Forests have an important role in mitigating global burning, “The role of Forests in affecting climate has been grossly underestimated by climatologists, largely as a result of too heavy a focus on the role of the oceans. The distortion persists in the recent report of the scientific sessions of the second world climate conference held in geneva (WMO, 1990). The role of Forests is acknowledged as potentially contributing to solution of the problem by storing additional Carbon through Reforestation, but the need to stop deforestation is not emphasized.” [64]

9: ‘There’s no need to worry about Deforestation because if there’s an increase in Global Burning we’ll seed the Oceans.

Greens’ Proposition.

The supporters of oceanic Photosynthesis have a means of escaping blame if it turns out they are wrong that oceanic Photosynthesis is greater than Forest Photosynthesis. If they are wrong they believe it should be possible to counter rising temperatures by seeding the world’s oceans to stimulate Photosynthesis. It is believed this would extract huge amounts of Carbon from the atmosphere.

Criticisms of the Greens’ Proposition.

The belief in seeding the oceans to stabilize the climate overlooks the fact that oomans have been stimulating oceanic Photosynthesis for the last fifty years or so by dumping vast quantities of ooman and Animal manure into the oceans. And what has been the result of this dumping of nutrients into the oceans? Vast blooms of toxic Algae.