Limited plant-derived carbon gets preserved. These limited conditions occur when plant materials happen to be deposted in certain anoxic (low oxygen) environments that prevent decay and oxidation of the plant tissue into CO2.

A peat swamp is such an environment where conditions of limited fresh water and decaying plant materials combine to deplete the water column of oxygen. Plant materials accumulate and form peat material in such environments. If the peat swamp is eventually covered with sediments, the organic materials can be preserved in the sedimentary record as organic rich sediments such as coal seams (largely derived from land plants) or kerogen rich oil shales (derived from hydrogen rich algal deposits).

In conclusion, planting trees is an ineffective approach to permanently capturing CO2.

I do appreciate a good discussion about offsetting, but I would like to see a little less of this one article.

A side note is that I am a medical researcher and am all too familiar with over excitement over one article. Also not meant as a person attack on anyone, just would like more discussion and not simply taking data at face value.

The study is probably a realistic simulation of the direct albedo effect. It does not, however, mention at all the impact that forest has on cloudiness. I don´t know if that is included in the model it uses, but the report does not discuss any uncertainties related to clouds. So, perhaps it was not included.

In general, forests increase cloudiness because they reduce rain water runoff and increase evapotranspiration (yes, forest transpires more water than plain water surface, for example). While changing a meadow to a forest decreases the albedo from roughly 0.15 to 0.10, clouds have an albedo of around 0.4 to 0.8. Even a rather small increases in cloudiness offsets the decrease in vegetation albedo.

Additionally, forests can be used for energy and materials, that produce very much less net emissions than fossil energy or alternative materials (concrete, steel, aluminum). Therefore, forests may be a viable alternative to mitigate climate change.

For more information on the topic we invite you to read:

http://ecopreservationsociety.wordpress.com/ 2008/ 02/ 12/ does-reforestation-contribute-to-global-warming-a-second-look-at-the-livermore-study/

In the post that the link points to, there is a strange statement about the albedo effect becoming active only after age 80 of the forests. To me that seems to reflect little knowledge about boreal or temperate forests. The canopy closure typically takes place around age 30-40, and I would think tha albedo effect would be close to maximum already at that time. There is no abrubt change.

Also, the notes about snow cover on trees were very anecdotal. Much of the time the trees in the boreal winter are not those frosty, post card trees. Wind and occasional above freezing temperatures largely remove snow cover, to be recovered at times again but not continuously.

Sorry but I did not notice that I would have got anything wrong!

Just wondering, if the statement above is correct and its a 1/1, then what is the mechanism for carbon removal from the atmosphere and storage in rock or soil?……

(OK,… I’m a newby,…. be gentle……