Quote:
Originally Posted by freebeard
If they're wearing White Helmets they must be the good guys, right? Amirite?
|
"Based on data from typical perennial grasslands and mature forests in Australia, forests are typically more than 10 times as effective as grasslands at storing carbon on a hectare per hectare basis."
"Grasslands may have a similar annual rate of net carbon uptake [as forests], but the long-term storage of carbon per hectare of grasslands is less than that over an average hectare in woody trees."
Quote:
|
[S]tudies done in 1999 and again in 2005 show that reducing the amount of tree cover tends to decrease the amount of organic carbon in deep soil sinks. The 2005 study showed that about 1 metre underground, grassland sites contained only 25 tonnes of carbon in the soil per hectare compared with the soil in treed savannah sites, which stored 30 to 70 tonnes per hectare.
|
https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/20...ts-or-grasses/
This says that models show grasslands are better:
Grasslands may be more reliable carbon sinks than forests in California - IOPscience
Goodie. Models. Okay boys! Our work here is done!
"We use the dynamic global vegetation model (DGVM) LPJ-GUESS."
It must be accurate if they call it "Guess."
Anyone Thinking About Planting Grasslands to Fight Climate Change? They Should
This just explains the report that I shared using the Guess models. Lead author Pawlok "Dass concedes that the simulation is an oversimplification"
"The model predicts that in the absence of human intervention, California’s vegetation will lose more carbon than it can absorb under all but the most optimistic climate mitigation scenario."
Isn't planting grasslands an intervention? Why not choose the more effective one?
"[T]he researchers acknowledge that their study does not account for forest management activities, such as forest thinning and prescribed burning, which can increase the resilience of forests in the face of climate change."
I only find articles about the report, nothing independent.