According Mark Adams, from the University of Sydney and the Bushfire CRC, the emissions from bushfires were far beyond what could be contained through carbon capture and needed . The bushfires have released a massive amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere – almost equal to Australia’s industrial emission for an entire year.

In work for the Bushfire Co-operative Research Centre, he estimated the 2003 and 2006-07 bushfires could have put 20-30million tonnes of carbon (70-105 million tonnes of carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere.

The 2003 and 2006-07 bushfires were burning land carrying 50 to 80 tonnes of carbon per hectare. For the 2009 fires”This time we are burning forests that are even more carbon-dense than last time, well over 100 tonnes above-ground carbon per hectare” .
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,,25047322-5018067,00.html

Now the ANU claims almost 2,000 tonne per hectare!!

Where the hell is the evidence that harvested wood stored in a house, or a treated pole or even newsprint in a landfill, will emit its carbon more rapidly than the retained trees in the forest will grow and absorb more carbon?

Indeed, what on earth makes this turkey believe that wood in a house, protected from termites, under a roof and sealed with paint, will decay faster, or be eaten by termites faster, than wood in a moss covered hollow log on wet ground?

And still they claim that all their dead wood in the climax forest is not burned by bushfires but is, somehow, destroyed by forestry operations.

R.G. Florence established long ago that the greatest growth increment in eucalypt trees was found in early mature stems as they race to capture the surplus sunlight, soil moisture and nutrients that are available when a tree beside it is removed. So by maintaining a forest in this condition by regular partial harvesting the greatest long term carbon sequestration will take place.

If the Fenner Fools were even part of the way up the learning curve they would understand that the full compliment of trees in a climax forest ensures that a greater proportion of each trees energy is expended on maintenance rather than growth. They would understand that fully stocked stands suffer greater fluctuations in moisture and nutrient supply because the additional stems deplete a moisture profile faster than a spaced stand and produce longer periods of dry soil between rainfall events. And during these extended periods of dry soil the nitrogen fixing soil microbes shut down for longer, producing a less fertile soil.

These are the reasons why growth in fully stocked stands cannot possibly be greater than growth in regularly spaced stands. So even if a 100 year old unharvested stand might add another 800 tonnes of carbon if it is left for another 150 years, the accumulation will only be 5.3 tonnes each year. Meanwhile, a properly and sustainably managed stand will add more than twice that volume and see it more safely stored in stable wood products. Good forest practice can double the growth (sequestration) rate and halve the decay (emission) rate.

“Living and dead biomass carbon for each site were calculated by using an allometric equation applied to the inventory data for the individual trees in the plots. The equation related biomass to stem volume and wood density.”

No details of the allometric equation are given.

The paper states “Recent research findings have …. and demonstrated that old-growth forests are likely to be functioning as carbon sinks”. Living above ground carbon biomass for E regnans is quotes as averaging 1053 t/ha for 100 year old stand (13 sites) and 1819 t/ha for 250+ year old stand (no n given).
Much is made of the virtues of build up of dead biomass. The point that a felled tree is just another form of virtuous dead biomass seems to have escaped the authors.

Then tell me which 10 x 10 m plot did they select to measure the carbon.
If you are unsure then check the photo on page 2 at
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/06/24/0901970106.full.pdf+html

Was it the clreared road or the dense forest??

And that gives a mean fotprint for each tree of 625m2. So even if the E.regnans stands have 20 stems/ha their footprint will be 500m2. So these Fenner School clowns have set up sample plots that are only 20% of the likely footprint of a single tree. That cannot be regarded as sampling. It is pure incompetence, or worse, fraudulent misrepresentation.

I think it is time we paid this campus a visit with a good stock of eggs, tomatoes and bottled urine.

You’re welcome Luke. I guess that explains the prevailing corporate culture of “fellatious argument” in natural resource management.