Are Earth's Forests Losing Their Ability to Absorb Carbon Dioxide? (msn.com) 112
An anonymous reader shared this report from the Washington Post:
Earth's land lost much of their ability to absorb the carbon dioxide humans pumped into the air last year, according to a new study that is causing concern among climate scientists that a crucial damper on climate change underwent an unprecedented deterioration. Temperatures in 2023 were so high — and the droughts and wildfires that came with them were so severe — that forests in various parts of the world wilted and burned enough to have degraded the ability of the land to lock away carbon dioxide and act as a check on global warming, the study said.
The scientists behind the research, which focuses on 2023, caution that their findings are preliminary. But the work represents a disturbing data point — one that, if it turns into a trend, spells trouble for the planet and the people on it...
Philippe Ciais [a scientist at France's Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences who co-authored the new research] and his colleagues saw that the concentration of CO2 measured at an observatory on Mauna Loa in Hawaii and elsewhere spiked in 2023, even though global fossil fuel emissions increased only modestly last year in comparison. That mismatch suggests that there was an "unprecedented weakening" in the Earth's ability to absorb carbon, the researchers wrote. The scientists then used satellite data and models for vegetative growth to try to pinpoint where the carbon sink was weakening. The team spotted abnormal losses of carbon in the drought-stricken Amazon and Southeast Asia as well as in the boreal forests of Canada, where record-breaking wildfires burned through tens of millions of acres.
The scientists behind the research, which focuses on 2023, caution that their findings are preliminary. But the work represents a disturbing data point — one that, if it turns into a trend, spells trouble for the planet and the people on it...
Philippe Ciais [a scientist at France's Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences who co-authored the new research] and his colleagues saw that the concentration of CO2 measured at an observatory on Mauna Loa in Hawaii and elsewhere spiked in 2023, even though global fossil fuel emissions increased only modestly last year in comparison. That mismatch suggests that there was an "unprecedented weakening" in the Earth's ability to absorb carbon, the researchers wrote. The scientists then used satellite data and models for vegetative growth to try to pinpoint where the carbon sink was weakening. The team spotted abnormal losses of carbon in the drought-stricken Amazon and Southeast Asia as well as in the boreal forests of Canada, where record-breaking wildfires burned through tens of millions of acres.
We are (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
You need to go thank Russia, China and India. Same with the AI producers and the Bitcoin miners. Those are the ones pushing the CO2 envelope. The US has curbed things way back, and is setting records with renewable installs.
Re: Yes, we are. (Score:2)
Exactly. It was output by the republicans.
Re: We are (Score:2)
Better yet, don't have kids.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. I we could get the population back down to about 4 billion, we'd have a chance.
And if we took the 7 trillion per year we give to fossil fuel companies in various subsidies and put it straight into carbon capture, we could build enough capacity to cancel current emissions in about 3 to 5 years for 21 to 35 trillion dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
Plant a tree, (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That said, plant some trees in your yard if you can.
Why? The roots mess with the plumbing and the next major storm will have the tree destroying your house and car. Cut down all trees for convenience. *shrug*
Re: (Score:2)
We are, because apparently MSN.com is now a source of articles on Slashdot. What's next, Buzzfeed?
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change denial is still a thing.
I thought the floods, the fires and the sea level rise has left that behind.
Re: (Score:2)
what part of that did he deny?
He denied the impacts of climate change that we are observing. And he denies the reproducibility of the science.
In fact, why don't you pull up a graph of average earth temps for the last 200,000 and tell me how much of that change alarms you because it was man-made?
The anthropogenic warming of the past 100 years doesn't really show up on a graph of temperatures of the past 2 glaciations. But CO levels are well above the natural range for the Quaternary [colinmathers.com]. Which puts the climate way outside the range that any existent species has evolved with.
The question answers itself.
Does it? I don't get what your point is.
Cool (Score:1, Insightful)
Now we are finding the unexpected accelerators. Would have been a good idea to actually understand the Science and do something effective in the 1980's. (No, that is not nuclear. That one has made the problem _worse_. The nuclear scum is as bad as the deniers and pushes the same extreme lies.)
Had we done that sane thing, human civilization would have had a future. Now? Not so much. And the fault is with all the greedy scum and all the idiot deniers.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Explain how nuclear power, which produces energy over long periods using machines built from mined materials just like renewables, would not have been a solution. For bonus points, explain how it would've made the problem worse than burning fossil fuels for energy (which is what happened instead). Go.
It's too late for new nuclear energy to play any significant role in fighting global warming now, but the anti-nuclear-power movement might've been the worst environmental disaster of the 20th century, and that
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Explain how nuclear power, which produces energy over long periods using machines built from mined materials just like renewables, would not have been a solution. For bonus points, explain how it would've made the problem worse than burning fossil fuels for energy (which is what happened instead). Go.
It's too late for new nuclear energy to play any significant role in fighting global warming now, but the anti-nuclear-power movement might've been the worst environmental disaster of the 20th century, and that's saying a lot.
Nuclear power isn't a solution because it still produces heat and energy and lots of it. The problem is scale, if we had built that many reactors, we would still be facing the same problem at some point and we would have lots of radioactive waste and byproducts, not to mention accidents. The real reason however, is in centralization and market monopolization. Big Energy would continue to control the nuclear power industry and use it to dictate to us and overcharge us just as they are doing now. Not to menti
Re: (Score:1)
"we would still be facing the same problem at some point"
Huh? The problem is excess CO2 in the atmosphere.
By having sufficient portable energy available in the electricity distribution network for universal needs, without adding to CO2, is some sort of other problem?
Nuclear waste storage and disposal is not an actual problem beyond the false narrative nurtured, cherished and championed by politics.
If you want "Big Energy" to become little energy then you are dreaming if you think giant solar with all its
Re: (Score:1)
He's likely referring to the fact that heat output per human has been rising since the 1600s. At the current rate, that heat output increase at the rate since the 1600s would heat the planet enough to boil water on the surface within the next 500 years *independent* of CO2 caused global warming.
We can't continue increasing the waste heat from energy usage by each human being indefinitely. The planet can't radiate that heat into space fast enough.
But it's critical maybe 150 years *after* climate change wi
Re: (Score:2)
"He's likely referring to the fact that heat output per human has been rising since the 1600s. At the current rate, that heat output increase at the rate since the 1600s would heat the planet enough to boil water on the surface within the next 500 years *independent* of CO2 caused global warming."
Ah, I see.... like the people that were extrapolating early 20 century birthrates and calculated that by year 3000 the mass of humans will be heavier than Earth....
So much insight, so much brains....I am amazed!
Re: (Score:1)
Energy output per human has been increasing about 3% per year for roughly 400 years now. I'd call 400 years "a trend".
And it's valid to point out that the trend will be critical in *under* 500 years.
Unlimited "free" fusion energy and even to some extent, captured solar and wind energy *turn to heat* and the earth has a total heat budget it can radiate.
Use your brain. Think. You sound like you turned it off long ago.
Re: (Score:2)
no one wants to live off grid we don't need to, we can be energy self-sufficient and the grid would be local and used for load balancing
what a bunch of classist trolls selling out to the rich and powerful
Re:Cool (Score:4, Informative)
Nuclear power isn't a solution because it still produces heat and energy and lots of it.
Did you make a mistake here? Producing lots of energy is the point of a grid power plant and heat is generally considered a useful byproduct.
The problem is scale, if we had built that many reactors, we would still be facing the same problem at some point
Indeed, what would be the point of merely delaying global warming until we've already invented power-dense batteries, carbon sequestration, and likely even fusion power? Totally pointless!
and we would have lots of radioactive waste and byproducts, not to mention accidents.
Yes instead of having all that nuclear waste coming from the nuclear industry where it gets handled carefully and meticulously stored away forever, we get nuclear waste from the fossil fuel industry, where it goes through a sketchy shadow nuclear waste industry [desmog.com] that does things like spreading it on public roads. [grist.org] So much safer!
As for accidents, well have a look here:
https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]
The real reason however, is in centralization and market monopolization. Big Energy would continue to control the nuclear power industry and use it to dictate to us and overcharge us just as they are doing now.
Better to be overcharged even more severely by the fossil fuel industry I guess?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Not to mention transmission and distribution losses which are substantial
Not as substantial as the losses from replicating the same infrastructure over and over again on a smaller scale, which is why power companies choose a sprawling transmission and distribution system over a decentralized grid of miniature power plants. It's more efficient overall.
that is unless you want to live next to one.
There are two nuclear power plants I could reach with under 1/2hr of driving. They haven't inconvenienced me in the slightest. They provide relatively clean and highly reliable electricity in fact, and some very desirable jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
waste heat which is cooking our planet is useful? heat is energy, the more energy, the hotter the planet, obviously we need to move to a low energy more efficient economy before we cook our own goose
denial is obvious and unmistakable
Re: (Score:2)
Waste heat's not cooking the planet, the greenhouse effect and solar heat are cooking the planet. Waste heat from human activity makes an almost incalculably small and totally negligible contribution.
Re: (Score:2)
nice, a new foe
Re: (Score:2)
thankfully most of us aren't as glib about nuclear power as you are
so thankfully, there's no worry about the proliferation of nuclear reactors, we just aren't that stupid
Waste heat is not the problem [Re:Cool] (Score:5, Insightful)
Would have been a good idea to ... do something effective in the 1980's. (No, that is not nuclear. That one has made the problem _worse_.
Explain how nuclear power, which produces energy over long periods using machines built from mined materials just like renewables, would not have been a solution.
Nuclear power isn't a solution because it still produces heat and energy and lots of it.
That's based on a fundamental misconception about the nature of the problem. Waste heat from energy generation is not the problem; waste heat is very very small compared to the greenhouse effect. The basic reason is that greenhouse effect due to carbon dioxide is cumulative, and lasts for >100 years, while waste heat is only heating while you're generating power; it is not cumulative.
Maybe sometime in the distant future, when humans use power in energy levels measured in petawatts instead of terawatts, but not now. (For reference, the current heating due to anthropogenic greenhouse effect is 1.3 petawatts. The world energy use is 17 terawatts.)
Some of your other reasons to not like nuclear power may be reasonable (although you'll find people here to argue), but no, it really hasn't "made the problem worse".
Re: (Score:2)
you misunderstand obviously how much energy we produce and the greenhouse effect is not the only factor but hey, whetever you need to feel better about it
Re: (Score:2)
you misunderstand obviously how much energy we produce and the greenhouse effect is not the only factor but hey, whetever you need to feel better about it
Greenhouse effect due to emission of carbon dioxide is cumulative. Waste heat is temporary.
It's as simple as that.
Re: (Score:1)
390000000000 watts of heat per year
that's a lot of energy on top of the greenhouse effect of course,
basic physics, conservation of energy, the more energy in a system, the higher the temperature
https://world-nuclear.org/info... [world-nuclear.org]
just to be clear, I consider it irresponsible to advocate for nuclear power.
Re: (Score:3)
390 000 000 000 watts of heat per year
First, "watts" is the unit for power, you probably mean "watt-hours" which is for energy, so I'm assuming you're claiming humans produce 390 GWh annually.
Second, humans actually produce around 172,000,000 GWh annually, all of which is ultimately converted to heat.
Third, the sun is hitting us with about 1,515,480,000,000 GWh annually, nearly 9000x more than our total energy use. Even if our entire energy production was nuclear, just 0.1% of the sun's energy trapped by greenhouse gases would still far outweig
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I don't, it's not watt hours that's the watts 'used' per year which translates directly into watts of heat energy but you and I know that's not the point, the point is that energy has to go somewhere and it is cumulative and too much heat is a real problem, the real problems however are greed, irresponsibility and denial
complicit people like you are our real problem
Re: (Score:2)
it's not watt hours that's the watts 'used' per year
In fact a watt-hour is a watt used for an hour. "Watts per year" is meaningless because watts are a zero-time measurement. A watt used for a year would be more commonly written as 8760 watt-hours.
the point is that energy has to go somewhere and it is cumulative and too much heat is a real problem
Everyone agrees about this. We're pointing out that waste heat from nuclear generation (which is roughly the same as waste heat from fossil fuel generation) is insignificant compared to the heat trapped by greenhouse gases.
Most consider solar & wind to be the most practical form of generation in most cases, but
Re: (Score:2)
no problem and look how far you'll go to be insulting and dismissive in your arrogance
you still don't understand so who's the stupid one in the room
not to mention being abusive and doing so in public
Re: (Score:2)
You're probably right in that it'd be usable power produced (a little more than used), though it's 172 PWh, not GWh. And considering around 80% of generation is thermal, actual heat production is likely 3x that.
Which is still miniscule compared to insolation. Even the planet's own heat radiation is greater.
Re: (Score:2)
Waste heat will pose a problem that is every bit as serious as global warming from greenhouse gases ~ https://aeon.co/essays/theres-... [aeon.co]
Distant future [Re:Waste heat is not the problem] (Score:2)
Waste heat will pose a problem that is every bit as serious as global warming from greenhouse gases ~ https://aeon.co/essays/theres-... [aeon.co]
Interesting link. It says essentially exactly what I said. Quoting the key sentence, he wrote:
what I said was "Maybe sometime in the distant future, when humans use power in energy levels measured in petawatts instead of terawatts", and what he says boils down to "let's look at the distant future when human
Re: (Score:2)
and yes, nuclear power has made the global warming problem worse and it's introduced a bunch of new problems, Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three mile island, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
nuclear power is a dead horse
Re: (Score:2)
and yes, nuclear power has made the global warming problem worse
The site you link does not support that and has nothing to do with that. .
I'd say "citation needed", but "that it not correct" is going to be the answer. Read my post above for the discussion.
and it's introduced a bunch of new problems, Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three mile island, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
nuclear power is a dead horse
That is a different argument that has nothing to do with the discussion of waste heat. Go argue with a nuclear proponent.
Re: (Score:2)
actually, if you had followed the thread, you'd see the relevance.
It's relevant because waste heat is one of the main reasons nuclear power can't be a solution to global warming.
really getting tired of complicit people grasp at the straws of self-justification
Re: (Score:2)
It's relevant because waste heat is one of the main reasons nuclear power can't be a solution to global warming.
And that is specifically the point that I am calling out as being untrue. Waste heat does not make a significant contribution to global warming.
I'm sorry, if you can't deal with numbers, I don't have any different way to explain it.
really getting tired of complicit people grasp at the straws of self-justification
I don't even know what that means. Complicit in what? Trying to correct bad science?
Re: (Score:2)
more lies, you haven't provided any real reasons or references, what a troll
people like you are the problem, ya, complicit in an unethical economy and unable to admit it, probably can't even be honest with yourself
what i see is denial and self-justification, not to mention how abusive you are
typical classist pseudo-conservatives, just saying
Re: (Score:2)
more lies, you haven't provided any real reasons or references, what a troll
The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion that nuclear can't solve the problem because of waster heat. That was gweihir (... and you). Ask him to cite reasons and references.
I gave numbers showing that waste heat is orders of magnitude too low to contribute to global warming, which apparently wasn't good enough for you. But, if you want a citation, it is the reference you gave, which stated:
Re: (Score:2)
no the burden of proof is on each person, i don't need to prove the obvious nor do i need to prove your either deliberately lying and you are completely uninformed and ignorant of the real facts of the matter
like I said complicit people deep in denial
Re: (Score:2)
real science requires critical reasoning and self-honesty
Re: (Score:3)
The Earth receives on the order of 173,000 Terawatts of solar energy continually. That's roughly 500,000x the total nuclear power generating capacity in the entire world. I'd say that's like comparing a firecracker to a stick of dynamite, but it's more like comparing a firecracker to a case of dynamite.
Re: (Score:2)
sigh, we can't diminish the solar influx much but we can add to the problem by generating hugh amounts of waste heats and lots of radioactivity
go ahead, advocate for BIg Energy and a polluted planet
Re: (Score:2)
We are going to "generate radioactivity"? Generate? Did you just type that for real? Humans are "generating" radioactivity as much as cows are "generating" methane.
Listen pal, the energy released by radioactive decay by all the radioactive elements in Earths crust is what keeps the core molten. Which means, among other things that geothermal is nuclear energy. And the molten spinning core creates the electromagnetic radiation SHIELDING without which life will be quite hard...
We are not generating anything,
Re: (Score:2)
but you can insulting and ignore the facts
i know a troll and I know a corrupt and evil, exploitative and classist industry when I see one
people like you are selling us out, shame on you buddy
Re: (Score:2)
yup, yet another foolish foe
Re: (Score:2)
We *can* affect how long that energy from the sun spends in the troposphere. That's the mechanism of anthropogenic carbon warming, and to put the scale in perspective, it adds the heat equivalent to the troposphere equivalent to detonating over 200 million atomic bombs per year.
The thermal effects of nuclear reactors is tiny in comparison. What's more that energy, like all thermal energy, ends up radiated into space. The CO2 you add to the atmosphere stays there for centuries.
You should also count that
Re: (Score:2)
Waste heat: the dominating root cause of current global warming ~ https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/... [harvard.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for citing a source. Too many on this site don't bother (and get dismissed as baseless ranting).
That said, your citation (better link [springeropen.com]) is an unreviewed opinion piece prepared by the author "at home, in his spare time", and is purely speculative. He even admits that our waste heat is a tiny fraction of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases, but claims that doesn't matter.
Flanner 2009 [wiley.com] calculates that human energy production averages out to 0.028 watts per square metre, globally. Compare this to the 2
Re: (Score:2)
With all due respect, I hardly think any of that invalidates the data or the conclusions.
https://energyeducation.ca/enc... [energyeducation.ca] ~ https://energyeducation.ca/enc... [energyeducation.ca]
https://environmentalsystemsre... [springeropen.com]
The quirky thing about waste heat is that even though it’s small now, if we were to go completely nuclear and at the same time continue the rapacious rate at which we use more power — which goes up about two percent per year — in a century or three the amount of waste heat we’re producing could h
Re: (Score:2)
Yes we know what waste heat is, and that springeropen link is the one I sent to you.
Nobody's claiming waste heat is a non-issue, we're saying it's far outweighed by the hugely greater heat being trapped from greenhouse gases. That is a much bigger and more immediate problem today, not maybe centuries down the track.
I get that you're opposed to nuclear for this reason (and others), and that's fine, in most cases we don't have to use it. Are you equally opposed to fossil fuel power generation, for the same re
Re: (Score:2)
bad is bad and it doesn't matter if it's fifty, five hundred years or even five thousand, a dead planet is a dead planet
what part of it's stupid to wreck our own planet is it that you fail to understand?
greedy people can't see past their own self-interest
Re: (Score:2)
What's stupid is to focus exclusively on a minor problem while a much more major problem is wrecking your planet right under your nose. So much of our civilisation isn't particularly sustainable, but we can't fix everything immediately, so maybe we should work on the worst stuff first.
You don't seem to be reading much of what I'm saying, but that's OK. We can all do our part in different ways. Best of luck with yours.
Re: (Score:2)
no, what's stupid is to try to solve one problem by creating another that only makes the first problem worse while ignoring the consequences of unethical and irresponsible actions
evil greedy people shoving pie down your pie holes all while living in complete denial
that's what's going on here
Re: (Score:2)
the problem is people aren't really doing anything
just lying to ourselves about it|
that's why we're doomed
Re: (Score:2)
It might have been at one time, but today renewables are far more cost effective at reducing net CO2 emissions than nuclear. [www.ipcc.ch]
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Indeed. And had we actually acted sane in the 1980's, the point were renewables were massively cheaper than nuclear would have been a lot earlier as well. Oh, and incidentally, had we done more nuclear back then, it would have been even more extremely expensive because uranium prices would have risen considerably. The only thing nuclear power ever was was a mechanism to make some people filthy rich. It never had a justified place in the power-mix.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
True, I'm not contesting that.
Re: (Score:3)
It depends what you call a "solution". Nuclear is relatively complex and expensive and to scale nuclear up and have a long-term solution one would have to use breeder reactors commercially to achieve much higher fuel efficiency. Breeder programs were abandoned basically everywhere because they are even more expensive. So I do not think the anti-nuclear power movement did a lot of damage, nuclear was never really a good choice. The correct thing would have been to invest substantially in renewables much earl
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. The thing is, when you look at the history of nuclear power, what you find is that it was about the bomb for most participants and hence cost did not matter. Most people are in denial about that, but here is a modern statement from somebody that knows: https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/a... [lemonde.fr]
A lot may even just have been the potential to make the bomb (Germany and Japan, for example). Not actually doing it, but having infrastructure, expertise and materials in place with a nice pretext of generating elect
Re: (Score:2)
What am I denying? Do you think nuclear power is my fetish?
Too be expected for other reasons (Score:3)
Generally when something is growing, it's growth is limited by some factor. If the limit of a tree's growth isn't the availability of Carbon, that Carbon being more available isn't going to allow increased growth. In many forests the limiting factor seems to be the area available that's suitable for growing on. The edged are constrained, or even shrinking, so it's going to be difficult to absorb more Carbon
This just makes things worse, but they already shouldn't be expected to be improving.
(FWIW, most tree plantings for carbon removal are a waste of effort, because the seedlings are planted in unsuitable placed, and die within a couple of years. That info is less than five years old, so it's probably still true.)
Re: (Score:3)
I think the the limiting in factor in many boreal forests is moisture. When that isn't the case, such as in a rainforest, plants compete for energy as in sunlight.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the limit per unit area, but the per forest limit is highly dependent on the productive area of the forest. The thing is, forests were already pretty near the limit per area before people started trimming the edges and making them smaller.
Re: (Score:2)
There's also the need for a balanced diet. NPK are the 3 big ones, then Ca, then the micro-nutrients with Fe leading. Boost one, and only one of the big ones, including CO2, and you actually end up with weaker plants, or trees in this case.
a disturbing data point (Score:2)
That's quite a conclusion from a single data point
Re:a disturbing data point (Score:5, Insightful)
That’s what’s happening with climate change. The data is piling up, but vested interests and conservatives are saying “we demand 150 years of evidence for a phemonena that might wreck large chunks of our planet in the next 50”. It’s stupid, but not quite as hilarious.
I’ve given up on this issue. The vested interests and conservatives won this one. Take a victory lap, guys. Emissions just keep climbing and nobody with real power is taking it seriously. Whatever climate change is gonna happen from increased emissions, it’s gonna hit us like a full-speed freight train. If there are environmental tipping points ahead of us, we’re gonna blow through them at 100kph and press down on the accellerator.
We will deal with the problems long after they manifest and the damage is done. I’ve said this many times - scientists and engineers need to be working on understanding and developing geoengineering. We’re absolutely gonna need it.
Re: (Score:2)
Emissions just keep climbing and nobody with real power is taking it seriously. Whatever climate change is gonna happen from increased emissions, it’s gonna hit us like a full-speed freight train. If there are environmental tipping points ahead of us, we’re gonna blow through them at 100kph and press down on the accellerator.
Yes, pretty much. The human race has proven itself time and again unfit to select leaders. But what is happening with climate change must be the most extreme example by now. Voting bread & games until no bread and no games are left. Immature and pathetic.
We will deal with the problems long after they manifest and the damage is done. I’ve said this many times - scientists and engineers need to be working on understanding and developing geoengineering. We’re absolutely gonna need it.
That is assuming the human race survives. We are slowly coming into regions where that is not assured anymore. Just a few more yet undiscovered accelerators will do it nicely, as will not doing anything effective for the next few decades. And it looks l
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to be blaming "conservatives" - just to state the obvious: a real conservative wants to conserve everything that is valuable (particularly moral values, but also the environment). So do you - why alienate potential allies on this. Conservative =/= wild capitalist.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you'd almost think their thinking was influenced by a vast and overwhelming set of data points which you've never heard of (but which many others here seemingly have).
Go learn. We'll wait.
Living biomass is a very limited sink (Score:5, Insightful)
A tree holds carbon until it dies and rots (or burns).
We've been taking oil from deep underground where it was unlikely to escape naturally during the remainder of the planet's habitable period and releasing all its carbon into the atmosphere. Planting trees was never going to solve that issue, they were already holding as much carbon as they could.
Natural geological sequestration is far too slow a process, so we need to green our power production and build excess capacity for artificial sequestration once we have the extra power to do so without burning oil to make up an energy production shortfall. There is no other path to stopping the ongoing increase in atmospheric CO2 and all the environmental consequences of that increase.
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't true. A mature forest sequesters more carbon than a young growing one. In fact immature forests can release CO2. As you say trees die and rot, and most of their CO2 is released. But that CO2 will be captured by new growth and they leave behind some CO2 as soil. The soil can grow and increase year on year. That is the carbon sink not just the biomass.
Trees are not the only solution. Peat bogs, marine sea grasses and phtyoplankton can take up far more CO2 than trees in many parts of the world. We n
Re: (Score:2)
Burning trees to create land for farming cattle not only releases that CO2, it means there are fewer trees to store it again.
Also tress don't always emit 100% of the CO2 they capture, it depends what happens to them. They can be buried or become parts of other living things after death.
They aren't a solution, but having fewer of them is making things worse.
Re: (Score:2)
To be more detailed... Before humanity, sequestration proceeded in a fairly tight dynamic balance with CO2 production.
While fewer trees is worse, more trees were never a solution to the extra CO2 released by human activities. Certainly not on human timescales.
Re: (Score:2)
Or you can just bury the wood and set fire to it underground, to produce biochar. Done well, it is an established method for improving soils and, as you say, also sequesters CO2.
the end is nigh (Score:1)
The end is nigh; contribute to my campaign now while you still can.
The planet is not in trouble (Score:3)
It will spin merrily around the sun for a few billion more years to come.
It did just fime for almost five billion without us. We might barely make a (plastic) footnote in its history.
Olympics and Climate Change (Score:2, Interesting)
And then, when the news cycle shifts from the Olympics, talk about things to do to reduce climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
new growth trees required (Score:2)
We're in the mode of protecting old trees. Problem is that old trees don't absorb much carbon dioxide, enough to build new leaves or needles etc but that's a fraction of what it takes to build a whole tree.
We need new growth. New trees planted. Promotion of the use of wood products for building and responsible forestry that takes the stored carbon trees and turns them into homes and plants new co2 absorbing trees in place.
Re: (Score:2)
We're in the mode of protecting old trees. Problem is that old trees don't absorb much carbon dioxide, enough to build new leaves or needles etc but that's a fraction of what it takes to build a whole tree.
This is nonsense. It's been studied again and again and the vast majority of tree species fix more carbon when they are older. This is because all growth occurs in a thin layer under the bark called the cambium which is bigger in older trees, and because older trees have more leaf area to drive photosynthesis, and older trees have deeper roots so they can reach more water which is also necessary for photosynthesis.
Betteridge's Law of Headlines (Score:3)
Are Earth's Forests Losing Their Ability to Absorb Carbon Dioxide?
No. We're losing the forests. An important difference.
Restoring the forests would be a good step, among others.
Re: (Score:2)
Forests are OK. The Earth is greening. Higher temperatures and more CO2 in the air. Basic biology.
The game you play is clear, pals. Moving goalposts....
What forests? (Score:2)
i call this story bullshit (Score:2)
WaPo is propaganda (Score:1)
I'm glad you asked. The answer is no. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I haven't read the study,
Perhaps you should before opening your mouth.
Re:BS (Score:4)
The headline does not reflect the content. The headline of the actual study is "Low latency carbon budget analysis reveals a large decline of the land carbon sink in 2023" and it seems to be pointing out that forest fires are turning some forests into net CO2 emitters. The headline on this /. article implies that some process is inhibiting the ability of trees to consume CO2.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, boost the CO2 without boosting other things like nitrogen (in a bio-available form) and plants including trees get sickly.
But yes, the amount of CO2 emitted by the forest fires here in BC and other parts of Canada is huge, and not counted as part of our countries CO2 emissions. Eventually new forests will grow and absorb the CO2. Can take a long time up north and even where I live in the rain forest, the stumps from a 100 years ago are much larger then the current trees, which are dying from heat stre