Trees and Land Absorbed Almost No CO2 Last Year
- Reference: 0175252399
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/10/15/008207/trees-and-land-absorbed-almost-no-co2-last-year
- Source link:
> The 2023 breakdown of the land carbon sink could be temporary: without the pressures of drought or wildfires, land would return to absorbing carbon again. But it demonstrates the fragility of these ecosystems, with massive implications for the climate crisis. Reaching net zero is impossible without nature. In the absence of technology that can remove atmospheric carbon on a large scale, the Earth's vast forests, grasslands, peat bogs and oceans are the only option for absorbing human carbon pollution, which reached a record 37.4bn tonnes in 2023.
>
> At least 118 countries are relying on the land to meet national climate targets. But rising temperatures, increased extreme weather and droughts are pushing the ecosystems into uncharted territory. The kind of rapid land sink collapse seen in 2023 has not been factored into most climate models. If it continues, it raises the prospect of rapid global heating beyond what those models have predicted.
"We're seeing cracks in the resilience of the Earth's systems. We're seeing massive cracks on land -- terrestrial ecosystems are losing their carbon store and carbon uptake capacity, but the oceans are also showing signs of instability," Johan Rockstrom, director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, told an event at New York Climate Week in September.
"Nature has so far balanced our abuse. This is coming to an end."
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/14/nature-carbon-sink-collapse-global-heating-models-emissions-targets-evidence-aoe
perhaps we can save co2 (Score:3)
without the daily fearmongering posted online, which uses my electricity to download...
not saying this isn't a thing....but fuck me - every day with the fearmongering.
Re: (Score:1)
The internet is, indeed, a substantial contributor to CO2 emissions.
Is this fear mongering? I think not, actually. Any discussion on CO2 someone will pop up and say "CO2 is plant food", as if this is a major revelation. This research also suggests that there are limits to the number of options we have for reversing this; planting more trees is not enough.
Re: (Score:3)
> The internet is, indeed, a substantial contributor to CO2 emissions.
> Is this fear mongering? I think not, actually. Any discussion on CO2 someone will pop up and say "CO2 is plant food", as if this is a major revelation. This research also suggests that there are limits to the number of options we have for reversing this; planting more trees is not enough.
Is it fearmongering when the fearmongering doesn’t come true for a period of time? How long does bullshit hang in the air? As long as gullible citizens tolerate the smell?
Some “world ending” dates expired decades ago. Shocking how still stubbornly still here no matter how bad Greed wants to prove PT Barnum right with every headline written for a sucker. Remember when it was all those Aqua Net junkies killing us with their ozone hole? I do.
Re: (Score:3)
It's at first a statement of fact. "Not much of CO2 absoption by forests, soil and oceans in 2023". This is a statement you can check for yourself.
Then there is another fact: CO2 does absorb electromagnetic waves in the near Infrared, especially between wavelengths of 13 to 17 micrometers, which corresponds to a black body of a temperature between 170 K and 220 K. The actual average temperature of Earth's surface is about 290 K, but 170 K - 220 K is the temperature range of Earth's tropopause. Basically,
Re: perhaps we can save co2 (Score:1)
If we're on a sinking ship, exactly how much panic is too much panic?
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently any panic is too much panic.
Re: (Score:2)
Accurate statements aren't fear mongering.
420 (Score:2)
Seems like an important number at the moment, 420. It does not seem like the concentration of CO2 will go below that number in my lifetime, and it seems like it could 800 ppm of CO2.
Take Note (Score:2)
Now that the problem is blowing up in our faces, take note of who's been telling you that this is a problem that needs to be dealt with for decades and who's been lying about even the existence of the problem since the beginning.
Consider carefully and in the near future, hopefully your mob will make the right choice of who to tear limb from limb.
Try reading the article (Score:2)
I'll grant you it should have put the word "net" in the title to avoid confusion, but a cursory glance at the article makes it's obvious that:
It's clearly talking about forest, plants and soil CO2 absorbtion vs forest, plants and soil output.
As in we added more CO2 last year, and plant and forrest life produced as much CO2 as it absorbed (Due to forst, plants, and soil expelling CO2 due to drought/fire/deforestation) etc.
So we add it... nothing takes it away.
I asked Claude (Score:2)
I asked Claude. I'm guessing AI will be nuclear powered so discounting it for now.
Actually, it was the most serious chat I've had with an LLM and I'm impressed.
While a DOJ page suggested that transportation and industrial use were the biggest fossil fuel using sectors, if you just ask (Claude) about CO2 emissions it was much more enlightening. And Claude creates these little "artifact" documents which is quite useful.
For one thing, coal and gas power plants overshadow everything else. If you can switch coal
Re: (Score:2)
While a DOJ page suggested that transportation and industrial use were the biggest fossil fuel using sectors, if you just ask (Claude) about CO2 emissions it was much more enlightening. And Claude creates these little "artifact" documents which is quite useful.
For one thing, coal and gas power plants overshadow everything else.
So do the overshadowing coal/gas emissions also include electricity run industry? How big a consumer of electricity is it? How would time of use pricing affect those industries?
A
Hah ok (Score:1)
"Trees and Land Absorbed Almost No CO2 Last Year" This indicates that trees didn't grow last year
Re: (Score:3)
> This indicates that trees didn't grow last year
It means there was no net growth.
Some trees grew. Others rotted or burned.
2023 was a record year for forest fires.
Exxon predicted this in 1970 (Score:3)
Exxon predicted this in 1970. Others did too. Nobody did the right thing.
Re: (Score:3)
More than that, they actively discouraged of doing the right thing.
There was political will in 1988 ... Until they created political roadblocks to force us into this path.