4 ms·
This is actually not at all what the paper is saying. It's saying that a natural carbon-sequestration process we already knew about is more effective than we t
by azernik 8y ago
This is actually not at all what the paper is saying.
It's saying that a natural carbon-sequestration process we already knew about is more effective than we thought. It says nothing about the way seaweed growth changes with increased carbon levels.
- benza 8y agoHy
- mistercow 8y agoIn other words, it sounds like the above commenter is suggesting that seaweed might unexpectedly save us. But the actual point is almost the opposite: this means we’ve been relying on something all along that we didn’t know we needed to protect.
- azernik 8y agoI hadn't thought about it that way! Although I'm actually not sure in which direction it changes their priors - I'm not sure if this adds to the negative-carbon side of the scales in models taking this into account, or if this was already factored into some kind of separate measurement of total natural carbon sequestration and so the loss of seaweed now adds a bigger positive-carbon term.