4 ms·
Interesting that a couple of months ago there was an article which stated the exact opposite: > In 2023, the hottest year ever recorded, preliminary findings h
by adamors 2y ago
Interesting that a couple of months ago there was an article which stated the exact opposite:
> In 2023, the hottest year ever recorded, preliminary findings https://arxiv.org/pdf/2407.12447 https://arxiv.org/pdf/2407.12447 by an international team of researchers show the amount of carbon absorbed by land has temporarily collapsed. The final result was that forest, plants and soil – as a net category – absorbed almost no carbon.
> “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 Rockström, 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,” he said.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/14/nature-carbon-sink-collapse-global-heating-models-emissions-targets-evidence-aoe https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/oct/14/nature-c...
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- carrychains 2y agoThat's not the opposite. It's different context.
- gvx 2y agoNot exactly. The headline is a bit misleading imho: the article doesn't say that CO2 uptake by plants is up by 31%, rather that new estimates of the CO2 uptake by plants is 31% higher than previous estimates. That doesn't preclude a temporary collapse of carbon absorption (related mostly to forest fires as far as I can tell).
- robertlagrant 2y ago> related mostly to forest fires as far as I can tell Just trying to parse this - does that mean "a collapse in carbon absorption" actually means "more carbon was produced for the same amount of absorption"?
- know-how 2y ago[dead]