3 ms·
I call BS on this article. Tropical forests do next to nothing for global carbon fixation - they're about as far as you can get from "the biggest thing nature
by oneandoneis2 13y ago
I call BS on this article.
Tropical forests do next to nothing for global carbon fixation - they're about as far as you can get from "the biggest thing nature did"
Ocean plankton is by far the most important place for carbon sequestration.
- StavrosK 13y agoIce caps melting -> more ocean -> more plankton -> less CO2. The problem practically fixes itself!
- jonsen 13y agoIce caps melting -> more ocean depth more ocean surface -> more plankton
- maratd 13y agoWell, technically, if the ocean level rises, you will end up with more surface.
- StavrosK 13y agoEspecially since current land mass will be turned into sea. I was joking, though.
- Gravityloss 13y agoBut the ocean absorbs a much larger portion of sunlight than the average land. Hence more energy absorbed if there's more ocean. And that leads to more heating. Maybe something like boreal forests work best. But large carbon sinks like from the carboniferous era (coal and oil deposits) can't happen anymore anyway since fungi have evolved to break down wood.
- Dewie 13y agoIsn't there a lot of land that is only a few meters above sea level (where a lot of humans like to live)? Say you have a valley and a river has been transporting down matter for a long time, forming a flat landscape at the bottom of the valley, only a few meters above sea level. If the sea rises only a few meters, this valley will be flooded easily, and there will be a lot of new surface area per cubic unit of water, in other words a lot of surface area for new plankton. A pity about the humans that probably lived in that valley, though. ;)
- jonsen 13y agoAdditional water in the oceans will not distribute evenly. Sea level will rise at some places and actually lower at other places. The net effect will probably be an increased sea surface, but it's not so easy to estimate by how much.
- ommunist 13y agoDo not underestimate the swamps. Vast swamp areas in South Poland and Belarus are the kitchen of the European weather and a huge carbon sink. THe thing is biospheric carbon is really irrelevant if you compare its mass to what volcanic activity brought and bringing. The mass of the biospere is relatively constant thing over the last 3 billion years.
- mrow84 13y agoI think the problem is that forests cycle a lot of carbon, absorbing and then releasing a lot throughout the year. If the size of that reservoir goes down (implied by the article), then there is more 'free' carbon to go elsewhere in the system.