User Controls
Trees and land absorbed almost no CO2 last year. Is nature’s carbon sink failing? | The sudden collapse of carbon sinks was not factored into climate models – and could rapidly accelerate global heating
-
2024-10-14 at 3:58 PM UTCTrees and land absorbed almost no CO2 last year. Is nature’s carbon sink failing? | The sudden collapse of carbon sinks was not factored into climate models – and could rapidly accelerate global heating
But as the Earth heats up, scientists are increasingly concerned that those crucial processes are breaking down.
In 2023, the hottest year ever recorded, preliminary findings 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.
There are warning signs at sea, too. Greenland’s glaciers and Arctic ice sheets are melting faster than expected, which is disrupting the Gulf Stream ocean current and slows the rate at which oceans absorb carbon. -
2024-10-14 at 4 PM UTC"Trees and land absorbed almost no CO2 last year. "
You have to be extra re-re to even consider this bullshit as a possibilityThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2024-10-14 at 4:59 PM UTCstop cutting down all the trees and land!
-
2024-10-14 at 7:14 PM UTCThe climate cult nuts will come up with the most obvious bullshit and then expect you to just take their word for their obvious bullshit. They literally have IQs on par with a tree stump or a bag of rocks.
-
2024-10-14 at 8:03 PM UTC
-
2024-10-14 at 8:27 PM UTCits the cem trails,, it gets on everything and stops it from growing well, slow growth slow co2 absorbing.
they want us to have to buy the food they grow or have to use the seeds they have ownership of that just happen to thrive in this asidic dirt they made by spraying the crap they spray on us for the last 35 years -
2024-10-14 at 8:49 PM UTCOP is a faggot who makes 32 of the same thread in a row and then sucks lanny’s tranny penis every night so he doesn’t get banned for thread spam.
Also OP please stop sending me dog porn in pms it’s fucking disgusting. -
2024-10-14 at 8:56 PM UTC
Originally posted by the man who put it in my hood
Originally posted by the man who put it in my hood
Originally posted by the man who put it in my hood
Originally posted by the man who put it in my hood
Originally posted by the man who put it in my hood
Originally posted by the man who put it in my hood [img]https://64.media.tumblr.com/16ff4669cc0750210c1eb5c975fb5958/tumblr_nj75y6ui4A1s2wio8o1_500.gif[/img]
-
2024-10-14 at 11:17 PM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ The climate cult nuts will come up with the most obvious bullshit and then expect you to just take their word for their obvious bullshit. They literally have IQs on par with a tree stump or a bag of rocks.
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson "Trees and land absorbed almost no CO2 last year. "
You have to be extra re-re to even consider this bullshit as a possibility
it literally explains it
"None of these models have factored in losses such as the wildfires in Canada last year that amounted to six months of US fossil emissions"
do you know what the word Net means in this context?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2024-10-14 at 11:25 PM UTCpreliminary
-
2024-10-14 at 11:35 PM UTCAll their "sources" are worthless - without a shred of credibility. Just follow the money to discover this for yourself. And "models" have nothing at all to do with reality, and are worth less than the useless bags of shit and frauds who are spewing them out. Claims without evidence are nothing more than pseudoscience.
-
2024-10-15 at 12:53 AM UTCttree
-
2024-10-15 at 3:38 AM UTCPoodoughscience
-
2024-10-15 at 5:52 AM UTC
Originally posted by Charles Ex Machina preliminary
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ All their "sources" are worthless
"CO2 has nothing whatsoever to do with climate.
Besides there might not actually be as much CO2 being emitted as evidence suggests."
Which is it? If CO2 doesn't matter why are you guys constantly trying to say less CO2 has been emitted than claimed? -
2024-10-15 at 12:17 PM UTCthe trees absorbed less or there are less trees or both
-
2024-10-15 at 12:53 PM UTC
Originally posted by xy0 do you know what the word Net means in this context?
"Trees and land absorbed almost no CO2 last year. "
Show me where that COMPLETED sentence says NET...I'll wait.
It's not even an accurate statement even if you INCLUDE NET...the trees and land absorbed the usual amount.
Comprehension and effective communication...get some.
-
2024-10-15 at 12:58 PM UTCLet me dumb it down for you.
A sponge absorbs 40g of water
The sun comes out and the sponge heats up and 39g of water evaporates.
The net result is 1g of water is held by the sponge.
...however the sponge STILL absorbed 40g of water...
If you're trying to play scientist you need to be EXACT with the facts. -
2024-10-15 at 4:24 PM UTC
Originally posted by 🦄🌈 MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING - vaxxed and octoboosted 💉 (we beat covid!) 👬💕👭🍀 (🍩✊) "CO2 has nothing whatsoever to do with climate.
Besides there might not actually be as much CO2 being emitted as evidence suggests."
Which is it? If CO2 doesn't matter why are you guys constantly trying to say less CO2 has been emitted than claimed?
irregardless its just a prelim findings. -
2024-10-15 at 4:25 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson Let me dumb it down for you.
A sponge absorbs 40g of water
The sun comes out and the sponge heats up and 39g of water evaporates.
The net result is 1g of water is held by the sponge.
…however the sponge STILL absorbed 40g of water…
If you're trying to play scientist you need to be EXACT with the facts.
true scientists dont concern themselves with facts.
lol u don know science. -
2024-10-15 at 4:37 PM UTC
