SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Plants temporarily halted the acceleration of rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, new research suggests.
From 2002 through 2014, CO2 levels measured over the oceans climbed from around 372 parts per million to 397 parts per million. But the average rate of that rise remained steady despite increasing carbon emissions from human activities, researchers report online November 8 in Nature Communications. After pouring over climate measurements and simulations, the researchers attribute this steadying to changes in the relative amount of CO2 absorbed and released by plants.
The work is the first to clearly demonstrate that plants can affect the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 over long time periods, says study coauthor Trevor Keenan, an earth systems scientist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. Still, human emissions remain the dominant driver of CO2 levels, he says. "If we keep emitting as much as we are, and what we emit keeps going up, then it won't matter very much what the plants do."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 13 2016, @12:31AM
We already KNEW that plants absorb CO2. We can conclude that healthy plant life will absorb a lot of CO2, and unhealthy plant life will not. More, it's easy to conclude from already known and pretty obvious facts that REFORESTATION would go a long, long, LONG way toward wiping CO2 out of the atmosphere.
So - they've rediscovered something that is obvious, and they are using the obvious to explain why CO2 hasn't rised at predicted rates?
How about this: They don't know what's going on, and most of their predictions are just educated guesses. Everytime a guess proves to be inaccurate, they are left grasping at straws to explain WHY.
Let's plant trees, people. Let's plant grasses and bushes. Reforest the Sahara, and billions of plants will work round the clock to clean our air. All we need are a few nuke plants to generate electricity to purify seawater, then pump that seawater into the interior of the continent.
Of course, the next alarmist prediction would be the sinking of Africa, due to all the weight of the added vegetation . . .
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13 2016, @01:03AM
ISTM that life is incredibly opportunistic and, if forests -could- grow in the "empty" places, that would already be happening.
If I was to hazard a guess, I'd say that the limiting factor in most places is availability of fresh water.
...and can the planting even keep up with the burning of rainforests in e.g. Indonesia and Brazil?
On a related note, I've wondered why planting (salt-tolerant) mangroves isn't pursued everywhere there is "bare" coast.
...and how badly that would screw up the -existing- ecosystem.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 13 2016, @01:29AM
Mangroves? i've read a number of articles over the years, bemoaning the disappearance of mangrove swamplands along the coasts. Seesm that the lack of mangroves has made the death tolls from tsunamis higher than they would have been in the past.
But, I think that man tends to cut down the mangroves, because they harbor "icky" things, like snakes, mosquitos, sharks, and much much more. Gotta cut down those trees, to make room for sparkling beaches and high rise condominiums.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13 2016, @01:35AM
We already KNEW that plants absorb CO2. We can conclude that healthy plant life will absorb a lot of CO2, and unhealthy plant life will not. More, it's easy to conclude from already known and pretty obvious facts that REFORESTATION would go a long, long, LONG way toward wiping CO2 out of the atmosphere.
Two things, however, remain unknown. One, who is this "we" that Runaway keeps referring to? Two, how far is a long, LONG way and would it make even the slightest dent in the amount of CO2 that humans pump into the atmosphere? Since
How about this: I don't know what's going on, and most of my conclusions are just uneducated guesses. Everytime a guess proves to be inaccurate, I are left grasping at straws to explain WHY to all those people who no longer pay any attention to me.
That whole Nuke/desalination thing will just have to wait a bit longer. Perhaps you could plant a tree? Oh, but then there is this:
Let's plant people, trees!. Let's plant Clintons and Bushes, and reap the Trump!.
Sorry for the misquotes. I think it was an excess of Greenhouse Gases and the totally expected quality of the comment. But at least now you have some straw in the form of a nice strawman!
(Score: 1) by butthurt on Sunday November 13 2016, @04:59PM
Runaway1956> We already KNEW that plants absorb CO2.
Anonymous Coward> One, who is this "we" that Runaway keeps referring to?
In the Wichita Falls (Texas) Independent School District, the topic is taught to fifth-grade students.
http://www.wfisd.net/cms/lib/TX01000557/Centricity/Domain/2582/5_Sc_Unit09_L4_Carbon_Dioxide_Oxygen_Cycle.pdf [wfisd.net]
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday November 13 2016, @03:04AM
Actually....
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth [nasa.gov]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday November 13 2016, @04:22AM
Or just wait. It only takes a few degrees increase in global temperature to do it naturally, it's happened many times in the past.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Sahara
Anyway, yes, we know that plants absorb CO2 for a very long time, and we also know that many plants actually grow more quickly when exposed to more CO2. Knowing that these are facts is different from being able to properly quantify the effects and work out the math to the point where you can predict what's actually going to happen, though, so hopefully this research will produce some usable information.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Sunday November 13 2016, @08:53AM
Waiting is rather irresponsible when the Sahara is expanding, largely due to destructive agricultural practices. Starting on a plan of reforestation with both passive (air wells, gabions, wind abatement etc.) and active systems (desalination, importing organic material etc.) is the quickest, smartest, and best thing we could do. Other deserts are even easier because most of them aren't full of sand. The middle east could be the paradise it was a couple thousand years ago if there was a large concerted effort to restore and preserve the environment in the right balance.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Sunday November 13 2016, @04:26AM
Wouldn't bamboo be best? Grows a lot faster and would replace a lot demand for trees.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13 2016, @10:04AM
That would be nice for the short term... but have you ever planted bamboo in your garden... I guess not, else you would know that it would become an invasive species. Bamboo is hard to get rid of afterwards.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 13 2016, @07:19PM
Bamboo, hemp, uhhhh - what's that other plant they make paper from - dang it, there's a plantation not far from me, and I can't remember what the plant is. It's very much like bamboo.
Not papyrus, I believe that requires a very wet environment, but that would work if we pumped enough water into the desert. It's very much like bamboo.
Anything green growing on the Saharan desert would be good for the absorption of carbon. Anything at all, even lichens and mosses. The bigger and denser the better, so we would like trees, but even grasses are good. All they need is water, and some seed.
(just a note that bamboo is a grass, not sure that everyone here knows that)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13 2016, @06:51AM
They don't know what's going on, and most of their predictions are just educated guesses. Everytime a guess proves to be inaccurate, they are left grasping at straws to explain WHY.
You must spend all your time on facebook because your analysis is totally on the level of facebook fake-news.
"They" have a pretty good idea of what's going on, predictions have been pretty accurate, probably too conservative. When new information is discovered that's used to refine their understanding because science. Just because their understanding is imperfect doesn't make it wrong. If it did then every single thing you have ever said would be wrong. Oh, wait...
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 13 2016, @07:21PM
"predictions have been pretty accurate"
Oh, that's right - the hocky puck chart. Yeah, to bad that New York city is now under six feet of water. Lucky for the natives that their dwellings were built more than six feet high.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13 2016, @10:09AM
Let's plant trees, people. Let's plant grasses and bushes. Reforest the Sahara, and billions of plants will work round the clock to clean our air. All we need are a few nuke plants to generate electricity to purify seawater, then pump that seawater into the interior of the continent.
As plant biologist, the best solution I have heard so far is digging trenches: https://justdiggit.org/ [justdiggit.org]
The solution is low cost, low maintenance, uses natural sources (sun and wind for energy and hooks into the earths water cycle) and nature can heal itself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 13 2016, @04:50PM
All we need are a few nuke plants to generate electricity to purify seawater, then pump that seawater into the interior of the continent.
Are you 10? Do the damn calculation first before making shit up. Or just read up about Sahara. It's been doing nothing but expanding over the last 2000 years.
It would go a long way if Brazil wasn't about to make 2nd Sahara in South America through deforestation (yes, trees are what causes rain the the rain forest) but whatever.
Of course, the next alarmist prediction would be the sinking of Africa, due to all the weight of the added vegetation . . .
Oh, sorry, just an idiot. And I thought you were just immature.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 13 2016, @07:30PM
Apparently, you're not even ten years old. The Sahara is almost all man made. We did that. We cut the trees down, we used extremely poor farming practices, we over grazed the land with sheeps and goats. Man did all of that. Just as man has begun to destroy the desert in Arizona with crap farming practices. Arizona is a desert, but it is a very fertile land. Add a bit of water, and anything grows.
We saw how fertile the land was, and we couldn't wait to start cutting it open with plows. What moisture was trapped in the soil by the plant covering rapidly evaporated, and the soil pretty much died. A similar story happened in Washington and Oregon, but the farming practes were better, so the soil didn't die. (for those who don't know it, that area east of the mountains is indeed a desert)
Now - what's wrong with the nuclear plants? Build ten or twenty around the continent, all dedicated to extracting fresh water from seawater. Pump that water into the interior, where it is most needed. The Sahara won't disappear in ten or a hundred years, but we can most certainly stop it expanding.
What does ANY of that have to with your maturity level?