<i>“When they get warmer than average, forests in the tropics do not like it, and overall they tend to put more CO2 into the atmosphere than they take out,” says study co-author Pep Canadell, executive officer of the Global Carbon Project.</i><p>This particular statement strikes me as spin; if forests were producing more CO2 than they were consuming then by the necessities of chemistry the plants would start to die due to lack of sustenance (sugars, including cellulose, which are made from CO2 and photosynthesis).<p>Either the forest gets to a homeostasis, it start to expand, or it dies back vis a vis the partial derivative of impact of CO2 levels. If indeed the CO2 levels being produced are more than consumption then where are the plants getting their energy from? And don't say animals, because if that was the case then the animals would have to be eating more and more of the forests. The only case I can see is wide scale felling, but then wide scale felling is not a case of plants producing more CO2.<p>CO2 levels are a problem, but this short description of this report seems to be muddying the waters not making them more clear.
Possibly on the plus side, increasing concentration of CO2 may be encouraging the growth of vegetation in previously bare regions.<p>"Satellite observations reveal a greening of the globe over recent decades. The role in this greening of the “CO2 fertilization” effect—the enhancement of photosynthesis due to rising CO2 levels—is yet to be established. The direct CO2 effect on vegetation should be most clearly expressed in warm, arid environments where water is the dominant limit to vegetation growth. Using gas exchange theory, we predict that the 14% increase in atmospheric CO2 (1982–2010) led to a 5 to 10% increase in green foliage cover in warm, arid environments. Satellite observations, analyzed to remove the effect of variations in precipitation, show that cover across these environments has increased by 11%. Our results confirm that the anticipated CO2 fertilization effect is occurring alongside ongoing anthropogenic perturbations to the carbon cycle and that the fertilization effect is now a significant land surface process."<p><a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/abstract" rel="nofollow">http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50563/abstrac...</a>
One of the biggest problem humanity currently has in general is that morality only kicks-in in most people when there is a very direct link between their actions and some negative consequences. Once there is enough degrees of separation and abstraction nobody cares anymore. Most people would not slaughter an animal without really having to do it, but once it becomes a cheeseburger or a fur clothing nobody gives it a second thought. The problem is that the world of human affairs is getting more and more abstract as we specialize more and more and develop more complex technology, so more and more things get affected by this.<p>It is especially sad given that sometimes sacrificing a small convenience for one person would be able to make a huge change in somebody else's life. But again, once there are enough degrees of separation, we do not feel "in position" to help and we do not view it as our problem to do it.
I call BS on this article.<p>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"<p>Ocean plankton is by far the most important place for carbon sequestration.
Umm.. nature's goal is not to sustain human life. It's our goal. If we screw up the planet, we literally will be screwing ourselves. Earth doesn't need us. It will reset in few million years by earthquakes and volcanoes and go again for better life.
<i>"The biggest thing nature did to fight climate change..."</i><p>...has always been the absorption of CO2 in the rocks of the Earth's crust. Or hasn't it? Well, <i>this</i> process is still working, but it won't be working for long, since there's almost no CO2 to absorb anymore.
There is no global warming. Period.
Humans are not geological force. Period.<p>living organisms mass= 6,57×10^18g
humanity mass = 2,27×10^14g
total biosphere mass = 5,2×10^25g<p>Humans are not geological factor, I am afraid.<p>Globally plants and CO2 concentrations are in homeostatic relationship. Forest ecosystems of the temperate zone are very (very-very) resilient to average temperature changes.<p>What you really have to be afraid of is the new Ice Age. It happens regularly and suddenly.
The simplest observation is that the Mauna Loa data series for atmospheric CO2 has been very consistent and shows a steeper curve over time. That simply must be net-net all of the environmental changes going on around the world. Really based on that data set no one should have ever hoped that "the plants could keep up," because they never have. That is not in the record.<p>As an aside, and for the HN audience, boy ... "long read" pages that require the mouse to be mid screen for the scroll wheel to work are really pretty annoying.
Did volcanoes stopped everywhere?
This is single most inadequate topic in my news feed today.
Climate is always changing. And it is the Sun and the Earth's core which are the most powerful drivers of it.
Did the Sun stopped shining?
Seems we're creating conditions to revert things to before the tipping point was reached - what it looks like before the tipping point, I'm sure someone has a more educated guess than not..
One thousand years ago there were farms in Greenland. Just two hundred years ago there was Little Ace Age and river Thames would freeze every winter. Single vulcano explosion releases more CO2 than entire mankind in a decade.<p>Yet somehow it is 110% sure that our CO2 emissions are responsible for global warming. It is even crime to disagree with scientific hypotheses. And governments will happily `solve` this problem by taking away our rights.
F*k this.<p>We should be solving other problems than cow farts; Urbanization, slums, fusion, wealth distribution...
You can pay to All Gore and others to have a false, but good feelings. It's just another propaganda to get You under control... Free society is "no good" for some people.<p>Hey, check this out:<a href="http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/07aug_southpole/" rel="nofollow">http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/07...</a><p>And send All Gore there to introduce Global Climate Tax for Mars!