Trees respire. They breath in and out. At night time, many trees emit more CO2.
And trees don't exist in isolation as these napkin calculation articles consider them (spherical cows and all that). Every single tree on earth relies on mycorrhizal fungi for the vast majority of its nutrients. Fungi break things down release CO2.
Most of our oxygen comes not from forest but from oceans (specifically from phytoplankton, algae, and photosynthetic bacteria). Between 50-80% of it in fact. Likewise, most of the CO2 that has been captured has been captured by the ocean not by forests. About 25-30% of all human emissions have been captured by the ocean.
Forests (and grasslands) are tremendously important for ecosystems and our health but I think this focus on CO2 and oxygen is simply misleading. If that's your concern you should really be focusing on the ocean. Which IMO is in an even more dire strait than our forests
ninefathom 7 minutes ago [-]
The BBC did this in their 2012 documentary mini-series "How to Grow a Planet" with Iain Stewart. It was a lovely series; I highly recommend it.
JTbane 13 minutes ago [-]
Sadly I am a bit hopeless about climate change. Even if every person on earth dropped everything and started making biochar to be buried it would not sequester enough carbon to make a difference.
michaelfm1211 30 minutes ago [-]
How is it that 132.5 watts is 3 light bulbs but 918 watts is 765 light bulbs? Is there a typo?
tantalor 22 minutes ago [-]
> Real plants do photosynthesis through a physical process
(nit) it is more accurate to call this a biological process, or chemical process
Saying "physical process" makes me think of inclined planes, free-body diagrams, and EM fields.
roughly 16 minutes ago [-]
It's all physics at the bottom. Nature doesn't have APIs.
lrem 35 minutes ago [-]
That one final number is all one needs as a reply for "but they help a little".
yjftsjthsd-h 28 minutes ago [-]
Bamboo it is.
metalman 28 minutes ago [-]
no, we are useing solar PV to eliminate the excess carbon bieng added to the atmosphere, and plants, rocks, and many other natural processes will return CO² levels to a more moderate level.
pfdietz 24 minutes ago [-]
Getting CO2 back to preindustrial levels by natural processes may take 100,000 years, IIRC. There will be some drawdown, but the ocean surface waters will become more saturated with carbon and that will stall. Over a longer time scale, CO2 will be pumped down into the deeper ocean. The true drawdown will require mineralization and precipitation as calcium carbonate, a slow process. The fossil fuel CO2 emitted each year corresponds to the calcium added to the ocean by erosion over about 100 years.
cvoss 15 minutes ago [-]
Article is not about global atmospheric or climate phenomena, nor civilization scale industrial processes. It's about the CO^2 levels in your room due to your breathing.
Rendered at 19:39:43 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
And trees don't exist in isolation as these napkin calculation articles consider them (spherical cows and all that). Every single tree on earth relies on mycorrhizal fungi for the vast majority of its nutrients. Fungi break things down release CO2.
Most of our oxygen comes not from forest but from oceans (specifically from phytoplankton, algae, and photosynthetic bacteria). Between 50-80% of it in fact. Likewise, most of the CO2 that has been captured has been captured by the ocean not by forests. About 25-30% of all human emissions have been captured by the ocean.
Forests (and grasslands) are tremendously important for ecosystems and our health but I think this focus on CO2 and oxygen is simply misleading. If that's your concern you should really be focusing on the ocean. Which IMO is in an even more dire strait than our forests
(nit) it is more accurate to call this a biological process, or chemical process
Saying "physical process" makes me think of inclined planes, free-body diagrams, and EM fields.