Comment by rhaps0dy
You said it derogatorily, but it is genuine evidence that rising CO2 concentrations are have less effects than previously thought. In theory there could accumulate enough evidence to show anything.
You said it derogatorily, but it is genuine evidence that rising CO2 concentrations are have less effects than previously thought. In theory there could accumulate enough evidence to show anything.
But it might change what we view as a legitimate mitigation strategy.
For example, could we burn oil at 2024's rates with 1900's forests and not have net-positive CO2 levels? Back of the napkin:
- We're producing ~37 gigatons of CO2 (GtCO2) through burning of fossil fuels at the moment [0]
- The current forestation level is ~4 billion hectares [1]
- The net loss of forestation is ~1 billion hectares since 1900, with deforestation rates peaking starting ~100 years ago. [1]
- 1 petagram == 1 Gt
- Current forests consume 157 Gt/yr [article]
Therefore, the billion hectares we cut down in the past century would consume an additional 157 * 0.25 == 39.25 GtCO2/yr if it were still standing, 2 Gt more than our historical maximum global net output.
Obviously, the burning of fossil fuels is ultimate source of the increase in CO2, but without the deforestation it would still (back of the napkin) be sustainable. At least, we'd not be quite so far down this road.
[0] https://www.statista.com/statistics/276629/global-co2-emissi...
No. That is an entirely incorrect interpretation of the study.
That is exactly it - that's untrue. CO2 absorption was previously underestimated, but that does not change the rising concentration or the effect of CO2 on the climate.