New answers tagged

5

You are correct that normally you see a net positive value of GHGs from land use change. However, if forests are grown or revegetated, it is considered a sink (and negative GHG value). This paper says that China has undergone a net increase in forest. The results sections says: The land-use data derived from Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) imagery from 1990 ...


5

Yes, because carbon emissions are like a budget. The Mercator Institute has one of the most commonly cited analyses of our carbon budget: the atmosphere can absorb, calculated from end-2017, no more than 420 gigatonnes (Gt) of CO2 if we are to stay below the 1.5°C threshold. Annual emissions of CO2 – from burning fossil fuels, industrial processes and land-...


1

The problem faced by so many geo-engineering approaches is that the scale of the problem is so great. We are losing approximately 300 cubic kilometers of ice just in the Artic each year (trends in Artic ice volume). 300 cubic kilometres of ice is 3 x 10$^{11}$ metric tons of water. Lets imagine a series of pumps that are placed at the North pole and raise ...


-3

Why don't they do it again? Plant life on earth has already begun to adapt to increases in CO2. The following fragment of a transcription is from a talk given by Dr. William Happer of Princeton University on February 19, 2021 to the Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar in Phoenix, Arizona. Geophysical Research Letters Volume 40, Issue 12 p. 3031-...


2

I also live on the coast and have been concerned about what to expect with regard to sea level rise in the near future. The following graph illustrates the observed rise in sea level over the last 30 years: As you can see from the image, satellite data indicates a linear increase in sea level rise of 3.3 mm per year for the last 30 years. If this trend ...


Top 50 recent answers are included