Sentences with phrase «known as a carbon sink»

second, coccolithopores and their absorption of CO2 is what is known as a carbon sink, AKA negative forcing, probably one of several the IPCC has not incorporated into its models.

Not exact matches

«As vital carbon sinks and habitats for millions of people and imperilled wildlife, it is well known that forest protection is essential for any environmental solution — yet not all forests are equal,» said Professor James Watson of WCS and the University of Queensland.

If an element takes up more carbon than it emits, it is known as a «carbon sink» and it acts to slow the pace of warming.

Neither the terrestrial nor the marine carbon sinks have known large - scale thesholds yet they are exceedingly important for the functioning of the climate system, which does indeed have known large - scale thresholds such as the melting of the Greenland ice sheet.

As to the carbon sink, I do think we can make a difference (don't know how much) with biomass pyrolysis, but that all depends on how smart the human race chooses to be.

In any case, I know I have brought this up before, but another carbon cycle feedback is kicking in: heat stress is reducing the ability of plants to act as carbon sinks, at least during the warmer, dryer years.

But a net carbon sink may become a net carbon emitter — or it may be weakened so that it is no longer acting all that effectively as a carbon sink.

Less well known is the immense potential of soils to act as vast carbon sinks, with the ability to «naturally turn over about 10 times more greenhouse gas on a global scale than the burning of fossil fuels.»

And I have repeatedly pointed out that you guys consistently mistake unverified models for reality, and don't know anything worth mentioning about Linear Systems theory, tracer measurements, or why the sink rate for each carbon isotope (in CO2) is the same as each of the others and the same as all of them put together.

The 10,000 - person republic has a land mass smaller than the District of Columbia, but its government has jurisdiction over a large swath of Pacific Ocean — otherwise known as «blue carbon» for its effectiveness as a carbon capture sink.

For me, that means I'd like to see it broken down, which Coby has done well so far, by (these are just examples i'd like to see): Factors and evidence supporting or effectively debunking a) ocean acidity, which in itself has produced a number of alarming effects including less saline density in turn causing a slowing of thermohaline circulation (such as the gulf stream) b) photosynthesis - carbon sinks vs. sources or any direction that you'd like to take using what science knows CO2 to have an effect on.

Whether or not terrestrial ecosystems could assimilate additional carbon — and act as powerful carbon sinks — was not known.

It appears to me, caveat as above, that AGW has created a lifeless system in thinking in this «energy balance» much as it has done with CO2 with its destruction of the dynamical system which is all life by thinking of plants merely as «carbon sinks», somewhere merely to store CO2; from which the used to be known fact that CO2 was food for all living carbon life forms is practically unknown and now at the absurd reasoning from not knowing it, that it can defy gravity and stay removed and out of reach from the carbon life forms which evolved from its property of being available at ground level.