And yet that increased carbon sink is smaller than the increased co2 emissions.pstarr wrote:Yes, plants are a net carbon sink. And yes, said sink has increased as a consequence of increased co2 regardless of increases in temperature. In fact the greatest plant growth additions have been in the hottest driest regions, ie deserts.
pstarr wrote:Those more familiar with petroleum geology appreciate just how rare have been instances of petroleum/coal creation over the millennia. It is not for me to instruct you in these matters.
Global Carbon BudgetCumulative Carbon Emissions
The cumulative carbon emissions are the sum of the total CO2 emitted during a given period of time. Total cumulative emissions from 1870 to 2016 were 420±20 GtC (1539 GtCO2) from fossil fuels and industry, and 180±60 GtC (660 GtCO2) from land use change. The total of 600±65 GtC was partitioned among the atmosphere (245±5 GtC), ocean (145±20 GtC), and the land (190±45 GtC). Land-use change represents about 31% of cumulative emissions over 1870–2016, coal 32%, oil 25%, gas 10%, and others 3%.
The world is getting greener. Why does no one want to know?Overall in 30 years, the green vegetation on planet Earth had increased by a rather extraordinary 14 per cent.
So cumulative emissions were 600 Gt of carbon, or 2200 Gt co2. Of that, the total amount the land sequestered was 190 Gt of carbon, or 697 Gt co2. However only 14% of that was new vegetation. So 697 * .14 = 98 GT. 98 Gt of co2 sequestered by new vegetation vs 2200 Gt of co2 emissions. Seems like you are in error pstarr.