Submitted by Creative_soja t3_11sf4bq in science
motogucci t1_jcfcm40 wrote
But it won't affect the warming levels of co2 this side of the industrial revolution.
Before we started burning fossil fuels, there was this thing called a carbon cycle. Carbon gets emitted by lifeforms, through various methods including decay, as well as by digestion/respiration. And that same exact carbon gets recollected by lifeforms, usually plants. Those plants were collectively eaten by animals, or decayed straightaway, and were the cyclical source of the carbon in the air, just as well as being the cyclical recovery system.
If we removed what you might call a carbon bank, such as a tropical forest, then we've disrupted that original carbon cycle (in addition to the harm from burning fossil fuels). If we put the forest back, it isn't undoing our industrial revolution. It's only returning a proper piece of that slightly older carbon cycle.
r-reading-my-comment t1_jchg2hz wrote
Yes?
No?
What’s up dude?
r-reading-my-comment t1_jcg1z8z wrote
Your description of a carbon cycle seems to be missing geological activity. Did you just not mention it or is that actually ignored?
A quick google search makes it seem ignored.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments