Fascinating story. NASA's Frankenberg is brillant and those carbon sinks are particularly intriguing: half the carbon "is dissolved in the ocean or taken up by Earth's biosphere where it is stored in carbon sinks that are effectively shielding humanity from the full climatic effect of our emissions." Good luck, NASA!
..."where it is stored in carbon sinks that are effectively shielding humanity from the full climatic effect of our emissions."
Did the author serriously just tell us that we would see the full effects of global warming if the planet had no plants.
If we had no plants the climatic effects would be the least of our problems, we would all suffocate.
Perhaps the author was just trying to BS us with his version of the law of conservation of matter.... if we create C02 and nothing takes C02 away then soon the entire atmosphere will be entierly CO2.....
I could say the same thing about oxygen, nitrogen, or pretty much any substance.
> "One of the goals of the OCO mission is to determine how long we can count on the biosphere "doing us a favor," Frankenberg explained. "Will this sink persist in the future or will it become neutral or even reverse?" he asked."
Given that the ability of the sea to absorb CO2 is limited without the oceans becoming too acid to be of much use to any life, and given that we persist in chopping down forests to grow other stuff, I think the reverse is the most likely long-term outcome.....
While CO2 drives climate change (and becomes toxic to humans at high concentrations), plants thrive when CO2 in their atmosphere is augmented. Could we channel waste CO2 from power stations through greenhouses to accelerate plant growth and CO2 sequestration? If we identify the hierarchy of plants that benefit from augmented CO2, we could provide the highest concentrations of CO2 to those that most benefit from it. [We will need to ensure that any humans in the greenhouses have a safe air supply when they enter.]