Wouldn't you consider a 7.6x change in your salary "dramatically more"?
>It's not even an order of magnitude more!
That's irrelevant. Even in software profiling, making something run "merely" 2x as fast can result in HUGE profits and savings (e.g. the movie studio that gets its rendering done in 3 months instead of 6).
>In the past few decades, the world's forests have absorbed as much as 30% (2 petagrams of carbon per year; Pg C year−1) of annual global anthropogenic CO2 emissions1 — about the same amount as the oceans.
Furthermore, for reasons not yet understood, even static forests appear to be a continuing carbon sink over measured timescales.
> Much has been learned about the carbon cycle in forests, but there are still too many gaps in our knowledge. New observations have called long-accepted theories into question: the finding that unharvested forests, for example, are absorbing more carbon than they release2, accounting for half the sink, is contrary to the tenet of ecology, known as Odum's framework, that carbon flows in natural forests should be in equilibrium.
http://www.nature.com/news/carbon-sequestration-managing-for...