Climate experts sound alarm over thriving plant life at Greenland ice sheet
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Can someone explain this to me? I was under the impression that plants absorb greenhouse gases. Is this not the case?
Edit: Why am I downvoted for asking a question?
Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
Just as, paddy (rice fields) produces more methane during its early growth period than producing Oxygen or absorbing Carbon Dioxide.
"Methane has a global warming potential (GWP) of 29.8 ± 11 compared to CO2 (potential of 1) over a 100-year period, and 82.5 ± 25.8 over a 20-year period[1]. This means that, for example, a leak of one tonne of methane is equivalent to emitting 82.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide." (quoted from wikipedia)
>The findings show a near-quadrupling of wetlands across Greenland, which are a source of methane emissions.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/5054/
I am wondering whether destroying (instead of conserving) wetlands might be a way of reducing climate change. Not an idea I like.
On the other hand, the plants will also be absorbing CO2 which is longer lived and also causes other problems such as ocean acidification.
Because it seems that some on HN treat any skepticism about negative impacts or reports of climate change with disdain. I think they feel that any report that presses the narrative further should be preserved or accepted without question.
The end justifies the means.