NASA | A Year in the Life of Earth's CO2

NASA Goddard · 4.9M views · 2014 · 3:11

Open on YouTube

Climate science & climate changeData visualization & information designdemo

Why Hacker News recommends it

HN commenters use it as a vivid illustration of how CO2 is distributed and how vegetation absorbs it seasonally.

What it is

A short NASA Goddard visualization from the GEOS-5 model showing a year of atmospheric carbon dioxide moving around the globe. It shows plumes from sources, hemispheric differences and seasonal swings as plants grow and die back.

Recommended by 1 HN commenters across 1 different months, 2019 to 2022.

What Hacker News said

Strong rec tafurnace · 2020-01 · on “A global reforestation project is how we fix climate change”

I personally believe that forests provide a net positive in terms of CO2 scrubbing regardless of decay/decomposition. The only evidence I'd offer is a time lapsed NASA video[0] showing CO2 emissions heatmap over time. The areas like the Amazon clear up the CO2 on a daily and seasonal basis. The areas where forests are impossible like the Arctic, it does not. The sun drives the cyclical "heartbeat" effect you see from day to day on the video, where plants using photosynthesis in the day (and macroscopically, the summer) effects the intensity of scrubbing moreso. Also, maybe it is my mind's desire to simplify of all of it, but it was eye opening for me, and seemed obvious upon seeing that vide

Cites godelski · 2019-08 · on “Decrement carbon: Stripe's negative emissions commitment”

To your sequestration comment. No one is saying don't plant trees. Fuck yeah, plant all the trees! But that won't wont be enough. Sequestration will get better, but one of the big things it helps with is locality. CO2 isn't homogenously spread across the globe. It also doesn't spread very well. Concentrations vary drastically over the year and so do plants' ability to capture carbon. Carbon can build up in certain regions. Worse, it can pool where we can't grow trees [0]. Places where we can't get enough water to introduce new populations of trees (without significant carbon costs, defeating the purpose. Also the local ecosystem) Cities. The Arctic. The ocean. I'm all for planting trees (eve

Cites tastyfreeze · 2021-05 · on “So you want to build a carbon capture company”

Trees alone might not be. However, photosynthesis is the answer. Plants exude sugars and carbohydrates, made from atmospheric CO2, into the soil feeding massive amounts of bacteria and fungi(carbon). The bulk of carbon in the soil comes from plant exudates, not plant matter. As long as this ecosystem is healthy the carbon stays in the soil. When the soil ecosystem is healthy plants are healthier which makes everything up the food chain healthier. The majority of our crop and pasture land soil is dead. The previous year's carbon that was pumped into the soil by plants is released when tilling happens in the spring. We need to stop tilling and grow diverse, more than 8, species wherever we can

Cites photochemsyn · 2022-11 · on “A new website backed by Al Gore tracks big polluters by name”

This is mostly just political posturing on the part of the Democratic Party, which as far as I can tell is not any more interested in halting US fossil fuel production than the Republican party is. In fact, not a single country with large oil and gas reserves and an active export industry wants to see their revenue collapse due to something like an international ban on the trade in fossil fuels - and this is true regardless of their political ideology, i.e. capitalism vs socialism or authoritarian theocracy or whatever. Venezuela, the United States, Norway, Iran, Russia, Saudi & UAE, etc. all want to keep running their export programs for the next three decades at least. I mean, in the USA t