I googled that for you [1] and the answer is probably not what you assumed, so I'm not sure that your question makes the point that you imagine it does.
N.B. I've quoted the first hit, but multiple sources seem to concur.
Reading the cited article in Nature, specifically re. methane, it states that "Arctic wetlands are effective methane emitters, yet dry and moist arctic tundra soils in north east Greenland have been measured to draw down methane", suggesting that the issue is the balance between the two.
Well, it is not as binary as “plants absorb greenhouse gases” or not. In this case, as you read the article, it says, “At the same time, water released from the melting ice is moving sediment and silt, and that eventually forms wetlands and fenlands.” which is the key -- it is forming patches that are producing methane.
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)
You've been downvoted because of a cadre of people on HN who, unless you virtue-signal your adherence to their doomsday religious cult, have deemed you impure.
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.
20 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 61.8 ms ] threadN.B. I've quoted the first hit, but multiple sources seem to concur.
[1] https://visitgreenland.com/articles/10-facts-nellie-huang/
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?
>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.
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)
[1] https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-7/
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.