Talk:Carbon sink

Removed outdated content about Kyoto protocoll

I've removed outdated and tangential content that no longer fits the structure of this, and related, articles. Working on re-focusing this article. Moving it here to the talk page in case someone wants to rescue some sentences:

Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol was an international agreement that aimed at reducing carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions and the presence of greenhouse gases (GHG) in the atmosphere. The essential tenet of the Kyoto Protocol was that industrialized nations needed to reduce their CO₂ emissions. Because growing vegetation takes in carbon dioxide, the Kyoto Protocol allows Annex I countries with large areas of growing forests to issue Removal Units to recognize the sequestration of carbon. The additional units make it easier for them to achieve their target emission levels. It is estimated that forests absorb between 10 to 20 tonnes per hectare (4.0 to 8.0 long ton/acre; 4.5 to 8.9 short ton/acre) each year, through photosynthetic conversion into starch, cellulose, lignin, and other components of wooden biomass. While this has been well documented for temperate forests and plantations, the fauna of the tropical forests place some limitations for such global estimates.

Some countries seek to trade emission rights in carbon emission markets, purchasing the unused carbon emission allowances of other countries. If overall limits on greenhouse gas emission are put into place, cap and trade market mechanisms are purported to find cost-effective ways to reduce emissions. There is as yet no carbon audit regime for all such markets globally, and none is specified in the Kyoto Protocol. National carbon emissions are self-declared.

In the Clean Development Mechanism, only afforestation and reforestation are eligible to produce certified emission reductions (CERs) in the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (2008–2012). Forest conservation activities or activities avoiding deforestation, which would result in emission reduction through the conservation of existing carbon stocks, are not eligible at this time. Also, agricultural carbon sequestration is not possible yet. EMsmile (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

References

EMsmile (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Moving content to carbon sequestration?

I think this article is old and needs a bit of tender, love and care. To start with, I think there is a lot of content that ought to be moved to carbon sequestration (most of the second half of the article). I think the article could be shortened and re-focused and become just a high level article on the term "carbon sink", linking readers (with short summaries) to the relevant sub-articles. Pinging User:ASRASR who is currently working on carbon sequestration. EMsmile (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for this. My gut feeling is that we move the good bits into the carbon sequestration article (partial merge in effect) under a carbon sink section. Then we can suggest on this talk page to leave it as a simple high level article with links since the term is rather popular among readers. ASRASR (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I've started the process of moving some content to carbon sequestration. Can you please take a look? I'm still quite confused on how the final structure of the two articles should look. E.g. the content on "enhancing natural carbon sinks" overlaps with content at carbon sequestration. The term "carbon sink" feels more intuitive though than "carbon sequestration" (and is used more in the media?) and so I think we need to be very clear in both articles what each one does and does not cover. EMsmile (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Question about riverine transport section

Hi User:Epipelagic, I have just moved the section that you had last year added about riverine transport to further down in the article. I am not sure if you would agree with this edit? It just felt a bit out of place in its current location in the article. I actually wonder if it shouldn't rather be moved to carbon cycle as the term carbon sink is very much linked to the whole climate change mitigation concept, isn't it (more so than the carbon cycle concept), or am I looking at it wrongly? I am confused. If my edit is no good, feel free to revert or to improve on it. I just think the section didn't fit (anymore) under "types of carbon sinks". EMsmile (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That's fine. Though I don't see the new subheading is necessary or adds anything – it's not clear what "movements between different carbon sinks" even means. It is more a movement between different carbon reservoirs, namely from the terrestrial reservoir to the ocean, via rivers. The rivers themselves become brief reservoirs. It is not so much a movement between sinks - rather movements into a sink, which creates another reservoir. — Epipelagic (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I just felt that a section heading of "riverine transport" wasn't very clear either. Also it seems that carbon sinks are by definition "long term" so what you are describing in that section is more about carbon pools/reservoirs which are temporary? I am not really sure on this but I just wonder if the description of movement in and out of temporary carbon pools might be better placed at carbon cycle? Note carbon cycle doesn't say much about rivers yet. Because if not then why focus here on the riverine transport in particular when there are lots of other mechanisms that move carbon from A to B in the earth system, too? My inclination (but perhaps I am wrong) is to keep the article about carbon sink rather high level and only in the context of climate change. Maybe that is a wrong starting point? (the carbon cycle article does mention carbon sinks in passing but does not very clearly define them). EMsmile (talk) 10:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Epipelagic, I am just wondering where we stand with this now and if you agree with my suggestions? My suggestion would be to move this entire section to carbon cycle. EMsmile (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this, and made the transfer. — Epipelagic (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. EMsmile (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Broader discussion about carbon sinks

See also a broader discussion on the talk page of WikiProject Climate Change about the term carbon sink and the "carbon sink wars": https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Climate_change#Sources_that_explain_%22enhancing_carbon_sinks%22 EMsmile (talk) 07:44, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I am copying below what was said there in an effort to move this article forward: EMsmile (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Licks-rocks: and @FeydHuxtable:, I found this really interesting, thank you! In March, I tried to improve the article carbon sink and that issue of process versus storage, sink versus pool or reservoir really stumped me. No wonder! Could you please take a look at carbon sink and at my edits there and tell me if it's OK like this or could be improved more? Just briefly some thoughts that I pondered in March, together with User:Richarit:

I put this into Chat GPT to find out: "what's the difference between carbon pool and carbon sink?" Answer by ChatGPT:

Both carbon pools and carbon sinks are important concepts in understanding the carbon cycle, but they refer to slightly different things. A carbon pool refers to any natural or human-made reservoir or storage of carbon. For example, the atmosphere, oceans, soil, plants, and fossil fuels are all examples of carbon pools. A carbon pool can be thought of as a container that holds carbon. A carbon sink, on the other hand, is a specific type of carbon pool that absorbs more carbon than it releases, thereby removing carbon from the atmosphere. Carbon sinks can be natural or human-made and can include forests, oceans, and wetlands. Carbon sinks are important for mitigating climate change because they help to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. To summarize, a carbon pool is any reservoir or storage of carbon, while a carbon sink is a specific type of carbon pool that removes carbon from the atmosphere. 

So if Chat GPT is right then carbon pool is the overarching term, and carbon sink is a particular type of carbon pool.

User:Richarit also pondered this: "I don't know much about the topic, but it seems to me that pool and sink are different things (based on the comment of Epipelagic "It is not so much a movement between sinks - rather movements into a sink, which creates another reservoir" and if so it might be easier to have the explanation all together on carbon cycle page" EMsmile (talk) 07:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't put too much stock in ChatGPT as a rule, but in this case it is mostly correct. A carbon pool is all the places where carbon can be, while a carbon sink is a carbon pool that has the capability to take up more carbon from the atmosphere than it releases. --Licks-rocks (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I can't think of good source to integrate the ChatGPT distinction into main space, though I agree with Licks-rock it sounds mostly right. I'd say the good work you've already done on carbon sink is fine for now. Richarit's suggestion for explaining related terms at carbon cycle sounds good, but I don't see any reason why it would be a priority unless you happen to know good sources. Or if you wanted to be really comprehensive and inluce detailed discussion on the different meanings of sink with respect to CO2 & non CO2 GHG as discussed above, then a nice place for that might be to create Greenhouse gas balance, as per Article 4 of the Paris agreement. I might even eventually create that myself if no one else does, though would likely wait until anthropogenic non CO2 sinks become more of the thing. (They've been getting more attention these past few years, there's a view that returning CH4 concentrations to pre-industrial levels could reduce warming by 0.5C, but it remains mostly theory & talk right now. See here & here if you're interested in that sort of thing.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I've added some of this into the article now under definition. I think it's useful and helpful information. It's bound to be in a textbook on carbon cycles somewhere but I don't have anything at my fingertips. Is it acceptable that I put "citation needed" until we find a good source that explains it like this? Pinging User:Licks-rocks and User:FeydHuxtable. EMsmile (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I've also added a bit about carbon pool to the lead. I've changed the redirect from carbon pool to here (it used to redirect to carbon cycle). I've also made some improvements to carbon cycle but that article would also benefit from a section on terminology and definitions maybe, to explain carbon sink, carbon pool / reservoir better (or maybe these terms are only so important in the climate change context and not so much in the carbon cycle context; I am not sure). EMsmile (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@FeydHuxtable: By the way, I would hesitate to create Greenhouse gas balance (or any new sub-sub-article for climate change). What would go into a greenhouse gas balance article that could not be included in one of our existing articles, e.g. in greenhouse gas emissions or climate change mitigation or carbon footprint or one of the other ones? EMsmile (talk) 12:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Applied Plant Ecology Winter 2024

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 20 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Noodellle (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Warmedforbs (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)