<p>I agree that this kind of source and sink budgeting is a little bit misleading. The answer to your question is that the land use change you mentioned to be a source of CO2 is added to the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. And indeed it is about as large as the sink effect of the biosphere (check out the figure I found in a <a href="https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/bulletin/from-atmospheric-observations-and-analysis-of-greenhouse-gases-emission-estimates" rel="nofollow noreferrer">WMO article</a>).</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/OjkFq.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/OjkFq.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-06-14T09:11:40.600Z
That is interesting as it suggests that we only need to double the total deforested area to completely negate this sink.  It also suggests that the area that was not deforested has changed behaviour in response to increased atmospheric carbon.  My question is, how?  Where is it putting all that carbon?
Alex Zeffertt
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-06-14T09:22:38.117Z
I think that does answer half the question.  Essentially the shrinkage is accounted as an emission.  The other half is, why is the remaining forest not net-zero?
Alex Zeffertt
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-06-14T15:05:45.500Z
Because the Biosphere is naturally sequestering carbon through deposition of organic material into the soil (mainly). And yes, due to increase in atmospheric CO2, the biosphere's carbon uptake has also increased ([CO2 Fertilization Effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_fertilization_effect)). Check out [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink) wikipedia article.
hschoell
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-06-14T08:57:02.247Z
2023-06-14T08:57:02.247Z
hschoell
<p>Only half of anthropogenic CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere. This is easy to check by comparing the rate of emissions against the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2.  I have read from various sources that the remainder is absorbed - roughly in equal proportions - by two sinks, namely the ocean and the biosphere (some sources just say &quot;woodland&quot;).  However, the total area of woodland globally has been shrinking for many decades.  My question is: how can woodland be a carbon sink when it is shrinking?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-06-14T08:59:20.630Z
First of all, it is difficult to answer without having sources to base your question on. However, we need to look at the process. This means that as biotopes decline, an important sink for atmospheric CO2 disappears. Thus, there should be a positive correlation between the increase in atmospheric CO2 and declining biotopes.
Weiss
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-06-14T13:06:46.120Z
can you give us the Sources? So it is important to distinguish between the sort time and longe time CO2 cycle
Weiss
<carbon>
How can woodland be a carbon sink when it is shrinking?
Alex Zeffertt
# How can woodland be a carbon sink when it is shrinking?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-06-13)

Only half of anthropogenic CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere. This is easy to check by comparing the rate of emissions against the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2. I have read from various sources that the remainder is absorbed - roughly in equal proportions - by two sinks, namely the ocean and the biosphere (some sources just say "woodland"). However, the total area of woodland globally has been shrinking for many decades. My question is: how can woodland be a carbon sink when it is shrinking?

**Tags:** carbon

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: First of all, it is difficult to answer without having sources to base your question on. However, we need to look at the process. This means that as biotopes decline, an important sink for atmospheric CO2 disappears. Thus, there should be a positive correlation between the increase in atmospheric CO2 and declining biotopes.  
> **username_1**: can you give us the Sources? So it is important to distinguish between the sort time and longe time CO2 cycle  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2023-06-14. Score: 2 | Accepted answer

I agree that this kind of source and sink budgeting is a little bit misleading. The answer to your question is that the land use change you mentioned to be a source of CO2 is added to the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. And indeed it is about as large as the sink effect of the biosphere (check out the figure I found in a [WMO article](https://public.wmo.int/en/resources/bulletin/from-atmospheric-observations-and-analysis-of-greenhouse-gases-emission-estimates)).

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/OjkFq.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/OjkFq.png)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: That is interesting as it suggests that we only need to double the total deforested area to completely negate this sink.  It also suggests that the area that was not deforested has changed behaviour in response to increased atmospheric carbon.  My question is, how?  Where is it putting all that carbon?  
> **username_0**: I think that does answer half the question.  Essentially the shrinkage is accounted as an emission.  The other half is, why is the remaining forest not net-zero?  
> **username_2**: Because the Biosphere is naturally sequestering carbon through deposition of organic material into the soil (mainly). And yes, due to increase in atmospheric CO2, the biosphere's carbon uptake has also increased ([CO2 Fertilization Effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_fertilization_effect)). Check out [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink) wikipedia article.  

---

