Freak Storm Over North Pole Causes Ice to Melt: “Warmer Than Much Of The Midwest”

| |

north-pole-storm

The storms that devastated the central United States over the Christmas holidays causing tornadoes and leaving scores of people dead has shifted to the North Pole where meteorologists say it is continuing to wreak havoc.

Temperatures at the North Pole, which are usually about 20 degrees below zero at this time of year, have spiked as much as 50 degrees in the last 24 hours creating what scientists call a “bomb cyclogenesis.”

The Washington Post reports:

From Tuesday evening to Wednesday morning, a mind-boggling pressure drop was recorded in Iceland: 54 millibars in just 18 hours. This triples the criteria for “bomb” cyclogenesis, which meteorologists use to describe a rapidly intensifying mid-latitude storm. A “bomb” cyclone is defined as dropping one millibar per hour for 24 hours.

“Consider the average winter temperature there is around 20 degrees below zero,” wrote the Capital Weather Gang’s Jason Samenow on Monday. A temperature around the freezing mark signifies a departure from normal of over 50 degrees, and close to typical mid-summer temperatures in this region.

In other words, the area around the North Pole was about as warm as Chicago on Wednesday, and quite a few degrees warmer than much of the Midwest.

The major shift in weather in the North Pole will no doubt lead climate change advocates to cite global warming as the cause.

But before we make any rash decisions like forcing new climate change legislation on the global public or implementing Al Gore’s carbon tax credit schemes on businesses who literally stand to lose trillions of dollars because of the new fees, let’s put the temperature changes into perspective. According to NOAA researchers, while the North Pole storm is outside of the norm, it is not unprecedented:

NOAA’s Ocean Prediction Center said the storm’s minimum pressure dropped to 928 millibars around 1 a.m. Eastern time, which likely places it in the top five strongest storms on record in this region.

“According to the center’s records, the all-time strongest storm in this area occurred on Dec. 15, 1986, and that had a minimum central pressure of 900 millibars,” Mashable’s Andrew Freedman reported on Tuesday. “The second-strongest storm occurred in January 1993, with a pressure of 916 millibars.”

Also Read:

Polar Shift: One Extinction Level Event That WE DO Need to Worry About

Confirmation That The Earth’s Magnetic Pole Is Moving Towards Siberia

Secretive UN Legal Conference Wants to Outlaw “Climate Change Denial”

Scientist: NOAA’s Recent Upward Adjustments in Climate Change Temp Data Are “Rather Huge”

12 Disasters That Could Bring About The End Of The World As We Know It

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).


Contributed by The Daily Sheeple of www.TheDailySheeple.com.

This content may be freely reproduced in full or in part in digital form with full attribution to the author and a link to www.TheDailySheeple.com.

Wake The Flock Up! Please Share With Sheeple Far & Wide:
  • Mike

    remember folks, they restarted haarp a few months back.

    • WeeSee

      that was my fist thought when i seen the head line.
      Freak Storm Over North Pole Causes Ice to Melt HAARP

    • RandyJ/ProudSurvivor

      HAARP was the very first thing I thought of too!

  • doucyet

    And chicken little (Al Gore) said………..!

  • RandyJ/ProudSurvivor

    Never mind the fact that the worshipers of “global climate change” would use an increase in the methane content of a shrimp fart to “prove” their religion.

    • Nexusfast123

      Are you implying the climate never changes? The climate on the Earth throughout geological history has gone through many changes and cycles.

      • RandyJ/ProudSurvivor

        How did you make that leap from what I posted?! Of course the earth’s climate changes and always has. The point I was making was that climate change proponents will use any and every spurious event and attribute it to climate change.

      • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

        And it never involved anything that human beings had ever done. The reality of climate change isn’t what they are arguing about, it is their completely unproven claim that human activity is causing what has always happened on the planet.

  • Svirtue2013

    Climate scientists will rebuild

    • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

      They have been for a long time. It is called geoengineering and it causes far more problems than it could ever solve.

  • mirageseekr

    Sure sounds like they cranked HARP up on this one…No task too big to push the global warming hoax. Of course it could just be more data manipulated as we have been watching them do for the last couple years.

    • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

      Kindly explain how one megawatt of effective radiated radio frequency energy at HF can cause worldwide weather effects.

  • zuzu_petals

    Hmmm…I see
    we have some “climate change deniers”…or rather those who do not
    “believe” that global climate change is due to human activity.

    Here we go again…I will keep posting this until …well…until I “get it” that some folks would rather “believe” in something than understand anything.

    I know all this “sciencey” stuff just isn’t your thing, so I will just say 2 words.
    Are ya paying attention?
    Are ya strapped in? Sitting down?
    OK. Here they are, the 2 words:

    DUST BOWL.

    For
    those who don’t remember, or managed not to hear about it from
    FauxNoise, the dust bowl is what happened when thousands of homesteaders
    who had never laid eyes on the Great Plains or grasslands began
    farming. Or rather overfarming. And with bad plows that helped turn SOIL
    into DUST. They plowed and plowed cuz we needed wheat., tons of it, and
    so they grew wheat. Year after year, with these bad plows, and without
    renitrogenating the soil, without making sure there was enough of the
    wild grasses that for millennia had helped hold on to the soil and keep
    it from blowing away…well, like dust in the wind. We humans did that,
    out of stupidity and greed and avarice and ignorance….and we did it in
    a few DECADES. It doesn’t take a meteorologist to see that a few
    CENTURIES of industrialization could, would, shall and DID do massive
    damage to the planet’s ability to keep us living on it for much longer.

    We
    should consider it Mother Nature’s eviction notice. Trouble is, we are
    taking almost all other life that we happen to like with us. No, not
    gonna crack open the planet, but make it nasty for us to continue
    surviving on this planet?

    You betcha!

    • RandyJ/ProudSurvivor

      More folks might “understand” & believe all the “sciency stuff” you worship-if they didn’t keep getting caught lying about and fudging the data they tell us makes it “settled science”. I notice you’ve conveniently left out the fact that the driving force of the settled science is the result of “studies” provided by those who are depending on government grants. The “settled sciency” crowd need unquestioning, blind followers. Keep it up-you’re doing a great job.

      • zuzu_petals

        Actually, no scientist ever would refer call something “settled science”.
        Because we never can know for sure that another piece of information might be added to the picture. There are things science KNOWS. There are things science does NOT know. There are things that science knows a lot about, enough to make some astute and fairly accurate conclusions about the parts that have not yet been verified OR contradicted. The really awesome thing about the “sciency” crowd is that we are not unquestioning, blind followers! You are thinking of religion. Yes, people can behave like blind followers of some prophet even when they are not talking about a diety. But you and I know that is NOT science. But science actually exists. Science has some things to contribute to this conversation and our understanding of the facts.

        Here is a snippet from an article about the “atmospheric carbon cycle”, followed by the references cited so you can read and research and judge the facts, not the personalities, for yourself. Or don’t read, and keep spouting off about things of which you know absolutely less than nothing. Misinformation is dangerous, much moreso than truth.:

        ~~~Human activities change the amount of carbon in the atmosphere
        directly through the burning of fossil fuels and other organic material,
        thus oxidizing the organic carbon and producing carbon dioxide.[13][14] Another human-caused source of carbon dioxide is cement production. The burning of fossil fuels and cement production are the main reasons for the increase in atmospheric CO2 since the beginning of the industrial era.[3]

        Other human-caused changes in the atmospheric carbon cycle are due to
        anthropogenic changes to carbon reservoirs. Deforestation, for example,
        decreases the biosphere’s ability to absorb carbon, thus increasing the
        amount of carbon in the atmosphere.[15]

        As the industrial use of carbon by humans is a very new dynamic on a
        geologic scale, it is important to be able to track sources and sinks of
        carbon in the atmosphere. One way of doing so is by observing the
        proportion of stable carbon isotopes present in the atmosphere. The two main carbon isotopes are 12C and 13C. Plants absorb the lighter isotope, 12C, more readily than 13C.[16] Because fossil fuels originate mainly from plant matter, the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere falls when large amounts of fossil fuels are burned, releasing 12C. Conversely, an increase in the 13C/12C in the atmosphere suggests a higher biospheric carbon uptake.[12] The ratio of the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 compared to CO2 emissions from fossil fuel and cement manufactured is called the “airborne fraction.”.[17]
        The airborne fraction has been around 60% since the 1950s, indicating
        that about 60% of the new carbon dioxide in the atmosphere each year
        originated from human sources.[3]
        For clarity, this is not meant to suggest that 60% of the uptake of
        carbon dioxide into the atmosphere comes from human activity. It means
        that the atmosphere exchanges around 210 giga-tonnes of carbon annually,
        but absorbs between 6 and 10 giga-tonnes more than it loses. Of this
        net gain, about 60% is attributable to the burning of fossil fuels.~~~~

        [3] Forster,P.; Ramawamy, V.; Artaxo, P.; Berntsen, T.; Betts, R.; Fahey, D.W.;
        Haywood, J.; Lean, J.; Lowe, D.C.; Myhre, G.; Nganga, J.; Prinn, R.;
        Raga, G.; Schulz, M.; Van Dorland, R. (2007), “Changes in atmospheric
        constituents and in radiative forcing”, Climate Change 2007: the
        Physical Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment
        Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

        [11] Denman,Kenneth; Brasseur, Guy; Chidthaisong, A.; Ciais, P.; Cox, P.;
        Dickinson, R..; Hauglustaine, D.; Heinze, C.; Holland, E.; Jacob, D.;
        Lohmann, U.; Ramachandran, S.; da Silva Dias, P.; Wofsy, S.; Zhang, X.
        (2007), “Couplings between changes in the climate system and
        biogeochemistry”, Climate Change 2007: the Physical Basis.
        Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
        Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

        [12] Prentice, I. C.; et al. (2001). “The carbon cycle and atmospheric carbon dioxide”. Climate
        Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to
        the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
        Change: 184–238. Retrieved 2012-06-07.

        [13] VanDer Werf, G. R.; Randerson, J. T.; Collatz, G. J.; Giglio, L.;
        Kasibhatla, P. S.; Arellano Jr, A. F.; Olsen, S. C.; Kasischke, E. S.
        (2004). “Continental-Scale Partitioning of Fire Emissions During the
        1997 to 2001 El Nino/La Nina Period”. Science 303 (5654): 73–76. doi:10.1126/science.1090753. PMID 14704424.

        [14] Andreae, M. O.; Merlet, P. (2001). “Emission of trace gases and aerosols from biomass burning”. Global Biogeochemical Cycles 15 (4): 955. doi:10.1029/2000GB001382.

        [15]Houghton,R. A. (2003). “Revised estimates of the annual net flux of carbon to the atmosphere from changes in land use and land management 1850-2000”. Tellus B 55 (2): 378. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0889.2003.01450.x.

        [16]Nakazawa,T.; Morimoto, S.; Aoki, S.; Tanaka, M. (1997). “Temporal and spatial variations of the carbon isotopic ratio of atmospheric carbon dioxide in
        the western Pacific region”. Journal of Geophysical Research 102: 1271. doi:10.1029/96JD02720.

        [17]Keeling, C. D.; Whorf, T. P.; Wahlen, M.; Van Der Plichtt, J. (1995).
        “Interannual extremes in the rate of rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide
        since 1980”. Nature 375 (6533): 666. doi:10.1038/375666a0

        ………..Just one last thing to you: Read even one of the referenced articles and tell yourself they are just blind followers of a prophet of profit………..

    • sunshine

      The only problem I have with climate change is the assholes trying to get rich off of it without actually solving the problem. Find some workable solutions then get back to us. But, it’s not about that, it’s about making $$$ for people who already do more to pollute than most of us combined.

      • zuzu_petals

        ya know, I keep hearing about all this $$$ being made on behalf of those who accept the science that climate change exists, that it will be catastrophic, and that it is human activity that has helped cause it in the extreme, and that changing human activity might remedy it….but what big $$$ can scientists and Greenpeace or the save the whales folks, or all their lawyers make that is more than the oil companies, the coal and gas companies, the chemical industries make keeping us on petroleum based products all make? It makes no logical sense whatsoever.

        The people who are making the REAL money are the people, and their lawyers, who want us to continue driving internal combustion SUV engines, and continue making everything out of plastic, and use roundup in our yards, and drill in the gulf and mine methane in southern California.

        What deniers don’t want is to change their behavior, or think about their own responsibility. Yes, we are all capable of hypocrisy, or well intentioned mistakes, or believing some party line or another because it fits with something we already think we know, or makes us feel better. So yes there are stupid folks on all sides of every issue. All any of us can do is try to keep up, read differing views, and try to see out of another set of eyes once in a while, just for perspective.

        • sunshine

          I mean people like Al Gore, who is a sleazy POS. My issue with Greenpeace, Sierra Club, etc is that none of them will ever touch the immigration issue here in the US, and won’t talk about population control. If we are serious, we should start mandating that foreign countries that take aid should also be sterilized. Less population to worry about.

          I absolutely agree with the Roundup thing, that stuff is evil (so is Monsanto). I try to buy sensibly and do what I can, but I don’t know an alternative to the combustion engine. And in a lot of places in the US, it simply isn’t possible to have public transportation, or you can’t take it due to safety reasons if it does exist. I guess what I am trying to say here is that I agree with a lot of what you’re saying, we are living completely unsustainably and the idea of constant growth is insane and will end up destroying the entire planet. But, we need workable ideas and I don’t think anyone trusts anyone in any position of authority because we’ve all been screwed over so many times. I wish I had a solution, I really do.

          • zuzu_petals

            Public transportation isn’t simply and unalterably unavailable, it is unavailable for a reason. In the early 20th century LA Ca. had an amazing public transportation system, the Red Car lines…but then the oil and gas, auto, and rubber companies (Chevron, GM, Goodyear) came in and bought the lines out , replaced them with nasty, noisy, smelly busses, which were not so passenger friendly and did not go as close to peoples homes and were…noisy, smelly, awful things no one wanted, so they began to disappear being replaced by single occupant cars, all of which need tires, roads and driveways. Hello suburbia! Hey, Iove suburbia, been here all my life. Things are the ways they are, for human made reasons. We can reason our way into a better way of living…but we have to see it as important and we have to feel empowered to do something about it.

          • Kevin Ryan Duncil

            Sunshine, after reading you’re post, my only hope is that YOU are not in a position, where people are actually looking to you for a solution.

            The biggest challenge we have to overcome is the hypnotic spell, that the worlds elite have, most of the rest of the worlds population under.

            We do need to reduce carbon emissions, but that will require us to enclose our waste treatment facilities, to trap and harvest the methane that is produced at those facilities, as methane is one of the worst of the many greenhouse gases we produce.

            Just as important, if not more so, we must end the deforestation of our planet.

            Yes, I am familiar with the studies done regarding oxygen production in the oceans, however that is not the sole concern, nor the most important, when addressing deforestation.

            Should deforestation be allowed to continue, even at a reduced rate, no amount of reduction in man-made carbon emissions, will halt global warming, in that, without our forests to process carbon out of the atmosphere, greenhouse gas levels will continue to rise.

            This is more than an opinion, this is pure, sound, logical reasoning.

            Give it some thought.

            Kevin Ryan Duncil

          • sunshine

            No need to insult me. I am 100% in agreement that we need to do a LOT of things differently. I would be all for using tax money to do those things, IF they actually got done. I am not disputing anything you say, just that the people that present this stuff are probably the absolute worst people on the planet to be preaching a “green” lifestyle, and i think that’s why there’s so much resistance. Not because the facts aren’t sound, but because people are sick of being preached to by a bunch of sleazy hypocritical scumbags.

          • zuzu_petals

            Oh, so if you don’t like the messenger, ignore the message, no matter how true? Now that’s priceless.
            You don’t like the crossing guard (and face it, who does!) so you step in front of a truck? Not terribly smart.

            I am not even sure who you are talking about when you INSULT (ie: sleazy hypocritical scumbags) whole swaths of people you know nothing about except their views on climate change and what humans need to do to stop doing more damage. But that view too lacks evidence of critical thinking..

          • sunshine

            I am talking about the public faces of “climate change” like Al Gore, Leo DiCaprio, and other hypocritical and smarmy fat cats and celebs that have no idea how real people live. I never said to ignore the message, didn’t you see that I said I DO think we need to do something about it and develop a more sustainable way of living that isn’t destroying our planet? It would be EASY for those preachy types to “do more” but they don’t. They fly in their private planes, live in mansions, etc, they are hypocrites and don’t practice what they preach. I save all my respect for the off-grid people, the ones truly committed to environmental issues that WALK THE WALK, not talk the talk.

            I think everyone can do more for the environment and I am trying to get to an off-grid lifestyle of almost zero consumption, myself. It is not easy. But I am not lecturing others on how they need to do more while I live the high life, like those people. And THAT is what turns off average people, for right or wrong. It’s a valid message, just needs a little bit of work and not to be associated in the public eye with Gore and his ilk. That’s all I’m saying, don’t you understand? My personal opinions on the issue are irrelevant when the majority of the public has associated this issue with Gore, et al. I don’t see why you keep insulting me when I AGREE with you. WTF? Why are you so nasty about it?

          • zuzu_petals

            Well, I felt like I was responding to your nastiness…but that is pretty stupid of me, I agree…no way to reach consensus! So, now that you have clarified for me what you do think…I agree completely (sorry I didn’t go back to read other responses you’ve made to get a better picture of your views).

            I know very little about the personal lives and lifestyles of those you speak of, and probably care less, but I agree, walking the walk is always more important than talking. (I still do not understand why you think of these folks as scumbags or sleezy, I think of those things as something other than just not living up to one’s own ideals, but I quibble.) We could probably all use a little more walking and a little less talking…yes, I am talking to myself!

            I guess, like many of us online, I get het up and forget how I sound to those who do not know me or get where I am coming from rather than the spokes-models who get labled as speaking for the movement. My bad.

          • sunshine

            It’s OK I’m just glad you get where I’m coming from! I just think all people in the public eye are scumbags for the most part, because you don’t get to those levels of power/money/influence without being ruthless. Actors…well, they are just ACTING! And we all know what sleazebags politicians are (all kinds, not a partisan here).

            In fact, I think I get even more angry when someone so rich doesn’t live up to their ideals because they have the money to actually DO SOMETHING to help! Whether it’s build hundreds of Earth friendly homes, retrofit hundreds more to current environmentally friendly standards, or build treatment plants or plant trees…but they all buy mansions and private jets and play that consumerist game. Maybe it’s me that’s odd because I don’t want, nor envy, ANY of that stuff and I don’t know why people allow it to consume them, so I can’t understand the power it holds over them. But it’s sad. I wish I could do more to help in so many areas that it infuriates me when these people preach to regular people, who struggle with things they cannot ever comprehend. And to be honest, people are usually consumed with the “right now”. Environmental concerns are not a priority, feeding their kids dinner tonight, paying the bills, getting to work in the AM, are. It’s not right and it’s a shame, but I think most people need a “what’s in it for me” kind of incentive. Yes, a clean Earth to hand down to your children is reward enough IMO but you probably know how people are, by and large. Maybe that’s why things never happen like they should.

            All of this to say, I wish we had easy answers and easier fixes! But nothing worth doing is ever easy.

        • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

          The whole purpose of the human causation of global warming scheme is the implementation of a carbon tax and control over energy policy.

          • zuzu_petals

            oh right, because carbon taxes and control over energy policy is gonna be so much more profitable than oil, gas, natural gas and the whole internal combustion engine thing has been. ya just can’t argue with logic like that.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

            The ICPP is not a corporate entity interested in profitability. They are an international governance body interesting in controlling the population of the planet. The power to tax is the power to destroy.

    • Reverend Draco

      If you honestly believe that humans could wreak so much havok in barely a hundred years. . .

      You have a problem with your brain being missing.

      Not gonna argue about this non-issue – just go get a fucking education. . .

      maybe you can try again after.

      • zuzu_petals

        2 words.
        Dust Bowl.
        This one paragraph from wikipedia:

        ~~~~~~~~After fairly favourable climatic conditions in the 1920s with good rainfall and relatively moderate winters,
        which permitted increased settlement and cultivation in the Great Plains, the region entered an unusually dry era in the summer of 1930.
        During the next decade, the northern plains suffered four of their seven driest calendar years since 1895, Kansas four of its twelve driest, and the entire region south to West Texas lacked any period of above-normal rainfall until record rains hit in 1941.
        When severe drought struck the Great Plains region in the 1930s, it resulted in erosion and loss of topsoil because of farming practices at the time. The drought dried the topsoil and over time it became friable, reduced to a powdery consistency in some places. Without the indigenous grasses in place, the high winds that occur on the plains picked up the topsoil and created the massive dust storms that marked the Dust Bowl period.

        The persistent dry weather caused crops to fail, leaving the plowed fields exposed to wind erosion. The fine soil of the Great Plains was easily eroded and carried east by strong continental winds.~~~~~~~~~

        Also a very informative documentary by Ken Burns about the Dust Bowl was quite illuminating on this score. I had thought it the bad luck of history, and that the climate was just the weather writ large.

        • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

          And you think what after seeing them?

          • zuzu_petals

            That, yes, humans can and HAVE adversely affected the climate in a profound way, in only a few short decades. Multiply that by the damage being done world wide, and multiplied by the length of the entire industrial era, and you have a clear picture of how we have reneged on our mandate to be custodians of the planet and our own futures.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

            I don’t know what technical qualification you have to know that to be the fact, but there are at least 31,487 American scientists, who have signed a petition, including 9,029 with PhDs, that disagree with you.
            petitionproject.com

          • zuzu_petals

            So deniers keep claiming. But nobody has come up with names to all those scientist, and the few I have checked out are not CLIMATE scientists. Most on the lists of those claiming to disagree with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
            Very few have written PEER REVIEWED scholarly journal articles regarding climate science, most were quoted in interviews, online statements, or other presentations where verification and the actual science backing up their claims and critiques are presented. The evidence for global warming due to human influence has been
            recognized by the national science academies of all the major
            industrialized countries.
            No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a
            formal opinion dissenting from the summary conclusions of the IPCC.

          • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

            Peer review is academic where all of the studies are based on metadata review rather than a double blind study with a control group. There is no point in dissenting from the summary conclusions of the IPCC since they are nothing but the opinion of a small group of scientists who happen to know each other, so they constitute a pack. Where are your peer-reviewed publications?

      • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

        Havok, yes. Climate change, not so much.

  • Anothereno

    Hopefully it melts, too many douchebags in low lying areas… Plus we will be able to reclaim our precious Atlantis.

  • sam

    The North Magnetic pole is Moveing to Siberia

  • sam

    Theres a climet shift on the way you can’t stop it no One on Earth Can. All us mortals get todo is Brace. The Magnetic pole has Moved to Sibera and it Heading South.

  • watchmanonthetower

    Michael Crichton’s ‘State of Fear’ comes to mind.

    “Freak Storm” – that’s a good one. haha

  • masterblaster

    Chemtrails, Harp, all these are just the NWO tools to produce warming even though they are the creators of this doom and gloom . Even so the sheeple will still feel the heat and believe it as they are sheared of their wealth in this gigantic ponzi scheme

  • Stuck_in_Ca

    What ice? Wasn’t global warming responsible for the ice melting already?

    • http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/political_reading_room/ disqus_3BrONUAJno

      If all of the ice on the planet melted, the only effect would be higher tides. If the planet were actually getting warmer, there were be more plant life growing in places where humans have no memory of it doing so. Grass is a far better consumer of carbon dioxide than any larger plant, and certainly trees. One of the largest carbon sinks on the planet is the algae in the ocean, which is also the planet’s largest heat sink, not the atmosphere.