Slashdot Mirror
A Hidden Loop In the Carbon Cycle Discovered
Googlesaysmysiteisdangerousanditisn't! writes "A recent article in Science says that researchers in China and the US have found massive carbon uptake in the world's deserts. The effects of this are huge. 35% of the Earth's land surface is desert, and the uptake equates to 5.2 billion tons of carbon sequestered each year. This is more than half of the carbon released by humans. In these 'dry oceans,' the grains of sand allow the carbon dioxide to enter and react with alkaline soil to become carbonates. Another scientist suspects that biotic desert crusts, alkaline soils, and increased precipitation may be driving the uptake."
The solution is obviously to cut down more trees and make more deserts, right?
How about a PDF warning on that link, editors?
Does this mean that all the salinization that has been going due to irrigation because america grows FRUIT in the desert is actually a good thing?
Does this mean that scientists now think that we don't have enough deserts?
I'm all for global warming (it is cold up here in canada), but I'm pretty sure we've got enough desolate landspace...
so the MVP is not Kobe...but Gobi?
(or the sahara if u'r in africa)
Ok. So they've found a massive carbon sink that was unaccounted for. Great!
They also say that due to changing conditions, including increased precipitation, there is more uptake occurring.
Does this process ever reach a point where it stops? Is there only so much carbon that can be converted/sequestered? If conditions change enough, will this huge carbon sink disappear rapidly, adding a HUGE amount of carbon to the atmosphere?
This is fascinating, but it still feels to me like this situation could be as fragile as any others we've discovered around the globe.
-
If this is indeed the case it would seem a bit strange that it has not been detected before. I mean with all the climate change debate going on there has been quite close scrutiny of the estimates of CO2 going into and out of the atmosphere, so if this is as big a carbon sink as described it would have to mean that the other sinks ( i.e the ocean and the biosphere ) are less potent than previously assumed.
How about we say the deserts allow the earth's thermal system to reach a balance? We have more deserts, which sequester more carbon, which makes us cooler, which sequesters less carbon, which makes us hotter, which makes more deserts.
We shouldn't worry about global warming, we should worry if we can survive global warming...
Forests soak up a lot of carbon, but then drop a lot of leaves. When the leaves rot they give off CO2 and methane. Methane is far worse as a green house gas than CO2 - by a factor of over 20.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
"Each year, the Rainforest is responsible for over three thousand deaths from accidents, attacks or illnesses." - Rainforest Schmainforest and now forests are rotting and giving off greenhouse gases. We must act to stop these forests from further encroaching upon our Earth-friendly deserts, it is time we cleaned them up.
We [all of humanity, as in not one single person on the planet] do not even understand 1/100th of 1/100th of 1% of how our planet works. A lot of people believe that we are making a huge impact, but if you really do look at the big picture, we [all of humanity] actually take up a very small percentage of the planet. There is a lot of uncovered ground and water that works to clean up after itself and us.
The planet is not out of balance, we are not causing that much damage and in most places where we have caused damage if we stopped it would be cleaned up all by itself in 5 to 15 years. Some of the more damaged places would self-heal in 15 to 50 years.
Yes, there are things we should be doing to reduce our impact. But this whole global warming, global climate change thing happening now is NOT caused by us. Well, some of it might be, but we cannot possibly know that. We have so few years of records in the history of the planet it's not even funny. How far back do ACCURATE temperature readings go back around most of the globe? 50 to 60 years. How many years do we have accurate temperature readings for what are now populated areas? Maybe 200, at most.
We cannot even begin to understand what is happening now. For all we know it's going to be getting very cold in the next 5 or 10 years. We don't know what kind of cycles the earth or sun have. We should just do what we can, do not do anything extreme in any direction, just recycle, use glass and paper instead of plastic. Don't go out buying a new car every 2 to 5 years, drive it til it dies, then replace it with an electric, hybrid, or high mileage car. Use recyclable and recycled materials. Boycott products, companies and events that "offset" their carbon usage by buying "carbon credits", that's only a money making scheme and nothing more, it's doing nothing for the planet. Go plant a few trees yourself and tell Gore's companies and new industry to go fuck itself.
Our scientists are smart, yes, but they have so much to learn and much, much more to teach us.
Methane doesn't stay in the atmosphere as long as CO2.
Win a signed Stephen Carpenter ESP Guitar from the Deftones: http://def-tag.com/?r=0008781
"No, it means that global warming isn't the disaster the proponents would have us believe."
You need to think that through a little deeper, nothing in this discovery changes existing observations of the upward trend in GHG concentrations, nor does it change the observed temprature trends, nor suddenly refreeze the Artic, reverse the melting of glaciers, fill the dams of SW Australia, restore the oceans ph balance, etc, etc.
There is nothing wrong with being skeptical but be aware that skepticisim is a skill, not an instinct.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
No, the prolific amount of oil in the Middle East is mainly related to organic carbon in source rock deposits that formed in the marine environment. The source rocks in the Middle East are particularly widespread and productive.
The article is talking about carbonate (i.e. minerals with CO3 in their structure), which is completely different and is often referred to as "inorganic carbon". It's as different as algae (organic carbon) and sea shells (carbonate). They both involve carbon and both can have biological origins, but you can't generate oil from carbonate. You need molecules with plenty of H and C for that (i.e. hydrocarbon molecules).
You can, however, find holes in carbonate rocks. In the right setting these can contain oil that has migrated into the porous rock from organic-rich source rocks nearby. Such rocks are known as petroleum reservoirs. Again, the Middle East has some spectacular reservoirs with very high porosity and permeability, allowing for plenty of space to hold the oil and to allow it to flow out. For example, the Ghawar field, which is the biggest oil field in Saudi Arabia and the world, has limestone reservoirs with up to 35% porosity by volume -- i.e. 35% of the volume isn't rock, but open spaces filled with fluid (either oil, gas, or water). That's extraordinarily high porosity. It's full of holes like a sponge.
So, if you want the short answer to why there is so much oil in the Middle East: 1) spectacularly prolific and widespread organic-carbon-rich source rocks, 2) highly porous and permeable reservoir rocks (some of which are carbonates, some of which are other rock types), and 3) large "trap" structures, which I haven't discussed, but basically refers to the geometry of the porous reservoir and an impermeable seal that keeps the oil/gas from leaking out.
It has very little to do with the modern deserts that are widespread in that part of the world today. Many of the conditions necessary for the large oil deposits were set up far enough back in geological history that today's climate is mostly irrelevant.
If the climate change is actually a natural process then the attempt to control it has become our first great terraforming project. How convenient that we're trying this on the only planet we have and not some spare planet that wouldn't matter if it went awry.
And if the rapid climate change is not a natural process then we have already not just attempted but are in the middle of an effective terraforming project where the only definition of 'success' must be some form of 'not at all like what we had before'. That sounds much worse to me than your what-if.
The environmental people are either saying:
1) our climate is changing, lets make it like it's always been before
-or-
2) we've changed our climate to something different and unknown, lets change it back again.
Either way sound better to me that living in a completely unknown new climate. If our previous climate was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for us.
The effect could be huge: About 35% of Earth's land surface, or 5.2 billion hectares, is desert and semiarid ecosystems. If the Mojave readings represent an average CO2 uptake, then deserts and semiarid regions may be absorbing up to 5.2 billion tons of carbon a year.
Also...
For now, some experts doubt that the world's most barren ecosystems are the longsought missing carbon sink. "I'd be hugely surprised if this were the missing sink. If deserts are taking up a lot of carbon, it ought to be obvious," says William Schlesinger, a biogeochemist at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies in Millbrook, New York, who in the 1980s was among the first to examine carbon flux in deserts. Nevertheless, he says, both sets of findings are intriguing and "must be followed up." Scientists have long struggled to balance Earth's carbon books. While atmospheric CO2 levels are rising rapidly, our planet absorbs more CO2 than can be accounted for.
and...
Provided the surprising CO2 sink in the deserts is not a mirage, it may yet prove ephemeral. "We don't want to say that these ecosystems will continue to gain carbon at this rate forever," Wohlfahrt says. The unexpected CO2 absorption may be due to a recent uptick in precipitation in many deserts that has fueled a visible surge in vegetation. If average annual rainfall levels in those deserts were to abate, that could release the stored carbon and lead to a more rapid buildup of atmospheric CO2--and possibly accelerate global warming.
This is not, as some posters are implying, published science that concludes the IPCC predictions are in any way likely to be inaccurate, or that carbon is accumulating in the atmosphere at a rate lower than previously thought.
This is a news article in science detailing some interesting research showing that deserts may be absorbing more carbon than was previously thought, and that this may account for the fact that atmospheric measurements show the earth is absorbing carbon at a higher rate than can be accounted for by currently known sinks. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is known from atmospheric measurements, and is higher than at any time in the last 650,000 years.
I was trying to be funny, but obviously failing
Actually, I'm getting the idea that for some people the goal isn't even to point fingers at something, but to point fingers at someone. Subtle but important difference.
Actually, even that is the superficial version. The longer one is that a bunch of people need not just to feel superior to you all, but to be a part of some grand cause that's never done or achievable. The last part is the more important one. It's what makes such grandiose tactually an _easy_ way out.
The quote which comes to mind, and kinda sums it all up, is, "It is easier to be a "humanitarian" than to render your own country its proper due; it is easier to be a "patriot" than to make your community a better place to live in; it is easier to be a "civic leader" than to treat your own family with loving understanding; for the smaller the focus of attention, the harder the task."
So people seek some grandiose cause to fight for, so they don't have to acknowledge that they don't achieve the small ones.
And again, it better be something so grand that nobody actually expects any given individual to achieve anything tangible. In a "small" task, like, say, "I want to finally get out of debt", or "I'll take some lessons and try to find a better job", or "I'll finally have a talk to my son about starting fights at school", there are very clear criteria as to whether you achieved anything or not. And at some point you have to admit that you didn't. It's not a very motivating thought. Worse yet, it might involve some personal effort and change. Good grief.
On the other hand, "saving the world" (from whatever global threat, from MS to global warming to God's wrath) is _easy_. It's a task nobody really expects you to achieve. So you can just moan and bitch a little about how the _other_ people should change, then be smug that you did your part. If it didn't achieve anything, it's because everyone _else_ didn't immediately drop everything and do as you said. Or even if they did, and it didn't actually work, hey, it's still their fault not yours: they didn't do enough, or didn't really understand you.
Big surprise that people choose the latter, eh? They're easy.
And it's not even something new. Since the dawn of time people have got into such grandiose fights to save others from whatever. For a long time, mostly from worshiping the wrong gods, or from worshiping them all wrong, or from some moral/philosophical detail that will doom us all. Mostly because they didn't have some scientific doomsday scenario, so God's Wrath was the best threat they had. Now they can do better.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Yea, or by an alternate, but equally possible line of thinking: maybe CO2 isn't the only factor, since much more of it gets absorbed than we though in the first place? Maybe we should look harder for the other pieces and stop just wasting $$$ on computer weather models that predict oh-so-politically-useful disaster? ;-)
The point I am making is that the proponents of doing something about global warming NOW and at ANY COST do not KNOW what is going to happen. They can't, they have no hard evidence, no comprehensive theory on it, just a 'consensus that CO2 is the cause of global warming'. Last I checked consensus doesn't make something hard science, evidence does.
And I'm not saying nothing is to be done, we just need to be careful not to hop into a big trillion dollar bandwagon with Al Gore and the UN just to look dumb and swindled afterwards. I'm just taking Obi-wan's advice, that politicians cannot be trusted. Or bureaucrats, in the UN case. :-)
Send your spendthrift head of state this
Unless you are skeptical of global warming. Then you will be compared to Holocaust deniers and threatened with losing your academic funding and credentials.
3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
The problem with CAFE was that it was indeed a boondoggle - the mandated efficiency improvements were actually less than were achieved automatically by European taxation levels, and as you note it was easily evaded with the "light truck" class.
Taxation of fuel is sensible because it is a tax on actual consumption. Most people are able to reduce their consumption by varied means - aggregated journeys, car shares, vacations closer to home, reducing acceleration, using mail order more - without changing their vehicles.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
More of it is absorbed than we thought, but we still have those pretty graphs showing the increase that has happened so far. Those are, you know, made from actual measurements. Like, you know, the absorption spectrum of CO2. The effect of CO2 alone is easy, while figuring out the complete set of feedbacks is hard.
If you remove Acrobat Reader and use an alternative viewer, it's even faster.
Preview on OS X (built-in)
Foxit Reader on Windows
Xpdf on Linux and friends
"But it does show that there is MUCH we don't know about the issue."
I agree but recognise that the same can be said about any area of scientific enquiry. Science is more than a seemingly contradictory pile of factoids, it's a way of thinking that is never 100% certain about anything, and can never prove anything to anyone. But if it's not the best model of the Universe that we have then may God strike me down before I hit submit.
"unless you count a consensus of scientists as evidence"
A scientific opinion is not evidence, at best it is an "expert witness statement". However consensus is an intergral part of the "republic of science", scientific consensus is implied by the term "scientists say", eg: "Scientists say the Earth orbits the Sun". Have a google and find out what the consensus on GW actualy says and then we can discuss.
Vested interests cut both ways, IMHO the track record of science is much more impressive than the track record of politics and industry. Here are a couple of blogs to practice the art of skepticisim on. The first is run by a bunch of climate scientists who contributed to the IPCC, it's founder is M.Mann the guy who came up with the much maligned "hockey stick", the second is from nature.com. Other excellent sites include NASA, NOAA, WMO, MET, CSIRO and countless other (not so excellent) sites from national scientific and meterological institutions across the globe.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The real problem isn't nature, and to your point, the real solution isn't changing anything, it's dedicated research.
But we are changing something: we are emitting CO2 into the atmosphere, and our emissions are growing exponentially. That can't go on: either we stop voluntarily, or we run out of fossil fuel, or we get a climate catastrophe; there simply is no third possibility.
When you are saying that we shouldn't "change anything", you are actually advocating continuing a massive global change, a massive experiment with global climate. People like you are playing word games: you simply redefine what amounts to deliberate and massive change as "no change" by reframing the issue.
...temperatures from 1961 to 1990...We in the Northwestern hemisphere have experienced 7 of the top 8 warmest years on record since 2001, and all 10 top warmest years since 1995.
So...you know that the Earth as a whole has been cooling since 1998, right?
One last thing: Sometimes I wonder; "Is that someone's signature? Or do they type that at the end of each post?"
may God strike me down before I hit submit.
Damn it! Can't I guy wake up and have a cup of coffee before having to go to work? Screw it, I'll just get the Flying Spaghetti Monster to do it for me...
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
I've afraid you're the one whose bought into a common lie. Human activity releases far, far less carbon dioxide than the planet produces. We are minuscule in the big picture, nothing but ants.
Indeed? Then I'd like to see your figures. Because we outdo the volcanoes by a factor of a hundred. Looking into other sources, well: rotting vegetation was mentioned, and I agree it's a far larger quantity than human activity, but is that a source of carbon dioxide? Rotting vegetation can never release more carbon dioxide than the amount it absorbed when it first grew, making it net carbon neutral. Unless there is a net decrease in the planet's biomass, there's no overall extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to plant life. Same goes for respiration by living things: the CO2 I exhale is carbon that was absorbed when my food grew, and will be absorbed again as a future meal grows.
We on the other hand are digging up and releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, all year, every year, and unlike the plants we're not taking it back out of the atmosphere. That's producing an ongoing year-on-year net increase in carbon dioxide. Nothing else on earth compares to human industry for increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Its just a shame there are so many positive feedback systems compared to this one negative feedback.
as temperature rises:
+methane trapped in ice is released
+co2 trapped in oceans is released
+methane trapped under oceans is released
+more water vapour in the air
+ice-caps reflect back less heat
-deserts absorb more carbon
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
Which just goes to prove that having the job title "scientist" is no indication that you have the slightest clue about the climate. Point me to the research of a serious climatologist that believes this, and I'll read it with interest. Papers by people from outside that specific field - not interested! (hey, I'm a "computer scientist", would you like to read my paper about psychology?)
This might seem like a fair point but it isn't. Lets look at the scientists. I'm neutral on this, but I dislike the hysteria that seems to have gathered around each side. And that of the people predicting climate disaster now many are the same ones that predicted climate disaster back in the '70's, but the other way (ice-age).
My major problem with this is that "climatology" is a difficult field. It combines geology, meteorology, atmospheric research, marine research and a few others. But by and large, the doomsday predictions are coming from a group that are climate modellers. These people build up computer models of the climate and tune them using data from the past. The models are then used to attempt to predict the future of the climate.
And they're all dead wrong. The data is really spotty until 50 years or so ago so there's no idea how accurate they are. None of them are predictive. And none of them match the spotty historical data without what they call "forcing" and what everyone else calls "fiddling with parameters until it looks kinda right". Building scenarios based on them is like playing with lego, you tend to end up with what you were looking for.
Here's an interesting paper (from a real journal).
Some highlights (emphasis mine although it's all interesting):
It is of no little significance that the IPCC's value for the coefficient in the CO2 forcing equation depends on only one paper in the literature; its values for the feedbacks that it believes account for two-thirds of humankind's effect on global temperatures are likewise taken from only one paper; and that its implicit value of the crucial parameter K depends upon only two papers, one of which had been written by a lead author of the chapter in question, and neither of which provides any theoretical or empirical justification for a value as high as that which the IPCC adopted.
He goes on - the portion on how the models are verified is interesting
The point of this post is: hysteria solves nothing. We need to calmly move forward with rational solutions to the pollution that is caused by people, not suggest incredibly radical measures that are simply not going to be accepted by any but the most lunatic fringe. Dismissing valid objections with supporting evidence just because it doesn't say "Climate Modeller" on a business card is foolish.
Rational thought is the only true freedom
Rising water levels in the oceans means more water to dissolve the CO2 (although the temperature of the water is important, too).
Nope, the rise in water levels is due to the density of water decreasing, while the amount of water (moles) is staying the same* and the absorption coefficient of the water is decreasing.
*It may even be decreasing due to the shift in equilibrium causing more water vapour, but i'm not a climatologist so the whole water vapour assumption may have been completely wrong.
More water vapor hopefully means more clouds, and clouds reflect back sunlight, too.
True but i dont think that makes up for the greenhouse effect of the water and due to the shape of water it has a huge absorption spectrum, just in the right/wrong place. Ofc this is all pointless if water vapour doesn't increase.
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!