Climate change effect on release of CO2 from peat far greater than assumed
Climate change effect on release of CO2 from peat far greater than assumed Drought causes peat to release far more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than has previously been realised.
Much of the world's peatlands lie in regions predicted to experience increased frequency and severity of drought as a result of climate change- leading to the peat drying out and releasing vast stores of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. It's the very wetness of the peat that has kept the air out, locking in centuries of carbon dioxide that would normally be released from the decomposing plant materials in the peat. Now scientists at Bangor University have discovered that the effect of periods of severe drought lasts far beyond the initial drought itself.
Writing in Nature Geosciences, Dr Nathalie Fenner and Professor Chris Freeman of Bangor University explain how the drought causes an increase in the rate of release of CO2 for possibly as long as a decade. It was originally assumed that most of the CO2 was released from the dry peat. Now scientists realise that the release of CO2 continues, and may even increase, when the peat is re-wetted with the arrival of rain. The carbon is lost to the atmosphere as CO2 and methane and to the waters that drain peatlands as dissolved organic carbon (DOC).
"As our global climate and rainfall patterns change, our peatlands may not have sufficient opportunity to recover between these drought-induced episodes of CO2 loss," explains the paper's lead author, Dr Nathalie Fenner. "What we previously perceived as a 'spike' in the rate of carbon loss during drying out, now appears far more prolonged- with a potential peak after the initial drought period is over."
As well as contributing further to climate change, as CO2 is one of the 'greenhouse gasses', the loss of carbon from the peat has other consequences. Dissolved organic carbon in the water as a result of this process, could adversely affect the quality of drinking water. Much of our drinking water comes from these upland sources. The increase of dissolved organic carbon in the water is likely to bring extra problems and expense to the water supply industry because it interferes with the treatment process.
Loss of carbon could ultimately lead to severe degradation of the peatland itself. Occurring on upland regions of the northern hemisphere, the loss of peatland could contribute to an increased frequency of lowland flooding occurrences as the peat acts as a natural 'sponge' for heavy rainfall. There would also be a consequent loss of habitat and species loss as well as a change in the look and feel of our uplands.
"The previous focus of research in this area has been on the drought period, and our own work identified how the release of CO2 occurs," explains Prof Chris Freeman, who leads the Wolfson Peatland Carbon Capture Laboratory at Bangor University. "We were initially surprised at finding that the effects are so prolonged- we think what's happening is microbial and that this activity has been triggered by the introduction of oxygen into previously waterlogged conditions. Once the water returns, conditions have changed and the microbes are further able to thrive until conditions eventually return to normal."
The paper's authors suggest that geo-engineering solutions may have to be considered to preserve the water table and reduce the effects of drought on upland peat.
More information: Drought-induced carbon loss in peatlands Nathalie Fenner Chris Freeman in Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038 NGEO1323
Journal reference:
Nature Geoscience
Provided by
Bangor University
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
32 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
31 comments
-
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update),
4 comments
-
Hypothetical desert earth
18 hours ago
-
More human population = greater mass?
May 25, 2012
-
Conversion from aircraft bearing to normal degrees
May 23, 2012
-
Interpretation/Analysis of the Lab results(HEPA filter)
May 22, 2012
-
Has anyone here attended the The Urbino Summer School in Paleoclimatology?
May 22, 2012
-
Earthquakes: Mag 6 N. Italy and Mag 5.6 W. Bulgaria
May 21, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - Earth
More news stories
Land and sea species differ in climate change response: study
(Phys.org) -- Marine and terrestrial species will likely differ in their responses to climate warming, new research by Simon Fraser University and Australia’s University of Tasmania has found.
1 hour ago |
not rated yet |
1
|
Yale study concludes public apathy over climate change unrelated to science literacy
Are members of the public divided about climate change because they don't understand the science behind it? If Americans knew more basic science and were more proficient in technical reasoning, would public consensus match ...
3 hours ago |
4 / 5 (1) |
10
|
10 million years needed to recover from mass extinction
It took some 10 million years for Earth to recover from the greatest mass extinction of all time, latest research has revealed.
Space & Earth / Earth Sciences
3 hours ago |
not rated yet |
1
|
Sophisticated simulations predict future warming
The chances of our planet being hit by a global warming of 3 degrees Celsius by 2050 is as likely as it being hit by an increase of 1.4 degrees, new research shows. Presented in the journal Nature Geoscience, the British study ...
Space & Earth / Earth Sciences
May 22, 2012 |
4.4 / 5 (9) |
51
Aliens don't want to eat us, says former SETI director
Alien life probably isnt interested in having us for dinner, enslaving us or laying eggs in our bellies, according to a recent statement by former SETI director Jill Tarter.
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
May 25, 2012 |
4.4 / 5 (14) |
39
'Unzipped' carbon nanotubes could help energize fuel cells, batteries
Multi-walled carbon nanotubes riddled with defects and impurities on the outside could replace some of the expensive platinum catalysts used in fuel cells and metal-air batteries, according to scientists at ...
T cells 'hunt' parasites like animal predators seek prey, study shows
By pairing an intimate knowledge of immune-system function with a deep understanding of statistical physics, a cross-disciplinary team at the University of Pennsylvania has arrived at a surprising finding: T cells use a movement ...
Computer model used to pinpoint prime materials for efficient carbon capture
When power plants begin capturing their carbon emissions to reduce greenhouse gases and to most in the electric power industry, it's a question of when, not if it will be an expensive undertaking.
Change in developmental timing was crucial in the evolutionary shift from dinosaurs to birds: study
At first glance, it's hard to see how a common house sparrow and a Tyrannosaurus Rex might have anything in common. After all, one is a bird that weighs less than an ounce, and the other is a dinosaur that ...
Nvidia trumpets Tegra 3 phone design wins for 2012
(Phys.org) -- Nvidias competitive war paint has a name, Tegra 3. On the heels of Nvidia announcements about lowering costs of its Tegra 3 processors and Nvidia-enabled tablets running Android Ice Cream ...
Almost half of new vets seek disability
(AP) -- America's newest veterans are filing for disability benefits at a historic rate, claiming to be the most medically and mentally troubled generation of former troops the nation has ever seen.
Nov 20, 2011
Rank: 1.4 / 5 (18)
That may or may not influence global temperatures. The Sun exerts primary control over Earth's climate [1,2].
World leaders do not understand and cannot control the energy source that powers the Sun [3,4].
1. "Super-fluidity in the solar interior: Implications for solar eruptions and climate", J Fusion Energy 21, 193-198 (2002
http://arxiv.org/.../0501441
2. "Earth's Heat Source - The Sun", Energy & Environment 20, 131-144 (2009)
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704
3. "Neutron Repulsion", The APEIRON Journal, in press (2011)
http://arxiv.org/...2.1499v1
4. "Climate change and national security"
http://judithcurr...t-140805
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://myprofile....anuelo09
Nov 20, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (15)
I agree that we should move to sustainable energy sources and we should do it quickly, BUT...
The never-ending, in-your-face, scary global-warming media just REEKS of propaganda. No???
Nov 20, 2011
Rank: 2.1 / 5 (19)
If and only if CO2 caues warming and IF and only if this causes more droughts THEN peat will release more CO2, but these highly contentious claims are assumed as a basis for the work!
This theory was only ever based on an argument from corellation, in ignorance of the 800 year lag between CO2 and temperature discovered in 2003 and in ignorance of the Svensmark mechanism for cosmic ray cloud seeding proposed by in 2006! The correlation has failed, Co2 keeps rising and temperature has stalled, sea leven has dropped recently and we now have much more information and better theories than were availible in 1988 when Hansen gave his alarmist and speculative evidence to congress. Give the money back.
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 2.9 / 5 (17)
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 1.3 / 5 (12)
http://curry.eas....taFe.pdf
The word explosive describes the object that produced our elements, gave birth to the Solar System five billion years (5 Gyr) ago), sustains life, and exerts primary control over Earth's climate.
Reluctance to admit the Sun's explosive nature and repulsive forces between neutrons in the solar core have compromised astronomy, astrophysics, climatology, cosmology, nuclear, particle, solar and space sciences for the past four decades.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://myprofile....anuelo09
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (12)
It may appear as propaganda from your point of view but consider that scientists have accepted the data on global warming for years and the next logical step is to gather data on the risks of potential feedback and greater detail on the worst affected zones. Helping planners consider ways to mitigate the worst effects where possible as mentioned in the above article.
Be prepared for many more similar stories as this round of research progresses. From the outside as they publish it may seem as you say but if you accept the situation, as they already have, then these papers are simply the next logical areas to study. Also they are published and thus show up here often several years after the studies began given the effort required.
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (12)
The key for me with CO2 is that is holds in heat where H2O vapor just isn't. Such as deserts and Antarctica.
Oliver we do know the Sun produces heat and it is variable. The people involved in this are aware of this despite your bogus claims that they do not know it. The Sun is now on the upward part of it's temperature cycle after a prolonged down cycle that usually only lasts 11 years but this one went on for 13 years.
Ethelred
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (9)
In Sweden alone, the amount of carbon trapped in peat bogs is of the same order of magnitude as the North Sea oil fields.
When peat bogs dry out, oxygen eventually reaches down to the preserved organic matter and decomposition turns the matter into water, carbon dioxide and some solid waste.
--- --- --- --- --- ---
All this is independent on the existing release of methane from the arctic tundra.
Like the eruptive cycle of Mount St Helens, all of this is well documented. Unlike the people living near Mount St. Helens, we have plenty of warning since the carbon dioxide release is a slow, continuous process. Alarmism? Propaganda?
--- --- --- --- --- ---
Addendum: In the Scandinavian countries, even the conservative parties accept climate change as a proven fact. Up here, the symptoms are more obvious than in warmer regions. But don't worry, you will get local syptoms eventually.
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (31)
It does. It keeps the earth's surface at an average temperature of about 270'K
The Atmosphere increases that average by another 7 percent.
Poor Clueless OmaTard. You need more psychotherapy.
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 0.8 / 5 (31)
Yes, but you Scandinavian's are vastly smarter than the average American who spends most of their time grubbing for nickels and dimes.
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 1.2 / 5 (33)
Not by a long shot. The scientific method involves observing the world, formulating a hypothesis about it and verifying that hypothesis in the best way possible.
Skepticism is an open and honest suspicion that an observation is in error or an open and honest suspicion based on a viable alternate theory, that the theory doesn't explain the observations.
In the case of Global Warming Denialism, there is no viable alternate theory, and certainly no honesty in the denialist camp.
Denialism is the refusal to accept reality as reality.
It is the antithesis of science.
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 1.2 / 5 (34)
There is no valid "if" in the above sentence.
CO2 is observed to absorb IR. Hence it causes surface warming. This is a fact of basic physics, and it's denial is equivalent to the denial of the last 300 years of science which is based in part on the theoretical and experimentally verified relationship.
Your inclusion of the word "IF" just screams out that you are a low grade moron.
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 0.9 / 5 (34)
The ongoing warming of the globe will be a dominant theme that influences the rest of your life.
If you can't handle the truth then put a bullet in your own brain now, as you will have proven yourself to be less than worthless.
Do it now. Make the world a better place.
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (6)
Ethelred
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 2 / 5 (16)
However - temperatures are flat, sea level rise is slowing, Antarctic ice is growing, and CO2 levels keep rising. We are cooler now than 80-90% of the time since the last ice age.
GW theory is a failure. Try again, warmunists.
Nov 21, 2011
Rank: 3.5 / 5 (8)
Nov 22, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
My point EXACTLY. LOL... too funny... Either believe or kill myself. lmao
Nov 22, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Typical tea party cultist! To chicken to back up his words. Perhaps its best you go back to the Sarah Palin McCain fantasy sites and other such porn sites. ;P
Nov 22, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
No.
Nothing contentious about that - at least among climate scientists. And those are the ones that count.
You make a hypothesis and then set out to test that hypothesis. You devise a test whose outcome is unknown to you and which will give you information about the hypothesis either way.
If you try to prove or disprove the hypothesis then you're already introducing a bias.
Nov 22, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (30)
The Denialist Koch Brothers just funded a study called "BEST" that has concluded that the average rate of warming over the last decade has been .14'C per decade.
Are you lying? Or are the Koch brothers lying?
Nov 22, 2011
Rank: 0.7 / 5 (30)
Do it before someone else does it for you.
It is only a matter of time before bloody retribution catches up with you for your ongoing crime against humanity and nature.
State your real name for the record.
Nov 22, 2011
Rank: 0.7 / 5 (28)
"We are cooler now than 80-90% of the time since the last ice age. " - 3234Tard
Current Global temps are .74'C above the recent norm.
http://www.moon-a...uty2.gif
Nov 25, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
http://www.forbes...-debate/
The more you know about climate changers the less you respect them.
Nov 25, 2011
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
Nov 25, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
You are correct that steps should be taken as quickly as possible toward new energy sources. But even though it seems like propaganda overkill from several fronts, it is a necessary evil due to the fact that a good majority of the world's population is not taking it seriously enough to adjust their consumption of energy to help alleviate the CO2 emissions problem. The offending parties are either unaware of the situation or they are uncaring and prefer to "let the other guy" worry about it and lessen their own emissions. Individuals vary in their concern over GW and make it necessary to repeat the warnings over and over. My only objection is the U.N. requiring airlines to contribute money for carbon footprint payments to other countries to land there.
Nov 25, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (5)
http://www.woodfo...02/trend
Could just be noise. Could be our new reality over the following decade. We'll have to see what comes this way over the next couple decades to know with some degree of certainty.
And, please, no 'climate only is more than a decade' canard that is quite popular here with posters. It's not. Climate certainly can be measured in terms of years rather than decades. If you want to determine means, averages and normals, on the other hand, that is another matter. Then, you need at least 30 years worth of data and often more.
But, that is not the subject of the above link, is it? :)
Nov 25, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
~/FOIA/mail/2884.txt
This was sent in reply to Michael Mann, who had sent a revised figure that was based on a figure by Gavin Schmidt used over at the RealClimate website.
Interesting stuff... :)
Nov 26, 2011
Rank: 0.8 / 5 (30)
"And, please, no 'climate only is more than a decade' canard that is quite popular here with posters. It's not." - SkepticusTard
And BEST shows a 0.14'C warming trend over the last decade.
Do you see the anomolous downward spike in the last two data points of your Tard Boy plot?
Those are unreliable data points that come from 14 reporting stations (preliminary) rather than the 1400 that are typically used. They can't be used to honestly compute a trend because they are statistically insignificant and dominated by noise.
You poor, ignorant Tard you.
Nov 26, 2011
Rank: 0.8 / 5 (30)
Ya... So...
I once saw some raindrops illuminated by a flash of lightning which made them look like they were falling upward.
It was a very deceptive display.
But not nearly as deceptive as you are trying to be.
Nov 26, 2011
Rank: 0.8 / 5 (30)
"The more you know about climate changers the less you respect them." - FreeTard
Nov 26, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
So sorry, 31812, I accidentally ranked your screed a 5, when I intended to 5 deepsand's comment following. My apologies to you as well, deepsand.
Nov 26, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
Everything from 2011 is preliminary. That is why I said "if the current trend continues" and so forth. Cannot you read with any degree of comprehension? They say that when an opponent slings slurs and unsavory epithets it is because said opponent realizes subconsciously that the argument has been lost. Hmmmmm... :)
And, there is no deception on my part. I cited the email verbatim. It is Tom Wigley who used the words deceptive and dishonest in relation to private writers, RealClimate, and IPCC. You might want to ask Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt about that subject, though. :)
Nov 26, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
No problem; stuff happens.
Besides, I very, very rarely look at who's repping me & how; and, then, only if I'm not certain from the content of their post(s) as to which side of a debate someone is on.