Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by hubie on Tuesday May 24 2022, @12:57PM   Printer-friendly
from the roasting-my-feet-by-the-furnace-of-peat dept.

Scientists have discovered "proto-peat" forming in the Arctic as the Earth naturally sequesters carbon, but it could take centuries to mature:

Thank peat for that scotchy flavor of Scotch whisky: The muck forms in Scotland's bogs, when layer after layer of dead vegetation resists decay and compresses into fuel, which is burned during scotch distillation. But you can also thank peat for helping keep our planet relatively cool, as all that muck—which is particularly common across the Arctic—traps a tremendous amount of carbon that would otherwise heat the atmosphere.

That peat is in serious trouble, and not because the world is drinking too much Scotch. As the Arctic warms, peat is drying out and igniting thanks to lightning strikes. These become some of the strangest wildfires on Earth, because they can smolder through the ground, moving slowly across the landscape until they pop up somewhere else—earning them the nickname "zombie fires." Peat fires will even "overwinter," burning under the snow and igniting new fires aboveground in the spring. These blazes can burn for months and release astonishing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.

At the same time, the Arctic is greening, which might sound great, but it's actually a slow-motion nightmare for the region's ability to keep carbon sequestered. [...]

Scientists, though, just discovered that there might be a small ray of hope as the Arctic greens. All of that plant growth may be building new peat, potentially offsetting at least some of the losses of carbon from peat fires and permafrost thaw. [...]

All of this creates a contradiction that scientists are only beginning to investigate: As the Arctic warms, more peat dries out and ignites, but more vegetation grows, which could eventually form new peat. "People think that there are no new peatlands initiating at the moment, but our data is—very tentatively, at least—showing that this is not the case," says Väliranta.

[...] After all, there are only a small number of Arctic ecosystems that appear to be accumulating organic matter, compared to the widespread destruction of established peatlands. And proto-peat still has a long way to go before it's full-blown peat—and only if it can stay wet. [...]

Which is all to say: Betting on new peat to sequester the extra carbon that humanity is pumping into the atmosphere is a bad move, as there's no guarantee the balance between recent growth and ongoing loss will tip in our favor. If we don't massively crash emissions, no amount of natural carbon removal will save us from ourselves.

Journal Reference:
Juselius, T., Ravolainen, V., Zhang, H. et al. Newly initiated carbon stock, organic soil accumulation patterns and main driving factors in the High Arctic Svalbard, Norway [open]. Sci Rep 12, 4679 (2022).
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-08652-9


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: -1, Spam) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 24 2022, @02:35PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 24 2022, @02:35PM (#1247460)

    Eskimo women in bikinis... believe me, you do not want to see that.

    • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 24 2022, @03:55PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 24 2022, @03:55PM (#1247479)

      racissss asssshole

      • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 24 2022, @04:08PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 24 2022, @04:08PM (#1247483)

        I'm sure you'd prefer to see transgender Eskimos in tutus, but the world's not a Democrats wet dream.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by ElizabethGreene on Tuesday May 24 2022, @02:41PM (10 children)

    by ElizabethGreene (6748) on Tuesday May 24 2022, @02:41PM (#1247463)

    If we make plastics slightly denser than water they'll sink to the bottom of our waterways and sequester a significant amount of carbon.

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 24 2022, @03:11PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 24 2022, @03:11PM (#1247470)

      And if we don't make plastic at all, the oil that plastic would be made from will stay where it is already sequestered (at least for longer).
      Sounds like a lot cheaper to me than making denser plastics just to sink that carbon back.

      That is, unless you propose to make denser plastic from atmospheric carbon.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 24 2022, @03:29PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 24 2022, @03:29PM (#1247474)

        There is no replacement for a plastic of some sort in many cases.

    • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 24 2022, @03:13PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 24 2022, @03:13PM (#1247471)

      Just dd a little lead dust to the plastic during manufacture.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 24 2022, @10:17PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 24 2022, @10:17PM (#1247557)

        > man dd

        DD(1) User Commands DD(1)

        NAME
                      dd - convert and copy a file

        ....

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by vux984 on Tuesday May 24 2022, @06:55PM (2 children)

      by vux984 (5045) on Tuesday May 24 2022, @06:55PM (#1247532)

      That's actually an interesting proposition. Interestingly, it turns out that microorganism colonization of plastics ('biofouling') can also make them dense enough to sink.

      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0043135421004875 [sciencedirect.com]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 25 2022, @01:21AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 25 2022, @01:21AM (#1247610)

        Actually, your point of sinking plastic due to biofouling is better news than the article itself posits as a remote possibility.

        Cause the difference between new peat growing and the belching of carbon due to burning, is probably going to be way one sided, until an equilibrium is reached. By then it will be of no use to us.

        The tipping point is about to be crossed if not already.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 25 2022, @02:59AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 25 2022, @02:59AM (#1247635) Journal

          The tipping point is about to be crossed if not already.

          The problem is that tipping point hasn't even been shown to exist. The narrative only reveals part of the balance sheet. Notice how they dismiss massive increases in vegetation as "a slow-motion nightmare for the region's ability to keep carbon sequestered". Let's see a real analysis of that carbon budget not just a spin that only tells one side of the ledger.

          I think what's going to make long term trouble for this analysis is that this isn't the first time tundra and ice field has turned into something else. Where did the carbon go from the previous retreat of ice at the end of the last glacial period? Tundra turned into forest and plains then too.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 25 2022, @01:10AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 25 2022, @01:10AM (#1247605)

      So that extra plastic won't leach anything back into the food web?
      Just cause it sinks does not mean the problems are gone, in fact you have increased them.
      More fuel needed to manufacture and deliver, more chemicals for the environment to digest.
      That is if it even gets to the bottom of some hole.

      No thanks.
      Any other suggestions?

      • (Score: 2) by vux984 on Wednesday May 25 2022, @01:30AM

        by vux984 (5045) on Wednesday May 25 2022, @01:30AM (#1247612)

        "Just cause it sinks does not mean the problems are gone, in fact you have increased them."

        How do you think sinking increases the problems vs floating? If they are floating they are still in the food web too, and being recirculated continually.
        Sinking would be an improvement; if it eventually ends up under the muck it at the bottom of the ocean, buried over time by all the other sediment settling there, it will eventually be deep enough to get out of circulation.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 25 2022, @03:02AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 25 2022, @03:02AM (#1247636) Journal

        Just cause it sinks does not mean the problems are gone, in fact you have increased them.

        Because your food web is buried under a bunch of muck? Do tell.

(1)