SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
We add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere through fossil fuel combustion. About 40% of this carbon stays in the atmosphere and roughly 30% enters the ocean, and we are not too sure where all the rest goes.
Most scientists thought the remaining carbon was taken up by plants, but measurements show plants don't absorb all of the remaining 30% of carbon we generate.
Lots of theories have been expounded about where the leftover carbon is being stored.
A study published in Geophysical Research Letters suggests some of this carbon may be disappearing underneath the world's deserts – a process exacerbated by irrigation, beginning as recently as 2000 years ago.
When cultivating and irrigating arid/saline lands in arid zones, salts are leached downward. Simultaneously, dissolved inorganic carbon is washed down into the huge saline aquifers underneath vast deserts, forming a large carbon sink or pool.
Researchers studying the Tarim Basin in China, found that around 20 billion metric tons of carbon is stored underneath the desert, dissolved in an aquifer that contains roughly ten times the amount of water held in the Great Lakes.
This is a carbon sink that is not observable in plant or soil, with dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) leached from irrigated arid land and deposited in the saline/alkaline aquifers under bare deserts. For the most part, this is a one way trip for the carbon. No mechanism has been identified for return to the surface or the atmosphere.
More importantly, the DIC goes into an almost untouched pool in saline/alkaline aquifers hidden beneath deserts, which is estimated to be up to 1000 Pg (1,102,311,310 kilotons) globally, large enough to be recognized as the third largest active carbon pool on land.
Such carbon sinks formed during groundwater recharge has been reported before. But never on this scale.
The amount of dissolved inorganic carbon stored is 1 to 2 orders of magnitude higher than previously thought.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday December 22 2015, @06:15PM
What's the bit of math?
Subtraction; maybe you've heard of it.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday December 22 2015, @07:01PM
What's the bit of math?
Subtraction; maybe you've heard of it.
I am starting to believe that this particular Anonymous Coward may not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 22 2015, @11:14PM
If it is that simple I am certain it is wrong. For example, when estimating the amount of carbon in the troposphere they may assume a constant mean troposphere height rather than consider the fact it is about 2x higher at the equator then poles, thus allowing more carbon to be stored at the equator. If they don't do this "constant tropopause" simplification, the calculation must be somewhat more complex. If they do that simplification, the answer will be wrong by a substantial amount (although 30% still seems like a lot, 5-10% is more what I would expect just due to that one but I haven't checked it).
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Wednesday December 23 2015, @07:36AM
If it is that simple I am certain it is wrong.
Kind of an "inverse Ockham's Razor", no doubt? But William of Ockham was a famous guy, and you are just some anonymous coward on SolyentNews with "feelings" about "numbers". Yeah, you must be right. All of us bow down to your superior Oil-company funded intellect - - -NOT! I predict, on the basis of Hanlon's Razor, that you are off by at least 180 degrees. Would you knot agree?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 23 2015, @02:41PM
"Kind of an "inverse Ockham's Razor", no doubt?"
Yes, similar to the idea that an average is more accurate with more data, a model is more accurate as it captures more aspects of reality. Anyway, this thread has increased my conviction that most people concerned about CO2 have never really looked into it at all. If it were just due to paywalls that would be one thing. But it seems worse, like they are either trolling or are unfamiliar with even the basic methods of science.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday December 23 2015, @09:00PM
No, seriously, you are coming across as a "denier". You may not be, you may be perfectly sincere in your desire to be "scientifically correct" on the CO2 sinks, but that would not be the simplest explanation. Look at frojack's posts on topics like this. He is a master at being a denialist shill, no accusations of incorrect data or lack of understanding of scientific method, but just enough friendly injection of uncertainty to keep the client's position alive. That is all the Oil companies are asking for anyway. Denialism is one of those places where just a bit too much will destroy the entire effort. You seem to have crossed that line.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 24 2015, @12:24AM
If the only one in the thread providing sources, etc rather than pulling stuff out of the grass (later conclusively shown by the sources to be proved wrong) sounds like a "denier", it speaks very poorly of the CO2 concerned crowd. Learn some basic scholarly research and science fundamentals or keep your mouth shut. That is all I'm saying.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday December 24 2015, @01:21AM
Oh, I'm sorry! You were providing sources? I thought you had nothing but exaggerated ball-park estimates of margins of error. But if you had actual sources, I must have missed them, so by all means please provide them again. I am sure everyone is interested in seeing your data!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 24 2015, @02:17AM
Huh? It is right above where you are posting. Sorry if it is undeserved, but I am marking you as a troll account. Maybe it is alcohol, reefer, whatever, but the end effect is the same.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday December 24 2015, @03:57AM
Well, OK, if you want to be a troll instead of providing some actual information, it is fine with me! I looked, and cannot see any sources you have provided. The closest was this:
For example, when estimating the amount of carbon in the troposphere they may assume a constant mean troposphere height rather than consider the fact it is about 2x higher at the equator then poles, thus allowing more carbon to be stored at the equator. If they don't do this "constant tropopause" simplification, the calculation must be somewhat more complex. If they do that simplification, the answer will be wrong by a substantial amount (although 30% still seems like a lot, 5-10% is more what I would expect just due to that one but I haven't checked it).
But as I said, i see no citation here only throwing around of words like "troposphere" (god, that's a nice word!) and the idea that that would make the calculation more complex. without the slightest evidence that this would be the case other than your own say-so. Good day, sir! I said, Good day!