in that carbon locked in soils and plants on former agricultural land might be released into the atmosphere.
Schierhorn s study estimates, using vegetation modelling, that 470 million tonnes of carbon which would equate to about one-third of US CO2 emissions in 2012
and Ukraine (see Carbon goes wild). SOURCE: F. Schierhorn et al. Glob Biogeochem. Cycles http://doi. org/qg8 (2013) Wild vegetation is taking up carbon at a rate three times greater than previously estimated by some researchers,
and the sink could become even more substantial as forests form, the team reports. Abandoned land, says Schierhorn,
accounts for about one-third of the carbon sink provided by all forests in western Russia.
In a 2008 study, he and his team calculated a carbon sink of about 8 million tonnes per year in abandoned cropland in Ukraine
)" The strength of a carbon sink depends not only on current biological activity but also on former crop management practices such as fertilizer use, says Vuichard.
the environmental impact of producing meat in terms of everything from carbon emissions to water use is typically many times larger than that of producing vegetable foods.
the more kilos of carbon it puts on each year.""The trees that are adding the most mass are the biggest ones,
and their gradual move towards a plateau in the amount of carbon they store as they reach maturity2.
whereas earlier studies had looked typically at the overall carbon stored in a plot. Estimating absolute growth for any tree remains problematic,
the rate of carbon accumulation depends on how fast old forests turn over.""It s the geometric reality of tree growth:
or providing old-growth habitat and increasing carbon stocks. More broadly the research could help scientists to develop better models of how forests function
including researchers, in areas as diverse as farming, forest carbon management, regional and local planning,
to help farmers to reduce carbon emissions and cope with climate change. The hubs will provide climate data and assessments,
Even a pine tree burned in a forest fire does not release as much carbon as a pine tree burned in a power plant Niel Lawrence a National Resources Defense Council lawyer told Greenwire.
We pump BILLIONS of tons of carbon into the air annually. This is carbon that does not exist in a natural cycle.
We're taking it from well below the surface and putting it into the air.
Also they periodically hand the vehicle back to the carbon based life form. I don't disagree with the approach I'm just saying that many things are yet to be proven.
As for the free carbon acidifying the ocean why would that be worrying? The acidity is neutralized by the dissolution of Calcium
and coral is beneficial to other species (note that the era where cartiledge fish like sharks developed was a high free carbon era
Likewise when that carbon is needed that calcium will be freed up once again. The fact that so much of the world is covered with (A) limestone
or carbon so your teaspoonful would taste like a whiff of flavorless helium gas or a lick of coal.
There are also some pretty convincing signs that the'excess'carbon is SURFACE carbon not from fossil fuels.
but if you look at carbon 14 in the atmosphere prior to extensive nuclear test you'd expect the percentage to drop as fossil carbon (without 14c) is introduced into the atmosphere
People and livestock (pigs chickens cows) are the most likely source of the majority of the carbon increase.
because it doesn't fit the agenda it is carbon neutral (only affects the'flow'of carbon
Typically that translates into a spin on a carbon-fiber-based core but Cechetti decided to try using coconut fiber instead.
The new Coco Mat core which is used now in boards from Australian brand NSP is stronger than carbon fiber and more sustainable.
Key to this process is carbon sequestration. Plants sequester some of the carbon dioxide they breathe in storing it in their branches
To turn deserts into a viable spot for carbon sequestration the researchers assembled a diverse team of specialists with knowledge ranging from irrigation and carbon sequestration to desalination and economics.
and then letting the plants start sequestering carbon and eventually producing biofuel. A potential unintended side-effect of such a project is a chance of increased cloud cover and rainfall.
it's out there combating climate change a few carbon emissions at a time. When beavers build a dam impeding the natural flow of water the river begins to overflow more often creating a sediment-rich wetland area known as a beaver meadow.
A new study from Colorado State university geology professor Ellen Wohl finds that these beaver meadows store carbon temporarily sequestering greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
With reductions in the beaver population we're missing out on a whole lot of potential carbon storage.
Wohl found that the abandoned beaver dams she studied made up around 8 percent of the carbon storage in the landscape
Squirreling away our carbon log by log. The study appears in Geophysical Research Letters. Science via Phys. org Considering we're at a critical carbon deficit right now it's about time to start wiping these pudgy menaces out for good!
I'm a little skeptical about this study. I have a hard time believing that cutting down trees
and burying them in water will have a net negative impact on the level of carbon in the area.
You're reducing a carbon sync AND anaerobic decomposition as you would get with buried plant matter would produce methane which is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
but I'd bet there is a net increase of atmospheric carbon. Cute Beaver and interesting article too.
Critical carbon deficit? WTF are you talking about?@@Frosttty for most of the history of the world we have had significantly more atmospheric carbon than we do now.
Most of it has already been buried. Atmospheric carbon has been falling since the late Jurassic when it was about 2500 ppm vs today's 400 ppm.
Considering the climate stabilizing properties of greenhouse gasses and the importance of CO2 to life On earth we need to do everything we can to prevent carbon sequestration
if we desire a healthy planet. As a retired Department of Environmental Quality Employee and an owner of timber land this is a stupid article on environmentalism gone crazy in past history.
Reading some of these comments it's clear that it's not enough that beavers sequester carbon raise the water table augment the density
#Carbon Test Determines Whether A Piece Of Ivory Is Legal Or Illegalone way poachers get the big elephants they want is by shooting a baby elephant first.
The technique looks at the radioactive carbon in the ivory which elephants and every other living creature on earth incorporated into their bodies in unusually high levels during the Cold War era.
The carbon tells scientists whether a piece of ivory comes from an elephant that died before
and geologists from the U s. Kenya and the U k. use mass spectrometry to determine the amount of carbon-14 a rare radioactive isotope of carbon appears in an animal tissue.
There's always some carbon-14 in the atmosphere but during the Cold war aboveground nuclear tests doubled the amount of carbon-14 in the environment.
Plants incorporate carbon into their roots stems and leaves as they grow. Animals then get that carbon from eating plants
or eating animals that eat plants. Other research groups have used the Cold war spike in carbon-14 to figure out the birthdates of human brain cells fat cells and teeth.
The ivory group tested many animal tissues this way including hippopotamus teeth elephant tail hairs and blue monkey hairs in addition to elephant tusks and rhino horns.
For tissues formed after 1955 the scientists are able to pin down a death date that's within 0. 3 to 1. 3 years of the animal's actual death.
It seems that he's following through pledging in his three-pronged plan to cut carbon pollution prepare communities
The main tenant of the new plan involves setting federal standards limiting carbon pollution from both new and existing power plants
and lead but there is no federal rule to prevent power plants from releasing as much carbon pollution as they want the plan states.
And while Obama called for America to lead by example when it comes to combating climate change carbon pollution is rapidly rising in developing countries he noted.
only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution. Because we typically all agree with what the government thinks is in our nation's best interest.
By the way Ms. Ferro by carbon pollution do you mean carbon monoxide (CO) or carbon soot black carbon?
I really hope you have a beach housethe main tenant of the new plan involves setting federal standards limiting carbon pollution from both new and existing power plants
Does taking our advise mean popsci as a whole are agreeing to police carbon pollution? or maybe a few authors and the editor are in favor of carbon police.
A president's plan of action are political speeches that don't mean anything. They are used to placate appease a group of people like shaunacy ferro and her ilk for obvious reasons (money power beliefs etc.
Humans are made out of carbon and breath out C02 I wonder if humans behavior is to be policed under the presidents new carbon pollution position.
What a great sci-fi novel idea...the gov't trying to control human behavior by claiming we are polluting our planet by existing.
#Using Wood As Biofuel May be Worse For The Planet Than We Thoughttimber harvesting may release significant amounts of carbon into the atmosphere according to a new study.
Analyses of carbon emissions often ignore the carbon stored in deep soils the study authors say.
But after reviewing multiple recent research papers about decreases in soil carbon levels the authors concluded that intensive forest management practices can cause large amounts of underground carbon to flow into the atmosphere.
Our paper suggests the carbon in the mineral soil may change more rapidly and result in increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide as a result of disturbances such as logging says Andrew Friedland a professor at Darthmouth College
Our paper suggests that increased reliance on wood may have unintended the effect of increasing the transfer of carbon from the mineral soil to the atmosphere.
Wait you're telling me that burning large amounts of wood and other biofuels puts carbon into the atmosphere?
and sustainably probably still has more benefits as a whole than burning fossil fuelsancient trees being burned currently release ancient carbon.
New trees being burned release recent aquired carbon. The ancient tree buring do to the age adds to the carbon foot print of Earth.
The burning of recently planted trees just cycles the same carbon as long as new trees are being planted.
Leave the trees that are 300 or more years old alone. http://www. popsci. com/technology/article/2013-05/iran-unveils-new-stealth-drone-isnt#comment-301696 LIKE A 1970 MARVEL TOY THERMIC
U f o)))when the tree rots release significant amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. that is what they not telling you. just replant all trees everything is good
. when the tree rots it will release significant amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. that is
Al gore owned a carbon exchange company (might still haven't checked) while he flew around the world in a private jet burning fossil fuel
but trees thenselves are carbon sinks. What's more we have huge swaths of desert land that can possibly be terriformed to lush greenland with smart engineering.
Second it would help to regulate atmospheric carbon as well as filter pollutants from the air. The thing is this has been known for decades.
If you cut down trees and sequester the wood (carbon) there will be NO release of CO2. I don't think anyone would argue that more trees is better than fewer trees
More carbon use by humans (access to cheap energy) is correlated directly to decreasing poverty and sickness. ppardee here's some more ammo for you.
Cutting down forests is carbon-neutral; it doesn't release carbon. But it clears the way for another tree to be planted in their place.
The tree itself is sequestered the Carbon that it breaths in. Move that CO2 pod out of the way to place a new sequestering machine to grow in its spot.
Then hide those CO2 pods in peoples'houses. They'll never suspect it! As far as the'global warming'issue ppardee and lauren have covered it pretty well.
They wouldn't have tried carbon (C14) dating (which is generally not grossly unreliable for dry artefacts of historical age)
Xylosexylose D Xylose is a five carbon sugar. Xylose is converted into D xylulose through the isomerization process of making high fructose corn syrup.
/p=1146earth s Weakening Magnetic field http://modernsurvivalblog. com/pole-shift-2/earths-weakening-magnetic-field/Add the sun natural cycles then add human induced carbon warming finally the reduction
#Space Tourism's Black Carbon Problemthis story is part of a special Popularscience. com series on the future of energy.
The big threat from the scaling-up of space travel they say comes from something called black carbon a type of particulate matter that
when hurled into the stratosphere builds up for years absorbing visible light from the sun. According to one study black carbon emitted into the stratosphere by rockets would absorb 100000 times as much energy as the CO2 emitted by those rockets.
you don't want to put black carbon in the stratosphere. Period says Darin Toohey a professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences at the University of Colorado Boulder.
***Black carbon should be familiar to anyone who's ever idled behind a diesel truck
The reason black carbon doesn't wreak more havoc on the environment is that it has a short lifetime in the lower atmosphere precipitation washes away black carbon emissions from planes and other sources within a matter of weeks.
or other atmospheric factors to wash out the black carbon in the stratosphere black carbon would linger for 5 to 10 years or more.
Moroever rockets produce over 1000 times more black carbon per unit of fuel than standard aircraft.
carbon effects of a hypothetical 1000 flight-per year industry. They measured the black carbon's radiative forcing âÂ#Âa metric for how much extra energy the Earth
and its atmosphere absorb from a given manmade or natural phenomena. The radiative forcing from the black carbon that rockets placed in the stratosphere was up to 100000 times greater than that of the CO2 released by the rockets.
In contrast the radiative forcing of the black carbon placed for just a few weeks into the atmosphere by jets is less than 1/10 of that of its carbon dioxide.**
***Here's where space tourism comes into play: The number of space launches annually around the world numbers around 70 today
That creates 1000 opportunities to shoot black carbon directly into the stratosphere. The amount of black carbon emitted during combustion On earth
or in the trophosphere where airlines fly tends to be low because of the relatively rich supply of oxygen.
Once you get into the stratosphere where low pressure leads to less oxygen black carbon can amount to as much as 5%of the products of combustion.
and deciding whether to grant licenses to launch vehicles into space says the effects of black carbon in the stratosphere are unclear.
Although black carbon is known to be a short-term climate forcer research on the potential climate change impacts of black carbon from rockets is in a very early stage
The space-tourism industry has downplayed black carbon's potential harm. Virgin Galactic declined repeated inquiries to comment.
So the concern about carbon or other particles is moot for us. Toohey still wants to see peer-reviewed studies of the actual interaction of XCOR and other engines with the stratosphere.
If black carbon is such a problem why didn't they mention it during NASA flights?
You can practically see the carbon output on that thing so much so the photo almost looks fake with the black shadows within the plume.
Black carbon in the upper atmosphere absorbs light from the sun. Said heated black carbon does not have any heating affects on the surface as heat rises.
the same shmucks who argue cow frts are making the world marm up also argue the carbon shifting by electric vehicles..
1. Eco-tourism will become a major source of revenue. 2. Investment in carbon sequestration by industrial nations looking to offset their CO2 production would also be a major source of revenue.
And carbon credit investments? The implausibility of that scheme deserves an entire essay. The use of a picture of deforestation caused by the Mt st helens eruption event may bring people's emotions to the surface
Eliminating carbon would have such a negative economic effect that even a bubble-headed columnist in New york city will notice a personal drop in standard of living.
You're too worried about your carbon foot print. And who cares? My SUV and the pollution of U s is compared nothing to the pollution output of Africa China Russia India
or a newspaper you are sequestering carbon. Ever time a hose is bulldozed and dumped in a landfill your sequestering carbon.
Old growth forests are not the source for these products wood is most commonly a farmed product. www. popsci. com/science/article/2013-04/solar-panels-now-make-more-electricity-they-use@adaptation. It was my understanding that solar panels only pay themselves off in a short period of time
As far as AGW proponents are concerned that means extra carbon burned in order to produce this non-carbon energy source.
After 30+years of this stuff the solar panels are just starting to break even on that front.
and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxidehttp://www. sciencedaily. com/releases/2013/04/130422154919. htmthese are opinion pieces not data sites.
We pump Billions of tons of carbon into the air annually and you don't think that'll have an effect?
We're pumping Billions of tons of carbon into our atmosphere on an annual basis. This doesn't matter to the deniers.
Add the carbon cost to it and the payback is in the first few months.
and generating 40%rates of return on investments to the nation as a whole for a carbon to nuclear conversion.
We've taken carbon that's been buried in the Earth and have been burning it to the tune of Billions of tons a year and put that in the atmosphere.
This carbon took millions of years to bury and we've been introducing it to the atmosphere in less than 200 years.
That's reducing the Earth's ability to take in all of the carbon we're putting into the atmosphere.
instead in the amount of radioactive carbon trapped in the annual growth rings of some of the world's oldest trees.
Carbon's key radioactive isotope carbon-14 forms when energetic particles enter Earth's atmosphere
Since trees take in both carbon-14 and its stable relative carbon-12 the relative levels of carbon-14 in their growth rings give scientists a way of measuring the amount of high-energy particles entering Earth's atmosphere in a given year.
When analyzing two ancient Japanese cedars last year the scientists found that the amount of carbon-14 present in their 775 AD growth rings was shockingly large.
It's normal for levels of carbon-14 to fluctuate--they rise and fall on an 11-year cycle with the waxing and waning of solar flares.
But for the entire 3000-year record there are no other spikes as steep as the one in 775.
So what could have caused the massive burst of radiation and the high influx of energetic particles that led to the elevated levels of carbon-14 in the atmosphere?
which could then go on to form the carbon-14 present in such abundance in the Japanese cedars.
When they found that neither solar flares nor supernovae could explain the carbon-14 anomaly they had found the researchers published their discovery
if media reported scientific findings along with the limitations of the test/report/study/researchi for one was largely unaware of the limitations of carbon 14 dating until recently.
The carbon in mollusk shells is dissolved from calcium carbonate in water. Thus the measurement was an average of
when the carbon formed not the age of the animal. For this reason radiocarbon dating only works for organisms that obtain their carbon from air via carbon dioxide.
Even organisms that eat aquatic organisms should be calibrated to account for this (for example a seal that was dated to be 1400 years old.
because for this study the researchers had to be able to see how carbon-14 levels changed from one year to the next
Over the past 3000 years there have been 3 sharp spikes in carbon-14 levels over a short period of time.
and it turned out that the carbon-14 spikes occurred over a few years and could be explained by solar activity.
Yes they were measuring the carbon-14 in tree-rings but they weren't using the carbon-14 to tell them how long ago the event happened.
They were measuring the relative change in the isotope from one year to the next. As a side note that may interest@Bagpipes100:
the reason scientists amassed this giant carbon record from trees in the first place is so that they could find out how carbon-14 inputs changed over time
and then build a calibration curve to make radiocarbon dating more accurate. Before 12000 years that record consists of data from marine sediments.
All carbon-14 dates are given with a plus or minus x years. Emilyelert THANK YOU for the information!!!
Razing and burning forests accounts for about 10 percent of present global carbon emissions or 3. 6 billion tons of CO2 a year.
-or no-carbon economic development projects such as expanding their energy generation capacity with renewables like sun and wind instead of fossil fuels.
But no we're not going to mention putting a global price on carbon pollution or agreeing to legally-binding promises on greenhouse gas cuts.
and peatland destruction ecosystems that would otherwise be storing much more carbon than the palm plantations that replace them.
since 2007 and since 2010 has been working to preserve forest and peatlands that store a lot of carbon.
if this joint call for a price on carbon is just bluewashing by participating companies that want to hide
Lund adds It's a lot more important to see that the evolution of a big polluter is the appropriate one than trying to keep such companies out of the global carbon price coalition. 10:44 a m.:
Last week just ahead of a big private sector climate forum held alongside today's political summit a group of powerful institutional investors issued a public call for a global price on carbon.
This is the first time there is a global movement starting for a global carbon pricing adds George Kell executive director of UN Global Compact. 10:38 a m.:
We need an international carbon price. 10:32 a m.:Next up a press conference on the economic case for putting a global price on carbon.
Lately some in the business community are getting more vocal that this measure--derided by opponents in the United states as a carbon taxis essential to cutting their financial exposure to risks of climate change like increasing drought storm damage strained fresh water supplies and such.
If it cost money for businesses to pour greenhouse gases into the atmosphere the reasoning goes they'd start to cut down on that pollution. 10:25 a m
The president of Korea just pledged $100 million to the Green Climate Fund or GCF to help developing nations undertake low-carbon economic growth. 8: 44 a m.:
#New Air pollution Rules Tie Public health To Major Carbon Cutspower plants nationwide must cut their carbon dioxide pollution by up to 30 percent in less than two decades under the clean power plan released today by the Obama administration.
The new carbon rule doesn't require specific reductions at individual power plants or add them up via metric tons of CO2.
Rather it sets state-by-state requirements for reducing the power sector's rate of carbon intensity:
the amount of carbon pollution created per megawatt hour of generated electricity. Each state has an interim goal for reducing carbon intensity between 2020-2029 based on its mix of power sources in 2012 (the most recent year for
which full data are available) and a final goal for 2030 and afterwards. It is not clear
In the rule EPA identifies four building blocks for carbon-reduction strategies that are already being used by many states
and utilities to reduce carbon emissions including: But Mccarthy stressed today that the states will be in charge of tailoring their plans to their own particular conditions and needs.
Connecticut Delaware Maine Maryland Massachusetts New hampshire New york Rhode island and Vermont are ahead of the game with their joint Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative formed in 2005 to create a market for carbon emission allowances also called
States not already in an emissions market can also look to California's carbon cap -and-trade program established in 2012 to help the state reach its goal of cutting greenhouse gas pollution to 1990 levels by 2020 and then another 80 percent beyond that by 2050.
Carbon pollution from power plants comes packaged with other dangerous pollutants like particulate matter nitrogen oxides
Taking aim at critics of regulating carbon emissions Mccarthy dismissed charges that the plan's mandated cuts will cause power prices to skyrocket
Mccarthy's sharp tone was of a piece with the Obama administration's recent pugnacity in affirming the scientific evidence that carbon pollution created by human activities has destabilized the climate
since then to tighten up auto fuel economy standards as well as carbon regulations on new power plants and industrial facilities.
Overtext Web Module V3.0 Alpha
Copyright Semantic-Knowledge, 1994-2011