Climatology: Peat and Methane

[maikeru]

What makes you think the permafrost will decay into C02? The permafrost turns into water when thawed. Water holds CO2. I doubt the existing permafrost is c02 saturated, meaning as it thaws it will hold more co2. Additionally, warmer soil provides better plant growth, and plants will absorb at least a portion of the co2 release.

 

So I wonder how much of the co2 release from the melting permafrost is speculation. Well I suppose all of it is.

 

Permafrost contains a large amount of frozen and preserved organic matter, so it's not wholly ice or anything like that. If permafrost thaws enough so that the ice becomes liquid water, that will begin to allow anaerobic processes from increasingly metabolically active bacteria and fungi to break down the stored organic matter. This gradually sets up a positive feedback loop. Metabolic activities release waste heat which increasingly warms their immediate environment (the soil/permafrost), CO2 and methane contribute to further warming above and below, melts further permafrost yielding more organic matter for decomposition, and more anaerobic and aerobic microbes multiplying and munching on lots of stuff. There are probably other things I'm not taking into account, but that's the gist of what many scientists are thinking. The gaseous products of these anaerobic processes are usually CO2 and methane, and as such make up a large component of what's sometimes known as "biogas" for example:

 

Anaerobic digestion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

See the chart there. 50-75% methane, 25-50% CO2, small or trace amounts of other things like H2S (hydrogen sulfide, that funky, nasty stuff).

 

Fungal decomposition primarily produces CO2, methanogens produce primarily CH4 (methane) and some CO2. Aerobic decomposers usually release CO2. (If we're talking about gaseous products--remember I'm focusing mainly on those--not on hydrogen sulfide, acetic acid, ethanol, butanol, etc. or other decomposition products.) For example, fungal decomposition of organic matter can release up to half of the C as CO2.

 

How much or the total amounts of CO2 and methane that could be released is a matter of speculation, since that depends on type of anaerobic decomposition, aerobic decomposition, temperature, extent of permafrost and organic matter thawed and digested, what type of vegetation is growing above, etc. But I think it's safe to say that the amounts could be enormous and devastating.

 

Here's one news report on its possible contributions:

 

http://www.physorg.com/news139658850.html

[Cedars]

Permafrost contains a large amount of frozen and preserved organic matter, so it's not wholly ice or anything like that. If permafrost thaws enough so that the ice becomes liquid water, that will begin to allow anaerobic processes from increasingly metabolically active bacteria and fungi to break down the stored organic matter.

Except this is going on under the permfrost regardless of the permafrost layer. So I think its kinda (without intent) misleading to present it as a sudden and dramatic turn of events.

 

There are wide variations in the depth of organic materials from one side of the mountain to the other, type of soil, altitude and other variables.

 

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/schuur.pdf

 

The above PDF has some great pics! I would love to know where #5 is taken (suspect russia). I wish it listed layer age also because if I am guessing right, I think the Younger/dryas is shown clearly between the layers). Side note: #3 shows banks and Victoria Islands where the last of the pigmy (dwarf) mammoths went extinct in approx 1500 bc.

 

Snipped some content

The gaseous products of these anaerobic processes are usually CO2 and methane, and as such make up a large component of what's sometimes known as "biogas" for example:

 

Anaerobic digestion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

See the chart there. 50-75% methane, 25-50% CO2, small or trace amounts of other things like H2S (hydrogen sulfide, that funky, nasty stuff).

What is misleading (no intent implied) about the context above is the example presented is artificial environments (biogas needs increased decomposition for profit, landfills are the equivalent to a landslide burying a forest/swamp/whatever carbon source). This is not how it occurs on a widespread surface timescale (natural being seasonal freeze/growth process).

 

How much or the total amounts of CO2 and methane that could be released is a matter of speculation, since that depends on type of anaerobic decomposition, aerobic decomposition, temperature, extent of permafrost and organic matter thawed and digested, what type of vegetation is growing above, etc. But I think it's safe to say that the amounts could be enormous and devastating.

And here is where we diverge.

Here's one news report on its possible contributions:

 

Bad sign for global warming: Thawing permafrost holds vast carbon pool

Here is another report based on the same source, printed 1 year later:

Permafrost Meltdown May Bog Down Global Warming--For Awhile: Scientific American

 

Now what is not so apparent when reading the SA link is the change (drop) in plants keeping up with the carbon release is based on the current plants continuing to thrive there and does not look into changes in vegetation as a whole (tundra mosses/grasses converting to shrub lands converting to boreal forest). This was not a part of their study but a very real condition under actual climate change and not temporary nuances.

 

Another interesting article on the same topic:

University of California Press

 

“The plants are asleep, it's below zero, they're not growing, but the bacteria still actually eat the soil organic matter. So you can have a lot of carbon loss over the winter.”

 

The leaking of co2 occurs in the winter. The process is not new, its always been going on, on the tundra, its just no one was paying attention.

 

Its particularly telling that he focused on Karst. They dry out faster and that can increase transfer. When they dont dry out they are carbon sinks (and they dont all dry out, lots of soil features keep them pooled). Anyways, the estimate is 1/6 the total atmospheric carbon and there is agreement this is not going to be a one fell swoop dumping (he talks about decadal scale) so I havent any reason to believe it will be enormous or devastating. Measurable fluctuations? Sure we have that now.

[maikeru]

Except this is going on under the permfrost regardless of the permafrost layer. So I think its kinda (without intent) misleading to present it as a sudden and dramatic turn of events.

 

There are wide variations in the depth of organic materials from one side of the mountain to the other, type of soil, altitude and other variables.

 

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conference/pdfs/schuur.pdf

 

The above PDF has some great pics! I would love to know where #5 is taken (suspect russia). I wish it listed layer age also because if I am guessing right, I think the Younger/dryas is shown clearly between the layers). Side note: #3 shows banks and Victoria Islands where the last of the pigmy (dwarf) mammoths went extinct in approx 1500 bc.

 

I understand that. It's not going to be very sudden, but the worry is that cycles will gradually reinforce each other and, as your SA article mentions, after X number years (15, 30, whatever it is), they will be net carbon emitters. btw, very cool pics in that presentation. And please remember that my original post on the climate change experiment was tongue-in-cheek. :hihi:

 

What is misleading (no intent implied) about the context above is the example presented is artificial environments (biogas needs increased decomposition for profit, landfills are the equivalent to a landslide burying a forest/swamp/whatever carbon source). This is not how it occurs on a widespread surface timescale (natural being seasonal freeze/growth process).

 

Not meant to be misleading, but simply for the purposes of showing that methane is often a prime constituent of the products of anaerobic decomposition and CO2 is a secondary one. It is not simply that methane is converted into CO2 in the atmosphere, which is where the CO2 comes from. CO2 production is basically a given when it comes to many kinds of decomposition (not all, but many). That's the chemistry of what the microbes are doing. CH4 + CO2 emissions both. But what proportions or quantities? Depends.

 

You can say that example is not natural, and I agree with that, but the same physiological processes happen in swamps, bogs, marshes, etc. among the anaerobic microbes and anaerobic decomposition.

 

Environmental chemistry - Google Books

 

And here is where we diverge.

 

Here is another report based on the same source, printed 1 year later:

Permafrost Meltdown May Bog Down Global Warming--For Awhile: Scientific American

 

Now what is not so apparent when reading the SA link is the change (drop) in plants keeping up with the carbon release is based on the current plants continuing to thrive there and does not look into changes in vegetation as a whole (tundra mosses/grasses converting to shrub lands converting to boreal forest). This was not a part of their study but a very real condition under actual climate change and not temporary nuances.

 

Another interesting article on the same topic:

University of California Press

 

“The plants are asleep, it's below zero, they're not growing, but the bacteria still actually eat the soil organic matter. So you can have a lot of carbon loss over the winter.”

 

The leaking of co2 occurs in the winter. The process is not new, its always been going on, on the tundra, its just no one was paying attention.

 

Its particularly telling that he focused on Karst. They dry out faster and that can increase transfer. When they dont dry out they are carbon sinks (and they dont all dry out, lots of soil features keep them pooled). Anyways, the estimate is 1/6 the total atmospheric carbon and there is agreement this is not going to be a one fell swoop dumping (he talks about decadal scale) so I havent any reason to believe it will be enormous or devastating. Measurable fluctuations? Sure we have that now.

 

Cannot open your link for some reason. It says I have a cookie error, and Firefox and IE are both no go. :/

 

I agree to an extent, because more active plants and the changing of bogs into grasslands, shrublands, and forest will happen inevitably, but it's not the entire picture. You mentioned looking at the changes in vegetation as a whole. This also includes the destruction of many areas of existing vegetation such as boreal/taiga forests, and furthermore, vast areas of permafrost underlie spruce and boreal/taiga forests.

 

http://www.interboreal.org/globalwarming/BorealForest-CarbonMaps.pdf

 

This one is for Canada.

 

In these forested areas, melting or shifting permafrost can cause what are known as "drunken trees" or "drunken forests":

 

Drunken trees - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

This harms or kills the vegetation above and disrupts the soil layers and exposes the subsoil and permafrost. As I understand it, it has been the nature of these taiga/boreal forests to have more carbon locked up in their above-ground biomass than grass, sedges, or shrubs do, and they serve as long-term, slow-cycling carbon pools. As the Wiki article mentions, "thermokarst tilting" already happens naturally due to a wide variety of causes. What bothers me is if it is happening more often and at an increased pace due to global warming. I've seen shows on the changing nature of the arctic in Alaska, where grasses and shrubs are invading former bogs, wetland and lake areas that have drained and disappeared, and tree die-offs due to beetle infestations and changes in the ground due to thermokarst or bogs or lakes appearing suddenly in forested areas, which obviously kills the trees there by inundating them and undermining their foundations.

 

Taiga

NASA: Thermokarst

 

Grasslands, shrublands, etc. are better than bare land (usually) for carbon sequestration, but are they as good as the original boreal forest that may have occupied the same spots? And do they prevent the melting of the permafrost?

 

CiNii*-* ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF FORESTS ON THE PERMAFROST IN YAKUTIA

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

 

Seems they limit it, but not as well as boreal forests do.

 

Awareness of the value of lush rain forests is high, but the value of the frozen forests of the north very low.

[Cedars]

I understand that. It's not going to be very sudden, but the worry is that cycles will gradually reinforce each other and, as your SA article mentions, after X number years (15, 30, whatever it is), they will be net carbon emitters. btw, very cool pics in that presentation. And please remember that my original post on the climate change experiment was tongue-in-cheek. :phones:

And the SA article also says:

"Lawrence points out, however, that not all permafrost will thaw in the same way. The study was conducted on a type of ground called thermokarst, which allows water to drain away as it melts. In wetter areas, Lawrence explains, permafrost has the potential to turn into a peat land and remain a long-term carbon sink, but that could also lead to increased methane emissions. "From a global warming perspective," he says, "that could still turn around and be positive feedback.""

 

The peat bogs of n. MN are carbon sinks. That is the reality.

 

Not meant to be misleading, but simply for the purposes of showing that methane is often a prime constituent of the products of anaerobic decomposition and CO2 is a secondary one. It is not simply that methane is converted into CO2 in the atmosphere, which is where the CO2 comes from. CO2 production is basically a given when it comes to many kinds of decomposition (not all, but many). That's the chemistry of what the microbes are doing. CH4 + CO2 emissions both. But what proportions or quantities? Depends.

But it is misleading when using the tables provided. Those are artificial environments which constraint the full natural process to maximize production (biogas example) and landfills (compariable to a landslide) which are not conditions across the peatlands of the north.

 

You can say that example is not natural, and I agree with that, but the same physiological processes happen in swamps, bogs, marshes, etc. among the anaerobic microbes and anaerobic decomposition.

 

Environmental chemistry - Google Books

ppb. Parts per billion. Its [methane] level in the atmosphere is around 1.8 parts per million. Its half life (in a test tube) is 7 years. Estimates of wild methane is a total life of less than 10 years (9.6 or 9.8 I cant remember which) due to interactions with free radicals (OH?) and likely other processes which we simple do not understand. Processes which are not present in the biogas or landfill example and are remotely comparable to the natural process. I say remotely because those environments inhibit the wider environmental response by their very condition. Something always adapts to the new environment to take advantage of a lack of competition/excess resource. Adapts and thrives.

 

Cannot open your link for some reason. It says I have a cookie error, and Firefox and IE are both no go. :/

Makes me nuts when links do that.

University of California Press -

or

caliber.ucpress.net /doi/full/10.1641/B580203?

Heres more info that might help find it:

 

Permafrost in Flux: Tracking Carbon in the Alaskan Tundra

Amy Mayer

 

BioScience

February 2008, Vol. 58, No. 2, Pages 96–100

Posted online on February 1, 2008.

(doi:10.1641/B580203)

 

I agree to an extent, because more active plants and the changing of bogs into grasslands, shrublands, and forest will happen inevitably, but it's not the entire picture. You mentioned looking at the changes in vegetation as a whole. This also includes the destruction of many areas of existing vegetation such as boreal/taiga forests, and furthermore, vast areas of permafrost underlie spruce and boreal/taiga forests.

 

http://www.interboreal.org/globalwarming/BorealForest-CarbonMaps.pdf

 

In these forested areas, melting or shifting permafrost can cause what are known as "drunken trees" or "drunken forests":

 

Nice maps. Canada has some great maps when you can find them.

Notice how much of the boral forest area is outside of the permafrost? There is a great amount of 'dwarfism' in the northern parts of the boreal forest area due to the cold. We get tree dwarfism along the north shore of lake superior. Reduced growth which would be reversed in a warmer temp area. Some of the dwarfism in the boreal forest is also caused by the permafrost preventing roots from getting a good grip. This also causes them to fall down easier during the summer months when fronts move through.

 

This harms or kills the vegetation above and disrupts the soil layers and exposes the subsoil and permafrost. As I understand it, it has been the nature of these taiga/boreal forests to have more carbon locked up in their above-ground biomass than grass, sedges, or shrubs do, and they serve as long-term, slow-cycling carbon pools. As the Wiki article mentions, "thermokarst tilting" already happens naturally due to a wide variety of causes. What bothers me is if it is happening more often and at an increased pace due to global warming. I've seen shows on the changing nature of the arctic in Alaska, where grasses and shrubs are invading former bogs, wetland and lake areas that have drained and disappeared, and tree die-offs due to beetle infestations and changes in the ground due to thermokarst or bogs or lakes appearing suddenly in forested areas, which obviously kills the trees there by inundating them and undermining their foundations.

Yes, trees fall down in the forest. The disruption of soil layers is neither good or bad. It brings minerals closer to the root lines, it fertilizes the soils via material break down, it creates holes in the canopy which allow new growth replacement (younger trees sequester more carbon than old trees, with an age variable on amounts). Its not a one sided process, its an evolution of the diversity. Once (well many times) there has been permafrost in my location. It was tundra like not that long ago. Now its oak savanna. They logged out the white pines which allowed further expansion of the oaks north. Filled the gap rapidly, now that the competition (the pines) were put to a disadvantage. Same thing with the permafrost regions. It puts the trees at a disadvantage.

 

Grasslands, shrublands, etc. are better than bare land (usually) for carbon sequestration, but are they as good as the original boreal forest that may have occupied the same spots? And do they prevent the melting of the permafrost?

 

Seems they limit it, but not as well as boreal forests do.

 

Awareness of the value of lush rain forests is high, but the value of the frozen forests of the north very low.

 

The boreal is not dying. Its prevented from expanding north by the cold and the permafrost. The boreal will benefit from warmer temps and expand, not contract.

[freeztar]

And the SA article also says:

"Lawrence points out, however, that not all permafrost will thaw in the same way. The study was conducted on a type of ground called thermokarst, which allows water to drain away as it melts. In wetter areas, Lawrence explains, permafrost has the potential to turn into a peat land and remain a long-term carbon sink, but that could also lead to increased methane emissions. "From a global warming perspective," he says, "that could still turn around and be positive feedback.""

 

The peat bogs of n. MN are carbon sinks. That is the reality.

 

The way I'm reading the quote is that peat land is a long-term carbon sink (which is true as long as it is not dug up for burning), but the resulting methane produced from anaerobic activity in the peat can outweigh the benefits of the carbon-storing potential of peat lands, hence the positive feedback on global warming.

 

Just wanted to point that out. Carry on.

[Cedars]

The way I'm reading the quote is that peat land is a long-term carbon sink (which is true as long as it is not dug up for burning), but the resulting methane produced from anaerobic activity in the peat can outweigh the benefits of the carbon-storing potential of peat lands, hence the positive feedback on global warming.

 

Just wanted to point that out. Carry on.

 

I am surprised Freezee. I was sure you knew the answer to this.

 

OK. One link to rule them all :hihi:

 

"Some types of anaerobic microorganisms produce methane in environments where oxygen is limited that include swamps, landfills, wetlands, peat bogs, sediments, and the intestinal flora of animals. Methane oxidizing bacteria (methanotrophs) in turn remove methane from these environments. Therefore anaerobic sediments are considered an aerobic sink for methane due to the activities of methanotrophs."

 

Methanotrophic Bacteria: Use in Bioremediation

 

They are found in peat bogs, rice paddies, mud volcanos, under the permafrost (in depths of 600 meters that I am aware of), under glaciers, hot springs, arctic sea floor, etc.

 

Nope, still not worried! :hihi:

[freeztar]

I still stand by my interpretation of the quote you posted.

 

Here's another quote that supports what was said in the last quote:

 

Peat bogs sequester vast amounts of carbon by preventing plant material from decaying aerobically -- that is, with oxygen. Today, these peatlands are thought to hold about one-third of globe's store of sequestered soil carbon.

 

But, in addition to tying up carbon, the bogs release methane gas as a byproduct of plant decomposition that takes place without oxygen. Like carbon dioxide, methane is a greenhouse gas. But, molecule for molecule, it is said to be up to 23 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So while peatlands do sequester carbon, their methane emissions can offset any potential drop in greenhouse gases. Yet, the rate of emissions is not steady.

Methane from peat bogs may worsen global warming

 

It's my understanding that peat lands are still net positive emitters of methane. This is supported here:

 

Globally, acidic environments such as marshes and peat bogs generate significant quantities of methane. Scientists have always suspected that a proportion of this methane was being consumed by bacteria living in these environments.

 

“Our discovery has demonstrated that methane-consuming organisms do live in highly acidic environments. Without them, the amount of methane entering the atmosphere would be much greater.

Whats new : GNS Science Limited

[Cedars]

I still stand by my interpretation of the quote you posted.

 

Here's another quote that supports what was said in the last quote:

 

Methane from peat bogs may worsen global warming

Sorry freeze but the above does nothing to support the position that increased methane is a problem.

 

Claim from above:

"Methane gas released by peat bogs in the northern-most third of the globe probably helped fuel the last major round of global warming, which drew the ice age to a close between 11,000 and 12,000 years ago, UCLA and Russian Academy of Sciences scientists have concluded.

 

Between 8,000 to 12,000 years ago, the area covered by peatlands increased dramatically and methane levels rose to 750 parts per billion by volume -- a level they would not reach again until the Industrial Revolution. Temperatures over Greenland likewise jumped an additional 7 degrees Fahrenheit, reflecting a period of warming which in turn thawed more ice, particularly in North America, and freed up more land for bog formation, MacDonald said. "

 

The atmospheric methane levels in 1750 was about 715 ppb.

 

My opinion, the theory in the above link, is incorrect.

 

Or possibly their samples from the past do not reflect the true amount of methane that existed then.

 

It's my understanding that peat lands are still net positive emitters of methane. This is supported here:

 

Whats new : GNS Science Limited

 

They are a net carbon sink regardless of this slight nuance. And biological factors will increase to fill in this new gap and take advantage of the methane resource.

 

I've looked around and it seems to be more alarmist journalism. I understand headlines that read "Eh, it will be fine" dont sell, dont receive further funding, dont get you on the cover of the Rolling Stone, etc, but thats just further reason to be skeptical of the headlines.

[Essay]

They [bogs?] are a net carbon sink regardless of this slight nuance. And biological factors will increase to fill in this new gap and take advantage of the methane resource.

 

I've looked around and it seems to be more alarmist journalism. I understand headlines that read "Eh, it will be fine" dont sell, dont receive further funding, dont get you on the cover of the Rolling Stone, etc, but thats just further reason to be skeptical of the headlines.

I'm a bit behind, but....

 

"Anyways, the estimate is 1/6 the total atmospheric carbon and there is agreement this is not going to be a one fell swoop dumping (he talks about decadal scale) so I havent any reason to believe it will be enormous or devastating." -Cedars

 

I'd call that almost instantaneously -on the scale of climate shift- but I realize that within the scale of "species succession" it is not quite as dramatic.

 

Isn't this shift from forest to grasslands just a step along the path to desertification, in the long run?

While this sort of shift increases the albedo, it negatively affects hydrology, biodiversity, and regional climate dynamics.

===

 

But about bogs:

Certainly as bogs are growing and/or hydrologically stable, they are carbon sequestering systems. It is only when they begin receding or drying out, that they become net carbon emitters. I think the same is true for permafrost and regular soil also.

 

As more northern lands thaw to release many millennia of built up carbon, they will eventually become carbon sequestering systems again as more complex ecosystems build up through cycles of succession. The problem is that the more expansive mid-latitudes will be left drier and less able to sequester carbon as their long-established ecosystems are pushed to migrate or quickly adapt.

But the ensuing mid-latitude mega-dust storms will fertilize the oceans causing blooms of algae to help draw down carbon levels, though the levels will still be well beyond any range of the "fine-tuning" effect that we lost in the 20th century.

 

...And that's assuming we stay in this current climate mode; and don't slip into some weird hot, stagnant, Northern Hemisphere and cold, stormy Southern Hemisphere type-mode; or a glacial Europe type-mode; or just a rapid alternation between the current mode and whatever "ice-age" or "new" type-mode that we might be headed toward.

 

~ imho :hihi:

 

p.s. ...but I think the carbon storage/loss profile does verifiably follow the wet/dry balance of a bog. They can't always be sinks (what goes up must come down).

p.p.s. I'll look for a citation I found several years ago. ~

[freeztar]

Sorry freeze but the above does nothing to support the position that increased methane is a problem.

 

Then apparently you missed my point. I never said increased methane is a problem (though I do happen to think so). My point was that peat lands, while being a long-term storage area for carbon, are also methane emitters.

[Cedars]

Then apparently you missed my point. I never said increased methane is a problem (though I do happen to think so). My point was that peat lands, while being a long-term storage area for carbon, are also methane emitters.

 

Heres the original quote.

...but the resulting methane produced from anaerobic activity in the peat can outweigh the benefits of the carbon-storing potential of peat lands, hence the positive feedback on global warming.

 

You tried to back it up with a theory that simply doesnt make sense and another instance of methane related, but not enough detail to determine if its sink or gain.

 

Now you may not have meant it to come across as it did, I can accept that.

 

But there is a 80 - 90% methane reduction via just these microbes (one of the links previously). So if the total carbon locked in the Northern hemisphere permafrost area is 1/6 of EXISTING atmospheric carbon (what is that, like 800GT?) and 75% converts to methane (worse case scenario) and 80-90% of that is converted by microbes before it hits the atmosphere, AND this is not going to be a one fell swoop, wholescale dumping of 10 - 20% of 1/6 of whats already in the atmosphere, and then the free radical OH does its scubbing, I dont know that its even a sidenote in the margin on the Book of Life, Wow, the planet is really big... (many authors unknown).

 

So I dont think its a problem. It is just how things work.

[freeztar]

Heres the original quote.

 

 

You tried to back it up with a theory that simply doesnt make sense and another instance of methane related, but not enough detail to determine if its sink or gain.

 

Now you may not have meant it to come across as it did, I can accept that.

Again, that was my interpretation of what was said in the original quote that got us started down this long and windy road.

 

When you replied with that quote originally, you emphasized the carbon-storing capabilities and did not mention the methane output. I was just pointing that out.

 

Here's my whole original quote (with the important snippet you left out):

 

The way I'm reading the quote is that peat land is a long-term carbon sink (which is true as long as it is not dug up for burning), but the resulting methane produced from anaerobic activity in the peat can outweigh the benefits of the carbon-storing potential of peat lands, hence the positive feedback on global warming.

 

Just wanted to point that out. Carry on.

[Essay]

... and 80-90% of that is converted by microbes before it hits the atmosphere.

....It is just how things work.

:P

 

Wow, I'd love to see the citation on that one (again?). I'm sure I just missed it previously, but that has to be some sort of in vitro experiment. That couldn't happen in nature unless you had a huge soil support system in place to accomodate all those microbes that would bloom with the added food (methane).

 

Biochar [with orders of magnitude greater pore volume and surface area] can greatly reduce the evolution of gases from the soil into the atmosphere -caused by blooming microbes- by slowing the transport of gases (pore volume) and allowing more microbes (surface area) to dine on the methane.

 

Bogs benefit by biochar bloom buffers.... :)

[freeztar]

It's also important to note that one molecule of CO2 has the same amount of carbon as one molecule of CH4 (methane). This quote is from a wetland science symposium presentation summary.

 

Results of the C balance model suggest that Sallie's Fen has been a sink of CO2 from the atmosphere with most (52 - 91 gC-CO2 /m2) fixed in the summer and a consistent loss of 12-19 gC-CO2 /m2 in the winter. However, when CH4 emissions (48-122 gC-CH4 /m2) and DOC export (3 gC /m2) are added to the total, Sallie's Fen lost C in 1994 and was a weak sink of C in other years.

Millenium Wetland Event

[Cedars]

Again, that was my interpretation of what was said in the original quote that got us started down this long and windy road. :P

 

When you replied with that quote originally, you emphasized the carbon-storing capabilities and did not mention the methane output. I was just pointing that out.

 

Here's my whole original quote (with the important snippet you left out):

 

Your being deflective. I left out the part we agree on and continued the discussion on that which we did not.

[Cedars]

It's also important to note that one molecule of CO2 has the same amount of carbon as one molecule of CH4 (methane). This quote is from a wetland science symposium presentation summary.

 

Millenium Wetland Event

 

OK. But they started the monitoring in 1989. So one out of six years there was a slight loss rather than sink condition in Sallies Fen (1994). It must have been very slight or one would think they would have included the numbers.

 

Its still a net gain in sequestering even with methane.

 

Cant get 'round that. It is what it is.

[freeztar]

Its still a net gain in sequestering even with methane.[

 

Can you support this with data?