New Contributor Found in Global Warming: Live Plants

[desflood]

Wed Jan 11, 1:06 PM ET


LONDON (Reuters) - German scientists have discovered a new source of methane, a greenhouse gas that is second only to carbon dioxide in its impact on climate change.

The culprits are plants.

They produce about 10 to 30 percent of the annual methane found in the atmosphere, according to researchers at the Max-Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, Germany.

The scientists measured the amount of methane released by plants in controlled experiments. They found it increases with rising temperatures and exposure to sunlight.

"Significant methane emissions from both intact plants and detached leaves were observed ... in the laboratory and in the field," Dr Frank Keppler and his team said in a report in the journal Nature.

Methane, which is produced by city rubbish dumps, coal mining, flatulent animals, rice cultivation and peat bogs, is one of the most potent greenhouse gases in terms of its ability to trap heat.

Concentrations of the gas in the atmosphere have almost tripled in the last 150 years. About 600 million tonnes worldwide are produced annually.

The scientists said their finding is important for understanding the link between global warming and a rise in greenhouse gases.

It could also have implications for the Kyoto Protocol, which calls for developed countries to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.

Keppler and his colleagues discovered that living plants emit 10 to 100 times more methane than dead plants.

Scientists had previously thought that plants could only emit methane in the absence of oxygen.

David Lowe, of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research in New Zealand, said the findings are startling and controversial.

"Keppler and colleagues' finding helps to account for observations from space of incredibly large plumes of methane above tropical forests," he said in a commentary on the research.

But the study also poses questions, such as how such a potentially large source of methane could have been overlooked and how plants produced it.

"There will be a lively scramble among researchers for the answers to these and other questions," Lowe added.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060111/sc_nm/environment_methane_dc

[Yonivore]

I'm telling ya', 'ol Ronnie was way ahead of his time.

[xrayzebra]

Got to get rid of those damn plants, polluting Mother Earth. Dead burn trees.
Who's idea was it anyway to have all these forest. sheeeesshh.

[Oh, Gee!!]

It's intelligent design at work

[xrayzebra]

It's intelligent design at work

Evolution my boy, they were just little bushes at first, then saplings and
now just look at them. :lol :drunk

[Oh, Gee!!]

Now you all for evolution, huh? You're great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandpa was a monkey.

[Extra Stout]

The current climate still is a good bit cooler than what has prevailed over much of the course of the planet's history.

Eventually a supervolcano like Yellowstone will blow, and then instead of people complaining about 70-degree weather in January, they will complain about 50-degree weather in July.

[boutons_]

The Repugs reflexive, totally dishonest "more research" is nothing but protection of the coal/oil/chemical/carbon-fuel industries, and indusry in general, that own the Repugs, as is the Repugs refusal to promote serious conservation programs.

Doing nothing now about greenhouse gas from human activty because some Krakatoa may blow in several decades or centuries is equally dishonest.

[Dos]

I think there is volcano in alaska ready to blow...... might be interesting...

[boutons_]

It would have to be Krakatoa sized to have significant impact.
Mt St Helen's really didn't shake the atmoshpere up that much.

[Extra Stout]

The Repugs reflexive, totally dishonest "more research" is nothing but protection of the coal/oil/chemical/carbon-fuel industries, and indusry in general, that own the Repugs, as is the Repugs refusal to promote serious conservation programs.

Doing nothing now about greenhouse gas from human activty because some Krakatoa may blow in several decades or centuries is equally dishonest.
You're full of it on this one. The warming trend started at least a century before GWB was born.

Assuming the global-warming scientists are correct, the world essentially needs to cease industrial activity and wait a century for this trend to slow down. Incremental decreases in greenhouse-gas emissions would be like using pails to bail water out of the Titanic.

Even then, the Earth still is going to get warmer for natural reasons.

So screw all this GWB/Repug bullshit. It has nothing to do with it.

[Phenomanul]

It would have to be Krakatoa sized to have significant impact.
Mt St Helen's really didn't shake the atmoshpere up that much.

It dropped the world's average temperature by 0.8 degrees celsius the following year.... in a global scale, that was very significant....

[boutons_]

"The warming trend started at least a century before GWB was born."

yes, it correlates strongly with the industrial revolution adopting carbon-fuels.

I never said dubya caused global warming, shithead, I said he refuses to do anything serious about it, when the US pumps 25% of carbon into the atmoshphere, mostly by industries that own dubya.

[boutons_]

"0.8 degrees celsius the following year"

... and then??

In the context 150 years of carbon polllution from the Industrial Revolution, did it have any permanent impact?

[Phenomanul]

"The warming trend started at least a century before GWB was born."

yes, it correlates strongly with the industrial revolution adopting carbon-fuels.

I never said dubya caused global warming, shithead, I said he refuses to do anything serious about it, when the US pumps 25% of carbon into the atmoshphere, mostly by industries that own dubya.

Clinton's administration was the one that rejected the Kyoto pact no???

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Methane is not considered the biggest cause to global warming by scientists. It's CO2.

This is kidna interesting, but Methane (i think..) goes away from the atmosphere much quicker than CO2, and is still overall a much lower contributor in relation to CO2.

Ignoring idiotic comments like the first few, naturally we can't get rid of live plants and noone would want that. But if we still increased the forests, live plants, and plant life of the ocean and there was a dramatic increase in methane throughotu the world bc of it, the CO2 would still go down, and theoretically the warming trend would reverse.

[smeagol]

The crap we humans spew out to the atmosphere cannot possibly help the global warming phenomenon.

Nahhhh!

[Cant_Be_Faded]

The republicans are fucking smart as hell. They are masterminds of preying on human tendencies and shit.

They knew if Bush labelled global warming as a "liberal" thing, that all of the dumber of his follwers would blindly equate 'liberal' with 'wrong' and 'global warming'

It's blasphemy.

Three or Four scientists in the fuckign WORLD say that global warming is false.
Suck on that.
But why listen to scientists when we have neocons to tell us what's up?

[xrayzebra]

The Repugs reflexive, totally dishonest "more research" is nothing but protection of the coal/oil/chemical/carbon-fuel industries, and indusry in general, that own the Repugs, as is the Repugs refusal to promote serious conservation programs.

Doing nothing now about greenhouse gas from human activty because some Krakatoa may blow in several decades or centuries is equally dishonest.

I know boutons, isn't it just terrible what the Repugs do to the
air quality. But damnit, they just keep getting elected and you will
have Bush for two more years. I keep telling you they steal these
elections by voting, I think there ought to be a law, don't you? :angel

[Phenomanul]

Methane is not considered the biggest cause to global warming by scientists. It's CO2.

This is kidna interesting, but Methane (i think..) goes away from the atmosphere much quicker than CO2, and is still overall a much lower contributor in relation to CO2.

Ignoring idiotic comments like the first few, naturally we can't get rid of live plants and noone would want that. But if we still increased the forests, live plants, and plant life of the ocean and there was a dramatic increase in methane throughotu the world bc of it, the CO2 would still go down, and theoretically the warming trend would reverse.


As far as 'greenhouse gases' go... methane (CH4) is 50 times more adverse than CO2.... what's funny is that water vapor is also far more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2 is.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

As far as 'greenhouse gases' go... methane (CH4) is 50 times more adverse than CO2.... what's funny is that water vapor is also far more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2 is.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/images/New%20Fig%203.gif
i was talking about the big picture

there is nowhere near as much methane being added to the atmosphere as co2 nor is there nowhere near as much methane IN the atmosphere as co2 hence co2 is a far greater contributor to global warming.

Also it takes << 1 human lifetime for a molecule of methane to dissapear from the atmosphere, further lessening its importance compared to Co2, which takes >>> 1 human lifetime to dissappear.

I don't think its funny at all that water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas, in fact I'm grateful cuz its kinda a major contributor to life on earth.

[Oh, Gee!!]

yeah, i didn't laugh either.

[Phenomanul]

'it's funny' as in.... it's ironic... my bad...

You just answered what I was getting at.... water vapor is all natural (except for the water vapor resulting from combustion reactions that produce CO2) and yet is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 is.

That means that we have focused our attention on 'bad CO2' from vehicle exhausts and refineries, etc... when the vapor that is produced by those reactions has a greater impact on 'global warming' than the CO2 itself.

Also consider that since the industrial revolution began ~1850, earth's population has multiplied by 6. We produce much more CO2 than we are credited for simply by breathing. > 6.5 billion people.

Some out-of-the-box thinking....

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Yeah fucking co2. We should genetically engineer algae that uses shitloads of CO2 and just let it go in the ocean, hah

[boutons_]

Trees are huge sinks for C02, so clearing/burning forests, like in S. America (and like the Europeans did in Europe for centuries until Europe was essentially de-forested, esp UK) dumped millions of tons of carbon into the atmoshpere.

=========================

But to show how complex the bioshpere and carbon cycles are :

Deep-rooted Plants Have Much Greater Impact On Climate Than Experts Thought (January 13, 2006) — A study of deep-rooted trees in the Amazon shows that they don't simply suck in carbon and spew out water vapor. The roots actually store water deep underground in the rainy season and bring it to the surface in dry periods, thereby boosting photosynthesis and carbon uptake beyond expected levels during the dry season. UC Berkeley climate modelers found that this effect causes a 40 percent increase in transpiration during the Amazonian dry season

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/01/060112035906.htm

========================

Storing Carbon To Combat Global Warming May Cause Other Environmental Problems, Study Suggests (December 26, 2005) — Growing tree plantations to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to mitigate global warming -- so called "carbon sequestration" -- could trigger environmental changes that outweigh some of the benefits, a multi-institutional team led by Duke University suggested in a new report. Those effects include water and nutrient depletion and increased soil salinity and acidity, said the researchers.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051223090233.htm

===============

Study Shows Forests Thrive With Increased Carbon Dioxide Levels (December 13, 2005) — Forest productivity may be significantly greater in an atmosphere enriched with carbon dioxide, according to findings released today that challenge recent reports that question the importance of carbon dioxide fertilization.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051213074239.htm

=====================================

Elevated Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Increases Soil Carbon (December 6, 2005) — An article in the current issue of Global Change Biology indicates that soils in temperate ecosystems might contribute more to partially offsetting the effects of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations than earlier studies have suggested.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051206085941.htm

========================

Study: Temperate Forests Could Worsen Global Warming (December 6, 2005) — A new study finds that temperate forests, by absorbing sunlight, warm the air in the process and may increase global warming. According to the research from the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, planting forests at certain latitudes could make the Earth warmer. Carnegie's Ken Caldeira will present the work at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting in San Francisco on December 7, 2005

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051206162547.htm

==========================

Warming Could Free Far More Carbon From High Arctic Soil Than Earlier Thought (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051205162830.htm) (December 5, 2005) — Scientists studying the effects of carbon on climate warming are very likely underestimating, by a vast amount, how much soil carbon is available in the high Arctic to be released into the atmosphere, new University of Washington research shows. A three-year study of soils in northwest Greenland found that a key previous study greatly underestimated the organic carbon stored in the soil. That's because the earlier work generally looked only at the top 10 inches of soil, said Jennifer Horwath, a UW doctoral student in Earth and space sciences

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/12/051205162830.htm

[gtownspur]

Yeah fucking co2. We should genetically engineer algae that uses shitloads of CO2 and just let it go in the ocean, hah


OR maybe after sipping toilet water from the swamp monster you should hawk a loogie into the ocean and win a noble peace prize. :lol

Classic!

[Extra Stout]

The crap we humans spew out to the atmosphere cannot possibly help the global warming phenomenon.

Nahhhh!
I don't think it's worth the tradeoff to slow down the phenomenon. Look how mankind has thrived since the Industrial Revolution.

A lot of data shows that a warmer earth with higher CO2 levels has a higher life support capacity. Temperate areas will have longer growing seasons.

Our biggest problem is going to be with coastal cities and low-lying islands exposed to rising sea levels of a period of decades to centuries.

The former is life-threatening in low-lying areas exposed to tropical storms. Elsewhere, it is a property concern.