Peat bogs and climate change

[Nemesis]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6502239.stm

Interesting. And of course no-one buys it for garden use any longer - do they??

 

[biffvernon]

Yeah, it's likely that all the UK post-Kyoto efforts to limit CO2 emission has be wiped out by CO2 released from moorland that has been drained since the Kyoto agreement was signed.

 

[Lime]

"But if we don't, I'm afraid we're in danger of losing the UK's largest carbon store."

Don't quite agree with that, what about coal?

Anyway, isn't the damaging of peat bogs and consequent releasing of CO² stating the obvious?

 

[Nemesis]

It mustn't be obvious to all as many still use peat based potting compost and grow bags.

http://www.wildlifetrust.org.uk/cheshire/documents/advice_peatfree.pdf

 

[Nemesis]

Today's news:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6506223.stm

 

[biffvernon]

Here's the Defra Statistical Relese
They do not take releases from peaty soils into account.

 

[wobs]

Mention peat extraction to a friend of mine and she will reply thus to the BBC report:
"Main points:
All organic matter releases CO2 and most of the time CH4 when they degrade, get over it. Peat bogs are probably seen to emit more than normal as it is a concentrated source of carbon in one place. Der!

Some interesting points made about drainage but isn't the whole point of environmental management to provide protection without intervention. If something is going to happen naturally then it should be let to happen. It is a natural phenomenon of raised mire peat bogs that they dry out from time too time. Drainage that is done by farmers should be regulated however if the peatbog is already damaged by tree root systems then you might as well dig it all up and use it on your gardens as it will only give out the same carbon emission there as it would in its natural position being doomed to further drying out by successive tree growth. Make use of natural resource that is otherwise going to waste. Alternatively plant a shed load of trees on such damaged peat bogs and return the moorland to its natural state. The only reason we have mass moorland peat bogs is because People knocked down the trees that once scoured them.

I wish they would make there chuffin minds up. This article provides a valid argument for peat extraction and yet it comes from those who just 5 years ago were dead set against it. The technology and research that lead to people being aware that bogs needed protecting came from the peat extraction industry years ago. These are the people that put the work in to look at they dynamics of the bogs and how they can restart and encourage bog growth. They often donate aquired land to groups such as English Nature as extremely succesful nature reserves.
Extraction companys only take their peat from damaged bogs which, based on points in this article, are the main contributor to the carbon emission of peat bogs. Over my time I have seen a wide range of damage to bogs and most often they are irrepairable due to previous agricultural practices and the number of trees in the area sucking the water out from under them. You cannot cut down one carbon sink to save another unless it is unfairly balenced. Just think, you will not only loose the carbon trap of the tree, your carbon output through physically the cutting down and removal of a tree is going to far out weigh the benefits obtained from saving the small patch of peat bog you are trying to save.

As for burning peat bogs, well there are two kinds of idiot that let that happen: "Green" Loby Groups and the uneducated. There is not much I can say on this as I think it is blindly obvious that if Loby groups were educating their troops in the field then they would at least tell them not to drop their tab ends on the ground when standing on a peat bog. Secondly why are they standing on the peat bog? God help the peat bog if they start jumping up and down, digging tunnels and causing mayhem in the name of "Save the peat bog" Protestors take heed, Like I say to any Greenpeace activist "What is the point of protesting against something if you cause damage to it in the process?" Negligence for the cause you are fighting is no excuse. Butyric acid ring any bells? I hope the people who made the stuff in their back gardens got it on their skin."

As she gets wound up about such people

 

[Nemesis]

Wonder how many activists from lobby groups smoke these days?

 

[skier-hughes]

I'd go for the same percentage of all people.

It suprised me to see the only female captive in Iran busily smoking all the time she was shown on tv.

 

[Nemesis]

Wonder how many activists from 'green lobby groups' have been proven to drop tab ends on peat bogs and set them alight?

 

[Johneds]

I thought all this C02/global warming nonsense had been knocked in the head?

 

[Nemesis]

Has it?

Depends who you read/listen to/believe really.

(I do recall many years of 'scientists' telling us smoking wasn't bad for you... )

 

[Johneds]

I wrote my dissertation on global warming 15 years ago before it became an industry. There were two things I couldn't get my head around at the time.

The first was that of the total gases in the atmosphere, greenhouse gases make up only a very small percentage, and total C02 is a very small percentage of those greenhouse gases, and anthropogenic C02 is a very small percentage of the total C02 and the change in anthropogenic C02 over the last 150 years is a very small percentage of that. In other words the increase in anthropogenic C02 over the last 150 years is a tiny percentage of a tiny percentage of a tiny percentage of a tiny percentage. Suffice to say a very, very small figure.

Secondly, it is well known that rising global temperature causes the percentage of natural C02 to rise. If it were also true that rising C02 causes global warming then the overall temperature would be upwards only and the Earth would have overheated thousands of years ago.

 

[Nemesis]

So - we ignore all the warnings then and carry on as normal?

 

[Johneds]

Not exactly. There are other good reasons to save energy, I just don't believe C02 is one of them.

 

[Flyfisher]

I wrote my dissertation on global warming 15 years ago before it became an industry. There were two things I couldn't get my head around at the time.

The first was that of the total gases in the atmosphere, greenhouse gases make up only a very small percentage, and total C02 is a very small percentage of those greenhouse gases, and anthropogenic C02 is a very small percentage of the total C02 and the change in anthropogenic C02 over the last 150 years is a very small percentage of that. In other words the increase in anthropogenic C02 over the last 150 years is a tiny percentage of a tiny percentage of a tiny percentage of a tiny percentage. Suffice to say a very, very small figure.

That may all be true (I don't know) but doesn't your implied conclusion assume that the relationship of CO2 and warming is linear? Supposing it's very much non-linear? (I don't know).

Secondly, it is well known that rising global temperature causes the percentage of natural C02 to rise. If it were also true that rising C02 causes global warming then the overall temperature would be upwards only and the Earth would have overheated thousands of years ago.

Good point, and we know that CO2 percentages were significantly higher in ages past, so there must, presumably, be some sort of 'global cooling' mechanism that has kicked in at sometime to prevent the runaway scenario that some people promote. Perhaps it was the rise of green plants, which generated significant atmospheric oxygen, which would have diluted the atmospheric CO2 levels, leading to a cooling effect. We know that plants grow more abundantly in higher CO2 levels, so perhaps this will be the homeostatic mechanism that will save the planet (even if it doesn't save humanity).

Personally, I have a lot of time for Lovelock's gaia hypothesis. The planet has been around for about 4 billion years, with life in various forms being around about half that time. During that time species have come and gone and, no doubt, will continue to do so. H.Sapiens might turn out to be one of them. Do we really believe that we can destroy the planet by burning a bit of fossil fuel over the space of 100 years or so? I suspect that gaia works on much, much longer timescales.

As for 'ignoring all the warnings', everybody ignores things that are inconvenient or uncomfortable. The interesting thing, I think, is how people arrive at the decisions they do.

 

[biffvernon]

It's not just an Inconvenient Truth, it's an Incontestable Truth.

Folks with opinions about climate but little knowledge would do well to spend a lot of time reading up the subject. I suggest RealClimate as an authoritative and accessible source to begin with.

 

[Flyfisher]

Incontestable? That's a bold statement for such a new science.

I agree that folks with 'little knowledge' should spend time reading up on the subject, but that includes reading both sides of the debate, assuming, of course, that their minds are open to both sides of the debate.

There are people who believe the 'incontestable truth' that the world is only 4000 years old and was created in six days.

I suspect that 'incontestable' really just means "I've made up my mind and I'm not going to change it whatever new evidence is discovered".

 

[biffvernon]

a new science.

Not so new - I was teaching it almost 30 years ago - but it's taken a while to get mass attention.

both sides of the debate,

We've had the debate. Do try and keep up. Now's the last chance to take some action.

There are people who believe the 'incontestable truth' that the world is only 4000 years old and was created in six days.

And your point is?

I suspect that 'incontestable' really just means "I've made up my mind and I'm not going to change it whatever new evidence is discovered".

In the Popperian sense of disprovability all science is doubt, but for practical purposes we just have to say, 'this is how it is', and get on with the job.

 

[Flyfisher]

We've had the debate. Do try and keep up. Now's the last chance to take some action.

Do you really think it's that simple? From some of the things I've read, many proposed 'actions' might lead to worse living conditions for the majority of the population than the effects of global warming itself (assuming it really is happening), i.e. the 'cure' might be worse than the disease.

I suspect the debate is far from over.