Something else to worry about…carbon in the water

standard
Fires destroy millions of trees each year. The remaining charcoal is transported to the sea by rivers. © Stefan Doerr, Swansea University

From the Oh Noes department and the Max Planck Institute comes this headline sure to cause worry worts scurrying for carbon removing water filters:

Massive amounts of charcoal enter the worlds’ oceans

Wild fire residue is washed out of the soil and transported to the sea by rivers

Wild fires turn millions of hectares of vegetation into charcoal each year. An international team of researchers led by Thorsten Dittgar from the Max Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology in Bremen and Rudolf Jaffé from Florida International University’s Southeast Environmental Research Center in Miami has now shown that this charcoal does not remain in the soil, as previously thought. Instead, it is transported to the sea by rivers and thus enters the carbon cycle. The researchers analyzed water samples from all over the world. They demonstrated that soluble charcoal accounts for ten percent of the total amount of dissolved organic carbon. 

“Most scientists thought charcoal was resistant. They thought, once it is incorporated into the soils, it would stay there,” says Rudolf Jaffé from Florida International University’s Southeast Environmental Research Center in Miami. But if that were the case, the soils would be black.” Most of the charcoal in nature is from wild fires and combustion of biomass in general. When charcoal forms it is typically deposited in the soil.“ From a chemical perspective, no one really thought it dissolves, but it does,” Jaffé says. “It doesn’t accumulate like we had for a long time believed. Rather, it is transported into wetlands and rivers, eventually making its way to the oceans.”

Thorsten Dittmar from the Max Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology in Bremen focuses on carbon chemistry in the oceans. “To understand the oceans we have to understand also the processes on the land, from where the organic load enters the seas”, Dittmar says.

The international team, which also included researchers from Skidaway Institute of Oceanography in Georgia, Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts, the USDA Forest Service, and the University of Helsinki in Finland, had taken 174 water samples from all over the world, including rivers like the Amazon, the Congo, the Yangtze as well as Arctic sites.

Surprisingly, in any river across the world about ten percent of organic carbon that is dissolved in the water came from charcoal. With this robust relationship in hand they estimated the global flux of dissolved charcoal, based on previous scientific studies that focused on organic carbon flux. According to these estimates, about 25 million tons of dissolved charcoal is transported from land to the sea each year.

The new findings are important to better calculate the global carbon budget. This budget is a balancing act between sources that produce carbon and sinks that remove it. Detailed calculations are important to assess climatic effects and find ways to alleviate them.

Until now, researchers could only provide rough estimates of the amount of charcoal in the soil, and most of these estimates turned out to be wrong, as the total amout is determined by charcoal producing processes, like wild fires, and transport to the oceans.

According to the authors, the results imply that greater consideration must be given to carbon sequestration techniques (the process of capture and long-term storage of atmospheric carbon dioxide). Biochar addition to soils is one such technique. Biochar technology is based on vegetation-derived charcoal that is added to agricultural soils as a means to store carbon. Although promising in storing carbon, Jaffé points out that as more people implement biochar technology, they must take into consideration the potential dissolution of the charcoal to ensure these techniques are actually environmentally friendly.

Jaffé and Dittmar agree that there are still many unknowns when it comes to the environmental fate of charcoal, and both plan to move on to the next phase of the research. They have proven where the charcoal goes. Next, they want to answer how this happens and what the environmental consequences are. The better scientists can understand the processes and the environmental factors controlling it, the better the chance of developing strategies for carbon sequestration and help mitigate climate change.

Source: http://www.mpg.de/7112434/charcoal_oceans

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

So the question is: with more charcoal in the rivers and oceans, how does this affect the albedo? Does it cause the oceans to warm faster? – Anthony

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

108 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 19, 2013 1:44 pm

Again we prove how SILLY human scientists are – there education is far to narrow for them to be of any general use. How can educated science trained people forget that WATER IS THE ULTIMATE SOLVENT – it dissolves glass and all forms of metals – like AGW these people keep evaluating systems in human time 10 years, 50 years, 100 year clear out to 5000 years.
How does that relate to a planet that is billions of years old? Human knowledge is not even 100 years of reliable records and those are limited to specific areas. Ice cores and sea mud is again specific as we do not know if the occurrence was global or just multiple sites?
Silly Humans are just playing GUESS SCIENCE based on unknown data sets processed through some super computer to create a global vision. Well we know that just produces bigger guesses and suppositions.

Tom in Florida
April 19, 2013 1:57 pm

“Jaffé and Dittmar agree that there are still many unknowns when it comes to the environmental fate of charcoal, and both plan to move on to the next phase of the research. ”
translation: we got some more grant money, woo hoo!
“The better scientists can understand the processes and the environmental factors controlling it, the better the chance of developing strategies for carbon sequestration and help mitigate climate change.”
Here’s a strategy for carbon sequestration that will not impact the environment: no need to do it so don’t.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
April 19, 2013 2:41 pm

End the EPA, Species Act and GRANT SCIENCE – do this project . .
http://articlevprojecttorestoreliberty.com/index.html

April 19, 2013 1:58 pm

My racing sailboat is made from carbon fibre and I race it on the sea – should I be concerned about this? Will I end up in prison? Is it the first of April again?

April 19, 2013 2:04 pm

So what! This process didn’t start with the industrial revolution and if there is any effect to the carbon cycle, it is natural, it’s possible effect on on climate is natural, and any attempt to control climate by controlling the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is like spitting into the wind.

Ed MacAulay
April 19, 2013 2:05 pm

Old seadog you better make sure that the 10% of your carbon fibre that dissolves is above the waterline.

Steve in SC
April 19, 2013 2:06 pm

All this wood ash, being basic, should help with the ocean acidity problem. /sarc

April 19, 2013 2:08 pm

“They thought, once it is incorporated into the soils, it would stay there”
Because of the complete lack of any organic activity at all in the planet’s soils?
Mike.

Editor
April 19, 2013 2:08 pm

From the paper http://www.sciencemag.org/content/340/6130/345.abstract : “Global biomass burning generates 40 million to 250 million tons of charcoal every year“.
This is an absurdly small amount which can have no impact whatsoever.

April 19, 2013 2:09 pm

I clean my barbeque grill with the hose. Dissolves and/or suspends quite readily. Duh!

Espen
April 19, 2013 2:10 pm

So, before humans started controlling forest fires, there was more charcoal in the oceans than now?
Btw Anthony: Today advertisements make it impossible to read WUWT on my iPhone – when trying to load any WUWT page I’m immediately redirected to an ad that makes the download page for “Candy Crush Saga” open in the app store… it’s impossible to read anything.

April 19, 2013 2:12 pm

I made a “Duh” myself. Ash is former charcoal but it’s not charcoal. Never mind.

CodeTech
April 19, 2013 2:13 pm

I rarely use the word, but I think it was invented for stuff like this: SILLY.
This is one of the silliest things I’ve ever seen someone “scientific” write!
I’m sure some of the older readers will recall the phrase this makes me think of: “As god is my witness…. I thought turkeys could fly”.

Jeff
April 19, 2013 2:16 pm

Whadda buncha’ maroons….so they think this hasn’t been happening since
time immemorial?
Thanks, I’ll take Kingsford, with maybe a bit of hickory or apple for flavor….

Jeff
April 19, 2013 2:17 pm

They should know better than to make an ash of themselves….(or anyone else, for that matter)…

WTF
April 19, 2013 2:18 pm

Does this mean we have to stop using activated carbon to filter our drinking water?

April 19, 2013 2:18 pm

Carbon is pure evil!

April 19, 2013 2:18 pm

As always, something here is very wrong with the data. The quote above (presumed accurate) says 25 million tons of charcoal per year, about 10% of the total. Multiply 25 by 10 and that says 250 million tons dissolved annually into the oceans. Now go to official US Gov (NASA global carbon cycle) information, convert hundred of petagrams of carbon into metric tons, and the estimates seem short by at least one order of magnitude. That is not a small miss.
The Four Corners coal plant, by itself, emits 16.4 million tons. It is one of about 100 comparable coal fired generating stations in the US. And that is just the US. One begins to intuit the magnitude on which this paper is utterly unimportant.

Power Grab
April 19, 2013 2:21 pm

Does this mean we will have to look for another way to purify water after they have put chloramine into it to kill the germs, and then it goes on to kill the “good bugs” in our gut when we drink it or cook with it?
IIRC, it takes “long contact” with activated charcoal PLUS reverse osmosis to remove chloramine from tap water.
I just learned recently about chloramine. It won’t gas out, like chlorine. It won’t boil out. You can’t deactivated it with salt. It will kill your fish. It will kill kidney dialysis patients. It will ruin your kidney even if you’re not on kidney dialysis.
I used to think I was allergic to wheat. Then I did some experimentation and figured out it’s the tap water. I wonder how many other people who think they have food allergies are actually reacting to the chloraminated tap water?
Is there going to ever come a point where we can just say “Enough! Just stop it. Now.”

Paul
April 19, 2013 2:24 pm

We use charcoal (activated) for removing poisons from the stomach. This will remove poisons from the oceans, or something.

Ack
April 19, 2013 2:25 pm

How much carbon is pumped into the oceans from active volcanoes?

Not the same Jeff
April 19, 2013 2:27 pm

Have scientists forgotten there is a reason we are considered “carbon-based” life forms?

Eyal Porat
April 19, 2013 2:27 pm

What next?
Scientists find that most of excess rain goes to the oceans, thus poses the option of sea level rise.
Research suggests that volcanoes are the main source of sulfur in the atmosphere, thus may cause global waring/cooling/disruption.
Computer models predict that dead leaves cause the formation of soil in forests, thus can cause a danger of carbon desequstration.
Come on! so what?
It seems the rush for finance is beginning (?) to border the absurd.

Gail Combs
April 19, 2013 2:27 pm

WTF says:
April 19, 2013 at 2:18 pm
Does this mean we have to stop using activated carbon to filter our drinking water?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Darn you beat me to it. The use of activated carbon for purification was the first thing I thought of when I saw the title.
I agree the correct word is silly or is it just a symptom of running out of alarmist claptrap to print.

David L. Hagen
April 19, 2013 2:31 pm

From: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center
*** Global CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, ***
*** Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1751-2009 ***
*** September 20, 2012 ***
*** Source: Tom Boden ***
*** Bob Andres
2009 Total 8738
“All emission estimates are expressed in million metric tons of carbon. To convert these estimates to units of carbon dioxide (CO2), simply multiply these estimates by 3.667.”
Compare “25 million tons of dissolved charcoal is transported from land to the sea each year.”
~ 0.3% of total.

April 19, 2013 2:33 pm

Woods Hole Research Center should not be mistaken for the Great woods Hole Oceanagraphic Institute. WHRC is an advocacy outfit of which John Holdren was a co-founder. George Soros is a founder. GIGO.

1 2 3 5