From Yale University pick which one is the true message of this press release:
1. The title of the press release: US rivers and streams saturated with carbon.
2. The pointless statistic: Rivers and streams in the United States are releasing enough carbon into the atmosphere to fuel 3.4 million car trips to the moon.
3. The title of the paper: Significant Efflux of Carbon Dioxide from Streams and Rivers in the United States.
4. The caveat: The researchers note in the paper that currently it is impossible to determine exactly how to include this flux in regional carbon budgets, because the influence of human activity on the release of CO2 into streams and rivers is still unknown.
Who writes these things?
US rivers and streams saturated with carbon
New Haven, Conn.— Rivers and streams in the United States are releasing enough carbon into the atmosphere to fuel 3.4 million car trips to the moon, according to Yale researchers in Nature Geoscience. Their findings could change the way scientists model the movement of carbon between land, water and the atmosphere.
“These rivers breathe a lot of carbon,” said David Butman, a doctoral student and co-author of a study with Pete Raymond, professor of ecosystem ecology, both at the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. “They are a source of CO2, just like we breathe CO2 and like smokestacks emit CO2, and this has never been systematically estimated from a region as large as the United States.”
The researchers assert that a significant amount of carbon contained in land, which first is absorbed by plants and forests through the air, is leaking into streams and rivers and then released into the atmosphere before reaching coastal waterways.
“What we are able to show is that there is a source of atmospheric CO2 from streams and rivers, and that it is significant enough for terrestrial modelers to take note of it,” said Butman.
They analyzed samples taken by the United States Geological Survey from over 4,000 rivers and streams throughout the United States, and incorporated highly detailed geospatial data to model the flux of carbon dioxide from water. This release of carbon, said Butman, is the same as a car burning 40 billion gallons of gasoline.
The paper, titled “Significant Efflux of Carbon Dioxide from Streams and Rivers in the United States,” also indicates that as the climate heats up there will be more rain and snow, and that an increase in precipitation will result in even more terrestrial carbon flowing into rivers and streams and being released into the atmosphere.
“This would mean that any estimate between carbon uptake in the biosphere and carbon being released through respiration in the biosphere will be even less likely to balance and must include the carbon in streams and rivers,” he said.
The researchers note in the paper that currently it is impossible to determine exactly how to include this flux in regional carbon budgets, because the influence of human activity on the release of CO2 into streams and rivers is still unknown.
The research was funded by NASA, the National Science Foundation, the United States Geological Survey and the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Top marks for creative grant application. Zero for science.
So if we find that X releases carbon dioxide that’s bad, and if we find that X absorbs and then releases carbon dioxide that’s still bad, and if we find that X doesn’t absorb or release carbon dioxide, that’s bad too because it makes it harder to determine where the carbon dioxide is coming from and going to? OK, I think I’ve mastered that now.
I’m ready for my grant, Mr. Flannery!
What I hear them saying is that, far from being settled more than a decade ago, the science is still not settled.
“Butman”. Love it. Keep the comedy coming.
Big numbers usually scare people. But this has no effect on me, since I’ve never been to the moon in a car. 3.4 million trips may just be the equivalent of a trip to the local grocery store and back. These Yale tennis-shoed college boys need to come up with a better Halloween story than that if they’re going to scare their idea of the average Joe. They need to dumb it down, maybe something simple like “We’re all going to die in three days”.
It was the only way they could get funding for their river ecology project…
Oh my good gracious. Cover all the bases why don’t you. Look! Look! We found what may be a tipping point which could be significant, and might make things worse than the may already be! The model might get us some more dole! Yeah buddy!
Smuggled into the phony sobriety of the usual smoke-and-mirrors science we have come to revile….
Rivers are “saturated” with Carbon, yet releasing Carbon into the atmosphere… Yet they still stay saturated? I can see how CO2 is created (from other things), but carbon is created?
This seems to fail elementary chemistry
— and I mean 5th grade science class.
So how will the EPA deal with this fluvial polluter of our atmosphere?
“These rivers breathe [out] a lot of carbon,” said David Butman
“They are a source of CO2, just like we breathe [out] CO2…”
++++++++
Is there a car that runs on CO2? I am pretty sure that is the claim.
What a waste of time and money! State the obvious, draw no conclusion, profit!!!
“and that it is significant enough for terrestrial modelers to take note of it,”
Terrestrial modelers? Sounds like they are talking about some kind of demi-gods?
Well, since the models do not currently account for this, as inferred from the story, then we can count on the blame for mankind to be lessened, right?
. . so let me get this straight: CO2 from the land gets into the air ( . .though they don’t say how . . ), gets absorbed by plants, then somehow ‘leaks’ into the streams, then goes BACK to the atmosphere . . .
. . so, HOW, with this all being a NATURAL PROCESS, is it a problem? Are they somehow trying to blame it on humans . . .?
Ya just have to say “MAJOR FAIL”.
OK, so dead leaves etc. decompose in streams and CO2 goes into the water, and is subsequently released to the air. As opposed to leaves decomposing on the ground, upon which CO2 is released to the air. What is the significant difference? And why would more precipitation make a significant change in the net carbon flux?
So the amount of co2 in US streams and rivers is the same as a car burning 40 billion gallons of gasoline. The whole world burns around 30 billion gallons a year, the US around 10 billion a year. So if all the co2 from cars were going into the rivers of the US, would be one quarter of the total co2 the US burns, cars, trucks, factories…Right there we’re limited to not more than 25% anthropogenic co2 from oil into the rivers. Of course, much of that 10 billion barrels of co2 goes into the air, so the 25% anthro is significantly less, of co2 from “cars” going to the moon. Although I didn’t figure the gas mileage for the typical car going to the moon.
Wow cold water at the head waters taking in CO2 that adds to the nutrition of the ecosysten as it flows and naturaly warms as it goes down stream untill it releases some back in natural cycle. Did they realy think it would not take on and give off CO2? Is it a net gain or loss? A lot of organics in that there water better check it for other GHG intake and out put. What about sesonal changes? Need to do a critter count they must be overpopulating the stream beds causing the CO2 problem. The Population Bomb was true but it was not people.
Should I laugh or cry about all they lack in knowledge about natural cycles in a stream river …..
CO2 from H2O?
Martin Clauss says:
October 17, 2011 at 10:50 pm
Are they somehow trying to blame it on humans . . .?
Given point number 4 the caveat…
Sure looks like it.
“the influence of human activity on the release of CO2 into streams and rivers is still unknown”
Aren’t they supposedly able to chemically distinguish between anthro and natural co2?
Maybe they need a grant to back over the “over 4,000 rivers and streams throughout the United States, and incorporate” “highly detailed geospatial data to model the flux of carbon dioxide from water” to include the percentage of anthro and natural co2 found in the samples.
“This release of carbon, said Butman, is the same as a car burning 40 billion gallons of gasoline.”
I think I saw that car once; passed me on an LA freeway like I was standing still.
Oh wait, I was.
Wait till they work out how much carbon dioxide is released fron the oceans!
So what was the CO2 efflux prior to European colonization? My bet is that for large parts of the US especially the Mississippi Basin it was higher. (Those midwest soils were coal black for a reason.) Soil waterlogging was more widespread -prior to the loss of the prairies and draining agriculture land -which promoted high organic carbon soil content, beavers dammed most tributaries creating large organic sediment traps. 100s of millions of prairie dogs mobilized enormous amounts of soil. Anadromous fish transferred tons of of CNP from the ocean back into freshwater streams. And low temperature fire regimes must have created massive stores of organic carbon in the grasslands.There must have also been an enormous pulse of CO2 during the 18th and 19th centuries when the virgin soils were first put to the plow.
A degree or so increase in temperature and a few inches of rain compared to the above- not impressed.
Did you know that one of the first things they do in purifying water, is to remove the DISSOLVED ORGANIC SOLIDS !!!! This happens naturally when water is properly oxygenated, and the bugs and critters can eat the DOS and thus release CO2.
Its part of how things work !!! Its part of the carbon cycle, always has been, and unless these morons try to stop it and kill us all.. it always will be.
These guys seriously need to go back to school !!!.. To learn, NOT to teach !!
It’s weird. All of the sudden we can fuel cars off of CO2.
Can someone tell me at what fresh water temperature during the course of the rivers journey from the cold mountain source to the warmer estuary, does the effect change from absorbing co2 to expelling it? What is the sea water equivalent temperature?
tonyb