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.
I take it they’d prefer the streams weren’t CO2-saturated, and didn’t give it off into the atmosphere? The entire carbon cycle of life on the planet must halt, in order to suppress atmospheric CO2 because it might warm things up a little?
The bind moggles.
The “super congress” is looking for ideas on where to cut Congressional overspending. I suggest a budget cut for this kind of “research” would do no harm.
@ur momisugly AlGored, “I’m shocked that we haven’t all died of carbon poisoning. Seems like every living thing must be contaminated with it. Is there nothing the EPA can do to save us?”
It’s true. Scientists have discovered that all life is contaminated with carbon now. It is worse than we thought. Personally, I always thought that all life was ‘based on’ carbon, but I was wrong. They have changed ‘based on’ with ‘contaminated by’. For our own good, of course.
The link to this in Nature Geoscience is http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1294.html
The article proves that human generated CO2 remains insignificant as can be demonstrated by comparing it to all the CO2 released just by rivers and streams. Thanks Yale!
How many car trips could be fueled by the money wasted on this nonsense?
The EPA just notified me that showers are a major indoor pollutant and are now banned. The excessive heating of the water increases the release of co2 reducing indoor air quality. Next stop Niagara Falls!
Perhaps for their next project they might study the shocking amount of that more dangerous greenhouse gas, water vapor, that is emitted by streams and rivers as they travel the landscape.
Water vapor from lakes, streams and rivers probably does affect climate.
Is that supported in the Supplementary Information? Setting aside the inconvenient truths that there (1) are no service stations (2) no O2 stations, necessary for most of the trip, (3) no Howard Johnsons, (4) no speed limit except c, and (5) no road; most of the trip will be uphill. Gas mileage going uphill really sucks and should be accounted for in their calculations. Note that unlike JFK, they seem to have ignored the return trip.
They also ignored the time factor. It took me about 10 years to reach 238,000 miles on my Saturn SL2 car (it’s a little over 300,000 now) and not much closer to the Moon (and maybe planet Saturn) than it was when I bought it.
Of course, the car doesn’t do vertical hills well. I really need multi-level spiral bridge around the equator with exits for LEO, geosynch orbits, and other interesting intermediate destinations.
Lessee, 3.4 million trips, 100,000 per day, one car every 2.38 miles, yeah, a two lane road should suffice. Probably would be a toll road.
Does this mean that rivers and streams are becoming “more acidic”?
“The research was funded by NASA, the National Science Foundation, the United States Geological Survey and the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.”
I strongly suspect the research was funded by the American Taxpayer and not by NASA, nor the NSF nor the USGS. Since when did any of these institutions generate any profit by which they could fund anything?
“…US rivers and streams saturated with carbon…”
I suppose the next study will be the effects of dihydrogen monoxide saturation on rivers and streams…
President Obama gave a speech about carbon pollution of our air and streams, so it must be true. Now we need to fund the science to show it is so.
This is much how science worked in the Soviet Union, isn’t it? Under the USSR, the best minds went into the hard sciences because the social sciences were entirely corrupted for the political goals of the state. Psychology, sociology, etc., were all dedicated to showing the superiority of the socialism, the state and the new Soviet man. Math and engineering could not be corrupted in this way.
In Virginia, several years ago crushed limestone was dumped, by helicopter, into some mountain stream headwaters to lower the PH content of the water to combat acid rain effects on the trout populations. Carbon applied by man to help the fish. I believe this was done to streams that originated in soils/rock that were not of limestone origin. I think the Saint Mary’s River was one place and others were in the Shennedoah National Park. Long ago (15-20 years) so this may need to be verified before repeating it.
Go on. Admit it, That sometimes in your ‘darker moments’, you wish that all this Catastrophic Climate Armageddon would actually come true and happen.
Doncha think that? Yeah? You do don’t you?
Yeah. Thought so.
Really bad and horrible. All that heat, and cold, and drought, and wind, and ozone, oh gawd the ozone and just everything REALLY bad..
Then it might rid the world of some Spectacularly Stupid, Dumb and Mind Numbingly Tedious People.
But of course, they’re all ‘somebody’s babies’ and its bad to think thoughts like that.
“Tom Davidson says:
October 18, 2011 at 2:42 am
“…releasing enough carbon into the atmosphere to fuel 3.4 million car trips to the moon…”
Where can I get one of these cars that runs on carbon (or CO2) and can go to the moon?”
The study was funded by NASA using money saved by Obama cancelling the space shuttle. After all why bother with a space program if you can just drive there?
Taxpayer money for space research has been diverted to CO2 hype for years. Hansen and all work for NASA at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Since Earth is in space, by studying the Earth they are studying space.
Look at all the money they’ve saved along the way. In line with Obama’s plans, instead of studying space with rockets, they are doing it all with computer models, which are much more accurate and a whole lot less prone to failures than rockets.
This research is then use to create green jobs, studying ways to stop all the CO2 that threatens life on the planet. This will then create billions of jobs to feed and clothe the planet.
I must say, it seems we actually never noticed – we actually are already dead.
The earth echo system is so fragile and bound to positive feedbacks it must have already been destroyed, but we did not notice.
It surely could not handled the atmospheric composition of thousands of ppm (as it did some millions of years ago) and survived, hasn’t it?
/SARC
“fluxed up” /// I like that.
You might also try “fodeu” … ecotretas would approve 🙂
Mr Soylent, you are thinking of Lysenko – he ruined Russian agriculture for decades.
What is a carbon budget? A budget by definition is a plan for allocating resources, time and money. Selling it did not work so now it is a budget.
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.
It seems that with this statement they have inadvertently shown that atmospheric CO2 follows temperature rather than being the driver.
Thermostellar device could destroy the Earth.
To date no body has proven the feasibility of a thermostellar device.
ferd berple says:
October 18, 2011 at 5:58 am
“The research was funded by NASA, the National Science Foundation, the United States Geological Survey and the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.”
“I strongly suspect the research was funded by the American Taxpayer and not by NASA, nor the NSF nor the USGS. Since when did any of these institutions generate any profit by which they could fund anything?”
Climate science is awash in taxpayer-funded Climate Ca$h, as shown here..
These press releases are merely a result of the authors attempting to make a name for themselves so they can stay employed at their academic institutions. Please remember these colossal wastes of money when our politicians try to convince us that we are “not paying our fair share”…
(PS – I’m sure NASA, NSF, and the USGS (that is, the taxpayers) picked up most all of the tab for this, and Yale merely paid for the paper clips and coffee).
Its amazing that these old style carbon scare reports are still being published in journals. You’d think it was still 2009.
This is what happens every year in the preceding couple of months before the annual climate summit. More and more of these types of scare reports will appear as the Durban climate summit nears. But once the summit is over, all becomes quiet for a few months. Its like clockwork.
‘Rivers and streams in the United States are releasing enough carbon into the atmosphere to fuel 3.4 million car trips to the moon’
How wonderful that they have developed an engine to run on carbon. Problem solved. except that they have not yet built any motorways to the moon. Perhaps that’s their next project!