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.
timg56 says:
October 18, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Looks like I added one zero too many. 40 billion gallons equals almost 3 years worth of US gasoline consumption.
========================================
You were right the first time.
Annual consumption of gasoline in the US is around 125 billion gallons (down from 150 billion a couple of years ago).
timg56 says:
“Seems like a lot of folks here are drinking heavily from the scarcasim / cynical fountain today… Yes, it is a poorly written press release. But rather than showing how superior we all are, why not look at what this might actually tell us? (Granted, it might not tell us anything.)”
In response, I offer up a quote from the 1992 movie “Pure Country” delivered by the character of Ernest Tucker:
“The funny thing about that little white speck on the top of chicken s***. That little white speck is chicken s*** too.”
Upon first hearing these words, I needed several moments to figure out what Ernest actually meant. However, I believe the movie’s quote fits quite nicely here. You can look at the paper’s content in any manner you want – even tease out an enlightening fact, but rest assured, the final result will be the same – it’s crap (a/k/a statistically insignificant).
“We do not suggest that the out-gassing of CO2 from streams and rivers offsets this estimated sink…”, “…[I]t is not yet possible to determine the impact of global change on CO2 flux despite many pieces of evidence which demonstrate watershed level disturbances on CO2 evasion 8,44.”, and “ …[A]lthough evasion rates are high, how freshwater out-gassing impacts global or regional carbon budgets and is influenced by global change still needs to be determined.” – http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1294.html . http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/ngeo1294-s1.pdf .
Given that these irrelevant conclusions were funded using taxpayer monies and in light of the nation’s record debt spending, the paper… is… crap (i.e., irrelevant to the on-going discussion other than for the authors to assert they’ve published a paper on climate change).
Glenn says:
October 17, 2011 at 10:32 pm
“We’re all going to die in three days”.
The problem is that the Rubes figure out something’s wrong sometime on the 5th day or so.
Ahh yes, the layman’s equivalent units, always handy when conveying science to unwitting plebs:
Olympic sized swimming pools
Library of Congresses
Superbowl stadiums
Car trips to moon
silly wabbit, everyone knows that your car can’t make any CO2 on the way to the moon and back,
it’s a vacuum out there
Please consider that what you are seeing here is the beginning stages of the shift from climate change to the Nitrogen Cascade. Nitrogen- the other cycle- has been warming up for the last five years to replace climate should it falter in the late innings. Everything CO2 was meant to achieve can be accomplished by nitrogen -perhaps better. What is troubling is that EPA has all the regulatory authority it needs– as demonstrated by the order to the States draining to Chesapeake Bay to reduce nitrogen loadings by 25%. And EPA is proposing a 45% reduction for the States draining into the Mississippi basin.. Think CO2 controls were bad– try to use fossil fuels, eat meat or live where you want when a 45% nitrogen is mandated and adjudicated by a model. The only thing that has changed is the molecule.
Just as climate needed to get rid of the MWP so does Nitrogen need to get rid of the fact that for 6000 years before European colonization many of our waters, soil and air was richer in reactive N than today. And why this paper needs to say CO2 increasing as C and N are tied together. Fire suppression has fundamentally changed chemistry, nitrogen fixation, waterlogging and as a result the productivity of our waters. Fire prior to suppression also made for some poor quality air using EPAs standards. Prior to European colonization our air had higher NOx, NOy, ground level ozone, and particulates. The 45% reduction for the Mississippi basin can only be “justified” by claiming we are emitting nitrogen in quantities never seen before. To accomplish this- the science that nitrogen and its team mate carbon were higher than today- must go the way of the MWP. We like to talk about what happened to early climate dissenters– however no-one is paying any attention to what is happening to soil scientists right now.
The recent report to EPA from the Scientific Advisory Board “Reactive Nitrogen in the United States; an Analysis of Inputs, Flows, Consequences, and Management Options” is a good place to start.
Concerning the Nitrogen Cascade,
wikipedia:
The crisis in the novel is the imminent “flipping” of the atmosphere into a poisonous O2 dominated state …
The title of the press release: US rivers and streams saturated with carbon.
So are the Oceans, so we’re all gonna die! Of eating too much food made of whatever is “breathing” in there under continuously “saturated” conditions with increased “leakage” in of that evil “carbon”? I don’t get it.
Waall, I dunno about the “earth echo system”, but the Climate Science echo chamber seems to be reasonably robust. However, the combination of “positive feedback” generating deafening squeals and disruptive baffles and large holes being punched in the walls by those darn Wrecker skeptics and empirical scientists is causing severe disorientation for the occupants.
In a sane science, this study would have simply noted that the natural cycling of CO2 into and out of streams is of such-and-such a magnitude, and that this is possibly a significant constituent of the way in which it moves through the ecosphere.
“Rivers and streams in the United States are releasing enough carbon into the atmosphere to fuel 3.4 million car trips to the moon.”
See, this is what ticks me off about the world. why don’t we have cars that go to the moon? We’ve got enough fuel to send millions of them up there, just in our rivers! Please sign my offline petition to get mooncars built.
thanks in advance.
philincalifornia,
Thanks.
Not the first time I got the correct answer on the initial go around and then changed it.
Tom Murphy,
I doubt I put any more value on the study than you do. I just wonder at times if all the snarkyness adds any value.
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’.
As a Californian who has to deal with the insanity, I’m glad to see the photo caption includes identifying the Chairman of the Resources board as a “woman.” Some might think the problem is this might be to distinguish her from a man. In fact, I think it is an attempt to include the insane thing as a part of the human race.