From CARDIFF UNIVERSITY and the “inconvenient critters” department.
Baltic clams and worms release as much greenhouse gas as 20,000 dairy cows
New study shows that oceans with worms and clams enhance the release of methane into the atmosphere up to eight times more than oceans without them
Scientists have shown that ocean clams and worms are releasing a significant amount of potentially harmful greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.
The team, from Cardiff University and Stockholm University, have shown that the ocean critters are producing large amounts of the strongest greenhouse gases – methane and nitrous oxides – from the bacteria in their guts.
Methane gas is making its way into the water and then finally out into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming – methane has 28 times greater warming potential than carbon dioxide.
A detailed analysis showed that around 10 per cent of total methane emissions from the Baltic Sea may be due to clams and worms.
The researchers estimate that this is equivalent to as much methane given off as 20,000 dairy cows. This is as much as 10 per cent of the entire Welsh dairy cow population and 1 per cent of the entire UK dairy cow population.
The findings, which have been published in the journal Scientific Reports, point to a so far neglected source of greenhouse gases in the sea and could have a profound impact on decision makers.
It has been suggested that farming oysters, mussels and clams could be an effective solution against human pressures on the environment, such as eutrophication caused by the run-off of fertilisers into our waters.
The authors warn that stakeholders should consider these potential impacts before deciding whether to promote shellfish farming to large areas of the ocean.
Co-author of the study Dr Ernest Chi Fru, from Cardiff University’s School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, said:
“What is puzzling is that the Baltic Sea makes up only about 0.1% of Earth’s oceans, implying that globally, apparently harmless bivalve animals at the bottom of the world’s oceans may in fact be contributing ridiculous amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere that is unaccounted for.”
Lead author of the study Dr Stefano Bonaglia, from Stockholm University, said: “It sounds funny but small animals in the seafloor may act like cows in a stable, both groups being important contributors of methane due to the bacteria in their gut.
“These small yet very abundant animals may play an important, but so far neglected, role in regulating the emissions of greenhouse gases in the sea.”
To arrive at their results the team analysed trace gas, isotopes and molecules from the worms and clams, known as polychaetes and bivalves respectively, taken from ocean sediments in the Baltic Sea.
The team analysed both the direct and indirect contribution that these groups were having on methane and nitrous oxide production in the sea. The results showed that sediments containing clams and worms increased methane production by a factor of eight compared to completely bare sediments.
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anthony,
May be slightly OT and not sure where else to post (and late Friday after a couple bevvies), but just wondering who does the graphics/picks the photos for the thread? I was wondering if someone could take this cow, reverse the photo, and combine it with the one with Algore flaming the earth (cow flaming Algore). Now, that would be funny right there…
Remain clam! The planet ain’t gonna overheat because of buffalo methane flatulence or CO2 plant food!
You gotta be really gullible to believe the planet is ‘endangered’ by the essentials of life!
Worms, Clams destroying the Earth! That’s it…. We’re going to have to Nuke it from Orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
… aw forgot the link…. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCbfMkh940Q
But that would be dangerous.
Here’s the safe way.
Every time this meaningless statistic is brought up people need to ask what it means in terms of increasing global temperature? The answer is not very much. A doubling of CH4 might run temperature up a few hundredths of a degree – maybe.
A doubling of methane would be an increase of around 2 ppm and a similar increase of 2 ppm of CO2 won’t run temperatures up by any measureable amount. In other words nothing, and 28 times nothing is nothing.
Steve Case
That is why I have challenged anyone to bring forward proof that methane from livestock can warm the planet by more than .05 degrees C over the next 20 years .I will then get the evidence peer reviewed .
I have had no takers yet only a few dumb statements
The nonsense also gets publicity in the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/10/13/oysters-mussels-produce-ridiculous-levels-gasses-causing-climate/
There has not, in recent geologic time, been an increase in worms etc excreting methane
There has been an increase in domestic cattle, methane from fracking and CO2 from vehicles and power stations
Another dumb statement Griff ,
Methane is measured in parts per billion in the atmosphere because 1.9 parts per million does not sound very scary ..In the last 40 years methane has increased by .one third of one part of one millionth of the atmosphere . Probably within the error bars of the measuring instruments and sampling methods .Back in the nineties there was rumored that methane was leaking from gas pipes and gas fields in Russia after the fall of the Iron curtain.Canadians in the far north were getting readings across the Arctic .The rise in methane slowed for a few years but it has moved up again .It is non problem as it is broken down into CO2 and H2O and most of the methane has come from natural causes and I include livestock emissions as natural .And the carbon cycle keeps on working as if humans could intervene
See my posting above .
“not…..been an increase in worms”
And you know this? how?
You are just MAKING UP NON FACTS, like you always do.
So what? How much is that increase in methane going to run up global temperature?
Let us not forget…
The Global Warming Cowfart Panic started out as a *joke*…
Look how many people actually believed the Russian spoof that the Belgian government had helicopters flying around to monitor backyard charcoal barbecues? https://sputniknews.com/world/2007040362999935/
Nature is not just keeping up with our rate of increase of carbon emissions – it is exceeding that rate at the moment according to this study – https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13428
The more carbon we add – the more life is responding to it by pumping up the carbon cycle. Nature appears to welcome having more carbon whether it’s from CO2 or methane.
So, if there are “ridiculous amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere that is unaccounted for” and the models (that don’t account for this) are already running too hot. Then if the models DID account for this ‘ridiculous amount’ they would be even more wrong!
I think any logical person would have to conclude that if models missing a ‘significant amount’ of GHG emissions are already too hot, then the current models are significantly wrong (dare I say they are significantly insignificant), and/or the entire AGW theory is wrong.
By stating that the Baltic Sea represents 0.1% of the Earth’s oceans, it can be quickly extrapolated that these creatures release GHGs equivalent to 20 million cattle. But this dramatic result is not backed up by the literature, as it does not claim or suggest that these macrofaunae are present in the same population consistently across the globe. Additionally, cattle populations have been steadily increasing with human populations while crustaceous populations are not farmed on such a large scale. Finally, GHGs released “naturally” are a part of the carbon cycle, essential to life on Earth, however, humanity’s excessive production of GHG’s from cattle farming goes far beyond this natural cycle’s limits. It does not make sense to suggest that climate change is not caused by humans by proving that other animals also release GHGs. If these clams and worms were releasing amounts exceeding all human activity, then it would be a cause for concern, but as it seems these releases barely meet the output of 1% of the UKs cattle population.
[Quote from the article] “The authors warn that stakeholders should consider these potential impacts before deciding whether to promote shellfish farming to large areas of the ocean.”
That shouldn’t be too much of a problem. Shellfish are currently only “farmed” in shallow water near the coasts, where it is not too difficult to harvest the shellfish. A comparison of the volume (1.335 billion km^3) and surface area (362 million km^2) of the world’s oceans shows that the average depth of the oceans would be about 3.7 km, so that most of the area of the oceans is much too deep to allow practical “farming” of bottom-dwelling shellfish.
[Quote from the article]“What is puzzling is that the Baltic Sea makes up only about 0.1% of Earth’s oceans, implying that globally, apparently harmless bivalve animals at the bottom of the world’s oceans may in fact be contributing ridiculous amounts of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere that is unaccounted for.”
The Baltic Sea has a relatively long coastline for a relatively small surface area, meaning that most of its water is relatively shallow. If the Baltic Sea represents only 0.1% of the surface area of the Earth’s oceans, the methane production of its bivalves cannot be extrapolated to the vast area of the much deeper Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic Oceans. Clams and worms cannot survive at the bottom of deep oceans, because the sun doesn’t penetrate to that depth, and there would be much less food supply (plankton) for them than in the shallow waters where they thrive.