(even) More methane plumes found in Arctic

[phantom power]

The latest discoveries came from researchers on the British ship the James Clark Ross. They said they had observed around 250 methane plumes in a 30 sq mile area.

"The discovery of this system is important as its presence provides evidence that methane, which is a greenhouse gas, has been released in this climatically sensitive region since the last Ice Age," Prof Graham Westbrook of Birmingham University, said.

Although it is likely that methane has been released continuously for 15,000 years, it is not known how much the process has been accelerated by recent climate changes or how much the releases themselves will contribute to global warming.

"We were very excited when we found these plumes because it was the first evidence there was an active gas system in this part of the world," Prof Westbrook added.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/09/25/eamethane125.xml

[thecrow]

1. And are we going to cap them?

Use them as a natural gas source?
Fight over them?

[phantom power]

2. We're going to study them as they spew methane. You can't cap them.

[Richard D]

3. This is really bad news

Perhaps the worst case scenario for global heating.

[Barrett808]

4. The melting permafrost is bad news, too

The latest estimate of soil carbon store is twice the quantity of atmospheric carbon. And the permafrost is melting very fast...

[AlecBGreen]

5. yes but therein lies part of our solution

underground carbon sequestration by coal plants is a blind alley. Carbon sequestration in soils by using proper farming techniques is cheap, feasible, and a proven method of long-term carbon storage.

The math: 1 acre of soil, 1 foot deep, weighs 2 million pounds. By weight, soil is approximately 3% carbon. By increasing the carbon content 1%, we have fixed 20,000 pounds of carbon, which equals approximately 73,300 pounds of CO2. This is roughly 37 tons of carbon dioxide per acre. It doesnt take long for that to add up.

America has 175 million acres in grain alone under cultivation. If we were to stop dousing the land in artificial, petroleum derived fertilizers and instead focus on raising soil carbon levels via cover cropping, crop rotation, low-till agriculture, we COULD increase the soil content by 1%. That would be an offset of about 6.5 BILLION tons of carbon dioxide. Obviously thats not a quick, easily attainable goal but I hope it shows that there is a great potential for carbon sequestration just by focusing on the best practices in agriculture. As a positive side-effect, soil fertility increases, productivity increases, water is better filtered & stored, oil dependency is reduced, farmer income increases, the list is endless.

The point of all this? Spend your food dollars on those who raise crops in a sustainable manner. You'll eat better AND feel better :)

[The Croquist]

6. Not to pick a fight but...

If you increase carbon in the soil from 73,300 pounds to 93,300 pounds that is a 21% increase (a 1% increase of the total soil).

Will soil actually accept that much carbon by just plowing under other crops and if so what is the cost? By cost I don't mean just money but lost productivity by losing a season's production as well as planting and plowing expenses.

I have put leaves in my garden and roto-tilled it for years and I went from having clay to pretty good soil but I didn't start with soil and I don't kid myself into thinking that my garden is really making a difference. The CO2 I release using my roto-tiller probably offsets the CO2 I absorb.

[Barrett808]

8. There are claims that organic methods are carbon-negative by a large factor

See, for example:

Organic farming combats global warming … big time
http://www.newfarm.org/depts/NFfield_trials/1003/carbonsequest.shtml



Hopeful news, but these calculations are notoriously tricky -- and there only so many gigatons of carbon that we can sequester in soils.

[AlecBGreen]

9. i think we're talking about 2 different things.

these are rough estimates of course, but here goes:

1 acre of soil to a depth of 1 foot (aka an acre-foot) weighs 2,000,000 pounds.
By mass, carbon makes up 3% of this total, which equals 60,000 pounds.
Increasing the carbon content by 1% means adding 20,000 pounds of pure carbon.
Carbon is atomic no. 6, oxygen is 8, so C02 is 6/22nds carbon by mass.
So to add 20,000 pounds of carbon to the soil, we are removing 73,300 pounds of CO2 from the air.

To address the feasibility issues you raised:
1) Each soil has its own 'optimum' level of carbon. In cold, wet climates this can reach 10% or higher (think Minnesota muck). In warm, sandy soils it can level out at 2%. Most soil falls somewhere in between. Our farm in the Shenandoah Valley of VA has 3.5 to 4%. Most agricultural land has burned off its organic matter long ago by applying acidulated fertilizers.
2) It is possible (and profitable) to increase the organic matter content of the soil through several means - the regular addition of organic matter such as compost, shredded leaves, manure; the use of cover crops and green manures such as clovers, vetch, or fescue; decreased use of artificial fertilizers; proper grazing techniques (think prairies and buffalo creating 10' of deep black soil). Basically the idea is to take a natural phenomenon (plant growth) and speed it up. Grazing is, IMO, the best way to do this. Every time a cow eats grass, the same amount of roots below the surface die off and rot. The plant will regrow and then it will be sheared off again in a few weeks. This constant cycle of growth, graze, and die off will produce lots of beef AND add a heap of organic matter (=carbon) to the soil. It is a net carbon sink.

'Lost productivity' is a misperception. Small, tightly managed farms can, are, and will continue to beat industrial farms hands down in production per acre. Crop rotation, the additions of organic matter and use of proper grazing techniques are not 'costs' to be avoided, they are the root of fertility increase and the centerpiece of any small farm. They are REQUIRED for organic certification.

Your particular example is a good one. First, some advice: don't till it in! You will destroy the very soil structure you are trying to create. Add organic matter in the fall after your harvest by applying it to the surface, 2-3" deep, and watch in amazement as your earthworms have a reproductive orgy. Their castings were a half-inch deep on our soil and the garden soaks up water like a sponge. It will also keep the temperature more tolerable for the invisible critters and warm up faster in the spring.

You're right ... Your garden didn't make a difference in reducing climatic CO2 - you moved fertility (leaves) from one place to another. On the plus side, food travels around the world so everything you grow in your back yard reduces your personal impact. Plus you're setting a great example for the neighbors :)

Long story short - increasing soil carbon by proper farming techniques has numerous benefits, not least of which is the ability to reduce our net addition of CO2 into the atmosphere. Its cheap to implement and has multiple positive effects.

[Barrett808]

7. Word. Local and organic, baby.

Also, terra preta: http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/4522 .

[GliderGuider]

10. Terra preta is one of the few technological interventions I have any time for.