Lakes Aren't Just Drying Out. They Might Also Be Releasing More CO2 (msn.com) 41
As part of a team exploring Utah's Great Salt Lake, climate researcher Melissa Cobo "discovered more disturbing evidence that dried-out lakes are a significant source of carbon dioxide emissions," reports the Washington Post.
But more disturbingly, they write that this source of emissions "has not been included in the official accounting of how much carbon the world is releasing into the warming atmosphere." In a new study in the journal One Earth, the researchers calculated that 4.1 million tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases were released from the drying bed of the Great Salt Lake in 2020, the year Cobo and others collected the samples. This would amount to about a 7 percent increase in Utah's human-caused emissions, the authors found.
While other researchers have documented carbon emissions from dried-out lakes — including the Aral Sea in Central Asia — [climate change museum curator Soren] Brothers said that his study tried to calculate what part of the emissions from this major saline lake could be attributed to humans, as the Great Salt Lake has been drawn down for human use, a decline worsened by climate change and the West's megadrought of the past two decades.
"This is the first time we're saying, 'This is something that's on us,'" said Brothers, now a climate change curator with the Royal Ontario Museum. Lakes around the world normally store carbon. Plant and animal remains settle on the bottom over thousands of years as sediment, much of it in low-oxygen layers that degrade slowly. "When lakes are inundated with water, let's say their useful state, they are kind of allies in our struggle for removing CO2 from the atmosphere," said Rafael Marcé, a research scientist at the Centre for Advanced Studies in Blanes, Spain, who has collaborated with Brothers on prior work but wasn't involved in this study. When lakes dry out, oxygen can penetrate deep into the sediment, waking up microorganisms that start to feast on the organic matter, releasing carbon dioxide, Marcé said.
But more disturbingly, they write that this source of emissions "has not been included in the official accounting of how much carbon the world is releasing into the warming atmosphere." In a new study in the journal One Earth, the researchers calculated that 4.1 million tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases were released from the drying bed of the Great Salt Lake in 2020, the year Cobo and others collected the samples. This would amount to about a 7 percent increase in Utah's human-caused emissions, the authors found.
While other researchers have documented carbon emissions from dried-out lakes — including the Aral Sea in Central Asia — [climate change museum curator Soren] Brothers said that his study tried to calculate what part of the emissions from this major saline lake could be attributed to humans, as the Great Salt Lake has been drawn down for human use, a decline worsened by climate change and the West's megadrought of the past two decades.
"This is the first time we're saying, 'This is something that's on us,'" said Brothers, now a climate change curator with the Royal Ontario Museum. Lakes around the world normally store carbon. Plant and animal remains settle on the bottom over thousands of years as sediment, much of it in low-oxygen layers that degrade slowly. "When lakes are inundated with water, let's say their useful state, they are kind of allies in our struggle for removing CO2 from the atmosphere," said Rafael Marcé, a research scientist at the Centre for Advanced Studies in Blanes, Spain, who has collaborated with Brothers on prior work but wasn't involved in this study. When lakes dry out, oxygen can penetrate deep into the sediment, waking up microorganisms that start to feast on the organic matter, releasing carbon dioxide, Marcé said.
Hmmmm... (Score:1, Offtopic)
So the plants around the lakes went through their lifecycle, some of them died and were immediately reabsorbed back into the environment, others fell in the lake and are being absorbed now.
If the lake wasn't there then wouldn't the same co2 have been released anyway, just earlier?
Re: Hmmmm... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Lol sorry, I forgot. I did help my department with one grant when I was a junior, doing small stuff. It was pretty brutal.
Re: Hmmmm... (Score:1)
Re: Hmmmm... (Score:2)
No. Not really.
Re: (Score:1)
Then where would the co2 from those lake plants have gone if the lake was never there?
Re: Hmmmm... (Score:2)
Diatoms and not plants. Some algae too.
Re: (Score:1)
Uh ok and? Those don't turn back into co2?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, diatoms aren't plants. So your original theory doesn't make much sense to me.
Diatoms and algae are most (by weight) of what you'd find in the sediment around a lake bed. They produce both oxygen and carbon dioxide depending on environmental conditions. Favorable conditions make them a net producer of oxygen.
Also geology and chemistry is a pretty big portion of the CO2 release for sediment. Cycles of drying and wetting of sediment tends to cause it to release more carbon dioxide. This is in addition to
Re: (Score:2)
If the lake wasn't there, what makes you think the same abundance of plant life would have grown there?
Re: (Score:1)
Because there is a fuck ton of life growing over most of the planet without lakes?
Because the lake may have taken up space that otherwise would have had even more plants growing in the area?
What makes you think otherwise?
Re: (Score:3)
it's in the middle of a desert where there is absolutely NOT a "fuck ton of life" growing anywhere other than next to sources of water..
If the area got enough rain for stuff to grow without lakes and rivers, it wouldn't be a desert and the lake wouldn't be drying up.
Re:Hmmmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a SALT lake. Go there and take a look. Then post.
Yes, and it's well understood at this point that the Great Salt Lake contributes enormously to watering the surrounding valleys and mountains. Not directly; as you say the water is very salty and would kill most plants you put it on. But water evaporating from the lake significantly increases rainfall and especially snowfall in the surrounding region. As the size of the lake has decreased, the impact on the distribution and quantity of precipitation in the area has been significant, and negative. Local climatologists are pretty certain that if the lake gets too small, the "Greatest Snow on Earth" will all but disappear.
There are other problems, too. The Great Salt Lake is "dead", it has no outflow. This means that heavy metals have been accumulating in it for tens of thousands of years, making the lakebed sediments moderately toxic. If the lake continues shrinking, the population in the area faces the prospect of regular toxic dust storms. This CO2 emission situation is yet another reason not to let the lake disappear.
From a naive "go there and take a look" perspective, the lake appears to be a complete waste of space. It occupies a large area of what would be fairly valuable real estate with a body of water that can't be used for much of anything. The most significant life form in the lake is the brine flies, which are pretty disgusting, and smelly.
But it's actually quite an important element of the local climate and ecosystem.
The state has realized this, and there is a broad public and private initiative to revive the lake, to maintain healthy water levels. It's not going to be easy, but good progress has been made and I think we'll get there.
Re: (Score:3)
How plausible would it be to pump water from the salt lake into drying pools? Then the lake would have an outflow, the water would gradually freshen, the drying pools could be mined for the metals and salts, the evaporated water would contribute to precipitation downwind.
Re: (Score:2)
How plausible would it be to pump water from the salt lake into drying pools? Then the lake would have an outflow, the water would gradually freshen, the drying pools could be mined for the metals and salts, the evaporated water would contribute to precipitation downwind.
There is a significant salt and mineral industry that has been doing this for decades. But it would have to be scaled up several orders of magnitude to help with the climate effects.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you not even bother to read the summary?
They're talking about lakes. All lakes. The GS Lake was just one example most recently studied. The summary goes on to talk other other specific lakes and then lakes in general.
Jfc... can't make this shit up.
Read the summary... understand it... then post.
Re: Hmmmm... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Lakes typically have a very short lifecycle, as in most are gone under 5000 years. Plant material, erosion from nearby land, and other sediment naturally bury lakes. Evaporation without replenishment can do the same.
I live at the bottom of what was once glacial Lake Agassiz. There were even humans around at that time, though not nearly as many, and obviously not here.
Outlier (Score:1)
The Great Salt Lake is a special case. Having no outflows, the only way for us to mitigate its problems is to restrict inflow diversion.
In most other cases, simpler solutions are available. Just build more control dams and manage the in/outflows to maintain lake levels. And get some nice, green hydropower as a side benefit.
Yes, the anti-dam environmental nut jobs will scream. But they are beyond listening to, having flip-flopped on "lakes good", "lakes bad" several times in the past.
And another thing: We
But on the brightside the lawns are green (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean the golf courses. Many homeowners are moving to native flora for their "lawns".
I don't care. I still don't want to live there. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then the water starts to dry up.
Then animals and plants die off. Hint: humans are animals.
In the thousands of times this has happened in earth history, never did the earth and nor start some sort of Venusian climate death-spiral.
Which has what to do with anyting? No one, other than you, has ever said this. But good job on introducing an irrelevant topic.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, sure - yeah "nobody".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]
https://www.esa.int/Applicatio... [esa.int]
If nobody is saying it, you should maybe let the panickmongers know they're using the wrong talking points.
Who cares about the CO2? (Score:1)
This is counterintuitive, but since this CO2 is the result of a natural organic process at work there is little we can or should do to mediate the situation. You simply have to pretend that "who's responsible?" actually matters. Humanity didn't directly create this situation? Humanity should adapt to the circumstance, not attempt to change it.
Oddly, following the "it's not our fault" argument to its logical conclusion leads to (IMHO) the correct response. We should watch with great care as nature achie
Same with the be Amazon. (Score:2)
The Amazonian rainforest has gotten significantly warmer in recent years, so much so that locals are having trouble getting through the summer. Another significant side-effect is that the Amazonian Rainforest is tilting from being a net carbon sink to a net carbon producer.
Not pretty.
We're seeing cascades like this being kicked into motion all around the planet and AFAICT it's going to get a lot worse before the ecosphere balances out into a new equilibrium. ... Hopefully one that is survivable for humans.
In some cases we want lakes to release CO2. (Score:2)
Can Only Hope (Score:3)
If the Great Salt Lake dries out, it will probably poison and kill everyone who stays in Salt Lake City, a city that should have never been built in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
After seeing what happened to the Aral Sea, you're absolutely right. Whatever we might think of the local residents, this is not a good outcome.
Doing better than the Soviets at being stewards of our environment would be nice. The pipeline idea is the only direct attack of the problem I have heard. It's a pretty good idea, actually, It's a case where raw seawater could be used effectively without a bunch of desalinating, or necessarily affecting the local environment much, since the lake itself is much s
Re: (Score:3)
Piping in seawater is only a (temporary) good idea IF the surrounding areas shrink down their water usage, preferably by completely eliminating the alfalfa production. Whoever thought, or still thinks, growing massive amounts of alfalfa in a semi-arid/desert climate was a good idea deserves to get shot in the face.
Re: (Score:2)
If the Great Salt Lake dries out, it will probably poison and kill everyone who stays in Salt Lake City
OK, but what are the downsides?
Re: (Score:2)
Outside of nature being ruined? None. The people there will have deserved what is happening to them.
Not Published Here (Score:2)
Currently the most-downloaded paper in this journal:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appl... [doi.org]
But don't read it if you revel in the anxiety of the Hell on Earth myth. Reading opposing opinions is terrible for preserving anxiety, especially if your identity is wrapped up in it.
Now then, China just demonstrated a full-power loss and safe shutdown of their Gen4 atomic energy reactor.
How about peaceful cooperation and prosperity instead of war and fear?
Could we maybe grow up a bit?
Re: Not Published Here (Score:2)
I certainly agree that peaceful cooperation and prosperity should be a universal goal.
But i question the scientific commitment of anyone who uses the term âoethermal inertiaâ in a paper.
Nevertheless, even giving these authors and you the full benefit of the doubt, the practical itility of these conclusions is limited, for a major problematic effect with âoegreenhouseâ gases is not their absorption and retransmission as much as their reflection of thermal radiation back toward its source.
hold my rod (Score:2)