4 ms·
This is based on soil studies of a limited number of sites in Australia. It implies that as these soils contained more black carbon (soot) than thought - which
by dflock 18y ago
This is based on soil studies of a limited number of sites in Australia. It implies that as these soils contained more black carbon (soot) than thought - which takes 1-2k yrs to convert to CO2, rather than 100 yrs for organic carbon - soil will contribute less to global warming.
This makes sense but surely to include this in global climate models, you'd need good soot content estimates for a variety of soils worldwide? Either a good global average derived from a wide range of measurements, or an actual global soil map included in the simulation?
- 1gor 18y ago>soils are by far the world's largest source of carbon dioxide, producing 10 times more carbon dioxide each year than all the carbon dioxide emissions from human activities combined. Small changes in how carbon emissions from soils are estimated, therefore, can have a large impact. (from the article)