湿地对气候变化的有效吗?- 江南体育网页版- - - - -地球科学堆江南电子竞技平台栈交换 最近30从www.hoelymoley.com 2023 - 07 - 07 - t00:43:16z //www.hoelymoley.com/feeds/question/21133 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/rdf //www.hoelymoley.com/q/21133 4 湿地对气候变化的有效吗? Vergilius //www.hoelymoley.com/users/22315 2021 - 04 - 18 - t09:23:22z 2021 - 04 - 23 - t10:31:02z < p >在我住的地区,有一个趋势,保护组织提倡的保护和re-valuation湿地。< / p > < p >除了促进生物多样性和提供其他生态服务,环保人士认为湿地捕获大量的碳。< / p > < p >我知道但是湿地是臭名昭著的稳态甲烷排放[< a href = " https://ec.europa。欧盟/陶瓷/ en /新闻/ climate-change-projected-set-substantial-rise-methane-emissions-wetlands nofollow noreferrer“rel = > 1 < / >] [< a href = " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetland_methane_emissions " rel = " nofollow noreferrer " > < / > 2),所以听起来可疑是否一次碳捕捉和碳排放可以补偿的重要稳态排放温室气体的来源。< / p > < p >有cost-benefit-analyses关于湿地对气候的影响?你的需要是什么? < / p > //www.hoelymoley.com/questions/21133/-/21134 # 21134 1 答案由user22279湿地有效应对气候变化? user22279 //www.hoelymoley.com/users/0 2021 - 04 - 18 - t10:43:24z 2021 - 04 - 23 - t10:21:57z < p >有一个误解的“稳定state"一部分,这不是什么联系。显然状态数据依赖于温度,它表示,在应对全球变暖的湿地会释放更多的甲烷和试图量化数量。< a href = " https://ec.europa。欧盟/陶瓷/ en /出版/ observation-constrained-assessment-climate-sensitivity-and-future-trajectories-wetland-methane nofollow noreferrer“rel = >结论< / >,< / p > < blockquote > < p >这一发现强调了限制全球变暖的重要性2°C以下,以避免重大气候反馈由自然湿地甲烷排放量。< / p > < /引用> < p >的< a href = " https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017RG000559 " rel = " nofollow noreferrer " > < / >反馈”是这里的关键词。这种反馈是加速反应系统的全球变暖。非常简化,以防小浅湿地CH 4 <子> < /订阅>释放与含氧的水平和缺氧的条件下,后者扩大不仅在当地“水坑”的表还在地理上从低到高纬度地区温度和释放更多CH 4 <子> < /订阅>气候变暖,气候变暖等等。但这些生态系统的能力将大气中的碳下降与上升的温度,和增加的碳释放量。< / p > < p >,决不是一个反对的环保主义者倡导保护和re-valuation帮助< a href = " https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925857417303658 " rel = " nofollow noreferrer " > < / >封存碳。< / p > < blockquote > < p >这个分析可以帮助从业者和景观经理[…)促进全球湿地恢复的实现,创建和保护项目可持续发展和缓解和适应气候变化。< / p > < /引用> < p >所以,是的,现在湿地是有效应对气候变化,只要人为全球变暖是有限的。< / p > //www.hoelymoley.com/questions/21133/-/21165 # 21165 0 答案由Vergilius湿地有效应对气候变化? Vergilius //www.hoelymoley.com/users/22315 2021 - 04 - 23 - t01:09:41z 2021 - 04 - 23 - t10:31:02z

It seems that there is indeed a strong "climate-case" in favour of wetlands: Below follows a bullet-list of several facts and arguments, which among other things undermine the premises of my question (to a certain degree):

  • Currently, 3% of the land surface is covered by peat lands. But it is estimated that up to 1/3 of all terrestrial carbon is stored in those peat lands, giving a big edge in carbon sequestration/m2 over any other type of vegetation. Although these peat lands convert some of their intake of CO2 in the more potent greenhouse gas CH4, it is clear that the remedy is certainly not to 'drain the swamp' in a short time-window in a way where all the carbon is injected in the atmosphere. Since the latter is exactly the threat posed to many wetlands nowadays, there is clear and in some cases perhaps decisive motivation and urgency for the conservation and protection of existing wetlands.

  • Organic methanogenesis appears strongly temperature-dependent: satellite data show the tropical regions as the main global sources. Laboratory experiments roughly confirm that picture, although many questions remain unanswered and methanogenesis seems to depend on a wide range of variables. In any case, in temperate and boreal regions the wetland-contribution in CH4-emission often pales in comparison to agricultural and industrial sources (in Flanders, agriculture contributes 20-fold the CH4 contribution from rivers and wetlands). Hence, in densely-populated temperate and boreal regions, the CH4-emission-argument may be moot since there are more opportune alternative options for climate-change mitigation, with less collateral consequences (wetlands provide biodiversity, hydrological stability etc).

  • The argument that wetlands saturate and stop net intake of carbon may be partly false and largely irrelevant: A mature peatland may reach a depth varying from 2 to 20 meters, while a peatland's annual growth is typically of order 1 mm/ year. With some audacity, I propose to infer that a peatland then needs a time of order 10m/(10-3 m/year)= 10000 years to grow to maturity. During that time, it did absorb carbon to grow. Since 10000 years dwarfs the time-scale in which humanity is to overcome and adapt to climate change, the saturation-argument against reinstating or re-valuation of peatlands is irrelevant. The saturation-argument might be weakened even more if one includes in the calculation the depth of the coal-seam which is often found below a mature peatland.

Baidu
map