A centuries-old concept in soil science has recently been thrown out. Yet it remains a key ingredient in everything from climate models to advanced carbon-capture projects.
Ah, I assumed you were aware of it beforehand as it has been talked about for quite some time and is even included in some climate simulations.
The main issue raised in the OP article is actually not so much about artificially storing carbon in the soil, but rather challenging the assumption many non-soil scientists (based on outdated soil-science) have made that once the carbon is in the soil it will not be released again very quickly. The old reasoning was that “humic” substances would persists in the environment and not easily be digested by soil organisms.
As someone trained in this general field but not having worked in in for more than a decade this was indeed news (and very bad news) for me. This means that similar to the methane & carbon stored in the permafrost, so is the carbon stored in the soil of places like the Amazon going to be released quickly if the conditions turn unfavorably for the current ecosystem there. Basically we are looking at yet another positive feedback loop with potential to make an significant impact on atmospheric carbon levels.
But in hindsight this is actually not all that surprising as the Sahara desert used to be a lush green grassland and forest as little as 10,000 years ago, and it certainly did not retain much carbon from that time in its sand dunes today.
That in addition plans to artificially store carbon in the soil (a dream long held by bio-char proponents) are likely unrealistic is overall less relevant :(
Ah, I assumed you were aware of it beforehand as it has been talked about for quite some time and is even included in some climate simulations.
The main issue raised in the OP article is actually not so much about artificially storing carbon in the soil, but rather challenging the assumption many non-soil scientists (based on outdated soil-science) have made that once the carbon is in the soil it will not be released again very quickly. The old reasoning was that “humic” substances would persists in the environment and not easily be digested by soil organisms.
As someone trained in this general field but not having worked in in for more than a decade this was indeed news (and very bad news) for me. This means that similar to the methane & carbon stored in the permafrost, so is the carbon stored in the soil of places like the Amazon going to be released quickly if the conditions turn unfavorably for the current ecosystem there. Basically we are looking at yet another positive feedback loop with potential to make an significant impact on atmospheric carbon levels.
But in hindsight this is actually not all that surprising as the Sahara desert used to be a lush green grassland and forest as little as 10,000 years ago, and it certainly did not retain much carbon from that time in its sand dunes today.
That in addition plans to artificially store carbon in the soil (a dream long held by bio-char proponents) are likely unrealistic is overall less relevant :(