wulf wrote:
I wonder if anything could be done to limit this, such as agricultural practises that leave less bare soil exposed. Anyone an expert or care to hazard an idea or two?
Wulf
Well, I'm still no expert, but this publication has made things even more difficult for us... It's really hard to get reliable data on emissions and sinks as it is, the methods of measuring them seem to change ever so often, and now we've got another factor to consider!
I've had a look round, but can't come up with any groundbreaking ideas. The problem with these results is, that the loss was on all kinds of land - so the fact that it was worked or not, that there was forest or nothing growing doesn't seem to have as important a role as had been thought before. As a consequence of this, there seems to be not as much we can do as we'd like to....
OK, it'll still be better to have trees growing than nothing, and to have no-till or low-till methods rather than deep ploughing on a regular basis, but the part of the carbon release that is triggered by temperature - maybe we should apply ice cubes on the land. But that would cause more greenhouse gases through running the freezers...
Seriously, it just shows that we have less time even than the pessimists have always thought. And today I heard something on Radio 4, one of those folk getting all worked up about higher petrol prices - lets think about the environment tomorrow, there's still plenty of time for that, we need our petrol today

!!! How can people be so short sighted?
Sorry I can't be of more help. Sometimes I wish I'd paid more attention in our chemistry lessons

.
Ina