Penguin droppings ‘delaying' climate change
Penguin droppings are helping to stem some of the effects of climate change, a study has found.
Excrement of the marine birds contains a high amount of ammonia which rises into the atmosphere and helps form clouds that deflect sunlight and lower temperatures.
Cloud cover has an insulating effect on the immediate environment and in the Antarctic region is thought to have a beneficial impact on the amount of sea ice cover.
Scientists have found that the guano gas reacts with sulphur in the atmosphere to produce aerosols which then attract water vapour to form fog and clouds.
Data from a research station near Marambio Base in Antarctica which was close to a colony of 60,000 Adélie penguins in early 2023 was tracked by researchers at the University of Helsinki.
Analysis of ammonia levels over time revealed that when the site was upwind of the colony there was only a small amount of ammonia detectable.
However, when the wind carried from the penguins to the sensors, ammonia levels jumped 1,000 times higher.
On one day during the study, Feb 1 2023, there was a particularly high amount of ammonia over the research station about five miles from the colony, due to favourable winds.
Data show that for about six hours the amount of particles in the air increased and then a fog was created.
'The chemical composition of the cloud droplet residuals was composed almost solely of ammonia sulphate, which confirms the participation of ammonia sourced from the penguins,' the scientists write.
They add: 'Given that penguin colonies span the coast of Antarctica and that they leave guano/nutrient-rich soils that continue to emit ammonia after migration, we estimate that penguins provide a substantial source of ammonia that enhances particle concentrations across the entire coastal Antarctic region.'
The scientists say that the environmental benefit of the faeces-driven cloud formation is likely to be seen the most around the coastal areas inhabited by the birds, but will also spread further afield.
Ammonia has a short lifespan in the atmosphere but is released from guano over several days, providing a long-term source, the scientists found, which persists after the penguins have migrated.
The researchers say: 'These newly formed particles could be further transported over parts of the Southern Ocean and continental Antarctica on this timescale, which could subsequently affect aerosol concentrations over the larger Antarctic region, including further inland where aerosol sources are limited.
'This suggests that coastal penguin/bird colonies could also comprise an important source of aerosol away from the coast.'
The UK government body, the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, has been looking at ways to form clouds to dim sunlight, having announced £57 million being allocated for 21 'climate cooling' projects, including five outdoor field trials.
The penguin study is published in the journal Communications Earth & Environment.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
11 hours ago
- Forbes
A Biologist Spotlights The World's Most Aggressive Bird. Hint: It's Flightless, It's Not The Ostrich, And It's Been Known To Kill People
In the case of flightless birds, the biggest isn't always the most terrifying. It is the ... More third-biggest flightless bird that you really need to be wary of. When we think of flightless birds, aggressive is probably not the word that comes to mind. We might think of a peacock calmly roaming the perimeter of a zoo (peacocks, however, aren't true flightless birds – they are capable of flying for short distances). We might think of the unfortunate dodo of Mauritius. This was a bird so docile and unafraid of environmental threats it was hunted out of existence in less than 100 years. Or, we might think of the ostrich. The ostrich, the world's biggest flightless bird, does pose some threat to humans. There are documented cases of people being kicked by the ostrich's powerful legs, resulting in serious injuries. But the bird we really need to be careful around – assuming you live in northern Australia or the New Guinea region – is the cassowary. Here's its story and why it can be so dangerous to humans. A southern cassowary strides through the dense rainforest of Queensland, Australia. The cassowary is a bird that looks like it stepped out of the Cretaceous period. Standing up to six feet tall and weighing as much as 130 pounds, it is undoubtedly an imposing figure. Its glossy black feathers resemble a coarse cloak. On top of its head rests a helmet-like casque – a keratin structure whose exact function remains debated. Some biologists suggest it helps with navigating dense forest or amplifies the cassowary's deep, rumbling calls. Cassowaries are notoriously territorial, especially the females, who are larger and more aggressive than the males. They defend their domain fiercely and are not afraid to charge when they feel threatened. The real danger lies in their legs. Each foot has three toes, the inner one armed with a dagger-like claw up to five inches long. These claws aren't just for show, they are powerful weapons, capable of inflicting deep gashes or even fatal injuries. There are numerous documented cases of cassowaries attacking humans. The most infamous incident occurred in 1926, when a 16-year-old boy was reportedly killed by a cassowary after attempting to club it. While fatal encounters are exceedingly rare, serious injuries are not. In Australia, wildlife officers have had to develop protocols for safely managing these birds, particularly in areas where humans and cassowaries frequently cross paths. (Sidebar: While few birds rival the cassowary's power on land, one rules the skies. Meet the world's strongest flying bird – it can, and does, attack humans too.) It's not just aggression that makes cassowaries stand out. It also their speed and agility. These birds can sprint up to 30 miles per hour and leap five feet into the air. They can swim well too, making them even more formidable in their dense rainforest habitat. Cassowaries are highly territorial birds and will fiercely defend their range from intruders. Why are they so aggressive? One theory points to their solitary nature and high parental investment. Female cassowaries lay eggs, but it's the male who incubates them and raises the chicks alone. This solitary, protective behavior can translate into aggression when the bird feels cornered or surprised. In areas where cassowaries come into contact with humans – like trails, suburban edges or tourist sites – conflict can escalate quickly. Conservationists stress that cassowaries are not villains. Their aggression is a natural defense mechanism. Furthermore, these birds play a critical role in their ecosystems by dispersing seeds of the plants they consume. Without cassowaries, some plant species might struggle to survive. Respect, not fear, is the key. Keeping a safe distance and avoiding feeding or provoking them helps ensure peaceful coexistence. Are you an animal lover who owns a pet? Take the science-backed Pet Personality Test to know how well you know your little friend.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Salmon recovery calls for reducing challenges, not removing dams
In dark and murky water, what warns fish when they are about to be swallowed? What physically tells fish, in advance and at a distance, that a predator is closing fast? Along with hearing, fish have rows of special receptors in their scales that detect pressure waves, collectively called lateral lines. These 'lines' can be found on top fins, across the head, tops of tails, and elsewhere, but mostly along their sides. Lateral lines give fish almost instant awareness of any nearby movement. Lateral line uses include defense, hunting, communication, parenting, and schooling. While an essential defense for almost all fish species, lateral lines get very little press. Humans give little importance to a sense that is beyond their ability to imagine. Do sudden blasts stun fish? What happens to a fish's lateral line sense when they unnaturally experience sudden, very intense underwater vibrations? Does the sudden, low-frequency roar from turning turbines temporarily 'blind' our smolt's lateral lines, and temporarily stun them? Once thoroughly rattled, do they become easy prey? In 2014, the Corps of Engineers documented underwater sound levels averaging over 114 decibels, where measured near two turbine intakes at Ice Harbor, during high flow conditions. Long term exposure to sound levels greater than 85 decibels has been demonstrated to permanently harm human hearing. 115 decibels have a thousand times more force. Studies, examining intense sound and delayed predatory responses, appear to not exist. Common sense tells us that if we suddenly slam a fish's lateral lines with very powerful sound, their ability to sense nearby movement will weaken, at least for a while. The louder, or longer they are pounded, the more likely they are to become easy prey. Why else are Pike Minnows, Smallmouth Bass, and other predators known to concentrate immediately below spillways? Chasing their $5 Bonneville bounty, I have fished for 'Squawfish' in the wash below a dam. I have been privileged to tour inside a 'thunder dome' hydro-electric turbine gallery. I am not alone with my pounding/predator suspicions. Instead of tearing dams out to restore salmon, why don't we first try making their passageways quieter? Respecting fish's lateral lines needs to be part of the salmon recovery discussion. However, more studies are not needed to begin noise reduction. It is time to make quieter fish passage through dams a high priority. We will know our dam quieting mission has been accomplished; when the concentration of predators returns to normal. Michael Harrington, of Pasco, is a former Fisheries Engineer that has retired from the United States Army Corps of Engineers, after supporting the DOE in its Hanford mission for over ten years.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
What goes up must come down: How megaconstellations like SpaceX's Starlink network pose a grave safety threat to us on Earth
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission. In 2024, several farmers across Saskatchewan, Canada, had to deal with a bizarre situation: chunks of SpaceX space junk had crashed onto their land. As I helped a couple of these farmers negotiate the wild world of international space law, not significantly updated since the Apollo era, I knew this situation would become increasingly common. The first generation of megaconstellation satellites, led by the SpaceX Starlink initial launch of 60 satellites in 2019, have now reached the end of their incredibly short operating lifetimes. The end-of-life plan for virtually every satellite in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) is to burn them up in Earth's atmosphere. Economically, this makes sense: it takes a lot less propellant to bring a satellite down into a lower orbit than up into a higher orbit, sometimes called a "graveyard" orbit. But the economic argument for bringing these satellites back down to Earth ignores the very real environmental consequences of atmospheric disposal. The chassis, leftover propellant, electronics, antennas, and solar panels don't disappear when a satellite "burns up" — the mass of the metals and plastics that comprise the satellite is deposited in the atmosphere as metal vapor. When just a few satellites are burned every year, it's not a significant change to atmospheric chemistry. But Starlink alone plans to have 42,000 satellites with 5-year operating lifetimes, so the mass of metal vapor entering the atmosphere (particularly highly reactive aluminum and lithium) will exceed natural infall rates by 25 times or more. This much extra metal vapor in the stratosphere can change atmospheric chemistry and may cause ozone depletion. By 2023, 10% of stratospheric aerosols already included metals from rocket and satellite reentries. LEO satellites burning up are a source of upper atmospheric pollution that's going to increase exponentially — and scientists are only just beginning to study what this massive increase in metal vapor could do in the stratosphere. Whatever parts of the reentering satellites don't burn up will hit the ground. Just in the past few months, spacecraft pieces have fallen on Poland, Kenya, North Carolina, and Algeria, while scientists carefully tracked a 1970s Soviet Venus probe's reentry and speculated about ground casualty risks. That spacecraft, Kosmos 482, crashed into the Indian Ocean earlier this month. While identifiable debris from only one Starlink satellite has so far been recovered, there are likely many, many more pieces already on the ground in other places that are covered by woods or mountains. Related: 'No radio astronomy from the ground would be possible anymore': Satellite mega-swarms are blinding us to the cosmos — and a critical 'inflection point' is approaching At some point, a bit of falling space junk will kill someone. Scientists recently calculated the risk of a casualty from one of the over 2,000 rocket bodies in orbit is 10% in the next decade, but that doesn't include the tens of thousands of satellites expected to reenter in that same time period. So what's the solution? Leaving unmaneuverable, dead satellites in orbit is not an option. They pose a safety risk to other satellites, potentially orbiting for decades at 16,000 mph (25,000 km/h). Collisions at these speeds are catastrophic, producing debris bullets that can crash into other satellites, producing more debris. The worst-case scenario is called Kessler Syndrome, where these collisions become self-propagating, and the debris field makes LEO unusable for decades to centuries. Starlink has the highest density of operational satellites that has ever existed in orbit. It has reported an average of one collision avoidance maneuver within their megaconstellation every two minutes in the second half of 2024, and they have already launched hundreds more satellites into that orbital shell since then. So far, Starlink has been impressively successful at avoiding collisions. But the frequency of collision avoidance maneuvers means that if there is a large solar flare, or their systems get hacked, or there's a simple human error, no maneuvers can be executed for any significant window of time — raising the risk of a collision. Related stories —Sci-fi inspired tractor beams are real, and could solve a major space junk problem —How many satellites could fit in Earth orbit? And how many do we really need? —How many satellites orbit Earth? Having fewer satellites in orbit naturally reduces the danger of collisions and the worst-case scenario of Kessler Syndrome. It also reduces light pollution from satellites, which is the reason I originally started worrying about megaconstellations. Satellites are already degrading astronomy research, including the discovery of potentially hazardous asteroids. Fewer satellites will allow astronomers to continue exploring space with telescopes, and stargazers to continue exploring space with their eyes. LEO is a valuable resource that must be protected and shared in a way that benefits the most people while simultaneously protecting LEO for use by future generations. We cannot have tens of thousands of satellites in LEO without severe consequences for the atmosphere and an increasingly high likelihood of Kessler Syndrome, which will limit our use of satellites for decades to centuries. This is the urgent challenge that satellite engineers and operators must now meet: if they need to provide services from orbit with fewer, longer-lived satellites, how will they do that? Without far-reaching, international regulation, or self-imposed limits from satellite companies, current practices in LEO threaten the planet, and our ability to explore beyond it. Opinion on Live Science gives you insight on the most important issues in science that affect you and the world around you today, written by experts and leading scientists in their field.
