Talk:Peat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Energy (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Soil (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Peat is within the scope of Soil WikiProject, which collaborates on Soil and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Carbon dioxide boost[edit]

If you look at the CO2 graph [:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2.recent.png] its pretty clear that there is no particular boost to CO2 levels in 1997 or subsequent years. So SEWs pet assertion: These fires likely are responsible for the boost in the increase in carbon dioxide levels since being noticed in 1997 is not supported by the CO2 record & doesn't belong in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by William M. Connolley (talkcontribs) 09:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

That boost is mentioned in a source. I don't know whether their basis is expert review of the oddities in that graph or some other source. (SEWilco 16:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC))

Sorry. I was too hasty. Eyeballing is not always a good way... William M. Connolley 16:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC).

changed a word...[edit]

The article used the word "vegetable" matter, but I think using the word "vegetative" is more appropriate since it is an adjective describing plant life in general, while vegetable implies a culinary plant.

  • "vegetative" is an ambiguous word and now it points to "reproduction", which is even worse than potato+tomato. mikka (t) 06:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
  • "plant material"? "plant remains"? (SEWilco 06:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC))


merging[edit]

  • merge its insignificant alone really and belongs in the wiktionary unless someone expands on it, its benefictial to the peat article or else expand or deleteQrc2006 20:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Merging peat and Sphagnum? Why? Peat need not be formed by decayed Sphagnum moss. And even if it was, separating the plant and the product would make sense (as in separating grass and bread). JöG 19:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

no more fens[edit]

it says on the article for fens, that they are often confused with bogs but are not actually bogs, so i removed fens from the synonym list in the beginning of the article.

Peat "quarry" -- or ??[edit]

I'm seeking the appropriate terms in English for the following:

  • the site from which peat is taken for use (i.e. "quarry" or ??)
  • the action performed in doing so? (i.e. "mining"" or ??)

Thanks, Deborahjay 13:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

In Lewis, it's peat-cutting from a peat-bank. Not sure what it would be on an industrial scale though. MRM 09:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Industrial peat removal is referred to as "harvesting". This is partly because the production of milled-peat requires dry weather and is confined to the Summer months (in Europe). Most milled peat is then transported to power stations, located near the bogs; some is used to produce "peat moss" for horticultural and gardening purposes or "peat briquettes" for domestic fuel. There is "farmer-scale" peat harvesting on partially cut-over peats or blanket peats using something a "sausage machine"; pulled by a tractor it leaves a long "sausage" of peat on the surface to dry out; the resulting fuel somewhat resembles hand-cut peat as the process is essentially the same. (Sarah777 00:39, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

Succinctly in industrial parlance peat mining is either quarry cut dried peat bogs/mires, or milled peat bogs. Alternatively the new wet harvesting procedure is to new to properly classify, though dredging would be the most apt description. This procedure leaves the wet, active bog quite in place and appears to increase bog dynamics by increasing water flow. Generally the live peat layer is left aside and replaced once the targeted layers are harvested.

Darren Robertson 6:02 pm EST Jan. 14th 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.231.120.9 (talk) 23:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"See also" link: abiogenic petroleum[edit]

That article has nothing to do with peat. In fact that article says nothing about peat. Peat most clearly is a biogenic fuel, no matter that the origins of petroleum are the subject of (mildly) competing hypotheses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.180.40 (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

References[edit]

There appears to be a sub article in the references section... is it just my browser??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.248.105 (talk) 11:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

peat question[edit]

Is peat edible, either by people or as cattle feed? 65.167.146.130 (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

No! Sarah777 (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
It's about as edible as any slab of dirt is. It won't make you sick but it also won't taste good. There are enough calories in it though so in a pinch, it might sustain one for a short while, maybe? --80.101.187.6 (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Minor Introduction Edit[edit]

I look at this article, and the last line of the introduction says there are 8 terajoules of energy in peat reserves. Great. Why does this matter? Then I read further, and I see that peat is an important source of fuel. I wouldn't know this from the introduction, and the energy figure given makes little sense without it. So I boldly added the primary human use of peat to the introduction. If you think I'm out of line, go ahead and change it back.Buddy431 (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


Building material[edit]

Anyone going to mention that it's been used that peat have been used as a building material (mostly insulation) by the same people, by norwegians and by Icelanders in the old days. The same people still have some buildings made of this material although it's mostly used to preserve the same culture these days. Still it was one of the main materials used to cover the roof of the houses in Norwegian villages but the use fell from about 1700 and it wasn't really used anymore after about 1900. Part of the reason for this reduction of it's use could be the danger of fires spreading from roof to roof in the cities. It's still illegal to use peat on the roofs in Norwegian houses when the distance from the house urinating buildings is less then eight meter. I guess it's not all that important but it could be worth a sentence perhaps?

Lumiere 17:42, 17 December 2009 (UTA)

Peat has been used as a building material by some Inuit cultures for many centuries. Both in cut dried brick form. As sheet roofing, and as insulation. This is especially true with Thule populations in Labrador and Greenland. This was documented as far back as the 1700's. And no doubt extended further many more centuries. Typical also were Driftwood and peat sheet hunting lodges. More permanent homes utilized driftwood, available timber and also whale bones for support structure. Timber was more prevalent in Inuit areas coinciding with Boreal forests. Additionally masonary supports also occurred as a natural offshoot of Inuit Quarry technology. Both in Dimension stone and smaller pieces.

Darren Robertson 5:53 EST Jan. 14th 2014 additional sources forthcoming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.231.120.9 (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Mercury[edit]

"The source of mercury may be methane upwelling from great depths, which interacts with the peat" makes no sense: methane is CH
4
, not CHg. 132.162.164.169 (talk) 18:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC) That's just what I thought, and came here to comment. You can't just make mercury by combining methane and other organic stuff. I'll take it out. Please put it back if it can be made to make some form of sense. 80.187.151.112 (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

word change needed regarding Russian peat fire cause[edit]

‘’In summer 2010 an unusually high heat wave of up to +40 C ignited large deposits of peat in Central Russia, burning thousands of houses and covering the capital of Moscow with a toxic smoke blanket. As of early August 2010, the situation remains critical.[20] [21]‘’

This wording implies spontaneous combustion of the peat due to high air temps. Some of the fires have been said to be the work of arsonists, others probably accidental. High temps promotes spreading of fires but doubt that spontaneous generation is involved.

Oreskios (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

carbon content high or low?[edit]

In the section "Fires" it says (first sentence): Peat has a high carbon content and can burn under low moisture conditions.

In the section "Tissue Preservation" it says (last sentence): Peat represents the initial stage of coal formation, so its carbon content is low.

I find this confusing - could anybody in the know please clarify this?

Ambiguous statistic[edit]

In the section #In Finland it states: "This abundant resource (often mixed with wood at an average of 2.6%)..." but it's not clear which is 2.6%.--182.0.185.20 (talk) 09:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Article scope[edit]

In my opinion this article considers peat more like a raw material than a natural ecosystem. It is like considering nature as something you use instead of humans being part of the nature and dependent on its services. IUCN UK Commission of Inquiry on Peatlands name in its summary as first key fact: Peatlands provide essential services to society, globally, nationally and locally. Article needs a lot of correction in regard to this. Since peatland redirects here, article should deal not only with the material but also the peatland ecosystem. Watti Renew (talk) 16:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Introduction Problems[edit]

The current intro reads poorly because the definition of peat is stuck behind seven sentences on how valuable peat is for this or that. I don't care how valuable you want to make it sound, the proper way to write an article is to put the definition first and let the fuller explanation follow. It's no good to say it's a national treasure if you don't know what sort of national treasure it is.

Someone please update the intro to a better format. It might also be good to move the "how valuable" sentences down to a later section on the economic, historic, and/or environmental properties of peat. Kilyle (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Why did peak bogs formed (and I removed an irrelevant part of lede)[edit]

I came to this article looking for an explanation of why Peat bogs started to form all over Scotland around 4000 years ago. I must admit that having spent an age trawling through the detritus of global warming nonsense in order to find a decent paper with a proxy temperature reconstruction I'm not in the mood for more nonsense and I couldn't see any relevance at all to the section in the lede which had clearly been added by an activist with no real knowledge of the subject to push their own POV.

However, I did find a proxy which fitted with the main events seen in my peat sample - but not the initial trigger that started the formation of peats in Scotland.

So I come here, and what do I find? Bugger all! All over Scotland there are notices on historic sites saying: "in the late bronze age it got colder and wetter and peat started to form". That may be nonsense, but it certainly must come from somewhere and I would like to know the real evidence (NOT WHAT SOME IDIOT CLIMATE ACTIVIST THINKS I SHOULD READ). Back to the detritus of the internet and the "climate never changed until us nasty modern humans caused it to" - trying to find the few good NPOV papers on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.237.60 (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you asking why it got colder 10,000 years ago? and would appreciate a point in the right direction towards the current in vogue hypothesis, or are you asking how one could find out how these cold times produced peat?
The phrases the Holocene period and Pleistocene might help you out in both instances, but less so if your question was of the latter persuasion.

Ádh mór,

Boundarylayer (talk) 06:25, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

inconsistent stats[edit]

in the intro:

"...covering a total of around 2% of global land area (about 3 million km²)..."

then:

"...cover around 4 million km² or 3% of the world’s land area." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.205.208 (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

CO2 emissions from peat not greenhouse[edit]

CO2 emissions are said to be greenhouse gases in some parts of the article. Only CO2 from fossil sources are greenhouse emissions, biomass sources (wood, peat, biodiesel) don't add to global CO2. Peat replacing coal, oil o natural gas as fuel for power plants actually decreases greenhouse emissions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbernardini (talkcontribs) 03:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)