From a British Antarctic Survey Press Release. Next time some alarmist wails about ice melt in Antarctica, point them to this story that shows nature has self regulating features for our planet. (h/t to Hu McCullough)
Antarctica glacier retreat creates new carbon dioxide store
Issue date: 09 Nov 2009
Number: 11/2009
Large blooms of tiny marine plants called phytoplankton are flourishing in areas of open water left exposed by the recent and rapid melting of ice shelves and glaciers around the Antarctic Peninsula. This remarkable colonisation is having a beneficial impact on climate change. As the blooms die back phytoplankton sinks to the sea-bed where it can store carbon for thousands or millions of years. Reporting this week in the journal Global Change Biology, scientists from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) estimate that this new natural ‘sink’ is taking an estimated 3.5 million tonnes* of carbon from the ocean and atmosphere each year.
Lead author, Professor Lloyd Peck from BAS says,
“Although this is a small amount of carbon compared to global emissions of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere it is nevertheless an important discovery. It shows nature’s ability to thrive in the face of adversity. We need to factor this natural carbon-absorption into our calculations and models to predict future climate change. So far we don’t know if we will see more events like this around the rest of Antarctica’s coast but it’s something we’ll be keeping a close eye on.”
Professor Peck and his colleagues compared records of coastal glacial retreat with records of the amount of chlorophyll (green plant pigment essential for photosynthesis) in the ocean. They found that over the past 50 years, melting ice has opened up at least 24,000 km2 of new open water (an area similar to the size of Wales) – and this has been colonised by carbon-absorbing phytoplankton. According to the authors this new bloom is the second largest factor acting against climate change so far discovered on Earth (the largest is new forest growth on land in the Arctic).Professor Peck continues, “Elsewhere in the world human activity is undermining the ability of oceans and marine ecosystems to capture and store carbon. At present, there is little change in ice shelves and coastal glaciers away from the Antarctic Peninsula, but if more Antarctic ice is lost as a result of climate change then these new blooms have the potential to be a significant biological sink for carbon.”
ENDS
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In other words they found the biosphere simply doing what it does best in periods cold and warm, soak up CO2 and soak up even more of it when levels rise, it’s doing what it’s supposed to be doing.
No big surprise, during previous warm periods more CO2 was locked up because of the warming making previously hostile regions more favorable for plant life, it was bound to happen again.
Of course,that map needs updating: you need to knock the ice bridge and 3,000 square kilometers off Wilkins Ice Shelf. Fingers crossed that we see the extra phytoplankton pull CO2 back to equilibrium!
If I am not repeating the obvious, not only have we a carbon sink but an energy sink too, as photosynthesis is endothermic.
Excuse me, isn’t the phytoplankton stealing the CO2 that we need for crops? Between the IPCC and the phytoplankton we could starve in the near distant future. Shouldn’t we be cooling the planet down so those voracious phyto whatchamacallits don’t have a chance to sequester all of our precious CO2? /fun
Nick in 1956 the biggest measured iceberg came off the Filchner shelf… 1956 and it was about 335 by 95 km, i.e. 31,000km2…
“This remarkable colonisation is having a beneficial impact on climate change.”
Isn’t that stretching the credulity a bit?
The key isn’t that they bloom, but that they sink to the ocean floor and stay there when they die. This was the basis of the recent geo-engineering experiment where they tried to use iron to stimulate the exact same process.
In that case, it didn’t work – I think they ended up with the wrong kind of plankton, and it was eaten by other critters instead of dying and sinking.
“Next time some alarmist wails about ice melt in Antarctica, point them to this story that shows nature has self regulating features for our planet. ”
So, you think that the additional absorption of ~3.5 million tonnes of CO2 by phytoplankton blooms will regulate away the annual human emissions of ~26 gigatons of CO2? Done math much? If 24,000 km2 of new open water captures 3.5e+6 tonnes of CO2, how many km2 of ice must melt to capture 2.6e+10 tonnes of CO2?
Brian, go do the science. This is just an added bonus for us to fling at the true denialists — the ones who deny that nature is, was and always will be in control.
As Adam from Kansas says, nature is doing what she’s supposed to do, trying to keep the planet in a reasonably stable state.
Brian,
Thanks for pointing this out. You saved me the trouble of finding the numbers myself.
This article really lacks perspective.
We know from overall measurements that global warming has reduced the absorption of CO2 by the oceans.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/12/sea-co2-climate-japan-environment
http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/2009/06/25/ozone-hole-reduces-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-uptake-in-southern-ocean/
There has to be some means for the Earth to have stored so much Fossilised Fuels. Looks like it can do it despite the computerized nonsense spewing forth from IPCC models. Imagine that: The perfect solar panel is made by nature. Talk about an agenda that kicks a gift horse in the mouth.
But shouldn’t we think long term? Won’t this extra sea-floor carbon store eventually be subducted and once more rise into the atmosphere through volcanic eruptions?
It’ll mean extra unnecessary CO2 in the atmosphere in about oh 500,000,000 years or so. What do the computer models tell us about the climate then eh? We’d better do something about it now just in case. How about another tax?
I think they are wrong…. I think krill populations will increase because of the extra food…. Therefor much of the CO2 does not sink but is re-released during metabolic processes.
Once again the media reports a scientist’s guess as factual science.
carrot eater (15:04:23) :
: In that case, it didn’t work – I think they ended up with the wrong kind of plankton, and it was eaten by other critters instead of dying and sinking.
Nope it did work,as would be expected due to the hierarchical structure of the” law of the sea’
This is well understood eg Hutchinson
In 1961, (the paradox of the plankton) Hutchinson posed his classic question: “How is it possible for a number of species to coexist in a relatively isotrophic or unstructured environment, all competing for the same sorts of materials?”
Hutchinson gave the particular example of the phytoplankton, from which the paradox is named. Most species of phytoplankton are autotrophic, requiring light, CO2 and about 17 mineral elements, not all of which will be limiting in any particular waters. Yet considerably more species than implied by this can coexist, although in a continued state of increasing and decreasing populations in self organization away from equilibrium in response to environmental and competitive changes ranging from seconds to centuries.
Changes to absorption and emission of nutrients are also responsive to changes in both the type and spectra of radiation, these inhibit some populations and enhance others.Indeed what we can see is the ecological communities of microflora, changing rapidly to meet their changing levels of nutrients and energy is a Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction diffusion mechanism.
Recent work by two theoretical ecologists (Huisman & Weissing, 1999; 2001),has shown that competition for resources by as few as three species can result in long-term oscillations, even in the traditionally convergent models of plankton species growth. For as few as five species, apparently chaotic behavior can emerge. Huisman and Weissing propose these phenomena as one possible new explanation of the paradox of the plankton, in which the number of co-existing plankton species far exceeds the number of limiting resources, in direct contradiction of theoretical predictions. Continuously fluctuating species levels can support more species than a steady, stable equilibrium distribution.
Their results show that external factors are not necessary to maintain non-equilibrium conditions; the inherent complexity of the “simple” model itself can be sufficient.
How can there be rapidly melting ice sheets at the same time the antarctic is seeing the highest level of sea ic in many years?
Brian Dodge, I assume the person posting it read the attached article, which did say the actual amounts were small in context.
Sam the skeptic, “As Adam from Kansas says, nature is doing what she’s supposed to do, trying to keep the planet in a reasonably stable state.”
I find this to be a religious sentiment, not a scientific one. Nature isn’t supposed to do anything but follow the laws of physics. Some things adjust, some things don’t. There are positive feedbacks, there are negative feedbacks. But there is no reason to assume that unknown and unpredicted negative feedbacks will arise in just the right amounts to have whatever effect we think we desire.
Had to smirk reading brian dodge comment.
Any time somebody begins comment with “so…” You know they will be a know it all smart ass
maksimovich (16:55:37) : You apparently didn’t hear of the experiment I was talking about. Beyond that, I don’t follow what your comment has to do with experiments in seeding the ocean with iron, and whether they result in carbon being sunk to the bottom of the ocean.
Articles about the experiment:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7959570.stm
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-03/haog-lpn032409.php
J Hansford: the issue of krill is discussed if you read more about it. In the experiment I’m talking about, it was copepods that ate the plankton. If you get the right kind of plankton, with silica coatings, the plankton is protected from being eaten by such little critters. However, in that part of the ocean, there was insufficient silicic acid for that kind of phytoplankton to grow. Perhaps by the Antarctic Peninsula, the silica-covered plankton can grow.
Nick (13:37:54) :
Of course,that map needs updating: you need to knock the ice bridge and 3,000 square kilometers off Wilkins Ice Shelf. Fingers crossed that we see the extra phytoplankton pull CO2 back to equilibrium!
I’m afraid it’s bad news for the phytoplankton. The latest anomaly graphic shows the Wilkins Ice Shelf has expanded well beyond the 1979 to 2000. average.
The silly season for Antarctic reporting doesn’t start until about March. Have your notepad and pencil ready and develop you amnesia skills as they report the same thing all over again.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/s_extn_daily.html
Clark, the Antarctic Peninsula is one of the fastest-warming spots on earth. Different parts of Antarctica have different characteristics.
Nick (13:37:54) :
Here you go Nick. You just have to change the dates and juggle the words around and you too can be an environmental reporter.
Wilkins Ice Shelf, Near Antarctica, Hanging By Its Last Thread
ScienceDaily (July 10, 2008) — The Wilkins Ice Shelf is experiencing further disintegration that is threatening the collapse of the ice bridge connecting the shelf to Charcot Island. Since the connection to the island in the image centre helps to stabilise the ice shelf, it is likely the break-up of the bridge will put the remainder of the ice shelf at risk.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080710115142.htm
Collapse Of The Ice Bridge Supporting Wilkins Ice Shelf Appears Imminent
ScienceDaily (Apr. 4, 2009) — The Wilkins Ice Shelf is at risk of partly breaking away from the Antarctic Peninsula as the ice bridge that connects it to Charcot and Latady Islands looks set to collapse. The beginning of what appears to be the demise of the ice bridge began this week when new rifts forming along its centre axis resulted in a large block of ice breaking away.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090403080827.htm
Brian Dodge: It doesn’t change your conclusions at all (that this is a minuscule sink), but you might be off by a factor of 44/12, since I think you might have been comparing an amount of CO2 to an amount of C.
SOME PREPAREDNESS TIPS
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/GMDPP.pdf
H/T-CLIMATE DEPOT
I like the idea that this is the second biggest negative feedback on CO2 that alarmists know of.
Nobody knows for sure what the net movement in biomass of tropical forests has been and measurement of phytoplankton biomass is in its infancy.
The flows of CO2 around the planet both biologically and geologically are not fully known, let alone understood, so current ‘estimates’ are guesses with error bars in the orders of magnitude.
There is something touching about the childish simplicity of alarmist dogma that becomes scary when passed off as science.
carrot eater,
I’m fond of vegetables, too, but you said: “Nature isn’t supposed to do anything but follow the laws of physics.”
I can’t agree. I think you’ve got it backwards. The laws of physics are trying to follow Nature, and well they should since they are are our best understanding of Nature.