New Study by WHOI Scientists Provides Baseline Measurements of Carbon in Arctic Ocean
Scientists from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) have conducted a new study to measure levels of carbon at various depths in the Arctic Ocean. The study, recently published in the journal Biogeosciences, provides data that will help researchers better understand the Arctic Ocean’s carbon cycle—the pathway through which carbon enters and is used by the marine ecosystem. It will also offer an important point of reference for determining how those levels of carbon change over time, and how the ecosystem responds to rising global temperatures.
“Carbon is the currency of life. Where carbon is coming from, which organisms are using it, how they’re giving off carbon themselves—these things say a lot about how an ocean ecosystem works,” says David Griffith, the lead author on the study. “If warming temperatures perturb the Arctic Ocean, the way that carbon cycles through that system may change.”
Griffith’s team sampled suspended particles of organic matter, as well as organic carbon and carbon dioxide (CO2) dissolved into the surrounding water. This is the first time that researchers have focused broadly on measuring multiple types of carbon at the same time and place in the Arctic Ocean—due to its remote location and the challenges of operating in sea ice, few comprehensive carbon surveys had been conducted there before this study.
Griffith and his colleagues conducted their fieldwork in 2008 aboard the Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker Louis S. St. Laurent. At two different spots in the Canada Basin, an area northwest of the Canadian coast, they gathered samples from 24 depths ranging from the surface to the ocean floor 3800 meters (roughly 12,500 feet) below.
Collecting samples at those intervals was necessary, Griffith says, because the Arctic Ocean is separated into distinct layers, each with its own unique carbon characteristics. At the surface is a freshwater layer from river runoff and sea-ice melt. Below that is a layer of cold water from the Pacific, and below that is a warm, salty Atlantic layer. The deepest layer is slowly replaced by mixing with overlying Atlantic water.
Measuring the different amounts of carbon in each layer (and determining its source) is an essential step in understanding the flow of carbon through the marine ecosystem, says Griffith: “It’s kind of like understanding how freight and people move in a city. If you don’t know what’s coming in and out, it’s really hard to understand how the city works.”
To analyze the contents of his samples, Griffith turned to Ann McNichol, a WHOI senior researcher and staff chemist. At WHOI’s National Ocean Sciences Accelerator Mass Spectrometer Facility (NOSAMS), she tallied the total number of carbon atoms in each specimen, including carbon-13, a stable isotope of the element. McNichol says that it can be used to determine where a particular pool of carbon originated, and how it may have been utilized by the marine ecosystem.
“Carbon-13 is primarily a source indicator,” she says. “By measuring levels of carbon-13 at different depths, it’s possible to determine if the carbon there was generated by the marine environment, ocean ice environment, or by terrestrial sources.” The team also examined levels of carbon-14, a radioactive isotope that can help determine the age of each sample to further determine its source.
In addition to understanding the basic carbon cycle in the Arctic Ocean, Griffith’s team hopes that the results of this baseline study will help evaluate how Arctic Ocean carbon levels and global climate interact. Griffith says there are several ways this could happen.
As the Arctic gradually warms, it may cause a more intense precipitation cycle over northern Canada, Alaska, and Siberia, generating more rainfall each year. This in turn would cause more runoff from melting permafrost and eroded soil—both rich sources of organic carbon.
One possible outcome of that scenario could be an increase of carbon dioxide in the region. As bacteria in Arctic Ocean use the new influx of carbon as a food source, they may create CO2 as a byproduct. A second possibility, Griffith posits, is that warming temperatures and melting sea ice might boost the production of phytoplankton, tiny plant-like organisms that live near the ocean’s surface and thrive on carbon dioxide in the water. As those phytoplankton die (or are eaten by other organisms and released as waste), they would sink to the sea floor, causing the carbon in their bodies to be sequestered in thick sediments—effectively removing the increased carbon from the environment.
“Those are just a few aspects of what might happen. But for every one that we think about, there could be 10 others that drive the system in a different direction,” says Griffith. “We don’t yet have the kind of data to say anything definitive about how the Arctic would be affected by warming climate—but what we do have is a very important baseline of data to help evaluate changes that will happen in the future. Without that, you‘re unfortunately just guessing at how things change over time.”
Also collaborating on the study were WHOI geochemist Li Xu, Fiona McLaughlin and Robie Macdonald of the Institute of Ocean Sciences, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Kristina Brown of the University of British Columbia, and Timothy Eglinton of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.
This research was funded by the WHOI Arctic Research Initiative, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Canadian International Polar Year Office, and the U.S. National Science Foundation.
Source: http://www.whoi.edu/main/news-releases?tid=3622&cid=137709
It is unfortunate that the researchers start with an a proiri premise that: “As the Arctic gradually warms, it may cause a more intense precipitation cycle over northern Canada, Alaska, and Siberia, generating more rainfall each year.” They use the conditional tense when they state that warming may cause a more intense precipitation cycle but there is no similar caution about the Arctic gradually warming. As it is said, cite your data.
“If warming temperatures perturb the Arctic Ocean, the way that carbon cycles through that system may change.” If cooling temperatures perturb the Arctic Ocean, will that affect carbon cycles too? Or is that just an inconceivable thought for someone dependent on government funding?
“If warming temperatures perturb the Arctic Ocean, the way that carbon cycles through that system may change.” Is it also possible that cooling temperatures might perturb the Arctic Ocean? Or is that just inconceivable?
“We don’t yet have the kind of data to say anything definitive about how the Arctic would be affected by warming climate—but what we do have is a very important baseline of data to help evaluate changes that will happen in the future. Without that, you‘re unfortunately just guessing at how things change over time.”
We are creating this kind of baseline data far too slowly IMO. And there is still far too much speculation in the absence of data in climate science. But its refreshing to read about scientists who just went out and measured stuff.
WHOI, pronounced like hooey?
I read the article with a fairly open mind and found it was pretty well balanced apart from the starting point of the Arctic Heating. I applaud their making of the study but possibly not the dire conclusions the come to. At least they were not scared to say there could be dozens of separate scenarios even if they did take the doom and gloom options.
RayG says:
May 21, 2012 at 8:10 pm
It is unfortunate that the researchers start with an a proiri premise that: “As the Arctic gradually warms, it may cause a more intense precipitation cycle over northern Canada, Alaska, and Siberia, generating more rainfall each year.” They use the conditional tense to when the state that warming may cause a more intense precipitation cycle but there is no similar caution about the Arctic gradually warming. As it is said, cite your data.
The notion warmer temps and more open water in the Arctic would lead to more precipitation has always seemed at least somewhat plausible to me. but I’ve been following this site very regularly for well over two years.
http://tinyurl.com/cca3mbg Drought Monitor
Although the timescales available for the maps only go back three years from the time I first encountered the site the northern reaches of Greenland have had a big red splotch indicating exceptional drought at all timescales which suggests well below normal precipitation for well over five years. I haven’t found anything that explains why this is so, but the fact that it appears to be so suggests that once again something that the “consensus” assumes to be “known” is at odds with what the data show
I was very pleasantly surprised by this posting. By the time I got to the “Continue reading” link on the home page, I was expecting to be very annoyed. Too many authors use “carbon” when they really mean “carbon dioxide”. I am very fond of carbon. Neglecting the water, calcium, and oxygen, I suspect that the majority of my body mass is carbon. The polyethylene baggie I put my lunch in is about 85% carbon by weight. Neglecting the metals and oxygen, I suspect that the vast majority of the mass of the computer I am writing this comment on is carbon. It may be in the plastic of the keyboard and display, the epoxy in the fiberglass of the pc boards, the insulation of all of the wires and cables (PCV insulation is only about 38% carbon due to much higher weight of chlorine), or the materials encapsulating the electronic components, but it is there. It might be possible to build a carbon free computer using silicon based polymers, but it would not be easy without a complete rebuild of the many of our industries. I suspect that the energy needed to synthesize the silicon based polymers would give a computer which did not contain any carbon a far bigger carbon footprint than the one I am using now.
I am pleased to see that someone who is looking into the carbon cycle is including its incorporation into life forms from the simplest to bacteria, plants, and possibly up to those disgusting forms, such as myself, who like carbon. I could not get along without it.
Trying to capture these vectors will be like trying to herd cats.
Philip Bradley says:
May 21, 2012 at 8:19 pm
“We don’t yet have the kind of data to say anything definitive about how the Arctic would be affected by warming climate—but what we do have is a very important baseline of data to help evaluate changes that will happen in the future. Without that, you‘re unfortunately just guessing at how things change over time.”
We are creating this kind of baseline data far too slowly IMO. And there is still far too much speculation in the absence of data in climate science. But its refreshing to read about scientists who just went out and measured stuff.
————————————-
So, now these dedicated scientists will give their data to the modelers so it can be fed into all of the global warming models. They will then select the one that best shows the man made global warming they know is there.
Hey, maybe Dave and Ann will find the missing heat hanging out in the depths of the Arctic.
The funding for the project was predicated on the assumption of a warming arctic, so the level of integrity is already questionable. I wonder what the projected timeline is supposed to be between these measurements ? It would seem to me that anything more frequent three to five years would oversampling a system with significant hysteresis and a waste of money.
At least they didn’t mention the term “acidification”. That’s a plus…….
I’m an avid marine aquarist … propagate stony coral and keep marine fish species.
One of the techniques that we use for water maintenance is to dose different carbon sources into the display water, sugar, vinegar, and vodka … this encourages the bacteria that control nitrate and nutrients and feeds the corals.
No carbon in the ocean = no life in the ocean. BTW, it was bacteria that cleaned up the Exxon oil spill most successfully, not the chemicals. Areas where chemical clean up was undertaken have been slower to recover. Carbon is king.
“The currency of life” I love it.
Also, on field measurements, wow. Real empiricial data, take that, RIchard Branson and co. What did you do in the south pole, appart from breaking some ice?
I’m a little confused by one part of the report:
My understanding of radiodating theory is that a living organism will absorb carbon-14 during its lifetime, but once it dies there will no longer be a replenishment, so the rate of decay can be used to estimate a time since death.
How does that apply to the samples they’ve taken? Given that it’s water samples, I would presume that a reasonable amount of the material in those sample will be from living creatures, and hence radiodating the carbon is problematic.
Of course, my understanding could be wrong….
“Carbon is the currency of life. Where carbon is coming from, which organisms are using it, how they’re giving off carbon themselves—these things say a lot about how an ocean ecosystem works,” says David Griffith, the lead author on the study. “If warming temperatures perturb the Arctic Ocean, the way that carbon cycles through that system may change.”
—————————————————–
““If warming temperatures perturb the Arctic Ocean…”
I got the feeling that that is CYA; something that must be said in order for science to be allowed to be practised.
Almost implicit in that statement are its unspoken alternatives. I have no idea who this guy is or what his agendas are, and maybe I am just being hopeful, but it is as if there is a real scientist there yearning to do real science, but politic enough to say the right words so he won’t be stifled by the warmunist establishment.
Maybe the real scientists are starting to escape from behind the warm curtain.
Mr Gore-bachev, open this climategate!
Mr Gore-bachev, tear down this wall of lies!
““Those are just a few aspects of what might happen. But for every one that we think about, there could be 10 others that drive the system in a different direction,” says Griffith. “We don’t yet have the kind of data to say anything definitive about how the Arctic would be affected by warming climate…”
Hahahahahaha! It’s so predictable and funny! Translated this means: “The research has told us that this could happen, that could happen, and some other things we haven’t yet thought of – or don’t understand – could happen. But we just don’t know. We still need more
datafunding.”As a chemist, before seeing the manuscript, I would hope that the sulphur cycle is studied alongside, just as intensively. In many ways, sulphur is just as important a nutritional player as carbon-based compunds. Sulphur dioxide concentrations in the air change as population, land use and industry change and SO2 can alter the pH of water. Unfortunately, it has a different atmospheric absorption spectrum to CO2 and is the poor cousin of the duo because it’s harder to use in the blame game.
“By measuring levels of carbon-13 at different depths, it’s possible to determine if the carbon there was generated by the marine environment, ocean ice environment, or by terrestrial sources.”? I thought that alarmist claims about the “anthropogenic fingerprint” of C12/13 ratios had been debunked, and that the 12/13 ratio we’re seeing now was merely typical of any warming period?
Still, if they do their job it’ll be a baseline to work from. It never fails to amaze me how minuscule the amount of climatic data we have is, and how short its timescale, compared to the minimum we need to start understanding how it all works.
Chuck Nolan:
At May 21, 2012 at 9:17 pm you say;
Sadly, I can confirm that you are right.
Below, I quote from a previous post I made that reported the confirmation. I posted it during the excellent discussion in the thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/06/the-bern-model-puzzle/
Incidentally, I commend reading all that discussion by anyone interested by the above report.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
May 8, 2012 at 1:29 am
[snip]
And never forget the power of confirmation bias powered by research funding.
In 2005 I gave the final presentation on the on the first day of at a conference in Stockholm. It explained how atmospheric CO2 concentration could be modelled in a variety of ways that were each superior to the Bern Model, and each gave a different development of future atmospheric CO2 concentration for the same input of CO2 to the air.
I then explained what I have repeatedly stated in many places including on WUWT; i.e.
The evidence suggests that the cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 is most probably natural, but it is possible that the cause may have been the anthropogenic emission. Imortantly, the data shows the rise is not accumulation of the anthropogenic emission in the air (as is assumed by e.g. the Bern Model).
A representative of KNMI gave the first presentation of the following morning. He made no reference to my presentation and he said KNMI intended to incorporate the Bern Model into their climate model projections.
So, I conclude that what is knowable is less important than what is useful for climate model development.
Richard
emphasis added
As other commenters have said, it’s good that they are trying to lay down a baseline which can be compared to any future situation following a change in temperature. The only trouble is that, if instead of a warming Arctic they get a cooling one, the ice breakers wont be able to get back to take new measurements.
I seem to recall, from the days of my youth (a long time ago!), that the study of the chemistry of carbon was actually termed “organic chemistry” was it not?
I wonder how many years it will be before these people look back on this and ask themselves, “What were we thinking???”
Really, that’s what was going through my head as I read this. The apparent belief that there IS warming ought to be the first clue that something is wrong. The attempt to determine what WILL happen as the “warming” continues is the second.
One sentence rings true: Carbon is the currency of life. I personally like carbon. I depend on it.
RichardCourtney re different views.
As a student of English, you might appreciate this as much as I did. Heard on the radio this morning –
“There is always doubt. There is no doubt about that.”
hopaulis — Woods Hole is a private, independent non-profit. In other words, this research is not supported by government funding.
RayG and others — To research the question of what-would-a-warming-Arctic-do-to-the-ocean-carbon-cycle is a legitimate research question. As others have noted, it’s a small brick in the wall of trying to better understand the climate as a whole. It’s not presupposing AGW. It’s gathering data to form a baseline to evaluate the effect that any changes in the arctic temperatures have on the carbon cycle. I just don’t understand the level of disdain for basic scientific research expressed by so many on these boards who are skeptical of AGW theory … it’s like they’re afraid that the results may somehow support the theory.