Effect of CO2 levels on phytoplankton.
Story submitted by Don Healy
This article opens up a whole new vista into the relationship between CO2 levels, oceanic plant growth and the complex relationships that we have yet to learn about in the field of climate science. If phytoplankton respond like most plant species do, we may find that the modest increases in CO2 levels we have experienced over the last 50 years may actually create a bounty of micro plant growth in the oceans, which would in turn create the food supply necessary to support an increase in the oceans’ animal population.
At the same time, it would explain where the excess atmospheric CO2 has been going; much of it converted into additional biological matter, with only a limited existence as raw CO2.
There may well be a naturally balancing mechanism that explains how the earth was able to survive atmospheric levels of CO2 as high as 7000 mmp in past geologic history without turning into another Venus. Just surmising of course, but this fits with what we know about the response of terrestrial plants to elevated CO2 levels, so it is a plausible theory. Hopefully more studies along this line can clarify the situation.
From the article:
The diatom blooming process is described in the article by Amala Mahadevan, the author of the study and oceanographer at WHOI, as inextricably linked to the flow of whirlpools circulating the plants through the water and keeping them afloat.
“[The study’s] results show that the bloom starts through eddies, even before the sun begins to warm the ocean,” said Ms. Mahadevan.
This study explains the causation of phytoplankton’s phenology—the reasons behind the annual timing of the microscopic plant’s natural cycle—as it is influenced by the ocean’s conditions.
“Springtime blooms of microscopic plants in the ocean absorb enormous quantities of carbon dioxide, much like our forests, emitting oxygen via photosynthesis. Their growth contributes to the oceanic uptake of carbon dioxide, amounting globally to about one-third of the carbon dioxide we put into the air each year through the burning of fossil fuels. An important question is how this ‘biological pump’ for carbon might change in the future as our climate evolves,” said researchers.
WHOI describes the study as being conducted by a specially designed robot that can float just below the surface like a phytoplankton (only much, much larger). Other robots, referred to by WHOI as “gliders” dove to depths of 1,000 meters to collect data and beam it back to shore. Together, the robots discovered a great deal about the biology and nature of the bloom. Then, using three-dimensional computer modeling to analyze the data, Ms. Mahadevan created a model that corresponded with observation of the natural phenomena.
Full story:
http://www.thebunsenburner.com/news/cause-of-north-atlantic-plankton-bloom-is-finally-revealed/
==================================================================
Eddy-Driven Stratification Initiates North Atlantic Spring Phytoplankton Blooms
Abstract
Springtime phytoplankton blooms photosynthetically fix carbon and export it from the surface ocean at globally important rates. These blooms are triggered by increased light exposure of the phytoplankton due to both seasonal light increase and the development of a near-surface vertical density gradient (stratification) that inhibits vertical mixing of the phytoplankton. Classically and in current climate models, that stratification is ascribed to a springtime warming of the sea surface. Here, using observations from the subpolar North Atlantic and a three-dimensional biophysical model, we show that the initial stratification and resulting bloom are instead caused by eddy-driven slumping of the basin-scale north-south density gradient, resulting in a patchy bloom beginning 20 to 30 days earlier than would occur by warming.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Interesting till you reach to the end of the article…
“It remains unclear exactly what impact this study will have on global climate change. A better understanding of the cause of the massive plankton blooms could allow climate scientists to unravel the mysteries of global warming. Findings also allow for a better understanding of how carbon dioxide, the main source of climate change, impacts local ocean life.”
I would edit the opening sentence to say, “Springtime phytoplankton blooms photosynthetically fix carbon AND ENERGY and export THEM from the surface ocean at globally important rates.”
Their growth contributes to the oceanic uptake of carbon dioxide, amounting globally to about one-third of the carbon dioxide we put into the air each year through the burning of fossil fuels.
============
How much of the other 95% of CO2 emitted by natural sources do they uptake? Do they also consume 1/3 of those? Or do they somehow magically recognize only fossil fuel CO2?
Does this explain why Deli lunch meat is more expensive than lobster?
Their growth contributes to the oceanic uptake of carbon dioxide, amounting globally to about one-third of the carbon dioxide we put into the air each year through the burning of fossil fuels.
======
If they consume 1/3 of our CO2 each year, then if humans were to stop emitting CO2, the persistence time in which 1/2 the CO2 was consumed would be less than 2 years. 1/3 + 2/9 = 5/9 > 50%.
I recall a marine biologist claiming that one really big phytoplankton bloom could potentially consume all the CO2 emitted by man’s activities, so this does make sense.
Four and half billion years of evolution will have many more surprises.
and where does this leave ocean acidification ?
The only mystery about global warming is how such a blatant fraud keeps on going and going.
“At the same time, it would explain where the excess atmospheric CO2 has been going; much of it converted into additional biological matter, with only a limited existence as raw CO2”
Yes but the new biological matter is draining the natural CO2 out of the atmosphere and leaving higher concentrations of man made CO2 [/sarc]
The authors made their necessary obeisance to CO2 orthodoxy (“the main source of climate change”), while at the same time reminding the High Priests & Archdruids of the CAGW cult (who are prepared to sacrifice not just first born sons or selected virgins but all humanity on their altar) that science still doesn’t know a great deal about possible carbon sinks, along with much else regarding the mechanics of climate.
it is likely we will find that elevated CO2 levels will help coral reefs rather than destroy them as now hypothesized.
@Hari Seldon:
In future times, “Ocean Acidification” will be deemed to have only been “psycho”-historical.
Liebig’s Law will apply with phytoplankton. As spring advances, light becomes less limiting and growth takes off, but then nutrients (most likely nitrogen) become the inhibitor of continued rampant growth, even if CO2 is over-abundant. Studies such as this are limited as well — sort of a corollary to LL — because they don’t look at everything over enough time to see the big picture.
Nerd writes “Interesting till you reach to the end of the article…”
In the years before Isaac Newton wrote his Principia Mathematica, the most important part of any scientific report was the piece that had to be added at the end, which showed why the findings were in accordance with the teachings of the Church of England. These days, when anyone writes a report that has anything vaguely to do with CAGW, it is necessary to genuflect in the Church of the Religion of CAGW. One of these days someone who matters is going to point out how ridiculous this is, and maybe, just maybe, someone in the MSM will notice.
But until then, we will be forced to hear the strains of Tom Lehrer’s Vatican Rag ” …. genuflect, genuflect, genuflect, genuflect”
Jim Cripwell says: July 10, 2012 at 9:24 am
Thanks for the reference to Lehrer, haven’t heard that in years. Great satirist.
Isn’t this saying the exact opposite of the study last year that said we’ve killed off 50% of phytoplanton with increased CO2???
And they wonder why we don’t believe them??
Seems like this is pretty strong evidence that the planet is CO2-starved, since it appears that CO2 is the limiting resource for one of the most important and abundant organisms on the planet.
What is gonna be next? Are we converting fossil fuels into … people?
Anthony should add a poll after the text copied below to see how many readers know what the hell just happened in this exchange:
PeterB in Indianapolis says:
July 10, 2012 at 9:12 am
@Hari Seldon:
In future times, “Ocean Acidification” will be deemed to have only been “psycho”-historical.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I vote thumbs up on the phytoplankton study. The bow to climate change and future funding is only slightly off-putting.
This is one of those “ya but” situations.
In theory CO2 should be causing an explosion of growth in the core ocean. However it is very easy to show that the ocean is iron starved. Just dump iron sulfate or nano-particles of iron in the ocean and there is an immediate algae bloom.
What is happening?
If you run the numbers, fishing removes more than a megaton of iron from the core ocean each year. Naturally sulfur and other trace minerals are removed as well. These are minerals that have always been in the ocean and no one is replacing them.
CO2 is rising because of ocean depletion and rainforest destruction. If we stop one or both of these activities we shouldn’t have a CO2 problem.
Weren’t those the wee buggers that created the O2/N2 atmosphere out of mostly CO2 in the first place?
Hyper-pothesis: the atmosphere’s composition is under the control of phytoplankton. All other influences are secondary.
My evo bio professor spoke of the carbon sinks often and specifically phytoplankton. He was never alarmed about any CAGW
“There may well be a naturally balancing mechanism that explains how the earth was able to survive atmospheric levels of CO2 as high as 7000 mmp in past geologic history without turning into another Venus.”
“Findings also allow for a better understanding of how carbon dioxide, the main source of climate change, impacts local ocean life.”
———————————-
Or maybe the potential effects of atmospheric CO2 on climate are limited and that increasing CO2 has no further effect. Maybe increasing CO2 is just a result of warming climate and not a cause.
Real scientists question all of their assumptions. Ms. Mahadevan accepts the climate change dogma without challenging it. QED she is not a real scientist.
I guess my neologism is semi-oxymoronic.
hypo-thesis = not quite a thesis (theory)
hyper-thesis = master (super) thesis (theory)
😉