If this is true,with the biomass photosynthesis of CO2 and converting it to oxygen, it would seem to point to a self regulating effect of the biosphere on climate.The new study goes with this item reported on WUWT in June 2008.
Surprise: Earths’ Biosphere is Booming, Satellite Data Suggests CO2 the Cause
The SeaWiFS instrument aboard the Seastar satellite has been collecting ocean data since 1997. By monitoring the color of reflected light via satellite, scientists can determine how successfully plant life is photosynthesizing. A measurement of photosynthesis is essentially a measurement of successful growth, and growth means successful use of ambient carbon. This animation shows an average of 10 years worth of SeaWiFS data. Dark blue represents warmer areas where there tends to be a lack of nutrients, and greens and reds represent cooler nutrient-rich areas which support life. The nutrient-rich areas include coastal regions where cold water rises from the sea floor bringing nutrients along and areas at the mouths of rivers where the rivers have brought nutrients into the ocean from the land.
See an animation of the Earth;s Biosphere: 512×288 (30 fps) MPEG-1 10 MB. More here at NASA SVS
More oxygen – colder climate
From the University of Copenhagen news release. 9 September 2009
Using a completely new method, researchers have shown that high atmospheric and oceanic oxygen content makes the climate colder. In prehistoric times, the earth experienced two periods of large increases and fluctuations in the oxygen level of the atmosphere and oceans. These fluctuations also lead to an explosion of multicellular organisms in the oceans, which are the predecessors for life as we know it today. The results are now being published in Nature.
Everybody talks about CO2 and other greenhouse gases as causes of global warming and the large climate changes we are currently experiencing. But what about the atmospheric and oceanic oxygen content? Which role does oxygen content play in global warming?
This question has become extremely relevant now that Professor Robert Frei from the Department of Geography and Geology at the University of Copenhagen, in collaboration with colleagues from Departamento de Geologı´a, Facultad de Ciencias in Uruguay, Newcastle University and the University of Southern Denmark, has established that there is a historical correlation between oxygen and temperature fluctuations towards global cooling.
The team of researchers reached their conclusions via analyses of iron-rich stones, so called banded iron formations, from different locations around the globe and covering a time span of more than 3,000 million years. Their discovery was made possible by a new analytical method which the research team developed. This method is based on analysis of chrome isotopes – different chemical variants of the element chrome. It turned out that the chrome isotopes in the iron rich stones reflect the oxygen content of the atmosphere. The method is a unique tool, which makes it possible to examine historical changes in the atmospheric oxygen content and thereby possible climate changes.
“But we can simply conclude that high oxygen content in seawater enables a lot of life in the oceans “consuming” the greenhouse gas CO2, and which subsequently leads to a cooling of the earth’s surface. Throughout history our climate has been dependent on balance between CO2 and atmospheric oxygen. The more CO2 and other greenhouse gases, the warmer the climate has been. But we still don’t know much about the process which drives the earth from a period with a warmer climate towards an “ice age” with colder temperatures – other than that oxygen content plays an important role. It would therefore be interesting to consider atmospheric and oceanic oxygen contents much more in research aiming at understanding and tackling the causes of the current climate change,” says Professor Robert Frei.
The results Professor Frei and his international research team have obtained indicate that there have been two periods in the earth’s 4.5 billion year history where a significant change in the atmospheric and oceanic oxygen content has occurred. The first large increase took place in between 2.45 billion years and 2.2 billion years ago. The second “boost” occurred for only 800 to 542 million years ago and lead to an oxidisation of the deep oceans and thereby the possibility for life to exist at those depths.
”To understand the future, we have to understand the past. The two large increases in the oxygen content show, at the very least, that the temperature decreased. We hope that these results can contribute to our understanding of the complexity of climate change. I don’t believe that humans have a lot of influence on the major process of oxygen formation on a large scale or on the inevitable ice ages or variations in temperature that the Earth’s history is full of. But that doesn’t mean that we cannot do anything to slow down the current global warming trend. For example by increased forestry and other initiatives that help to increase atmospheric and oceanic oxygen levels,” explains Professor Robert Frei, who, along with his research team, has worked on the project for three years so far.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The carbon sequestration people must be jumping of joy… they have the means to bury CO2 AND the oxygen used in the combustion process.
I also read once that molecular hydrogen is also a very potent global cooling gas… bye bye hydrogen fuel cells.
Mike D. (21:35:54) (and Bill Illis):
The Carboniferous was NOT a warm period. There was massive continental glaciation in Gondwana. The common idea that this was a warm interval is due to the huge coal deposits that accumulated in coastal swamps in tropical areas. However this was actually caused by glaciation too. The rapid shifts in sea-level caused by glacial/interglacial cycles kept flooding the equatorial lowlands causing the typical cyclical coal/shallow marine/coal/shallow marine structure of the coal measures.
Two points…
1. Correlation IS NOT Causation.
2. From comments, it looks like even the correlation isn’t very good.
Another cause/effect or effect/cause issue, which is unlikely to be resolvable using the Paleoclimatology methods available today.
For the last 100 years or so since atmospheric oxygen has been measured, levels have been at at 21% (within the error of the differing measuring techneques used over the period).
The perctage of total oxygen trapped within atmpospheric carbon dioxide is vanishingly small. If all of it was released it would not show up as a detectable signal on the O2 levels which are a nearly a hundred times bigger. In any case the process would be self regulating. As CO2 was converted into carbon and O2 the rate of photosynthesis would reduce, particularly if the increased O2 correlated with lower temperatures as well. So even if O2 was correlated with temperature, which seems very unlikely, linking this with CO2 is just nonsensical.
The Carboniferous was about 350 million years ago, the sun would have been notably weaker, perhaps more than 3%.
3% of 288K is 279K or an average of only 3C. What prevented a planet wide ice age?
What amount of oxygen are we talking about? I don’t think the atmosphere will increase its oxygen content up to 30% by the year 2012. If there is some increase, it would be in the parts per million range. Not significant if you compare to the actual 21% the atmosphere has nowadays. It seems to me very difficult to measure an increment in the part per million when the actual amount of oxygen in the atmosphere is 21%. I don’t think there is any quantitative correlation.
This reminds me too of the anthropogenic radiative forcings described at the IPCC AR4 where the anthropogenic ozone error bands cover from negative to positive values. In other words, they don’t know whether anthropogenic ozone variations cools or warms. Oh, they can also study how this minuscule increment of oxygen concentration may affect the concentration of ozone in upper atmosphere, and its cooling/warming effects.
Regarding the chrome thing, i googled ‘chrome’ and I had around 74,4 million results. They didn’t coin a new word. What webster has to say about chrome? two entries:
The use of chrome instead of chromium may have come from the Facultad de Ciencias in Uruguay. Cromo is Spanish for chromium. Anybody knows what is danish for chromium? Maybe it is actually chrome. The chemistry part of the press release needs a lot of polishing.
It is funny to see how etymology works in English, seems that all English words that comes from Greek and Latin have to pass through the French filter.
BTW, small typo. it is Geología. (it seems you tried to write an accent by switching to spanish or french keyboard but somehow it didn’t work, you wrote a dot-less lowercase i, I am trying to reproduce that but I can’t)
“Anybody knows what is danish for chromium? Maybe it is actually chrome. ”
“krom”, so yes chrome is almost certainly “danglish”. As a french acquaintance once said “the language of science is bad english”.
dorlomin:
Temperature is not linear with respect to insolation.
However what you mention is known as the “faint young sun paradox”.
It should have been much colder in the past, but there has been unfrozen oceans on Earth for at least 3,8 billion years and except for the two intervals mentioned in this thread (2,4-2,2 and 0,7-0,5 billion years ago) there are almost no traces of precambrian ice ages.
LS, DK
Chromium is “krom” in Danish.
LS
So if co2 increases as a percentage of the atmosphere, and oxygen increases as a percentage of the atmosphere, what decreases?
Or does the atmosphere get bigger??
Or what???
tty (03:14:57) :
However what you mention is known as the “faint young sun paradox”.
It should have been much colder in the past, but there has been unfrozen oceans on Earth for at least 3,8 billion years and except for the two intervals mentioned in this thread (2,4-2,2 and 0,7-0,5 billion years ago) there are almost no traces of precambrian ice ages.
And yet the sun warms as it ages. What kept the earth at a livable temperature in the past……
Chrome is English for the use of Chromium when used as electroplating for metal surfaces. I thought it was common usage but perhaps not.
Once again I think papers like this should be viewed as examples that what we don’t know about climate is vast.
PG 21:06
I could not disagree with you more.
Photosynthesis by the earliest forms of plant life during the Archean period began to produce significant amounts of oxygen. As oxygen began to be produced large amounts of iron which had accumulated in the early ocean were attacked by the accumulating oxygen. When oxygen (O2) reacts with iron (Fe) containing substances such as FeS2 (pyrite), iron ores are produced. Oxide rocks such as limonite, hematite, magnetite (a magnetic rock), and siderite are among the iron ores. Rocks such as these are mined today, and the iron (Fe) they contain is extracted.
Over a period of a billion years, huge deposits of iron ores were laid at the bottom of the sea. This activity took place between 3.5 and 2.5 billion years ago. Iron ores mined today in the United States, Australia, and South Africa, are part of the huge deposits laid down at that time. Once the oceans were swept clean of iron, then the oxygen could begin to accumulate in the atmosphere, and respiration by sophisticated life forms could begin in earnest. It took a billion years for this process to complete.
Thanks
William
The name Chromium comes, if I recall correctly, from the fact that many of the salts of Chromium are strongly coloured; ‘chroma’ being the Greek word for ‘colour’ I think. This is all dragged back from a not-often used part of my brain which was busy way back in the mists of time… I’ll see if I can find some examples.
oxygen is like co2- it lags not leads!
PG at 21:06 said: “The conversion of CO2 AND H2O into hydrocarbons and O2 is nice and simple chemistry, …”
If that chemistry were so simple, we would not be concerned with energy resources. We obviously have a handle on the combustion of hydrocarbons to CO2 and H2O products. If PG has a “nice and simple” means to convert CO2 and H2O back to methane and molecular oxygen, I certainly wish he’d let me in on the secret: I’d like to retire with a summer estate in Scotland and a winter villa in Tuscany.
These guys are hyperventilated, too much brain oxygenation. It is irrelevant if there was or if there is more oxygen or CO2, air heat capacity is too low compared with water. This is the same CO2/gw mantra, as seen from the other side.
“The more CO2 and other greenhouse gases, the warmer the climate has been.”
Well that’s not true is it? Late in the Ordovician for example, CO2 levels were around 5000 ppm, yet temperatures plummeted into a glacial epoch.
It’s a good thing that this study was done in part by the University of Copenhagen. The researchers won’t have to purchase carbon offsets for their travel to the upcoming “Sky Is Falling” conference.
The geologic record suggests that increasing earth temperature eventually leads to increasing atmospheric CO2. We also know that CO2 is less soluble in warmer water; which leads to the assertion that the ocean is warming and hence giving off more CO2; yet other measured data says the ocean isn’t warming, so how can it be giving off CO2. Then others add, that the increasing CO2 is proof that the oceans are warming. What a mess.
Well the oceans CAN outgas CO2 without warming; so how could that work.
Here’s just a thought for your consideration.
1/ We know that the oceans have a temperature gradient, being warmer at the surface and cooler as you go deeper. (generally) My diving friends say that it cools at a certain rate down to some depth, and then the rate of decline drops, but it still cools as you go deeper; but at a much slower rate.
2/ We know CO2 is more soluble in colder; and hence deeper waters, and also that Henry’s Law sets the equilibrium level of dissolved CO2 versus atmospheric CO2 partial pressure; and yes I know that the CO2 in the ocean chemistry is more complex than just a dissolved gas; but it is still more soluble in colder water.
3/ The fact that CO2 is more soluble in colder water means that there is a constant diffusion; a temperature gradient driving of CO2 from warmer surface waters to deeper colder waters; which thus tends to deplete the warmer surface waters, enabling additional CO2 passing from the atmosphere into the surface waters.
4/ As a result of this constant depletion of the warmer surface waters by the temperature gradient driven diffusion, the surface waters never reach their equilibrium level of dissolved CO2, as set by Henry’s law. This is one of the mechanisms by which excess CO2 is constantly being removed from the atmosphere.
5/ If the ocean surface temperatures suddenly increase, due to El Ninos or ENSOS or whatever, this does not mean that there will be a sudden rush of CO2 back into the atmopshere from those warmer surface waters; they are already below the Henry’s law equilibrium concentration and can remain below it even with a small temperature increase. The problem is the surface waters are depleted by the pumping action of the temperature gradient.
6/ In order to get more CO2 out of the warmer ocean surface into the atmosphere, you need some turnover of the ocean waters, to bring some of that colder CO2 enriched water back to the surface, where it can mix with the surface waters, and raise the surface concentration of CO2 back to where the surface is now in CO2 excess versus Henry’s Law; and then the oceans can outgas more CO2.
Now I realize their are all kinds of rate situations to these processes, and all you chemists out there know more about that than I do; so I’ll let you work on the details; but as you can see, it is possible for the oceans to give up more CO2 to the atmosphere, without noticeably warming; but it takes a mixing that overcomes the former depleted surface condition by bringing stored CO2 up from colder waters (with the water by convection; not by diffusion).
Also the biological processes that take place in those nutrient laden cooler waters result in the food chain storage of CO2 in skeletons of defunct critters which falls to the bottom to make carbonate rocks.
So no; CO2 emission from the oceans is not (necessarily) proof of warming oceans.
George
“”” Jimmy Haigh (06:49:38) :
The name Chromium comes, if I recall correctly, from the fact that many of the salts of Chromium are strongly coloured; ‘chroma’ being the Greek word for ‘colour’ I think. This is all dragged back from a not-often used part of my brain which was busy way back in the mists of time… I’ll see if I can find some examples. “””
Don’t know if your Chromium = color story is true or not Jimmy; but it works for me. So here’s some examples.
Aluminium Oxide, Al2O3 in single crystal form is quite colorless; and we call it “Sapphire”. Gem sapphires can come in all colors of the rainbow, due to the inclusion of impurities into the crystal; but most people think of sapphires as being blue. They can be yellow, green and even red; well the red ones are more of a pink.
But of course there are true deep red sapphires, and the most common cause of that deep red color is that the doping impurity in the sapphire is Chromium; and by definition, red sapphires that are red due to chromium doping are called Rubies (but there are red sapphires that are not rubies).
The State mineral of Colorado is a cubic crystal called Rhodochrosite. These crystals are spectacular brilliant red and clear as a bell (free of inclusions). The chromium ion turns up in lots of situations in that brilliant red color; Cerise might be a more accurate description of the hue.
I’m not sure whether that is the Cr+2 or the Cr+3 ion, but it is one of those two; there is also a cr+6, dunno how rare that is.
And of course the original Ruby laser was made from a synthetic Chromium doped sapphire (Ruby) and emitted a red laser line.
So I’ll take your Greek story as gospel Jimmie.
“”” Carl (19:12:01) :
I know this isn’t directly towards the idea behind the article, but if burning carbon-based materials is an exothermic reaction (generates heat), then is photo synthesis endothermic (absorbs heat) and if so, where does that heat drawn from? “””
Well one thing that photosynthesis is not, is “endothermic”. You can take plant leaves and heat them all you like and they will not absorb CO2 and emit oxygen; but if you get them hot enough they will do the opposite, and absorb Oxygen and emit CO2 along with ashes.
But if you really wated to know where does the ENERGY come from in photosynthesis, then that comes from the sun; and it does result in cooling because instead of that solar energy being converted to waste “heat” it is converted to plant materials along with CO2 remocal and O2 emission.
But it is wrong to call the reaction “endothermic”; nothing cools down as a result of photosynthesis; but it may heat up less, than if photosynthesis doesn’t take place.
George
“”” Phil. (20:17:26) :
Carl (19:12:01) :
I know this isn’t directly towards the idea behind the article, but if burning carbon-based materials is an exothermic reaction (generates heat), then is photo synthesis endothermic (absorbs heat) and if so, where does that heat drawn from?
Sunlight, more specifically blue and red/orange wavelengths. “””
Norty norty ! see my comment to Carl above.
Also it is well known that Chlorophyl containing plant materials strongly reflect the near IR say in the 700-900 nm range and register as reds on Infra-Red film which is not too responsive to wavelenghts much longer.
So is it true that orange/reds which would be 600-700 nm actually take part in Photosynthesis, rather than the higher energy photons; that is only about 2 eV photon energy ?
George