While this article makes a strong case, looking at SST and CO2 can also be revealing:
A review of this WUWT post might also be instructive: A look at human CO2 emissions -vs- ocean absorption
From Columbia University: Oceans’ Uptake of Manmade Carbon May be Slowing
First Year-by-Year Study, 1765-2008, Shows Proportion Declining
(Click on image to view larger version)
Carbon released by fossil fuel burning (black) continues to accumulate in the air (red), oceans (blue), and land (green). The oceans take up roughly a quarter of manmade CO2, but evidence suggests they are now taking up a smaller proportion.
Credit: Samar Khatiwala, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.
The oceans play a key role in regulating climate, absorbing more than a quarter of the carbon dioxide that humans put into the air. Now, the first year-by-year accounting of this mechanism during the industrial era suggests the oceans are struggling to keep up with rising emissions—a finding with potentially wide implications for future climate. The study appears in this week’s issue of the journal Nature, and is expanded upon in a separate website.
The researchers estimate that the oceans last year took up a record 2.3 billion tons of CO₂ produced from burning of fossil fuels. But with overall emissions growing rapidly, the proportion of fossil-fuel emissions absorbed by the oceans since 2000 may have declined by as much as 10%.
Some climate models have already predicted such a slowdown in the oceans’ ability to soak up excess carbon from the atmosphere, but this is the first time scientists have actually measured it. Models attribute the change to depletion of ozone in the stratosphere and global warming-induced shifts in winds and ocean circulation. But the new study suggests the slowdown is due to natural chemical and physical limits on the oceans’ ability to absorb carbon—an idea that is now the subject of widespread research by other scientists.
“The more carbon dioxide you put in, the more acidic the ocean becomes, reducing its ability to hold CO₂” said the study’s lead author, Samar Khatiwala, an oceanographer at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “Because of this chemical effect, over time, the ocean is expected to become a less efficient sink of manmade carbon. The surprise is that we may already be seeing evidence for this, perhaps compounded by the ocean’s slow circulation in the face of accelerating emissions.”
The study reconstructs the accumulation of industrial carbon in the oceans year by year, from 1765 to 2008. Khatiwala and his colleagues found that uptake rose sharply in the 1950s, as the oceans tried to keep pace with the growth of carbon dioxide emissions worldwide. Emissions continued to grow, and by 2000, reached such a pitch that the oceans have since absorbed a declining overall percentage, even though they absorb more each year in absolute tonnage. Today, the oceans hold about 150 billion tons of industrial carbon, the researchers estimate–a third more than in the mid-1990s.
For decades, scientists have tried to estimate the amount of manmade carbon absorbed by the ocean by teasing out the small amount of industrial carbon—less than 1 percent—from the enormous background levels of natural carbon. Because of the difficulties of this approach, only one attempt has been made to come up with a global estimate of how much industrial carbon the oceans held—for a single year, 1994.
Khatiwala and his colleagues came up with another method. Using some of the same data as their predecessors— seawater temperatures, salinity, manmade chlorofluorocarbons and other measures—they developed a mathematical technique to work backward from the measurements to infer the concentration of industrial carbon in surface waters, and its transport to deep water through ocean circulation. This allowed them to reconstruct the uptake and distribution of industrial carbon in the oceans over time.
Their estimate of industrial carbon in the oceans in 1994—114 billion tons—nearly matched the earlier 118 billion-ton estimate, made by Chris Sabine, a marine chemist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Organization in a 2004 paper in the journal Science.
Sabine, who was not involved in the new study, said he saw some limitations. For one, he said, the study assumes circulation has remained steady, along with the amount of organic matter in the oceans. “That being said, I still think this is the best estimate of the time variance of anthropogenic CO₂ in the ocean available,” said Sabine. “Our previous attempts to quantify anthropogenic CO₂ using ocean data have only been able to provide single snapshots in time.”
About 40 percent of the carbon entered the oceans through the frigid waters of the Southern Ocean, around Antarctica, because carbon dioxide dissolves more readily in cold, dense seawater than in warmer waters. From there, currents transport the carbon north. “We’ve suspected for some time that the Southern Ocean plays a critical role in soaking up fossil fuel CO₂,” said Khatiwala. “But our study is the first to quantify the importance of this region with actual data.
The researchers also estimated carbon uptake on land, by taking the known amount of fossil-fuel emissions and subtracting the oceans’ uptake and the carbon left in the air. They were surprised to learn that the land may now be absorbing more than it is giving off.
They say that until the 1940s, the landscape produced excess carbon dioxide, possibly due to logging and the clearing and burning of forests for farming. Deforestation and other land-use changes continue at a rapid pace today—but now, each year the land appears to be absorbing 1.1 billion tons more carbon than it is giving off.
One possible reason for the reversal, say the researchers, is that now, some of the extra atmospheric carbon—raw material for photosynthesis–may be feeding back into living plants and making them grow faster. “The extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere may be providing a fertilizing effect,” said study coauthor Timothy Hall, a senior scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Many other scientists are now working to determine the possible effects of increased carbon dioxide on plant growth, and incorporate these into models of past and future climates.
Khatiwala says there are still large uncertainties, but in any case, natural mechanisms cannot be depended upon to mitigate increasing human-produced emissions. “What our ocean study and other recent land studies suggest is that we cannot count on these sinks operating in the future as they have in the past, and keep on subsidizing our ever-growing appetite for fossil fuels,” he said.
In a related paper in Nature, Khatiwala describes how the research was done.
Contrarian (21:56:09) :
I really don’t see how you’re getting any of that.
“I assume the 143.6x is the conversion from monthly data to annual; ”
Huh? No, it’s simply the slope of CO2 vs SST, the latter averaged over 21 years. What I’m asking is whether that was a number you expected. At this point, it’d also be helpful to know whose measurement of SST that is, so we know how anomaly is defined.
“Ocean outgassing of CO2 with temperature occurs instantly, while ocean warming from increased atmospheric CO2 would be slower, and would lag. The tight correlation suggests (to me) the former causal arrow.”
So that’s what this is all about?
If you’re looking for an instantaneous relationship, then you wouldn’t have a 21 YEAR moving average on the SST side. You wouldn’t need it, because the CO2 level would instantaneously track every single bump and dip in the SST. Beyond that, the cleanness of the correlation would disappear if you used data prior to 1985. 1940 to 1960 would look pretty ugly on that plot.
I think that the top chart on this page is the most convincing evidence that I have yet seen that the current carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere may be an ‘effect’ rather than a ’cause’ of ocean warming.
I believe the slope of the curve would depend on the total effective volume of ocean being heated and the average reduction of CO2 solubility of per degree C in that volume plus the net anthropogenic CO2 that happened to be released per degree C of ocean temperature increase.
Spector (05:04:11) :
You think so? The chart at the top of the page obscures the temporal history; you can’t see from the chart that CO2 is leading temperature, not lagging it. It also doesn’t show you what happened before 1980 or so; the correlation would fall apart if it did.
Beyond that, there are measurements that show the ocean’s carbon content is increasing, and isotope analysis would rule out the ocean as a source, anyway. And if the oceans were net outgassing, and you don’t want the fossil fuel emissions to be going into the atmosphere, then where on earth are the fossil fuel emissions going? If you don’t mind the oceans outgassing into the atmosphere, then why aren’t fossil fuel emissions allowed to do the same?
Bart: Ah, let’s just put an end to the thing. I hate the little linear model, as I would not expect it to reflect reality much at all, but if you really want to use such a form, let’s see what happens. I solved it for the case where human emissions decrease to zero, instantaneously. Let’s see what it looks like if human emissions continue over time. Pick a functional form for the human emissions term – the front end of a gaussian curve, maybe? or linear, from some point in time? From the look of it, I might be able to eke out an analytical solution if we use linearly increasing emissions; anything else would require numerical solution (which would probably be faster and easier to do, anyway).
The chart at the top of this section shows an apparent lock-step linear relation between carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere and global average sea-surface temperature anomaly. As, I believe, the greenhouse effect is nonlinear – depending on the log of the CO2 in the atmosphere, I would expect to see an exponential curvature in the CO2 versus temperature curve.
On the other hand, I would expect to see a linear out-gassing or non-in-gassing effect depending on the relative solubility of CO2 in the atmosphere and in the ocean. I do not think this indicates that the ocean would stop being a sink for carbon dioxide. It would just say that the CO2 concentration of in the atmosphere must increase to achieve an equilibrium condition as the average sea-surface temperature increases.
Again, Spector – your lock-step disappears if you add data before 1980 to the plot, or if you don’t use a 21 year average. This should be obvious if you look at data plotted against time. So I wouldn’t draw any conclusions like that, at all.
If the ocean is a net source, then it cannot be a net sink.
My comment applied to the data as presented here. As best as I can tell, it is derived from an article published by Dr. Lance Endersbee entitled “Oceans are the main regulators of carbon dioxide.” in the April 2008 issue of the Civil Engineers of Australia journal
I believe the ocean could be a net sequestration sink as well as a temperature dependent storage system.
REF: http: // icecap.us / images / uploads / OceansandCO2EngrsAustapr08 . pdf
Here is a clickable link to the Endersbee paper:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/OceansandCO2EngrsAustapr08.pdf
(Thanks Spector)
Carrot eater —
Endersbee used SSTs after 1980 because that is the extent of the more accurate satellite record. The 21-year average was used to embrace 2 solar cycles, and even out ENSO/PDO variations. The oceans can be a net source, and still a sink for anthro emissions.
He may not be right WRT to a “decline in levels of CO2 in the atmosphere” with SST cooling. The oceans could not re-absorb CO2 when cooling as quickly as they would release it when warmed, because the excess CO2 is dispersed throughout the atmosphere.
I figured the source was using satellite readings. Point is, even if you think there is some error in previous SST measurements, the error can’t plausibly be that wrong – it is still quite obvious that the correlation breaks down if you look at other time periods.
As for the long average: I understand perfectly well why they used it. They wanted to remove all the short term variability due to ENSO and whatever else. The thing is, you have to remember that it has to be removed because the CO2 level doesn’t follow that variability, so you can’t use language like ‘lock-step’ or ‘instantaneous’. And the point remains, nobody in their right mind would plot a point for each month, if they were using that much averaging. It’s not wrong per se; just pointless. So all they’ve succeeded in doing is showing that SSTs are going up, and so is CO2. But we knew that.
I see you’re invoking a neat little hysteresis to try to explain why CO2 might still go up in periods where the ocean might be cooling. Good luck with that. If you’re actually going to think about the physics, you’ll just see that the ocean is increasing in carbon content. It cannot both increase in carbon content, and cause the increase in carbon content in the atmosphere. Can’t be done; basic arithmetic won’t allow it. You need another source to explain it, and we know what that source is. A source that is consistent with isotope analysis, by the way – the isotope ratios alone rule out the oceans being the main source.
Carrot Eater —
“If you’re actually going to think about the physics, you’ll just see that the ocean is increasing in carbon content. It cannot both increase in carbon content, and cause the increase in carbon content in the atmosphere.”
Your second statement there is certainly true, and would settle the question. But there is no evidence that the carbon content of the oceans has increased. The IPCC claims that “The uptake of anthropogenic carbon since 1750 has led to the ocean becoming more acidic with an average decrease in pH of 0.1 units.”
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
But that claim is based on model calculations which assume that the oceans are a net carbon sink, not on empirical evidence (and it would be virtually impossible to reconstruct a global ocean pH trend accurate within 0.1 unit).
Here are a couple of sources. If you know of others, please post links.
http://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oceans/GES205/Caldeira_Science_Anthropogenic%20Carbon%20and%20ocean%20pH.pdf
http://www.ipsl.jussieu.fr/~jomce/acidification/paper/Orr_OnlineNature04095.pdf
I believe the Ocean may have two roles in the carbon cycle. First, it may be a region where carbon is sequestered as insoluble mineral deposits and second, it can serve as a storage tank for carbon dioxide with a storage capacity that decreases with increasing temperature.
I have compiled raw sea-surface temperature and smoothed CO2 atmospheric concentration data from various sources going back to 1880. I see reasonable correlation between the SST and CO2 concentration from about 1946 onward. There appear to be extra SST anomalies of about -0.4 around 1910 and +0.3 around 1940.
I also note that application of a three-stage tandem exponential decay low-pass filter to the SST data can create a curve reasonably proportional to the CO2 concentration data over the whole 129 year interval if the decay time constant of each stage is 30 years (decay compounded monthly) and the initial anomaly values for the three stages are set to -.185, -.250, and -.240 respectively. I thought this system of multiple exponential decay filters (similar to electronic resistor-capacitor filters) might serve as a crude model of heat transfer to lower depths.