Icebergs, phytoplankton, and CO2 – negative feedback

Iceberg-Antarctica
Image via Wikipedia

Via Lewis Page at the Register:

Some cheerful news on the climate change front today, as US government boffins report that ice breaking off the Antarctic shelves and melting in the sea causes carbon dioxide to be removed from the environment. This powerful, previously unknown “negative feedback” would seem likely to revise forecasts of future global warming significantly downwards.

“These new findings… confirm that icebergs contribute yet another, previously unsuspected, dimension of physical and biological complexity to polar ecosystems,” says Roberta Marinelli, director of the NSF’s Antarctic Organisms and Ecosystems Program.

Full story here Also, from the National Science Foundation, a potential negative feedback as icebergs boost phytoplankton, removing more CO2 during the process.

Antarctic Icebergs Play a Previously Unknown Role in Global Carbon Cycle, Climate

Passage of icebergs through surface waters changes their physical and biological characteristics

In a finding that has global implications for climate research, scientists have discovered that when icebergs cool and dilute the seas through which they pass for days, they also raise chlorophyll levels in the water that may in turn increase carbon dioxide absorption in the Southern Ocean.

An interdisciplinary research team supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) highlighted the research this month in the journal Nature Geosciences.

The research indicates that “iceberg transport and melting have a role in the distribution of phytoplankton in the Weddell Sea,” which was previously unsuspected, said John J. Helly, director of the Laboratory for Environmental and Earth Sciences with the San Diego Supercomputer Center at the University of California, San Diego and Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

Helly was the lead author of the paper, “Cooling, Dilution and Mixing of Ocean Water by Free-drifting Icebergs in the Weddell Sea,” which was first published in the journal Deep-Sea Research Part II.

The results indicate that icebergs are especially likely to influence phytoplankton dynamics in an area known as “Iceberg Alley,” east of the Antarctic Peninsula, the portion of the continent that extends northwards toward Chile.

The latest findings add a new dimension to previous research by the same team that altered the perception of icebergs as large, familiar, but passive, elements of the Antarctic seascape. The team previously showed that icebergs act, in effect, as ocean “oases” of nutrients for aquatic life and sea birds.

The teams’s research indicates that ordinary icebergs are likely to become more prevalent in the Southern Ocean, particularly as the Antarctic Peninsula continues a well-documented warming trend and ice shelves disintegrate. Research also shows that these ordinary icebergs are important features of not only marine ecosystems, but even of global carbon cycling.

“These new findings amplify the team’s previous discoveries about icebergs and confirm that icebergs contribute yet another, previously unsuspected, dimension of physical and biological complexity to polar ecosystems,” said Roberta L. Marinelli, director of the NSF’s Antarctic Organisms and Ecosystems Program.

NSF manages the U.S. Antarctic Program, through which it coordinates all U.S. scientific research and related logistics on the southernmost continent and aboard ships in the Southern Ocean.

The latest findings document a persistent change in physical and biological characteristics of surface waters after the transit of an iceberg, which has important effects on phytoplankton populations, clearly demonstrating “that icebergs influence oceanic surface waters and mixing to greater extents than previously realized,” said Ronald S. Kaufmann, associate professor of marine science and environmental studies at the University of San Diego and one of the authors of the paper.

The researchers studied the effects by sampling the area around a large iceberg more than 32 kilometers (20 miles) long; the same area was surveyed again ten days later, after the iceberg had drifted away.

After ten days, the scientists observed increased concentrations of chlorophyll a and reduced concentrations of carbon dioxide, as compared to nearby areas without icebergs. These results are consistent with the growth of phytoplankton and the removal of carbon dioxide from the ocean.

The new results demonstrate that icebergs provide a connection between the geophysical and biological domains that directly affects the carbon cycle in the Southern Ocean, Marinelli added.

In 2007, the same team published findings in the journal Science that icebergs serve as “hotspots” for ocean life with thriving communities of seabirds above and a web of phytoplankton, krill and fish below. At that time, the researchers reported that icebergs hold trapped terrestrial material, which they release far out at sea as they melt, a process that produces a “halo effect” with significantly increased nutrients and krill out to a radius of more than three kilometers (two miles).

The new research was conducted as part of a multi-disciplinary project that also involved scientists from the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, University of South Carolina, University of Nevada, Reno, University of South Carolina, Brigham Young University, and the Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences.

Scripps Institution of Oceanography research biologist Maria Vernet and graduate student Gordon Stephenson also contributed to the paper.

-NSF-

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

70 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Keith Minto
April 1, 2011 12:00 am

Negative feedback AND glaciers growing,
If the phytoplankton-boosting effect of the bergs is as big as the NSF appears to be suggesting, however, it would seem that any carbon-driven temperature rise could be at least partly self-correcting.
Increased iceberg shedding would seem likely to be seen mainly or only around the western peninsula: antarctic sea ice shelves elsewhere are actually growing, not shrinking, and at such a rate as to outweigh the peninsular losses. The past three decades have seen the south-polar ice sheets grow by 300,000 square kilometres overall.

To complete the trifecta, Pine Island glacier melt not due to Climate Change.
Have to pinch myself, after all, it is still April 1 here.

Andy G
April 1, 2011 12:03 am

Ain’t Mother Nature grand.
The ultimate balancing act .

Andy G
April 1, 2011 12:06 am

For the religious..
He knew we were coming
He knew we would need energy so he buried a whole heap of carbon for us to use later.
He also arranged it so that bringing that carbon back to the surface would not cause too many problems (except in the minds of the gullible)

Leon Brozyna
April 1, 2011 12:37 am

So much for the science being settled.
Wonder how many other surprises they’ll find over the next few decades.
Heck, before you know it they’ll come up with a new computer model that shows that mankind’s impact on the climate is only a minor and insignificant wiggle on the cyclical climate changes.

SteveE
April 1, 2011 12:54 am

Interesting idea, any figures on how much CO2 they are likely to trap by the increasing melting caused by global warming?
It’s refreshing to see an article on this blog that suggests there is a connection between CO2 and global warming though.
Well done!

John Marshall
April 1, 2011 1:23 am

And it has now been discovered that the ocean ridge system, home to the world’s most extensive volcanic chain some 40,000 miles long, produces more CO2 than previously thought. Volumes up to an order of magnitude more!
So our production of CO2 from fossil fuel use, estimated as some 3% of the total annual production has now been reduced to below 3%. In fact really nothing to worry about.

April 1, 2011 1:34 am

But surely the robust computer models that all scientest agrre on, already had this feedback effect factored in?
“There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know.”
Seems like there are plenty more “unknown unknowns” yet to find.

April 1, 2011 1:37 am

There must be a MODEL for that surely. Get the Fortran code book and find out what’s wrong.

SteveE
April 1, 2011 1:51 am

John Marshall
Who discovered that then and where is the supporting evidence please?
As humans emit about 100 times the amount that volcanos emit I don’t think that’s really going to change much, or where the measurable increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has come from.
Nice try though.

MangoChutney
April 1, 2011 1:59 am


It’s refreshing to see an article on this blog that suggests there is a connection between CO2 and global warming though.
Steve,
I think you will find that nobody doubts there is a connection between CO2 and global warming. The question is how significant – read up on climate sensitivity before replying
/Mango
I don’t dent climate change, I know climate changes

jmrSudbury
April 1, 2011 2:05 am

The CO2 levels have been increasing for decades according to measurements at Mauna Loa. This is article shows a neat idea, but it does not seem like it has a huge affect. — John M Reynolds

sophocles
April 1, 2011 2:11 am

Gee shucks—so the cooling effect of the ice-berg increase CO2 absorbtion. Wow—U would never have guessed! Isn’t that one of the reasons we keep fizzy drinks in the refrigerator?

April 1, 2011 2:23 am

John Marshall
“And it has now been discovered that the ocean ridge system, home to the world’s most extensive volcanic chain some 40,000 miles long, produces more CO2 than previously thought. Volumes up to an order of magnitude more!”
I would also like to see that study. Do you have a link for it.

SteveE
April 1, 2011 2:35 am

MangoChutney says:
April 1, 2011 at 1:59 am
I’m quite aware of climate sensitivity, but the general view on here is that CO2 has very little if any noticable effect. This article suggests that there is enough of an effect to increase the melting of the ice bergs but this will then act as a CO2 sink. I’d imagine you’d need a hell of a lot of melts though to off set 29 billion tonnes of CO2 that man emits into the atmosphere each year.
I don’t know for sure as this article doesn’t provide any numbers but I can’t imagine it’s going to be much.

Darren Parker
April 1, 2011 3:16 am

391.76 is the reading for february co2 at mauna lua. the chart on teh side has 390.3

SteveE
April 1, 2011 3:29 am

Murray Grainger says:
April 1, 2011 at 1:34 am
Seems like there are plenty more “unknown unknowns” yet to find.
———
Indeed, how many positive feed backs are there that we are unaware of?

April 1, 2011 3:38 am

SteveE
Yep, there could be more positive feedbacks. Could be more negative feedbacks. As you are pointing out, the science ain’t settled.
That said, this article seems as full of “may”s and “likely”s as any other climate article.
My own computer model (Sim City) says Tokyo is due to be hit by Godzilla soon.

bruce
April 1, 2011 3:46 am

Probably not a high level of impact on Global atmospheric CO2, respecting the cited study. This work seems more characteristic along expected lines of the incremental back-tracking (face-saving) that will be seen in various scientific institutions over the next decade or so over this issue. A decade or two after that you will get a more rational perspective. These are just the typical limits of humans trying to do a difficult thing called science under conditions which impair objectivity, including conflicts of interest and political influences. Expect more baby steps.

SteveE
April 1, 2011 3:57 am

Frank Lee MeiDere says:
April 1, 2011 at 3:38 am
————-
hehe, it never rains but it pours!

Roger Knights
April 1, 2011 3:59 am

jmrSudbury says:
April 1, 2011 at 2:05 am
The CO2 levels have been increasing for decades according to measurements at Mauna Loa. This is article shows a neat idea, but it does not seem like it has a huge affect. — John M Reynolds

It’s a negative feedback whose impact will grow as global warming increases. That’s why its impact has been minor so far.

Jimbo
April 1, 2011 4:02 am

Think Gaia.
There is not going to be any runaway warming caused by man-made greenhouse gases.
http://erg.ucd.ie/arupa/references/gaia.html
http://www.theresilientearth.com/

Jimbo
April 1, 2011 4:15 am


It’s refreshing to see an article on this blog that suggests there is a connection between CO2 and global warming though.

From my understanding increased co2 does lead to some warming. Can you let me know how much warming it has been responsible for since 1980? Before you begin please read the following first.

“Ensemble reconstruction constraints on the global carbon cycle sensitivity to climate”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08769.html
“Amplification of Global Warming by Carbon-Cycle Feedback Significantly Less Than Thought, Study Suggests”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127134721.htm
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08769.html

Dr. James Hansen et. al.2000
“A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting.”

Dr. James Hansen et. al.2003
“Plausible estimates for the effect of soot on snow and ice albedos (1.5% in the Arctic and 3% in Northern Hemisphere land areas) yield a climate forcing of +0.3 W/m2 in the Northern Hemisphere. The “efficacy” of this forcing is ~2, i.e., for a given forcing it is twice as effective as CO2 in altering global surface air temperature.”

Dr. Phil Jones email – July, 2005
“The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

Dr. Kevin Trenberth – October, 2009
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

Dr. Phil Jones interview – February, 2010
Roger Harrabin – “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming”
Phil Jones – “Yes, but only just.”

Richard M
April 1, 2011 4:50 am

SteveE says:
April 1, 2011 at 3:29 am
Indeed, how many positive feed backs are there that we are unaware of?

For a system to last as long as Earth’s climate it’s pretty obvious to thinking people that there can’t be significant positive feedbacks

tonyb
Editor
April 1, 2011 4:59 am

Does anyone have a clear and easy to understand graph/table that illustrates at what temperature/circumstances absorption of Co2 in sea water becomes outgasing?
I read somewhere that 26 degrees C is the opitimal temperature of sea water for maximum outgassing and that 7ppm of co2 are released for each 1 degree of ocean temperature increase (and presumably the other way round).
The temperatures of the sea around our part of the UK range from a low in a cold winter of 5C (more normally 8C) up to a maximum -if we are really lucky- of 20C (more usually 17C) in the summer. This depends greatly on the depth of the ocean.
So is the UK constantly outgassing or constantly absorbing or a mixture of the two?
tonyb

April 1, 2011 5:25 am

Tonyb,
I don’t suppose this is exactly what you’re asking for, but it’s what I have:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Focus_0808_endersbee.pdf
http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/bilder/CO2-MBL-SST.pdf

1 2 3