Robust uncertainty

There’s nothing like conflicting your title in your own press release.

Conflicting title and statement - even more uncertainty in other studies according to the PR

From the University of Wisconsin-Madison

Climate change reducing ocean’s carbon dioxide uptake

MADISON – How deep is the ocean’s capacity to buffer against climate change?

As one of the planet’s largest single carbon absorbers, the ocean takes up roughly one-third of all human carbon emissions, reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide and its associated global changes.

But whether the ocean can continue mopping up human-produced carbon at the same rate is still up in the air. Previous studies on the topic have yielded conflicting results, says University of Wisconsin-Madison assistant professor Galen McKinley.

In a new analysis published online July 10 in Nature Geoscience, McKinley and her colleagues identify a likely source of many of those inconsistencies and provide some of the first observational evidence that climate change is negatively impacting the ocean carbon sink.

“The ocean is taking up less carbon because of the warming caused by the carbon in the atmosphere,” says McKinley, an assistant professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a member of the Center for Climatic Research in the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies.

The analysis differs from previous studies in its scope across both time and space. One of the biggest challenges in asking how climate is affecting the ocean is simply a lack of data, McKinley says, with available information clustered along shipping lanes and other areas where scientists can take advantage of existing boat traffic. With a dearth of other sampling sites, many studies have simply extrapolated trends from limited areas to broader swaths of the ocean.

McKinley and colleagues at UW-Madison, the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, and the Universite Pierre et Marie Curie in Paris expanded their analysis by combining existing data from a range of years (1981-2009), methodologies, and locations spanning most of the North Atlantic into a single time series for each of three large regions called gyres, defined by distinct physical and biological characteristics.

They found a high degree of natural variability that often masked longer-term patterns of change and could explain why previous conclusions have disagreed. They discovered that apparent trends in ocean carbon uptake are highly dependent on exactly when and where you look – on the 10- to 15-year time scale, even overlapping time intervals sometimes suggested opposite effects.

“Because the ocean is so variable, we need at least 25 years’ worth of data to really see the effect of carbon accumulation in the atmosphere,” she says. “This is a big issue in many branches of climate science – what is natural variability, and what is climate change?”

Working with nearly three decades of data, the researchers were able to cut through the variability and identify underlying trends in the surface CO2 throughout the North Atlantic.

During the past three decades, increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide have largely been matched by corresponding increases in dissolved carbon dioxide in the seawater. The gases equilibrate across the air-water interface, influenced by how much carbon is in the atmosphere and the ocean and how much carbon dioxide the water is able to hold as determined by its water chemistry.

But the researchers found that rising temperatures are slowing the carbon absorption across a large portion of the subtropical North Atlantic. Warmer water cannot hold as much carbon dioxide, so the ocean’s carbon capacity is decreasing as it warms.

In watching for effects of increasing atmospheric carbon on the ocean’s uptake, many people have looked for indications that the carbon content of the ocean is rising faster than that of the atmosphere, McKinley says. However, their new results show that the ocean sink could be weakening even without that visible sign.

“More likely what we’re going to see is that the ocean will keep its equilibration but it doesn’t have to take up as much carbon to do it because it’s getting warmer at the same time,” she says. “We are already seeing this in the North Atlantic subtropical gyre, and this is some of the first evidence for climate damping the ocean’s ability to take up carbon from the atmosphere.”

She stresses the need to improve available datasets and expand this type of analysis to other oceans, which are relatively less-studied than the North Atlantic, to continue to refine carbon uptake trends in different ocean regions. This information will be critical for decision-making, since any decrease in ocean uptake may require greater human efforts to control carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

###

McKinley’s work on the project was supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

66 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Alvin
July 10, 2011 5:56 pm

“One of the biggest challenges in asking how climate is affecting the ocean is simply a lack of data, McKinley says, with available information clustered along shipping lanes and other areas where scientists can take advantage of existing boat traffic. With a dearth of other sampling sites, many studies have simply extrapolated trends from limited areas to broader swaths of the ocean.
Models, meh.

July 10, 2011 6:05 pm

“In a new analysis published online July 10 in Nature Geoscience, McKinley and her colleagues identify a likely source of many of those inconsistencies and provide some of the first observational evidence that climate change is negatively impacting the ocean carbon sink.
“The ocean is taking up less carbon because of the warming caused by the carbon in the atmosphere,” says McKinley, an assistant professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a member of the Center for Climatic Research in the Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies.”

July 10, 2011 6:06 pm

Run for the Hills
Hey! various things
might endanger the planet
and kill all of us!
Clever scientists
say that possible perils
could be dangerous.

Retired Engineer
July 10, 2011 6:10 pm

The ocean is getting warmer?

Packman1
July 10, 2011 6:14 pm

So, less “acidification”? Would flora increase over time, as well? Then, the ocean CO2 sink would grow. So many possibilities, such poor models and poorer data!

jorgekafkazar
July 10, 2011 6:20 pm

“…They found a high degree of natural variability that often masked longer-term patterns of change and could explain why previous conclusions have disagreed. They discovered that apparent trends in ocean carbon uptake are highly dependent on exactly when and where you look – on the 10- to 15-year time scale, even overlapping time intervals sometimes suggested opposite effects….”
In other words, the noisy signal gives no discernible information, and the imaginary trends that they just absolutely KNOW must be there, can’t be detected. Grant money in, garbage out. Science is dead.

DonShock
July 10, 2011 6:25 pm

Just make sure you don’t mention the possibility that natural warming of the oceans lowers the solubility of all gases, not just CO2. So instead of high manmade CO2 causing warming which then lowers ocean CO2 uptake leading to even worse man caused climate catastrophe, maybe the real sequence is natural warming heats the ocean which then releases stored CO2. But that wouldn’t justify all those nice regulations the power hungry climategate crew their AGW bretheren are after.

Leon Brozyna
July 10, 2011 6:27 pm

OTOH, as Dr. Spencer noted in his piece yesterday:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/09/while-suns-in-a-funk-no-hint-of-resumed-warming-in-the-oceans/
the trend for SSTs during the past 9 years (yeah, I know, it’s only 9) is mostly flat to very slightly cooling. And while it’s for more than just the North Atlantic, it suggests continued uptake of that most noxious gas.
Of course, there’s also those pesky plants that are acting like they’ve been invited to an all-you-can-eat buffet.

Dave L.
July 10, 2011 6:28 pm

And Dr. Spencer just had a post on July 9 here at WUWT showing that according to NASA’s Aqua satellite, there has been no warming of the global sea surface during the last 9 years.

Hugh
July 10, 2011 6:30 pm

In response, expect rational agwers to heave a sigh of relief and promptly ditch their “global warming = increasing ocean acidification” bogey …

RoHa
July 10, 2011 6:32 pm

But we’re still doomed, right?

kwik
July 10, 2011 6:32 pm

Are the climate scientist’s finally catching up with Henry’s law? he!

ew-3
July 10, 2011 6:34 pm

“University of Wisconsin-Madison”
Not exactly MIT, and a staff full of watermelons.

Latitude
July 10, 2011 6:48 pm

Well we always knew that the UoW is on the cutting edge of marine research…………
Dr. Spencer just demonstrated that SST’s have been going down, clouds go up/SST’s go down…
…so let them figure that one out

Latitude
July 10, 2011 6:49 pm

kwik says:
July 10, 2011 at 6:32 pm
Are the climate scientist’s finally catching up with Henry’s law? he!
====================================================
LOL it’s the UofW……don’t get your hopes up

Ed Caryl
July 10, 2011 6:51 pm

But the AMO is a 70 year cycle! Didn’t these kids look at the basics?

Sean
July 10, 2011 6:53 pm

Does anyone look at the possibility that co2 in water with minerals and salts is not just a dissolved gas? It gets tied up in things like cacium bicarbonate or Ca(HCO3)2. In warm tropical waters it breaks down to calcium carbonate which precipitates out (sequestering carbon dioxide), water and co2 which can be released to the atmosphere. So more warm water in shallow seas ought to increase the rate of this one way trip (sequestration) for half the co2.

TA
July 10, 2011 6:59 pm

Good to see what small funds are left for NASA going to measuring ocean water, instead of actually doing something in space.

July 10, 2011 7:00 pm

Oh Lord, please save us from simple minded models!
Carbon uptake in the oceans is highly dynamic due to a little thing called BIOMASS. Yes, I now work for NASA designing their command, control, communications and Information systems across flight and ground. But before that I was a biology major with a passion for oceans and marine life.
And if ANYONE cared to think this through one would know the oceans’ ability to ‘take up’ carbon is directly related to the biomass of corals, shell fish, etc. Because these massive communities ‘take up’ carbon to form Calcium Carbonate, which in turn becomes an integral part of sedimentary rocks.
If one only looks at the chemical absorption of CO2 gas in a liquid, one is only looking at a small portion of the entire system of transforming atmospheric carbon to rock (and of course the other way around).
When did we get so narrow minded? – AJStrata

M2Cents
July 10, 2011 7:13 pm

The bad news is that they look to have only 2 cycles, averaged over 3 large areas, and have found a potential trend in one of those areas.
The good news is that they admit the limitations of the study, not that that will slow down the advocates of manmade climate change, and are calling for more studies in other regions to confirm the trend is global.

DCC
July 10, 2011 7:25 pm

Did these “researchers” bother to include a plot of sea-surface temperature vs time? The way they talk, they have never heard of the UAH SST project. Or did they dismiss those obvious measurements because they only go back 30 years instead of the 25 years they say they need?

July 10, 2011 7:30 pm

1) As photosynthetic activity is an alkalizing process, these waters would soak up CO2 better with the higher pH, as the carbonic acid formed at dissolution of CO2 would be instantly deprotonated to bicarbonate and thus facilitate CO2 absorption. They find a lot of variability? Duh!
2) This is not a simple gas solubility problem since there are successive equilibria involved, going from CO2 to carbonic acid to bicarbonate to carbonate to calcium carbonate. Add more CO2 and you facilitate calcium carbonate deposition and shell formation. The minor amount of protons released by carbonic acid barely changes the pH; marine life loves higher CO2 as their physiology can well handle much higher CO2 and any attendant pH changes that might entail.
3) Even if the oceans were warming a bit, with CO2 rising, CO2 would counterbalance the effect of gas being less soluble in warm that cold water by having a higher partial pressure. However, with the linked equilibria and no outside source of protons (protons given off by the equilibria cannot effect them). Warming alone does not cook CO2 out of the water—it’s solubility is higher due to the chemistry involved.
Sodas have a lot of CO2 to release because we purposely add acid, such as phosphoric acid, to keep the carbonate and bicarbonate protonated to form carbonic acid, situated to break down to CO2 and H2O as soon as the overhead CO2 pressure is decreased by opening the bottle. This is NOT how our oceans work!

Martin C
July 10, 2011 7:36 pm

Here’s something that occurred to me (let alone the good comments about the ocean and life that uptakes the CO2 . . ) – CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere. And the colder waters in higher latitudes (towards the north pole and south pole) will absorb more than lower latitudes. In the Arctic ocean, the water sinks as part of the thermohaline circulation (not sure if there is sinking at the south pole also . . ) So how much CO2 does that account for in terms of removing it from the atmosphere. .?
And what is the time frame for that sinking water in/around the arctic ocean to circulate and make it’s way back to the surface ( maybe hundred of years – trying to recall seeing that somewhere. . .?) And if the ocean surfaces have warmed over the last 30 years or so ( even though almost none in the past several years), wouldn’t the CO2 then get released? Might that be part of the increase come from water that might have been on the surface during the MWP?
Or is the volume of water per year that resurfaces not sufficient to have a major impact to CO2 . . .( . .maybe just answered my own question . .). Any comments from the ocean experts would be great.

jonjermey
July 10, 2011 7:42 pm

During the Middle Ages the Catholic Church realised it couldn’t totally suppress dissent and free thought, so it adopted a simple policy: writers were allowed to publish ‘speculation’ on all sorts of heresy, as long as they included a disclaimer stating that this was, of course, nonsense, and the only truth was in the possession of the Holy Mother Church.
Need I say more?

July 10, 2011 7:43 pm

AJStrata says:
July 10, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Oh Lord, please save us from simple minded models!
Good post, most of know that we don’t know and the more we know the more we know we don’t know … but it is fun to play with models. That’s why some of us started with model aeroplanes and some ended up at NASA with really big models.

1 2 3
Verified by MonsterInsights