There’s nothing like conflicting your title in your own press release.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I swear the pal review process advances thusly: Scan document for keywords like “acidification” “could” “may” “carbon”. Ignore sentence structure or logical argument based on facts or data. Get out yer big “Publish” or “Perish” stamp. Send opinion to Journal editor, who happens to be a primate, species not clearly defined.
Honestly, the convolutions in this article indicate that the MSM hack who summarized the content has no basic grasp of the topic, nor critical synapse in her/his neural net.
@ur momisugly AJStrata, when indeed. One look at the Canadian Rockies is testimony enough as to the carbon-sinkiness of the oceans. Prepeat after me…C-a-r-b-o-n-a-t-e M-i-n-e-r-a-l-s
ew-3 says:
July 10, 2011 at 6:34 pm
“Not exactly MIT, and a staff full of watermelons.”
Holy Cow! Full of Watermelons!
Poor fellah’s, Hunting for new Grants day in, day out. Glad I got a real job then.
Now that sounds certain enough to tax the industrial world into oblivion. (/eye roll)
Nothing like fear mongering with out data.
NASA data from what looks to be 8 years or so ago appears to give a better description of the carbon cycle than the article under discussion but maybe it is covered in the details rather than the press release: http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-carbon-cycle/
A search on “carbon cycle” or “ocean carbon cycle” will provide lots of conflicting information. Clearly, we are still in the early stages of understanding the complexities of the carbon cycle.
“But whether the oceans can continue mopping up human-produce CO2 at the same rate is up in the air”
Yes, trace CO2 is definately up in the air. And compared to that humungous quantity of ocean water out there, the ability to absorb being limited is a big stretch of the imagination. ENSO turns the water over quite regularly, so I don’t see the big deal.
Even if it did not, you still have hungry plants that would gorge themselves if CO2 were to rise more, being that optimum begins at > 1000 ppm, and use less water, and do a lot more filtering of water supplies. Sounds like a boon for Bio if CO2 were to rise much further and faster than it does now.
Sigh. Only in a Bizzaro world are the building blocks of life despised and reviled as threats to the Planet.
Wayne Delbeke said: “A search on “carbon cycle” or “ocean carbon cycle” will provide lots of conflicting information. Clearly, we are still in the early stages of understanding the complexities of the carbon cycle.”
Early stages, indeed. I recall discussing the uncertainties of the carbon cycle in geochemistry course over 50 years ago. Very little has changed – we still don’t understand it completely.
A bunch of quotes?
AJStrata says: July 10, 2011 at 7:00 pm
quote
Oh Lord, please save us from simple minded models!
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.
unquote
Have a look at what we’ve done to the relative size of diatom vs calcareous phytoplankton populations in areas where dissolved silica levels have increased. Diatoms are not so good at fixing CO2 and also pull down more heavy isotopes that the usual C3 metabolism used by the chalky ones and, because their shells are made of the silica, they pump down less into the deep water. Result, more CO2 in the air with a light isotope signal.
Biology, it’s the biology….
JF
Overall temperatures of oceans and seas will also effect CO2 movement. Ever tried to swim in the
English channel or North sea without a wet suit. Then try Bermuda, it will spoil you swimming any where else. It’s like swimming in a tropical marine aquarium with all the little fishes coming up and picking at you. Parrot fish feeding out of your hands. It effected me coming back from Bermuda even in the summer months in Australia. And no sharks, sting rays or poisonous octopus or cone shells or jelly fish. Sea temps vary around the world. Where did they pick their samples. All this
‘whooo ahh’ about climate change do the scientists supporting AGW when the truth comes out will
they lose their credibility? I hope they do!
off topic slightly (ok, a bit), but does anyone know if there is somewhere on the internet where a list is kept of all the AGW predictions that have proven false thus far? You know, things like less snow and more hurricanes etc etc
It’s a pity the education system is so poor these days that assistant professors don’t know the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide.
Green lies is one. Rogerthesurf ‘Hasn’t anyone heard of the Medieval Warm Period. Joanne
Nova – but you might find it hard to find any one report that covers all the myths. Just keep looking you’ll find some. Best of luck.
Why are NASA (taxpayers) dollars funding this sort of work? Don’t they have space activities to work on?
Also look on U Tube there is quite a few there by reputable scientists like Prof.Bob Clark, then
you have ‘Michael Mann’s ‘Hide the decline’ on U Tube it was taken off but was on again not so long ago, Especially ‘ the one hour ‘Global Warming – The biggest scam’ plenty of them if you have broadband.
…They discovered that apparent trends in ocean carbon uptake are highly dependent on exactly when and where you look…
Really? Did they just admit to cherry picking the data?
And really, can we stop worrying about the neutralization of the ocean PH? I say neutralization because acidification is a poor phrasing. Neutralization is more accurate. Although, this study would suggest, not accurate either.
how long is a pice of string
OMG! How is all this profound research going to affect the central tennet of Warmism?
Carbon dioxide emitted by volcanoes does not appear in the atmosphere.
Obviously if the tiny human contribution of CO2 has now saturated the ocean sink then the much larger volcanic contribution is running out of places to hide. This brilliant piece of research is now illuminating a most obvious horror. We have initiated a dangerous positive feedback loop as the central tennet must now fail and a muliplier effect will take place: For every ton of CO2 we produce a further 20 tons of CO2 will appear in the atmosphere as a result of volcanic emissions.
I’m afraid there is now no alternative to the complete destruction of industrial society. I’m voting Green before its too late and calling for the end of democracy. The alternative is that we will all fry before Christmas.
Can I have a nice research grant please?
It seems to a classic case of the target being painted around the arrow.
Poor CO2, what have these evil people done to you… 🙁
Hmmm. They did have plenty of space to insert “May Be” in the headline. But they didn’t.
It is from Wisconsin. Maybe the political climate disruption there is causing everything.
This might have been mentioned, but doesn’t plankton growth increase with increases in CO2? And plankton eat CO2 and give off O2. Where is the balance in the science? Where is the science?
Eco-geek said: For every ton of CO2 we produce a further 20 tons of CO2 will appear in the atmosphere as a result of volcanic emissions.”
Do you have a reference for that? I was under the impression that volcanoes produce around 1-4% of human emissions, depending on whether you include sub-sea volcanoes, whose CO2 mainly goes straight into the deep ocean. I can provide links if you need them.
Just asking…
The sole reason for this paper and its rather dubious conclusions can be found in the penultimate sentence of the article:-
“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 means only one thing. Give me MORE MONEY.
I don’t think that these Madison people know what they are talking about. CO2 adsorption into sea water depends on water temperature and the partial pressure of the CO2 in the atmosphere. If the partial pressure increases then for a given temperature there will be an increase of CO2 adsorption until equilibrium is restored. It does not matter from where the CO2 comes from, volcano or coal fires power station it is the same CO2 as far as the sea is concerned.
The way these people are arguing is to ignore the laws of physics. They do not deserve any money. Tell them to get a real job sweeping the streets of Madison.