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
C Porter
July 11, 2011 2:31 am

“This is a big issue in many branches of climate science – what is natural variability, and what is climate change?”
No problem here with conflation of natural and anthropogenic climate change. Climate change is clearly only man made according to McKinley, such is the degree of indoctrination within her peer group. Natural climate change is mearly natural variabilty.

Alan the Brit
July 11, 2011 3:02 am

After three decades of research we get this:-
“This is a big issue in many branches of climate science – what is natural variability, and what is climate change?”
Seems to me they cannot even determine whether the climate ever changes or not! Ms McKinley is so certain; “could”, “may”, “possibly”, “likely”! Uncertainty (yep, my trusty 1925 Pocket OED, bought it as an aid to report writing 20 years ago & still doing me proud!):- unsettled (that’s a good one!), failing (even better), erring, unreliable, unsure, disputable, doubtful, unconvincing, not assured………..(Need I go on, my brain hurts?) so give us even more dosh to be even more uncertain than we were before! Purrleeeese!

Bill Illis
July 11, 2011 4:53 am

Here is the global net absorption of CO2 by Oceans, Plants and Soils each year since 1750 in ppm (approximately of course).
A nice exponential line which is about 50% of our annual emissions. The amount absorbed in the last few years is more than double what it was 30 years ago.
http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/2832/co2absorptionperyear175.png
It is approximately 1.0% each year of the amount in the atmosphere which is above 280 ppm.
http://img804.imageshack.us/img804/4348/co2absorptionperyear194.png

JP
July 11, 2011 5:55 am

Wow, not only does CO2 act as a GHG, but it also warms the oceans. Stop the presses!!! Re-issue 9th grade Earth Science books!!! I was taught, back int he Stone Age, that the Sun warms the oceans, and the oceans in turn warm the lower atmosphere. After reading this piece, I now learn that this trace gas (CO2) has several magical qualities.
Of course, her theory would go straight to the ash-bin if there was an increase in cloud cover over the tropical oceans that persisted for several years. Now only would her theory be doomed, but many people would notice that the weather patterns all over the world would get downright cold. I am still one of those fossils who believe that if you decrease insolation over the tropical oceans you cool the globe despite the levels of CO2.

July 11, 2011 6:06 am

Flood,
I see, some small isolated systems with increased silica have now caused the oceans to lose the ability absorb carbon, as well as all the other biomass still out there is now crippled in its carbon uptake capacity …
So glad you were able to clear that up for all us. I had no idea such localized changes could incur such enormous ripple effects?
I gather you are implying the CO2 in the oceans is NOT being taken up as fast as before (even though the article makes no such claim and only ponders were the limit might be). And all due to more silica! The new GHG replacement has arrived!
Sarcasm off.

frank
July 11, 2011 6:09 am

As with IPCC reports, the science is more likely to be found in the paper rather than the press release.
Accessible copy of the paper: http://precedings.nature.com/documents/5993/version/1/files/npre20115993-1.pdf
Abstract: The oceans’ carbon uptake substantially reduces the rate of anthropogenic carbon accumulation in the atmosphere1, and thus slows global climate change. Some diagnoses of trends in ocean carbon uptake have suggested a significant weakening in recent years2-8, while others conclude that decadal variability confounds detection of long-term trends 9-11. Here, we study trends in observed surface ocean partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) in three gyre-scale biomes of the North Atlantic, considering decadal to multidecadal timescales between 1981 and 2009. Trends on decadal timescales are of variable magnitudes and depend sensitively on the precise choice of years. As more years are considered, oceanic pCO2 trends begin to converge to the trend in atmospheric pCO2. North of 30 degN, it takes 25 years for the influence of decadal-timescale climate variability to be overcome by a long-term trend that is consistent with the accumulation of anthropogenic carbon. In the permanently stratified subtropical gyre, warming has recently become a significant contributor to the observed increase in oceanic pCO2. This warming, previously attributed to both a multidecadal climate oscillation and anthropogenic climate forcing12,13, is beginning to reduce ocean carbon uptake. 24
 

RockyRoad
July 11, 2011 7:58 am

I sure hope the ocean’s uptake capacity for CO2 is reducing–I don’t want all this glorious CO2 to be gobbled up and taken from the atmosphere, thereby leaving us (plants directly; humans, and other animals indirectly) with no benefit.
(You thought I was going to put in the “/sarc off” line, right? Wrong. I’m serious.)

DesertYote
July 11, 2011 8:49 am

“the ocean takes up roughly one-third of all ‘human’ carbon emissions”
After a sentence like this, what is to follow will be pure propaganda.

July 11, 2011 8:53 am

Cognitive dissonance must be one of the hallmarks of human intellectual development: the ability to hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time. Perhaps it is useful to be able to act on multiple though contradictory scenarios at the same time – you’d be ready for anything that eventually showed up as actual rather than possible.
Increased atmospheric CO2 in a (very slightly) warming world that causes decreasing oceanic absorption seems to be one of those internally inconsistent scenarios. Obviously heating – which discharges CO2 through less solubility – is a nullifying effect to increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2, which creates a increased osmotic-like force to put more CO2 into the oceanic waters. But at an SST increase of only 0.35C (close enough) since 1979, the temperature component is very small. Biomass changes are so critical – look at the seasonal change in the Mauna Loa data to see the impact of vegetative growth in the Northern Hemisphere. – it is unsurprising that research is so regionally dependent.
Once again we have a global effect that shows up only regionally. Once again we have a catastrophic development that can’t be shown to be really any development at all with certainty. And none of this seems to get through to the warmist. Everything is rushing like a driverless train to a bridge-less ravine and yet we can’t be shown where the ravine is and which train it is we are talking about. Perhaps the warmists don’t understand the concepts of train schedules as they are always on bicycles (except when they are not): train schedules, like climate change scenarios, require you to know where it is going EXACTLY, how fast it is going EXACTLY and what obstacles might be on the route EXACTLY. Who would get on a train that MIGHT go to your destination sometime and MIGHT go down some track with or without problems?
Non-falsifiable hypotheses. Climate “scientists” always seem to be micro-specialists who don’t see or aren’t concerned about the disconnect between what they say and what their colleagues say. Perhaps that is why the WUWT-style researcher is the skeptic: only a generalist bumps into the problems.

Rick Rempel
July 11, 2011 11:53 am

Jorgekafkazar says it all!

July 11, 2011 1:11 pm

wholovesdavidhewlett says:
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
I believe a list like that was published here a little while back – check the archives. That’s a good start, at least.

Christine
July 11, 2011 3:48 pm

wholovesdavidhewlett says:
“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”
C3 site keeps updating a list of postings re: bad predictions ——- http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/

John Robertson
July 11, 2011 5:21 pm

This sounds like a grade 10/11 science project for kids living near an ocean. Take fresh ocean water at a fixed temperature, and bubble CO2 through it at a specific rate. Measure the change in PH after a set time and repeat the time interval until until the PH no longer changes (water/CO2 has reached equilibrium). Check this against fresh water at the same temperature. Then warm the same water a set amount (say 10C) …
Have a number of students doing the experiment and have unrelated party compare results.
I’m sure a scientist could come up with a better procedure, but this would be fun to do if enough science teachers along the coast of various countries became interested.

Huh?
July 11, 2011 11:26 pm

“With a dearth of other sampling sites, many studies have simply extrapolated trends from limited areas to broader swaths of the ocean.”
He must’ve gone to the Hansen school of advanced cherry picking.

eco-geek
July 12, 2011 12:53 am

John Brown,
[Snipped because I see no comment by or reference to John Brown on this page – mj]
[eco-geek, feel free to resubmit, this appears to have been an overzealous moderation by mj, our sincere apologies ~ ctm]

ScuzzaMan
July 12, 2011 4:48 am

I’m not convinced that “conflicting” can be used as a verb. I’d have thought “contradicting” would be preferable?

Verified by MonsterInsights