Measurements of Carbon in the Arctic Ocean – “Carbon is the currency of life."

New Study by WHOI Scientists Provides Baseline Measurements of Carbon in Arctic Ocean

Griffith and his colleagues conducted their fieldwork in 2008 aboard the Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker Louis S. St. Laurent. At two different spots in the Canada Basin, an area northwest of the Canadian coast, they gathered samples from 24 depths ranging from the surface to the ocean floor 3800 meters (roughly 12,500 feet) below.

Scientists from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) have conducted a new study to measure levels of carbon at various depths in the Arctic Ocean. The study, recently published in the journal Biogeosciences, provides data that will help researchers better understand the Arctic Ocean’s carbon cycle—the pathway through which carbon enters and is used by the marine ecosystem. It will also offer an important point of reference for determining how those levels of carbon change over time, and how the ecosystem responds to rising global temperatures.

“Carbon is the currency of life. Where carbon is coming from, which organisms are using it, how they’re giving off carbon themselves—these things say a lot about how an ocean ecosystem works,” says David Griffith, the lead author on the study. “If warming temperatures perturb the Arctic Ocean, the way that carbon cycles through that system may change.”

Griffith’s team sampled suspended particles of organic matter, as well as organic carbon and carbon dioxide (CO2) dissolved into the surrounding water. This is the first time that researchers have focused broadly on measuring multiple types of carbon at the same time and place in the Arctic Ocean—due to its remote location and the challenges of operating in sea ice, few comprehensive carbon surveys had been conducted there before this study.

Griffith and his colleagues conducted their fieldwork in 2008 aboard the Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker Louis S. St. Laurent. At two different spots in the Canada Basin, an area northwest of the Canadian coast, they gathered samples from 24 depths ranging from the surface to the ocean floor 3800 meters (roughly 12,500 feet) below.

Collecting samples at those intervals was necessary, Griffith says, because the Arctic Ocean is separated into distinct layers, each with its own unique carbon characteristics. At the surface is a freshwater layer from river runoff and sea-ice melt. Below that is a layer of cold water from the Pacific, and below that is a warm, salty Atlantic layer. The deepest layer is slowly replaced by mixing with overlying Atlantic water.

Measuring the different amounts of carbon in each layer (and determining its source) is an essential step in understanding the flow of carbon through the marine ecosystem, says Griffith: “It’s kind of like understanding how freight and people move in a city. If you don’t know what’s coming in and out, it’s really hard to understand how the city works.”

To analyze the contents of his samples, Griffith turned to Ann McNichol, a WHOI senior researcher and staff chemist. At WHOI’s National Ocean Sciences Accelerator Mass Spectrometer Facility (NOSAMS), she tallied the total number of carbon atoms in each specimen, including carbon-13, a stable isotope of the element. McNichol says that it can be used to determine where a particular pool of carbon originated, and how it may have been utilized by the marine ecosystem.

“Carbon-13 is primarily a source indicator,” she says. “By measuring levels of carbon-13 at different depths, it’s possible to determine if the carbon there was generated by the marine environment, ocean ice environment, or by terrestrial sources.” The team also examined levels of carbon-14, a radioactive isotope that can help determine the age of each sample to further determine its source.

In addition to understanding the basic carbon cycle in the Arctic Ocean, Griffith’s team hopes that the results of this baseline study will help evaluate how Arctic Ocean carbon levels and global climate interact. Griffith says there are several ways this could happen.

As the Arctic gradually warms, it may cause a more intense precipitation cycle over northern Canada, Alaska, and Siberia, generating more rainfall each year. This in turn would cause more runoff from melting permafrost and eroded soil—both rich sources of organic carbon.

One possible outcome of that scenario could be an increase of carbon dioxide in the region. As bacteria in Arctic Ocean use the new influx of carbon as a food source, they may create CO2 as a byproduct. A second possibility, Griffith posits, is that warming temperatures and melting sea ice might boost the production of phytoplankton, tiny plant-like organisms that live near the ocean’s surface and thrive on carbon dioxide in the water. As those phytoplankton die (or are eaten by other organisms and released as waste), they would sink to the sea floor, causing the carbon in their bodies to be sequestered in thick sediments—effectively removing the increased carbon from the environment.

“Those are just a few aspects of what might happen. But for every one that we think about, there could be 10 others that drive the system in a different direction,” says Griffith. “We don’t yet have the kind of data to say anything definitive about how the Arctic would be affected by warming climate—but what we do have is a very important baseline of data to help evaluate changes that will happen in the future. Without that, you‘re unfortunately just guessing at how things change over time.”

Also collaborating on the study were WHOI geochemist Li Xu, Fiona McLaughlin and Robie Macdonald of the Institute of Ocean Sciences, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Kristina Brown of the University of British Columbia, and Timothy Eglinton of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.

This research was funded by the WHOI Arctic Research Initiative, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Canadian International Polar Year Office, and the U.S. National Science Foundation.

Source: http://www.whoi.edu/main/news-releases?tid=3622&cid=137709

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
55 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
richardscourtney
May 22, 2012 11:21 pm

Crispin in Waterloo:
At May 22, 2012 at 3:32 pm you ask;
Geoff Sherrington says:
“As a chemist, before seeing the manuscript, I would hope that the sulphur cycle is studied alongside, just as intensively.”
+++++++++
Agreed, Geoff. Some associates have been measuring atmospheric H2S from coal combustion in urban areas and there is a lot of new science in Sulphur. It is quite reactive and involved in lots of atmospheric things. There are even lifeforms that live on it. It is in just about everything. Our noses are not very sensitive to much, but extremely sensitive to H2S. Why? What is in it for us?
With respect, you answer your own question when you say “It is in just about everything”.
Sulphur (S) is essential for living things (e.g. it provides chemical bonds that hold muscle fibers – including your heart – together). And almost all sulphur compounds are very water soluble with the resulting solution including dilute H2S.
So, rotting things release sulphur and adjacent atmospheric water vapour gains H2S. Thus, bad food smells bad. And eating bad food can kill you, so not eating bad food increases life expectancy.
Hence, natural selection has provided our noses with sensitivity to water-soluble sulphur compounds
And almost all bad smells (e.g. skunk emissions) are unpleasant because they provide much sulphur to our noses.
Richard

Lady Life Grows
May 23, 2012 4:29 pm

The researchers themselves made plenty of sense. Among other things, they comment that for every possible effect they noted, there could be ten they had not imagined (ok 1000 would be more likely, but they get the point).
A baseline is good.
But the screamers are going to look at whatever changes in a mere 5 or 10 years and howl that mankind has damaged the environment. There are certain to be changes, magnitude and kind unpredictable. The changes in the deeper levels can only reflect events of centuries ago but the screamers have nothing to do with real reasoning or science. The change is BAD, it is DRASTIC, it is more serious than anything that ever happened before, yada yada. The only protection carbonaceous being like us have against all this is to predict it right now, and point fingers at them when they indeed make fools of themselves in a few years.

George E. Smith;
May 23, 2012 5:38 pm

“””””” Urederra says:
May 22, 2012 at 2:36 pm
Matt says:
May 22, 2012 at 10:27 am
Isn’t “organic carbon” redundant?
Calcium carbonate is considered “inorganic”. “””””
The hell you say; so what is the inorganic origin of all the “limestone” rocks and oceanic deposits like the White Cliffs of Dover ??

Brian H
May 23, 2012 9:28 pm

Collecting data is dangerous to an agenda; it may not snuggle into its designated slots properly. I’ll be interested to see how soon and “transparently” the data collected here is archived and opened for examination.

Zeke
May 23, 2012 11:21 pm

“Carbon is the currency of life.”
Funny the authors should mention “carbon” and “currency,” since banks would love to have a carbon trading market and governments would love to have a method of regulating personal energy use by putting a Smartmeter on homes. And of course there is the carbon tax. Romney is a carbon tax candidate by the way. It’s in his books, in his past policies as governor, and in recent statements. And considering no Republicans voted for the Obamacare bill, how did republicans get a candidate who both penned Romneycare and said it would make a good model for the country? And is running on the platform that it is a good plan for its state, though it is running billions over projected costs?