Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach [See updated graph]
Inspired by some comments on another thread, I decided to see what I could find in the way of actual measurements of the amount of CO2 in the surface layer of the ocean. I found the following data on the Scripps Institute web site. What they did was drive around the ocean on four different cruises, measuring both the atmospheric CO2 levels and at the same time, the amount of CO2 in the surface seawater. Figure 1 shows those results:
Figure 1. All air-ocean simultaneous measurements from four Scripps cruises are shown as blue dots. The horizontal axis shows sea surface temperature. The vertical axis shows the difference between the CO2 in the overlying air, and the CO2 in the water. The red line is a lowess curve through the data. The paper describing the Scripps data and methods is here.
Now, I have to say that those results were a big surprise to me.
The first surprise was that I was under the impression that there was some kind of close relationship between the atmospheric CO2, and the CO2 in the surface seawater. I expected their values to be within maybe 5 ppmv of each other. But in fact, many parts of the ocean are 50 ppmv lower than the CO2 concentration of the overlying air, and many other parts of the ocean have 50 ppmv or more of CO2 than the CO2 in the air above.
The second surprise was the change in not only the size but even in the sign of the trendline connecting temperature and CO2 (red line in Figure 1). Compared to the CO2 level in the air, below about 17°C the seawater CO2 decreases with increasing temperature, at a rate of about -2 ppmv per °C.
Above about 17°C, however, the seawater CO2 content relative to the air increases fairly rapidly with temperature, at about +4 ppmv per °C.
To describe the situation in another way, when the water is cool, it contains less CO2 than the overlying air … but when the water is warm, it has more CO2 than the overlying air.
Say what? I gotta confess, I have little in the way of explanations or comprehension of the reason for that pattern … all suggestions welcome.
w.
[UPDATE] By popular request, here is the same data, but in absolute rather than relative units and without the lowess curve.
Figure 2. As in Figure 1, but showing the CO2 content of the surface seawater directly. Atmospheric CO2 varied very little during the time of the measurements.
My main question in all of this is, how does the CO2 content of the seawater get to be up to 100 ppmv above the CO2 content of the overlying air? It seems to me that the driver must be biology … but I was born yesterday.
Regards,
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In reply to:
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 28, 2013 at 4:02 pm
William Astley says:
November 28, 2013 at 3:52 pm
The molecules of C14 that move into the surface ocean layer will be re-injected into the atmosphere thereby setting a plateau of C14 if that is in fact what physically happens.
William, the 14C that moves into the deep oceans is what makes the difference between 14CO2 and 12CO2 in behavior. That returns only after ~1000 years, while most 12CO2 returns in the same year. Nothing to do with 14C in the surface layer of the oceans.
And please, the CH4 origin or fate have nothing to do with the subject of pCO2 of the oceans vs. the atmosphere…
William:
Are you pretending to be ignorant? You appear to have no understanding of what physically happens to the CO2 molecules. Where does the 1000 years come from? IPCC mythology?
The IPCC’s Bern equation assumes there is minimal mixing of the surface ocean with the deep ocean, which explains the 173 year term.
News Flash: There is significant mixing of the Deep ocean and the surface ocean!!! Surely Ferdinand you must have heard about this.
Do you remember the news releases about heat hiding in the deep ocean? That is only possible if there is significant exchange of the surface ocean water with the deep ocean water. That is a game changer from the standpoint CAGW. If there is significant mixing of the surface ocean with the deep ocean deep ocean pCO2 reservoir as it contains more than 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere makes it physically impossible for the anthropogenic CO2 to increase CO2 levels more than 5% to 10% assuming all ‘fossil’ fuel is burnt. There is an exchange of CO2 with the surface ocean and the atmosphere which will as the assumed reservoirs (atmosphere and surface ocean) are approximately equal, significantly increase the content of 14C in the surface water. The Bern equation was written with the assumption that there is limited exchange and/or precipitation of CO2 out of the surface ocean the surface ocean will continue to maintain a high level of 14C in the atmosphere (if the IPCC model was correct), that is not what is observed. IPCC model is not correct, Big surprise.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/image1.png
Comment:
The Bern equation has three terms that vary with time to determine the remaining fraction of CO2 (any molecule of CO2).
From paper 1 (assuming the equation is correct).
“The Bern model in its pragmatic approximate form represents such a case. It describes the removal of carbon dioxide emission pulses in terms of a relaxation function (called impulse response function) involving three distinct phases governed by relaxation times of 1.2, 19, and 173 years, respectively [6]: Remaining fraction = 0.19 Exp[-t/1.2] + 0.34 Exp(-t/19] + 0.26 Exp[-t/173] + 0.22”
William:
The Bern equation was created to justify CAGW. It is a means to an end as opposed to a scientific based equation. I would highly recommend a read through this summary of the IPCC shenanigans concerning CO2 sinks.
http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/ESEF3VO2.pdf Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma by Tom V. Segalstad
The Bombtest data and the Humlum paper indicate that the majority of CO2 increase in the last 50 years was due to increasing the increase in temperature of the surface ocean, not due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Carbon_dioxide_Humlum_et_al.pdf
The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
The bombtest data and the Humlum paper indicate there is no CAGW problem. Humlum paper also notes that the data indicates that increases in CO2 do not cause an increase in planetary temperature which is supported by 8 other observations. There is no need to list them all, as that is kind of over kill. The CAGW parrot is dead. There is no need to beat a dead parrot.
Regardless, phase 2 of the climate story is starting to unfold, as the planet cools which will be followed by dropping CO2 levels. It is difficult to imagine what the media, public, and scientific community will be particularly when there has been papers written about the IPCC shenanigans. I would press for firings and black balling from future research for the key instigators.
DocMartyn says:
November 28, 2013 at 5:02 pm
DocMartyn,
The 14CO2 pulse decay is a matter of concentration decay:
At constant, equal in/out flux, the 14CO2 concentration decays rapidely with a ~12 years decay rate. Nothing changes with the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The concentration decay rate fully depends on the height of the in- or outflux and the total mass in the atmosphere.
The 12CO2 pulse decay is a matter of mass decay:
At constant, equal in/out flux, nothing happens with the 12CO2 amount in the atmosphere, even if every single 12CO2 molecule is replaced with a 12CO2 molecule from another reservoir with a decay rate of ~12 years.
But because both the influx and outflux changed with the increase in mass (pressure) above equilibrium, some of the extra 12CO2 mass is absorbed by the deep oceans. In that case, the mass decay rate depends of the difference between influx and outflux, no matter the height of influx or outflux.
Two different decay rates without much connection between them…
William Astley says:
November 28, 2013 at 7:31 pm
William, if you don’t read the scientific literature, you don’t know that the THC (thermohaline circulation) needs about 1000 years to return from the NE Atlantic sink places to the Pacific Ocean equatorial upwelling places (to much joy of the Chilean fishermen).
And I have explained to you, now several times, that I do think that the Bern model is wrong, as wrong as applying the bomb test curve to the human emissions. There is a lot of exchange between the atmosphere and the deep oceans, but the 14CO2 bomb pulse decay rate is about 3 times faster than for a pulse of extra 12CO2.
I have met Segalstad at a meeting in the European Parliament in Brussels, and had a firm discussion with him. He uses the residence time to “prove” that human emissions are not the cause of the increase in the atmosphere. But residence time and extra mass decay rate have nothing to do with each other. The same for the 14CO2 decay rate. And as repeatedly said, the Humlum paper is wrong. Its conclusions are falsified by the observations in the atmosphere.
One failed observation is sufficient to falsify even the nicest theory…
Willis’ dark red colourd data:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=713
Seems rather pointless doing massive scatter plots without taking geolocation into account but looks worth digging into
Greg says:
November 29, 2013 at 2:23 am
Is the middle of the delta pCO2 scale the zero difference?
Since ice ages cool the ocean and the upwelling from the equatorial Pacific is the last to freeze over you should expect ice ages to have high atmospheric CO2 levels. Ice cores for sure dont show this. I dont know if there is other data that points to high CO2 levels during ice ages?
In reply:
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
November 29, 2013 at 1:02 am
William Astley says:
November 28, 2013 at 7:31 pm
William, if you don’t read the scientific literature, you don’t know that the THC (thermohaline circulation) needs about 1000 years to return from the NE Atlantic sink places to the Pacific Ocean equatorial upwelling places (to much joy of the Chilean fishermen).
And I have explained to you, now several times, that I do think that the Bern model is wrong, as wrong as applying the bomb test curve to the human emissions. There is a lot of exchange between the atmosphere and the deep oceans, but the 14CO2 bomb pulse decay rate is about 3 times faster than for a pulse of extra 12CO2.
William:
The thermohaline conveyor which was postulated by Wally Broeker to try to explain the Heinrich event cooling is a myth. There is no conveyor. There is an interchange of surface ocean water with deep ocean water, however, the ocean water does not flow like a conveyor. See information and peer reviewed papers to support that assertion.
I see you are ignoring the implications of the heat hiding in the deep ocean hypothesis. If heat is hiding in the ocean then there must be significant mixing of the ocean surface waters with the ocean deep waters. That is the key. If there is mixing of surface ocean water with deep ocean waters then there is interchange of pCO2 with the deep ocean and with the surface ocean. As noted the deep ocean pCO2 reservoir is more than 50 times greater than the atmospheric CO2 reservoir. If there is significant mixing of the surface ocean water with the deep ocean water, the gradually anthropogenic CO2 emissions will be diluted by the massive deep ocean pCO2 reservoir.
There is no physical reason why the gradual release of anthropogenic CO2 will not be absorbed into the deep ocean pCO2 sink as was the 14CO2. The Bern equation is not correct.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/image1.png
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090513130942.htm
Cold Water Ocean Circulation Doesn’t Work As Expected
The familiar model of Atlantic ocean currents that shows a discrete “conveyor belt” of deep, cold water flowing southward from the Labrador Sea is probably all wet.
A 50-year-old model of ocean currents had shown this southbound subsurface flow of cold water forming a continuous loop with the familiar northbound flow of warm water on the surface, called the Gulf Stream.
“Everybody always thought this deep flow operated like a conveyor belt, but what we are saying is that concept doesn’t hold anymore,” said Duke oceanographer Susan Lozier. “So it’s going to be more difficult to measure these climate change signals in the deep ocean.”
“But only 8 percent of the RAFOS floats’ followed the conveyor belt of the Deep Western Boundary Current, according to the Nature report. About 75 percent of them “escaped” that coast-hugging deep underwater pathway and instead drifted into the open ocean by the time they rounded the southern tail of the Grand Banks. Eight percent “is a remarkably low number in light of the expectation that the DWBC is the dominant pathway for Labrador Sea Water,” the researchers wrote.”
As a related aside, the North Atlantic drift current does not cause the Heinrich event cooling and is not the reason why the UK has warm winter as compared to New Brunswick, Canada.
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.999,y.0,no.,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx
The Source of Europe’s Mild Climate, The notion that the Gulf Stream is responsible for keeping Europe anomalously warm turns out to be a myth
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~david/Gulf.pdf
Is the Gulf Stream responsible for Europe’s mild winters?
By R. SEAGER, D. S. BATTISTI, J. YIN, N. GORDON, N. NAIK, A. C. CLEMENT and M. A. CANE
LucVC says:
November 29, 2013 at 3:58 am
Since ice ages cool the ocean and the upwelling from the equatorial Pacific is the last to freeze over you should expect ice ages to have high atmospheric CO2 levels.
Oceans freezing over to near the equator seems to have happened once during the “snowball earth” period, although that still is controversial. The ice ages of the last millions of years were not that harsh, and sea ice was a lot more south than today, but still showing free surface/sink places quite north of the equator.
I have read somewhere that the THC (Gulf Stream) moved north when the sea ice melted and south when the ice advanced.
“Ferdinand Engelbeen
The 12CO2 pulse decay is a matter of mass decay:
At constant, equal in/out flux, nothing happens with the 12CO2 amount in the atmosphere, even if every single 12CO2 molecule is replaced with a 12CO2 molecule from another reservoir with a decay rate of ~12 years.
But because both the influx and outflux changed with the increase in mass (pressure) above equilibrium, some of the extra 12CO2 mass is absorbed by the deep oceans. In that case, the mass decay rate depends of the difference between influx and outflux, no matter the height of influx or outflux.”
At steady state we had 0.056 y-1 x 535 [CO2] = (CO2/DCI) 40,000 x 0.00076 y-1
Mass action. The rate that CO2 is transferred from deep ocean into the atmosphere will be relatively constant as the 40,000 GtC isn’t going to get much bigger as a pulse of atmospheric carbon is added.
DocMartyn says:
November 29, 2013 at 5:44 am
At steady state we had 0.056 y-1 x 535 [CO2] = (CO2/DCI) 40,000 x 0.00076 y-1
At equilibrium, the steady state throughput of 12CO2 then is about 30 GtC/yr.
Based on the δ13C decline of human emissions, my estimate was 40 GtC/yr. But that doesn’t matter for the theoretical calculation.
Adding a pulse of 465 GtC into the atmosphere increases the pCO2 from ~290 μatm to ~510 μatm.
That has consequences for the equilibrium:
At the downwelling sites, the cold oceans have a pCO2 of minimum 150 μatm
Assuming that the same amount of water is sinking, the amount of CO2 sinking into the deep waters then gets:
30 GtC/yr * (510 – 150) / (290 – 150) = 77 GtC/yr
Not completely right, as the 150 μatm doesn’t stay the same with increasing pCO2 in the atmosphere.
At the upwelling sites, the warm oceans have a pCO2 of maximum 750 μatm.
Assuming that the same amount of water is upwelling with the same 12CO2 concentration, the amount of 12CO2 released from the deep ocean waters gets:
30 GtC/yr * (750 – 510) / (750 – 290) = 16 GtC/yr
The difference in CO2 mass flow between upwelling and downwelling was zero at equilibrium, but gets ~60 GtC/yr net sink after a pulse of 465 GtC into the atmosphere.
That gives a mass decay rate for such a pulse of 465/60 = 7.75 years.
Much shorter than what is seen in reality, but the point is that the decay rate of a mass injection and the decay rate of a concentration injection are completely independent of each other, even if the extra mass doesn’t return from the deep oceans…
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
Is the middle of the delta pCO2 scale the zero difference?
Yes, same scale as LHS, column 16 from the Scripps data.
First big rise as they passed through Panama Canal, second ramp up as they seem to navigate up between the coast of Africa and Madagascar.
I’ll put up some more plots later once I’ve had time to look through it. But just a quick note that first equatorial section is very near flat 28 degrees, S.Atl section fairly fairly flat 18, and Indian ocean equatorial section very flat 29 degrees C.
First impression is that there are two opposing effects. Small changes in pCO2 in opposite direction to SST large change in CO2 to very small change in SST.
Much stronger dependence with latitudinal change in SST which is in the same sense.
Ferdinand, why do you think that CO2/DIC movements are due to the movements of water.
As I have pointed out many times, we know that DIC/CO2 at the surface is converted to DOC, and that DOC falls 100 meters per day.
The 10 m surface is always denuded of DIC/CO2 where you have life and photons. This is the rapid carbon cycle. Sending carbon down, which slowly moves upwards as CO2/CH4.
The rate at which CO2 enters the deep ocean is 0.056 * GtC.
There is not a saturatable limit that can be observed, or else the 14C decay curve would deviate from first order.
Juts look at the data, and don’t have a bias as to mechanism. Describe the total system kinetically first, and do mechanistic studies later.
DocMartyn says:
November 29, 2013 at 10:42 am
DOC dropouts from the ocean surface layer are estimated ~6 GtC/yr. DIC throughput is estimated ~40 GtC/yr.
And we have been there before about the decrease in DIC in the surface layer: it is hardly measurable. The difference between summer and winter should be huge, but it is only 1.5% of DIC, and part of it is even from degassing in the warm months, see Fig. 4 in:
http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/2509/2012/bg-9-2509-2012.pdf
Juts look at the data, and don’t have a bias as to mechanism. Describe the total system kinetically first, and do mechanistic studies later.
That is exactly what I have tried to show you, but it seems one of the most difficult points to convince people that there is a huge difference in decay rates for a turnover/concentration and an excess mass / pressure. While few have problems with the same mechanisms in finance.
It is the difference between a turnover of capital (goods) in a factory over a year and the gain (or loss) of the same capital at the end of the year.
The 14C pulse decay time shows you the turnover of the carbon capital investment through the natural factory over a year.
The 12C pulse decay time shows you the gain (or loss in this case) of the carbon capital investment for the natural factory after a year.
You can have a doubling or tripling of the turnover and still have a gain or loss of break-even of your investment…
This is an annual average DIC profile
http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/files/dicprofile.png
There is less DIC at the top with respect to below
http://pmel.noaa.gov/co2/files/a16n_dic.jpg
You can also look at an actual profile of depth and DIC with seasonal time.
When light flux is high, the surface is warm on the steady state DIC drops by 0.3 mM at the surface. When light flux is low, the DIC at the surface is replenished from below.
http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130801/srep02339/images_article/srep02339-f2.jpg
“That is exactly what I have tried to show you, but it seems one of the most difficult points to convince people that there is a huge difference in decay rates for a turnover/concentration and an excess mass / pressure”
That is because there is no pressure.
We know that 14C is disappearing into a kinetically infinite reservoir, RAtmos:ROcean is 50.
The rate 14CO2 disappears is 0.056 y-1. The rate that all CO2 goes into the ocean is 0.056 y-1.
We assume that the per-Industrial steady state the rate was the same.
The rate of influx from the ocean into the atmosphere is almost unchanged as the increase in total carbon in the deep ocean is only slightly greater now than at pre-Industrial times.
THERE IS NO PRESSURE.
DocMartyn says:
November 29, 2013 at 12:34 pm
You can also look at an actual profile of depth and DIC with seasonal time.
When light flux is high, the surface is warm on the steady state DIC drops by 0.3 mM at the surface.
The profile gives a larger difference of 15% between the surface and the deep oceans than the seasonal difference at the surface which is only 1.5%. The difference between surface and deep oceans is partly from the dropdown of organics, but also partly from the supply of cold polar waters into the deep, containing more CO2 than the surface waters at other places.
That is because there is no pressure.
We know that 14C is disappearing into a kinetically infinite reservoir, RAtmos:ROcean is 50.
DocMartyn, how do you think that the 14CO2 and the rest of the CO2 entered in the deep oceans? Not because there was a partial pressure difference? Henry’s law doesn’t work?
If there is no partial pressure difference between atmosphere and the oceans, then there is no CO2 flux. If the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, then the outflux will increase and the influx will decrease. That is what governs the decay rate of a mass injection of CO2 in the atmosphere, which was not the case for the 14C injection, which simply disappears in the deep ocean mass.
We assume that the per-Industrial steady state the rate was the same.
The rate of influx from the ocean into the atmosphere is almost unchanged as the increase in total carbon in the deep ocean is only slightly greater now than at pre-Industrial times.
The rate of influx from the oceans into the atmosphere depends of mainly two criteria: the concentration/amount of upwelling waters, which we may assume to be unchanged since the start of the industrial revolution, and the pCO2 difference between the ocean waters at the upwelling places and the atmosphere. The latter increased considerably over the past decades. Thus decreasing the influx considerably.
Thus pressure is the main driving force for the mass decay rate.
You have a missing piece here. Where was it measure at below or above the equator. All the Co2 is delivered to the South Hemisphere it takes 1000 years for the thermocline to recycle it to plankton and return.
The problem now is that the southern part seems to be carbon saturated. The measurement at over 400ppm recently was above the equator; to see how bad it really is you need to measure below the equator.
There is a scientist who wrote a report in 1957 saying there was no, repeat no problem with excess CO2 from the industrial age at that point. it had al been absorbed by the plankton. Wonder what could have changed… perhaps it’s really methane oxidation that is the problem. Methane oxidzes into CO2 and it’s pouring into our seas.
“Henry’s law doesn’t work?”
Now you are getting it. The surface layers where there is bioproductivity are in disequilibrium with the atmosphere and the depths.
Henry’s law only applies to chemical equilibria; biological activity is an active process, captured short wavelengths of light power a huge dis-equilibrium; which is why we have 23% oxygen in the atmosphere.
In addition to disequilibrium caused by life, we have the daily and annual cycles of a planet that is a sphere. At the equator hot, dense brines are formed which travel to the poles, cool, and drop down to the depths. They act as a ‘cold’ transportation system and induce a temperature profile where the bottom is cold and the top is warm. This dis-equilibrium is constant.
[Your] 1.5% in DIC difference is also misleading, the swings in DIC content during 24 hours are even more extreme. You can measure the pCO2 above productive ocean waters and observe the daily swing of atmospheric CO2.
“If there is no partial pressure difference between atmosphere and the oceans, then there is no CO2 flux. If the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, then the outflux will increase and the influx will decrease.”
NO. NO. NO.
There is constant influx and efflux. The fluxes are a function of the rate constants and the amounts of carbon in the two reservoirs. In a purely chemical system, if the system is at equilibrium then influx is equal to efflux; there is still exchange.
Now if you instantaneous increase the amount of carbon in one reservoir the the flux from that reservoir increases by the ratio of size increase, double the amount of carbon and double the flux. However, the opposite flux is unaffected until you increase the concentration of carbon in this reservoir. The two reservoirs do not exchange information and agree how much to change their exchanges.
Ah, but can we actually establish that Co2 was at a “steady state” at any given location on earth? This also questions whether CO2 was actually (globally) ever “steady” at pre-1950 levels of 280 ppm as required by the IPCC’s assumptions between 4000 BC and 1950 AD.
Doc Martyn is getting much closer as he brings up several factors that – at ALL times – prevent ANY assumption of equilibrium conditions from being attained – at ANY time – on the real world earth. Any real world problem solution (series of opposing partial derivative of CO2 coming out of solution, and going back into solution) cannot assume CO2 is actually “constant” in the atmosphere over the “average” period of a year, changing slowly through that year as recorded by the Hawaii meters at one place at 20 degree north latitude.
Rather, even “if” the entire atmosphere is accurately recorded at that one site, the earth’s ocean is “boiled” at the equator over a 6 hour period each day, somewhat cooler for two six hour morning and evening hours each day, and definitely cooler for each night. Further north (and south) of that hot spot, the water is equally unevenly heated each day so even my “approximation” of one “heating cycle” is incorrect at its basic level – but better than any calculation that begins at equilibrium (whole earth) changes CO2 uniformly over the whole earth, then attempts to “restore” equilibrium by balancing partial pressures.
YOU CAN’T DO THAT. The specific CO2 partial pressure conditions change over each hour of the day, over each degree of latitude, over each day of the year; and they change further over the year as biology changes on land (strongly over the year) and over sea areas (less strongly day-to-day, but still widely variable sinks and “vents”. (A lot like surface solar exposure that way.)
Further, the earth’s atmosphere will not EVER be in a static condition: even if it were above a flat-plate-earth-heated-on-one-side-by-an-average-sun! Rather, even such a simplification will be constantly under-shooting equilibrium and then over-shooting that “equilibrium partial pressure. there is no “thermometer” on the earth, only opposing natural forces that are NEVER in balance over time. Rather, the earth’s CO2 levls need to be viewed like a spring-supported weight oscillating over a frictionless surface. Except that frictionless mass is held between 4 or 5 or 6 springs of unequal spring constants and starting its motion from an unequal distances at an unknown speed. The net position will oscilate between the anchors, but it will never in in equilibrium since opposing forces never stop. (The opposing forces on the springs DO change over time, just as CO2 drivers change over time, but they never stop. Rather, as the measured CO2 levels in Hawaii change, the releasing forces (factors increasing CO2 release from the water, the land vegetation in fixed form, the part from Man’s release, the part from natural burns, the part from methane and permafrost and undersea and land volcanoes,e tc) do not “stop” but continue unabated (or even increasing) until the net opposing force of CO2 sinks is large enough to equal the release. But at that maximum point, the sinks are not zero, nor are they but momentarily equal to the releases. At some midpoint, we can assume there “should be” a equilibrium level, but the actual CO2 levels merely continue past it until the releases again equal sinks at the next low.
Approximating partial pressures of CO2 into solution is correct: but the approximation cannot begin nor end with NASA-GISS/Hansen’s simplistic single-flat-plate-earth-exposed-on-side-to-the-average-sun. In that, I do disagree with Ferdinand’s conclusions.
They are valid only for a isolated model on a lab stand inside a pressure-tight glass jar.
Willis seems to have gone walkabout, so I thought I’d add this graph from the most recent (1963) cruise.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=715
It overlays CO2 and SST plotted against position and allows us to see why there was such a jumble in the original plot by Willis. There are several regions showing different profiles. In particular the Indian Oceans stands out as behaving very differently.
What is interesting is the approximately linear relationship between temperature and latitude over much of this range with a scaling of 4.5 deg lat / deg C with a ‘neutral’ SST of 26 degrees. This is centred on 5.5 deg north, the inter-tropical convergence zone.
The strong excess in Indian ocean probably reflects the up-welling of cold, deep CO2 rich waters:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/images/belt.jpg
the drop off across the region being it adapting to surface conditions by out-gassing CO2.
This global flow pattern also matches the deficit in tropical Atlantic, where cooler surface waters from more southerly latitudes travel north and absorb CO2.
There was also a strong deficit in the region stretching out from the Gulf of Panama into equatorial Pacific.
“This global flow pattern also matches the deficit in tropical Atlantic, where cooler surface waters from more southerly latitudes travel north and absorb CO2. ”
Oops. According to the NOAA map these very waters remain warm around S.A. and are cooling as they pass into the tropics. This would make sense with the CO2 deficit , contrary to what I wrote above.
“Doc Matin: “…the swings in DIC during 24 hours are even more extreme”
Yeah, I’ve noticed that too, doc 😉
Andrea Silverthorne says:
November 29, 2013 at 2:38 pm
I am not sure what you mean and whom/what you are responding to, but the increase of CO2 is in the extra-tropical NH first, then around the equator and then in the SH:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends_1995_2004.jpg