Rate May Be Ten Times Faster, According to New Data
From Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory: Some 56 million years ago, a massive pulse of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere sent global temperatures soaring. In the oceans, carbonate sediments dissolved, some organisms went extinct and others evolved.
Scientists have long suspected that ocean acidification caused the crisis—similar to today, as manmade CO2 combines with seawater to change its chemistry. Now, for the first time, scientists have quantified the extent of surface acidification from those ancient days, and the news is not good: the oceans are on track to acidify at least as much as they did then, only at a much faster rate.
In a study published in the latest issue of Paleoceanography, the scientists estimate that ocean acidity increased by about 100 percent in a few thousand years or more, and stayed that way for the next 70,000 years. In this radically changed environment, some creatures died out while others adapted and evolved. The study is the first to use the chemical composition of fossils to reconstruct surface ocean acidity at the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), a period of intense warming on land and throughout the oceans due to high CO2.
“This could be the closest geological analog to modern ocean acidification,” said study coauthor Bärbel Hönisch, a paleoceanographer at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “As massive as it was, it still happened about 10 times more slowly than what we are doing today.”
The oceans have absorbed about a third of the carbon humans have pumped into the air since industrialization, helping to keep earth’s thermostat lower than it would be otherwise. But that uptake of carbon has come at a price. Chemical reactions caused by that excess CO2 have made seawater grow more acidic, depleting it of the carbonate ions that corals, mollusks and calcifying plankton need to build their shells and skeletons.
In the last 150 years or so, the pH of the oceans has dropped substantially, from 8.2 to 8.1–equivalent to a 25 percent increase in acidity. By the end of the century, ocean pH is projected to fall another 0.3 pH units, to 7.8. While the researchers found a comparable pH drop during the PETM–0.3 units–the shift happened over a few thousand years.
“We are dumping carbon in the atmosphere and ocean at a much higher rate today—within centuries,” said study coauthor Richard Zeebe, a paleoceanographer at the University of Hawaii. “If we continue on the emissions path we are on right now, acidification of the surface ocean will be way more dramatic than during the PETM.”
The study confirms that the acidified conditions lasted for 70,000 years or more, consistent with previous model-based estimates. “It didn’t bounce back right away,” said Timothy Bralower, a researcher at Penn State who was not involved in the study. “It took tens of thousands of years to recover.”
From seafloor sediments drilled off Japan, the researchers analyzed the shells of plankton that lived at the surface of the ocean during the PETM. Two different methods for measuring ocean chemistry at the time—the ratio of boron isotopes in their shells, and the amount of boron –arrived at similar estimates of acidification. “It’s really showing us clear evidence of a change in pH for the first time,” said Bralower.
What caused the burst of carbon at the PETM is still unclear. One popular explanation is that an overall warming trend may have sent a pulse of methane from the seafloor into the air, setting off events that released more earth-warming gases into the air and oceans. Up to half of the tiny animals that live in mud on the seafloor—benthic foraminifera—died out during the PETM, possibly along with life further up the food chain.
Other species thrived in this changed environment and new ones evolved. In the oceans, dinoflagellates extended their range from the tropics to the Arctic, while on land, hoofed animals and primates appeared for the first time. Eventually, the oceans and atmosphere recovered as elements from eroded rocks washed into the sea and neutralized the acid.
Today, signs are already emerging that some marine life may be in trouble. In a recent study led by Nina Bednaršedk at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, more than half of the tiny planktic snails, or pteropods, that she and her team studied off the coast of Washington, Oregon and California showed badly dissolved shells. Ocean acidification has been linked to the widespread death of baby oysters off Washington and Oregon since 2005, and may also pose a threat to coral reefs, which are under additional pressure from pollution and warming ocean temperatures.
“Seawater carbonate chemistry is complex but the mechanism underlying ocean acidification is very simple,” said study lead author Donald Penman, a graduate student at University of California at Santa Cruz. “We can make accurate predictions about how carbonate chemistry will respond to increasing carbon dioxide levels. The real unknown is how individual organisms will respond and how that cascades through ecosystems.”
Other authors of the study, which was funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation: Ellen Thomas, Yale University; and James Zachos, UC Santa Cruz.
And, in case you were wondering:
The adjective minuscule is etymologically related to minus, but associations with mini- have produced the spelling variant miniscule. This variant dates to the end of the 19th century, and it now occurs commonly in published writing, but it continues to be widely regarded as an error.
I use the variant, for what I hope are obvious reasons.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:June 4, 2014 at 11:35 pm
Bad argument vs your spaghetti logic. (I hope that does not constitute a food fight?/sarc)
If “human emissions are 4% of the total emissions, but 0% of the total sinks”,
then by extension natural emissions are 96% of the total emissions and, being emissions, are also 0% of the sinks. (SINKS by definition are not EMISSIONS. They are the opposite of emissions. You conflate emissions with sinks.)
Thus together they make up 100% of the increase.
“The natural emissions are an estimated 150 GtC/year, Human emissions are around 9 GtC/year.” On this we are in agreement.
Later you state:
“increase in the atmosphere = human emissions + natural releases – natural sinks.”
What, you don’t think there are human sinks? How many GtC/year of raw human bodies from population growth? Humans make great carbon sinks, 19% by weight. How about Increased biomass from modern human caused agricultural output? I guess these don’t fit in your world narrative.
You need clarity about what we know vs what we think we know.
*We Think* “We know the uptake by the biosphere from the oxygen balance: since 1990 ~1 GtC/year and increasing.”
*We Think* “We know the uptake from the ocean surface layer which is ~0.5 GtC/yr due to the buffer/Revelle factor.”
*We Think* “The rest is going into the deep oceans, as all other possible sinks are either too small or too slow.”
It is a mighty complex world out there. I think it is safe to say that your numbers are derived from calculations, not from measurements. In a word, estimates.
You are fixated on fixation. Sequestration as a goal is foolish. An increasing biosphere is a good thing. Lighten up and enjoy life. Life is good.
More CO2 = MORE SUGAR!
Unless the text book has changed from my University days of hard Chemistry???
pH is NOT the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration.
It is the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion ACTIVITY.
Activity is not the same as concentration. They converge only at vanishingly low total ionic strength.
So bow out all those with a fail so far.
There are only a few papers on oceans in which I have seen the correct definition. This is rather important, because ocean waters have precisely the type of chemistry that requires the use of activity and complicated equations such as these
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debye%E2%80%93H%C3%BCckel_equation
Nick Stokes, how about a small essay on the method of coping with activity coefficients when deriving pH the way you state, from indirect indicators thus – “pH is determined by equilibrium relations involving carbonates, which are much more abundant in the sea than H+ or CO2. Two quantities, dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) and total alkalinity, are easy to measure, are fairly stable, and pH can be deduced when you know them.”
Note, even filtering sea water (which would commonly be done before chemical analysis) has the capacity to change pH. Having done tens of thousands of pH measurements personally on high ionic strength solutions/suspensions, I can vouch for the difficulty in getting reproducibility to better than 0.1 pH in other than very dilute, filtered, synthetic solutions. Even the presence of suspended organic matter like seaweed fragments, bits of jelly fish tentacles and so can have an effect. Anything in the colloidal size range has to be studied for effect as well.
Regarding the paper cited for this thread, the comments must surely apply to the near-surface layer of oceans. I know of no reliable measurements deeper than a few metres from the comparison period 150 years ago and have grave doubts that anything valid can be stated about ocean pH then. Sure the mixing is good down to a few hundred meters or so, but how good? +/- 0.1 pH good? Prove it.
It ain’t easy, folks.
Phil.:
I am replying to your innumerate post at June 5, 2014 at 3:29 pm.
Even by your standards your post is daft and your silly comment about MY mathematical ability adds to the amusement it provides. I write to try to help you gain some understanding of the issue.
This is the CO2 data from Mauna Loa which I have repeatedly posted in this thread
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
As anybody who peruses the graph in the link can see, the seasonal variation in each year is a slow rise indicating increase to atmospheric CO2 that is followed by a steep fall as sequestration of CO2 is greater than CO2 emission which is followed by a rapid reversal.
And anybody can see that – as I said – there is no reduction to the rate of sequestration as the sequestering ‘sinks’ fill. Clearly, the sinks do not fill.
A sudden reversal of a linear trend in the seasonal variation of atmospheric CO2 concentration is NOT a “reduction as the sinks fill”. The only way it could be a “reduction as the sinks fill” would be if all sinks had large capacity then (almost) all became completely full at the same time.
Of course, I would not expect people with your mathematical ability to understand this for themselves but I hope this explanation helps you to grasp it.
This is a link to one of my above posts which describes what really happens; i.e.
Richard
PS I am now scheduled to go in for heart surgery and will not be able to respond to any reply until I have recovered from the anaesthetic (probably tomorrow).
Richard G says:
June 6, 2014 at 12:43 am
For some reason, some skeptics never mention sinks. The point is that the natural sources are more than compensated by natural sinks and that there are very few human sinks.
Human bodies and the rest of the non-vegetation biosphere only consume the CO2 that was fixed a few months to a few years before bij plants out of the atmosphere: they are part of the natural cycle. They exhale CO2 back to atmosphere. The burning of fossil fuels is not part of that cycle.
Take as an example a fountain with a huge bassin where a lot of water, say 1,000 l/min is pumped over the fountain flowing back into the bassin. Some worker opens the supply valve to fill the bassin with 1 l/min. Even if it is 1/1,000th of the supply to the fountain, it will be the cause of the increase and eventually the overflow if he doesn’t close the valve on time…
the uptake by the biosphere from the oxygen balance
See: http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
the uptake from the ocean surface layer which is ~0.5 GtC/yr due to the buffer/Revelle factor
http://www.eng.warwick.ac.uk/staff/gpk/Teaching-undergrad/es427/Exam%200405%20Revision/Ocean-chemistry.pdf
and further the increase in DIC of the ocean surface layer to be compared to the increase in the atmosphere for the same time frame:
http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/2509/2012/bg-9-2509-2012.pdf and
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/30/12235.full.pdf
All based on measurements… There are indications that the difference is going into the deep oceans (as the change in 13C/12C ratio at the sink places shows) and ocean wide pCO2 measurements give an average pCO2 difference where pCO2 of the atmosphere is ~7 microatm higher than of the oceans. See Feely e.a.:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml and following pages.
I have no problems with more CO2, I have only problems with bad arguments, which is the case for a non-human increase of CO2 over the past 160 years. That is a lost battle and only discredits other real valid arguments one can have against (C)AGW…
richardscourtney says:
June 6, 2014 at 2:19 am
there is no reduction to the rate of sequestration as the sequestering ‘sinks’ fill. Clearly, the sinks do not fill.
Richard, there wouldn’t be a reversal at all if the sinks weren’t saturating: the seasonal drop would go on continuously until zero CO2 or until a new equilibrium was reached between uptake and release.
Further, your other point:
The annual rise of any year is the residual of the seasonal variation of that year.
is mathematically right, but is the result of two different processes: the seasonal variation is entirely caused by vegetation, the residual is entirely NOT caused by vegetation. That is proven from the 13C/12C and O2/N2 balances.
The increase in the atmosphere and the seasonal variation have nothing to do with each other.
Anway: good luck with the surgery: I hope all get well and that you will have a fast recovery.
The CO2 level during PETM appear to have rose from a base of 1,000 ppm to 1,700 ppm compared to current levels of 400 ppm. Also, there appears to be no consistent consensus about the CO2 levels were during the PETM and CO2 levels appear to based on guestimates. Is anyone able to confirm the CO2 levels during the PETM? Current concerns about acidification appears to be exaggerated.
Geoff Sherrington says: June 6, 2014 at 1:45 am
“Nick Stokes, how about a small essay on the method of coping with activity coefficients when deriving pH the way you state, from indirect indicators thus “
Geoff,
how about some information on how much the activity coefficients differ from 1 at the ionic strength of sea water?
Here is a chapter from a standard chemical oceanography text on how it is done, just as I described. They do distinguish between fugacity and partial pressure for CO2, but Zeebe says it is good to 99%.
richardscourtney says:
June 6, 2014 at 2:19 am
Phil.:
I am replying to your innumerate post at June 5, 2014 at 3:29 pm.
Even by your standards your post is daft and your silly comment about MY mathematical ability adds to the amusement it provides. I write to try to help you gain some understanding of the issue.
Your posts attempting to argue math and science with your mathematical and scientific ‘betters’ (pace Monckton) are always amusing, your use of terms which you clearly do not understand make this post no exception.
This is the CO2 data from Mauna Loa which I have repeatedly posted in this thread
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
As anybody who peruses the graph in the link can see, the seasonal variation in each year is a slow rise indicating increase to atmospheric CO2 that is followed by a steep fall as sequestration of CO2 is greater than CO2 emission which is followed by a rapid reversal.
And anybody can see that – as I said – there is no reduction to the rate of sequestration as the sequestering ‘sinks’ fill. Clearly, the sinks do not fill.
As anyone with a passing knowledge of calculus/science would know the ‘rate of sequestration’ is given by the slope of that graph, specifically -d[CO2]/dt. Therefore as I pointed out above your statement that: “there is no reduction to the rate of sequestration” is clearly false since in the course of three months it goes from being strongly positive, to approximately zero, to strongly negative!
A sudden reversal of a linear trend in the seasonal variation of atmospheric CO2 concentration is NOT a “reduction as the sinks fill”. The only way it could be a “reduction as the sinks fill” would be if all sinks had large capacity then (almost) all became completely full at the same time.
As an editor I’m sure you’re aware that inclusion of quotation marks (“……..”) means that you are quoting someone, since this post is addressed to me the unwary might assume that you were quoting me. Since you’re not quoting me who exactly are you quoting?
Of course, I would not expect people with your mathematical ability to understand this for themselves but I hope this explanation helps you to grasp it.
Your complete ignorance of the science/math is amusing, your hubris in believing that you can explain it even more so.
Since you would appear to like some numbers:
Beginning of september ~0.2ppm/wk, october ~0ppm/wk, november ~-0.1ppm/wk.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html
Good luck with your surgery.
richardscourtney said @ur momisugly June 6, 2014 at 2:19 am
Get well soon, Richard.
Ferdinand Engelbeen and Phil.:
I am replying to your posts which display innumeracy at June 6, 2014 at 6:54 am and June 6, 2014 at 2:40 am, respectively.
At June 6, 2014 at 2:19 am I again pointed out concerning the seasonal variation in atmospheric CO2 concentration which anybody can see here.
That is clearly, and unarguably true because – as I said in trying to educate Phil. – there is only one way that could be true; i.e.
But the two of you refuse to understand the blatantly obvious because you insist on applying a static model to a dynamic system.
Ferdinand, you mistakenly say
NO!!
A container does NOT stop emptying only when its drain fills.
The content of the container changes in response to the difference between the rate of flow into its drain (i.e. sinks) and the rate of flow from its input. A lowering content may become an increasing content because of
a change to the rate of flow into the container,
and/or
a change to the rate of flow out of the container,
and/or
changes to the rates of both flows.
Phil., you demonstrate your inability (refusal?) to understand this when you write
NO!
As anybody with an understanding of calculus/science knows the slope of that graph indicates the difference between the ‘rate of emission’ and the ‘rate of sequestration’.
I yet again repeat
The annual rise of any year is the residual of the seasonal variation of that year.
The dynamics of the seasonal change is consistent with the carbon cycle adjusting to a new equilibrium:
(a) adjustment of mechanisms with long rate constants provides the annual rise
while
(b) adjustment of the mechanisms with very short rate constants provides the seasonal variation.
The recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is consistent with adjustment of the carbon cycle to a new equilibrium but is NOT consistent with the CO2 sinks lacking ability to sequester all the CO2.
Richard
Ooops.
I typed
“That is clearly, and unarguably true because – as I said in trying to educate Phil. – there is only one way that could be true; i.e.”
I intended to write
“That is clearly, and unarguably true because – as I said in trying to educate Phil. – there is only one way that could be untrue; i.e.”
Sorry.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
June 7, 2014 at 2:50 am
Ferdinand Engelbeen and Phil.:
I am replying to your posts which display innumeracy at June 6, 2014 at 6:54 am and June 6, 2014 at 2:40 am, respectively.
At June 6, 2014 at 2:19 am I again pointed out concerning the seasonal variation in atmospheric CO2 concentration which anybody can see here.
there is no reduction to the rate of sequestration as the sequestering ‘sinks’ fill. Clearly, the sinks do not fill.
That is clearly, and unarguably true because – as I said in trying to educate Phil. – there is only one way that could be (un)true; i.e.
A sudden reversal of a linear trend in the seasonal variation of atmospheric CO2 concentration is NOT a “reduction as the sinks fill”. The only way it could be a “reduction as the sinks fill” would be if all sinks had large capacity then (almost) all became completely full at the same time.
But the two of you refuse to understand the blatantly obvious because you insist on applying a static model to a dynamic system.
More of your nonsense Richard why do you keep persisting in it?
We are not applying a static model, the equation we use is a first order differential equation as shown below:
d[CO2]= Sources(t,T, etc)- Sinks(t,T, etc)
Ask some of the chemical engineers who published in your magazine.
There is no “sudden reversal of a linear trend in the seasonal variation of atmospheric CO2 concentration”, see the data:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html
It’s more like a sine wave.
Over the months of Sept-Nov the rate of sequestration fairly smoothly (allowing for daily fluctuations, ‘noise’) varies from positive to negative. Photosynthetic production is dominated by the Northern hemisphere so it’s not surprising that CO2 reaches its minimum in the NH fall.
Ferdinand, you mistakenly say
Richard, there wouldn’t be a reversal at all if the sinks weren’t saturating: the seasonal drop would go on continuously until zero CO2 or until a new equilibrium was reached between uptake and release.
NO!!
A container does NOT stop emptying only when its drain fills.
The content of the container changes in response to the difference between the rate of flow into its drain (i.e. sinks) and the rate of flow from its input. A lowering content may become an increasing content because of
a change to the rate of flow into the container,
and/or
a change to the rate of flow out of the container,
and/or
changes to the rates of both flows.
As described by the equation above, when sinks are greater than sources sequestration occurs.
Phil., you demonstrate your inability (refusal?) to understand this when you write
As anyone with a passing knowledge of calculus/science would know the ‘rate of sequestration’ is given by the slope of that graph, specifically -d[CO2]/dt. Therefore as I pointed out above your statement that: “there is no reduction to the rate of sequestration” is clearly false since in the course of three months it goes from being strongly positive, to approximately zero, to strongly negative!
NO!
As anybody with an understanding of calculus/science knows the slope of that graph indicates the difference between the ‘rate of emission’ and the ‘rate of sequestration’.
No, as indicated above it indicates the difference between the flow into the atmosphere (sources) and the flow out (sinks), when it is negative sequestration is taking place, therefore the rate of sequestration is -d[CO2}/dt as I’ve told you before.
I yet again repeat
The annual rise of any year is the residual of the seasonal variation of that year.
The dynamics of the seasonal change is consistent with the carbon cycle adjusting to a new equilibrium:
(a) adjustment of mechanisms with long rate constants provides the annual rise
while
(b) adjustment of the mechanisms with very short rate constants provides the seasonal variation.
The recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration is consistent with adjustment of the carbon cycle to a new equilibrium but is NOT consistent with the CO2 sinks lacking ability to sequester all the CO2.
That’s exactly what’s happening, there is insufficient CO2 sink capability to keep up with the new CO2 being added to the atmosphere every year, hence pCO2 increases every year.
I.e. the integral of d[CO2]/dt over the year is always positive.
Phil.:
Your twaddle at June 7, 2014 at 8:14 am fails to hide that you were plain wrong when you wrote
The ‘rate of sequestration’ is NOT given by the slope of that graph, specifically -d[CO2]/dt.
A loss or gain occurs because of difference between INPUT AND OUTPUT.
It is NOT only induced by variation to output.
(It seems you have never operated a bank account).
You were wrong to say otherwise and your bluster does not disguise that error: it also does not hide your complete ignorance of what you are waffling about.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
June 7, 2014 at 9:46 am
Phil.:
Your twaddle at June 7, 2014 at 8:14 am fails to hide that you were plain wrong when you wrote
As anyone with a passing knowledge of calculus/science would know the ‘rate of sequestration’ is given by the slope of that graph, specifically -d[CO2]/dt.
The ‘rate of sequestration’ is NOT given by the slope of that graph, specifically -d[CO2]/dt.
A loss or gain occurs because of difference between INPUT AND OUTPUT.
It is NOT only induced by variation to output.
(It seems you have never operated a bank account).
You were wrong to say otherwise and your bluster does not disguise that error: it also does not hide your complete ignorance of what you are waffling about.
Your ignorance Richard, you don’t know what sequestration is!
CO2 is sequestered from the atmosphere when the outgoing flux is greater than the incoming flux.
If pCO2 is decreasing then sequestration is occurring, sequestration can be increased by increasing the outgoing flux, e.g. by increasing photosynthesis or decreasing SST.
Phil.:
re your twaddle at June 7, 2014 at 10:39 am.
Please, please stop displaying your ignorance. You are wasting space on the thread.
You wrongly assert
NO!! You don’t know the difference between net sequestration and sequestration.
Anything which is collecting CO2 from the atmosphere is conducting sequestration.
And
Anything which is releasing CO2 into the atmosphere is conducting emission.
If total sequestration is greater than total emission then there is net sequestration.
And
If total sequestration is less than total emission then there is net emission.
You cannot determine whether sequestration is changing, or if emission is changing, or if both are changing solely by observing if there is a change from net emission to net sequestration. This is because there are two unknowns.
Richard
Many posts on here make claims that humans are the cause of the increase in CO2. This is just a theory with 1 piece of evidence for it (we produce CO2) and lots of evidence against it. Even the bit about CO2 warming a planet with an active hydrosphere and active biosphere is not so clear.
All of the chemistry formulas being posted that claim to demonstrate ocean acidification due to atmospheric CO2 don’t apply to seawater. Seawater is an extremely complex mixture of chemicals with many competing equilibrium equations, a very active biosphere.
http://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/toxic-seawater-fraud/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/27/ocean-acidification-expansion/
One of the many reasons alarmists are so easily discounted is they call a lot of things facts which clearly are not. Then they make their claims based on these facts. It is so clearly obvious that we cannot possibly measure the ph of the entire ocean (yet). Therefore it is not possible to calculate a trend. Period. We don’t even know what the error bars should look like.
Stop wasting time defending the indefensible. Relax and enjoy the process of discovery.
richardscourtney says:
June 7, 2014 at 2:50 am
You cannot determine whether sequestration is changing, or if emission is changing, or if both are changing solely by observing if there is a change from net emission to net sequestration. This is because there are two unknowns.
Richard, you haven’t reacted on a previous point I made: it is proven from the oxygen balance that the seasonal variation is entirely from (mainly NH) vegetation and it is proven that the year-by-year increase is NOT from vegetation: vegetation is a net, small, but increasing sink for CO2 over the years, at least since 1990 when sufficient accurate oxygen measurements became available.
The seasonal uptake and release of CO2 and its accompanying O2 and 13C/12C changes clearly show that. Here for the CO2 and 13C/12C balance averaged over 13 seasons:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_CO2_d13C_MLO_BRW.jpg
where the start of the seasons is zeroed in January.
Thus the vegetation sink IS largely saturating and reverses at the end of the growing season. Ocean 13C/12C and CO2 changes go in parallel, while vegetation 13C/12C and CO2 changes go countercurrent. Anyway, the residual increase after a full seasonal cycle is not from vegetation, thus a different process is at work which causes the year by year increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is not vegetation and not the oceans (as the latter should increase the 13C/12C ratio). Thus, what can it be?
JohnnyCrash says:
June 7, 2014 at 12:06 pm
Many posts on here make claims that humans are the cause of the increase in CO2. This is just a theory with 1 piece of evidence for it
Johnny, your claims make me sad. There is a lot of evidence that humans are the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. It fits all known observations, while all alternative theories I have heard of fail one or more observations. Ocean heating fails Henry’s Law and the 13C/12C ratio decrease. Vegetation is a proven net sink for CO2, not a source. And that our emissions are about double the increase in the atmosphere simply shows that nature as a whole is a net sink for CO2… See further:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html#The_mass_balance
Further, the chemistry of seawater is well known, including its buffer capacity, for over 50 years. pH measurements are sporadic done, but one can calculate the pH from other measurements which are done far more regularly all over the oceans. That and a few longer continuous series (Bermuda and Hawaii) show that the pH is going down.
Further, your first link is quite accurate, but has one error:
an increasing concentration of CO2 in the water improves the efficiency of photosynthesis in the oceans
That is not the case, as CO2 is not the limiting factor for photosynthesis in the oceans, the lack of certain elements (like iron) is the main problem. Summer levels of total carbon (DIC) only change a few % compared to winter DIC.
And please read my many comments at your second link…
richardscourtney says:
June 7, 2014 at 11:14 am
Phil.:
re your twaddle at June 7, 2014 at 10:39 am.
Please, please stop displaying your ignorance. You are wasting space on the thread.
You wrongly assert
“CO2 is sequestered from the atmosphere when the outgoing flux is greater than the incoming flux.
If pCO2 is decreasing then sequestration is occurring, sequestration can be increased by increasing the outgoing flux, e.g. by increasing photosynthesis or decreasing SST.”
NO!! You don’t know the difference between net sequestration and sequestration.
Anything which is collecting CO2 from the atmosphere is conducting sequestration.
And
Anything which is releasing CO2 into the atmosphere is conducting emission.
If total sequestration is greater than total emission then there is net sequestration.
And
If total sequestration is less than total emission then there is net emission.
Much as it must irk you Richard you don’t get to redefine the terminology, sequestration is the net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere!
You cannot determine whether sequestration is changing, or if emission is changing, or if both are changing solely by observing if there is a change from net emission to net sequestration. This is because there are two unknowns.
There is one unknown, [CO2], and the two grouped terms in the balance equation:
d[CO2]= Sources(t,T, etc)- Sinks(t,T, etc)
All that matters as far as CO2 is concerned is the relative magnitude of the Sources and Sinks, averaged annually over the globe for the past several decades Sources are bigger than Sinks by a value approximately equal to half of the production by fossil fuel combustion. On a monthly basis Sinks exceed Sources from May to September. Most of the fluctuation occurs in the NH, there is little variation in the S Pole or Baring Head data just steady growth .
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
At June 7, 2014 at 12:29 pm you rightly chastise me when you write
Sorry, Ferdinand, but replying to blog posts has not been my major priority over the past few days. Clearly, your informed and sensible disagreements with me are much more important than the ridiculous idiocy from the anonymous troll posting as ‘Phil.’, but I do need to defend myself from the falsehoods from the troll.
As to your point, the oxygen measurements can be interpreted in many ways. One interpretation is consistent with your assertions. However, something being consistent with a hypothesis is not evidence the hypothesis is true.
Something being inconsistent with a hypothesis IS evidence the hypothesis is NOT true. And the saw-tooth form of the seasonal variation is inconsistent with your assumption that the sinks fill.
And your claim that the isotope ratio changes support your hypothesis is not true. The direction of the change is correct but there is a 50:50 chance it would be in that or the other direction. Importantly, the magnitude of the isotope change is wrong by a factor of ~3 for it to be consistent with the rise in atmospheric CO2 being accumulation of the anthropogenic emission.
Richard
Phil.:
I have lost patience with your idiocy.
I do NOT use my own definitions when I refute your misunderstanding that net sequestration is sequestration. I use the IPCC definition which is here
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_AnnexIII_FINAL.pdf
It defines
And
Emission is not specifically defined but ‘emission scenario’ is defined as follows
From context, this use of “emissions” in the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios is as I stated when I wrote
In this thread you have provided several posts that consist solely of falsehoods. I shall ignore any additional ignorant and/or deliberately untrue assertions from you.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
June 8, 2014 at 6:18 am
Phil.:
I have lost patience with your idiocy.
I do NOT use my own definitions when I refute your misunderstanding that net sequestration is sequestration. I use the IPCC definition which is here
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_AnnexIII_FINAL.pdf
It defines
Sequestration bold See Uptake.
And
Uptake The addition of a substance of concern to a reservoir. The uptake of carbon containing substances, in particular carbon dioxide, is often called (carbon) sequestration.
Exactly, addition of substance to a reservoir! Exchange with a reservoir in equal quantities is not sequestration. For example in the case of a dam on a river with a reservoir behind it you can properly describe it as sequestration if the reservoir is not full, when it is full however, and water is flowing over the dam you are not sequestering water, you are not adding water to the reservoir.
In this thread you have provided several posts that consist solely of falsehoods. I shall ignore any additional ignorant and/or deliberately untrue assertions from you.
I challenge you to find one falsehood and support it with evidence.
Phil.:
re the “challenge” in your post at June 8, 2014 at 7:05 am.
Compare the IPCC definition to your falsehood of a definition in your post which sets the “challenge”.
Now, I will reciprocate: I challenge you to show you can tell the truth.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
June 8, 2014 at 5:47 am
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
At June 7, 2014 at 12:29 pm you rightly chastise me when you write
Richard, you haven’t reacted on a previous point I made: it is proven from the oxygen balance that the seasonal variation is entirely from (mainly NH) vegetation and it is proven that the year-by-year increase is NOT from vegetation: vegetation is a net, small, but increasing sink for CO2 over the years, at least since 1990 when sufficient accurate oxygen measurements became available.
Sorry, Ferdinand, but replying to blog posts has not been my major priority over the past few days. Clearly, your informed and sensible disagreements with me are much more important than the ridiculous idiocy from the anonymous troll posting as ‘Phil.’, but I do need to defend myself from the falsehoods from the troll.
You share with Monckton the disagreeable trait of referring to anyone who doesn’t agree with you and whose arguments you are unable to refute as a ‘Troll’ and their arguments as ‘Falsehoods’.
As to your point, the oxygen measurements can be interpreted in many ways. One interpretation is consistent with your assertions. However, something being consistent with a hypothesis is not evidence the hypothesis is true.
Something being inconsistent with a hypothesis IS evidence the hypothesis is NOT true. And the saw-tooth form of the seasonal variation is inconsistent with your assumption that the sinks fill.
It is only a sawtooth if you present it with insufficient resolution to show its true form, I have posted the daily data on here twice and you have studiously ignored it!
And your claim that the isotope ratio changes support your hypothesis is not true. The direction of the change is correct but there is a 50:50 chance it would be in that or the other direction. Importantly, the magnitude of the isotope change is wrong by a factor of ~3 for it to be consistent with the rise in atmospheric CO2 being accumulation of the anthropogenic emission.
Lets see some evidence in support of your assertion, either references or show us the equations.