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.
Troll posting as Phil.:
I wrote to Ferdinand. He knows and understands the subject on which he and I strongly disagree.
I will reply to any points made by Ferdinand.
Please stop wasting space in the thread with your ignorant and untrue nonsense addressed to me.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
June 8, 2014 at 7:20 am
Troll posting as Phil.:
I wrote to Ferdinand. He knows and understands the subject on which he and I strongly disagree.
I will reply to any points made by Ferdinand.
Please stop wasting space in the thread with your ignorant and untrue nonsense addressed to me.
You are the one wasting space by your refusal to answer reasonable questions. As usual you come on here and make assertions you are unable to back up.
richardscourtney says:
June 8, 2014 at 7:15 am
Phil.:
re the “challenge” in your post at June 8, 2014 at 7:05 am.
Compare the IPCC definition to your
falsehood of adefinition in your post which sets the “challenge”.I did, they agree with me, what part of “addition of substance to a reservoir” don’t you understand?
Now, I will reciprocate: I challenge you to show you can tell the truth.
Done, you have yet to meet the challenge however.
richardscourtney says:
June 8, 2014 at 5:47 am
As to your point, the oxygen measurements can be interpreted in many ways.
Sorry. Richard, but oxygen measurements can only be interpretated in one way after substracting the change caused by human use of fossil fuels, which is rather accurately known: if there is a decrease, then the biosphere as a whole (land and sea plants, insects, molds, bacteria, animals) is more O2 sink than source. If there is an increase, then the biosphere as a whole is a net producer of oxygen. The latter is the case, which means that the biosphere as a whole is a net absorber of CO2 and preferential 12CO2, leaving relative more 13CO2 in the atmosphere. That is what you see in the seasonal NH variation.
Temperature changes do affect the CO2 solubility in seawater, but hardly affect O2 changes in/from the oceans (except for a small change in solubility). The main change there also is from the biosphere.
As the longer term trend of oxygen shows a small increase over time (after correcting for fossil fuel use), thus a small but increasing CO2 uptake, the increase over a full seasonal cycle is certainly not from the biosphere. Thus the biosphere largely reduces its uptake at the end of the growing season and the biomass decay takes over in carbon transfer the other way out.
And the saw-tooth form of the seasonal variation is inconsistent with your assumption that the sinks fill.
I don’t think that there is much uptake left when lots of trees in the NH have no leaves anymore…
The direction of the change is correct but there is a 50:50 chance it would be in that or the other direction.
Richard, this has nothing to do with chance. The seasonal change is clear and follows what happens in the biosphere. After a full cycle it increases the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere. Any substantial release of CO2 from the oceans also will increase the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere. Only human emissions reduce the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere and the oceans mixed layer. That the reduction of the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere is only 1/3rd of what can be expected from human releases is either a matter of dilution or addition by CO2 from the other reservoirs. But as the increase in the atmosphere is only halve the human addition, the total balance is only dilution and a net sink by the other reservoirs…
Ferdinand:
Given two measurements of “assumed globally equivalent average CO2 levels” (ppmv 1 and ppmv 2) what are the latest
(1) delta T for those two ppmv differences
(2) delta pH for those two ppmv values.
RACookPE1978 says:
June 8, 2014 at 10:27 am
(1) delta T for those two ppmv differences
Assuming the current 400 ppmv as 110 ppmv above the pre-Industrial equilibrium:
Ocean-atmosphere equilibrium increases with ~17 ppmv/°C. To increase the atmospheric CO2 content with 100 ppmv, you need to heat the ocean surface with ~6.5°C. But as the biosphere in general increases its uptake (plant growth…) with higher temperatures, the real change over the past 800,000 years was 8 ppmv/°C. With that figure, you need 13.8°C sea surface temperature increase to reach the 110 ppmv CO2 increase in the atmosphere.
(2) delta pH for those two ppmv values.
According to the Revelle factor, the increase of DIC in the mixed layer would be ~10% of the increase in the atmosphere. Which can be seen in the increase of DIC at e.g. Bemuda:
http://www.biogeosciences.net/9/2509/2012/bg-9-2509-2012.pdf Fig.5.
The increase in the atmosphere was 50 ppmv in the same period or 12.8% of total CO2, while DIC increased 30 microml/kg or 1.4% of total DIC, which is quite what the buffer/Revelle factor says.
According to Fig. 6 in the same work, that leads to a drop of ~0.06 pH points.
Phil.:
re your post at June 8, 2014 at 8:49 am
You ask me
I and the IPCC (who wrote it) understand it completely. But you lie about it.
“Addition to a reservoir” means uptake of a reservoir: it does NOT mean – as you assert – the net of uptake and output of the reservoir. This is clear from the actual definition which I quoted for you. viz.
The definition makes no mention of output of the reservoir or of uptake less any output of the reservoir. It says, “The uptake of carbon containing substances, in particular carbon dioxide, is often called (carbon) sequestration.”
Furthermore, this correct definition is used in all proper assessments of sources and sinks because otherwise it would not be possible to determine if and when a reservoir were acting as a net source or a net sink. Importantly, the discussion was of sources and sinks prior to your trolling by inventing your daft and incorrect definition of sequestration as being net sequestration.
Obviously, you have demonstrated that your sole purpose is to troll, and you place no value on truth. (I ponder if your name is Gleick.)
Richard
Ferdinand:
Thankyou for your post addressed to me at June 8, 2014 at 9:15 am.
This is a brief note to apologise for my tardiness of my reply which I hope to provide later today. Sorry.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
June 9, 2014 at 12:57 am
Phil.:
re your post at June 8, 2014 at 8:49 am
You ask me
what part of “addition of substance to a reservoir” don’t you understand?
I and the IPCC (who wrote it) understand it completely.
But you lie about it.Clearly you do not understand it!
“Addition to a reservoir” means uptake of a reservoir: it does NOT mean – as you assert – the net of uptake and output of the reservoir. This is clear from the actual definition which I quoted for you. viz.
Sequestration 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.
The definition makes no mention of output of the reservoir or of uptake less any output of the reservoir. It says, “The uptake of carbon containing substances, in particular carbon dioxide, is often called (carbon) sequestration.”
More of your tiresome nonsense Richard. It appears that you do not even know what a reservoir is!
None of my colleagues who work in the area of Carbon Sequestration use the term to mean other than ‘the process of capture and long-term storage of atmospheric carbon dioxide’.
In Roger Sedjo and Brent Sohngen (2012). “Carbon Sequestration in Forests and Soils”. Annual Review of Resource Economics (Annual Reviews) 4: 127–144.
“Carbon sequestration is the process of capture (through photosynthesis) and long-term storage of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). Sequestration is possible through a range of processes, including those occurring naturally in plants and soils.”
and:
“Forests and soils sequester atmospheric CO 2 within their biomass or in organic matter that is stored in the ground. Oceans store most of the world’s carbon, but forests and soils store most of the carbon sequestered within land.”
Note the use of the word ‘store’.
also:
” However, both tilling soil and adding fertilizer significantly decrease the amount of carbon sequestered within soil. By soil tilling, microbes come in contact with previously untouched humus that is quickly decomposed, and carbon is released.”
Another reference:
“Ocean Sequestration of Crop Residue Carbon: Recycling Fossil Fuel Carbon Back to Deep Sediments”
Stuart E. Strand and Gregory Benford
Environ. Sci. Technol., 2009, 43 (4), pp 1000–1007
“For significant impact any method to remove CO2 from the atmosphere must process large amounts of carbon efficiently, be repeatable, sequester carbon for thousands of years”
“Significant removal at global scales requires that methods: (1) deal with very large quantities of carbon, (2) sequester the carbon efficiently, and (3) are repeatable over centuries.”
“For a successful carbon removal technology to have a significant impact on that rate of increase, the technology must remove and sequester at least 0.5 Pg per year (half a “stabilization wedge” (1)) over many years, at least as long as fossil fuel carbon is released to the atmosphere.”
“Because there are only three forms in which carbon can be sequestered (as CO2, carbonate minerals, and as reduced organic carbon), only a few methods for removing carbon from the atmosphere have been proposed:
sequestration of crop residue carbon in agricultural soils,
sequestration in growing forests,”
Clearly the definition of ‘sequestration’ used in the field is not yours.
The UNFCC uses:
“Carbon sequestration
The process of removing carbon from the atmosphere and depositing it in a reservoir.”
By now you will have looked up ‘reservoir’ in a dictionary and discovered that it is where one stores material, in this case carbon.
Obviously, you have demonstrated that your sole purpose is to troll, and you place no value on truth. (I ponder if your name is Gleick.)
Now that you are aware of what the correct definition of ‘Sequestrate’ is, hopefully you will apologise for your mis-statements and accusations of lying. If not, of course we will know who the troll is and who is lying. However I expect that we will continue to see your usual trolling and prevarication, but perhaps you will surprise me.
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
Ferdinand, this is my reply to your post at June 8, 2014 at 9:15 am which is here.
Firstly, I ask you to accept my apology for taking so long to reply: my time is mostly not under my control at present.
Secondly, I draw attention to your statement saying
Sorry, Ferdinand, but your assertion is a demonstration of the profound difference between our views, and your assertion only demonstrates that difference.
I would never say anything “can only be interpreted in one way” because it is never true.
I may say I only know one possible interpretation of the available data, or that I only know of one published interpretation of the data. But it would require deific omniscience to know there is only one interpretation. And in the specific case I am writing to provide an alternative view.
The difference between our language usages is very, very important. It indicates the certainty you ascribe to your ideas and the doubt I ascribe to both my and your ideas.
Turning to your substantive point, you say
I will try to isolate each point I understand you to be making in that argument. And I will address each point as I have understood it in turn.
1.
You say that excluding anthropogenic effects on atmospheric O2 concentration, any change – increase or decrease – in atmospheric O2 concentration is induced by biota.
I say, not so if only because variations in natural fires consume O2 and generate CO2: the magnitude of such variations is not known.
2.
You say that after adopting your assumptions concerning anthropogenic effects then “there is an increase” in atmospheric CO2 and, you say, this indicates “the biosphere as a whole is a net producer of oxygen.”
I say, So what? The issue is whether or not the change to oxygen in the atmosphere indicates the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. And the oxygen change is so small that the choice of adopted assumptions defines the result: in other words, your argument is circular.
3.
You say the carbon isotope ratio change is in the direction expected from the biosphere being a net absorber of CO2 during the NH seasonal variation.
I agree but I point out that the magnitude of the annual carbon isotope ratio change is 300% wrong for it to agree with your assertion which indicates that your assertions and/or your assumptions are wrong.
4.
You say that because O2 solubility varies little with temperature it must be that variations in O2 must be from the biosphere.
Although I think the variation is probably biogenic, I say you provide the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy: the change could be from something you have not mentioned (e.g. soil).
5.
You claim that the seasonal O2 variation is net uptake but “the longer term trend of oxygen shows a small increase over time (after correcting for fossil fuel use)” so – you assert – this indicates “a small but increasing CO2 uptake“.
I agree that land-based biomass almost certainly does provide “a small but increasing CO2 uptake“ but I know of no data which could indicate whether or not that is true of the larger ocean-based biota. And I say your point is merely another example of your circular argument which indicates “fossil fuel use” as a cause by adopting assumptions which allow for “correcting for fossil fuel use”.
6.
You conclude, “Thus the biosphere largely reduces its uptake at the end of the growing season and the biomass decay takes over in carbon transfer the other way out.”
I conclude that your assertions are not valid conclusions because they are based on logical fallacies.
Moving on, in response to my statement
You have replied
Good one! I did laugh. Thankyou.
But, more seriously, we both know that leaves on trees are not the only – or the main – seasonal CO2 sink. The oceans alone are a larger sink.
And if you want to claim that leaves are causing the long-term rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration then you have to demonstrate it. Good luck with that!
Your concluding paragraph says
Sorry, Ferdinand, a change to the ratio is either up or down and that is a 50:50 chance.
The change is in the direction of your favoured opinion as to cause. That means the direction of the change does not falsify your favoured opinion. It means nothing more than that.
As you admit, the magnitude of the change is only a third of what your favoured opinion indicates it would be. That is evidence AGAINST your favoured opinion. However, it is not conclusive evidence that your favoured opinion is completely wrong because – as you say – it is possible to explain the discrepancy as being “dilution”.
In summation, you claim the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration has an entirely natural cause but I do not know if it has an entirely natural cause, or an entirely anthropogenic cause, or some combination of natural and anthropogenic causes. I want to know the cause and, therefore, I regret that your arguments are not cogent.
Richard
Troll posting as Phil.:
The only thing you get right in your post atJune 9, 2014 at 5:57 am is that the definition I have cited and quoted is not mine. It is the definition in the IPCC AR5 glossary. That you choose to lie about it only informs about you.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
June 9, 2014 at 9:20 am
Troll posting as Phil.:
The only thing you get right in your post atJune 9, 2014 at 5:57 am is that the definition I have cited and quoted is not mine. It is the definition in the IPCC AR5 glossary. That you choose to lie about it only informs about you.
As anticipated Richard the Troll returns and continues his prevarication.
To repeat, the UNIPCC definition is correct but you continue to misrepresent it. All the authors who publish on the subject are using the wrong definition according to Richard, or perhaps you think I’m lying about the definitions they’ve used in their published work? That appears to be your opinion since you claim that I didn’t get the quotes right in my post, surely that would be easy to prove?
Disappointing, I’d expect a minister to have more integrity.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
June 8, 2014 at 3:13 pm
Thank you for your professional and polite response.
More later, but – IF (big “if” there! – I understand your basic point, the measured rise in seawater temperature cannot explain the global rise in CO2 concentration – WITHOUT adding an assumed (or calculated, or projected, or whatever) man-released CO2 component into the atmosphere, right?
Or, going the other way, if you add all of man’s measured coal, oil, and wood burned (paid for/supposedly accurate) masses of carbon evacuated/pumped/cut since 1800, you get “too much CO2” to account for the actual measured increase in CO2 ppmv levels —- unless you compensate with an assumed vegetation/plant mass/sea water absorb/ chlorophyll-used ratio, right?
So, the final “CO2-measured-today” values cannot work unless both assumed CO2 released and CO2 absorbed/used/put-into-plants values/rates/ratios/change-in-absorbed/change-in-release are estimated ?
Regardless of all of the above, it does appear that the simplistic “Hotter water releases more CO2” excuse is NOT sufficient to explain the measured increases in CO2 between 1850 and 2014, right?
RACookPE1978 says:
June 9, 2014 at 8:58 pm nad June 9, 2014 at 9:01 pm
Right!
Although for the latter, there is an escape possible: if there is an oceanic (*) process at work where an increase of C density / ocean upwelling combined with a temperature increase gives a lot of extra CO2. But that gives a lot of problems:
– timing of the increase in C flux must exactly mimic human emissions
– because the sinks don’t make any differentiation between human and natural CO2 (except a small one in isotopes), the threefold increase in human emissions over the past 50 years should be dwarfed by a threefold increase of natural emissions in the same time frame. That would be visible in a threefold shortening of the residence time. But that only lengthened somewhat, in line with little variation in the natural carbon cycle for an increased carbon content of the atmosphere.
– any natural increase of the release or increase in C cycle from the oceans would increase the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere, but we only see a rapid decrease…
(*) oceanic, as the biosphere is a proven net absorber of CO2 and the extra mass of CO2 in the atmosphere is comparable to burning 1/3rd of all land vegetation, but the earth as a whole is greening…
RACookPE1978:
I write to say that I, too, agree your two posts at June 9, 2014 at 8:58 pm and June 9, 2014 at 9:01 pm.
The difference between the views of Ferdinand and me is our different conclusions from the fact you state which is
Ferdinand claims the assumptions used to obtain the estimates MUST be true and, therefore, the observed recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration IS anthropogenic.
I say the assumptions used to obtain the estimates MAY be true and, therefore, the observed recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration COULD BE – but probably is not – anthropogenic.
Additionally, I draw attention to your stated recognition of the polite and honourable response you say you have obtained from Ferdinand. This is typical of discussions with Ferdinand, and it is why I think it is useful to discuss disagreements with him. Contrast that with the behaviour of the troll posting as ‘Phil.’ and you can see why I refuse to engage with him/her/them/it because such engagement has no value when it is with an egregious propagandist who posts falsehoods.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
June 11, 2014 at 3:21 am
RACookPE1978:
I write to say that I, too, agree your two posts at June 9, 2014 at 8:58 pm and June 9, 2014 at 9:01 pm.
The difference between the views of Ferdinand and me is our different conclusions from the fact you state which is
So, the final “CO2-measured-today” values cannot work unless both assumed CO2 released and CO2 absorbed/used/put-into-plants values/rates/ratios/change-in-absorbed/change-in-release are estimated ?
Ferdinand claims the assumptions used to obtain the estimates MUST be true and, therefore, the observed recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration IS anthropogenic.
I say the assumptions used to obtain the estimates MAY be true and, therefore, the observed recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration COULD BE – but probably is not – anthropogenic.
No Ferdinand provides facts and figures in support of his statements, you do not, you just waffle.
Additionally, I draw attention to your stated recognition of the polite and honourable response you say you have obtained from Ferdinand. This is typical of discussions with Ferdinand, and it is why I think it is useful to discuss disagreements with him. Contrast that with the behaviour of the troll posting as ‘Phil.’ and you can see why I refuse to engage with him/her/them/it because such engagement has no value when it is with an egregious propagandist who posts falsehoods.
More of your trolling Richard, I have been polite in responding to you in spite of your insulting remarks, however, I’ve decided to take a leaf from your book and henceforth address you for what you are, ‘Richard the Troll’. You bring nothing substantive to any discussion just spout your own opinions and when challenged become insulting and provocative and never address the questions or facts. Your usual MO is to refer to ‘falsehoods’ without ever identifying one! I provide chapter and verse regarding your misuse of the term ‘Sequestration’ and you call them lies!
Typical Troll.
RACookPE1978 says:
June 9, 2014 at 8:58 pm
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
June 8, 2014 at 3:13 pm
Thank you for your professional and polite response.
More later, but – IF (big “if” there! – I understand your basic point, the measured rise in seawater temperature cannot explain the global rise in CO2 concentration – WITHOUT adding
an assumed (or calculated, or projected, or whatever)the measured man-released CO2 component into the atmosphere, right?Or, going the other way, if you add all of man’s measured coal, oil, and wood burned (paid for/supposedly accurate) masses of carbon evacuated/pumped/cut since 1800, you get “too much CO2″ to account for the actual measured increase in CO2 ppmv levels —- unless you compensate with
an assumedthe measured vegetation/plant mass/sea water absorb/ chlorophyll-used ratio, right?So, the final “CO2-measured-today” values cannot work unless both
assumedmeasured CO2 released and CO2 absorbed/used/put-into-plants values/rates/ratios/change-in-absorbed/change-in-release areestimatedaccounted for. ?Troll posting as Phil.:
Enough of your rubbish. I post link, citation and quotation of the IPCC AR5 definition of sequestration and you try to pretend the definition is other than I cite then you post purportedly to me
The only “waffle” has been your blatant falsehoods.
These falsehoods include that I have insulted you. Please be assured that I would have insulted you if that were possible. And try to understand that I have no intention of diverting my priorities to the unpleasant business of interacting with you especially when I have important personal matters to address.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
June 11, 2014 at 6:40 am
Troll posting as Phil.:
Enough of your rubbish. I post link, citation and quotation of the IPCC AR5 definition of sequestration and you try to pretend the definition is other than I cite then you post purportedly to me
No that is a lie, I agreed that the IPCC definition was correct and point out that you misunderstand/misrepresent it, and gave references to papers that show that the scientific usage of the term is not what you are claiming.
In Roger Sedjo and Brent Sohngen (2012). “Carbon Sequestration in Forests and Soils”. Annual Review of Resource Economics (Annual Reviews) 4: 127–144.
“Carbon sequestration is the process of capture (through photosynthesis) and long-term storage of atmospheric carbon dioxide”
“Ocean Sequestration of Crop Residue Carbon: Recycling Fossil Fuel Carbon Back to Deep Sediments”
Stuart E. Strand and Gregory Benford
Environ. Sci. Technol., 2009, 43 (4), pp 1000–1007
“For significant impact any method to remove CO2 from the atmosphere must process large amounts of carbon efficiently, be repeatable, sequester carbon for thousands of years”
The UNFCC uses:
“Carbon sequestration
The process of removing carbon from the atmosphere and depositing it in a reservoir.”
All of these you claim to be falsehoods!
Either you don’t understand plain english or you’re a propagandizing troll, the latter seems more likely .
Troll posting as Phil.:
The UNFCC definition you quote at June 11, 2014 at 6:59 am is correct and you again lie when you assert that I have claimed it is a falsehood.
The UNFCC definition means what it says. It does not mean what you say. Contrary to your lie the UNFCC definition does NOT mention emissions. The definition also does not mention the Golden Gate Bridge and for the same reason; i.e. it is not relevant.
Your silly lies are annoying.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
June 11, 2014 at 8:38 am
Troll posting as Phil.:
The UNFCC definition you quote at June 11, 2014 at 6:59 am is correct and you again lie when you assert that I have claimed it is a falsehood.
Bang on cue Dicky the Troll returns to try to lie his way out of the hole he has dug for himself.
To refresh your memory, I posted the UNFCC definition along with quotations from other references,
You said “The only thing you get right in your post at June 9, 2014 at 5:57 am is that the definition I have cited and quoted is not mine., so you’re saying that the UNFCC and other quotes are wrong.
The UNFCC definition means what it says. It does not mean what you say.
Yes it does, and is so used by everyone in the field.
“Carbon sequestration
The process of removing carbon from the atmosphere and depositing it in a reservoir.”
Contrary to your lie the UNFCC definition does NOT mention emissions.
I did not say that it did, that’s another lie by you!
You are like ‘Steve Goddard’, you make false statements and when challenged vehemently refuse to admit that you are wrong, as Anthony mentioned the other day that’s what got him banned from here. He claimed that solid CO2 was precipitated at the S Pole, when I and others pointed out his error he refused to back down despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Your
silly liesfacts are annoying.richardscourtney says:
June 9, 2014 at 9:17 am
Richard, sorry for the late reply. They are installing a new CV installation here, because one of these stupid safety rules which forbid the use of gas stoves without CO safety device…
I don’t know where to begin. Your last reply looks more like word playing than a real answer to my remarks… But let’s start with a little history of the earth…
For a very long time there was no free oxygen on earth. All oxygen was in bounded form: metal oxides, SiO2 and in the atmosphere: CO2. At a certain moment the first plants using solar energy and chlorophyll evolved and could use the carbon from that CO2 for their benefit as energy and structural building blocks. The byproduct was oxygen. Thanks to oxygen animals could evolve, by burning the energy contained in carbohydrates and fats from plants. Some of the plants were buried over time and that is what we use today as coal, oil and gas (I know of several stories of “inorganic” oil and gas, but that is not at stake now).
There are several points that make a distinction between organic and inorganic carbon: practically all inorganic carbon in the oceans, sediments, carbonate rocks, volcanic vents,… has a near neutral 13C/12C ratio, that is around zero per mil δ13C. Near all organic carbon (fossil and recent) has a much lower 13C/12C ratio: -15 per mil δ13C (C4 plants), -24 per mil δ13C (C3 plants, coal), -26 per mil δ13C (oil) and further down to -40 per mil δ13C and beyond (natural gas). The atmosphere is a mix of all the CO2 exchanges with the other reservoirs and was -6.4 +/- 0.2 per mil δ13C (pre-Industrial) going rapidly down to currently below -8 per mil. Further recent organics have incorporated some 14C produced in the atmosphere from cosmic rays, which can be used for carbon dating, while fossil organics don’t contain any measurable 14C anymore.
Further, indeed only plant growing and decaying/eating/burning makes a difference for the oxygen balance. Nothing else. That is a blunt statement, but based on all scientific evidence from the far past and current knowledge. Thus your statement:
1. I say, not so if only because variations in natural fires consume O2 and generate CO2: the magnitude of such variations is not known.
is not right, as any forest fire, uncontrolled coal seams fires, drying out of the rainforests (as is the case during an El Niño) is part of the natural carbon/oxygen cycle. The first two aren’t measurable in the year-by-year CO2/O2 cycle variations, the latter is measurable as a peak CO2 / low O2 and low δ13C around the trends.
2. So what? The issue is whether or not the change to oxygen in the atmosphere indicates the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration. And the oxygen change is so small that the choice of adopted assumptions defines the result: in other words, your argument is circular.
The change in oxygen does indicate that the cause of the rise in atmosphere is NOT the biosphere. The biosphere is a net producer of oxygen, thus a net absorber of CO2. The change in O2 is stoichiometric for a change in CO2 in any direction in the biosphere, The problem is not the O2 variation itself but the necessary analytical accuracy: 1 part in 200,000 parts. But that is mainly a matter of sample handling.
3. I agree but I point out that the magnitude of the annual carbon isotope ratio change is 300% wrong for it to agree with your assertion which indicates that your assertions and/or your assumptions are wrong.
Sorry, but we have discussed that before: the change in the atmosphere is 30% of what one can expect if 100% of all human CO2 still resided in the atmosphere. But as you certainly know, some 20% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is exchanged each year with CO2 from other reservoirs, where the deep oceans have emissions which are app. 1000 years old with the isotopic composition of the deep oceans, which is a lot richer in 13C. My assumption is completely right if you take into account this “dilution” of the anthro 13C/12C contribution.
4. Although I think the variation is probably biogenic, I say you provide the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy: the change could be from something you have not mentioned (e.g. soil).
The O2 variations are all biogenic, that includes all plants (land and sea) as source, plant decay, (soil) microbes, fungi, insects, animals,… and all other O2 sinks, mentioned or not. Only a very small part is caused by de/outgassing of the oceans, mainly over the seasons.
5. I know of no data which could indicate whether or not that is true of the larger ocean-based biota. And I say your point is merely another example of your circular argument which indicates “fossil fuel use” as a cause by adopting assumptions which allow for “correcting for fossil fuel use”.
The ocean-based biota produce or use oxygen based on the balance between production and decay (direct or indirect via the food chain). These are included in the overall oxygen balance. I don’t think there is much change in the oceans, as CO2 is not the limiting factor in the oceans. The “assumptions” of oxygen use by fossil fuel burning have a reasonable accuracy: they are based on fossil fuel sales and oxygen use for each type of fuel. Worst case it may be underestimated because of under-the-counter sales, but that only means that the biosphere sink is larger than calculated…
6. I conclude that your assertions are not valid conclusions because they are based on logical fallacies.
Even without any assumptions, that is what both the O2 and δ13C measurements show: the biosphere as a whole reverses from a net source of oxygen (sink of CO2) to a net sink of oxygen (source of CO2) at the end of the growing season, while the long term trend (the integral of the residuals) shows that the biosphere is a net, but small source of O2 (sink for CO2). Which proves beyond doubt that the biosphere is limited in its short-term capacity as CO2 sink.
Sorry, Ferdinand, a change to the ratio is either up or down and that is a 50:50 chance.
Nothing to do with chance. The ice core measurements over glacial – interglacial periods give not more than 0.2 per mil δ13C for an enormous change in biomass and sea surface temperatures. The natural variability over the Holocene was not more than +/- 0.2 per mil δ13C in ice cores and the ocean surface layer (coralline sponges, resolution 2-4 years over the past 600 years). Since the Industrial revolution, the drop in δ13C level is over 1.6 per mil. 8 times more than over a glacial-interglacial transition. You may call that by chance, I don’t think so…
I want to know the cause and, therefore, I regret that your arguments are not cogent.
All my arguments are based on measurements and follow straightforward logic…