Guest essay by Martin Hovland, Geophysiscist and Professor Emeritus, Center for Geobiology, University of Bergen, Norway
The newly released satellite OCO2-data indicates that there is CO2 input in tectonically active oceanic areas. This becomes evident by pairing seafloor topography and tectonic data with the recently published OCO2-results. Thus, in the released OCO2 dataset, showing the average atmospheric concentration of CO2 over a period of about 6 weeks late in 2014, there are three curious, relatively week, but distinct CO2-hotspots over oceanic regions:
1) The Timor CO2-hotspot
2) the Fiji CO2-hotspot, and
3) the Emperor CO2-hotspot, see Fig. 1.
Using the Smithsonian Volcano database, it is seen that these CO2-hotspots occur above seafloor features which are suspected to issue CO2, CH4 and occasionally large amounts of heat (especially for FH and EH). Here, it can be seen that the TH occurs over a deep-water accretionary subduction wedge. This is a collision zone, where huge amounts of oceanic sediments pile up before they sink into and are swallowed up beneath the island masses to the north (Fig. 2). In such settings, it is well-known that continuous seepage of methane occurs out of the seafloor. Therefore, it is here speculated that the underwater and aerial oxidation of this excess methane gas provides the regional CO2-anomaly detected by OCO2.
The seafloor beneath the FH is also highly tectonized (Fig. 3), but in a completely different fashion to that of the TH. At Fiji, there are both colliding plates and rifting zones. The whole region is highly contorted and there are lots of seepage, both hot vents and cold, methane-dominated vents. Transmittal of methane and CO2 to the atmosphere is likely also here.
Because of the highly tectonized seafloor also underlying the Emperor CO2-hotspot, it is speculated that there is excess CO2 given off by the ocean also in this area. The effect of excess heat and gases seeping out of the seafloor hotspots, was illustrated already in 1988, in Fig. 10.4, by Hovland and Judd (in the book: “Seabed Pockmarks and Seepages: Impact on Geology, Biology and the Marine Environment”). A modified version of this conceptual idea is provided in Fig. 5.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thanks, Dr. Hovland. Your input is appreciated.
It seems like the Earth is a natural source of additional CO2 too. What is there left for us carbon-based creatures?
While I’ve always suspected that scientists were down playing the role of volcanoes in CO2 emissions based on terrestrial examples, let’s wait for a little more data from NASA before we get too excited about this. If the CO2 hot spots over the volcanic hot spots persist through a year with the seasonal changes in the pattern of the photosynthesis and respiration, it would be stronger evidence of a stationary source. Right now, they could just be “clouds” that rode the wind in to their current locations.
The excess CO2 from the hot spots should be pretty apparent in the surface waters if this theory is correct. I don’t know if any one has looked systematically, but it should also be apparent in the long term surface pH data that Willis is playing with.
If volcanoes are spewing CO2 into bottom water, it could be a long time, and very far away from the the site of the emissions that the water actually interacts with the atmosphere and gives up it’s CO2
Not wanting to burst anyone’s bubble but we already knew that annual human emission are only 5-10% of the flux that occurs between the atmosphere and the oceans and atmosphere, it’s not a great shock that other natural sources show up as strong or stronger than fossil fuels.
Hey, now, what is all this new speculation all about?? You know the ‘science is already settled’, so why the renewed debate??
/sarc
Had OCO2 data even remotely connected CO2 and industry, there would be no “Too early to tell.” “We need to wait and see.” “We need more data.” Is there any doubt that even a tenuous connection would morph into absolute certainty blaring from every headline and the lips of every talking head across the galaxy?
http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/3713-CO2-Feedback-Loop
we better put some chain binders on them there plates to keep them from shifting and killing us all.
LOL yeah…
Low levels of chlorophyll, a lot of CO2 on the surface of the ocean.
?w=700
http://oi62.tinypic.com/107p9ao.jpg
“The highest chlorophyll concentrations, where tiny surface-dwelling ocean plants are thriving, are in cold polar waters or in places where ocean currents bring cold water to the surface, such as around the equator and along the shores of continents. It is not the cold water itself that stimulates the phytoplankton. Instead, the cool temperatures are often a sign that the water has welled up to the surface from deeper in the ocean, carrying nutrients that have built up over time. In polar waters, nutrients accumulate in surface waters during the dark winter months when plants can’t grow. When sunlight returns in the spring and summer, the plants flourish in high concentrations.”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/GlobalMaps/view.php?d1=MY1DMM_CHLORA
No cholophyll at all in Africa, America, etc. It looks like a homogenized data.
Thanks for all the positive comments and facts! On the map produced by the OCO-satellite, there are two other blobs worth noticing: 1) the deep blue one in the southern ocean, and 2) the bright red blob, just SW of Iceland in the north Atlantic.
Area 1) is due to cold seawater that sequesters CO2 from the atmosphere, thus making this location into an oceanic ‘sink’, or ‘sponge’, that soaks up the carbon dioxide gas that occurs in the air above the sea surface. You see, cold water has a higher solubility index for CO2, than warm water. There are undoubtably several other such ‘Blue CO2-Holes’ occurring in southern an northern open water areas. So, let’s hope that one day we get treated with a transpolar circulating satellite by NASA, so that we can see these important CO2-sponges.
Area 2) is an anomaly, which is probably caused by ongoing volcanic activity onshore Iceland. However, it could actually also be due to underwater volcanic activity along the Røykjanes Ridge, which is the part of the Mid Atlantic aridge (rifting ridge) that goes onshore Iceland. But, i think this option is doubtful.
The largest CO2-sink on our planet is suspected to be located over the Norwegian-Greenland Sea, at around 66 – 75 degrees north.
Let us assume that outside of urban concentrations of fossil-fuel and slash-and-burn agriculture, we are happy with the status of CO2 in the atmosphere:
We take the total (which I have yet to see quantified, though the data is clearly good enough to do so even if we say it is only a short-term number), isolate the f-f and s-a-b amounts, and remove those two. We will then see what the difference is and what would happen if we reduced fossil-fuel usage in the concentrated areas and slash-and-burn methods elsewhere.
The result would probably say we can’t do it without shutting down the global civilization in terms even the eco-green understand.
And what is the problem with slash-and-burn anyway? Things grow again, using the CO2 that was created in the burn. It is a zero-sum activity.
how about the west coast of north america? LA with its smog shows nothing, while the baja and especially the pacific north west shows a concentration of CO2.
http://oi61.tinypic.com/10cmf00.jpg
Very curious, indeed…
So, who’s going to tell the Morlocks to cut down on production or install CO2 scrubbers seeing as wind and solar ain’t an option?
Looks like those of us who kept asking about the volcanic emissions from the sea floor were correct in assuming it factored in a whole lot more than some believed.
AGAIN, one more time, the land volcano data that is always referred to as the gold standard when this comes up, is estimated, completely outdated, and sloppily put together in the first place. What we know about the number of active sea mounts is miniscule because we have only mapped a fraction of the ocean floors.
Is the carbon satellite observatory capable of differentiation between “atmospheric” carbon and other than atmospheric carbon? Any suggestion of a source for how the satellite functions?
the aborption spectra of a molecule or atom is determined by electron shell energy bands. OCO2’s spectrometers measure IR absorption bands characterictic of CO2 and O2. So nuclear (isotope fraction information) composition is not possible. Mass spectrometers and neutron bombardment-backscatter are used in practice to determine isotopic presence in a sample.
Joelobryan,
Thank you for that. Wondering how the system could differentiate from a pool of CO2 in the atmosphere vs. a pool of CO2 underwater having been recently emitted from a sink. Your level of scientific understanding is much past that of mine so any sharing is greatly appreciated by me and I presume others.
A sink does not emit. That would be a source.
Db,
Thank you for that correction.
Do you have any understanding of if the satellite system differentiates (or can even sense) the CO2 being emitted from it’s source (see I’m learning) under water?
But, a sink can draw heavy concentration around it. Think of rainwater running downhill and pooling up around a drain.
Bart – no a sink cannot draw a heavy concentration around it. In your example, if the sink was not there the concentration would be greater.
You are thinking statically.
the aborption spectra of a molecule or atom is determined by electron shell energy bands.
Not in the IR which is the wavelength range used on the satellite, that measures the vibrational and rotational emissions which are not due to electronic transitions. These wavelengths do depend on isotopic composition so in principle it is possible to differentiate between isotopologues, whether the satellite has the resolution to do so I don’t know. For example C(13)O(16)2 has a strong band at ~2040 cm-1 whereas C(12)O(16)2 has a strong band at ~2080 cm-1.
Bart January 2, 2015 at 11:29 am
But, a sink can draw heavy concentration around it. Think of rainwater running downhill and pooling up around a drain.
Not in the gas phase in the atmosphere Bart, diffusion and turbulence works to smooth out concentration gradients, there is no realistic mechanism to concentrate gaseous components in the atmosphere. You get high concentrations near sources and lower concentrations near sinks.
An assertion based on assumed characteristics. You do have a tendency to imagine how you think things should be, and then proclaim it as truth.
If those CO2 hotspots are indeed tectonically derived, that makes the prediction that they will persist in magnitude regardless of season. And then only that wind patterns drive their plume directionality.
Maybe this has already been addressed in comments, but these observed data look nothing like this recently published model of global carbon dioxide:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/18/who-needs-an-orbiting-carbon-observatory-when-you-can-model-of-carbon-dioxide/
Discussed above by Verity Jones comment:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/02/nasas-new-orbiting-carbon-observatory-shows-potential-tectonically-induced-co2-input-from-the-ocean/#comment-1826681
… and links therein.
NASA’s earlier CO2 simulation is akin to the fanciful romantic imaginations of canals on Mars, based on fuzzy 19th century telescope viewings. We look at them today and laugh. Why? Because we have been sending robotic orbiting surveyors to the Red Planet and down to the surface and we clearly know better now.
One day, with actual in situ CO2 data in hand, the fanciful ideas of anthropogenic sources of CO2 driving changes in climate and the massive expenditures of resources to adjust CO2 production to change global temperatures will be viewed similarly to sentient life dug-canals on Mars …. with a hearty belly laugh.
When data contradict a settled science, the data must be wrong.
For me it was the SE Europe and its tectonic plates that was the ‘smoking gun’. Industrialised Europe, UK, Germany, France, Italy … nothing
Balkan peninsula least populated, least developed, least industrialised with excess of CO2 !
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SEE-CO2.jpg
The red lines indicate boundaries between different tectonic plates which are outlined by the repeated occurrence of earthquakes (white dots)
So it is not volcanoes as much as the certain tectonic plates fault lines.
I first commented on tectonics on 29 Dec “This also could be case to east of the Andes, Indonesia, parts of the Pacific and even south of Greenland -Reykjanes ridge”, nice to be even if a just few days ahead of the distinguished geophysiscist and professor Hovland
Happy New Year to you. I hope you won’t start a new CO2 scare along the lines of a radon scare or a high voltage power lines scare.
Hi CG
And very happy New Year to you too. No fear, I look on the bright side. I can assure you CO2 at the ground level is a good gas:
http://s.hswstatic.com/gif/irrigation-photosynthesis.gif
http://www.fireprotectiononline.co.uk/images/T/2KgBudgetCo2-180.jpg
Careful mates… that fire extinguisher might freeze those roots!
“The primary source of carbon/CO2 is outgassing from the Earth’s interior at midocean ridges, hotspot volcanoes, and subduction-related volcanic arcs”
http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon_cycle.gif
http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm Gavin’s stomping ground
http://eesc.columbia.edu/faculty/gavin-schmidt
Enter your comment here…
Here’s one for those who like to calculate. If I remember correctly mid-ocean spreading ridges, of which there are 80,000 km produce mid-ocean ridge basalt aka MORB, which if I recall correctly contains 0.8% CO2 by weight. Now imagine that along the entire ridge system the amount of spreading is a mere few centimeters along a several kilometers of depth to the mantle source of MORB and pretty soon your talking big numbers.
Also, since it’s in the news Iceland is having a nice eruption and there is lots of talk about all the SO2 being released there, but on average MORB has double the amount to CO2 vs SO2. Anyway, this is interesting, and I am looking forward to a few years of data from this satellite.
Near the center of Figure 5, in faint blue text, are the words, “Excess T, CO2, CH4.” The last two are well-known chemical compounds, but what does “T” stand for? Temperature? Thermal? At what point does temperature or heat become excessive? Is it “excess” heat if it comes from volcanic activity but not if it comes from other sources like the sun?
Interesting…I wonder if there is any correlation between Murry Salby’s “Net Global Emission” of CO2 and tectonic activity? That would be an interesting study…correlating tectonic activity over the globe 1980 – 2010 with net CO2 emissions. see – https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=2ROw_cDKwc0#t=2444
(from http://landcoverchange.com/gallery_post/global_mapping/ which is consistent with what I have read elsewhere)
Hence a large fraction of the added fossil CO2 should be coming, continuously, from a tiny fraction of the area. If (IF) this amounts to at least 3ppm per year, then allowing for a ~100 fold concentration over urban areas, and the color scale on the map, I would expect to clearly see this in the OCO data.
I don’t see it. Why not?
I know nothing about the subject but if I were to guess, it looks more like the distribution of smoke.
Tectonics & CO2 – Likely
CO2 – Climate Change – Unlikely
Tectonics – Climate Change – Very Likely
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ETC.htm
Found this, too;
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=5319
Thank you
There is more that we don’t know about the floor of the oceans and beneath them than what we do know.
The biggest problems don’t come from not knowing, but from creating speculative theories, then building models based on those theories.
Then scientists, using these assumptions and models build a stronger and stronger case to provide the proof, as they interpret data with confirmation bias.
This has snowballed into an unshakeable, widely held view that carbon dioxide is pollution and the increase in atmospheric CO2 is from humans burning fossil fuels…….especially coal, crude oil and natural gas.
This data is in the early stages of being obtained and interpreted but it sure as heck doesn’t show humans using coal, crude oil and natural gas……the intended targets for imposing expensive regulations, as having the effect on atmospheric CO2 levels as those with that agenda are basing it entirely on.
In the last 15 years, we’ve learned numerous things that are either exaggerated or flat out dead wrong with this theory(human’s burning fossil fuels causing X amount of warming, climate change and extreme weather) and I’m hard pressed to find anything that has been confirmed.
The earth clearly has experienced around 1 degree of beneficial warming over the past 100 years. The planet has also clearly experienced a very beneficial increase in CO2 levels from 280 ppm to 400 ppm during that time.
How it happened, how it is effecting climate and life on this planet and where we are headed, reads more like some sort of fairy(ScaryTale) tale, turning CO2, a very beneficial gas into pollution and humans as selfish monsters that emit this pollution because they don’t care as much about life and future generations.
How arrogant these people are to constantly accuse me, an environmentalist(and meteorologist for 32 years) of not caring as much as them about our awesome planet…………even coming up with special names “Denier” and “Flat Earther” to make it clear that they are scientifically smarter/better than others that are skeptical of many of their views.
Empirical data and observational data can be interpreted in biased fashion for quite some time………..years, even decades but in the end, it levels the playing field and authentic science will not be denied.
Quite why anyone is thinking this data will show anything about anthropogenic sources of CO2 is beyond me. Not only is the anthropogenic contribution dwarfed by non-anthropogenic flux, but CO2 is pretty well mixed in the upper atmosphere and anthropogenic sources will be included in warm gas releases anyway.
This has got nothing to do with whether the increase in CO2 is anthropogenic or not – that is a different argument that is not affected by this data whatsoever.
Just look at the range of the concentration shown on the figure – none of these bears any relation to CO2 from anthropogenic sources which – at point of release – are probably thousands of times higher. Our exhaled breath is around 4% CO2 – 40,000 ppm.
The data here may show some sources, but anthropogenic emissions are just not big enough (within the overall flux) to show up at this resolution.
As I asked above, I think they should be if we are contributing to a ~3% or more annual rise (based on emissions) in global CO2 concentrations from <1% of the global area. A back of the envelope calculation shows the scale of our emissions should be visible. Something doesn't add up.
I think I like this satellite.
Is this not the same type satellite who’s first launch was destroyed in the boost phase? Now we, perhaps, know why it was destroyed.
This is ground shaking data , real data, for the “cause”. to chew on.
Many CAGW troopers might be forced to rethink their CAGW scare,
Indeed.
Febrary 2009: OCO launch went into the ocean after a fairing failed to separate properly. Mission lost.
Does anyone know where to find the Digital Tectonics Activity Map? I keep getting access forbidden 403 from NASA.
http://denali.gsfc.nasa.gov/dtam
Might be a server glitch- check again Monday. That happened on the SolarSoft Latest Events page a few weeks ago.
north america east coast appears to have a correlation to seismic activity.
http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2005/a1/Research/ga.gif
East is on the right hand side of the map….West on the left.