Existing studies may have misgauged how carbon is distributed around the world

 

From PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

Ocean’s heat cycle shows that atmospheric carbon may be headed elsewhere

As humans continue to pump the atmosphere with carbon, it’s crucial for scientists to understand how and where the planet absorbs and naturally emits carbon.

A recent study in the journal Nature Geosciences examined the global carbon cycle and suggests that existing studies may have misgauged how carbon is distributed around the world, particularly between the northern and southern hemispheres. The results could change projections of how, when and where the currently massive levels of atmospheric carbon will result in environmental changes such as ocean acidification.

By reexamining ocean circulations and considering the carbon-moving power of rivers, the study’s authors suggest that as much as 40 percent of the world’s atmospheric carbon absorbed by land needs to be reallocated from existing estimates. In particular, the Southern Ocean encircling Antarctica and forests in the northern hemisphere — while still substantial absorbers or “sinks” of carbon –may not take up as much as scientists have figured.

“The carbon story we got is more consistent with what people have observed on the ground,” said first author Laure Resplandy, an assistant professor of geosciences and the Princeton Environmental Institute.

“Rivers have been largely overlooked,” Resplandy said. “We need to better constrain the transport of carbon from the land to the ocean by rivers. Otherwise, this carbon is attributed to the land sink and is missing from the ocean sink. If carbon goes into the land or into the ocean, it doesn’t have the same impact.”

Resplandy and her co-authors used models and field observations to find that the world’s oceans transport heat between the northern and southern hemispheres in the same way that carbon is transported. The transport of heat, however, is easier to observe. By tracking this heat, the researchers discovered that the ocean in the southern hemisphere is a much smaller carbon sink than previously thought and that the land at the same latitude is an almost non-existent source of carbon.

At the same time, the land in the northern hemisphere is a much smaller sink, meaning that it absorbs less carbon than climate models had accounted for. Instead, the researchers found that this carbon is sent to the ocean by rivers and transported to the southern hemisphere by ocean currents with 20 to 100 percent more strength than previous studies and models had shown.

The world’s carbon “budget” is balanced by reconciling the carbon entering the atmosphere with the carbon being absorbed through oceans and land. But direct observations of carbon flux on land are difficult to obtain. As a result, the extent to which land absorbs or emits carbon is largely deduced by assigning it whatever carbon is left over after ocean data are considered. This has led to land being overestimated as a carbon source and sink, especially if rivers aren’t considered, the authors reported. Image courtesy of Laure Resplandy

For scientists, the world’s carbon “budget” is like a bank ledger, Resplandy said. The carbon being absorbed into the global cycle needs to match the carbon being emitted. While the ocean carbon cycle is well documented, direct observations of carbon flux on land are difficult to obtain and influenced by numerous factors. As a result, the extent to which land acts as a sink or source is largely deduced by assigning it whatever carbon is left over after ocean data are considered, Resplandy said.

“In the southern hemisphere, the ocean sink was overestimated. As a result, the land, which is deduced from observed atmospheric carbon dioxide and the assumed ocean sink in the same region, was found to be a source,” Resplandy said.

“This was highly surprising though as there is not a lot of land mass in the southern hemisphere to sustain this source,” she said. “Our new estimate reconciles this apparent discrepancy by suggesting that there is a weaker ocean sink and close-to-zero land flux in the south.”

In a commentary about the paper published in Nature Geosciences, Andrew Lenton, a research scientist at the Centre for Southern Hemisphere Oceans Research in Australia, wrote that the researchers established a correlation between heat and carbon transport, and showed that the pre-industrial carbon cycle can inform the understanding of the cycle today.

The researchers “provided an important baseline for understanding and attributing changes in land and ocean sinks in response to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations,” Lenton wrote. “Their results demonstrate the importance of the pre-industrial carbon cycle in setting the distribution of carbon sinks in the present day, and the power of exploiting the relationship between ocean heat and carbon transport driven by large-scale circulation.”

Scientists need to know how much carbon is entering the oceans, and where, so that they can more accurately project environmental changes that have a global reach, Resplandy said. Oceans, especially in the southern hemisphere, naturally take up carbon and heat from the atmosphere. But the price paid is a warmer ocean and higher acidity that threatens marine life and sea-based economies such as fishing.

“Now it matters to do a better job understanding the ocean,” Resplandy said. “Our main point is that carbon gets re-distributed because it was wrongly allocated. A lot of people had different pieces, but all the pieces weren’t quite fitting together.”

###

The study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0151-3

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

221 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bill Illis
June 20, 2018 12:28 pm

It does start out like it is a study trying to reach some objective truth about some topic.

But then, as you keep reading, you realize that they don’t care one iota what the facts really are at all. Just like all of climate science. Get a paper out. Get the academic credit. Help the cause. Rinse and repeat. Collect at go.

R. Shearer
Reply to  Bill Illis
June 20, 2018 4:05 pm

The pay is the same, so they say.

June 20, 2018 2:31 pm

Carbon? Isn’t that the stuff that comes out of diesel exhausts? You know the black sooty fumes?

Oh they mean Carbon Dioxide? The stuff that makes our planet habitable?

So this isn’t a scientific report then?

Even I know the difference between Carbon Dioxide and Carbon, and I know which one I would be most happy to breath, along with some nitrogen and oxygen!

Cheers

Roger

http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

Reply to  Roger
June 21, 2018 11:54 am

Roger,

Scientifically speaking, it is the carbon cycle, because it is about carbon in whatever form it may be exchanged between different molecules in different reservoirs on earth. Carbon black is not included in the carbon cycle, but set apart in aerosols, as it is irrelevant in the big carbon cycle, but relevant for its radiation properties.

One speaks about the oxygen cycle, even when that oxygen is created from water in plants or reverse by decay or digestion of plant material.

Felix
Reply to  Roger
June 21, 2018 12:14 pm

You exhale CO2, which your friendly neighborhood plants use to make sugar, while from water producing O2 for you to inhale. It’s a win-win.

Alan Tomalty
June 20, 2018 3:52 pm

” the researchers established a correlation between heat and carbon transport, and showed that the pre-industrial carbon cycle can inform the understanding of the cycle today.”

This study made the same mistake as the following study 2 articles over about glaciation and friction.
They used a model to establish the correlation between heat and carbon transport and then decided that all the models were wrong about the correlation. How can you establish a correlation without looking at real data? They admitted that all the links of the carbon cycle cannot be measured. The unanswered question is what was different about their model than the other 125 GCM models in the world studying climate change? Obviously they had to change the code in their model so that their model would produce different results. On what basis did they change the code? Real life observations? If that were true they wouldn’t need the models. They could just calculate everything. So they obviously changed the code based upon some assumption that enabled them to obtain different results than the rest of the 125 GCMs. So they started with an assumption and changed their model that would agree with their assumption. If you cant measure the carbon cycle without models then how can you establish an accurate correlation between heat/ temperature and carbon in the 1st place? THIS ISNT SCIENCE. THIS IS JUNK SCIENCE. IT ISNT EVEN BELIEF IN THE MODEL AS BEING AN ALL KNOWING PREDICTOR ( WHICH IS BAD ENOUGH) BECAUSE THEY HAD TO CHANGE THE CODE BEFORE RUNNING THE SIMULATIONS. That makes this study worse than useless because based on their conclusion they are asking the rest of the GCM community to change all of their models based upon an assumption.

Edwin
June 20, 2018 4:23 pm

Geez, my take away from this article is that they “discovered” apparently to their surprise that rivers flow into the oceans and carry with them a lot of stuff. The other take away that is more important, again we have “warmists” stating they know so little about the systems, 40 years later, to predict what is really happening. If the models have not correctly “modeled” carbon previously then it is more evidence that the models are wrong. Finally if we don’t know the carbon system today with all our tools how in the heck could be possibly understand what the carbon cycle was in pre-industrial times especially when they are arguing the importance of rivers and Southern Ocean currents. Of course they used a model to model.

I have great faith that the marine life in the ocean can adapted to most everything we throw at them except being put on the dock. Most marine fish have developed reproductive systems that allow them to adapt relatively quickly to changing environments.

Patrick MJD
June 20, 2018 5:18 pm

“As humans continue to pump the atmosphere with carbon, it’s crucial for scientists to understand how and where the planet absorbs and naturally emits carbon.”

This, from a university?

June 20, 2018 5:23 pm

Are they talking about Carbon or Carbon Dioxide?? I think they are talking about CO2. That’s like saying H2O (water) is Hydrogen or Oxygen… Let’s get our terms straight.

June 20, 2018 6:05 pm

I found this article difficult to read: it gave me a headache. Every time I encountered the word ‘carbon’ I had to stop and think, in the context of the argument, ‘do they mean carbon, or do they mean carbon dioxide?’. Such sloppy use of the word suggests that the article is not written with a technically educated audience in mind. Either that or the authors are accustomed to doctrine-speak.

Reply to  Eric Stevens
June 20, 2018 6:10 pm

I strongly agree with your point.

TonyN
Reply to  Eric Stevens
June 21, 2018 3:19 am

… smells like carbon disulphide to me …..

JimG1
June 20, 2018 6:34 pm

“the currently massive levels of atmospheric carbon ”
If one is going to say such a thing they must note relative to what and when. We’re barely in the zone where CO2 is adequate for good photosynthesis and at 400 ppm way less than previous geological periods.

June 20, 2018 6:48 pm

Using models based on biased concepts from researchers who have no understanding of chemistry or biology. Non-scientific rubbish

Carl Smith
June 20, 2018 9:52 pm

Hard to believe that this was written by a supposedly prestigious university – “currently MASSIVE LEVELS of atmospheric CARBON will result in environmental changes such as ocean ACIDification”. Reads like advocacy PR. Emphasis added.

Ian Macdonald
June 20, 2018 11:42 pm

Does anyone know what happened to the OCO-2 graphic that showed most of the CO2 coming from non-industrial regions?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ian Macdonald
June 22, 2018 9:20 am

It is still around. It has been published here on WUWT several times, including by myself. It was first presented publicly at the 2014 AGU meeting in SF, so it should be in their proceedings, even if it isn’t available at the JPL OCO-2 website.

June 21, 2018 7:40 am

“Oceans, especially in the southern hemisphere, naturally take up carbon and heat from the atmosphere. But the price paid is a warmer ocean’

Except that the Southern Ocean is almost universally warmer than the overlying atmosphere they would have it naturally taking up heat from, and according to Bob Tisdale’s latest update Dec. 2016, prior to the 2016 nino spike, Southern Ocean temperatures were declining.

Jasg
June 21, 2018 8:16 am

There’s too much attention paid to the Petit ice cores by warmists. Antarctica today is mostly cooling (contrary to the CO2 driver hypothesis) while the rest of the world is apparently warming (up to 1998 anyway). The facile warmist excuse is that Antarctica is just somehow different to the rest of the planet climate-wise. Yet logic would tell them if it’s different now then it was always different hence temperature and CO2 rises in Antarctica should coincide with cooling in the rest of the world. Apart from that conundrum they also have to ignore geological data, stomata data and even Arctic ice-core data in order to posit a CO2-temperature link. Then they have to steadfastly ignore the fact that, even in their preferred Antarctic ice-cores, temperatures started to fall while CO2 levels were at their peak.

As James Lovelock admitted they were all ‘misled by the Antarctic ice cores’ but that’s quite easy if you treat fossil fuels as a universal bogeyman; blamed for global cooling and acid rain prior to the global warming hysteria and now blamed for imaginary early deaths from Nox/particulates.

The idea of the ocean being a CO2 sink rather than a source, contrary to physics in a warming world, is a conclusion derived directly from the assumption of a ‘missing sink’ which in turn comes from the assumption that the enormous amounts of natural CO2 sinks and sources were somehow ‘in balance’ prior to the industrial age coupled with the myth of ‘pre-industrial CO2’ that arose entirely from a horrendous bias in CO2 data selection by steam engineer Guy Callendar that was dismissed at the time by Slocum as rank bad science and even worse statistics.

Not that current CO2 data collection at Mauna Loa is any better than Callendar! I’ve seen raw CO2 data and it is nothing like that reported at ML; it varies by 100ppm from one hour to the next even in the desert. That ML throw out 80% of the data rather than use the normal distribution of all data to find the base value (as engineers would do) is merely biased data-mining.

Jim Ross
Reply to  Jasg
June 21, 2018 9:33 am

Jasg,

“[atmospheric CO2] varies by 100ppm from one hour to the next even in the desert”

I have not seen any data in the desert, but it is certainly true that local diel variations can be as much as 200 ppm or more. However, it would be a mistake to assume a normal distribution because that would clearly be wrong. On land, in the daytime, photosynthesis dominates and removes most if not all CO2 down to a “background level”. Then it creeps back up again at night until the sun comes up the next day. This description of the diel cycle is a generalisation of course, but only because wind and other factors can have an effect.

The objective of siting the Mauna Loa observatory where it is located was to minimise the diel changes so that the background level could be measured. The reliability of the Mauna Loa data is very well supported by multiple observatories around the globe, including at the South Pole.

For a specific example of the diel cycle see Figures 12 and 13 here:

http://meteo.lcd.lu/papers/co2_patterns/co2_patterns.html

And proof of the non-normal distribution of hourly data, see page 80 here:

https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/42961/

The concept of a baseline or background level is, in my view, beautifully illustrated by the two-minute data shown on page 79 of Wilson’s PhD thesis and this corresponds to the annual cycle as measured at Mauna Loa, for example.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Jim Ross
June 22, 2018 9:27 am

Jim,
However, as discussed here on WUWT, with windy conditions, what is being sampled at the summit of ML is probably ground-level CO2 concentrations lofted to the top by orographic uplift.

Jim Ross
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
June 22, 2018 10:56 am

Clyde,

Yes, there certainly could be some “contamination” of the Mauna Loa (MLO) data. If you look at the hourly data, there are plenty of minor deviations from the general trend but the effect of these is largely removed from the daily data. The weekly data also show some deviations from trend, which may or may not be valid, but looking at the weekly data on a year-on-year basis it is easy to identify the consistent significant variations from the annual cycle (e.g. the annual slowdown in growth rate in Jan/Feb, which appears to almost disappear during a strong El Niño).

Although I do not feel that the MLO data are compromised to any significant degree, I tend to focus on the South Pole data unless I am looking at latitudinal differences.

Reply to  Jasg
June 21, 2018 12:14 pm

Jasg,

Ice cores ice shows in part the temperature of Antarctica, but also of the catch area where the water vapor originated. In that way it is a proxy for a large part of the Southern Oceans.

The T-CO2 link is there for all inland ice cores of Antarctica, ice cores of the Arctic (Greenland) are unreliable for CO2 levels, due to inclusions of frequent highly acidic volcanic dust from nearby Iceland. Stomata data are a proxy, which reflects local CO2 data, not global. Local data over land are very variable if taken near sources and sinks like vegetation, less variable in deserts and mpuntain tops and in the middle of the oceans…

At last, Mauna Loa shows exactly the same averages (+/- 0.1 ppmv), no matter if you include or exclude the outliers.

Here all the raw data plotted (2004):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/mlo2004_hr_raw.jpg

Here only the selected data plotted:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/mlo2004_hr_selected.gif

June 21, 2018 12:32 pm

Please Gentlemen,

A lot of people here take exception about the fact that near every scientific article about CO2 talks about the carbon cycle, not the CO2 cycle.

The simple reason is that one can’t compare the fate of CO2 in the atmosphere with CO2 in water (only 1% CO2 in seawater, 90% in form of bicarbonates, 9% carbonates), nor with CO2 in plants: CO2 in plants is immediately converted to a host of chemicals called carbohydrates (sugar, starch, cellulose), not CO2hydrates, and many other chemicals.

The same reason as why in the biosphere one talks about the nitrogen cycle and the phosphor cycle, while these elements are all in different chemical forms at different parts of the cycle.

There is nothing of a conspiracy or “hiding the truth” in using the only part that doesn’t change in a cycle no matter in what molecule that element is incorporated, it only makes comparisons a lot easier: 60 GtC going from the atmosphere into vegetation and back in the atmosphere over the seasons is easier to follow in a mass balance than 180 Gt CO2 from the atmosphere converted into 300 Gt carbohydrates in vegetation and back over the seasons (*)…

(*) I haven’t calculated the exact ratio’s…

Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
June 21, 2018 12:41 pm

Yep. It’s the carbon cycle, not the carbon dioxide cycle. The exchange of carbon dioxide gas between the oceans, soil, biosphere and atmosphere are just part of the carbon cycle.

Jane Rush
June 21, 2018 3:23 pm

I wonder if anyone can answer these questions.

Why is carbon dioxide in the atmosphere only measured in one place – Mauna Loa? And is it significant that there is a volcano there?

Also does anyone take CO2 readings where they live, and if so what do they use? I would really like to take my own readings here in the UK. A NASA video I watched showed CO2 swirling around the planet in different concentrations and so I don’t understand how one measurement defines the planet.

Thanks.

Jim Ross
Reply to  Jane Rush
June 22, 2018 12:09 am

Atmospheric CO2 measurements are taken in many locations around the world and all show essentially the same trend, though the size of the annual cycle varies (maximum at high northern latitudes). See here for an overview plot showing multiple sites:
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/other_stations/global_stations_co2_concentration_trends

Alternatively go here and have a look at the various tabs. Then click on “observatories” to see other locations:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

The data at Mauna Loa are carefully monitored regarding possible influence of volcanic activity and the consistency with other locations is clear evidence that this is NOT a significant issue.