University of Bern
The Arctic Ocean will take up more CO2 over the 21st century than predicted by most climate models. This additional CO2 causes a distinctly stronger ocean acidification. These results were published in a study by climate scientists from the University of Bern and École normale supérieure in Paris. Ocean acidification threatens the life of calcifying organisms – such as mussels and “sea butterflies” – and can have serious consequences for the entire food chain.
The ocean takes up large amounts of man-made CO2 from the atmosphere. This additional CO2 causes ocean acidification, a process that can already be observed today. Ocean acidification particularly impacts organisms that form calcium carbonate skeletons and shells, such as molluscs, sea urchins, starfish and corals. The Arctic Ocean is where acidification is expected to be greatest.
A study that was recently published in the scientific journal Nature by Jens Terhaar from Bern and Lester Kwiatkowski and Laurent Bopp from the École normale supérieure in Paris shows, that ocean acidification in the Arctic Ocean is likely to be even worse than previously thought. The results show that the smallest of the seven seas will take up 20% more CO2 over the 21st century than previously expected, under the assumption that the atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to increase. “This leads to substantially enhanced ocean acidification, particularly between 200 and 1000 meters”, explains Jens Terhaar, member of the group for ocean modeling at the Oeschger-Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Bern. This depth range is an important refuge area for many marine organisms.Consequences for the food chain
Ocean acidification negatively impacts organisms that build calcium carbonate skeletons and shells. In sufficiently acidic waters, these shells become unstable and begin to dissolve. “Our results suggest that it will be more difficult for Arctic organisms to adapt to ocean acidification than previously expected”, says co-author Lester Kwiatkowski. A loss of these organisms is likely to impact the entire Arctic food chain up to fish and marine mammals.New method improves projections
The international research team exploited the large divergence in simulated Arctic Ocean carbon uptake by current climate models. The researchers found a physical relationship across the models between the simulation of present-day Arctic sea surface densities and associated deep-water formation, with greater deep-water formation causing enhanced transport of carbon into the ocean interior and therefore enhanced acidification. Using measurements of Arctic sea surface density the research team was able to correct for biases in the models and reduce the uncertainty associated with projections of future Arctic Ocean acidification.
###
Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research
The Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research (OCCR) is one of the University of Bern’s strategic centres. It is a leading institution for climate research and brings together researchers from fourteen institutes and four faculties. The OCCR carries out interdisciplinary research that is at the forefront of climate science. The Oeschger Centre was founded in 2007 and is named after Hans Oeschger (1927-1998), a pioneer of modern climate research who worked at the University of Bern.
Publication: Terhaar et al.: Emergent constraint on Arctic Ocean acidification in the twenty-first century. Nature, 17. June 2020, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2360-3
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Can anyone tell me this – I have been arguing with alarmists forever about it. Is the ocean largely saturated in regard to carbonate and bicarbonate dissolution? Of course, saturation is temperature dependent, but almost all the ocean is in near contact with CaCo3 isn’t it? Science education appreciated.
Caz,
The ocean surface (the “mixed layer”, the upper few hundred meters) is in direct contact with the atmosphere and is in rapid equilibrium with the atmosphere for most gases in solution. The exchange rate for CO2 e.g. is less than a year and within a few years, the surface follows the CO2 increase in the atmosphere or reverse, but currently it is one-way from the atmosphere into the oceans (pCO2 difference: average 7 μatm higher in the atmosphere), besides the two-way seasonal exchanges.
According to Henry’s law, there is a fixed ratio between CO2 in solution and in the atmosphere for a fixed temperature, thus a 30% increase in the atmosphere will give a 30% increase of pure CO2 in solution. That is the case in fresh water. In seawater, pure CO2 is less than 1% of all dissolved inorganic carbon compounds, 90% is bicarbonate and 9% is carbonate. As all these species are connected with each other in equilibria, that makes that also bicarbonate and carbonate increase, but also H+. The pH drop is the cause that less carbonates and bicarbonates are formed than expected: about a factor 10 less, but still 10 times more total DIC (CO2+(bi)carbonates) than in fresh water.
That is called the Revelle or buffer factor.
The amounts: the 35% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere thus increased the DIC of the ocean surface with around 3.5%. As the surface layer contains about 1,000 GtC, the total increase is only 35 GtC of the near 400 GtC emitted by humans.
So far the alarmists are rigth, as the surface layer is rather isolated from the deep oceans and there is no direct contact with carbonate layers, except in coastal areas or shallow seas.
Then we have the deep oceans. The only direct exchange between atmosphere and deep oceans is via the polar sink places and returns via the (mostly equatorial) upwelling places. That is restricted to about 40 GtC/year, but so far from saturated, that it will go on for many centuries. At the coldest places the pCO2 of the oceans is only 150 μatm. With 410 μatm (~ppmv) in the atmosphere, the driving force is 260 μatm pressure difference, which is good for pressing about 2-3 GtC extra CO2/year into the deep oceans.
As the deep oceans are highly undersaturated in CO2, that process can go on for many centuries without a sign of saturaiton. The only drawback is the speed of uptake, as the deep ocean – atmosphere exchange is very limited…
Since CO2 in water is related to its temperature, they seem to be saying the water will get colder.
That’s gerbal worming for ya. !
So if the ocean will absorb and neutralize more CO2 than we thought, and it accounts for most of the CO2 storage in the first place, then CO2 levels in the air will not increase as much as we thought, and global warming will be lower.
This is good news, right?
“The ocean takes up large amounts of man-made CO2 from the atmosphere.”
How does the Arctic Ocean (or any other ocean) differentiate between man-made and natural CO2? Does it look for the trademark?
” due to acidic ocean waters” … since when is Ph8 acid? “large amounts of man-made CO2” …since when is 4% a large amount?
Just looked up pH on Wikipedia. Says pH of neutral is lower at warmer temperatures, can even be lower than 7. Is global warming going to be the solution?
This is a con job. A bait and switch. A straight-out lie.
They have put a snail in an aquarium, added an unrealistic amount of acid (from out of a reagent bottle) and the snail’s shell has (unsurprisingly) suffered damage.
They have then made a pie-in-the-sky prediction about future ocean acidification.
The juxtaposition of the photograph of the damaged snail PLUS the claims about future acidification could [is intended to] lead the naïve believers to believe that the damaged snail in the photograph is an actual specimen taken from arctic waters
The picture of the cracked snail shell has nothing to do with the paper.
It seems to have been added by EurekaAlert (a.k.a. AAAS) to sex-up and add a splash of colour to an otherwise monochromatic story.
” In sufficiently acidic waters, …”
Let me know when the oceans become acidic. Then I’ll start watching to see if it becomes “sufficiently acidic” to dissolve carbonate shells.
To absorb more CO2 the water must get colder, hmmmm. Global warming — warmer atmosphere and colder oceans! Sounds like a model to me.
The international research team exploited the large divergence in simulated Arctic Ocean carbon uptake by current climate models. The researchers found a physical relationship across the models
There was no research. It was all mathematical onanism.
Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.
As most commentators here note, measured in the open ocean, sea water is basic with a pH of about 8.1 worldwide down from about 8.2 a century ago.
But the pH varies in various sites in the oceans by the month week day or even hours.
See Hofmann et al 2011.
This study found that pH changes were large, from 0.1 to 1.4 units over a 30 day period. They also found that pH changed by as much as 0.35 units over a course of days.
The study concluded that “ climatology based forecasts consistently under estimate natural variability,” and that ocean residents “are already experiencing pH regimes that are not predicted until 2100” by the climate models.
The oceans will never be acidic.
What this paper is discussing is a fear of impacts from reduction in alkalinity.
From The Royal Society, “Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide”, June 2005,we learned that according to computer models, doubling of atmospheric CO2 would decrease ocean pH to about 7.9, still basic but less so.
The fear of ocean acidification from CO2 is hugely overstated.
Indeed next to polar bear propaganda, it is the most confected non issue going around.
“Herbert June 18, 2020 at 7:32 pm
As most commentators here note, measured in the open ocean, sea water is basic with a pH of about 8.1 worldwide down from about 8.2 a century ago.”
That is a modelled estimate not a measure.
The Oceans will never become acidic and probably not even less alkaline either.
The pH of the open ocean (pH 8.1) is 10 times more alkaline than rainwater (ph 7). Given that the ocean basins are basaltic rock, it is chemically impossible for the oceans to acidify (fall below pH 7). The correct term for falling pH in an alkaline solution is neutralization, NOT acidification.
This is Inorganic Chem 101.
”The correct term for falling pH in an alkaline solution is neutralization”
But is it?
Neutralization means to make neutral and that’s far from what’s happening.
From Britanica Chem…
”….. but as long as the concentration of the added substances is small compared to the concentration of the individual buffer components, the new hydrogen ion concentration will remain close to its original value.”
I am still waiting to see proof and an explanation of a reduction in alkalinity in the ocean caused by co2
The headline was all I had to read to know what a crock it is.
For ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’ followers it must be great news as CO2 bonding with H2O inversely proportionate to temperature to form H2CO3 (carbonic acid) implies that ocean acidification is a sign of global cooling.
YAWN! Get back to me when we can actually measure ocean pH with reliability and when it is measured to be below 7. Otherwise this is just pure BS!
Normally a post like this in WUWT would have had a title like:
“Claim: Arctic Ocean Acidification worse than previously expected”.
But this time the “Claim” part has been omitted. Like if it was true, despite it is nothing but a modelled prediction. Not to mention the pretended terrible consequences of such an acidification that the article contains despite it is nothing that comes out of the model, just purely trash-talk with the intention to scare. What’s up with that?
Well well…
The same Bern University which assumes in its “Bern model” that the whole ocean surface is uniform and continuously saturated by our CO2 emissions now admits that the polar waters may absorb 20% more CO2 than expected?
Until now, there is no sign of saturation in polar waters and they continue to absorb CO2 in ratio to the extra CO2 pressure in the atmosphere. That CO2 sinks with the polar waters into the deep ocean, which are far from saturated to return ~1000 years later near the equator. The net effect of all our emissions until now, once they are mixed with the deep oceans is an increase of ~1% in deep ocean carbon. Once in equilibrium with the atmosphere, that means about 3 ppmv extra, that is all…
The only negative point is that the direct exchange rate between atmosphere and deep oceans is limited to about 40 GtC/year and that currently only 2-3 GtC/year extra CO2 is absorbed by the deep oceans. Together with the extra uptake by vegetation, that gives a half life time for any extra CO2 above equilibrium of about 35 year (e-decay ~50 years).
The Swiss University of Bern is where the IPCC Comitee Member Prof. Thomas Stocker (a known “hot climate” modeller) comes from. He is also President of this new Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research. Another garbage in garbage out study. Is there anything else to expect? It doesn’t matter, the taxpayer research money just flows…
With the present left-green majority in the Swiss parliament, more “green blob literature” of these sorts is to be expected in the future.
When I read of ocean acidification in any article I switch off. If those writing the article don’t refer to alkaline reduction and produce the figures, they are grossly biased in their presentation methods.
These people (scientists??) must be aware of the connotations involved in the word acidic however technically correct it may be. Use of it only reinforces the propagandist nature of the article peddling the alarmist Meme and detracts from the reputation of science in terms of honesty.
From the second paragraph of the above University of Bern blurb:
“The ocean takes up large amounts of man-made CO2 from the atmosphere. This additional CO2 causes ocean acidification, a process that can already be observed today.”
Nothing could be further from the truth.
It is true that carbonic acid (H2CO3) is initially created as gaseous CO2 initially dissolves into seawater (or rainwater). However, H2CO3 is not stable and very quickly decays into bicarbonate and carbonate negative ions, with accompanying formation of hydronium positive ions. The hydronium ions very quickly react with OH- ions (abundant in water with a pH greater that 7.0) to produce neutral pH water, or they react with other oxidizing ions already present in solution, and thus they are rapidly removed as potential reactants. It is the formation of bicarbonate and carbonate ions in seawater that causes the world’s oceans to be a highly stable, strongly buffered solution with an average pH in the range of 8.1-8.2.
So, it is actually the absorption of CO2 by seawater that maintains the dissolved ions necessary to buffer the solution on the basic side of the pH scale.
BTW, rain and snow have a pH in the range of 5-6, and are very likely the largest forcings that attempt to drive the world’s oceans toward a pH of 7 (neutrality). The Arctic receives an annual precipitation, mostly snow, of about 15 to 25 cm (6 to 10 inches).
I have long advocated that the climate change alarmist term ‘ocean acidification’, intended to mean a pH reduction, is a sign of global cooling. As H2CO3 bonding happens inversely proportional to temperature it implies that.
Snow is a crystal lattice without CO2. Under cold enough conditions H2O precipitates that way from the absence of CO2 after H2O has stripped that out of the air. Enrichment with CO2 happens from melting and reworking during the warmer times of the year That’s why ice cores have much lower CO2 values than at 3.4 km altitude in the tropical updraft at Mauna Loa from the most intense solar heating of the ocean on the planet and from the centrifugal force of the about 1,677 km/h equatorial speed of rotation,
‘Climate change’ is BS aimed at keeping the WMO/UN/IPCC/NOAA gravy train topped up. Every scientist will know that bureaucrats extend their power and influence by making other people do what they need to do to justify their existence and make themselves look good.
See: https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-major-errors-made-by-scientists-in-approaching-a-climate-change-problem/answer/John-Bruyn
Actually, snow can crystallize from air moisture that has already absorbed CO2, and thereby contains a significant amount of carbonic acid. Since there is usually no quantity of hydronium ions (or other reducing ions) present in air during snow formation, the carbonic acid is stable because the water forming the ice remains on the acidic side of the pH scale. Specifically, CO2 “enrichment” does NOT happen during the melting of snow that has precipitated out of the air.
Nawrot, et.al., in “Chemistry of snow cover and acidic snowfall during a season with a high level of air pollution on the Hans Glacier, Spitsbergen”, 2016 (free PDF download available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1873965216300457 ) measured the pH of FRESH natural snowfall on the Hans Glacier at different altitudes and found that it varied over the range of 3.4 to 5.0, with the variation being much much more dependent on time-of-year than on the altitude of the snowfall (ref. Figure 6 of the cited paper).
If the moisture had already absorbed CO2 it would’ve precipitated as rain, hail, or sleet, which of course happens. However, 1 CO2 molecule bonding with H2O and forming H2CO3, is 2.44 times more massive than H2O and becomes a condensation nucleus, making water droplets more massive than N2 and O2. Depending on temperature and pressure it will precipitate very quickly. Under the same conditions, not having the CO2 makes H2O stay up in the air and wait for the right conditions to precipitate as snow.
The Hans glacier, Spitsbergen, Norway is a special case of collecting air pollution from lower latitudes that drop the pH as you mentioned. CO2 is not listed as it is not a pollutant and does not contribute to the acidification.
Sorry, but one molecule of carbonic acid (H2CO3) is far too small to form a condensation nuclei. Even 1000 such molecules grouped together would be far too small.
Water has a molecular diameter of about 2.8 Å and CO2 has a molecular size of about 3.3 Å (long axis) . . . thus, the largest dimension of a H2CO3 molecule would be approximately 6 Å, or about 6E-10 m, or about 6E-7 mm, or about 0.0006 µm
“Water requires a non-gaseous surface to make the transition from a vapour to a liquid . . . A typical raindrop is about 2 mm in diameter, a typical cloud droplet is on the order of 0.02 mm, and a typical cloud condensation nucleus (aerosol) is on the order of 0.0001 mm or 0.1 µm or greater in diameter.” — source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_condensation_nuclei
Furthermore, the process could never act as you propose for if it did, then the current level of about 410 ppm of tropospheric CO2 would quickly be removed by the overwhelming level of water vapor typically in Earth’s troposphere (ranging from 3640 ppm wt. at 32 °F dew point to 14,330 ppm wt. at 68 °F dew point).
Finally, the motions of molecules (or groupings of say hundreds of such molecules) of any substance found in the Earth’s atmosphere are most strongly governed by diffusion and convection processes, and not gravitational (i.e., precipitation) forces, due to their extremely small masses.
Notwithstanding the above, it is comforting to see your assertion that CO2 does not contribute to acidification in your concluding sentence.
Thank you, Gordon. It seems to me that you are cherry-picking. The massive fires in south-eastern Australia during their 2019/20 fire season were followed by unprecedented hailstorms and lots of rain. According to your thinking, CO2 had nothing to do with that but the 0.04% CO2 as measured in overnight dew in the tropical updraft to 100+ km with around -100 C temperatures and circulating back down from there can warm the planet with its very narrow LIR absorption bands. They provide CO2 barely enough energy to separate from H2CO3 when reaching the surface and helps to make the grass grow. FYI, the atmosphere is not the same as a laboratory on the surface. AGW protagonists have a one-eyed view of the world that is far removed from the real world where the blades of hockey stick graphs keep on sliding ahead of us over time.
It is a bit like meteorologist do with their models. They make predictions and update these until they match the observations on the time of day and simply ignore that if that too was wrong by recording the actual observations. Climatologists, however, wrongly interpret the observed warming since about 1970 to be from the rising CO2, which is due to the increasing speed of Earth’s rotation caused by the reducing eccentricity of Earth’s orbits for the next 10,000+ years.
Looking at the Solar Simulator 2 (can be downloaded for free, no strings attached) we can see that the warming since 1970 perfectly correlates with the time that Earth laps Uranus moved into the NH warming half of the year that started in 1969 when lapping both Uranus and Neptune at the time of the March equinox. The annual progression for lapping Jupiter is 34 days, which makes it come around to that time every 22 years, hence the solar magnetic cycle of that duration as observed from Earth.
For Uranus that takes 84 years, with a half cycle of 42 years driving the polar see-saw effect too. When Earth laps Uranus during the half-cycle affecting the NH this warms the Arctic more by slightly increasing the tilt of Earth’s spin axis. As you can see from the SS2 that ended in 2010 but coincided with Saturn taking over with a more profound polar effect and taking 29.5 years to get around, giving a half cycle of about 13 years that is now nearing its end. Together will Uranus this will start the warming of the Antarctic while the Arctic will be cooling. It all shows that we are not just living on Earth but in the entire solar system.
To see how Earth’s temperatures are affected in the short term and over the longer-term feel free to check out my answers on Quora, e.g. https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-major-errors-made-by-scientists-in-approaching-a-climate-change-problem/answer/John-Bruyn
John Bruyn,
Snow crystals indeed don’t include CO2, but there is no change in CO2/N2 ratio when water condenses to snow, as temperatures e.g. in Antarctica are much too low to give any liquid water.
The same for ice cores, where the pores between the snow crystals are getting smaller and smaller, but still allow exchanges between the atmosphere and the layers below for 40 to hundreds of years (depending of the accumulation rate), before the layers are sealed off.
At sealing depth, the CO2 level is only 7 ppmv lower (~10 years “younger” in average) than the outside air. Measured at Law Dome in the 1980’s…
Ferdinand stated: “Snow crystals indeed don’t include CO2 . . .”
To first order, this appears to be incorrect. Stauffer and Berner, in their article “CO2 in Natural Ice”, Journal of Glaciology, 1978 (free pdf copy available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/16C2FF52DC79BA7A58AF069168183F1D/S0022143000033487a.pdf/co2_in_natural_ice.pdf ) presented gas chromatograph data obtained from FRESH snowfall ice crystals showing that the concentration of CO2 dissolved in the snow ice crystals ranged from 0.02 to 0.28 ml (STP) CO2 per kg ice.
They also present similar gas analysis data obtained from a SINGLE ICE CRYSTAL (about 10 cm diameter) grown in a laboratory in 1974. Sample 1 was taken from one face of the disc that had been exposed to the atmosphere for “considerable time” (in “Discussion” on the last page of the article this was clarified to be approximately three years) and it contained 0.088 ml (STP) CO2/kg ice. Sample 2 was taken from the outer part of the adjoining disc and it contained 0.050 ml CO2/kg ice. Sample 3 was from its inner part of the single ice crystal and was found to contain 0.051 ml CO2/kg ice.
In that referenced article, Stauffer and Berner concluded:
“CO2 in natural ice is present partly in the gas of the air bubbles. Another, and in most
cases greater, part of it is dissolved in the ice.
“It is probable that a local equilibrium is reached between the CO2 dissolved in the ice
and the CO2 of the surroundings and of the air bubbles.”
To the best of my knowledge, the data and conclusions in the Stauffer and Berner article have not been invalidated.
In the paper https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/16C2FF52DC79BA7A58AF069168183F1D/S0022143000033487a.pdf/co2_in_natural_ice.pdf ) the authors admit to many assumptions and uncertainties. They conclude:
‘the CO2 content of ancient air is neither directly preserved in the total CO2 concentration nor in the CO2 concentration in the bubbles.’
The CO2 measured in fresh snow was much lower than in hail. On that basis I stand corrected that indeed there is CO2 in snow and I thank Gordon for pointing that out. However, the source altitude and location of the ice crystals at the poles is not known and cannot reasonably testify to the assumed global atmospheric CO2 uniformity in support of ‘raditive forcing’ and the AGW concept. Furthermore, the slow rise in CO2 in the tropical updraft as measured at Mauna Loa relates to the increasing speed of Earth’s rotation caused by the 41,000 obliquity cycle of Milankovic and will continue for the best part of the next 10,000 years. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are mostly used by photosynthesis on land and in the ocean; to the extent that they are not they are precipitated and sequestrated by the cooler part of the ocean at high latitudes.
Gordon,
Your reference is completely outdated. The melting method for CO2 in ice cores is completely abandoned, as that gives a lot of false results, especially in Greenland ice cores, where there is frequent deposit of highly acid volcanic dust from nearby Icelandic volcanoes. Together wit sea salt deposits (including carbonates) that gives you any amount of CO2 you like…
That is the reason that nobody still uses melting to measure CO2 in ice cores (but still used for other gases like CH4), but either grating to detect only CO2 in the enclosed bubbles or sublimation of everything, which recovers 99.99% of all included gases and isotopes – including in the ice matrix – over mass spectrometry. That the grating technique shows good results can be seen by comparing these two methods which give roughly the same results.
Most of the test I see in that report are from “warm” ice, that is ice near melting, which contains relative much water – and impurities, where CO2 can be dissolved in the water veins. For colder coastal (-20ºC) and inland (-40ºC) snow/ice that is less contaminated, that is not the case and all ice cores at Antarctica are within +/- 5 ppmv for the same average age…
Ferdinand,
You are focusing on CO2 measurements obtained on ice cores. I clearly referred to CO2 measurements made on fresh snowfall.
There is a difference.
‘…there is no change in CO2/N2 ratio when water condenses to snow’
The points made were that during the cooler times of the year CO2 is precipitated mostly at lower latitudes and that snow does not take CO2 down to the surface but is enriched with that during the warmer times of the year. Ultimately, it is ridiculous to regard CO2 to have a uniform distribution around the globe and to rely on overnight dew at 3.4 km altitude to pretend that to be the same as in molten and reworked snow and ice at the poles and saying that human beings are causing global warming. That amounts to gross ignorance. Here is another useful link
https://www.quora.com/Because-of-global-warming-should-we-go-back-to-using-animals-like-horses-and-camels-for-transport-and-towing/answer/John-Bruyn?__nsrc__=4&__snid3__=9043412052
John Bruyn,
If you look at the amount of air you need to drop out 1 liter of rainwater and how little CO2 is dissolved in that water, there is simply no detectable change in the CO2 level where water condenses. The same where that water drops on a solid floor and immediately evaporates: For 1 mm rain, that gives less than 1 ppmv extra in the first meter of air…
CO2 levels all over the globe (except in the first few hundred meters over land) are within +/- 2% of full scale from near the North Pole to the South Pole, including the seasonal amplitude and a NH-SH lag (90% of human emissions are in the NH). Despite a 20% exchange of all CO2 over the seasons with the oceans and the biosphere.
I call that very well mixed.
CO2 in ice cores was measured from top down snow/firn to ice at Law Dome. There is an overlap between the ice core and direct measurements at the South pole for the period 1960-1980 where ice cores show the same CO2 levels within 1.2 ppmv (1 sigma):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_sp_co2.jpg
Thus sorry, one can attack CAGW on many points, but that humans are responsible for the recent increase of CO2, CH4 and N2O is rock solid science…
Ferdinand
I accept what you are saying. What we are talking about is the rising CO2 in overnight dew at 3.4km altitude in the tropical updraft vs what is shown in ice cores and the ‘ocean acidification’ in the southern ocean, which has been cooling due to illumination differences of the poles caused by Earth lapping Saturn. Look at the sea ice pic in what I wrote in answer to this Quora question https://www.quora.com/Because-of-global-warming-should-we-go-back-to-using-animals-like-horses-and-camels-for-transport-and-towing/answer/John-Bruyn?__nsrc__=4&__snid3__=9043412052
And, use the Solar Simulator 2 to see what is happening on the 21st September 2025. With Earth first lapping Saturn and Neptune and then Uranus and Jupiter from the September equinox to the March equinox, this will cause cooling in the Arctic and warm the Antarctic as. The Jupiter cycle is only 6 years max per hemisphere, Saturn takes 15 years, Uranus takes 42 years, and Neptune takes 86 years per hemisphere. That is where the long recognised see-saw effect of the Arctic and Antarctic temperatures are coming from.
For the past 9,700 years or so the 41,000-year obliquity cycle has been reducing the eccentricity of Earth’s orbits and increasing the speed of Earth’s rotation, thus increasing the surface airflow and CO2 going up as measured at Mauna Loa. That will continue for the next 10,000+ years.
Our CO2 emissions are poultry compared with the natural cycle and cannot be cumulative because of the seasonal cycle and its circulation through the -100C in the upper atmosphere before coming back down again and doing so quite evenly but varying with the seasons and matching insolation.
Less alkaline is not the same as more acidic.
“The researchers found a physical relationship across the models between the simulation of present-day Arctic sea surface densities and associated deep-water formation, with greater deep-water formation causing enhanced transport of carbon into the ocean interior and therefore enhanced acidification”
There is no such thing as a “physical relationship” across “models”. Models aren’t physical or real. They are imaginary mathematical constructs designed to represent hypotheses of how the real world works. The fact the authors confuse this is evidence of why media announcements often misinform readers as to the limited value of models in predicting future events.
For more info see: https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-major-errors-made-by-scientists-in-approaching-a-climate-change-problem/answer/John-Bruyn
“This additional CO2 causes a distinctly stronger ocean acidification”
CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are to blame. The answer is climate action.
https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/05/18/12479/
Perhaps you should try to learn a bit more about the real world. Feel free to follow the link below and get back to us when you have understood it all.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-major-errors-made-by-scientists-in-approaching-a-climate-change-problem/answer/John-Bruyn
John,
You should have read the link by Chaamjamal, as he is completely on your side…
But you both probably have never heard of something that is called a mass balance?
If humans emit every year in the past 60 years about twice the amount of CO2 that is measured as increase in the atmosphere, then humans are to blame for the increase, whatever the height and mass of any and all natural fluxes individual or together…
You are right, I had not previously considered that. It fits perfectly with the changing obliquity angle bringing CO2 closer to the tropics where it is needed for photosynthesis.
My apologies to Chamjamaal