Twice as much carbon flowing from land to ocean than previously thought

INSTITUTE FOR BASIC SCIENCE

Research News

IMAGE
IMAGE: SCHEMATIC FIGURE SHOWING THE NEW ESTIMATES OF RIVER, GROUNDWATER AND COASTAL ECOSYSTEM CARBON TRANSPORT FROM LAND TO OCEAN. view more CREDIT: EUN YOUNG KWON

Every year 600-900 million tons of carbon flow through rivers to the ocean either as particles or in dissolved form. Researchers have known for a long time that this does not represent the total amount of carbon that gets transported from the land to the ocean. But the remaining contributors mostly from coastal ecosystems, such as carbon-rich mangrove forests, and from groundwater discharge into the ocean have been notoriously difficult to measure.

A new study published in the journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles and spearheaded by Dr. Eun Young Kwon, project leader at the IBS Center for Climate Physics South Korea provides new estimates of this elusive component of the global carbon cycle. The study makes use of the existence of two stable carbon isotopes, 12C and 13C, with the latter being slightly heavier, because it has one more neutron in its nucleus. The concentration ratio between these two carbon isotopes (referred to as ?13C) provides a means to track carbon through the different components of the carbon cycle, including the atmosphere, oceans, river systems and the biosphere. Knowing the typical ?13C value of land biosphere and for coastal vegetation, one can now track how this quantity gets diluted in the oceans. “The carbon isotope values act like an invisible dye that tells us something about the source where it came from and how much got released initially” says Dr. Kwon, lead author of the study.

By using oceanic observations of ?13C and estimates of the ocean currents, Dr. Kwon and her international team were able to calculate how much carbon would have to come from the land to explain the ocean data. The calculations are a bit more complicated because carbon can also get deposited in the deep ocean as sediment or outgas to the atmosphere. Furthermore, fossil fuel burning also changes the ?13C of atmospheric and eventually oceanic carbon.

After accounting for these effects, the authors were up for a surprise: they found much higher numbers for the land to ocean carbon transfer of 900-1900 million tons per year (see Figure). Most of non-riverine carbon inputs of about 300-1300 million tons of carbon per year occur mostly along the coastlines of the Indian and Pacific Oceans. “This is consistent with the idea that groundwater discharge and coastal ecosystems, the so-called blue carbon, play a fundamental role in the global carbon cycle” says Dr. Kwon.

One of the remaining open questions is which oceanic processes are responsible for carrying the dissolved carbon from the coastal zones to the open ocean, where part of it outgases back to the atmosphere. “This question will be addressed in future with a series of new earth system model simulations that we just conducted on our supercomputer Aleph”, says Axel Timmermann, co-author of the study and Director of the IBS Center for Climate Physics.

###

From EurekAlert!

4 9 votes
Article Rating
75 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ElDoCo
March 18, 2021 6:12 pm

The significance being?

William Astley
Reply to  ElDoCo
March 19, 2021 4:08 pm

“Twice as much carbon flowing from land to ocean than previously thought’
And there is a massive sink of CO2 into the deep ocean. See link below.

This is the discovery that there is massive sink of CO2 into the biosphere.

Where is the source of CO2 to match this sink prior to anthropogenic emissions?

There is a material balance issue in the biosphere.

CO2 that goes into deep sequestration… disappears out of the biosphere …. is greater than the ….

CAGW sneaking incorrect assumption that human emissions of CO2 are large compared to the natural CO2 inputs into the biosphere and water input into the biosphere is assumed to be only from volcanic gas.

That assumption small CO2 input into the biosphere, before anthropogenic emissions ….

Does not work because it is a fact, there is hard observational evidence, of huge unaccounted for (in the Bern equation) permanent sinks of both CO2 and water out of the biosphere.

For example. The Bern equation assumes there are no sinks of biological source material from the surface to the bottom of the ocean.

This recent direct observation that C14 is making to the deepest ocean with no delay is an observational fact that disproves the CAGW team created absurdly non-physical so-called Bern model of CO2 sinks and sources and resident times.

Where is a direct observation that there is a massive CO2 sink into the deep ocean and a link to a review summary that notes …

“The alleged long lifetime of 500 years for carbon diffusing to the deep ocean is of no relevance to the debate on the fate of anthropogenic CO and the “Greenhouse Effect”, because POC can sink to the bottom of the ocean in less than a year (Toggweiler, 1990).”

https://www.livescience.com/65466-bomb-carbon-deepest-ocean-trenches.html

Bomb C14 Found in Ocean Deepest Trenches

‘Bomb Carbon’ from Cold War Nuclear Tests Found in the Ocean’s Deepest Trenches

Bottom feeders
Organic matter in the amphipods’ guts held carbon-14, but the carbon-14 levels in the amphipods’ bodies were much higher. Over time, a diet rich in carbon-14 likely flooded the amphipods’ tissues with bomb carbon, the scientists concluded.

Ocean circulation alone would take centuries to carry bomb carbon to the deep sea. But thanks to the ocean food chain, bomb carbon arrived at the seafloor far sooner than expected, lead study author Ning Wang, a geochemist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Guangzhou, said in a statement.

The Bern equation assumes zero biological material is being sequestered in the ocean. The observation that C14 is going the bottom of the deep ocean proves the Bern equation assumptions are incorrect.

Comment: There is a spike in C14 in the past due to nuclear testing. The decay time of the C14 shows that sequester time ‘half life’ for new CO2 injected into the atmosphere is around 5 years as compared to the Bern equation assumed half life/sequester time of CO2 of 200 years and 25% for ever…. which is physically not possible… stupid.

This is a really interesting subject for amateurs (CO2 biosphere question. Inputs into the biosphere.) because there is simple physical observational evidence to prove the skeptics case.

I highly recommend any sceptics or those interested in scientific breakthroughs read this summary of the CO2 residence time in the atmosphere and an explanation of issues.

This is a good summary of the physical impossibility assumptions/mechanics of the Bern equation.

Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2: on the construction of the “Greenhouse Effect Global Warming” dogma.
 
https://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf

The volcanic CO2 eruption emitted CO2 is small compared to anthropogenic emissions.

What has been found, observational in the last 5 years, is it is fact that there are massive long term sinks of CO2

fred250
March 18, 2021 6:12 pm

Isn’t it GREAT to know that the CARBON CYCLE, that supports ALL LIFE ON EARTH

… Is alive and doing its thing 🙂

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  fred250
March 18, 2021 6:29 pm

The Climate Change scammers are the anti-science crowd. Without a doubt.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
March 19, 2021 5:40 am

We need to emphasize that those scammers are pushing a new religion- with their priests and prophets and how they attack skeptics as heretics.

Curious George
Reply to  fred250
March 18, 2021 7:12 pm

Is this carbon flowing as diamonds? Graphite? Graphene?

Oldseadog
Reply to  Curious George
March 19, 2021 4:20 am

Unicorn farts?

fred250
Reply to  Oldseadog
March 19, 2021 5:14 pm

Sorry, unicorn farts are gay rainbow colored.

This is a picture of griff’s power supply system.

comment image

Steve Z
Reply to  Curious George
March 19, 2021 10:04 am

The “carbon” flowing in rivers is probably not elemental carbon (graphite or diamonds) but organically-bound carbon, in rotting plant or animal waste that gets washed into rivers during heavy rains. Some of this organic matter could be eaten by fish or other marine life and recycled into the marine ecosystem, and some carbon could be rejected into the ocean as CO2, which can either remain dissolved or be outgassed into the atmosphere, depending on temperature and presence of dissolved mineral ions (particularly calcium), which can react with CO2 to form bicarbonates and carbonates, some of which are insoluble and precipitate to the sea floor.

Organic carbon compounds that are washed into rivers, and from there into the sea, could be a huge “carbon sink” for land areas, but what happens to “carbon” in the ocean is difficult to quantify. Phytoplankton near the ocean surface can use dissolved CO2 to generate food and oxygen, and the food is consumed by marine animals, which transform the carbon atoms in the food into other compounds for their own particular needs. We can do some research on how carbon is processed in marine life near coastal areas, but do we really know what happens to carbon in the open ocean, hundreds or thousands of miles from the nearest coast?

All life on earth is based on the chemistry of the carbon atom, whose tendency to form four covalent bonds with other atoms (particularly hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and other carbon atoms) enable it to form billions of different compounds with very specific properties and functions in living cells. In all the living organisms on earth, from food crops to trees, from krill to whales, from ants to elephants, carbon atoms make up about 10 to 15% of their mass, meaning that the mass of carbon atoms that are contained in living organisms (which circulates through the biosphere through photosynthesis, eating, excretion, and decomposition of dead organisms) is many times larger than the inventory of carbon in CO2 in the atmosphere.

If the amount of “carbon” that gets washed into the ocean by rivers is estimated at 900 to 1900 million tonnes/yr (0.9 to 1.9 GT/yr), this is about 10 to 20% of the human emissions of CO2 (about 35 GT/yr CO2, or about 9.5 GT/yr carbon content). If we add up all the other biological processes that can consume or reject “carbon”, many of which are extremely difficult to quantify, they are bound to dwarf the emission of CO2 by human burning of fossil fuels. .

Kevin kilty
Reply to  Curious George
March 19, 2021 11:20 am

Quite a lot is bicarbonate ion.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Kevin kilty
March 23, 2021 8:06 pm

Which helps to stabilize the pH as the dissolved CO2 and carbonic acid (actually slightly ionized) concentration changes.

Mike
March 18, 2021 6:15 pm

In other news….the price of oranges is stable

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Mike
March 18, 2021 10:26 pm

But what about hog bellies? I want to know about hog bellies.

Archer
Reply to  Rory Forbes
March 19, 2021 1:41 am

Ask again at Christmas.

ATheoK
Reply to  Mike
March 19, 2021 10:16 am

Not the ones raised in South Texas.
The same goes for oranges raised in Louisiana.

Joel O'Bryan
March 18, 2021 6:18 pm

I love settle science of the Climate Scam, especially how the IPCC pseudo-scientists seem to claim they know whence all the evil carbon flows and goes.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
March 18, 2021 6:41 pm

They remind me of a bad comedian who comes up with 100s of jokes but they always have the same punch line. By the end of the routine the audience chants it out in unison. We read a new “climate” paper and it’s always … “it’s worse than we thought”.

Apart from anything else; AGW true believers are just boring.

Loydo
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
March 18, 2021 8:24 pm

“seem to claim”? What claim? By who? Wtf does seem to claim even mean?

Make-it-up-Joel, at it again. Don’t bother with the research at the source of this post, that’s the science, I don’t think you’ll be interested in that. No, see if you can weave something, anything into your ‘us vs them’, conspiracy cliche.

Mmm, mmm its worse than we thought. lol

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Loydo
March 18, 2021 8:55 pm

stinkerp

March 18, 2021 6:42 pm

land to ocean carbon transfer of 900-1900 million tons per year (see Figure). Most of non-riverine carbon inputs of about 300-1300 million tons of carbon per year

When your wild guess varies by 210% to 433% you might consider a career as a politician instead of pretending to be a scientist. Imagine a bookmaker setting odds on the winning score of a basketball game being between 48 and 100 points, or worse, between 24 and 100 points. That’s how unserious guesses of 900-1900 and 300-1300 million tons per year are.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Loydo
March 18, 2021 9:19 pm

Loydo,
Are you a masochist? Do you enjoy the intellectual spankings you get here? Apparently you must, because here is another.

The “IPCC pseudo-scientists seem to claim” statement comes from the carbon-climastrologists who wrote up WG1-Chapter 6 in AR5. These new authors (subject of this post) note that previous claims (i.e. as in from AR5) of knowledge on the subject of carbon input to the oceans were grossly wrong. And indeed they were/are.

The above article noted:
After accounting for these effects, the authors were up for a surprise: they found much higher numbers for the land to ocean carbon transfer of 900-1900 million tons per year (see Figure).

note (for math challenged like Loydo):
1 metric tonne = 1,000 kg = 1E6 gram. So,
1,000 million tons = 1E9 metric tonnes = 1,000 teragrams = 1E15 gram = 1 petagram.

From: AR5 Chapter 6. Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles
Look at the FAQ 6.1, Figure 1 (below)
per the figure: 80 teragrams/yr from rivers. How does that compare to 900-1900 teragrams (?)About an order of magnitude.
Do you see any +/- uncertainty numbers in that figure?

Also, realize that AR5 came out before the NASA OCO-2 mission team began releasing data on atmospheric CO2 changes in 2017. OCO-2 satellite data was at great odds with the prevailing consensus. Did the consensus change? or did the OCO-2 results get “cancelled”.

Loydo, you really should go read IPCC AR5. It’s hoot. Becasue all of the carbon cycle crap in that document has been turned upside down in the last 5 years. Thus my belittling the “settled science” garbage of the climate scam.

Figure61_AR5FAQChap6.jpg
Last edited 4 months ago by joelobryan
Loydo
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
March 18, 2021 10:33 pm

“These new authors (subject of this post) note that previous claims (i.e. as in from AR5) of knowledge on the subject of carbon input to the oceans were grossly wrong. And indeed they were/are.”

Only the drowning in Koolaid could mangle that into “seem to claim they know whence all the evil carbon flows and goes” and they claim it’s “settled science” because some new research suggests its higher.

If there are updates or improvements or corrections to their reports they are “scammers”. But anyone working to update, improve or correct their reports are just looking for a leg-up onto the gravytrain – so I guess they also must be scammers. What miserable, black and white, us and them idealogical corner you’ve painted yourself into. Is there anyone who isn’t trying to scam you?

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
March 19, 2021 1:21 am

Have you been drinking, or just on the toke as usual ??

Seriously Loy-dodo, !!!

You are the one drowning in Klimate Kool-Aide.

Come up and take a breathe for once in your non-life.

Reply to  Loydo
March 19, 2021 5:09 am

Settled science, updated ? 😀

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
March 18, 2021 9:26 pm

Loy-dodo prattles yet another evidence free, unsupported, attention-seeking load of blah, blah

Great to see even the Grate Loy-dodo accepts that the “science isn’t settled”

Not that he/she/it has the vaguest idea what science actually is.

Derg
Reply to  Loydo
March 19, 2021 3:13 am

Strange coming from a known liar

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Loydo
March 19, 2021 5:43 am

Well, I found it strange that one “climate scientist”- Bill Moomaw- joined Saint Thunberg on a zoom event with the Dalai Lama- apparently seeking his blessing. I don’t recall Albert Einstein doing that and if he did- it would have been to discuss metaphysics, not relativity. Moomaw preaches that we should lock up all the forests so they have only one function- sequester carbon. He’s an author of many IPCC reports.

stinkerp
March 18, 2021 6:42 pm

land to ocean carbon transfer of 900-1900 million tons per year (see Figure). Most of non-riverine carbon inputs of about 300-1300 million tons of carbon per year

When your wild guess varies by 210% to 433% you might consider a career as a politician instead of pretending to be a scientist. Imagine a bookmaker setting odds on the winning score of a basketball game being between 48 and 100 points, or worse, between 24 and 100 points. That’s how unserious guesses of 900-1900 and 300-1300 million tons per year are.

Last edited 4 months ago by stinkerp
Loydo
Reply to  stinkerp
March 18, 2021 10:36 pm

Maybe they should have used models like this new research has.

fred250
Reply to  Loydo
March 19, 2021 12:23 am

maybe you should produce something other than empty comments.

Derg
Reply to  Loydo
March 19, 2021 3:17 am

With every post you display stupidity that one ups itself

Paul C
March 18, 2021 6:48 pm

So after all the models, estimates and assumptions, the unwritten conclusion is we need to go fishing to restore some of the land/ocean carbon balance? If the scale of the imbalance is really big, perhaps we should do some whaling too.

Stanley
March 18, 2021 6:51 pm

So we are discussing elemental carbon, not carbon dioxide? What about carbon located as carbonate? Diamonds, graphite anyone?

commieBob
Reply to  Stanley
March 18, 2021 7:05 pm

It’s not clear what they are talking about. It appears that at least some CO2 is involved:

One of the remaining open questions is which oceanic processes are responsible for carrying the dissolved carbon from the coastal zones to the open ocean, where part of it outgases back to the atmosphere.

CO2 out-gases back to the atmosphere. On the other hand, they also talk about particles. As usual, the actual science is probably misunderstood and mis-communicated by a professional writer.

What his article demonstrates is that the CO2 budget is not nearly as well understood as the alarmists would have us believe.

John F Hultquist
Reply to  commieBob
March 18, 2021 8:53 pm

If you pee in a stream the ocean accepts your carbon.
So, take the composition, times the amount per person per year, and jeeze — it’s worse than they thought.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  commieBob
March 18, 2021 9:03 pm

Once again you’ve hammered that nail right on the head. The Political warmunists at the IPCC (and participating countries) publish and promote ambiguous studies supporting an equivocal concept, “climate change”, so the “progressive” (Leftist) media (funded by tech giants) can write scary stories (rarely reflecting the actual science) to arouse the populace.

The real scientists of the world remain silent because of the”cancel culture” generated by the above mentioned players. This is right out of Marx’ play book.

observa
March 18, 2021 6:51 pm

I’m afraid there’s just too much ethical murkiness going down to be bothered with all this climate changing and settled science.
Burning wood pellets won’t help us fight climate change (msn.com)
Call me when they’ve got the climate to what it should be.

H.R.
Reply to  observa
March 18, 2021 9:13 pm

The global climate is right where it’s going to stay for quite some time before we see any real global climate change, observa. The global climate is currently Ice Age. That’s the only one global climate I know of at present.

The global weather is best described as transitioning into or out of glaciation, glacial, or interglacial. To further refine the details of global weather, in certain regions there are seasonal changes that seem to repeat in annual cycles.

Everything else is just local weather. Listen to your radio for “Traffic and weather together” if you want to keep up with the finer details.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  observa
March 19, 2021 5:47 am

burning pellets isn’t about fighting climate change- it’s about improving forestry by marketing the poor quality trees to a world in desperate need of truly “clean and green” energy- what’s greener than trees?

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 19, 2021 9:00 am

burning pellets isn’t about fighting climate change-

It is, look

Wood pellets produced with a sustainable approach deliver multiple environmental benefits that contribute to the actual fight against climate change.
For the Environment

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 19, 2021 10:21 am

Yes, I agree but we in the forestry world don’t do it for the climate- we do it for the forest. And, few in the forestry world worry about climate change and we love CO2 as plant food- and to give us longer growing seasons. We do sometimes argue that it’s also good for the climate- but then the alarmists jump all over us.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 19, 2021 10:44 am

We do sometimes argue that it’s also good for the climate-

Be sure, it isn’t – in conrast. Source

“It’s just a physical fact that burning wood emits more carbon dioxide per unit energy than burning fossil fuels,” says Mary Booth, the director of Partnership for Policy Integrity. According to a report by the National Resource Defense Council, since wood is less dense than fossil fuel, a greater amount needs to be burned to generate the same amount of energy. This becomes a major emissions issue when wood pellets are used for large-scale electricity generation at power plants that once used coal, but have now been converted to use wood fuel because it was considered better for the climate.

CO2 isn’t bad, but other things, NOx, particulates are worse.

When They Pollute Our Air: A Wood Pellet Story

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 19, 2021 1:11 pm

Oh, here we go again with Mary Booth. I’ve deconstructed her nonsense countless times but I won’t bother for this audience. She’s gotten millions from a “green lawyer” whose family foundation made a fortune in fossil fuels- making them both hypocrites and she’s gotten money from a southern billionaire who hates all forestry. She’s just another NGO milking the climate “emergency”.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Krishna Gans
March 19, 2021 10:31 am

I wasn’t aware of the EU site you mentioned in your previous message- thanks for that- but I read the biomass site all the time. Unfortunately, where I live here in Massachusetts- this state is severely infected with the new climatastrology religion. So, this state was the first to make it almost impossible to build a biomass facility- not only for power but also for heat. There is one small 20 MW biomass power plant in the state but quite a few in VT and NH- though they are threatened by the greenies and cheap natural gas. Luckily for biomass, the greenies are trying to shut down all natural gas! There is a biomass power plant close to being permitted in Springfield- but the greenies are fighting tooth and nail to stop- now claiming it’ll cause asthma in Springfield, a “justice community” forgetting that asthma is common in homes where people smoke cigarettes and less than sanitary homes and with air pollution from the heavy road traffic. I have a nephew with asthma, probably due to his father smoking 23 packs a day until it gave him a heart attack.

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 19, 2021 11:08 am

There is a comment in moderation, due to links in the text, worth reading

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 19, 2021 11:11 am

duh…. 2-3 packs per day- certainly 23 would be unhealthy!

Kevin kilty
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 19, 2021 11:27 am

I laughed out loud when I read it. It gave me an interesting mental image of the father.

Last edited 4 months ago by Kevin kilty
AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Kevin kilty
March 19, 2021 12:39 pm

Reminds me of an old friend I haven’t heard from in many years. Maybe there’s a reason for that…

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 23, 2021 8:15 pm

I used to work with a guy who was so addicted to smoking that he would sometimes forget that he had a cigarette sitting on the edge of the ashtray, and light up another.

Reply to  AGW is Not Science
March 19, 2021 1:37 pm

As that weren’t my words you can’t fix it for me. Be aware I’m not a pellet or wood burning fan. My comment / link was thaught as contradiction to Joseph Zorzin. So please don’t play with my comments – thanks.
If I remember well it’s for the second time.

Last edited 4 months ago by Krishna Gans
AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
March 19, 2021 12:34 pm

Maybe trees that aren’t being hauled across the ocean in ships powered by Bunker C fuel to be burned in the UK?

Gordon A. Dressler
March 18, 2021 6:58 pm

Can’t be true . . . the science on carbon transport was “settled” over a decade ago.

At least I was told such, repeatedly.

Last edited 4 months ago by Gordon A. Dressler
AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
March 19, 2021 12:41 pm

Yeah well, you know, guesswork qualifies as “settled” science in the “climate pseudo-science” field, always has.

Just look at the so-called temperature “data.” It’s not even data any more, just a bunch of “(mal)educated guesswork.”

Steve Case
March 18, 2021 7:04 pm

If the Climate Change headline says, 
 “Worse than previously thought” 
Historical data has been re-written.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Steve Case
March 19, 2021 12:44 pm

Hell, they don’t even need to – they claim that the nonexistent “problem” is “worse than they thought” even as they are decreasing their estimates of warming. It’s the “message” that matters, after all – it need not be connected to reality, or even the so-called “data.”

noaaprogrammer
March 18, 2021 7:52 pm

If all that carbon from coastal ecosystems is dumping into the oceans, we should use Agent Orange and Round-up on all coastal vegetation!

markl
March 18, 2021 8:02 pm

“After accounting for these effects…” More forcings!!!

Rich Davis
March 18, 2021 8:13 pm

C’mon man! What’s this malarkey? “It’s more than we thought” isn’t the right meme, it’s supposed to be “OMG! It’s worse than we thought”.

I guess that much more biomass is being sequestered into the oceans than we previously absolutely knew for sure (through settled science) was the exact amount. You might think that could be “better than we thought”, except for the doctrine that it can never be better…climate badness always increases like entropy.

Is there anything worth less than a EurekAlert! press release? Other than a dementia Joe press conference I mean?

John F Hultquist
March 18, 2021 8:46 pm

” than previously thought ”
This is right there with “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
or,
… ending a headline with a question mark.

My questions are — Who thought? When? Why?
The authors might as well write: Look at me, I’m important.
Then again, being a skeptic is hard.

Mike
March 18, 2021 9:27 pm

One of the remaining open questions is which oceanic processes are responsible for carrying the dissolved carbon from the coastal zones to the open ocean, where part of it outgases back to the atmosphere.”

Why is this a question!!!!??

This is academic, inconsequential nonsense with a touch of climate change thrown in for good measure. A non-story created by rent seekers.

fred250
March 18, 2021 9:30 pm

And of course, if there is FAR MORE NATURAL CARBON,

….. then there is a much smaller percentage of “human” carbon. 🙂

Loydo
Reply to  fred250
March 18, 2021 10:46 pm

But you say that same much smaller percentage has “turned the planet green” and saved all the poor “starving plants” and is feeding “endangered whales” in the Arctic.

What a strange and selectively powerful substance “human” carbon is.

Last edited 4 months ago by Loydo
fred250
Reply to  Loydo
March 19, 2021 12:01 am

Poor loy-dodo,

STILL can’t cope with basic science, can you petal.

Another desperate plea for attention.

Planet has GREENED by large amounts, THANKS TO CO2

More CO2 can only help the world’s plant life as well as ALL other life on Earth….. That LIFE that you despise so, so much.

When levels are AS LOW AS THEY HAVE BEEN for the last several hundred thousand years

EVERY BIT HELPS. !!
.

We just need to DO MORE., like China, India etc are…..

As you are well aware, there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOWNSIDE to increasing the atmospheric CO2 content.

Its all just a BIG PLUS.. even for worms like you.

comment image

Last edited 4 months ago by fred250
Doonman
March 18, 2021 10:55 pm

Watch out ladies. Soon, your left ring finger will be deemed a dangerous pollutant and you won’t be able to dazzle your friends anymore. It is after all fossilized carbon that you wave around to get attention and that you are so smitten with.

March 18, 2021 11:31 pm

Good lord! It truly is worse than we thought, now that evil carbon stuff is polluting the water!
This is proof the climastrologists are playing ‘pin the tail on the donkey’, in the dark, wally drunk, with a shotgun stuffed with nails. And they are not even in the right room!
Saving this “report” to take out and brandish as proof of how utterly friggin’ stupid these climastrologists’ theories really are.
But hell, what other make-work is there for the retarded members of rich families?

Eric Vieira
March 19, 2021 1:52 am

What would really be interesting: to compare this amount compared to the carbon which is taken up as CO2 from plankton and other sea plants in our oceans? Is the “quantity” they mention negligible or not, or to say it otherwise: what are these people really measuring (isotope ratios won’t do the trick). And as somebody already mentioned: so what?

Jim Ross
March 19, 2021 4:04 am

Full paper (35 pages) is available here: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GB006684

Bruce Cobb
March 19, 2021 4:06 am

Yawn. What a nothing-burger. But, it’s “worse than we thought”. I guess. Unless it isn’t. And did I say yawn?

Bloke down the pub
March 19, 2021 4:34 am

You need to learn a lesson from the warmists. It’s not 600-900 million tons of carbon, it’s
Up To 900 million tons. See, it already looks more impressive.

bluecat57
March 19, 2021 4:37 am

Would someone please notify me when scientists’ previous “facts” are even close.
Or maybe it is those that write about science facts that need to change their style.
Is the next headline going to be “half as previously thought” meaning the first guess was right after all?

Olavi Vulkko
March 19, 2021 5:51 am

How many billion m3 other stuff goes to oceans from rivers and how much that contributes to sea levels?

Andy Pattullo
March 19, 2021 9:22 am

So good to be a scientist in the era of unvalidated modelling. No need to prove anything, just sit back and theorize. I understand the value of the observational study represented here but take great offence at the idea we will understand the carbon cycle any better based on “a series of new earth system model simulations that we just conducted on our supercomputer Aleph”. Is this a promise of an accurate measure that has less than a four-fold range of uncertainty?

ATheoK
March 19, 2021 10:14 am

“This question will be addressed in future with a series of new earth system model simulations that we just conducted on our supercomputer Aleph”, says Axel Timmermann”

Big whoop!

After vociferously claiming for years that their “estimates” were the best available, now they change a few variables, run their models and “voila!” the situation is worse than before…

We’re not at all surprised.

Herbert
March 19, 2021 6:08 pm

This paper by Kwon et al provides new estimates of one “elusive component of the global carbon cycle“ namely a part of the carbon contribution of coastal ecosystems.
The ‘holy grail’ from the aspect of UN IPCC adherents is Friedlingstein et al (2020), “The Global Carbon Budget 2020”.
And what does it say about the present scientific knowledge of the Ocean CO2 sink,(Socean)?
It acknowledges “(3) an apparent discrepancy for the different methods for the ocean sink outside the tropics, particularly in the Southern Ocean.”
For the year 2019, Socean was estimated at 2.6 +/-0.6GtCyr-1 while the growth in world fossil fuel emissions was virtually static at 0.1%, given CoVid impacts.
The assessment of both land and ocean sinks is undertaken with “global process models constrained by observations”.
There is an “energy imbalance”between assessed fossil fuel emissions and the several sinks,”a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle”.
A conclusion from Kwon et al and Friedlingstein et al is that Dr. Roy Spencer is correct when he states that science does not know the amount of all inputs and outputs of the world energy system to 1 part in 100 while the imbalance in the earth’s energy system said to be occasioning global warming is 1 part in 260.

%d bloggers like this: