Southern Ocean storms cause outgassing of carbon dioxide

Peer-Reviewed Publication



Storms over the waters around Antarctica drive an outgassing of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, according to a new international study with researchers from the University of Gothenburg. The research group used advanced ocean robots for the study, which provides a better understanding of climate change and can lead to better global climate models.

The world’s southernmost ocean, the Southern Ocean that surrounds Antarctica, plays an important role in the global climate because its waters contain large amounts of carbon dioxide. A new international study, in which researchers from the University of Gothenburg participated, has examined the complex processes driving air-sea fluxes of gasses, such as carbon dioxide.

Storms bring carbon dioxide-rich waters to the surface
The research group is now delivering new findings that shed light on the area’s important role in climate change.

“We show how the intense storms that often occur in the region increase ocean mixing and bring carbon dioxide-rich waters from the deep to the surface. This drives an outgassing of carbon dioxide from the ocean to the atmosphere. There has been a lack of knowledge about these complex processes, so the study is an important key to understanding the Southern Ocean’s significance for the climate and the global carbon budget”, says Sebastiaan Swart, professor of oceanography at the University of Gothenburg and co-author of the study.

Facilitates better climate models
Half of all carbon dioxide bound in the world’s oceans is found in the Southern Ocean. At the same time, climate change is expected to result in more intense storms in the future. Therefore, it is vital to understand the storms’ impact on the outgassing of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the researchers point out.

“This knowledge is necessary to be able to make more accurate predictions about future climate change. Currently, these environmental processes are not captured by global climate models”, says Marcel du Plessis at the University of Gothenburg, who also participated in the study.

Pioneering ocean robotics
Measuring the inaccessible and stormy waters around Antarctica for a long period of time is a real challenge, which the researchers tackled with the help of unique robot technology. For several months, autonomous ocean robots; drones and ocean gliders, collected data from the surface and through to depths of one kilometer.

“This pioneering technology gave us the opportunity to collect data with long endurance, which would not have been possible via a research vessel. Thanks to these ocean robots we can now fill important knowledge gaps and gain a better understanding of the importance of the ocean for the climate, says Sebastiaan Swart.

Contact: Sebastiaan Swart, Professor of Oceanography at the University of Gothenburg, Department of Marine Sciences. Phone: 0046 723 667672, Email:

About the research
The article “Storms drive outgassing of CO2 in the subpolar Southern Ocean” has been published in Nature Communications. The international study was carried out in a collaboration between Sebastiaan Swart and Marcel du Plessis at the Department of Marine Sciences at the University of Gothenburg and, among others, CSIR (Council for Scientific and Industrial Research) in South Africa. The first author is Sarah Nicholson at CSIR.

The contributions to the study from University of Gothenburg have been supported by the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation through the Wallenberg Academy Fellows Program and the Swedish Research Council.


Nature Communications




Not applicable


Storms drive outgassing of CO2 in the subpolar Southern Ocean



3.6 14 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
January 26, 2022 6:05 am

If data on storms in the Southern Ocean were badly measured previously, how can they claim an “increase” in storms intensity.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Tom Halla
January 26, 2022 8:01 am

Questions, questions, questions! Tom, it is all, right there, in the report. How dare you questions the experts with the measuring thingy’s and their computer models.

0.1 percent of the atmosphere is made up of “other gases” which consists of trace amounts of Carbon Dioxide, methane, water vapor, neon among others.

It should be obvious to us stupido’s that the trace gas CO2 kicked up with all that water vapor in the Southern Ocean is causing:
1.Global Warm…ahh Climate Change but a worse kind then before burning fossil fuel became a thing
2.More violent Hurricane and costly hurricanes which has nothing to do with more expensive property being built in their path thanks to the prosperity spurned by fossil fuel energy
3.Same as above for Tornadoes
4.Repeat previous for Snow Storms
…skipping ahead
28.increased incidents of warts in West Texas
29.Covid deaths
30.Bad Breath in Dogs.

Did I mention Covid deaths in Children? Open your eyes Tom and have a bit of faith that these political scientists know what they are doing and only have your best interest at heart. Well that and their Government funding.

Thomas Burk
Reply to  Bill Powers
January 26, 2022 9:28 am

I like your use of the term “political scientist.” It captures the warmist zeitgeist perfectly. I’m going to petition the OED to add this new “sense” of the phrase in their next edition. Political scientist is basically a new cottage industry in academia today, and with government funding, it’s spreading almost as rapidly as diversity and inclusion administrators in schools in all western countries, especially in American schools. It’s a whole other animal than the social-science version of political scientist. The ideologically-driven STEM version is likely to do much more damage.

Reply to  Thomas Burk
January 29, 2022 11:23 pm

There is so much being done with stem cell research these days.

Reply to  Bill Powers
January 26, 2022 10:52 pm

Warm water emits CO2; cold water sequesters CO2. So the Antarctic Ocean is now HOT. HOT I tell you.

Reply to  Bill Powers
January 29, 2022 11:21 pm

WHAT is the problem with (otherwise) intelligent people commenting and using “then” instead of “than” when they post?

Reply to  Tom Halla
January 27, 2022 1:16 pm

If data on storms in the Southern Ocean were badly measured previously, how can they claim an “increase” in storms intensity.

They don’t speak about storm intensity, and they didn’t measure that. They measured outgassing much more precisely.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  nyolci
January 27, 2022 7:14 pm

And they claimed future increase

“At the same time, climate change is expected to result in more intense storms in the future. “

Reply to  Pat from kerbob
January 28, 2022 1:37 am

And they claimed future increase

This is extremely interesting that your short sentence is bad in more than ways:

  1. The original study, of course, didn’t say anything about storm intensity (either directly or indirectly). It was only concerned with more precise measurement of CO2 outgassing.
  2. The press release above does have the cited sentence but even here this is something that is completely marginal to the point. The press release actually does a good job summarizing the original article.

In other words, most of you here have a very shaky understanding of this particular post. You somehow got triggered by almost the one single sentence that was not an actual claim of the article, and was used casually in the press release. And what is more, this sentence itself is our scientific understanding of the broader subject.

January 26, 2022 6:10 am

In the intro it mentions … “better climate models” … and yet they focus on CO2. More junk science.

January 26, 2022 6:12 am

“Thanks to these ocean robots we can now fill important knowledge gaps and gain a better understanding of the importance of the ocean for the climate, says Sebastiaan Swart.”

Advise, check temperature and salinity.

January 26, 2022 6:14 am

“…climate change is expected to result in more intense storms in the future.”

By whom, pray?

Last edited 1 year ago by Disputin
Reply to  Disputin
January 26, 2022 7:57 am

The Bandar-log.

January 26, 2022 6:15 am

At the same time, climate change is expected to result in more intense storms in the future. 

A Nebulous statement which begs the question…. what climate change would that be for the region?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Sunsettommy
January 26, 2022 8:30 am

Raises the question, not begs the question.

January 26, 2022 6:19 am

yes I’ve been wondering about that

since the CO2 balance must be close relative to the temperature gradations, presumably the vast majority of the Earth’s ocean surfaces must be either net emitters or absorbers

but warmer and colder systems probably behave differently, e.g. storms

these systems are large compared to human emissions and it is hard to know in a flow model, even with isotopic fractions, exactly where overall increases in CO2 are actually coming from

Last edited 1 year ago by TallDave
Ron Long
January 26, 2022 6:27 am

The “Science is settled?” No, it’s Unsettled. More funding? My stomach is unsettled.

January 26, 2022 6:39 am

The Indian Monsoon is known for removing CO2 from the atmosphere….rain removes CO2. Who is responsible for these storms? Who is Stormy…is it Man? Is Bad Man doing it again….putting CO2 into the atmosphere to cause warming? Next are we going to hear about a glacier in Antarctica that is blocking 6 other glaciers breaking up and allowing all the glaciers to flow ino the ocean? There are very few people in Antarctica but Bad Man is destroying the whole area?

Last edited 1 year ago by antigtiff
Reply to  Anti-griff
January 26, 2022 2:06 pm

Anti-griff: There are very few people in Antarctica but Bad Man is destroying the whole area?”

You haven’t met my 4-year-old nephew…

But nawwww… it would take a bit more than several nations’ Antarctic Research stations and cow farts in Kansas to make a dent in Antarctica.

Maybe they should try, just as proof of concept. Why bother terraforming the Sahara when, with enough Global Warming, you could turn Antarctica into a tropical paradise?

Karl Johan Grimstad
January 26, 2022 6:55 am

Det er noe som ikke harmonerer. i dette funnet, det kalde vannet runt antarkrtis tar opp CO2, om det slippes ut CO2 så må det være på grunn av at det alltid dannes en likevekt i havet og atmosfæren, dette gjelder gassen CO2. I fremtiden ventes mer stormer, jada i modellene ja men det er det ingen som vet. legger de dette inn i modeller så løper temperaturen løpsk slik man mener CO2 virker.

Reply to  Karl Johan Grimstad
January 26, 2022 7:41 am

The English from Swedish version:

In this finding, the cold water around the Antarctic absorbs CO2, if CO2 is released, it must be because there is always an equilibrium in the ocean and the atmosphere, this applies to the gas CO2. In the future, more storms are expected, yes in the models, but nobody knows that. If they put this into the models, the temperature will run wild, as they think CO2 works.

Reply to  Krishna Gans
January 26, 2022 8:22 am

That is an amazing admission!
If they put this into the models they will run wild? Wilder than now?
They should graph the model hockey stick – it would be a real howler!

Reply to  bonbon
January 26, 2022 2:58 pm

“If they put this into the models ….”.

The only things they can get out are the things they put in. A climate model runs out of useful analysis of initial conditions at around the two-day mark. Everything after that comes from the model itself, not from anything real.

Reply to  Mike Jonas
January 26, 2022 8:35 pm

So a climate model has something in common with a sewer.

Art Slartibartfast
January 26, 2022 6:57 am

Sooooo, I decided to wander over to the home page of the OCO2 carbon observatory website and clicked on OCO-2 data. What do I get? “Page not found”.

Mmmkay, lets have a look at the videos showing 2014-2016 smoothed.”This video is private”. There is a another video there that should show CO2 concentrations, but that is a model. Sigh…

Makes it kind of hard to verify what this article says, unless anyone has a better idea.

Reply to  Art Slartibartfast
January 26, 2022 7:16 am

You mean science is about repeatable tests…

This hasn’t been the case in climate science for many decades, If the formation of the IPCC was the result of following the rules of science, it wouldn’t exist and there would be no need for this forum.

Peta of Newark
Reply to  Art Slartibartfast
January 26, 2022 7:20 am

It’s called: Lying by Omission
Exactly as they do on the page they have explaining how the GHGE works

There some quite large parts of NASA that need ‘pruning’ as they are propagating lies and Junk Science

Back on topic:
What exactly pray tell does Le Chatelier, Entropy, school-level chemistry and bog standard thermodynamics have to say about this ‘outgassing’

Do acids spontaneouly make themselves more acid or, as regards the ocean, do alkalis ‘just’ make themselves more alkaline?
Do batteries spontaneously recharge themselves?

Where does this chemistry happen and if it does, why is there an Energy Crisis on this planet right now, or in the past or forever more into the future?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 26, 2022 10:45 am

Perhaps more importantly, do alkalies spontaneously make themselves more acid?

Alexy Scherbakoff
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 26, 2022 12:52 pm

Only if they want to.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Alexy Scherbakoff
January 29, 2022 6:26 pm

Q: How many oceanographers are needed to change the water’s pH?

A: Only one if (s)he really wants to.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Peta of Newark
January 27, 2022 6:55 am

Well EV batteries sometimes try very hard to recharge themselves I believe 🙂

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Dave Andrews
January 29, 2022 6:27 pm

At least they are taking responsibility for their condition. That is more than can be said about most alarmists.

Reply to  Art Slartibartfast
January 26, 2022 7:49 am

Start here to find more,

Can’t find the link you provided.

The correct link will be:

Last edited 1 year ago by Krishna Gans
Art Slartibartfast
Reply to  Krishna Gans
January 26, 2022 10:20 am

Thanks Krishna. The first link I provided is what they have published on their front page. Looking at the data, Antarctica seems to be very poorly covered at first glance. So it is hard to draw any conclusions from that.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Krishna Gans
January 26, 2022 10:57 am

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it appears that all the Level 3 and 4 data (essentially finished maps) are no longer available, and only Level 1 and 2 data (tabular pixel arrays with minor corrections) are accessible.

That seems like a waste of time and money if the maps that were produced early in the program have been ‘erased.’ Were they removed because serious processing errors were discovered, or because someone didn’t like what the maps implied?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Art Slartibartfast
January 26, 2022 10:43 am

It appears that most of the early OCO-2 public maps have been removed from the official website. If you are lucky, you might find some of the older maps on YouTube.

Reply to  Art Slartibartfast
January 26, 2022 2:30 pm

First time I saw the OCO2 sequence, I knew it would disappear sooner or later, so I backed it up.

Reply to  Martin Clark
January 26, 2022 2:47 pm

If you are gassing up tea, cordial or fruit juice mix (using a tank of CO2 not the sodastream stuff) it needs to be cold, and you need to shake the bottle for about 60 seconds to increase the amount taken up, so I am inclined to disbelieve this report. The effect of turbulence in cold water could be very temporary
My own research measuring CO2 levels off the western Coral Sea picked up significant bursts of CO2 especially towards the late afternoon in the summer. Could be a “carbon pipe”. On the other hand, in the tropics, photosynthesis starts to drop off around midday, rather than much later in temperate climates, so it could be sea grass or mangroves backing off. On the other hand, the mangrove swamps retain a seething mass of decaying detritus, which produces a impressive reek.

Bruce Cobb
January 26, 2022 7:02 am

They’ve “discovered” another positive feedback. But they are hoist by their own petard, because this would mean that man’s contribution of CO2 would be less, and nature’s more. In any case, if such feedbacks did exist, the planet would have continued heating during the MWP, destroying all life on the planet.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 26, 2022 7:53 am

Indeed. That ‘feedback’ is a product of an imaginative but ill-informed mind. Utter rubbish.

January 26, 2022 7:07 am

”several months of data collection”.Is he trying to sideline ENSO.

Coach Springer
January 26, 2022 7:13 am

Having kept (fresh water) aquaria for a long time and noticing that water is oxygenated when agitated, more shocking news from the world of science? With nothing more, they project.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Coach Springer
January 26, 2022 11:01 am

Oxygen and carbon dioxide behave differently because they have different solubilities and carbon dioxide reacts chemically to produce carbonates and bicarbonates.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 26, 2022 11:44 am

If you fertilize with CO2 (sugar, water, yeast) plants grow better and produce more O2 by photosynthesis.

Jeff Wood
Reply to  Coach Springer
January 26, 2022 1:44 pm

Yes, Anyone who keeps, or has kept fish, knows that one makes sure the water is agitated to absorb air.

The “stormy” surface thus takes in oxygen, nitrogen, and other air gases, including carbon dioxide. It is calm waters which outgas.

This “study” is a crock which does not get out of the starting blocks.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Jeff Wood
January 29, 2022 6:31 pm

I think that the situation is that agitation speeds up the process of reaching equilibrium between two different bodies with different partial pressures.

In the case of an aquarium, an aerator is necessary because the fish are actively consuming the oxygen.

January 26, 2022 7:38 am

“ Half of all carbon dioxide bound in the world’s oceans is found in the Southern Ocean.”


Curious George
Reply to  fretslider
January 26, 2022 7:45 am

At least in winter. More data might be coming.

Reply to  Curious George
January 26, 2022 7:53 am

 More data might be coming.”

And then again…

“There’s not very much data in the Southern Ocean because people don’t want to go there in the winter.”

“If there is one place in the world where you can [measure changes in the ocean carbon sink with atmospheric measurements], it is over the Southern Ocean,”

“The Southern Ocean carbon sink has not changed at all in 25 years. “

Instead, the Southern Ocean held steady, while atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations climbed. Why?

I don’t buy the 50% figure

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  fretslider
January 26, 2022 7:53 am

Which half?

Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
January 26, 2022 8:06 am

Good question.

January 26, 2022 8:09 am

Something got wrong there: even if the cold waters of the Southern Ocean contain lots of CO2, they are undersaturated for CO2 and do absorb a lot of CO2 out of the atmosphere. The cold, dense waters sink with their CO2 content and comes back to the surface somewhere in the tropics, where it releases a lot of CO2.

See the maps of the difference in pCO2 between ocean surface and atmosphere: mostly negative, thus lower in the ocean surface than in the atmosphere (reference year 1959):
Since that year, the atmospheric pCO2 increased a lot, thus pushing more CO2 into the ocean waters…

Wind and waves increases the uptake speed…

Last edited 1 year ago by Ferdinand Engelbeen
Bob Weber
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
January 26, 2022 11:04 am

The paper results are encapsulated in my graphic from 2019, below. The bottom two scatterplots indicate CO2 outgasses typically at a temperature just below that which evaporation occurs in earnest, represented by the MEI and OLR data points further to the right of the 25.6C CO2 outgassing threshold temperature:

comment image

Storms are signs the ocean surface temperature where the storms’ evaporation originally happened exceeded the CO2 outgassing threshold. This is analogous to increasing ML CO2 being an indicator of rising ocean temperatures.

Reply to  Bob Weber
January 27, 2022 12:43 am


A few points:

The solubility curve may be right for the current 410 ppmv in the atmosphere, but if CO2 in the atmosphere increases with 20 ppmv in about 10 years, then you need several degrees higher ocean surface water temperatures to get the same equilibrium with the atmosphere…
2.1 ppmv/°C seems too small, as the equilibrium changes with 12-16 ppmv/°C around 15-16°C, according to the formula to compensate for the temperature difference between ship’s inlet and automatic equipment for partial CO2 pressure equilibrium in seawater:
(pCO2)sw @ Tin situ = (pCO2)sw @ Teq x EXP[0.0423 x (Tin-situ – Teq)]
Where Tin situ is at the ship’s inlet, Teq at the equilibrator and

For the first graph: the MLO seasonal curve is not caused by the ocean temperature (or CO2 should parallel temperature with a lag), but is dominated by NH vegetation: new leaves are growing and take in more CO2 than the oceans are outgassing at increasing temperatures. That is proven by the opposite CO2 and δ13C changes.

Even with 16 ppmv/°C, there is no way that the CO2 trend at MLO is caused by warming oceans, at maximum 13 ppmv since the LIA, all the rest is from human emissions…

Anyway, the results from these study can’t be right, as the water temperature around Antarctica is much too cold to give CO2 outgassing…

Bob Weber
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
January 27, 2022 8:24 am

Ferdinand, I consider the annual NH vegetative CO2 drawdown as a parallel process concurrent with SST-CO2 modulation.

From their paper, sounding just like me (my underlining).

“The increasing trend in pCO2-SST is due to progressively increasing sea surface temperature (SST) linked to seasonally driven solar warming.”

comment image

Like them, you should know there’s more to learn about outgassing:

“There remains a significant gap in the understanding of the mechanisms that drive variability on synoptic timescales and how this synoptic variability rectifies on the seasonal cycle and mean of CO2 fluxes.”

The 12mΔ Ocean Temp25.6°C leads 12mΔ ML CO2 by 5 mo, r=.84:

comment image

The study location is where the ocean is below the 25.6°C threshold, however it was during the top of the SH summer, Dec-Feb, in 2018-19, when SH insolation is highest, when suspended cold water drops near the surface could get enough daytime solar heating to outgas CO2 into the air supporting the droplets. CO2 outgassing from storming also looks very similar to CO2 bubbling out of a cold carbonated drink when shaken.

Their study also occurred during highly positive Niño & CO2 anomalies:

comment image

Bob Weber
Reply to  Bob Weber
January 27, 2022 9:25 am

Their study ignored the tropical influence on the SH ice zone. By Feb 2019, the late 2018 positive Nino anomalies were affecting SH sea-ice extent with warmer air and ocean, which could’ve translated into higher storm CO2 outgassing:

comment image

Reply to  Bob Weber
January 27, 2022 12:14 pm


Last edited 1 year ago by Ferdinand Engelbeen
Reply to  Bob Weber
January 27, 2022 12:52 pm

Bob if your formula of 2.1 ppmv/°C is right then the 0.7°C since 1958 is good for only 1.5 ppmv increase in CO2 in the atmosphere…
The outgassing area is secondary importance, it is the weighted average ocean surface temperature that dictates the dynamic equilibrium between ocean surface and atmosphere.
For the current average ocean surface temperature, that would imply an equilibrium of about 295 ppmv in the atmosphere. Not 415 ppmv.
That simply means that the CO2 flux in total is from the atmosphere into the oceans, not reverse.

Where the pCO2 of the oceans is higher than in the atmosphere, there is CO2 outgassing (mostly near the tropical upwelling sites) and reverse for the cold polar waters.

That the oceans are main sinks for CO2, not sources can be seen in the increase of DIC (dissolved inorganic carbon) at several ocean stations over time:
See Fig. 3
Fig. 2 gives the seasonal changes in pCO2.

Thus MLO CO2 is absolutely not driven by ocean outgassing, as the oceans are more sink than source.
So is vegetation.

That temperature variability drives CO2 variability, both in absolute values (+/- 1.5 ppmv around the 90 ppmv trend) as in their derivatives is true, but a high correlation in variability doesn’t prove that the trends are caused by temperature (and thus outgassing), as not only the seasonal variability is dominated by vegetation, but the year by year variability also is dominated by (tropical) vegetation, as again the opposite CO2 and δ13C variability shows:

Last but not least, the carbon mass balance must be obeyed, thus any human emissions (as mass) that don’t show up in the CO2 rise of MLO must have been absorbed by oceans and/or vegetation…
Both oceans and vegetation are proven net sinks for CO2, not sources…

Bob Weber
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
January 27, 2022 7:46 pm

For the current average ocean surface temperature, that would imply an equilibrium of about 295 ppmv in the atmosphere.

Your analysis is wrong because you failed to account for the increase in area sufficient for outgassing, above 25.6°C, that has increased over time by almost 50%. The integrated effect is represented by the straight red line in plot (10) in the 4-panel image from my previous comment.

You misinterpreted what those graphs mean, so then you go off on a tangent thinking you have to account for something that my model already accounts for. What you have is just your ‘story’.

Jeff Alberts
January 26, 2022 8:29 am

climate change is expected to result in more intense storms in the future”

Yup! Any day now! Just you wait!

January 26, 2022 8:31 am

These guys are Hunting the Snark, subtitled An Agony in 8 Fits, by Lewis Carrol.
Looks like they found the Snark and it was a Boojum after all.

Reply to  bonbon
January 26, 2022 8:33 am

The ship looked familiar :
That constellation could be the Southern Cross, maybe…

Last edited 1 year ago by bonbon
H. D. Hoese
January 26, 2022 8:37 am

I am jealous of all the new technologies, not so much their mass of data production. From the paper —“Thus, it is difficult to observationally quantify intermittent synoptic entrainment fluxes…Hence, we use the model Eqs. 2–4 …..Net primary productivity (NPP) is estimated from satellite ocean color (Ocean Colour-CCI67,68) using three different primary models….It is important to recognize that the generalization of the conceptual model (Eqs. 2–4) across the subpolar Southern Ocean for the full year (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5) is not validated by in situ observations at locations and times beyond those isolated validations reported here, and there are several assumptions that underpin the model……In particular, the model omits many potentially significant processes to isolate those that we find to be most important in the SE Atlantic.”

Cloern, J. E., et al, . 2014. Phytoplankton primary production in the world’s estuarine-coastal ecosystems Biogeosciences, 11: 2477–2501. Not the open ocean, but where most study has been on it. “ A simulation model shows that different methods reported in the literature can yield up to 3-fold variability depending on incubation protocols and methods for integrating measured rates over time and depth”

January 26, 2022 8:55 am

Paper is quite good until you hit Fig. 4 in the “Discussion”, at which point it seems to have been authored by a computerized tech phrase and TLA generator, complete with donut graphs of questionably selected ranges with monocolor graduations. They should have quit trying to fill their publication space while they were ahead, and left the variance graphs to an appendix. And some overall numbers in megatons so that normal tech folks can see whether their numbers are important or not…might have been good in the discussion section…just sayin’

January 26, 2022 8:55 am

It never fails that when they do some groundbreaking climate research, they discover something that exacerbates climate change. It is surprising that the global climate has not gone off the rails already, given how sensitive it is.

Reply to  Tom.1
January 26, 2022 9:15 am

The models have already gone off the rails, the sensitivity of the programmers is oh so woke.
See the translation below of the original Swedish and hold onto the rails.

Mark D
January 26, 2022 9:06 am

For the sake of argument IF there is an increase in atmospheric CO2 would will there no be a corresponding increase in plant growth? If so is additional plant growth evil also?

I have been in commercial greenhouses where bottles of CO2 are used to increase plant growth. Does this not happen outside a greenhouse?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Last edited 1 year ago by Mark D
Reply to  Mark D
January 26, 2022 9:23 am

See Dr. Happer’s video – he explains this slide :
That sawtooth is seasonal harvesting and he points out that is actually increasing in amplitude, meaning more crops, meaning more greening. The planet is slowly recovering from CO2 starvation, thanks to us, fire-users.

Reply to  bonbon
January 26, 2022 9:25 am

How to Think about Climate Change

March 11, 2021

By William Happer

Last edited 1 year ago by bonbon
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  bonbon
January 26, 2022 11:16 am

I tried to find the original source for your embedded graph, for citation purposes, but could not find it. Can you help?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 26, 2022 11:41 am

I found an updated one:

comment image

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 26, 2022 11:49 am

Take that:

google is soooo easy

Base source

Last edited 1 year ago by Krishna Gans
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 27, 2022 5:13 am

From the Clintel video here Dr. Happer shows the sawtooth :

A bit later he shows the Methane sawooth.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  bonbon
January 26, 2022 11:26 am

That sawtooth is seasonal harvesting …

That seems unlikely because most agriculture is located in the mid-latitudes, and the MLO amplitude is midway between the polar extremes. The largest amplitude is from Point Barrow, with no agriculture.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 27, 2022 5:16 am

Any photosynthesis, seasonal sunlight variation, including agriculture.
The question is then the CO2 outgassing. Is it seasonal, does the Lead make it clear?

Last edited 1 year ago by bonbon
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 27, 2022 6:29 am

Point Barrow receives its air from the mid-latitudes via air circulation, the seasonal amplitude at the mid-latitudes is even larger (Schauinsland, Black Forest, South Germany).
The opposite CO2 and δ13C amplitudes show definitely that the cause is from new growth of vegetation.

MLO has less amplitude, as it takes time to mix the huge changes into the bulk of the atmosphere. And the whole SH has little amplitude in all stations due to less vegetation and more oceans…

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
January 29, 2022 6:44 pm

I’m not sure that I buy your explanation. Air moving 45 deg latitude north doesn’t experience any modification, yet MLO experiences significant modification. Air moving upslope (orogenic uplift) is influenced by the abundant Hawaiian vegetation. Samoa has a low amplitude, being at sea level, as is Barrow.

Bruce Cobb
January 26, 2022 9:31 am

Speaking of ocean storms, the Northeastern US is likely to get walloped with a good ol’ fashioned Nor’easter on Saturday, and it could be a doozy. As always, the track will determine who gets what, but totals could easily exceed a foot. Perhaps even two feet in places. We’re certainly due, because snowfall so far has been well below normal. Ski areas will be ecstatic.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
January 27, 2022 6:59 pm

Sounds like a climate emergency

January 26, 2022 9:44 am

More circular reasoning.

January 26, 2022 10:33 am

“Storms bring carbon dioxide-rich waters to the surface”

Which is also oxygen poor waters and the storm caused mixing facilitates absorption of more oxygen that is, in turn, used by plankton that create more carbon dioxide.

And so the world goes on, except maybe just a little faster in parts … until it starts going a little slower again in parts.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Dusty
January 26, 2022 11:35 am

It is an important point because oxygen has been measured as declining in both water and the air. That is used as an argument to support the clam that the increase in atmospheric CO2 has to be anthropogenic because combustion converts oxygen to CO2. However, IF upwelling is increasing, bringing oxygen-deficient water to the surface, then one can expect oxygen to be withdrawn from the air as CO2 is released.

Actually, photosynthetic phytoplankton release oxygen by consuming CO2 during photosynthesis. Although, oxygen is consumed during nighttime respiration and decomposition as the detritus sinks to the deep bottom.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
January 29, 2022 11:44 pm

What has the clam got to do with it?

January 26, 2022 10:49 am

“IF” CO2 is a cause of atmospheric warming, solely, then this might be a useful set of measurements.

However, they don’t mention how natural discharge of CO2 in Antarctic waters is going to increase its effect on the climate, since there is no proven mechanism yet shown that will cause CO2 to increase worldwide air temperatures.

Bill Treuren
Reply to  Philo
January 26, 2022 11:03 am

Plus we have just had a massive deposit of Fe into the same said oceans of the world which will stimulate a cascade of growth of life absorbing any CO2 that can be thrown at them.

Lets see how this goes.
Remember the fires in Australia resulted in the same process the Tonga eruption was orders of magnitude larger.

January 26, 2022 11:30 am

Up till about 1990-2000, geology and palaeoclimate research recognised the main drivers of climate change in deep time as continental rearrangement through tectonics, mountain range uplift, latitudinal distribution of land masses, ocean circulation pattern, occasional volcanism from continent separations or collisions, amount and distribution of shallow seas, etc.

Then after the turn of the millenium, at the same time that CO2 had become politicised and a hugely lucrative catastrophist meme, suddenly “scientists” started re-writing palaeoclimate around CO2. Mentions of tectonic movement, uplift, cratons etc. disappeared from the palaeoclimate narrative. They all affected to have received a revelation that only CO2 was responsible for any climate change, past, present or future.

We’re supposed to believe that this epiphany about climate history being about CO2 and nothing else, was a genuine scientific one, following the data? When it just happened to coincide with the CO2 alarmist meme increasing by 2 orders of magnitude the funding and political status of climate sciences?

No – none of this is science by any stretch of the imagination.

January 26, 2022 11:50 am

All oceans are very stormy at the high latitudes, north or south, from the “roaring 40s” and above. Both the Arctic Ocean and the “Southern Ocean” (formerly called the Antarctic Ocean) are largely covered with ice most of the year, so atmospheric storms can have zero effect in ocean mixing on ice covered oceans. Sounds like a whole lotta bullshit to me, not to mention the assertion without any data that storms are supposed to get stormier as the atmosphere supposedly warms.

January 26, 2022 3:18 pm

The BS never ends. The ocean surface waters are in direct contact with the atmosphere. The atmosphere is richer in CO2 than it has been for many hundreds of years. The surface waters, balancing with the atmosphere, must therefore have a higher CO2 concentration than the deep waters. Upwelling of deep water, whether caused by storms or anything else, will therefore reduce atmospheric CO2, not increase it.

So – where on Earth (literally) do they think that this higher concentration of CO2 has come from? The deep water must have acquired its CO2 before it sank from the surface up to a few hundred years ago. It can’t have had as much CO2 back then as the surface waters do now. It can’t accumulate CO2 after it has sunk to the depths. It cannot do what they say it is doing. Not unless the whole CO2 theory as coded into the models is BS.

Tom F
January 26, 2022 4:44 pm

A reminder of the words of marine biogeochemist John Martin speaking of raising iron levels in the Southern Ocean to spur phytoplankton growth. “Give me half a tanker of iron, and I’ll give you the next ice age.”

Andy Pattullo
January 26, 2022 5:38 pm

How do a limited number of measurements from drones over a short period of time tell us anything meaningful? I know this is now the accepted standard but lets stop pretending it is informative.

Loren C. Wilson
January 26, 2022 6:17 pm

Now that we have satellites that can track the desorption of CO2 from the ocean, does their data match the results from the oceanic study?

January 26, 2022 8:40 pm

Rain strips CO₂ from the atmosphere. It falls to the ocean surface, raising CO₂ content. Water temperatures greater than rain temperatures and storm turbulence return some CO₂ to the atmosphere.

January 27, 2022 5:35 am

So does Mexican food. 🌮🌯🍮🇲🇽

January 27, 2022 11:29 am

So, humans play what role in this off-gassing?
Of what relevance is this?

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights