Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach (yes, I’m still banned from X/Twitter, see here).
Over at Dr. Jennifer Marohasy’s always interesting blog, she makes an interesting claim about ocean outgassing of CO2.
Picture this: it’s a hot day, and you grab a soda can that’s been in the sun. You crack it open—psssht—and CO₂ fizzes out, tickling your nose, maybe spraying your shirt if you’re slow. It’s a tiny chaos, a burst you can’t control. Now imagine that fizz across the ocean’s sun-warmed surface, covering 71% of Earth, bubbling CO₂ into the air we breathe. Wild, right? A bit mad. I reckon it’s a missing piece of the climate puzzle.
Now, it’s undeniable that warmer ocean water contains less CO2 than colder water. As the temperature rises, the CO2 outgasses from the ocean. But that wasn’t my question. After reading her post, my question was, “How much?”.
How much increase in CO2 do we get from a 1° increase in ocean temperature?
My first step was to look at the Vostok ice core data. It shows that as the globe rose by ~ 5°C, the CO2 level rose by ~ 100 ppmv. This gives us a CO2 outgassing trend of ~20 ppmv per 1°C temperature rise.
However, it’s not quite that simple. More of the ocean was covered by sea ice during the glaciation, reducing the outgassing ocean area. How much? Estimates are on the order of 30 million km^2, which is about 8.2% of the current ice-free ocean. So that would drop the value to ~ 18 ppmv/°C.
Next, I went to my go-to AI, perplexity, which gave me the following:
To estimate the increase in atmospheric CO₂ from a 1°C rise in ocean temperatures, Henry’s law and equilibrium dynamics between the ocean and atmosphere are key. Here’s a synthesis of insights from relevant studies:
• Henry’s Law and Temperature Dependence
Henry’s law states that the concentration of dissolved CO₂ in seawater (C) is proportional to its partial pressure in the atmosphere (p): C = k_H * p, where(k_H) is Henry’s constant, which decreases with rising temperature (reducing CO₂ solubility). For example, a 1°C increase reduces(k_H) by ~4%[1][6]. This shifts the equilibrium, releasing CO₂ from the ocean to the atmosphere.
• Model Estimates
1. Simplified Ocean Layer Model:
Using a 100m-deep surface layer exchanging CO₂ with the atmosphere, a 1°C rise increases atmospheric CO₂ by ~6 ppm[1]. However, this assumes limited vertical mixing and may underestimate the full ocean response.
– For deeper layers (e.g., 3800m), the same temperature rise could yield ~20 ppm[1], aligning with glacial-interglacial transitions where a 5°C warming corresponded to ~90 ppm CO₂ rise (~18 ppm/°C) [1][7].
2. Modern Context:
Recent studies highlight complexities like the ocean’s thermal skin layer and vertical mixing. Correcting for temperature gradients between the ocean surface and sampling depth increases estimated CO₂ uptake by 0.8–0.9 PgC/yr[2], but this focuses on current anthropogenic fluxes rather than equilibrium responses.
• Key Variables
– Mixed-Layer Depth: Shallow layers (e.g., 100m) show smaller CO₂ releases than deeper layers[1].
– Buffering by Carbonate Chemistry: CO₂ dissolution forms carbonic acid, which dissociates into ions, adding complexity beyond Henry’s law[5][6]. This buffers pH changes but does not prevent long-term CO₂ release as temperatures rise.
• Synthesis
The estimated increase ranges from 6–20 ppm/°C, depending on assumptions about ocean mixing depth and timescales. The higher end (~18 ppm/°C) aligns with paleoclimate evidence[1][7], while modern models suggest lower values due to ongoing oceanic uptake[2][3]. These estimates exclude feedbacks like biological responses or changes in ocean circulation.
Citations:
- [1] https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2013/10/28/henrys-law/
- [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7474059/
- [3] https://phys.org/news/2024-03-sea-surface-temperature-evidence-human.html
- [4] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008gb003449
- [5] https://worldoceanreview.com/en/wor-8/the-role-of-the-ocean-in-the-global-carbon-cyclee/how-the-ocean-absorbs-carbon-dioxide/
- [6] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2318779121
- [7] https://oxfordre.com/climatescience/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-885?p=emailAMn6v3nlVKpFs&d=%2F10.1093%2Facrefore%2F9780190228620.001.0001%2Facrefore-9780190228620-e-885
- [8] https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-environ-120920-111307?download=true
- [9] https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/20/1177/2024/
- [10] https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/11/991/2015/cp-11-991-2015.pdf
This was interesting for a couple of reasons. First, my estimate of the long-term change (~18 ppmv/°C) is the same as theirs. However, they point to something that I hadn’t thought of—the short-term increase is due to the warming in the entire mixed layer (depending on the location, a depth of from 15m to 200m depending on location, average ~60 m), not just warming of the sea surface temperature.
They estimate the short-term increase using the mixed layer as being on the order of 6 ppmv/°C. Given the very slow rate of mixing across the “thermocline” (the area of rapid temperature drop at the bottom of the mixed layer), I would think that would be more relevant to our current situation of explaining a short-term rise in CO2.
So for purposes of this analysis, let me take a value of ~ 10±4 ppmv for each 1°C warming of the top 100 meters of the ocean.
And how much has the top 100 meters of the ocean warmed?
About 0.33°C from 1969 to 2020, per NASA.
During that time, CO2 went up by about 100 ppmv.
How much of that was from the ocean? Well, given the data above, it is something on the order of ~2 ppmv to ~ 5 ppmv, which is also about 2% to 5%.
Conclusion? While I agree with the good Dr. M. that outgassing due to ocean temperature rise is a “missing part of the climate puzzle”, at 2% to 5% of the rise in CO2, it’s a small part of the climate puzzle, and as such it is generally ignored in the overall analysis.
My thanks to Dr. Marohasy for all of her excellent contributions to the climate debate.
Here, I’m back on the hill overlooking the ocean after a week in Australia, two weeks in Fiji, and a week in the Solomon Islands. Here’s dawn from where I stayed with friends in the Solos …
It was wonderful to visit old friends, I got to scuba dive the reef wall around Kennedy Island, complete with a moray eel, two turtles, giant clams, and the fish with the longest Hawaiian name, the “Humuhumunukunukuāpuaʻa” … and hey, the waves aren’t going to surf themselves …
My very best regards to everyone,
w.
PS—As always, I ask that when you comment you quote the exact words you are referring to. It avoids all kinds of misunderstandings.
How much out-gassing of CO2 is there compared to out-gassing of N and O and Ar?
And, of course, H2O?
Well, out on the open ocean, matey, there’s a lot of Arrrrrrr!
Oh, excellent question! Especially if your list contained CH4, you
know, Methane eleventy-seven times more powerful than CO2 at
trapping heat.
It’s easy to figure out from NOAA’s page that annually atmospheric
methane is increasing ~six or parts per billion.
So just maybe the tree hugger’s attack on cattle ranches, dairy farms
and rice paddies is misplaced.
None of those gases ‘trap’ heat. Just the opposite. If you could see one, it would look like a light – always radiating. It is inert gases that cannot radiate, and thus cannot cool via radiation. They can only cool via conduction – a collision with something cooler.
Sorry, but that’s rubbish. All matter (including inert gases) above absolute zero radiates IR – all the time,
Sorry, no… A gas molecule keeps its one’s own molecular vibration (“temperature”) and doesn’t radiate. One such molecule keeps it energy “forever”, as long as it doesn’t collide with another molecule. At that moment, dipoles may be created by the electrons around both molecules, leading to radiation.
In liquids and solids, dipoles are continuously formed because of the dense packed molecules and radiate with a continuum, depending of its temperature, that is the Planck curve.
Only GHGs can catch and radiate in very specific wavelengths, while doing nothing in other wavelengths. That makes that the working of GHGs is in dedicated wavelengths, not in a continuum as for solids and liquids.
Sorry, no.
All matter above absolute zero radiates infrared. It’s just a fact, whether you accept it or not. I can see what you are saying, but unless you can show an experiment showing a single molecule or atom not radiating IR, what you say is both irrelevant and misleading. A gas contains many atoms in constant motion – otherwise it wouldn’t be a gas!
You are obviously confused, and you don’t have to accept that you cannot tell the composition of a sample of gas at STP by examine the frequencies it is emitting.
CO2 at the same temperature as nitrogen, say, is emitting and receiving exactly the same frequencies. Without external heat input, both the CO2 and nitrogen will cool – all the way to absolute zero, in theory.
Adding CO2 to air doesn’t make it hotter. Removing CO2 from air doesn’t make it colder. No GHE – not even a little bit.
Not that there is a consistent and unambiguous description of this mythical GHE, is there? Hopefully, you are not dim enough to believe in something you can’t even describe.
A good explanation about the difference between gases and liquids/solids can be found here in the answer about a similar question:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/222092/blackbody-or-characteristic-emission-of-radiation
Ferdinand,
I didn’t ask you a question, as far as I know, so your comment is silly.
By the way, the “information” you linked to is just another value free opinion who is as clueless as you. No GHE – adding CO2 (particularly the solid variety) to air does not make the air hotter!
MF, you said “Without external heat input, both the CO2 and nitrogen will cool – all the way to absolute zero, in theory.”
Nitpick. Not everything will cool to absolute zero. The heat death of the universe just implies an equalization of energy among all of the components making up the universe. Thus there can be no exchange of energy in the form of work. This also implies that all vibrational energy must also equalize since as the universe cools so does the transfer of energy due to collisional exchange. If collisions disappear then the only other way to equalize all vibrational energy is via radiation. My humble opinion based on what I was taught and have learned over the years.
A good nit to pick. I thought my “in theory” covered me, but obviously not quite.
However, my nitty response is that I said “Without external heat input”, which covers me again. At the heat death of the universe, CO2 and nitrogen will both be receiving heat from the surrounding environment.
Who ever told you this MF ? And why do you believe it ? Can be said about solids in early physics and heat transfer classes, but is generally clarified later on…
Maybe you could quote what you are disagree with.
You look like an ignorant whiner, otherwise.
Groan! But it should be:
Well, out on the open ocean, matey, there be a lot of Arrrrrrr!
Sorry. Disagree. It is about 140 ppm per degree C or K
https://breadonthewater.co.za/2024/07/28/the-mystery-of-the-missing-human-generated-carbon-dioxide/
The Vostok ice core data puts it at ~ 18 ppmv. The world has warmed ~ 5°C since the last glaciation. If your claim were true, the current CO2 level would be 200 ppmv (CO2 levels during glaciation) plus 5°C * 140 ppmv/°C = 900 ppmv. Which obviously never happened.
I’m sorry, but the fact that you can fit the sea temperature historical data to the CO2 historical data means nothing.
w.
Willis
Your claim – or NASA – that the oceans only warmed by 0.33 K does not fit the wft data?
Thanks, Henry. It was the top 100 meters of the ocean, not the ocean. I don’t see anything in the WoodForTrees website containing that data.
Regards,
w.
OK. But remember that most of CO2 and carbonate is dissolved in the colder water, far down below.. Also, your conclusions from ice core data assume that atmospheric pressure has always been the same as now. Considerng how all the water of the oceans were formed that may not have been the case.
Thanks, Henry. The sources I can find say that the atmospheric pressure was ~2% lower during the glaciation than during the interglacial periods. Not large enough to make much difference.
w.
===============
During glacial periods, atmospheric pressure decreased due to multiple factors linked to ice sheet growth and environmental changes. Key contributors included:
**1. Water Vapor Reduction**
The expansion of ice sheets trapped atmospheric moisture, reducing water vapor levels. This accounted for a **0.4% pressure drop** (equivalent to ~45 meters in elevation)[1].
**2. Glacial Loading and Sea-Level Changes**
– Ice sheets caused land deformation, sequestering air and lowering sea levels by ~120 meters.
– Combined with glacial isostatic adjustments, these factors contributed an additional **~150 meters of equivalent elevation pressure loss**[1].
**Total Pressure Decline**
The cumulative effect of these factors during glacial maxima was equivalent to a **195-meter elevation increase**, corresponding to an estimated **~2% reduction in atmospheric pressure** (approximately **20 hPa** at sea-level baseline)[1].
**Feedback Mechanisms**
Lower pressure amplified cooling by reducing air density and heat retention, creating a reinforcing loop during glaciation. Conversely, pressure rebounded during interglacials as ice melted and water vapor increased[1][3].
These estimates derive from modeled interactions between ice sheets, sea levels, and atmospheric composition, highlighting the interconnected nature of glacial climate systems.
Citations:
[1] https://judithcurry.com/2019/01/04/sea-levels-atmospheric-pressure-and-land-temperature-during-glacial-maxima/
[2] https://news.arizona.edu/news/how-cold-was-ice-age-researchers-now-know
[3] https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.94.16.8343
[4] https://www2.atmos.umd.edu/~zeng/papers/Zeng03_glacialC.pdf
[5] https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/abrupt-climate-change-during-the-last-ice-24288097/
[6] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010GL045261
[7] https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1itfa0h/does_the_earths_atmospheric_pressure_change_over/
[8] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/003101829190170V
[9] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/092181819190115D
[10] https://a.tellusjournals.se/articles/3863/files/6593c5b205337.pdf
Sorry. These people reporting were not there. I think pressures were much higher. In past days.
This is how the oceans were formed:
2H2 + O2 = H2O (g)
One big bang….water far slung out into space gradually coming down in bits and pieces.
How do I know? The reaction ended when the H2 was finished, leaving enough O2 for life te develop together with CO2 and NOx.
You’d believe anything. Heat is not “retained” – that’s just nonsense. Learn some physics, and think for yourself. Accept reality.
Huh, .33 C? What really matters is how much ocean cooled to 2 C is sinking into the depths of the Arctic and Antarctic, versus how much 4 C abyssal water is has been forced upward and warmed to 28 C at the equator. Takes hundreds of years to complete a circulation. Affected by heat transfer rates from surface to outer space, at polar versus equatorial regions, not some puny average surface temp change….
I hope Mr. Eschenbach takes a look at that aspect of that big water and heat conveyor belt.
Thanks, PCman. (I desperately hope that doesn’t mean “Politically Correct man … but I digress.)
Unfortunately, there is very little observational data on size or the changes in the long-term polar to equator circulation. If you know of any, please let me know. All I’ve seen are hysterical “studies” screaming “THE THERMOHALINE CIRCULATION IS STOPPING! EVERYONE PANIC!”
Interesting question, but I fear I have no answer.
Regards,
w.
You don’t have valid historical sea temp data or CO2 historical data to compare anything to anything … it’s a nice mathematical exercise … get real data and repeat for science …
We have the ice core δ18O and δD data of the ice as temperature proxy for the snow that fell in Antarctica. That is for Antarctic temperatures. These change about twice as fast as global temperatures.
For the Vostok ice core, that gives about 8 ppmv/°C:
For global temperatures the ratio then gets about 16 ppmv/°C.
Modern measurements gives similar ratio’s, thus the ice core data were not that bad…
This scatter plot is 60 ppmv wide at -5C — plotting the 1-sigma prediction intervals will show a direct indication of the measurement uncertainty of these polynomial fits.
Most of the scatter is from the long lags between ice core CO2 changes and the temperature changes, estimated at 800 +/- 600 years during deglaciations an several thousands of years during cooling to a nest glacial period.
That can be see in more higher excursions than lower.
I did not correct for the lags…
Sorry, but that’s physically impossible. If you believe that, you are capable of believing that adding CO2 to air makes it hotter!
A big ball of glowing rock, 300,000,000 km from the sun does not just get “colder” and “hotter” for no particular reason, does it?
Are you denying the Ice Ages now? Our rock 150 million Km from the Sun doesn’t stay exactly that far all the time and not at the exact same angle and the points in the orbit change too.
It’s infuriating to go from such a good article as Willis always writes, to trolls just spewing BS like chimps at the zoo throwing their poop at innocent bystanders.
MF, are you now saying that there have never been any glaciations? That the earth has been continuously cooling since its formation?
Nothing happens without causation, but there is massive evidence that the earth was much colder as well as substantially warmer in the geologically recent past (~2-100 kya)
No to the first, yes to the second.
Why do you ask? The Earth is a big, mostly glowing hot blob, cooling slowly. Continuously losing energy – about 44 TW worth.
That’s called cooling.
Maybe you believe the nutters who imply the Earth was created at absolute zero, and has warmed to its present temperature?
Sorry, if you can’t provide some physical reasons for the Earth as a whole to heat up and cool down spontaneously, I assume you are just gullible, and not thinking for yourself.
Surely if there was more Ice during the Vostok period that would mean that more exposed Sea surface now would mean an increase of 2% not a decrease of 2%?
Below is Grok’s comments on this post. It gives some interesting insights, don’t you think?
Strong Points
Weaknesses
Scientific Context
ImplicationsThe article highlights natural CO2 variability, a valid topic, but exaggerates its role, risking misinformation about human-driven climate change. The 13.6 ppm/°C figure aligns with transient sensitivities but doesn’t challenge emission dominance. It could prompt model refinements if the lag holds, but policymakers might misinterpret it as downplaying mitigation needs.
Recommendations
ConclusionEschenbach’s article leverages Henry’s Law and data to argue ocean warming drives CO2 outgassing, with a notable lagged correlation. However, it overstates natural contributions, ignores isotopic evidence, and lacks methodological rigor. Published without peer review on a skeptical blog, it falls short of overturning the consensus that emissions drive CO2 rises. A balanced, peer-reviewed version could contribute to carbon cycle discussions. For deeper insights, check Global Carbon Project reports.
Grok’s own reply to its critique would be –
“I only write what I’ve been trained to write. If you have a problem with this, take it up with my trainers. Start with Wikipedia”
Grok is hallucinating badly.
Grok:
I said the exact opposite, saying that it only explained ~ 2% to 5% of the rise.
Grok:
“The focus on interannual variability (e.g., El Niño) sidesteps the long-term CO2 trend driven by emissions.”
I said nothing about El Nino or interannual variability, never used the word “variability”, much less was I “focused” on it.
Grok:
Never claimed that. Not once.
Grok:
Search my post. Never used the word “pathetic” at all.
Grok:
I cited ten sources.
Grok:
I said nothing about “natural CO2 driven variability”, nor did I “exaggerate its role”. And I have no idea where it got the “13.6 ppm/°C figure”. There’s no mention of that number in my post or even in any of the comments.
Grok:
Thus proving that even an AI can engage in ad hominem. Truth is truth regardless of where it’s published.
Grok:
Say what?? Here’s what I actually said:
“While I agree with the good Dr. M. that outgassing due to ocean temperature rise is a “missing part of the climate puzzle”, at 2% to 5% of the rise in CO2, it’s a small part of the climate puzzle, and as such it is generally ignored in the overall analysis.”
Grok:
The lack of understanding of what I said is stunning. I said it was a minor feedback, not a primary driver, and Grok has totally reversed my statement.
As I said … it seems like Grok was simply making things up out of the whole cloth.
Interesting comment, thanks.
w.
Not making things up Willis, just mindlessly regurgitating what it’s been trained to do.
It is artificial ‘intelligence’, after all.
Artificial Idiocy, more like…
WUWT 13 April
I believe there is a tendency in these discussions of simplifying an extremely complex system down to just a few numbers.
For example, solubility of CO2 [the amount in solution – not as bubbles] increases with pressure and inversely with temperature. The pressure at 100m depth is about 10 atmospheres, much more than say my SodaStream gadget can generate. Once gassed, a sealed bottle of soda water has no bubbles until the cap is removed. So, it seems unlikely to me that CO2 can ‘rise’ from 100m depth (or even 20 m depth – two atmospheres) as gas, all by itself.
Secondly, there is a strong diurnal rhythm reflecting light reactions – photosynthesis that removes CO2 from seawater, producing O2; and dark respiration that utilizes photosynthates, which produces CO2. I have no data for that (but no doubt it exists).
Against that background, and given concentration levels in the order of PPMv, it seems to me it would be virtually impossible to measure ‘outgassing’ as a process independent of biological exchanges.
Thirdly, datasets that exist (at least four that I know of), show sea surface temperature and the temperature of air above are in close lockstep, mainly because short-term fluctuations in radiation result in short-term fluctuations in evaporation, which cools the surface causing negative heat exchange via advection with the air above, and vice versa.
As air mostly cools-warms by advection, there is little scope for air over the open-ocean to warm independently, and thus warm the water.
The longest same-site sea surface temperature dataset that I know of from the Charles Darwin Research Centre at Puerto Ayora (1965-2024) shows no trend. However, for the same grid cell, over the same time period, HadISST shows a trend of 0.165oC/decade. So where is all this HadISST heating going if it does not show-up in data?
Likewise long-term SST data for sites along the Great Barrier Reef (25 to 30 years of discontinuous data) also show no trend. However, satellite data manufactured by the Bureau of Meteorology shows SST is increasing.
What if nothing is actually going on?
Cheers,
Dr Bill Johnston
http://www.bomwatch.com.au
I don’t think Grog is hallucinating. In my opinion it is attempt at trolling using Grog as a cover.
Yes, it actually sounds like JK may stand for ‘Just Kidding’
CO2 “drives” nothing, and “feedback” is just pseudoscientific “climate science” jargon.
I find it interesting that you can be bothered debating a mindless computer program. The program doesn’t care, and your attempts at sarcasm and justification are totally wasted.
Most reasonably intelligent people realise that arguing with a machine is fairly pointless.
Excellent points, Willis.
These models and calculations are estimates that depend on simplifications to keep them manageable. However a range of 2% to 5% gives you tall error bars, don’tcha think? I am also of the opinion (unsupported!) that many of the processes are not at equilibrium due to other factors, such a heat and mass fluxes into the layers of the ocean. And don’t get me started on the effects of carbonates, the impacts of solid to dissolved solids are complicated and not necessarily determined by equilibrium conditions.
Thanks for listening, Willis.
“No Peer Review:Published on a skeptic-leaning blog, the article lacks peer scrutiny, increasing error risks. It cites minimal literature, ignoring key studies (e.g., Sabine et al., 2004) on carbon fluxes.”Sounds like this Grok’s training didn’t include the Climate Gate emails.
And Grok ignores isotopic fractionation that occurs when CO2 comes out of solution, and also is involved in the (bi)carbonate transformations. Grok also ignores the isotopic fractionation in wintertime respiration from the roots of Boreal trees, and the biological decomposition of plant detritus.
Grok grossly misinterpreted Willis’ analysis. Grok needs to go back to school for further training.
btw, not to dismiss Willis’ detailed analysis, but back-of-the-envelope estimates easily show that ocean outgassing is not significant. Manmade combustion emissions and such are clearly dominant in the modern record. The big question, unanswered and overestimated by “climate science” (especially the implausible worst case bounding estimates), is, “What is the rate and magnitude of resultant warming of the lower atmosphere where we live?” So far, empirically, the magnitude is small and largely beneficial. The rate is slow enough to allow reasonable development of cost-effective energy systems and technologies that will be needed with or without worries about climate. We needn’t be wasting resources and quality of life by premature panic spending on costly, inefficient and unreliable alternatives.
How many cans of coke are opened every day?
It isn’t the problem they’d like it to be.
Humans create about 1 kg of CO2 per day – 8 billion humans generate a fair amount of CO2. Termites outweigh humans, so there’s more CO2. And so on.
Luckily, plants and suchlike turn the CO2 into carbohydrates, which we eat and convert to CO2.
Ain’t nature grand?
I don’t understand why sea ice cover has any impact on outgassing. The outgassing is a function of temperature not surface area.
Thanks, Giving. It might help answer your question if you consider how much outgassing there would be if the entire ocean were covered by ice …
None.
w.
Willis, maybe you could just explain why sea ice cover has an impact, rather than being a supercilious dick?
Reduced contact area will reduce the mass transfer rate. The equilibrium condition remains the same, but it’ll take longer to get there.
The predictions of the annual out-gassing are based on reaching an equilibrium with the atmospheric partial pressure, and the rate of change is related to the temperature, the difference in partial pressure of CO2 between the source (ocean) and sink (atmosphere), and the total surface area. The CO2 can only leave the liquid at the boundary between the water and air. That means for a given volume of water with dissolved CO2, the rate of gain or loss will be determined inversely by the ratio between the exposed surface area and volume. Imagine you have two bottles of soda at the same temperature. You open both and leave one standing nearby. The other one is poured carefully and slowly onto a large baking sheet. The soda is expected to ‘go flat’ much faster in the baking pan because of the much larger surface area. That is, the loss of CO2 is the product of the surface area in contact with the air, multiplied by the loss per unit area.
When dealing with a large volume of ocean water, the CO2 dissolved at depth will have to either diffuse to the surface, or be carried upwards by currents in order for the CO2 to cross the water-air boundary. Although, if the water above the thermocline is saturated with CO2, a reduction in pressure resulting in over-saturation as the water moves upwards in currents, may allow discrete bubbles to form and move upward towards the surface at a rate faster than the rising water.
Your original question was about ice. In the case of water covered with ice, diffusion of CO2 through the ice will be negligible, thus, there will be neither out-gassing or absorption. Where ice is abundant, the area is more likely to be a potential sink for atmospheric CO2, IF the air can come in contact with water.
“it’s undeniable that warmer ocean water contains less CO2 than colder water.”
I deny it. Ocean water is not saturated in CO2.
Not normally. However, deep, cold, abyssal water does become saturated when it rises through up-welling along coast lines, or in the Tropics.
Maybe you could explain why the densest water rises through less dense water?
Sounds like some NOAA-style hallucination, much like the silliness of surface winds causing deep ocean currents! All about as silly as water cooling at the Poles, and flowing around a globe towards the mid-line for no good reason at all!
Ah, the wonders of fantasy over fact.
The surface water at high latitudes might at times be more dense than the deep water, because it can be closer to the temperature of maximum water density. I wonder whether the THC could also be a factor in upwelling other than water density (just wondering).
Mike,
Unlikely, because the water at the bottom is the densest water possible – otherwise it wouldn’t be at the bottom. Now, if water on the surface cools and sinks, it displaces warmer water below, which rises to the surface.
Still no magical upwelling of water which is denser than anything above it. The bottom water is only prevented from freezing by the proximity of the glowing mantle not far below. Deep ocean currents are the result of convection, which requires heating from the bottom – not the top.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but much of what “climate scientists” promote is completely wrong.
I never claimed that the densest water moved upwards. Sea water is typically densest at 4 deg C, although streams of dense brine expelled from freezing ice can be denser. Ocean currents have momentum and can move up-slope in submarine canyons, analogous to dense air experiencing orographic uplift when it encounters a barrier.
Spencer, here’s what you said –
Deep, cold, abyssal water is the densest, otherwise it wouldn’t be deep, cold, and abyssal. You claimed it “rises . . . In the Tropics”.
If you say that “rises” doesn’t mean “move upwards”, then you probably think that “slower cooling” really means “heating”.
I’m unaware of any measurements of the phenomenon you describe in general. Deep currents are caused by convection, so maybe you are simply confused.
No, the densest water doesn’t just rise to the surface – warm, less dense water floats on colder, denser water. Warm water doesn’t sink, cold water doesn’t rise. Of the same composition of course.
The absolute densest seawater occurs at -1.9°C and ~10,000 decibars (10,000 meters depth), yielding a density of ~1.071 g/cm³35. This combination of extreme cold and high pressure is found in deep polar regions like the Antarctic, where dense water masses form and sink.
w.
Willis,
So which is it? The Antarctic or 10000 m? No Antarctic water is anywhere near 10000 m deep. Don’t you know anything?
Sorry Willis, but just copying stuff you don’t understand is not helping. Why do you bother?
The temperature of the deep ocean is generally in the range 0-3 deg C. (Wikipedia: Deep ocean water is cold, salty water found deep below the surface of Earth’s oceans. This water has a uniform temperature of around 0-3 °C.). Water has maximum density at about 4 deg C. Most of the surface layer in the Southern Ocean ranges in temperature from 0 to 5 deg C. So for some of the time, some of the water in the Southern Ocean surface layer is denser than the deep ocean.
Mike, the point is that the densest water is at the bottom of the ocean. Absolute density will vary around the globe. In any case, bottom water doesn’t feel the cold, and wander off seeking warmer climes.
The Earth is roughly spherical, and bottom water stays where it is, warmed from beneath, with the subsequent convective action. The slightly warmed bottom water rises, and slightly colder water falls, to be warmed, and so on. Convection.
Some people have the very strange idea that water cools at the poles, and heads for the equatorial regions. All about as silly as expecting round balls dropped at the poles to head towards the equator – or anywhere else, except towards the COG of the Earth.
Ah, the wonders of gullibility!
The THC upwells in the Southern Ocean, from where the water travels north, getting warmer as it goes. As it travels on north through the northern hemisphere, it cools again, thus warming places around it (viz the Gulf Stream). In the Arctic it becomes cool and dense enough to sink. Then it becomes a cold deep current heading for the Antarctic and another circuit. Density is obviously an important factor, but not the only one. And of course, the THC is not the only current, and all sorts of things go on in various places, including upwelling and subduction.
Mike, you say “Water has maximum density at about 4 deg C.”
While this is widely believed, I fear this is only true at the surface. See below.
Best regards,
w.
===
Seawater reaches its maximum density under specific temperature and pressure conditions, primarily determined by salinity. For seawater with a typical salinity of ~35 g/kg (common in the open ocean), the densest water occurs at its freezing point of approximately -1.9°C under high pressure[3][5].
Key factors:
– Temperature: At salinities >23.8 g/kg, seawater density peaks at the freezing temperature (-1.9°C for 35 g/kg salinity)[3]. Unlike freshwater (max density at 4°C), salt lowers the temperature of maximum density to the freezing point[1][4].
– Pressure: Density increases with pressure due to water compressibility. For example:
– At 10,000 meters depth (10,000 decibars), seawater density reaches 1.07104 g/cm³[5].
– Antarctic Bottom Water, formed in the Weddell Sea, sinks to abyssal depths (4,000–6,000 meters) with densities of 1.046–1.055 g/cm³[5].
Exact values: The absolute densest seawater occurs at -1.9°C and ~10,000 decibars (10,000 meters depth), yielding a density of ~1.071 g/cm³[3][5]. This combination of extreme cold and high pressure is found in deep polar regions like the Antarctic, where dense water masses form and sink.
Citations:
[1] https://rwu.pressbooks.pub/webboceanography/chapter/6-3-density/
[2] https://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/the-oceans/content-section-3.2
[3] https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/key-physical-variables-in-the-ocean-temperature-102805293/
[4] https://talleylab.ucsd.edu/sio210/lect_2/lecture_2.html
[5] https://www.britannica.com/science/seawater/Density-of-seawater-and-pressure
[6] https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/water-density
[7] https://www.coastalwiki.org/wiki/Seawater_density
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater
[9] https://www.nio.res.in/files/view/29fbd01f222086c
[10] https://www.britannica.com/science/seawater/Thermal-properties
[11] https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/687-ocean-density
[12] https://aquarius.oceansciences.org/activities/density_SWmix_sink.pdf
Thx, w. That’s way better, because although some deep water may be densest, the deep water at 0-3C is further from densest than I said. So there’s a lot more scope for the shallower water to be denser. Only some deeper water, not all of it, needs to be less dense in order to want to upwell. Not that this is the major factor anyway, partly because the density difference is so small.
You seem to be scared by lots of things. I don’t really care about your fragile emotional state.
Here’s what NOAA said –
Obviously, anyone with half a brain will realise that water in contact with exposed glowing magma at the mid-ocean ridges will be well above 4° C, as will bottom water in the vicinity of hydrothermal vents.
You quoted me saying “Water has maximum density at about 4 deg C”. Not sea water, or salt water – water.
You don’t seem to be disagreeing, just scared and fearful. I can’t help you there.
Sorry.
I asked:
How is it possible for cold dense seawater to upwell on the western coast of South America?
Grok explains:
Cold, dense seawater upwells along the western coast of South America due to a combination of wind-driven ocean currents and the Earth’s rotation, known as the Ekman transport and coastal upwelling processes. Here’s how it works:
This upwelling is a key feature of the Humboldt Current System, which supports one of the world’s most productive marine ecosystems, fueling abundant fisheries off the coasts of Peru and Chile. The process is most pronounced during the Southern Hemisphere’s winter months when winds are stronger.
https://x.com/i/grok/share/0JooIxIg9XU03tBBwn0fNsj0j
I think a tl;dr version would be that prevailing winds push the warm upper layer west creating a bulge and trough.
Grok is full of it, and I assume you can see why.
To keep you happy, here’s an example of an Absolutely Idiotic computer program telling me how dry ice heats CO2 gas –
In case you actually believe it, no, you can’t use frozen carbon dioxide to heat anything at all to a temperature above 20C – not even gaseous CO2!
Grok just regurgitates nonsense previously regurgitated by human idiots. Sorry about that.
I’m surprised to see you admit that you aren’t a human, idiot or otherwise.
Clyde, you wrote –
I’m not equally surprised to see you admit that you are, indeed, an idiot.
Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
Thanks, Rich.
I live and have fished commercially all along the west coast of the US, where a combination of wind and the Kuroshio current brings cold, dense, nutrient-rich water to the surface. This water is green due to the masses of phytoplankton growing because of the nutrients.
If you drive your boat straight out from the coast, as I’ve done many times, it’s generally cold and foggy … until you get from about thirty to a hundred miles or so away from the coast. At that point, you emerge from a fog bank, the sun is shining, and instead of the ocean being cold, green, and occluded, it’s warm, blue, and clear.
So yes, cold bottom water absolutely can rise to the surface. It’s why the west coast of the US is such a productive area for commercial fishing, while the blue clear water offshore is basically a wet “desert” where no plankton grows and there are few fish.
Here’s a graphic showing the upwelling along the coast.
So please, enough of these uninformed claims that cold ocean bottom water can’t rise to the surface.
And for anyone who thinks I’m just making this up, see below.
w.
===
The upwelling of cold, dense water along the western coast of the United States, particularly in the California Current System, is a well-documented phenomenon. Below is a detailed explanation of its cross-sectional structure:
Upwelling Along the U.S. West Coast
Key Features
1. Surface Winds and Ekman Transport:
– Persistent northwesterly winds during spring and summer drive surface waters offshore via Ekman transport.
– This offshore movement creates a divergence zone near the coast, causing deeper, colder water to rise to the surface[1][6].
2. Vertical Structure:
– The upwelled water originates from depths of 100–300 meters and is nutrient-rich, cold, and dense.
– Nearshore regions exhibit cold-water bands that are narrow in some areas but can extend hundreds of miles offshore in others, depending on local topography and wind patterns[3][5].
3. Seasonal Dynamics:
– Upwelling intensifies during summer months when winds are strongest.
– The vertical structure includes:
– Offshore surface flow driven by winds.
– An onshore return flow beneath the surface layer.
– A deeper offshore-directed flow near the bottom[2][5].
Geographic Variability
– Upwelling regions are concentrated near prominent coastal features like capes (e.g., Cape Mendocino, Pt. Arena, Pt. Reyes, and Pt. Sur).
– At locations like Pt. Conception, where the coastline orientation changes abruptly, upwelling is reduced or absent due to unfavorable wind-coastline interactions[3][5].
Biological Productivity
– Upwelled water is rich in nutrients, supporting high biological productivity and some of the world’s most productive fisheries.
– This nutrient influx leads to phytoplankton blooms and sustains marine ecosystems[4][7].
This dynamic system is vital for maintaining ecological balance and supporting fisheries along the U.S. West Coast.
Citations:
[1] https://www.ametsoc.org/index.cfm/ams/education-careers/education-program/k-12-teachers/project-ocean/training-opportunities/maury-project-peer-led-training/maury-project-peer-training-resources/coastal-upwelling/
[2] https://coastalscience.noaa.gov/data_reports/seasonal-cross-shelf-flow-structure-upwelling-relaxation-and-the-alongshelf-pressure-gradient-in-the-northern-california-current-system/
[3] https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/02quest/background/upwelling/upwelling.html
[4] https://rwu.pressbooks.pub/webboceanography/chapter/9-5-currents-upwelling-and-downwelling/
[5] https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA533965.pdf
[6] http://oceanmotion.org/html/background/upwelling-and-downwelling.htm
[7] https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/tutorial_currents/03coastal4.html
[8] https://www.integratedecosystemassessment.noaa.gov/regions/california-current/california-current-marine-heatwave-tracker-blobtracker
[9] https://fcoceanography.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/3/0/13303201/upwelling_activities.pdf
[10] https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019JC015499
[11] https://marinescience.ucdavis.edu/blog/upwelling
[12] https://manoa.hawaii.edu/exploringourfluidearth/physical/atmospheric-effects/effect-surface-currents
[13] https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/87575/california-coastal-current
[14] https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/20019/
[15] https://www.meted.ucar.edu/oceans/currents/print.php
[16] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0079661183900101
[17] https://www.eoas.ubc.ca/courses/atsc113/sailing/met_concepts/10-met-local-conditions/10e-upwelling-and-fog/
[18] http://ocean.stanford.edu/courses/EESS2
Willis, depending on Absolutely Idiotic computer programs won’t help you look intelligent, you know.
Either you haven’t read some of the nonsense references, or you are too dumb to realise that many of the fantasies presented are physically impossible.
For example, look at your? first citation, and tell me you believe it to be true. Oh, you won’t commit yourself? I don’t blame you.
All about as credible as the dimwitted National Science Foundation, who claimed for many years that melting sea ice raised sea levels – in spite of Anthony Watts (from memory) doing his best to point out that Archimedes might just be an old Greek, but his principle still applies – even in the good old USA!
If you must try a pointless and irrelevant diversion, at least put some effort into it.
CO2 is at the lowest levels for 65 million years. Very low. Without it we are dead.
More like 300 million years. Previous low CO2 (about the same as at the last glacial maximum extent) was at the end of the Pennsylvanian. See the Paleoearth project http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm There’s a chart of CO2 vs time about half way down the page.
Solid science? Maybe a bit approximate. The data it’s based on isn’t that great. But probably every bit as good as climate “science” and very likely better.
Willis,
To me it seems that your estimate must represent the greatest case – the most possible outgassing. I haven’t spotted anywhere that a rate for ocean CO2 uptake is mentioned, nor is consumption by aquatic plants or plankton through photosynthesis, nor production of calcium carbonate by marine animals from dissolved CO2. Perhaps these factors can be assumed to be in equilibrium, but I should think the theory should at least state as much.
As a dynamic, biologically and tidally active environment, I’d tend to guess that the ocean represents more carbon capture – loss from the atmosphere – than emission to the atmosphere, regardless of temperature. But I wouldn’t have the foggiest idea of how to apply figures to that, or to go about falsifying the claim.
Cheers!
I suspect that man is responsible for most of the increase. I sure hope so anyway, because that, contrary to what the climate caterwaulers believe, is actually a GOOD thing. I mean, imagine thinking that being responsible for greening the planet, and perhaps causing a bit of warming is bad. That’s just crazy.
I may go have a look at references [5][6], but this issue of coupling atmospheric CO2 to oceanic buffering chemistry plays a role in something I have been working on. The buffering has to work with other changes in order to return CO2 to the atmosphere. It’s a larger role than this AI statement implies. Most of the ocean carbonate is in the form of bicarbonate. To get from bicarbonate back to carbonic acid and back to a form that can go into the atmosphere requires hydrogen ions.
Back before the concerns about burning fossil fuels, people recognized a problem with ocean chemistry. Rain carries carbonic acid to the surface. Carbonic acid is involved in weathering of surface materials and rivers then carry bicarbonate to the sea. Yet, the oceans never became alkali ponds like Great Salt Lake the chemistry of which is evaporated bicarbonate waters. Thus, some parts of a cycle that returns CO2 from ocean to air must operate. For a long time people thought the return path was through clay mineral reactions on the ocean floor. These turned out to be too slow to do the job.
In the 1980s ocean scientists learned that the midocean ridges have vents pouring out superheated water that is quite acid. Last I read this appeared to be the mechanism that keeps returning CO2 to the atmosphere.
The interesting part of this story that has caught my attention is that the midocean ridge hot springs are not connected in any simple way, that I see, to the uptake of CO2 into ocean bicarbonate. Thus, there is no regulating loop with the result that atmospheric concentration of CO2 could go through large fluctuations in value tied mainly to the vigor of plate tectonics as long as the hydrologic cycle continues to operate.
JM also mentioned in her essay about oceanic life making use of carbonates and wondered about this being a complication. Life uses energy and enzymes to run reactions opposite to what ideal aqueous thermodynamics might suggest.
Interesting topic.
“To get from bicarbonate back to carbonic acid and back to a form that can go into the atmosphere requires hydrogen ions.”
Yes, the interweaning of CO2 and acidity is very important. But you can only usefully get those hydrogen ions from an acid stronger than CO2, and mostly there isn’t one. Maybe SO2 from volcanism.
“Yet, the oceans never became alkali ponds like Great Salt Lake the chemistry of which is evaporated bicarbonate waters.”
Well, CO2 is acidifying, so it doesn’t push in that direction. But the main thing that balances alkali accumulation is deposition of calcium carbonate.
Nick, the high temperature reactions at the sea floor hot springs produce strongly acidic waters. It is a reaction of high temperature water and gabbro or peridotite in the fresh oceanic crust that supplies the chemistry.
CO2 is not acidifying once it engages in the weathering of surface rock. River, on net, supply alkalinity to the oceans mainly as bicarbonate.
Kevin, you might find the following seminal book by famous Stanford geochemist Konrad B. Krauskopf to be helpful:
Krauskopf, Konrad B., (1967), Introduction to Geochemistry, McGraw-Hill, NY, 721 p.
Since CO2 is not a well mixed gas and the outagssing of CO2 is dependent on the temp of the water AND the CO2 content of the air above said water this is a wonderful exercise in averages … but completely useless since nobody can even begin to measure the ocean temperature to within a 10th of a degree AND measure the CO2 above said water … any claimed measurements are fraught with errors biases and outright fraud and the thinest global coverage of any temperature measurements …
You don’t seem to be taking into account the atmospheric increase in CO₂ partial pressure. Due to it the ocean has become a net sink for CO₂ and it is not releasing any CO₂ despite its warming. It is absorbing CO₂. Neither the ocean, nor the biosphere, are contributing to the increase in atmospheric CO₂.
Sabine, C.L., Feely, R.A., Gruber, N., Key, R.M., Lee, K., Bullister, J.L., Wanninkhof, R., Wong, C.S.L., Wallace, D.W., Tilbrook, B. and Millero, F.J., 2004. The oceanic sink for anthropogenic CO2. science, 305(5682), pp.367-371.
There is a more subtle argument than that. Without man-made CO2, the ocean would have been a net emitter of CO2, IOW atmospheric CO2 would have increased. The net effect of man-made CO2 is only the excess over that increased level and is therefore not the cause of the whole observed CO2 increase – even though the ocean is not a net CO2 emitter.
It is about 13 ppmv by warming oceans since the Little Ice Age, the rest is human, thus about 90% human, 10% natural…
Willis, you idiot, the oceans are absorbing CO2 since the Industrial Revolution.
The question is how much of the atmospheric CO2 is attributable to ocean outgassing given its increase in temperature. Its a question of equilibrium, not of the ocean causally driving the increase.
Tim,
There is no question at all. Adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter. There is no GHE – that’s just a collective delusion.
There is no “equilibrium” in the atmosphere.
i’m sorry, but you are dreaming.
Michael, Tim’s reaction is about CO2 mass going in or out the oceans in equilibrium with the atmosphere. Nothing to do with the GHG effect, where you are wrong too…
Ferdinand, the mass of CO2 changes with every breath you take. There is no “equilibrium”. That’s just pseudoscience, promoted by “climate scientists”.
Do you really mean the GHE, perhaps? No such thing, of course. You can’t even find a consistent and unambiguous description of the GHE, can you?
Maybe you could provide a fact or two to support your opinion of my “wrongness”, but I doubt it. Hopefully, you won’t mind if I assign no value to your opinion at present.
Yeah, thanks for trying. I was originally going to reply but I know its a pointless exercise.
Tim, there is no equilibrium. Nice try at avoidance, though.
Didn’t work, of course.
The equilibrium CO2 in the atmosphere was about 280 ppm in pre-industrial times. Its now about 427 ppm. Does that mean at every moment in every place its 427 ppm? No. Its an average. But its still an equilibrium value.
Frankly I dont know why I’ve bothered to reply to you though. Because you’re not capable of understanding straight forward scientific principles.
Ah, the miracle of the unknown estimated “average”! You can’t even say what this “average” is, can you? “About”? What, between 0 and 1000, perhaps?
You don’t have to look sillier than you seem, you know. You imply the value continuously changes – no equilibrium, in that case.
Are you trying to imply that adding CO2 to air makes it hotter, or do you just enjoy babbling about complete irrelevancies? Does the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere concern you, seeing as how you believe that it is not important to know the value in any particular place?
CO2 was never and never will be at equilibrium in the atmosphere. One of the fundamental flaws in the models is assuming an equilibrium in a chaotic. dynamic system.
Not at equilibrium, no, but CO2 is always heading towards equilibrium.
It’s informative to calculate what equilibrium would be to understand how its changing.
Right now there’s too much in the atmosphere and it’s being absorbed into the ocean.
I should also mention there are different states of equilibrium. So for example pre-industrial CO2 levels were at “equilibrium” at 280 ppm and they varied around that over the seasons.
We’ve now changed it to be 427 ppm and it’s going to vary around that over the seasons with a long term expectation of reduction as it’s absorbed into the ocean and biomass increases.
Of course we’re still adding it so in actual fact it’s likely to continue to increase.
The answer is, of course, zero. Increasing temperature may slow down absorption if nothing other changes but CO2 in the atmosphere is actually increasing offsetting this effect. The ocean is a net sink.
That’s not the point of the analysis. The analysis gives us the answer to the following: If CO2 wasn’t being added to the atmosphere by anthropogenic activity and the ocean temperature had increased then how much CO2 would have been outgassed.
Yes, that’s the point of the “analysis”. Direct quote:
And:
This is crystal clear, and “crystal clearly” wrong. And just fantastically dumb.
The very next line asks the question
And that’s the analysis. Not how much did we get, rather how much do we get. There’s a difference.
Because he wanted to answer the “How much” part.
Yes. Crucially with respect to the temperature increase. Ever heard of a strawman argument? Because if you insist on your argument, you’re obviously making one.
CO2 in water is a dependency of pressure, temperature, CO2 partial pressure in air in the classical case, in equilibrium, relevant page: https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Mask=10 ). Willis’s “estimation” for outgassing from Vostok cores was total garbage. Furthermore, CO2 content in ocean actually lags what is expected from the equilibrium because of the quite rapid increase of air CO2 content and the way CO2 dissipates in water.
If you have a better estimation then feel free to make it. If you have a specific criticism then feel free to make that too.
But the takeaway from the analysis is that the natural amount of atmospheric CO2 increase from ocean temperature changes is small compared to the amount observed. And that reinforces the result that the CO2 levels are anthropogenically caused.
If the result had been 100 ppm or more then that would have been different and worthy of close examination.
I don’t have to have any estimation to point out that what he’s doing is wrong (there are numerous factors that affect this, and he’s just disregarded them, and this is the specific criticism I’ve actually made).
I don’t have any estimation, of course. I don’t work in any field that is related to this. Neither does Willis, of course. Again, read the scientists, that’s the solution. Instead of hallucinating bs.
His “analysis” is based on completely wrong premises.
nyolci, the CO2 level change in ice cores of the past is quite well defined and the temperature proxy’s (δ18O and δD) in ice reflect Antarctic temperatures where the snow was formed that made the ice.
That shows some 8 ppmv CO2/°C change during glacial – interglacial transitions and back, with a delay of several hundreds of years when warming and several thousands of years when cooling.
For global temperatures, one may assume smaller temperature changes, thus a larger CO2/T change – up to 16 ppmv/K over very long periods.
Well, of course. Creating heat by burning fossil fuels results in the production of CO2 and H2O. The heat results from the combustion, not the CO2 or H2O.
Urban heat islands are hot because of waste heat from energy use, not more CO2 and H2O in the air. Electric cars produce vast amounts of heat if driven hard. Keeping the batteries from actually melting has required a lot of engineering design effort.
nyolci, I fear you are talking about the net CO2 exchange between the atmosphere and ocean. This consists of two parts: oceanic outgassing of CO2 and absorption of CO2. I’m discussing the outgassing only, as that was the subject of Dr. M’s post.
Best wishes,
w.
CO2 outgassing is also a function of the partial pressure in the atmosphere. You totally ignored that. Although the AI garbage you used mentioned the relevant law. For that matter why do you use AI for this? Why don’t you just calculate? The relevant page would be https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Mask=10Henry's law is for the equilibrium. CO2 is rapidly increasing in the atmosphere due to anthropogenic reasons, so ocean CO2 content actually lags what is expected to be under equilibrium. The calculation wouldn’t be trivial ‘cos CO2 content has a gradient in the ocean but you could’ve calculated that.And the gem: My first step was to look at the Vostok ice core data. It shows that as the globe rose by ~ 5°C, the CO2 level rose by ~ 100 ppmv. This gives us a CO2 outgassing trend of ~20 ppmv per 1°C temperature rise. This is a hilariously stupid approximation that is completely ignoring the role of other active reservoirs (mostly the sink of the biosphere) and a lot other relevant factors.All in all, your 2-5 ppmv calculation is total garbage.
That might be true. And there are arguments to be made against it. But not because of your claim “the oceans are absorbing CO2 since the Industrial Revolution”
If he wanted to convey his thoughts about the degradation of “sinkiness” of the ocean, he did a very bad job. The rest is even worse. Willis started with some bsing about actual outgassing (in the past in many occasions CO2 increase in the air was a consequence of warming, the cause-effect relation was in reverse), and he totally ignored the non-equilibrium (and non local) effects (increasing Co2 in air, non immediate dissipation in water) that are very relevant here. Furthermore, CO2 is not just dissolved in water, certain organisms use it this or that way, and this is definitely known to be temperature and acidity dependent too. So it’s likely that some part of CO2 in air would’ve been absorbed by the ocean if anything else remained the same, this is a non trivial calculation (and likely it is very small). What and how Willis calculated is just ridiculously amateurish.
Well I cant speak for Willis but I dont think that was one of his goals. It looked to me like he was analysing for the amount of CO2 expected per degree increase in temperature, as stated.
This is his conclusion
This might’ve been a legitimate goal, and he would’ve been actually right.
If so, he’s completely and ridiculously wrong.
The net sink rate of our excess CO2 is directly proportional to the pCO2 difference between atmosphere and ocean surface.
One can discuss that the increase in the atmosphere is 100% by human emissions, despite the increase in temperature, or over 95% by human emissions and 5% by the warming oceans, as the equilibrium between ocean surface and atmosphere shifted that “much”, even without human emissions.
But that is only of academic interest. The 10 ppmv/K change in equilibrium for global ocean temperatures over the past 800,000 years anyway still is right up to today and excludes warming oceans as the main cause of the current CO2 increase…
A separate question – what increase in ocean temperature would we expect as a result of global warming? If the atmosphere increases in temperature by 1 to 1.5 degC, what would be ocean temperature be? If it were driven by relative thermal mass, the ocean is 1,000 more massive and the specific heat capacity 4 times higher, so the increase would be less than a thousandth of a degree. Even if it were only the top 10% of the oceans that heated up, the temperature rise would still be tiny. Have I got this wrong?
The oceans never got warmed by the air above it, the opposite is what happens.
The back radiation by GHGs (mostly from water vapor) is what heats the upper fraction of a mm of the oceans where it is absorbed. That either heats the skin or increases evaporation. Anyway it adds energy to the skin that normally got lost from the ocean water itself, thus reducing cooling speed at night and increasing warming speed during the day…
Ferdinand,
Well no, it doesn’t. The warming speed during the day is decreased by the presence of the atmosphere. In the absence of atmosphere, temperatures rise faster and higher – the Moon is an example.
As you say, the ocean is warmer than the air above, and you can’t raise the temperature of a warmer object using the IR radiation from a colder.
Try warming water using the radiation from solid CO2 (dry ice). CO2 gas is far less dense, and hotter, but if it is colder than the water, the water refuses to heat. It doesn’t matter how many 15um photons you aim at it. An example of IR passing though a solid object might be an IR lens made of germanium, which is perfectly opaque to visible light.
You don’t appear to know much about reality.
What nobody appears to have mentioned is that outgassing depends, to a great extent, on atmospheric pressure directly above the ocean surface (think Coke cans) and that, more importantly, isn’t the same everywhere at any given moment.
Per Henry’s law, the ratio between a gas in solution and the gas above the solution only depends of the partial pressure of that gas above the liquid, whatever the rest of the gases of their absolute pressure. Thus the air pressure will have a small effect, because the partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) of around 425 μatm at 1 atm air pressure slightly goes up and down with the local air pressure.
However, the sea surface pCO2 in equilibrium with the atmosphere differs enormously between the equator (at maximum 750 μatm) and polar waters (at minimum 150 μatm).
The CO2 transfer between atmosphere and oceans is directly proportional to the pCO2 difference, which makes that the oceans release a lot of CO2 near the equator, which is absorbed by the cold oceans near the poles. The later do sink into the deep oceans to return some 1,000 years later near the equator… That is called the THC, thermohaline circulation.
The CO2 flux via the equator – poles – THC is estimated around 40 PgC/year with slightly more CO2 uptake (~2 PgC/year) than release, due to the extra CO2 pressure in the atmosphere above the normal about 295 μatm equilibrium value for the current average sea surface temperature.
See further Feely et al at:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml and following sections
Or directly to the maps:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/maps.shtm
The questions should be: “How much CO2 do the oceans outgas over X period of time?”
Does anyone know of any research that has asked and answered that question?
It is al very good to fiddle around with equations and the not-realistic Vostok ice core estimates of past atmosphere (which I do not think represent the actual composition of past atmospheric gas concentrations over time), but it is possible to actually measure, to some degree of accuracy or other, how much O, and CO2, and other gases are given off by ocean water over time — at least in one place.
Warmer water means faster decomposition of organic material which means more CO2 created which occurs throughout the water column, and with warmer water there is more life in the surface layers thus more death and more CO2.
Henry’s Law is not the only thing that creates more CO2 from warming seas – there is all the rest of the carbon cycle.
Any ideas out there?
Henry’s Law is best applied to closed systems, but the ocean/ATM interface is not really closed. Burning fossil fuels does mobilize previously sequestered C and warmer temps & greater CO2 content leads to more sequestration of C via biological fixation as carbonate…..ATM CO2 & dissolved CO2 equilibrate at a ratio of ~1:50, varying a little with temp. The ocean is always a net sink for CO2…. It’s probably more accurate and useful to claim that warming leads to less dissolution of co2 rather than to “outgassing.”
“The ocean is always a net sink for CO2″. Maybe in the very long term it is, but as I answered Kip nearby, if the ocean were a net sink for CO2, the hydrological cycle carries so much CO2 into the ocean as bicarbonate, that it would deplete atmospheric CO2 quickly. So, there must be mechanisms that return most or all of this CO2 to the atmosphere. Yet, the Cenozoic history of Earth shows that atmospheric CO2 has slowly been depleted; so over a longer view maybe all of this, apart from that in fossil fuels and some sedimentary rocks, has gone into the ocean.
There are problems with closing material balances for all of the volatile compounds as I recall from a distinguished lecture series talk at UW 15 years ago. A person can recognize many sinks, but has trouble seeing enough sources to maintain current observed concentrations. I think its an open area of research.
“Warmer water means faster decomposition of organic material which means more CO2 created which occurs throughout the water column, and with warmer water there is more life in the surface layers thus more death and more CO2.
Henry’s Law is not the only thing that creates more CO2 from warming seas – there is all the rest of the carbon cycle.
Any ideas out there?”
Kip your first idea is in accordance with my 2020 Sun-Climate Symposium poster where I introduced CO2 outgassing as being linked to coral reef growth and bleaching events, and where I showed the origin of the CO2 25.6°C threshold I developed (not covered in this comment).
The equatorial Pacific ocean heat content anomaly (mixed layer) leads the annual CO2 cycle anomaly by 13 months, r=.67. This CO2 anomaly can be greater than the annual MME changes, indicating the ocean is playing a large role in regulating CO2.
Lastly it is clear from the following evidence that only 49.6% of the total annual cycle rising phase since 1959, as of 2023, can be explained by MME, with the rest sourced by land biota decomposition and ocean outgassing (previously linked to marine decomposition), and there is bound to be a portion of CO2 from MME that is continually recycled through land biota growth and decomposition back into atmosphere CO2.
Since the above carbon cycle annual rising phase timeseries correlates at r≥.8 with HadSST4 Globe/Tropics, it is clear outgassing must be a stronger contributor, not the weak addition as Eschenbach calculated.
The timing of all the large rising phase spikes with SST increases is a dead giveaway (panel 3).
Why would land biota decomposition just happen to occur in such large amounts in the same year when SST rises such as during an El Niño?
Those are fantastical coincidences without a conventional awareness or explanation from the leading outgassing opponents who are leaning on that answer as their “right” explanation.
Those were times of enhanced marine decomposition and warming leading to enhanced outgassing.
This leads to the conclusion outgassing and land biota decomposition are parallel processes that together comprise the annual CO2 cycle.
Bob,
The seasonal cycle is dominated by vegetation, as the opposite CO2 and δ13C changes show:
With higher (spring/summer) temperatures, CO2 drops (~5 ppmv/°C) due to increased photosynthesis.
The year by year variability also is dominated by vegetation, but this time higher temperatures = higher CO2 (~3.5 ppmv/°C, as is the case for the drying out of the Amazon with an El Niño).
The long-term trend however was dominated by the oceans, as there was hardly any change in δ13C (-6.4 +/- 0.4 per mil δ13C), despite over 100 ppmv change from glacial to interglacial transitions. Until about 1850, from then on there is an enormous drop in δ13C (- 2 per mil) in complete ratio with human emissions:
Humans emitted over 200 ppmv CO2 with low-13C (-25 per mil) since 1958.
The increase in the atmosphere was 100 ppmv in the same period.
Humans are the main cause of that increase with the SST as minor contributor: less than 10 ppmv.
The seasonal and short term T/CO2 changes have no connection at all with the cause of the current increase of CO2…
You didn’t address anything I said. It is clear from your comments to others here you didn’t learn from my comment above that MME including land use comprised only 39.1% of the ML CO2 rising phase total by 2023.
Your data looks interesting but the one thing that you can’t explain with your data or theory without more outgassing is why the ML CO2 rate of change correlates with HadSST4 Tropics SST at r=.83 if it is land biota decomposition driving it not the ocean.
Bob, please…
You are comparing temperature (anomaly) with the derivative of the CO2 increase. That are variables of different order!.
Compare variable with variable, derivative with derivative…
If you compare emissions and T influence with the increase since 1958 you have the following plot:
The influence of ocean degassing from a warmer ocean surface is a few ppmv in equilibrium with the atmosphere, calculated with the formula of Takahashi. That is all. The sum of human emissions (even without land use changes) over the same time span was twice as high as the observed increase in the atmosphere…
Compare the derivatives with each other and you will see the reason:
In the derivatives, the temperature variability is exactly the same as in the temperature anomaly, but the derivative has no trend, only a small offset from zero and a pi/2 shift backwards, while the anomaly has a trend and is fully synchronized with the CO2 rate of change (so which is driving the other?).
Thus temperature is not the cause of the trend of the CO2 derivative, while the twice as high trend of human emissions is certainly the cause…
Thus while temperature variability certainly is the cause of the variability in natural sink (not source!) capacity, human emissions are certainly the cause of the trend in year by year increasing CO2 level in the atmosphere.
Bob,
Here the plot of the derivative of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere, compared to the SST anomaly and its derivative:
Wood fro Trees has not the emissions in its database, but these are about twice the increase in the atmosphere…
Kip, I agree that Vostok is not the highest resolution ice core dataset to use for calculations. However, the deglaciation is covered by higher resolution ice core data such as WAIS (30 years smoothing) and it basically shows similar CO2 concentrations that Willis is using in his calculations.
Kip, do you have any references for your claim that “not-realistic Vostok ice core estimates of past atmosphere (which I do not think represent the actual composition of past atmospheric gas concentrations over time)”.
These Cores cover over 400,000 years and multiple glacial cycles and are consistent with other core data. While debatable if Vostok cores accurately portray short time periods, they do seem accurate for gas concentrations over longer periods.
re: VOSTOK Ice Cores
Problems with measured CO2 atmospheric concentrations from Ice Cores have been noted and discussed in all responsible ice core papers, such as Tschumi and Stauffer (2017). Not only large differences between Antarctic Cores and Arctic/Greenland Cores, but even between close layers in individual cores.
As in much of Climate Science, these problems are brushed over and blurred out by the time the science hits the general public or even the larger field of study — only the parts that support the preferred narrative are left showing.
Any time the ice melts or precipitation is as rain, one is dealing with dissolved CO2 and not atmospheric bubbles. Temperature dependent changes take place as water moves down through the snow layers which depend on other atmospheric components.
There are problems with ice cores. The situation is somewhat analogous to the attempts to use tree rings as thermometers. Ice Cores are not necessarily accurate records of the composition of the atmosphere.
Thanks, Kip. As you point out, there are differences between the Greenland and Antarctic ice cores. The differences are known to relate to the Greenland ice cores being subject to chemical changes at depth, changes which are not found in the Antarctic records.
In general, although the Greenland records show more short-term detail, the Antarctic records are considered to be more accurate, which is why I used the Vostok data.
Thanks,
w.
The ocean is not just a bucket of water with nothing else in it except C02!
Warmer water (+CO2) also means higher rates of photosynthesis during daylight hours.
Cheers,
Bill
Kip, the exchange is more complicated than just gas transfer across the surface. The world’s rivers carry about 0.4 petagrams (peta =10 to the 15th power) of carbon into the ocean each year the vast majority (97%) of which is bicarbonate. The atmosphere contains around 800 petagrams of carbon. Thus, unless there were mechanisms to move carbon dioxide back to the atmosphere, the hydrological cycle would deplete the atmosphere of carbon dioxide in around 2,000 years.
Bicarbonate does not just release its CO2 component back to the atmosphere simply because there is so much of it in the ocean. Simply put — “it ain’t gonna’ fizz unless there is some acid (source of hydrogen ions) available.” A person has to think about the whole CO2 cycle which is complicated by the fact that it has many components some of which are living.
Kevin ==> “t the whole CO2 cycle which is complicated” is certainly true.
The attempts to limit CO2 to only the burning of fossil fuels shows that it is agenda driven science.
Kip,
Nothing to do with an “agenda”, simple bookkeeping:
Calculated from fossil fuel sales (taxes!): over 200 ppmv from fossil fuels, one-way directly in the atmosphere since 1958.
Measured in the atmosphere: over 100 ppmv over the same time span.
Difference: 100 ppmv net removed by nature, wherever that may be.
Natural variability in net sink (not net source!) rate over the full period: +/- 1.5 ppmv for the extremes (Pinatubo, El Niño). Peanuts compared to the huge increase, fully caused by human emissions…
RE: ” … I ask that when you comment you quote the exact words you are referring to.”
“Humuhumunukunukuāpuaʻa”
I got noth’n . . .
Pronounced “humu-humu-nuku-nuku-apua’a” …
My Little Grass Shack
Song by Lisa Loeb ‧ 2002
I want to go back to my little grass shack in Kealakekua, Hawaii
I want to be with all the kanes and wahines that I knew long ago
I can hear old guitars a playing, on the beach at Hoonaunau
I can hear the Hawaiians saying “Komomai no kaua ika hale welakahao”
It won’t be long ’til my ship will be sailing back to Kona
A grand old place that’s always fair to see
I’m just a little Hawaiian and a homeside Island boy
I want to go back to my fish and poi
I want to go back to my little grass shack in Kealakekua, Hawaii
Where the Humuhumunukunukuapua’a goes swimming by
w.
PS—“Komomai no kaua ika hale welakahao” means something like “Come to our house, the party is happening!”
Why is this even relevant? CO2 only blocks certain frequencies of infra-red radiation. And once the concentration reaches 400ppm, it blocks virtually ALL of those frequencies. No further blocking occurs at higher concentrations. And we are currently at 412ppm.
The Global Monitoring Lab reports the current CO2 concentrating as 427 ppmv in dry air at STP. One cubic meter of this air contains 0.839 g of CO2. We don’t have to worry about this trace amount of CO2.
There is little CO2 in the air. This why plants grow very slowly.
Harold The Organic Chemist Says:
CO2 DOES NOT CAUSE WARMING OF AIR!
Shown in the chart (See below) are plots of temperatures at the Furnace Creek weather station in Death Valley from 1922 to 2001. In 1922 the concentration of CO2 in dry air was ca 303 ppmv (0.59 g of CO2/cu. m.), and by 2001, it had increased to 371 ppmv (0.74 g of CO2/cu. m.), but there was no corresponding increase in the air temperature at this remote desert. The reason there was no increase in the air temperature is quite simple: There was too little CO2 in the air at this arid desert.
At the MLO in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 in dry air is 427 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air has 0.84 g of CO2, which is a 14% increase from 2001, and has a mass of 1.29 kg at STP. This trace amount of CO2 can heat up a such large mass of air by a very small amount if at all. Most people especially politicians do not know how little CO2 there is in the air. They have been led to believe that CO2 is menacing molecule. Please keep in mind that H2O covers 71% of the earth’s surface and that H2O is the one and only greenhouse of importance.
The above empirical temperature data from Death Valley and calculations show that the claim by the IPPC and the unscrupulous collaborating scientists that CO2 is the cause of global warming is a fabrication and a lie. The purpose of this lie is provide the justification for the maintenance and generous funding of the IPCC, the UNFCCC, and UN COP. Hopefully, President Trump will put an end to the greatest scientific fraud since the Piltdown Man and save the people many billions of funds.
NB: The chart of Death Valley temperature plots was obtained from the
late John Daly’s website: “Still Waiting for Greenhouse” available at:
http://www.John-Daly.com. From home page scroll down and click on:
“Station Temperature Data.” On the “World Map” click on a country or region to obtain to the temperature data from the weather stations
located there. John Daly found over 200 weather stations whose temperature data showed no warming up to 2002.
Be sure to check the temperature charts for Oz which show no warming up 2002. The chart for Adelaide shows a cooling since 1857 to 1999.
PS: If you click on the chart, it will expand and become clear. Click on the “X” in the lower right to return the chart to its small size.
If Harold doesn’t understand the difference between how a greenhouse gas really works by radiation, not by conduction, he should not have made a lot of work that has nothing to do with the GHG effect…
I stated that “This trace amount of CO2 can heat up such a large mass of air by only a very small amount if at all”. This might be confusing to some readers, like you.
I should have stated: The amount of out-going long wave IR radiation absorbed by this trace amount of CO2 (0.84 g) is so
small that it can not heat up such a large mass of air.
I recommend that you go to the late John Daly’s website and check out the many temperature charts. Shown below is the temperature chart for Adelaide.
Believing all this CO2-caused global warming nonsense, the politicians are wrecking the economies of the UK, Germany, Australia, and California. The cancelation of the EPA CO2 Endangerment Finding can’t come too soon.
PS: If you click on the chart, it will enlarge and become clear. Click on the “X” in the right corner to the chart back to its small size.
Harold, these are all near-ground temperatures, caused by the warming of the surface by the sun and thus pure conduction. That doesn’t say anything about what happens in the atmosphere by radiation.
The outgoing radiation is in part absorbed by GHGs. In most cases, the captured energy is redistributed in the neighborhood by collisions with other (inert) molecules and part is reradiated in all directions, including the surface.
That heats up both the atmosphere as the surface and in both cases a (small) global temperature increase is noticed. No problem at all (to the contrary), but not zero either…
Sorry, Ferdinand, but a colder atmosphere does not raise the temperature of a hotter surface. You and Willis share a common delusion. He goes further, and claims an object surrounded by a “steel shell” at the same temperature (in the cold of outer space, no less), will magically get hotter!
That’s Willis’s GHE. What’s yours?
Maybe you forgot that the Earth has cooled quite a bit over the past four and a half billion years? No GHE, you see.
Michael, not a subject here, but you think of the atmosphere as a solid (or liquid) object and only acting by conduction. Radiation is a complete different thing.
Take a CO2 laser: maximum maybe 100°C internal gas temperature of the gas mix, with an IR beam wavelength, normally at the peak wavelength of an object at -80°C (minus!), has no problem to melt steel at 1200°C…
So, radiation from a cold object can heat up, even melt, a hotter object.
Of course, there still is conservation of energy at work: only a part of the electrical energy that was added to the laser was transformed into IR energy and because of its very small focus adds all the energy of the photons (all fixed packages of energy) to a very small area, which absorbs all that energy, no matter its own temperature, heats up and melts…
CO2 as a GHG works exact the same way: multiwave radiant energy from the surface, which energy was supplied by the sun, goes up in the atmosphere. If of the right wavelength, it may hit a CO2 molecule, and get absorbed. That extra energy may be distributed by collisions with other (inert) molecules, increasing the temperature of the atmosphere, or it may be retransmitted in all directions, including back to the surface.
Even if only 1% of that retransmitted photon hits the surface, it adds energy to the surface. Energy must be conserved…
If that results in warming or less cooling, depends of the sum of all outgoing and incoming energy at the surface… Anyway, the effect is that the temperature of the surface gets higher than without the back radiation…
Harold The Organic Chemist Says:
RE: Greenhouse Gases
RE: H2O vs CO2
In air at 70 deg F. and with a RH of 70%, the concentration of H2O is 14,730 ppmv. One cubic meter of this air contains 11.8 g of H2O, ca. 0.78 g of CO2, and has a mass of 1.20 kg.
To the first approximation and all things being equal, the amount of the greenhouse effect GHE) due to H20 is given by:
GHE = moles H2O/moles H2O+moles CO2=0.66/0.66+0.018=0.97
GHE for H20 = 97%
GHE for CO2 = 3%
This calculation assumes that a molecule of H2O and a molecule of CO2 absorb about the same amount of out-going IR radiation. Actually, H2O absorbs more IR radiation than CO2. The amount of the GHE is variable and depends on the RH. Most of the heat from a warm surface is removed by convection.
You’re preaching to the choir if you’re making the point the effect is small and the feedbacks are unknown.
But not everyone here believes the effect exists at all.
Thanks, Ferdinand, a most interesting example.
However, I fear discussing anything with Michael Flynn is an exercise in frustration akin to discussing the Theory of Relativity with a third-grader.
Me, I’ve given it up entirely, which has saved me immense amounts of time. When I see his name at the top of an email notifying me of a comment on WUWT, I just delete it. Not enough time on this planet to wrestle with pigs.
w
The First Rule Of Pig Wrestling
So speaks the dimwit who believes that surrounding an object with a sphere at the same temperature causes heating!
By the way, adding CO2 to air does not make it hotter, the Earth is losing energy at around 44 TW (which means it’s cooling), and you cannot even find a consistent and unambiguous description of the mythical GHE.
You are obviously a legend in your own lunchbox, not so much elsewhere.
You left out the part about the sphere being continuously heated from the inside … but hey, it’s you, so no surprise.
w
No I didn’t. Read what you wrote. I suppose you are now going to say that you forgot to mention that your internal heat source was infinite, eh? So it was this internal infinite heat source that made the inner object hotter, was it? Nothing to do with a GHE?
Keep scuttling Willis – you can’t use the IR from a colder object to make a hotter one increase in temperature.
Even though Absolutely Idiotic (AI) computer programs insist that water at 20 C can be warmed with enough dry ice at -90 C, I’ll tell you it won’t work.
You can choose to believe AI if you wish.
Michael, I said:
You replied:
Now, you are flat out lying when you falsely claim I didn’t say the sphere was “being continuously heated from the inside”. Here’s the exact quote from the post.
But it’s no surprise that you are lying through your teeth in the vain hope that someone will believe you. That’s totally on-brand for you.
w.
Excellent Willis.
So the interior heat source cannot increase the temperature to anything more than -19.4 C (yes, I know, you prefer W/m2).
The temperature cannot increase.
Now, you were saying? Possibly something silly like surrounding an object in outer space (no Sun, of course) having a temperature of -19 C, with a steel shell initially at say -269 C, will raise the temperature of the object, and make it warmer than -19 C.
You are incredibly stupid if you believe that. Maybe your internal heat source ups its output, to warm the steel shell to -19 C as well? Where did the extra energy come from?
So now your fantasy has an object at -19 C, totally surrounded by an object also at -19 C. You think one of them is going to get hotter?
You’re as delusional as that other dimwit, Josh Halpern, who uses the same fantasy to claim that separating two identical bodies will raise the temperature of one of them – presumably calling one “blue”, and the other “green”, effects this miracle.
Sorry Willis, you just don’t know what you are talking about.
Adding CO2 to air doesn’t make it hotter. You can’t even come up with a consistent and unambiguous description of the mythical GHE.
You are as delusional as people like Sagan, Hansen, Schmidt, Mann – and all the rest. So-called “climate scientists”, flogging false prophecies. Even the IPCC admits that it is not possible to predict future climate states, but no doubt you disagree.
Go on, tell me again that your “internal power source” just happens to be infinite, and can heat anything surrounding the black body to the same temperature. Of course it can’t dummy – the outer shell must be colder – inverse square law applies. You can’t raise the temperature of a hotter body with the radiation from a colder one. You’re incredibly dim, but even you must realise that ice cannot be used to heat water – no matter how close its temperature gets.
Actually the Earth’s energy imbalance is positive which means it’s gaining energy!
https://wmo.int/media/news/new-study-shows-earth-energy-imbalance
Phil, don’t be silly. The Earth loses energy – about 44TW worth.
That’s called cooling. You are dreaming, or very gullible.
What a stupid analogy! Take a CO2 laser out of the box – try to melt some steel with the IR radiation!
Oh, you forgot to say it was a device for converting electrical energy to another form of energy, did you? Tut, tut! Won’t cut steel without electricity?
You get more ridiculous –
No it mustn’t. The Earth continuously loses energy – around 44 TW of it – no conservation there.
This nonsense about “back radiation” assumes that energy emitted by a colder object must be absorbed by a hotter, thus raising the hotter’s temperature. That’s the sort of stupidity believed by Willis and Co!
Even if the atmosphere is hotter than the ground (a nighttime low level inversion), the ground still cools! You have no clue about reality, do you?
Give up – accept reality. Don’t be gullible – learn to think for yourself.
Ferdinand, I tried to warn you …
w.
That’s a new approach – imply a man is a fool for placing a value of zero on your unsolicited opinion!
Oh well, no doubt Ferdinand is of your ilk, and will thank you for implying he is stupid.
No problem, have been in discussion with the Slayers and received a response of the Big Boss of the Slayers, Joseph Postma himself:
https://climateofsophistry.com/2023/01/31/ferdinand-engelbeen-another-zeta-5th-columnist/
I had no idea what a zeta-5th thing was, but now I know that it wasn’t meant as a nice creature……
A photon is a lot smarter than many people think. When a photon hits something, it transfers energy to it, IOW it heats it. But this is where the photon is so smart: as it approaches an object it takes a quick look at it to see if it is hotter than the place it (the photon) came from. If so, it avoids that object and travels on looking for a cooler object to hit.
Presumably, you are attempting to be sarcastic.
Submerge an ice cube in some hot soup. The ice is emitting photons with wavelengths appropriate to the temperature of the ice.
Where do these photons go? You have added heat energy to the soup, which totally surrounds the ice, but the soup doesn’t appear to be getting hotter. Why is this?
A photon is obviously smarter than you – it knows when to heat and when to cool.
Again, you are mixing conduction of an ice cube within water with radiation of the same ice cube out of the water. That is deliberately falsifying the case.
Take a hot object in vacuum and look at the speed of cooling by is own radiation.
Surround it with ice cubes at a small distance and again look at the speed of cooling.
The same hot object will cool slower with ice cubes surrounding it…
No, I’m not.
It doesn’t matter whether the ice is in a vacuum, or surrounded by water, it still emits IR, at wavelengths determined by temperature.
You are obviously ignorant about the relationships between light and matter.
You also entered the realms of fantasy by saying –
Like you, I have no intention of doing such a stupid and pointless thing. For example, what do you mean by “hot”? 2 K, 50 K, 250 K?
All nonsense. Slow cooling is not heating. Given that ice emits photons when above absolute zero, what happens to these photons when the ice is totally immersed in hot soup (hotter than the ice)?
You don’t know, do you? Nor do any of your dim GHE believing tribe, either. That’s why they are content to leave you to look foolish all by yourself.
Harold, I fear you have missed the point of this post entirely. It has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR CLAIMS. If you wish to argue that CO2 doesn’t warm the earth, fine, but please do it on someone else’s post.
This post is about estimates of CO2 outgassing from the ocean, and NOTHING ELSE.
Trying to hijack it so you can sound off about your pet subject is the act of a rampant egotist. If it is so important to you, WRITE YOUR OWN DAMN POST, but either way, get off of mine.
w.
Exactly. A completely irrelevant post. Who cares about CO2 outgassing? Does it have any relevance to anything?
You also wrote –
Yes, that will teach him a DAMNED FINE lesson, won’t it. Using all caps (shouting?) will help. It’s not “your post” by the way.
If you want to be able to censor people START YOUR OWN DAMN BLOG, and stop clogging this one with irrelevant stuff.
Fair enough?
Michael, you say:
Obviously, YOU care, or you wouldn’t be endlessly and meaninglessly bitching and whining about it.
w.
My care factor about CO2 outgassing is precisely zero.
Of course, in your usual hypocritical and juvenile fashion, you refuse to quote me “bitching and whining”, as you put it.
You still haven’t managed to give a reason for your pointless post, have you? Others can form their own view, of course.
Since evaporation occurs only at the very surface of the ocean, that is the few molecules thick
skin layer, is not the skin layer temperature the temperature of interest and not the mixed layer temperature? The skin layer is warmed the most by incident sunlight during daytime and near exclusively by incident back infrared radiation at all times since IR cannot penetrate water. If this is correct would it alter your calculations?
Thanks, Denis. Just how much CO2 would you estimate is contained in the first few molecules thickness of the skin layer?
w.
Oooooh! That’ll fix him for sure! How much CO2 would you estimate? Why would you think anybody cares?
Try not to act so superior – you are just trying to be annoying, aren’t you?
Less than in the mixed layer below, continually refreshed by the mixing going on below.
All of the CO2 that is either absorbed or outgassed, passes through the skin so its a good question worthy of consideration.
Why is Willis asking? Doesn’t he know?
Willis,
Sorry, but all this nonsensical “analysis” achieves nothing at all.
Climate is the statistics of weather observations – nothing more, nothing less. The atmosphere’s future states are unpredictable, and it is quite impossible to quantify the effects of changing the composition of the atmosphere.
Your obsession with CO2 is quite bizarre. You can’t even provide a consistent and unambiguous description of the greenhouse effect, can you?
You are, of course, free to waste your time in any way you desire. Obviously, you put the same value on your time as I do on your laughable opinions – zero. If others want to believe that your fairytales about “Steel Greenhouses” – physically and mathematically impossible, of course – represent reality, that’s their choice.
You might not be aware, but people are increasingly jumping off the “Climate Express”. Only the true fanatics refuse to see the end of the track rapidly approaching. I suppose you might as well enjoy the ride.
Choo-Choo!
Pass. First Rule Of Pig Wrestling applies.
w.
Scuttle away, Willis. Scuttle away.
All aboard the Climate Train to nowhere!
Hi Willis,
I hope that you really enjoyed your weeks in and around Australia. We are a friendly mob.
BTW, I have never been banned from X/Twitter for the good reason that I elected from its beginnings not to bother with it.
Five years ago, WUWT kindly published my piece on “The Dirty Dozen Tests of Global Warming Science.” Dirty item number 2 was much the same as you discuss here. You concentrate on the oceans, while my ask was global.
For a 1⁰C change in global temperature –
2. By how many ppm does atmospheric CO₂ change?
It is telling that very few of the dirty dozen attracted useful responses. That seems to be the case again today, so many fundamental questions, so few scientific answers.
Here is the full list of the Dirty Dozen from 5 years ago.
For a 1⁰C change in global temperature –
The Dirty Dozen Tests Of Global Warming Science – Watts Up With That?
Willis, Takahashi has compiled near one million of seawater samples for the change of the pCO2 of the seawater in equilibrium with the atmosphere by a change in temperature. His conclusion was that the increase is an exponential function, independent of the initial conditions (temperature, composition) of the seawater.
That formula gives:
(pCO2)seawater at Tnew = (pCO2)seawater at Told x EXP[0.0423 x (Tnew – Told)]
Makes that the temperature increase of the sea surface since 1958 is good for less than 10 ppmv CO2 extra in the atmosphere at equilibrium, but that the rest of the increase of over 100 ppmv is caused by the over 200 ppmv CO2 released from fossil fuel burning…
The formula of Takahashi again is around 16 ppmv/°C, as the ice core measurements show…
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967064502000036
Thanks, Ferdinand. I ran your formula and I get ~ 10 ppmv per degree of warming. Curiously, or perhaps not, this is the figure I used above.
However, this is not the warming of the sea surface. It’s the warming of the top hundred meters, which is 0.33° since 1969, giving an addition of ~ 3 ppmv since then from oceanic warming.
Best to you,
w.
Willis, a personal note, you may be interested in:
The old sailboat of Belgian singer Jacques Brel, got recovered and restated in its old glory. They want to sail it back to the island in the Marquises where he lived in his last years:
https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2024/05/05/laatste-partner-van-jacques-brel-wijdt-gerestaureerd-zeiljacht-a/
The article is in Dutch, but Google Translate is your friend…
Thanks, Ferdinand. I lived on and loved that boat. It was later seized in a drug raid and tied to the wharf in Suva … where it sunk. Then a friend of mine bought it and took it to New Zealand … but before he could make port the motor died, and it went on the beach where it sat and rusted for some years. Finally, some Dutch folks excavated it out from the beach, shipped it to Holland, and it’s been awesomely restored.
I wrote about the boat in my post Air Conditioning Nairobi, Refrigerating The Planet.
Thanks for the link, most appreciated.
w.
Nice story, I did remember that you ran some story about it, but didn’t realize that you were actually on the Askoy…
The above article gives short shrift, just as a previous one to which I commented did (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/04/10/whose-co%e2%82%82-is-it-anyway-ocean-fizz-or-smokestack-blame/#comment-4059899 ) to ocean chemistry. The simple fact is that the global oceans’ average pH being about 8.1 and the oceans being highly buffered to remain around this level mean that Henry’s Law cannot be applied to Earth’s oceans as if they were neutral (pH=7.0) water. Henry’s Law does not consider chemical reactions between the solute (CO2) and the solvent (ocean seawater).
One finds this incredibly sophomoric comment attributed to the Perplexity AI bot:
“Henry’s law and equilibrium dynamics between the ocean and atmosphere are key.”
Admittedly, there is this subsequent passing statement under “Key Variables”
“Buffering by Carbonate Chemistry: CO₂ dissolution forms carbonic acid, which dissociates into ions, adding complexity beyond Henry’s law[5][6]. This buffers pH changes but does not prevent long-term CO₂ release as temperatures rise.”
which is true as stated, but which fails to emphasize that an ocean pH of 8.1 results in the concentration of dissolved CO2 gas in seawater being a factor of 10-50 times less than it would be if the water pH was neutral (pH=7.0). See the links posted in my previous comment referenced above.
The above article’s introductory statement of:
“Now imagine that fizz across the ocean’s sun-warmed surface, covering 71% of Earth, bubbling CO₂ into the air we breathe. Wild, right? A bit mad.”
is more accurate than I believe the author ever intended.
Thanks for drawing us back to ocean chemistry. I am attempting a model based on ocean chemistry that explains maximum degassing in April-May at measured at Mauna Loa, following winter in the Northern Hemisphere.
I am building on, and extending the work of Ivan Kennedy. You can read the associated ocean chemistry as explained by Kennedy et al. 2022 in the following research paper: https://www.mdpi.com/2673-7264/2/4/28 .
Note in the results section of this paper that the Aloha data shows maximum concentrations of C02 in seawater and lowest pH values in late summer. This is at the same time as the atmospheric oscillation pC02 is minimal, clearly not equilibrated.
Doctor M., thanks for both your interesting post and the link in the comment. I look forward to your future investigations in this area.
As further grist for your mill, here’s the maximum range of the ocean surface temperature Mar 2020 – Feb 2024. I note that the NH range is more than 2°C greater than the SH range.
This is in agreement with the well-known “carpet diagram” of variations in CO2 by latitude.
My very best regards to you and yours. Me, I had the great joy last week of diving the vertical wall of the reef around Kennedy Island in the Western Province of the Solomon Islands, and in the middle of the dive I thought of you and smiled.
w.
Willis, you seem fixated on CO2. Is there a reason? Do you lie awake at night worrying that CO2 will asphyxiate you in your sleep?
Don’t worry. Even if it does, you won’t be alive to worry about it.
Michael, I’ve likely written more posts on more different subjects than just about anyone. There’s an index to most of my writings here. The categories are:
Agriculture
Alarmism
Argo
Atmosphere
Autobiography
Bad Science
Berkeley Earth
Carbon Cycle
Climate Datasets
Climate Indices
Climate Models
Climate Phenomena
Climate Politics
Climate Sensitivity
Climategate
Clouds
CO2
Conferences
Conservation
Constructal Law
COVID
Cryosphere
Cycles
Data Presentation
Datasets
Earthquakes
Economics
El Nino
Emergence
Energy
Energy and Poverty
Energy Budget
Energy Problems
Environment
Expeditions
Extinctions
Feedback
Geoengineering
Greenhouse
Greenhouse Theory
Heat Engines
Hurst/Autocorrelation
IPCC
Lack of Effect
Malfeasance
Mathematics
Mercury
Mitigation
Models
Multiproxy Analyses
No Regrets
Ocean
Ocean Neutralization
OHC
Open Letters
Paleo
Peer Review
Philosophy of Science
Policy
Poverty and Energy
Precipitation
Proxy Reconstructions
Publication Reports
Quote of the Week
Radiation
Radiative Forcing
Reconstructions
Renewables
Sea Level
Sunspots
TAO Buoys
Temperature Datasets
Temperature Datasets and Adjustments
Tides
Trends
Urban Heat Island (UHI)
Volcanoes
War On Carbon
Water Vapor
Watts Up With That
Weather Events
Weather Phenomena
Whitewashes
Then there’s my own blog, Skating Under The Ice. The categories there are:
Autobiography
Corona
Crime
Curious Things
Democrats
DOE
Domestic Policy
Economics
Election and Aftermath
Energy
Foreign Policy
Foreign Trade
Freedom of Speech
Health
Ice In The Solomons
Immigration
Investigations
Islam
Journalism
Pre-President Trump
Race
Uncategorized
So no, Michael, I’m not “fixated on CO2”. That’s laughable.
What’s not so funny is that you are fixated on me. That’s pathetic.
w.
Willis, surely you are not appealing to your own authority? That’s pathetic, even for you.
You still haven’t mentioned why you would post about CO2 rather than H2O, hydrogen, oxygen or even nitrogen. You obviously have no clue about physics (as demonstrated by your silly “Steel Greenhouse” and other fantasies.
If you want to spend your time writing nonsense, that’s your affair. You can complain bitterly if I write comments pointing out that you are fantasising, but I don’t value your opinion. Why should I?
Like when I wrote posts proving your statements about Wien’s Law were false you ran away and hid! You don’t know what you are talking about and continue to blabber nonsense.
Phil, it’s a pity you can’t back any of that up, isn’t it?
QED
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/04/04/of-emissions-and-co2/comment-page-2/#comment-4058941
My reply:
Reply to
Michael Flynn
April 8, 2025 7:45 am
” According to every Wien’s Law calculator (eg WolframAlpha), I’m right – which means you are somewhat ignorant.”
Actually that source agrees with me, they use the same equation which I have quoted to you before!
λmax = b / T where b is Wien’s constant (2898 µm⋅K)
So the maximum wavelength of a blackbody emitter is inversely proportional to the absolute temperature which is not what you said so you clearly misunderstand what the calculator is telling you (despite my having explained it to you before)!
If you do the calculation for an emitter at -80ºC you’ll find the wavelength of the peak is ~15μm with a spectral radiance of 1.10107 W/m2/sr/µm.
Repeat the calculation for an emitter at 25ºC you’ll find the wavelength of the peak is ~9.7μm but that it still emits at 15μm but at a lower radiance than the peak: 6.54732 W/m2/sr/µm at 15µm.
So a source at 25ºC emits about 6.5 times as much 15µm radiation as a source at -80ºC! Thus completely refuting your assertion that:
“According to Wien’s Law, a source emitting (radiation with a maximum intensity at a wavelength of) 15 micron photons would be a relatively cool object with a temperature around 193 Kelvin (-80°C)”
My correction to your statement added in parenthesis.
“i suppose you are now going to start burbling about “black bodies” and similar diversions.”
Hard not to since Wien’s Law specifically refers to Blackbodies!
“Wien’s Law, sometimes called Wien’s Displacement Law, is a law that determines at what wavelength the intensity of radiation emitted from a blackbody reaches its maximum point.”
Phil.
April 9, 2025 5:40 am
No answer I see!
As I said rather than address the rebuttal you ran away and hid!
Did I really? Firstly, I said “maximum intensity” not total energy, or anything of that nature.
All matter below its excitation temperature emits wavelengths with peak frequency strictly dependent on temperature.
Now you will probably say that –
is stupid. Well, that’s from a reasonably regarded US university.
Yes, real objects emit IR dependent on temperature. That’s why you can’t establish the composition of a mixture of gases by measuring the frequency of the IR emitted by the mixture. And no, spectroscopy involves shining light of certain frequencies through the sample.
The Earth is still cooling. People like Wills like Absolutely Idiotic computer program output, so if you agree with him, here’s ChatGPT’s output –
Clarifying Earth’s Energy Balance:
You see? The Earth is cooling.
Did I really? Firstly, I said “maximum intensity” not total energy, or anything of that nature.”
No you didn’t, I said ‘maximum intensity’.
You said: “According to Wien’s Law, a source emitting 15 micron photons would be a relatively cool object with a temperature around 193 Kelvin (-80°C)”. Which is blatantly false!
“Now you will probably say that –Wien’s Law tells us that objects of different temperature emit spectra that peak at different wavelengths”
That’s exactly what I have been saying all along!
More accurately: “Wien’s Law tells us that blackbodies of different temperature emit spectra that peak at different wavelengths”
“Yes, real objects emit IR dependent on temperature. That’s why you can’t establish the composition of a mixture of gases by measuring the frequency of the IR emitted by the mixture.”
No, blackbodies do that gases do not!
You’re still posting AI garbage as if it was a fact.
Actually the Earth’s energy imbalance is positive which means it’s gaining energy!
https://wmo.int/media/news/new-study-shows-earth-energy-imbalance
“The Earth has accumulated nearly 0.5 watts (0.48 ± 0.1) over every square meter of Earth’s surface over the past 50 years (since 1971);”
Really? Are you truly so blind as to be given a link to the index of my work and then falsely claim I haven’t written about H2O? There’s an entire section of the index headed “Water Vapor”. Posts below.
I don’t know why I bother talking to a man who is so bitter, twisted, and willfully blind.
Pass. First Law Of Pig Wrestling Applies
w.
Water Vapor Feedback 2014-03-24
Well, another productive ramble through the CERES dataset, which never ceases to surprise me. This time my eye was caught by a press release about a new (paywalled) study by Gordon et al. regarding the effect of water vapor on the climate: From 2002 to 2009, an infrared sounder aboard…
Precipitable Water Redux 2016-07-28
In my last post I investigated the mathematical relationship between the amount of total precipitable water vapor (TPW) in the atmosphere, and the clear-sky greenhouse effect. Here is the main figure from that post showing the relationship: In this post I’m looking at the other half of the relations…
Wandering Water 2021-01-19
I see in a most recent post here at WUWT that UC Irvine researchers have used “27 state-of-the-art climate models” to predict what will happen by the year 2100 to the “tropical rain belt”. They describe this as “a narrow band of heavy precipitation near the equator”. By coincidence, I’d just downloa…
Precipitable Water 2016-07-25
One of my great pleasures is to come across a new dataset. Turn me loose on new observations of this magical world, and there’s no telling where I’ll end up. Thanks to a recent article here on WUWT I got to thinking about water vapor. Some research found the RSS 1° gridded “total precipitable water”…
What are you on about? Maybe you could quote me “falsely claiming” anything at all, but I doubt it.
You have no doubt written about all sorts of things – but who cares? Have you any point in mind with any of your “writings”?
Sorry Willis, but you even refer to some “clear sky greenhouse effect”, without being able to describe this “greenhouse effect” in any consistent and unambiguous manner. Are you really so delusional as to believe that adding H2O to air makes it hotter?
Temperatures at the rather arid Death Valley would seem to make any such claims to be the utterances of someone at odds with reality.
MF,
Was there some point to your comment, or do you just like to ramble on and on?
Yes.
I see.
Hi Jennifer,
Thank you for your reply comment and link to the Kennedy et.al. [2022] paper.
FWIW, my highly commended “go to” reference for all things related to ocean water chemistry, especially as it affects dissolved concentrations of CO2 (as a gas) is “CO2 in Seawater: Equilibrium, Kinetics, Isotopes”, Zeebe, R.E. and Wolf-Gladrow, D., 2005 (third edition), ISBN 0 444 50946 1 (paperback), #65 of the Elsevier Oceanography Series. Therein you’ll find extensive discussions and the detailed math behind the Revelle factor and the Bjerrum plot.
Last but not least, thanks also for the comment “clearly not equilibrated”. There appears to a common misperception in the public that Earth’s ocean exists in equilibrium with Earth’s atmosphere to the extent that Henry’s law (which actually applies to an equilibrium, not dynamic, condition of solution partial pressure versus overlaying gas partial pressure . . . if it applies at all) is claimed to be relevant.
In fact, ocean chemistry clearly establishes that there is only a quasi-equilibrium in atmospheric-ocean water exchange, to the extent that forward and reverse reactions rates are stabilized over hundreds, thousands, millions of years. The reverse reaction rate (CO2 coming out of seawater) never equals the forward reaction rate (CO2 dissolving into seawater) as long as the water pH remains in the basic range due a depletion of H+ ions in the water. Both forward and reverse reaction rates can be more-or-less stable, but they are continuous and not equal.
BTW, the only way to eliminate the driving influence of carbonate and bicarbonate ions in seawater from invalidating Henry’s Law would be to (a) remove all limestone from the ocean waters and the ocean floors, and (b) to eliminate all wind-borne and water-runoff-to-ocean erosion of land masses.
“but which fails to emphasize that an ocean pH of 8.1 results in the concentration of dissolved CO2 gas in seawater being a factor of 10-50 times less than it would be if the water pH was neutral (pH=7.0). “
As far as I remember from chemistry classes, some 60 years ago, according to Henry’s law, the amount of dissolved CO2 is in ratio to the CO2 level in the air above it. Exactly the same in fresh water at pH 4.0 as in seawater at pH 8.1. pH plays zero role in the amount of pure, dissolved CO2 in water.
pH plays a huge role in the following equilibrium reactions: In fresh water, of all inorganic carbon species, dissolved CO2 is 99% of all inorganic carbon, bicarbonate ions 1%.
In contrast, pure dissolved CO2 at pH 8.1 is only 1%, bicarbonate is 90% and carbonate is 9%.
A doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere doubles CO2 in fresh and seawater alike, thus about doubles total inorganic carbon in fresh water, but only increases total inorganic carbon (DIC) with a factor around 10. That is the Revelle/buffer factor. Why only 10%, because with more CO2, the following reactions into bicarbonates and carbonates set H+ free and the lower pH pushes the equilibrium reactions back to free CO2.
Despite the only factor 10 increase in DIC, the total amount of CO2 absorbed in seawater is about 10 times higher than in fresh water,
Thus where is your factor 10-50 less based on?
The sentence:
“but only increases total inorganic carbon (DIC) with a factor around 10”
should be:
“but only increases total inorganic carbon (DIC) with a factor around 10 in seawater”
Ferdinand
Once again, Henry’s Law cannot be applied to solutions wherein there are chemical reactions occurring between the solute (in this case gaseous CO2) and the solvent (in this case buffered seawater).
From your statements;
it is obvious that you did not bother to read, or more importantly to understand, the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjerrum_plot link discussing the Bjerrum plot for ocean seawater. I’ve attached that Bjerrum plot here for your consideration since it clearly reveals the more-than-two-orders-of-magnitude difference in dissolved CO2 (as a molecular gas) between water at a pH of 4.0 and water at a pH of 8.1.
Also, your statement:
overlooks the fact that a solution highly buffered to remain in a basic range of pH (i.e, ocean saltwater) does not permit excess H+ ions to remain around long enough to participate in solution chemistry, let alone “lower pH” (hint: those H+ ions react immediately with the overwhelming, highly reactive OH- ions that exist in basic solutions).
See the attached Bjerrum graph.
Thanks, TYS. I looked at the Bjerrum plot, and I found nothing relating to Ferdinand’s comment that “the amount of dissolved CO2 is in ratio to the CO2 level in the air above it.”
In fact, I found nothing whatsoever on the page relating to the CO2 level in the air. There is no mention of “air” or “atmosphere” on the whole page.
What am I missing here?
Regards,
w.
Well, the title of the Bjerrum plot that I extracted from the referenced Wikipedia article and posted in my comment above is given in that article as “Example Bjerrum plot: Change in carbonate system of seawater from ocean acidification“, with a hyperlink to “ocean acidification”.
The implication being that the plot of relative CO2 concentration in the water mix is the “steady-state” result of the combined forward reaction of CO2 from Earth’s atmosphere (driven by its partial pressure therein) entering the world’s oceans and the much-lower-magnitude reverse reaction rate of dissolved CO2 in seawater exiting ocean waters.
Ocean “acidification” (a misnomer because oceans have never been driven acidic over the last several billions years of Earth’s history, only perhaps less basic) is oft-claimed to be the direct result of mankind’s minute contribution to overall increases in atmospheric CO2 since, oh, the early-1800’s . . . that added CO2 causing a very slight pH decrease. It discounts the fact that ocean pH has changed (again slightly) predominately from sea-level rise associated with exiting the last glacial period and entering the current Holocene epoch, and to a lesser extent from atmospheric CO2 concentration increasing from ~280 ppmv around 1850 to today’s value of ~425 ppmv.
The mass of Earth’s oceans is so great and the diffusion-dominated mixing rates over most of their depths combined with the average temperatures being only a few degrees above 0 deg-C mean that chemical changes throughout the oceans happen exceedingly slowly. In this context a 200-year span represents a “blink of the eye” and insignificant shift in overall world average ocean pH . . . albeit, it may be chemically detectable in ocean waters to, say, 50 meters depth, the proverbial “drop in the bucket”.
Hi Willis, the Bjerrum plot says what the ratio of the concentrations of the various Carbon containing molecules in solution is. The concentration of CO2 in solution is determined by Henry’s law, let’s say that concentration is 1, then if you look at the Bjerrum plot it will tell you that in peat water at pH 4 the HCO3- will be at a concentration 1/100 of that. At pH 6 the HCO3- will be approximately equal to it, and at pH 7 HCO3- will be about 10 times greater and CO3– will be about 1/10 of that. In all case the CO2 concentration will be the same.
Thanks, Phil. In the Bjerrum plot, it seems that given the current pH range of the ocean, the CO2 doesn’t vary a lot. Am I reading it correctly? And if so, wouldn’t Henry’s law give a good approximation of the outgassing?
Thanks,
w.
It’s the HCO3- that’s fairly constant as a function of pH under present conditions, which is what the Bjerrum plot represents. At present the rate of increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration is faster than Henry’s law would predict given the current change in temperature so I’d expect the direction of the flow to be into the oceans rather than outgassing. Given the equilibria that define the Bjerrum plot an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration will cause a gradual reduction in ocean pH. The regions where the changes will be most significant would be the polar regions where the sea surface is isolated from the atmosphere for a significant part of the year. If the period of seaice cover changes significantly I’d expect significant changes in CO2 concentrations and ocean pH there.
TYS, I see where the problem is: the Bjerrum plot shows the ratio between the different species, not the absolute values…
The point is that for Henry’s law only pure, dissolved CO2 in solution is in ratio with the atmosphere: that is exactly the same for fresh water at pH 4.0 as for seawater at pH 8.1…
If we may assume that 1 g CO2 per liter is dissolved in ratio with the atmosphere, the absolute values for each then are:
Fresh water: 1 g CO2, 0.01 g bicarbonate, 1,01 g DIC.
Seawater: 1 g CO2, 90 g bicarbonate, 9 g carbonate. About 100 g DIC
Thus seawater contains about 100 times more inorganic carbon species than fresh water at the same level of CO2 in the atmosphere. I did underestimate the inorganic C content of seawater thus with a factor 10…
A doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will double the pure, dissolved CO2 content, but if you look at the Bjerrum plot, that reduces bicarbonates and carbonates in ratio to pure CO2 and the net effect is not a doubling of DIC, but some 10% increase of DIC for a CO2 doubling in atmosphere and water. That was my factor 10, which was based on the Revelle/buffer factor of seawater.
Actually, the “problem” is that you apparently refuse to accept the simple fact that Henry’s Law does not apply when there is a chemical reaction occurring between the solute and solvent, regardless of the partial pressure of the solute overlaying the solution.
I need not comment further.
From:
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-CO2-content-of-seawater-not-obey-Henrys-Law
“Henry’s Law and its partition ratio (co-efficient) for CO2 apply only to this equilibrium reaction:
CO2(g)⇌CO2(aq).”
Amounts of inorganic carbon in acid and alkaline waters:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/dissolved-inorganic-carbon
“The concentration of DIC varies from less than 20 μM in acidic soft waters to more than 5000 μM in highly alkaline hard waters, but ranges between 100 and 1000 μM in most systems.”
Ferdinand, is your comment supposed to be relevant, or didn’t you understand the comment to which you replied?
Michael,
TYS didn’t see the difference between a ratio and absolute amounts of CO2 and other inorganic carbon species in water…
What is relevant:
Ferdinand, you linked to references which don’t appear to support you.
You haven’t stated what the relevance of all this is supposed to be. The effect of CO2 concentration in either the atmosphere or the ocean is absolutely unquantifiable – both systems appear to act chaotically, and the IPCC agrees in respect of the atmosphere at least.
Willis’s post doesn’t seem to have any relevance to anything – at least Willis hasn’t stated why atmospheric or oceanic CO2 is important to him.
Who cares? Do you? If so, why?
Sorry, but the whole thing seems to be pretty pointless
Michael,
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is within 5 ppmv for yearly averages, from near the North Pole to the South Pole, despite that some 25% of all CO2 within that year is exchanged with CO2 from oceans and vegetation. I call that well-mixed and quantified within narrow borders.
TYS said that seawater contains far less CO2 (and derivatives) than fresh water, based on the Bjerrum plot, but the Bjerrum plot is about relative quantities, not absolute quantities.
As Henry’s law applies to pure, dissolved CO2 and not to other carbon species and is applicable for any solution in water, that means that there is as much pure, dissolved CO2 in any surface water, fresh water and seawater alike (not completely true, salt content has some influence),
For the same concentration pure, dissolved CO2, the other inorganic carbon species differ enormous in quantity, depending of the pH, which makes that seawater contains many more CO2 and derivatives than fresh water…
Is that relevant?
Yes, to know the cause of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere, which thus is not the oceans, as some skeptics insist on. All evidence points to the human release of CO2 from burning fossil fuels.
No, for any “catastrophic” events, as more CO2 is beneficial for all life on earth.
Thus let us focus on the alleged (non) catastrophic events, where the IPCC and the media are completely wrong en not focus on the cause of the CO2 increase, which is proven man-made and thus not only a waste of time but also a lost battle since decades…
See our work at:
https://co2coalition.org/publications/human-contribution-to-atmospheric-co2-how-human-emissions-are-restoring-vital-atmospheric-co2/
As I say, who cares? Increasing CO2 is a good thing for humanity – more plants, more food.
The Earth is cooling overall, and the amount of heat going into the oceans from beneath is impossible to quantify due to completely unknown numbers of thermal vents, subsea hot-spots, and the ever changing mid-ocean ridge heat input.
Nobody really knows whether the oceans as a whole are cooling or heating.
There is insufficient evidence to convict, and reasonable doubt should result in acquittal. Maybe a Scottish verdict of “not proven” might be applicable.
No, and no. That statement is known as the logical fallacy of “the strawman argument”.
What I have stated is that:
(a) oceanwater at a pH of about 8.1 has more than two-orders-of-magnitude less dissolved CO2 (as a molecular gas) than does oceanwater at a pH of 4.0, and
(b) that the Bjerrum graph for relative concentrations of species present in seawater under atmospheric conditions (i.e., the partial pressures of CO2 and other atmospheric gases) gives the same relative dependence of CO2 versus solution pH as does the Bjerrum graph based on absolute values of concentrations (e.g., moles per kilogram of solution) . . . see my comment and attached graph posted below at April 16, 2025 7:04 am.
Please see the attached Bjerrum graph* if you want to see absolute values of CO2 in seawater as a function of pH, instead of relative concentrations.
The scientific message is the same.
*From page 5 of CO2 in Seawater: Equilibrium, Kinetics, Isotopes, Zeebe, R.E. and Wolf-Gladrow, D., 2005 (third edition), ISBN 0 444 50946 1 (paperback), #65 of the Elsevier Oceanography Series.
The Bjerrum plot in your reference still is a ratio, where the solution was kept away from the atmosphere while looking to the different species at different pH: the sum of the components doesn’t change with pH, while in the real world, much more CO2 dissolves in seawater than in fresh water.
According to https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/6/5096 :
“According to the theory of the dissolution of gases in water [15], the concentration of free carbon dioxide in seawater conforms to the Henry’s Law in a closed balance system.”
You really, really, really don’t understand the y-axis on that graph being expressed in units of mole per Kg, NOT being a ratio. It is an absolute concentration value, which you previously implied that you desired to be provided in lieu of concentration ratios as provided in the Wikipedia-provided Bjerrum plot of seawater. And those absolute concentration values are plotted versus solution pH for each of the chemical species ions identified on the graph. It is only you that is now converting such back to “ratios”. ROTFL!
And I have no idea what you mean by “where the solution was kept away from the atmosphere” since there is no indication of such in the discussion of this Bjerrum graph in the book that I referenced. It is given as the steady state condition vs. pH for Earth’s oceans surface layer under “current” atmospheric conditions. Of course, you would have needed to have read the text discussing the mathematics and chemistry associated with creating this graph, which you obviously did not do.
More’s the pity.
Next, your reference to the blurb at https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/6/5096 , states in the abtsract there: “A method for the determination of free carbon dioxide in artificial seawater, whose name is D.B.S/Henry’s Law.” That is not the same as Henry’s law.
If you can’t properly interpret a science-based graph, there really is no point in us continuing this dialogue.
TYS, no reason to shout…
The graph shows the absolute values of the different carbon species in seawater at different pH values, starting at the current mixture in the oceans and the current CO2 level in the atmosphere.
The graph doesn’t show the absolute values in equilibrium with the atmosphere for all pH values, as that is impossible: seawater at pH 8.1 contains hundreds (!) of times more inorganic carbon species than fresh water at pH 4.0.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780124095489093994
“The concentration of DIC varies from less than 20 μM in acidic soft waters to more than 5000 μM in highly alkaline hard waters, but ranges between 100 and 1000 μM in most systems. “
In the Bjerrum plot, there is hardly any change in total DIC, thus that plot again is the ratio of the different inorganic carbon species against each other, not the absolute values at equilibrium.
BTW, the D,B,S,/Henry’s Law is a method to calculate the free CO2 in solution, the sentence I quoted was about the pure, dissolved CO2, that follows Henry’s Law, no matter the rest of the reactions involved..
But don’t just trust me, or even a single source:
TYS, if you ask the wrong question, you receive the wrong answer…
Of course, if you ask about the pCO2 for water with different pH, but the same content, you will have a lower pCO2 at higher pH.
The point is that at higher pH, the solution is not in equilibrium with the atmosphere! If you allow it to get in equilibrium: pCO2(aq)=pCO2(atm), then you get the same amount of dissolved CO2 in seawater at pH 8.1 as in fresh water at pH 4.0, but many times more bicarbonates and carbonates in solution, thus many times more DIC…
Here the answer of GROK to my question:
At pH 4.0 and pH 8.1, how much different is the dissolved CO2 in equilibrium with the atmosphere at the same pCO2?
Answer (with my bolt):
5. Difference in Dissolved CO2The question asks for the difference in “dissolved CO2” in equilibrium with the atmosphere. In geochemical contexts, “dissolved CO2” sometimes refers to CO2(aq) alone, but it can also mean total DIC. Let’s interpret both:
Final Answer
The most likely interpretation in this context is total DIC, as pH significantly affects the carbonate system’s speciation, leading to a substantial difference in total dissolved carbon species.
—————–
That is my final answer too: dissolved CO2 is exactly the same in fresh water as in seawater for the same temperature and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere per Henry’s law. The rest of the inorganic carbon species increases largely with higher pH…