Oceans are 'soaking up less CO2'

[Bobby]

The amount of carbon dioxide being absorbed by the world's oceans has reduced, scientists have said.

University of East Anglia researchers gauged CO2 absorption through more than 90,000 measurements from merchant ships equipped with automatic instruments.

Results of their 10-year study in the North Atlantic show CO2 uptake halved between the mid-90s and 2000 to 2005.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7053903.stm

Worrying I think. This means more and more CO2 will be going into the atmosphere to cause warming.

[Rustynailer]

I hope we will be able to take the O2 out of the CO2 economically eventually, then we wont have that to worry about

My question is how? I am sure there will be a way

Russ

[HighPressure]

At the risk of sounding like an old record here, I believe that ozone depletion plays a significant role in the poor performance of our ocean sinks. Two issues here, the first being increased wind speeds directly caused by ozone depletion and the second being the disruption caused to the oceans Bio diversity due to being bombarded with UV-B.

This subject is one of my hobby horses and as stated before I am not letting go of the Ozone/Climate change link!

[Devonian]

I hope we will be able to take the O2 out of the CO2 economically eventually, then we wont have that to worry about

My question is how? I am sure there will be a way

Russ

The CO2 is there as a product of a combustion that released energy that we used. To my, non expert chemist, mind you have to put that energy back into the CO2 to get the O2 out - not exactly easy.

[Stratos Ferric]

I hope we will be able to take the O2 out of the CO2 economically eventually, then we wont have that to worry about

My question is how? I am sure there will be a way

Russ

Nature has a perfectly viable process, and I believe it's called photosynthesis isn't it? The most economical route is to start replanting trees in the areas where they're being felled!

[pottyprof]

I fear that idea is too logical for governments SF.

It's a shame that a world effort has not been made, to pay equatorial countries to start planting trees. There are a few charities that are doing this on a very small scale. I just hope that it isn't an opportunity missed..

[HighPressure]

Nature has a perfectly viable process, and I believe it's called photosynthesis isn't it? The most economical route is to start replanting trees in the areas where they're being felled!

But what happens to photosynthesis if you give it a good dose of UV-B which just so happens to be exactely what is happening in our southern oceans?

Current research centres on our oceans biodiversity and just which organisms are more resistant to UV-B exposure and their ability to repair UV damage. Some spices are very good at UV defence where others are poor, the question is the balance in our ocean phytoplankton changing? Also does any change effect the organisms most effective at CO2 take up and leave us with an abundance of poorly performing ones? In addition some research suggest that some spices of phytoplankton become less digestible by Zooplanktom after being exposed to UV. Its important to realise just how powerful UV is on the ability of organisms to reproduce its used in Water sterilisation and pond filtration systems for exactly that purpose?

[Gray-Wolf]

Once we've measured this 'standstill' in Co2 uptake (as we did when the paper was first released and posted here, on this site) I wasn't concerned at the process that was driving it just that;

IPCC projections, underestimated future Co2 atmospheric levels/retention ..... Current 'best shot guess' , underestimating atmospheric co2 levels/retention. Result..........?

does it matter whence it comes (in terms of it's emotional/planetary impact?)?

It is a measured effect, happening now (in front of current 'modelling') and obviously (it being stood still) any increase in CO2 output further queers our 'plans'/'understanding' for where we're headed.

Edited October 20, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

The study was in the North Atlantic 2000-2005. This was a period of warm SSTAs. Warm water holds less CO2 than cold. For the same reason a fizzy drink in a fridge stays carbonated for longer than a fizzy drink left in the sun. The study therefore says very little directly about climate change. It says more about SSTs.

[Gray-Wolf]

I believe the paper concerned (as first posted on the site) was concerned with the Southern oceans and mainly the 'Antarctic sink' driven by the plankton 'bloom' in their 'spring' (much like our northern one but far more intense!! now that's where to follow plankton feeders following the spring blooms!...bugger whale sharks up here!!!)

Edited October 20, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[HighPressure]

does it matter whence it comes (in terms of it's emotional/planetary impact?)?

Are you serious GW if CO2 is not the underlying cause promises of a fix by reducing it is totally inaccurate??

[Gray-Wolf]

Are you serious GW if CO2 is not the underlying cause promises of a fix by reducing it is totally inaccurate??

And do you think that;

A/ there isn't a significant time lag in implementing any 'fix it' to seeing any effects?

B/ do you really think Indo-China will interrupt their expansive development over the next 5 years? ('cause how much more at current 'output'/ lack of 'CO2' absorption does that introduce on top of all we've already stuck up there?)

If you do not think that 'where we are' is not starting to become quite precipitous in terms of climate 'shift' then worry not! if we're at the edge then 'Goodbye'!( no matter what 'pledges' we accrue from other nations)

[HighPressure]

And do you think that;

A/ there isn't a significant time lag in implementing any 'fix it' to seeing any effects?

B/ do you really think Indo-China will interrupt their expansive development over the next 5 years? ('cause how much more at current 'output'/ lack of 'CO2' absorption does that introduce on top of all we've already stuck up there?)

If you do not think that 'where we are' is not starting to become quite precipitous in terms of climate 'shift' then worry not! if we're at the edge then 'Goodbye'!( no matter what 'pledges' we accrue from other nations)

Oh No! I am not getting bunged in the deniers camp here, sensible policies to reduce CO2 emissions is what we should be seeking, but comments by the UN secretary general of "'we can reverse global warming" has no foundation what so ever in my view. Misleading people with the promise of a fix you do not have is not an acceptable policy, in fact could turn out to be very counter productive further down the line!

[Gray-Wolf]

Oh No! I am not getting bunged in the deniers camp here, sensible policies to reduce CO2 emissions is what we should be seeking, but comments by the UN secretary general of "'we can reverse global warming" has no foundation what so ever in my view. Misleading people with the promise of a fix you do not have is not an acceptable policy, in fact could turn out to be very counter productive further down the line!

Hi H.P.!

I really didn't wish to have you feel like that!

I'm just a little 'flat' when it comes to believing the 'tosh' on what action we ,as a planet, will take.

I remember a scene from Pythons 'Life of Brian' when they are debating whether or not to take action to save Brian and it all seems remarkably similar (many a true word spoken in jest?). It is only my belief/opinion and one mans opinion is no consensus!

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Oceans have been warming and absorbing less and less CO2. The atmospher has warmed because of this not because of CO2 forcing because oceans will not warm as they have FOLLOWING air temp increase. A given volume of sea water requires 3.500 times as much heat energy to be warmed by one degree Celsius, than is required to warm the same volume of air by the same amount. Ocean warming is the driver.

BFTP

I believe the paper concerned (as first posted on the site) was concerned with the Southern oceans and mainly the 'Antarctic sink' driven by the plankton 'bloom' in their 'spring' (much like our northern one but far more intense!! now that's where to follow plankton feeders following the spring blooms!...bugger whale sharks up here!!!)

The following quote is from Brett Anderson of ACCUWEATHER.

The world's oceans are one of the two major carbon "sinks" for CO2 emissions, while the other is the land biosphere. The two combined typically absorb 1/2 of the CO2 into the atmosphere, but a 10-year study by researchers from the University of East Anglia showed that the uptake of CO2 by the North Atlantic Ocean halved between the mid 1990's and 2002-2005, which could accelerate global warming. There was also evidence of this trend in the southern Ocean, but not as great or as sudden.

He is Mr GW

BFTP

Edited October 22, 2007 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[HighPressure]

Oceans have been warming and absorbing less and less CO2. The atmospher has warmed because of this not because of CO2 forcing because oceans will not warm as they have FOLLOWING air temp increase. A given volume of sea water requires 3.500 times as much heat energy to be warmed by one degree Celsius, than is required to warm the same volume of air by the same amount. Ocean warming is the driver.

BFTP

The following quote is from Brett Anderson of ACCUWEATHER.

The world's oceans are one of the two major carbon "sinks" for CO2 emissions, while the other is the land biosphere. The two combined typically absorb 1/2 of the CO2 into the atmosphere, but a 10-year study by researchers from the University of East Anglia showed that the uptake of CO2 by the North Atlantic Ocean halved between the mid 1990's and 2002-2005, which could accelerate global warming. There was also evidence of this trend in the southern Ocean, but not as great or as sudden.

He is Mr GW

BFTP

OH Dear! It just gets more and more complex for me to understand.

Question is it not possible for ocean temps to increase as a result of warm current flows originating in the tropics without additional warming taking place as a whole? A kind of reallocation of warmth and is there any evidence for this?

Sorry but if I get any deeper into this I will need a 8 yr gap to go myself a phd :lol:

[Devonian]

Oceans have been warming and absorbing less and less CO2. The atmospher has warmed because of this not because of CO2 forcing because oceans will not warm as they have FOLLOWING air temp increase. A given volume of sea water requires 3.500 times as much heat energy to be warmed by one degree Celsius, than is required to warm the same volume of air by the same amount. Ocean warming is the driver.

BFTP

So, how come climate varies at all if it's so difficult to warm the seas? Ocean warming you say. So what warms the oceans? The sun? But if there was no ghg in the atmosphere you think the oceans would be as warm? They would not. It's not just the sun that warms oceans, the atmosphere does as well :lol:

Oceans are also a climate 'flywheel'. They do take time to cool and to warm. Fact is the climate push due to us is big but that the oceans are a drag on climate change. That's why it's said there is warming 'in the pipeline' - it's in the pipeline because the oceans are still responding to the warming push.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

OH Dear! It just gets more and more complex for me to understand.

Question is it not possible for ocean temps to increase as a result of warm current flows originating in the tropics without additional warming taking place as a whole? A kind of reallocation of warmth and is there any evidence for this?

Sorry but if I get any deeper into this I will need a 8 yr gap to go myself a phd :lol:

Look at El Nino and La Nina episodes for example...what have they got to do with CO2 induced AGW but very much correlated with solar cycle. Much bigger drivers around than CO2.

BFTP

[Devonian]

Look at El Nino and La Nina episodes for example...what have they got to do with CO2 induced AGW but very much correlated with solar cycle. Much bigger drivers around than CO2.

BFTP

EN/LN 'very much correlated' with soar cycles? I'd like to see the evidence.

There are big climate drivers, but no evidence any of them are changing at the rate ghg forcing is/probably will.

[Essan]

If increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere do not cause any warming then it's simple: prove it.

oops, therein lies the problem

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

If increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere do not cause any warming then it's simple: prove it.

oops, therein lies the problem :lol:

Any warming isn't the issue with me, most to all is

BFTP

EN/LN 'very much correlated' with soar cycles? I'd like to see the evidence.

There are big climate drivers, but no evidence any of them are changing at the rate ghg forcing is/probably will.

Plenty of evidence out there Devonian..feel free to look.

BFTP

[Devonian]

Plenty of evidence out there Devonian..feel free to look.

BFTP

Ahh, the old 'I make the claim but you have to back it up' approach eh

[HighPressure]

Ahh, the old 'I make the claim but you have to back it up' approach eh

OK Dev! I am truly interested in what both sides say here BFTP has named very real effects and the statement regarding oceans being harder and taking longer to warm then the atmosphere, is I think scientifically correct.

Where is he wrong?

[Devonian]

OK Dev! I am truly interested in what both sides say here BFTP has named very real effects and the statement regarding oceans being harder and taking longer to warm then the atmosphere, is I think scientifically correct.

Where is he wrong?

Erm, I haven't said he is wrong, but in my first post this morning I tried to put what he said in some context.

[Red Raven]

...and yet more news of the tipping point.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7058074.stm