Oceans' ability to absorb man-made carbon dwindling
Harry Hope
From TIME, 11/19/09:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1940391,00.html?cnn=yes
Are the Earth's Oceans Hitting Their Carbon Cap?
By Bryan Walsh
Like the vast forests of the world, which continually suck carbon
dioxide from the atmosphere and release oxygen, the planet's oceans
serve as vital carbon sinks.
Last year the oceans absorbed as much as 2.3 billion tons of carbon,
or about one-fourth of all manmade carbon emissions.
Without the action of the oceans, the CO2 we emit into the atmosphere
would have flame-broiled the planet by now.
But a new paper published in the Nov. 19 issue of Nature demonstrates
that the oceans' ability to absorb man-made carbon may be dwindling �
and that has worrying ramifications for future climate change.
While the ocean is now absorbing more carbon in total than ever
before, the waters are sucking up a smaller percentage of the CO2
emitted by humans.
That could mean that there's a physical limit to the oceans' capacity
� and we could be hitting it.
Led by Samar Khatiwala, an oceanographer at Columbia University's
Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, a team of researchers reconstructed
the amount of carbon that had been annually absorbed by the oceans
going back to 1765 � around the time when people began putting large
amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
"Over time it seems the oceans are becoming less efficient at taking
up manmade carbon," says Khatiwala.
"That's concerning over the long term."
Scientists have long known that the ocean is a major carbon sink, but
it's been difficult to tease out how much of that carbon comes from
man-made processes.
Khatiwala and his colleagues solved that problem by mathematically
charting seawater temperature, salinity and other measures, and then
worked backwards to infer how much man-made carbon was being
circulated from the surface and through the deeper waters.
They estimated that there are currently 150 billion tons of carbon
from man-made sources currently sequestered in the ocean � so much
that if all that gas were to be released back into the atmosphere, it
would raise carbon concentrations levels to 460 parts per million,
already higher than what many scientists believe is the upper safe
limit.
"What we show is that the ocean sink is enormous," says Khatiwala.
Enormous, but not limitless.
Carbon emissions from fossil fuels have skyrocketed in recent years �
a new study by the University of East Anglia and the British Antarctic
Survey estimated that emissions have jumped 29% since 2000.
The Nature study found that over the same time period the proportion
of fossil-fuel emissions absorbed by the oceans had fallen by as much
as 10%.
Though it's not clear why, the fact seems to be that the oceans
absorption ability can't keep up with the rate at which we're burning
fossil fuels.
That's worrying, because even under the most optimistic projections,
man-made carbon emissions aren't likely to decline for years.
"There's a physical limit to how rapidly the oceans can absorb CO2,"
says Khatiwala.
"The ocean becomes a less efficient sink."
The consequences are many.
As the ocean absorbs more and more carbon, it acidifies � think of the
acidic fizz in a carbonized beverage.
That injures ocean life � especially the vulnerable coral reefs that
are home to wildly diverse marine species.
And as the ocean warms due to climate change, it will be less able to
absorb carbon too � cold water is more absorptive than warm water.
But, ultimately, what the Nature study shows is that the climate
system is dynamic, capable of responding in ways we can't predict.
If the oceans won't take the carbon we're spewing into the atmosphere,
it will put that much pressure on us to cut back our emissions � lest
the cycle truly spin out of hand.
"We have enough reasons to cut carbon," says Khatiwala.
"This is just one more."
_____________________________________________________
Harry
chemist
Fossil fuel use has increased by 29% since 2000 and the rate of
CO2 increase in the atmosphere has fallen,see:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Where is the CO2 going ?
The cooler ocean has a greater capacity for CO2 than
in the past.
Bran Walsh is wrong.
I M @ good guy
>Again ... forget the "stop global warming" delusion and
>get on with the "SURVIVING global warming" bit.
I agree, and odd that you mention it right after
I booked 3 weeks at a hotel at the beach in Hawaii.
I will wait until I get there to buy the survival kit
stuff, what do you think I will need besides sun tan oil,
a solar powered fan, shorts and a wide brim hat?
Oh, I just though of an invention, a beach chair
with inflatable floats, just in case.
I dread to have to do this, but we should all be
prepared for the horrors. I plan to spend a lot of
time marking the water line in the sand, and will
post my estimate of sea level rise during the 3 weeks.
I also am taking two blondes along, and will
try to devise ways to take their body temperature,
science can be a lot of work, but somebody has
to do it.
Stay cool,
mrbawana2u
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:55:38 -0500, Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
> >Again ... forget the "stop global warming" delusion and
> >get on with the "SURVIVING global warming" bit.
>
> I agree, and odd that you mention it right after
> I booked 3 weeks at a hotel at the beach in Hawaii.
>
> I will wait until I get there to buy the survival kit
> stuff, what do you think I will need besides sun tan oil,
> a solar powered fan, shorts and a wide brim hat?
maui wowie, pakalolo, kona gold and papers.
Save any stray seeds you might find.
erschro...@gmail.com
No, you're looking at the annual variation due to ... winter! When
photosynthesis slows down as plants ... lose their leaves!
Flunked biology too, did ya?
Claudius Denk
> From TIME, 11/19/09:http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1940391,00.html?cnn=yes
>
> Are the Earth's Oceans Hitting Their Carbon Cap?
>
> By Bryan Walsh
>
> Like the vast forests of the world, which continually suck carbon
> dioxide from the atmosphere and release oxygen, the planet's oceans
> serve as vital carbon sinks.
>
> Last year the oceans absorbed as much as 2.3 billion tons of carbon,
> or about one-fourth of all manmade carbon emissions.
>
> Without the action of the oceans, the CO2 we emit into the atmosphere
> would have flame-broiled the planet by now.
>
> But a new paper published in the Nov. 19 issue of Nature demonstrates
A new paper. Just that. No experiment. No discussion of the
methodologies. Just a paper.
Typical Peter Pan science.
> and that has worrying ramifications for future climate change.
>
> While the ocean is now absorbing more carbon in total than ever
> before, the waters are sucking up a smaller percentage of the CO2
> emitted by humans.
Absurd.
>
> That could mean that there's a physical limit to the oceans' capacity
> — and we could be hitting it.
Speculative nonsense.
>
> Led by Samar Khatiwala, an oceanographer at Columbia University's
> Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, a team of researchers reconstructed
> the amount of carbon that had been annually absorbed by the oceans
> going back to 1765 — around the time when people began putting large
> amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
>
> "Over time it seems the oceans are becoming less efficient at taking
> up manmade carbon," says Khatiwala.
Plainly absurd.
>
> "That's concerning over the long term."
>
> Scientists have long known that the ocean is a major carbon sink, but
> it's been difficult to tease out how much of that carbon comes from
> man-made processes.
>
> Khatiwala and his colleagues solved that problem by mathematically
> charting seawater temperature, salinity and other measures, and then
> worked backwards to infer how much man-made carbon was being
> circulated from the surface and through the deeper waters.
>
> They estimated that there are currently 150 billion tons of carbon
> from man-made sources currently sequestered in the ocean — so much
> that if all that gas were to be released back into the atmosphere, it
> would raise carbon concentrations levels to 460 parts per million,
> already higher than what many scientists believe is the upper safe
> limit.
>
> "What we show is that the ocean sink is enormous," says Khatiwala.
>
> Enormous, but not limitless.
>
> Carbon emissions from fossil fuels have skyrocketed in recent years —
And it's still miniscule compared to natural sources of CO2.
> a new study by the University of East Anglia and the British Antarctic
> Survey estimated that emissions have jumped 29% since 2000.
>
> The Nature study found that over the same time period the proportion
> of fossil-fuel emissions absorbed by the oceans had fallen by as much
> as 10%.
>
> Though it's not clear why, the fact seems to be that the oceans
> absorption ability can't keep up with the rate at which we're burning
> fossil fuels.
Bullshit. There is not evidence of this. Just worthless speculation.
tunderbar
Bring a large insulated travel mug. Should you get separated from the
bar, you want a good supply of beverage until the crisis passes and
the bar becomes accessible again.
I M @ good guy
>"I M @ good guy" <I...@good.guy> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:55:38 -0500, Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Again ... forget the "stop global warming" delusion and
>>>get on with the "SURVIVING global warming" bit.
>>
>>
>> I agree, and odd that you mention it right after
>>I booked 3 weeks at a hotel at the beach in Hawaii.
>>
>> I will wait until I get there to buy the survival kit
>>stuff, what do you think I will need besides sun tan oil,
>>a solar powered fan, shorts and a wide brim hat?
>>
>> Oh, I just though of an invention, a beach chair
>>with inflatable floats, just in case.
>
> I don't think sea levels are gonna rise
> quite THAT fast ... :-)
>
> Almost all coastal cities will have plenty of time
> to "grow back" from the shoreline.
>
>> I dread to have to do this, but we should all be
>>prepared for the horrors. I plan to spend a lot of
>>time marking the water line in the sand, and will
>>post my estimate of sea level rise during the 3 weeks.
>>
>> I also am taking two blondes along, and will
>>try to devise ways to take their body temperature,
>>science can be a lot of work, but somebody has
>>to do it.
>>
>>Stay cool,
>
> There ARE some things that NEED to be done relative
> to 'GW' (regardless of its cause). Number one on the
> list is AGRICULTURE (no food = no life). Growing zones
> are gonna shift. We need the legal road paved to make
> it easy, indeed desireable, for farmers to abandon their
> old dried-up land and re-locate to the NEW growing zones.
What "old dried up land" are you talking about,
things grow better in the tropics than at 45 degrees.
While grapes for wine may need controlled moisture
and heat, sun and water and nutrients, including a lot
of CO2 are what makes plants grow.
What do you think the temperature and precip
in Imperial Valley California is, the three biggest
produce regions in the world are in hot and dry areas,
but have always been subject to dry years.
(Southern California desert, central California
valley, and southern Texas-northern Mexico)
The easiest to grow, and most produce per acre
staple, the potato, grows in most any climate, and
Asia would do well to learn to eat the potato, more
because the paddy workers are running to the
factories for higher paying jobs, not because the
paddies are drying up.
Every bit of alarmism about CO2 effect on
climate is fake, every bit of alarmism about a
warming climate is overblown, a slow rise of
sea level is natural unless and until the next
ice age, that is why geologists are the biggest
group of anti-warm alarmists.
I frankly don't think the Amazon will dry up,
and I doubt if any of the AGW alarmists even know
which river watersheds get the most rainfall.
It is a bunch of newbies who heard gossip
about CO2, like you, that waste the time and
scarce money in world that badly needs to get
on with developing alternate energy before
fossil fuels run out, especially liquid fuels,
the AGW nutcases are diverting money from
where it needs to be channeled.
The ocean doesn't just "absorb" CO2, it
converts it to rock and oxygen.
Michael Coburn
Try it with broccoli.
> While grapes for wine may need controlled moisture
> and heat, sun and water and nutrients, including a lot of CO2 are what
> makes plants grow.
Oh lordy... another CO2 denier
> What do you think the temperature and precip
> in Imperial Valley California is, the three biggest produce regions in
> the world are in hot and dry areas, but have always been subject to dry
> years.
> (Southern California desert, central California
> valley, and southern Texas-northern Mexico)
But why then is Mexico not a bigger producer of agricultural goods?
> The easiest to grow, and most produce per acre
> staple, the potato, grows in most any climate, and Asia would do well to
> learn to eat the potato, more because the paddy workers are running to
> the factories for higher paying jobs, not because the paddies are drying
> up.
ALL rightarded "evidence" is anecdotal.
> Every bit of alarmism about CO2 effect on
> climate is fake, every bit of alarmism about a warming climate is
> overblown, a slow rise of sea level is natural unless and until the next
> ice age, that is why geologists are the biggest group of anti-warm
> alarmists.
>
>
> I frankly don't think the Amazon will dry up,
> and I doubt if any of the AGW alarmists even know which river watersheds
> get the most rainfall.
>
> It is a bunch of newbies who heard gossip
> about CO2, like you, that waste the time and scarce money in world that
> badly needs to get on with developing alternate energy before fossil
> fuels run out, especially liquid fuels, the AGW nutcases are diverting
> money from where it needs to be channeled.
>
> The ocean doesn't just "absorb" CO2, it
> converts it to rock and oxygen.
What a self aggrandizing turd.....
--
"Those are my opinions and you can't have em" -- Bart Simpson
I M @ good guy
A Billion dollars annually is not peanuts alone,
http://countrystudies.us/mexico/73.htm
the country does not have the great plains
like the US, level land is essential to large grain
farms, but fruits and vegetables can be grown
anyplace.
tj Frazir
The seaweed and plankton feeds on co2.
Putting out forest fires hurts rain and snow and the sea.
The air is allmost too clean to rain.
co2 is low and ash is low.
They sky is too clean.
2 trillion trees only get 1 trillion ton co2 this year then the bugs
from lack of rain will kill trees so they will burn so it will rain.
ALLLLLL the green wankers want is money
I M @ good guy
> SOME crops do best in relatively dry conditions, but
> OTHERS require fairly constant irrigation. Just down
> the way from your valley grape farm is a lettuce farm
> and an orange grove. Lettuce is a succulent - needs
> constant watering. Oranges need periodic watering all
> through the year - plus, being trees, they represent
> the investment of many years getting them up to full
> size and productivity. Plant oranges and you're STUCK
> with 'em.
>
> Yet other crops require a wet spring followed by gradual
> drying in the summer and fall ... cotton doesn't like to
> get drenched when the bolls are forming - but can't get
> TOO dry either. Melons and legumes will burst if they
> get a late-season drenching. Peanuts will rot if they
> get waterlogged, but won't grow if the soil is dusty
> a month earlier.
>
> Climate shifts cause land that WAS good for growing
> 'X' to turn into land that might be better for 'Y' -
> or nothing at all. Climate shifts make vast aquifiers
> and reserviors dry when farmers need them full - or
> vice versa.
>
> Then there's the human part of the equation - "My
> great-great grand-dad planted pecans here, so we're
> pecan farmers - it's all we know". Farmers tend to
> specialize in one or two kinds of crop and don't
> feel confident trying to switch - even IF the land
> and climate won't support their favorites anymore.
>
> How can farmer Brown be put to best use as climate
> and ag zones shift around ? He may need support in
> changing his traditional crops to something more
> appropriate - instruction, hand-holding and, of
> importance, INSURANCE in case it goes wrong. This
> is why most initiatives to improve african farming
> methods fail ... fear of the consequences of failure
> (which, in sub-saharan africa means *death*).
>
> Despite the catalog of jokes, farming isn't for the
> stupid. It's a science and an art ... tricks of the
> trade often passed down through generations. Farmer
> Brown is probably using GPS/GIS guided equipment
> and real-time infrared to optimize irrigation
> and fertilization. He can also just smell the dirt
> and feel a lead and know what extra adjustments to
> make 'cause his granddaddy taught him how. It's
> skilled, technical labor - in manure-encrusted
> overalls instead of Dilberts suit and tie.
>
> Such sets of skills need to be preserved and
> exploited - and that means helping farmer Brown
> and/or the farm cooperatives and/or mega-farms
> to plant the best crop for the current micro-
> climate. If the land becomes useless, you pay
> for farmer Brown to move elsewhere where the
> micro-climate now favors agriculture. In a
> large country like the USA, that just means
> moving him to another state. Elsewhere it
> might mean crossing international borders.
> Greasing the rails to make that easy is a
> worthy endeavour.
>
> CURRENT practice is to try and turn farmer Browns
> increasingly useless land back into what it used
> to be. The price is usually large-scale irrigation
> and/or heavy applications of fertilizers and various
> pesticides. Brown is attached to HIS LAND and does
> not want to leave. Alas, heavy irrigation isn't a
> solution, merely a band-aid. It's expensive and
> eventually leaves the soil full of toxic minerals.
> Fertilization is also a band-aid, short-term costs
> and long-term issues with nitrogen run-off make
> it less a wonder than it first seems. In short,
> we've got to stop wasting resources on trying to
> turn dust bowls into Eden and spend the money
> more productively. Save the water for people
> and the fertilizer for house-plants.
>
>
>
>> The ocean doesn't just "absorb" CO2, it
>>converts it to rock and oxygen.
>
> IF the correct balance of shell-forming marine
> organisms exist.
>
> Oh, and some of that CO2 *does* come back
> eventually as old coastline gets subducted
> due to continental drift. Chemical and
> biological processes can also break down
> carbonate rocks.
Thanks for the farmer Brown insight, but
climate may not be the issue with lettuce, I
saw Mc cain on TV today, and I thought he
had lost his mind, in regard to migrant workers,
he said at the beginning of summer he made
an offer that anybody that would pick lettuce,
and stay the full season, he would pay them
$50 an hour.
I chalk that up to the cluelessness about
the average man and money in DC and big
cities.
The only good feeling I can offer about
climate is that things usually are not as bad
as they seem, I do think some farmers might
over-extend themselves with equipment,
wanting not to be bothered with trying to
schedule sharing co-op equipment.
The UAH data just doesn't support alarmism,
I am sure the added CO2 does something, it just
doesn't seem clear yet, just what it does.
I do fear colder much more than warmer,
too big a proportion of people already live
in cold and cool-moderate climates where
more cold would cause hardship and a lot
of discomfort.
I spent the 1930s in central Illinois, and
had relatives on farms, if my house would not
have been across the street from a coal mine
storage yard, life would have been miserable.
dkat
Driving back from Boston today I saw several trees flowering. What
flowers in November is not going to be producing fruit to eat in
spring. Folks just can't seem to connect the dots.
tj Frazir
You cant fish the sea to death ,,thats what he market controlers want
you to think so they can controle who fishes and how much.
You take 1 billion ton out of the sea if you want and 1 billion ton
more fish will be in the sea because all you did was make room for them.
people
liberal
> far too much alarmism into their lectures on
> climate change. That's politics ... and the
> realization that few people act until they
> perceive a crisis is upon them.
Huh? "Too much alarmism"???? And we taken exactly how many steps too
many to correct the coming catastrophe? Well then, how many steps
exactly? Zero? Hmmm, sounds like the tocsin isn't ringing loud enough.
>
> The added CO2 isn't a good thing however. It
> will push up temperatures faster than either
> nature or man can readily cope. No, the earth
> is not gonna catch fire in 2060 ... as you'd
> almost believe listening to some of the
> professional Chicken Littles ... but the
> relative climatic status-quo that lasted
> centuries will no longer exist. Even worse,
> computer weather forecasting is fer shit ...
> so no exact or pinpoint prognostications
> are possible.
>
> 'Western' - and to an increasing extent 'eastern' -
> agricultural practice has been to reduce the number
> of cultivated acres to a minimum - achieving high
> yeilds via irrigation and/or fertilizers.
> ...
>
> read more »
I M @ good guy
As far as climate getting warmer causing an
impending crisis is concerned, any alarmism is insane.
>And we taken exactly how many steps too
>many to correct the coming catastrophe?
What catastrophe, journalists too stupid to find
their way to the grocery store?
>Well then, how many steps exactly? Zero?
>Hmmm, sounds like the tocsin isn't ringing loud enough.
Go into farming if you think you can sell
all you can grow, a lot of farmers are disgusted
with prices not paying expenses, that is the
very reason for the corn ethanol industry,
grain elevators full.
Are you new to the gossip fad?
tj Frazir
global warming fraud - Google Images
Address:http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&source=hp&ie=ISO-8859-1&gbv=1&q=global+warming+fraud