Oceans are a Net Source of CO2...

[SSDD]

Yet another peer reviewed published study confirms the fact that the oceans, and outgassing are net sources of atmospheric CO2 in direct contradiction to warmist claims that oceans are the primary source of atmospheric CO2 removal. Just one more in a long line of papers disproving alarmist claims....

http://reef01.marine.usf.edu/sites/default/files/project/cariaco/publications/Astor_et_al_2013.pdf

Oh, and by the way....climate change has been completely dropped from the upcoming G8 summit. Guess the move to save face and avoid being caught in the impending collapse of climate change alarmism is gaining momentum.

 

[waltky]

Ocean oxygen levels decreasing...

Scientists: Oceans Rapidly Losing Oxygen
May 03, 2016 - Fish need oxygen to breathe as much humans do, and two new reports say there is less and less of it in some of the world's oceans.

According to the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research as changes in winds and temperature caused by global warming lead to warmer surface water temperatures, the oceans are absorbing less oxygen.

A man walks along the Indian Ocean as the tide goes out at Coco Beach in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania​

There are already a number of areas -- so called dead zones -- where fish don't have enough oxygen to live and either die or swim to safety. Cold water absorbs and holds more oxygen than warm water, so as the water continues to warm the report predicts nature’s ability to replenish the loss may become overwhelmed by early 2030s.

Deoxgenation due to climate change is already detectable in some parts of the ocean. New research from NCAR finds that it will likely become widespread between 2030 and 2040. Other parts of the ocean, shown in gray, will not have detectable loss of oxygen due to climate change even by 2100.​

In its latest study, published in the journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles, the Center says deoxygenation can already be seen in some parts of the Pacific Ocean. Scientists warn even if we curb the present level of CO2 emissions, the damage to marine ecosystems may already have been made irreversible.

Scientists: Oceans Rapidly Losing Oxygen

See also:

Can Artificial Mountain Change Microclimate?
May 03, 2016 - Most scientists believe than our planet is getting hotter and drier and that the trend will be hard to reverse, especially in flat regions such as the Arabian Peninsula.

Among other reasons these regions do not have much rainfall is a lack of so-called updraft — vertical movement of the moist air that occurs when horizontal winds hit a mountainside.

So one Persian Gulf nation, the United Arab Emirates, is seriously considering building a mountain to try to change its climate. While it does not have experience in mountain-building, the UAE has successfully built an artificial lake — Lake Zakher, in the desert near the border with Oman.

The sun sets in the Rub' al-Khali desert, which encompasses most of the southern third of the Arabian Peninsula. One reason that such regions are so dry is that they lack vertical movement of moist air.​

Scientists from the U.S.-based University Corporation for Atmospheric Research say they are now studying local climatology to determine the best location for and dimensions of the proposed mountain.

If the project materializes, moist air from the Gulf could climb up the mountainside and cool, while seeding the clouds from aircraft with eco-friendly chemicals would help create much needed rain, changing the local climate.

Can Artificial Mountain Change Microclimate?

 

[SSDD]

The only thing getting hotter is the data manipulation required to give the appearance of a warmer world...ocean heat content is dropping...it is doing so because the world is cooling.

 

[RollingThunder]

Yet another peer reviewed published study confirms the fact that the oceans, and outgassing are net sources of atmospheric CO2 in direct contradiction to warmist claims that oceans are the primary source of atmospheric CO2 removal. Just one more in a long line of papers disproving alarmist claims....

http://reef01.marine.usf.edu/sites/default/files/project/cariaco/publications/Astor_et_al_2013.pdf

Total bullshit! That is not what that paper says, or even implies. You gullible denier cult dingbats will believe anything your puppetmasters tell you, no matter how fraudulent, because you are too stupid and ignorant to even begin to understand the scientific articles they hand you with some bogus explanation of what they mean.

In the real world....

Oceans Found to Absorb Half of All Man-Made Carbon Dioxide
National Geographic News

Upswing in absorption of carbon dioxide in Southern Ocean over last decade
Science Daily
September 10, 2015

Oh, and by the way....climate change has been completely dropped from the upcoming G8 summit. Guess the move to save face and avoid being caught in the impending collapse of climate change alarmism is gaining momentum.

More total bullshit, you pathological liar. You are soooo full of shit. Oh, and BTW, you clueless dingbat, Russia has been suspended, so it is the G7 summit now.

The 42nd G7 summit (excerpts) will be held on 26-27 May 2016 at the Shima Kanko Hotel in Kashiko Island, Shima, Mie Prefecture, Japan, in 2016. The attendees will include the leaders of the seven G7 member states as well as representatives of the European Union. The official website for the G7 Japan 2016 Ise-Shima Summit is now live which you can access here. We are expecting further details relating to the Agenda to be announced shortly.

30th March 2016
Main Agenda for the G7 Ise-Shima Summit Announced

Climate Change & Energy
The Paris Agreement, a new international framework to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, was adopted at COP 21 last December. At the conference, Prime Minister Abe announced Japan’s commitment to increase its assistance to developing countries to 1.3 trillion yen in 2020. This contribution helped pave the way to reaching the Agreement for a global commitment of $100 billion in climate finance per year. The G7 leaders will discuss how to lead the overall efforts of the international community in addressing climate change at the Ise-Shima Summit, building on the outcome of COP 21.

Given significant changes to the international energy landscape, including low oil prices and geopolitical uncertainty, ensuring energy security remains a pressing issue for the international community. The G7 is expected to play a leading role in the area of energy policy.

 

[mamooth]

Henry's Law is yet another 200-year-old piece of science that SSDD denies.

The 40% rise in CO2 concentration drives the oceans to absorb about 40% more CO2.

The rise in ocean temperature drives the oceans to absorb about 1% less CO2.

According to SSDD, the 1% overwhelms the 40%.

 

[SSDD]

Here you go hairball...learn something......................as if...

Ocean carbon sink & Henry's law

David Archer at RealClimate.org is promoting a new kind of climate catastrophe. The ocean is already getting "fed up" with absorbing man-made carbon dioxide, he says. The ocean will get so upset that it may start to emit CO2 instead, we learn. A usual discussion about positive feedbacks and tipping points follows.

Archer is an atmospheric chemist and when you read his text, it is very clear that he has been taught certain basic laws of chemistry, including Henry's law. Henry's law exactly says that it is impossible for the ocean to get "fed up" with a gas. More quantitatively, the principle states that

at constant temperature, the amount of gas dissolved in a liquid is directly proportional to the partial pressure of that gas in equilibrium with that liquid.It means that if you add 7 units of CO2 into the atmosphere and give the system time to reach equilibrium, the amount of CO2 in the ocean increases by 7 (other) units. If you add 19 more units into the atmosphere, the amount of CO2 in the ocean increases by 19 more (other) units. Oceans can't get fed up with a gas. It is not hard to understand why the law is true.

Think about a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution for CO2 molecules. They can occupy different regions and states with different potential and kinetic energy. However, until quantum statistical mechanics kicks in, which is very far for these low concentrations, classical physics makes the concentrations extensive. If you double the concentration in the air, the concentration in the water doubles, too. If you subtract some short-term fluctuations, the oceans always absorb the same fraction of new CO2. This fraction doesn't change: that's what we call Henry's law. Archer seems to know the law but he denies it in 80 percent of his article.
Moreover, we will see that at fixed temperature, the ocean uptake was always small in comparison with the CO2 in the atmosphere because a majority of CO2 (we will calculate 3/4) is stored in the atmosphere. Don't forget that there are other sinks that can absorb increasing amounts of CO2, especially vegetation: we will neglect this part of CO2 in this article.

Numbers

We may be somewhat more quantitative. Henry's formula reads:

p = kc

Here, "p" is the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere (in units called atmospheres), "c" is the concentration of CO2 in the ocean (in moles per liter), and "k" is Henry's universal constant (29.4 atmospheres per (mole per liter) for CO2).

Numerically, CO2 is 385 ppm of the volume of our atmosphere, so the partial pressure "p" is clearly 0.000385 atmospheres. The concentration increases approximately by 1.8 ppm a year. In the law above, "p/k=c", we may calculate "p/k". It is equal to 13 micromoles per liter and the law says that it is equal to the concentration in the ocean.See Al Gore's explanation of outgassingLet's now take the total water volume on Earth (over 95% is in the ocean). It is 1.36 x 10^{21} liters. If you multiply it by 13.6 micromoles per liter, you obtain about 1.8 x 10^{16} moles of CO2 in the ocean.

How does it compare with CO2 in the atmosphere? The total mass of the atmosphere is about 5.14 x 10^{21} grams and it has 28.8 grams per mole in average. Divide them to get 1.8 x 10^{20} moles - the total amount of gas in the atmosphere. Multiply it by 385 ppm (dimensionless) and you obtain 7 x 10^{16} moles of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The result? Even if you allow CO2 to dissolve in the whole deep ocean - which may normally take some time (deep ocean circulation takes 2000 years, if you wanted to wait for it) - you see that a small fraction of CO2 is in the ocean, about 1/4. At fixed temperature, the ocean only absorbs a small portion of the man-made CO2 and it never absorbed much more. Henry's law says that in the long run, the ratio is fixed. An article that something is changing about the ratio right now inevitably violates this law of Nature.

Observations show a lot of other short-term effects because we are not at equilibrium. But these effects certainly can't be extrapolated into the future.

Temperature dependence

Henry's law assumes that the temperature is fixed. Of course, when temperature changes, the corresponding constant "k" and consequently the fraction of CO2 held in the oceans changes, too. This is nothing else than the reason behind outgassing - the mechanism that determines the relationship between CO2 and temperature during the ice ages and interglacials. When oceans get warmer, they become less able to store gases (think of an exploding Coke can in a heated car in the summer) which means that they release them to the atmosphere: the constant "k" explained above increases, too. When temperature is higher, the atmospheric concentrations and partial pressures "p" of all gases - not just carbon dioxide - increase.

So we encounter an effect that can transform changes of temperature into changes of CO2 concentrations. But how much does it actually change the concentrations? During the glaciation cycles in the last half a million years, the CO2 concentration was changing from 180 to 280 ppm while the closely correlated temperature was changing between a minimum and a maximum that was about 8 Celsius degrees warmer. The correlation used to be nearly perfect but you see that the increase by 8 Celsius degrees leads to the increase of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm.

Incidentally, that allows you to see another trivial argument why the correlation can't be evidence of the greenhouse effect. If the CO2 were the cause, if the temperature were its consequence, and if the greenhouse effect were able to transform a 100 ppm increase of CO2 into 8 degrees of warming as suggested by Al Gore, something like that would have happened since 1850, too: since 1850, we have increased CO2 by additional 100 ppm. But the temperatures clearly didn't increase by 8 Celsius degrees since 1850. That's why we see that the prediction for the recent temperature change by the hypothesis that CO2 was a major climate driver during the glaciation periods is brutally falsified. The observed warming is 13 times smaller than the prediction.

Quite clearly, the correlation shows the effect of temperature on concentrations of gases - as can be determined by many other methods, including the universal influence on all gases as well as the famous lag. The correlation is very strong but you must be very careful when you calculate the coefficients: "k" and "1/k" are not the same thing. The correlation shows that pretty high temperature changes (8 Celsius degrees) are needed for relatively decent CO2 changes (100 ppm). The ratio of these two numbers can also be used to deduce how much CO2 increase may be induced by the warming oceans by 2100. Even if you imagine that the 2007-2100 warming will be 2 Celsius degrees (and I surely think that we have strong evidence that it will be less than 1 Celsius degree), such 2 degrees will only add 25 ppm of CO2 or so - the equivalent of 15 years of direct production by business-as-usual. Such additional 25 ppm might lead to 0.15 Celsius degrees per century. It's a correction but the corresponding geometric series is clearly convergent.

Incidentally, a more realistic greenhouse warming by 2100, 0.8 Celsius degrees, will lead to the equivalent of 7 years of CO2 production which is about 13 times shorter than the actual period 2007-2100. It is no coincidence that the number 13 appeared again: in both cases, the number says that the present direct production of CO2 is 13 times more important than the concentration change induced by outgassing.

Again, we see that the temperature-dependence of outgassing is relatively a very small effect. The correlation between temperature and CO2 during the ice ages was only good because only linear mechanisms transforming temperature into CO2 were important - and outgassing was quite certainly the crucial one. Today, we change the concentration of CO2 much more rapidly by other means which means that the old relationships no longer hold and the natural contributions to the changing CO2 concentrations become less important, much like their possible secondary effects on the temperature.

Summary

The fixed-temperature fraction of the new CO2 that is absorbed by the oceans is a universal constant because of basic laws of chemistry: it is a very small fraction. The changes of CO2 concentrations induced by warming are negligible in comparison with the direct production of CO2. Moreover, neither of these effects can lead to any kind of exponential escalation.

These effects don't deserve to be discussed by anyone except for people who are scientifically interested in them and it is very irresponsible and dishonest to emit these statements - inpenetrable for most people - combined with irrational gloomy sentiments because such an explosive combination almost certainly leads laymen to completely incorrect conclusions as the discussion beneath Archer's text clearly shows.

If you find a problem with his explanation of the natural law, by all means point it out...

 

[mamooth]

The would with that piece would be how it was just wild handwaving, with no actual numbers backing it up. Especially hilarious was its claim that a 40% increase in CO2 in the ocean would represent an insignificant amount of the atmospheric CO2.

The oceans contain about 38,000 gigatons of carbon.

The atmosphere contains about 3,000 gigatons of CO2.

Do the math.

Humans emit ~29 gigatons of CO2 each year. Only ~15 gigatons remain in the atmosphere. Where's the rest going? Into the oceans.

 

[SSDD]

The would with that piece would be how it was just wild handwaving, with no actual numbers backing it up. Especially hilarious was its claim that a 40% increase in CO2 in the ocean would represent an insignificant amount of the atmospheric CO2.

The oceans contain about 38,000 gigatons of carbon.

The atmosphere contains about 3,000 gigatons of CO2.

Do the math.

Humans emit ~29 gigatons of CO2 each year. Only ~15 gigatons remain in the atmosphere. Where's the rest going? Into the oceans.

For all your handwaving, and hysterics you haven't said anything in the least scary....you seem to be unaware that the mass of the atmosphere is a mere 51.4 quintillion KG while the mass of the ocean is 14 sextillion KG...the fact is that the oceans are in no danger from our piddling CO2 emissions which, by the way are not even enough to overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yet another peer reviewed published study confirms the fact that the oceans, and outgassing are net sources of atmospheric CO2 in direct contradiction to warmist claims that oceans are the primary source of atmospheric CO2 removal. Just one more in a long line of papers disproving alarmist claims....

http://reef01.marine.usf.edu/sites/default/files/project/cariaco/publications/Astor_et_al_2013.pdf

Oh, and by the way....climate change has been completely dropped from the upcoming G8 summit. Guess the move to save face and avoid being caught in the impending collapse of climate change alarmism is gaining momentum.

Don't be too hasty.. A 10 year study showed that CO2 outgassing increased when a PARTICULAR ocean basin warmed. Not so surprising, since we know that temperature CAN drive CO2 and not just other way around. Even without man's help..

So extending this to a NET GLOBAL study is not possible.. We'd would be concerned if the balance shifted critically. But there are so many seasonal, cyclical variables that NOBODY really knows what the Global Net balance really is or how it varies.. Most "GLOBAL" numbers are rough estimates. And it's hard to find 10% Net answers in estimates..

 

[jc456]

The would with that piece would be how it was just wild handwaving, with no actual numbers backing it up. Especially hilarious was its claim that a 40% increase in CO2 in the ocean would represent an insignificant amount of the atmospheric CO2.

The oceans contain about 38,000 gigatons of carbon.

The atmosphere contains about 3,000 gigatons of CO2.

Do the math.

Humans emit ~29 gigatons of CO2 each year. Only ~15 gigatons remain in the atmosphere. Where's the rest going? Into the oceans.

wow, so do you think the trees, plants concrete, soil or any other object absorbs CO2 and reemit it? really, and you call yourself science smart? hhahahahahahahahaha

 

[mamooth]

For all your handwaving, and hysterics you haven't said anything in the least scary....you seem to be unaware that the mass of the atmosphere is a mere 51.4 quintillion KG while the mass of the ocean is 14 sextillion KG...the fact is that the oceans are in no danger from our piddling CO2 emissions which, by the way are not even enough to overcome the natural variation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machinery.

First you posted an article declaring how the the oceans couldn't possibly affect the CO2 in the atmosphere.

Then it got pointed out how stupid that was, so you've now instantly flipflopped to the opposite position, declaring how the atmosphere can't affect the oceans.

You're just clueless and flailing around blindly.

 

[SSDD]

You idiot...the article pointed out how the oceans are not in danger of becoming acidic due to CO2 in the atmosphere...the description of the mass of the two is why...

clearly comprehension....or thinking aren't your best things old woman.

 

[RollingThunder]

You idiot...the article pointed out how the oceans are not in danger of becoming acidic due to CO2 in the atmosphere...

The oceans ARE becoming more acidic, imbecile.

That is an observed reality.

Trying to claim that it is impossible just highlights how crazy and out of touch with reality you actually are, SSoooDDuuumb.

Educate yourself (if possible).

What is Ocean Acidification?
NOAA

 

[Weatherman2020]

Yet another peer reviewed published study confirms the fact that the oceans, and outgassing are net sources of atmospheric CO2 in direct contradiction to warmist claims that oceans are the primary source of atmospheric CO2 removal. Just one more in a long line of papers disproving alarmist claims....

http://reef01.marine.usf.edu/sites/default/files/project/cariaco/publications/Astor_et_al_2013.pdf

Oh, and by the way....climate change has been completely dropped from the upcoming G8 summit. Guess the move to save face and avoid being caught in the impending collapse of climate change alarmism is gaining momentum.

We need government regulation of oceans.

 

[jc456]

You idiot...the article pointed out how the oceans are not in danger of becoming acidic due to CO2 in the atmosphere...

The oceans ARE becoming more acidic, imbecile.

That is an observed reality.

Trying to claim that it is impossible just highlights how crazy and out of touch with reality you actually are, SSoooDDuuumb.

Educate yourself (if possible).

What is Ocean Acidification?
NOAA

 

[Weatherman2020]

You idiot...the article pointed out how the oceans are not in danger of becoming acidic due to CO2 in the atmosphere...

The oceans ARE becoming more acidic, imbecile.

That is an observed reality.

Trying to claim that it is impossible just highlights how crazy and out of touch with reality you actually are, SSoooDDuuumb.

Educate yourself (if possible).

What is Ocean Acidification?
NOAA

Do you ever bother to read what you link to?

 

[RollingThunder]

You idiot...the article pointed out how the oceans are not in danger of becoming acidic due to CO2 in the atmosphere...

The oceans ARE becoming more acidic, imbecile.

That is an observed reality.

Trying to claim that it is impossible just highlights how crazy and out of touch with reality you actually are, SSoooDDuuumb.

Educate yourself (if possible).

What is Ocean Acidification?
NOAA

View attachment 74374

Isn't it hilarious how the denier cult retards think that accepting the validity of science is "stupid"? Says a lot about how fucked-up crazy they are.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I'm going to go release some more CO2.

 

[RollingThunder]

You idiot...the article pointed out how the oceans are not in danger of becoming acidic due to CO2 in the atmosphere...

The oceans ARE becoming more acidic, imbecile.

That is an observed reality.

Trying to claim that it is impossible just highlights how crazy and out of touch with reality you actually are, SSoooDDuuumb.

Educate yourself (if possible).

What is Ocean Acidification?
NOAA

Do you ever bother to read what you link to?

Can you even read?

What is Ocean Acidification?
NOAA - PMEL
A pH unit is a measure of acidity ranging from 0-14. The lower the value, the more acidic the environment. Becoming more acidic is a relative shift in pH to a lower value.

The Chemistry
When carbon dioxide (CO2) is absorbed by seawater, chemical reactions occur that reduce seawater pH, carbonate ion concentration, and saturation states of biologically important calcium carbonate minerals. These chemical reactions are termed "ocean acidification" or "OA" for short. Calcium carbonate minerals are the building blocks for the skeletons and shells of many marine organisms. In areas where most life now congregates in the ocean, the seawater is supersaturated with respect to calcium carbonate minerals. This means there are abundant building blocks for calcifying organisms to build their skeletons and shells. However, continued ocean acidification is causing many parts of the ocean to become undersaturated with these minerals, which is likely to affect the ability of some organisms to produce and maintain their shells.

Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. Since the pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity. Future predictions indicate that the oceans will continue to absorb carbon dioxide and become even more acidic. Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150 percent more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years.

The Biological Impacts
Ocean acidification is expected to impact ocean species to varying degrees. Photosynthetic algae and seagrasses may benefit from higher CO2 conditions in the ocean, as they require CO2 to live just like plants on land. On the other hand, studies have shown that a more acidic environment has a dramatic effect on some calcifying species, including oysters, clams, sea urchins, shallow water corals, deep sea corals, and calcareous plankton. When shelled organisms are at risk, the entire food web may also be at risk. Today, more than a billion people worldwide rely on food from the ocean as their primary source of protein. Many jobs and economies in the U.S. and around the world depend on the fish and shellfish in our oceans.

 

[Wuwei]

Isn't it hilarious how the denier cult retards think that accepting the validity of science is "stupid"? Says a lot about how fucked-up crazy they are.

I admire your persistence. I pretty much ignore the dumbest ones. They take random science words they find in blogs and string them into sentences that make no sense. But all of them either deny science, not really knowing what they are actually denying, or they make up new science that simply doesn't exist.