Correct. The ocean is like a CO2 sponge. Once a sponge is full of water it can no longer hold any more water. Can you see the correlation here?
This means more C02 build up in the atmosphere and therefore more "Greenhouse Effect" to come.
Professor Watsons "Pipes" are good but not as good as my "TUNNELS" because the "TUNNELS" generate 3+ million mega watts of pure hydroelectrical power thus eliminating C02 from the fossil fuel industries while regulating SSTs in order to restore the Arctic Ice and can weaken a cat 5 hurricane to a cat 2 hurricane prior to landfall. There are hundreds of bad effects the "TUNNELS" can fix for GODS GOOD EARTH. When are the scientists at the Universities going to "Computer Model" my "TUNNELS"?

Brett, or anyone who knows,

Does anyone know of any mechanism that might cause this decrease in CO2 soluability? As the oceanswarm, I was hoping that they would be able to dissolve more CO2. Are theysimplyreaching saturation?

It sounds like the authors think the oceans are two-dimensional, based on their measurement mechanism. In order to understand what the oceans' chemistry is, measurements would need to be taken across a large sampling of the three dimensional volume, because of convection. The rapid switches between El Nino and La Nina indicate a dynamic third dimension.

The University of East Anglia seems to turn out a lot of AGW alarmism. Something new every week.

Reply: I wouldn't call this particular study GW alarmism, it is just talking about the absorption of CO2. Brett.

The Atlantic Ocean and in particular the North Atlantic is the most important CO2 sink according to the following.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/mean.shtml

Section 7.3.4 of the following covers Ocean Carbon Cycle Processes and Feedbacks to Climate, while section 7.3.4.2 covers Carbon Cycle Feedbacks to Changes in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch07.pdf

I have mentioned before the depletion of the ozone layer (which occurs above statosphere) as having an negative impact upon corals, yet, there are other consequences of ozone layer damage. The increased solar and cosmic radiation reaching the top meter of ocean has caused the untimely death of huge quantities of phytoplankton's. When examining the earth's biosphere, one see's an extensive dynamic symbiotic synergy of three major realms. Air, Water and Land. The Oceans produce about 40% of atmospheric oxygen, this due to the gas exchange of plankton's , a curious creature/plant that constitutes the planetary food chain's foundation. It is no surprize to me and many others that UV radiation killing plankton will have the net effect of less CO2 absorbtion and less ocean produced atmospheric oxygen. The Earth's weather and oceans are both living systems , because we live on a living planet. There is no mystery here, at least not to any honest scientist.
Also, the Amazon Rainforest used to produce another 40% of atmospheric oxygen, with the relentless cutting and burning of the Amazon yet more depletion of oxygen production and yet more unabsorbed CO2...the remaining 20% of of atmospheric oxygen comes from the rest of the rain forests and temparate plants and forests.

If the absorption of CO2 by the oceans really "halved", we would have immediately seen a massive up-spike in atmospheric CO2.

The oceans normally absorb 90 billion tons of carbon per year. The entire atmosphere only holds 730 billion tons, so a drop of 50% in ocean absorption would cause atmospheric CO2 to increase by 45 billion tons (6%) per year. Over the years 2002-2005 we should have seen a 25% increase in atmospheric CO2. Obviously this did not happen. Just more AGW junk science.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html

cmbclean,

CO2 solubility in water decreases with temperature. That is why the Vostok cores show CO2 concentrations following temperature.

As I described in my previous post, the numbers mentioned in this article are hugely inconsistent with observed atmospheric CO2 over the same time period, which has not shown a break in slope. There is something wrong with their measurements.

As the temperature of water increases, its solubility for a gas such as CO2 decreases. So, anything that warms the surface temperature will decrease the ability of the oceans to absorb CO2.

The paper being discussed clearly recognizes that the oceans are 3 dimensional. They point out that there also appears to be less over turning of cooler water from the depths to the surface and they do not jump to any conclusions as to why this is happening.

Recommend that commenters actually read the paper before throwing around criticisms that are obviously ignorant of its contents.

Carbon dioxide solubility in water decreases with increasing temperature. There you go.

Now, I've heard other scare stories that the oceans are going to become more acidic because of the increased CO2 content of the oceans. These two groups need to get together and work things out between them. Both of them can't be correct.

Does anyone know of any mechanism that might cause this decrease in CO2 solubility? As the oceanswarm, I was hoping that they would be able to dissolve more CO2. Are theysimplyreaching saturation?

cbmclean,

Look up Henry's Law. This is the same mechanism that caused increases in CO2 as we emerged from the last Ice Age. The warmer the solution the less soluble gases are in it.

Kind of strange that the article says that it "appears" to be "soaking" up less CO2 and then says it "has" been halved in the Northern Hemisphere and there is evidence the same is occurring south of the equator.

If this is the case, shouldn't there be massive increases in CO2 in the atmosphere. Doesn't sound very definitive, but that seems to be par for the course with AGW today. Have a thought about AGW? If it mentions CO2 in a negative manner it will more than likely get published.

Regards,

Steve

Thanks Guys

That surprises me. I had thought that the soluability of a substance usually increases with an increase in temperature. I'm embarassed, because I should have known better from chem 101.

AGW in an Unbiased manner???????? OH Yeah! I am sure this was "peer reviewed" with critical questions such as: IF you are correct about the decreased absorption we should have seen a 25% increase in atmospheric CO2. Why did that not happen?

As for Unbiased science look at how the UNiversity decsribes its position on AGW and itself:
"The University of East Anglia is today celebrating the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to which UEA scientists in the School of Environmental Sciences has contributed more than any other university in the world."

http://www1.uea.ac.uk/cm/home/schools/sci/env

"UEA with Our holistic approach to teaching and research,....... is truly a modern philosophy for the new millennium."

"Philosophy" "Holistic"?????? I hope they used their pyramids or crystals to help create this paper!

How about you just do the science and leave the philospophy at home.

Folks when you blatantly attach a philosophy to science, the material is now suspect by anybody with any real scientific training!
But then that is what AGW is, nothing about real science but all about a new philosophy for the new millenia.

Brett- PLEASE find some UNBIASED science without a Philosophy attached to it!
SO how many posts has it been since we have gotten an article questioning this new millenia philospohy?

Carbon dioxide solubility in water decreases with increasing temperature. There you go.

Now, I've heard other scare stories that the oceans are going to become more acidic because of the increased CO2 content of the oceans. These two groups need to get together and work things out between them. Both of them can't be correct.

Paul seems to be throwing yet another red herring on the table, this one of the "false dichotomy" species.

For an explanation that is accessible to the lay reader, please see the wikipedia Solubility Pump page.

Perhaps Paul heats his soda in the microwave to increase its carbonation -- the rest of us find that the dissolved CO2 bubbles last longer when it stays cold.

Regarding acidity, here is one explanation:

The increasing amount of carbon in the ocean will cause another problem for marine life: ocean acidification. The 3-percent increase in dissolved carbon in surface water may seem small, but it is enough to significantly alter the chemistry of seawater and threaten whole groups of marine life.

The reason involves some basic chemistry. When CO2 gas dissolves in seawater, it combines with water molecules (H2O) to form carbonic acid (H2CO3). The acid releases hydrogen ions into the water. The more hydrogen ions in a solution, the more acidic it becomes. Hydrogen ions in ocean surface waters are now 25 percent higher than in the pre-industrial era, with an additional 75-percent increase projected by 2100.

Paul is apparently unable to understand how these two facts may be simultaneously true. I wonder how hard he's tried.

The headline proclaims that "Oceans" are absorbing less CO2 but the study only looked at the North Atlantic with a comment that a smaller trend was observed in the Southern ocean.

If the "Oceans" are acting in the manner claimed by the research then why aren't CO2 levels going through the roof? I would have expected a much higher atmospheric CO2 level with this carbon sink working at only 50 percent of its capacity.

"The oceans normally absorb 90 billion tons of carbon per year. The entire atmosphere only holds 730 billion tons, so a drop of 50% in ocean absorption would cause atmospheric CO2 to increase by 45 billion tons (6%) per year. Over the years 2002-2005 we should have seen a 25% increase in atmospheric CO2. Obviously this did not happen. Just more AGW junk science."

Your numbers are off. While the article is unclear on this point, it stands to reason that they are talking net uptake, which is around 3 billion metric tons per year, so the 50% would be 1.5 bmt less CO2 absorbed (if we were talking the entire ocean). That's about 7% of annual human CO2 emissions.

Paul:
"Now, I've heard other scare stories that the oceans are going to become more acidic because of the increased CO2 content of the oceans. These two groups need to get together and work things out between them. Both of them can't be correct."

Yes, both can be correct. The oceans will still add CO2 for some time, they will just do so at a reduced rate.

The entire North Atlantic warmed considerably during specifically that period - particularly the tropical and subtropical regions. This is no-doubt the major, if not the sole contributor to why this would occur. This was also a major contributor to the hyperactive Atlantic hurricane seasons of '04 & '05. In '06 & '07 these same regions have cooled back down to post '98 levels so it will be interesting to see a followup report two or three years from now. It is now only the far North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans which continue to have significantly warm anomalies.

Once again Paul maps his ignorance onto the science. While the rate of CO2 absorption will decline with increased temperature, it won't go to zero very soon; in other words we get to have lowered ocean pH *and* increased atmospheric CO2. Thanks for your contribution to the cause, Paul.

While this is a first paper on this subject and indeed the numbers may be reduced based on subsequent work, *any* significant reduction in CO2 absorption is alarming.

(Note to Andrew: Paul doesn't read papers.)

Oleg, do try to keep this stuff straight. The study observed a 50% reduction over the course of ten years for the North Atlantic only, so do you see what's wrong with knocking 50% of the entire ocean sink for the whole ten years? The behavior of the other sinks (which as your linked document notes are bigger than the oceans) also must be taken into account, and of course there's the not-insignificant issue of increasing anthropogenc emissions over that period of time. IOW, is it possible that the paper's results are completely correct but that the change wouldn't have resulted in an obvious change in global atmospheric CO2 levels over the period of study? Yes.

IF GLOBAL WARMING IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING!!!!

I wonder how much area of the oceans have been "sampled" using their techniques?

What I find most telling is the slant of the title of the article and the conlusions reached by the researchers in light of their own admissions.

"Perhaps this is partly a natural oscillation or perhaps it is a response to the recent rapid climate warming. In either case we now know that the sink can change quickly and we need to continue to monitor the ocean uptake."

Really, it sounds like they have very little past experience by which to make such judgements. Ten years to the oceans is like about a nanosecond of "their" reality. I guess though, if you need to make a point to garner more funding, have at it. Can't really blame them. I'm sure that watching data come in from ships and traveling the world to fix sensors beats working anyday.

What an appropriate remark from our friend Satan. Of course to hear some tell it his close associates have a similar attitude, and where's the dualism in that!?

Back on topic: I can't find an article yet, but I just heard a report on the BBC radio headlines that a new study announced today shows a 35% increase in the rate of atmospheric CO2 accumulation since 2000. Some degree of increase for the earlier part of this period has been noted before, but IIRC hadn't really reached a level of clear significance. 35% is a different story entirely. I know we will all look forward to seeing the details.

Trying to make this as simple as possible for those desperately clinging to every shred of bad news.

If there was a dramatic decrease in ocean uptake of CO2 over the last few years, it would be represented as a steep increase in the slope of the atmospheric CO2 plot. No one has reported that, so it is safe to assume that this paper's conclusions are incorrect.

The increasing amount of carbon in the ocean will cause another problem for marine life: ocean acidification. The 3-percent increase in dissolved carbon in surface water may seem small, but it is enough to significantly alter the chemistry of seawater and threaten whole groups of marine life.

Ah, marine life. The poor critters are at the mercy of evil oil. If by marine life, you mean critters that excrete calcareous exoskeletons, I find it amazing that marine creatures, such as corals have been around for so long.

For instance, the Order Scleractinia have been around since the Middle Triassic, some 200 million years ago. It appears that they nearly became extinct during the Pleistocene (2.5 million years ago) due to lowering of sea level. Apparently, these corals did quite well during the Mesozoic and Early Cenozoic when the earth's temperature was approximately 22 deg C and carbon dioxide concentrations were as high as 1,800 ppm. But, unfortunately, today's corals are extremely fragile creatures; unable to cope with any variation in temperature or chemistry of the world's oceans.

I find it hard to believe that any marine invertebrates at all survived the Mesozoic with its high temps and extremely high carbon dioxide concentrations. There must have been a different set of rules for physics and chemistry back then that allowed them to survive for tens of millions of years.

bt, get out there and scour your most credible of sources, Wikipedia, and see if you can find a reason for this apparent change in laws of physics and chemistry.

Perhaps Paul heats his soda in the microwave to increase its carbonation -- the rest of us find that the dissolved CO2 bubbles last longer when it stays cold.

Here, bt, try reading this again: "Carbon dioxide solubility in water decreases with increasing temperature." I'll try to put this in terms that even you can understand; when the temperature of the ocean goes up, that is, it gets warmer, the amount of CO2 it can hold decreases. When the temperature of the ocean gets colder, the amount of CO2 it can hold increases. This is called an inverse solubility relationship.

BTW, if the CO2 is dissolved, the CO2 wouldn't be in bubbles. To put it another way (hopefully, one of these will penetrate your skull), if CO2 is in bubbles, it's not dissolved.

Talk about red herrings!! (Mr. Bllom comes to mind, incidently.)

Here we are:

"Rise in atmospheric CO2 accelerates as economy grows, natural carbon sinks weaken"

"Human activities are releasing carbon dioxide faster than ever, while the natural processes that normally slow its build up in the atmosphere appear to be weakening. These conclusions are drawn in a new study in the early online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, October 22-26. The report states that 'together, these effects characterize a carbon cycle that is generating stronger-than-expected climate forcing sooner than expected.'

"Between 2000 to 2006, human activities such as burning fossil fuels, manufacturing cement, and tropical deforestation contributed an average of 4.1 billion metric tons of carbon to the atmosphere each year, yielding an annual growth rate for atmospheric carbon dioxide of 1.93 parts per million (ppm). 'This is the highest since the beginning of continuous monitoring in 1959,' states the report. The growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide is significantly larger than those for the 1980s and 1990s, which were 1.58 and 1.49 ppm per year, respectively. The present atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is 381 ppm, the largest concentration in the last 650,000 years, and probably in the last 20 million years.

"While the worldwide acceleration in carbon dioxide emissions had been previously noted, the current analysis provides insights into its causes. 'The new twist here is the demonstration that weakening land and ocean sinks are contributing to the accelerating growth of atmospheric CO2,' says co-author Chris Field, director of the Carnegie Institution?s Department of Global Ecology.

"Changes in wind patterns over the Southern Ocean resulting from human-induced global warming have brought carbon-rich water toward the surface, reducing the ocean?s ability to absorb excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. On land, where plant growth is the major mechanism for drawing carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, large droughts have reduced the uptake of carbon.

"Emissions from the burning of fossil fuels constituted the largest source of anthropogenic carbon, releasing an average of 7.6 billion metric tons each year between 2000 and 2006, a significant jump from 6.5 billion tons in the 1990s. Emissions generated by land-use changes such as deforestation have remained constant, but shifted in geographic focus.

"The study also shows that the carbon intensity of the global economy (kilograms of carbon per dollar of economic activity) has increased since 2000 at about 0.3% per year, reversing a 30-year decline of about 1.3% per year. Because practically all proposed scenarios for managing future emissions postulate improvements in carbon intensity in the global economy, this deterioration of carbon intensity presents a serious challenge in stabilizing