The long-feared saturation of one the world's primary carbon sinks has apparently started. The BBC reports, "The amount of carbon dioxide being absorbed by the world's oceans has reduced."
After 10 years and more than 90,000 ship-based measurements of CO2 absorption, University of East Anglia researchers reached this stunning conclusion:
CO2 uptake halved between the mid-90s and 2000 to 2005.
The BBC writes: "Scientists believe global warming might get worse if the oceans soak up less of the greenhouse gas."
Sigh. Note to the BBC, you don't need a double hedge: If you're going to just say "might get worse" you surely can drop "Scientists believe." Frankly I doubt you can find many, if any, reputable scientists -- or even the few remaining deniers -- who would say that if the ocean sink saturates, global warming won't get worse. I would probably phrase it this way: Global warming will accelerate if the oceans soak up less of the greenhouse gas.
The researchers say, "it is a tremendous surprise and very worrying because there were grounds for believing that in time the ocean might become 'saturated' with our emissions -- unable to soak up any more."
Why is that bad news?
Of all the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, only half of it stays there; the rest goes into carbon sinks.
There are two major natural carbon sinks: the oceans and the land "biosphere." They are equivalent in size, each absorbing a quarter of all CO2 emissions.
If the oceans stop taking up CO2, the atmosphere will inevitably take up more, accelerating global warming.
One question to readers: the BBC says this work is "published in a paper for the Journal of Geophysical Research." I can't find the paper online. If anyone finds a link, please send it to me, and I'll excerpt and post it.
Related Posts:
- Are scientists overestimating -- or underestimating -- climate change? Part I
- Are scientists overestimating -- or underestimating -- climate change? Part II
- Are scientists overestimating -- or underestimating -- climate change? Part III
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
James Bond calls for more marine protected areas
Plastic bags are the enemy of the ocean
Comments
View as Threaded
hekatonkheire Posted 8:05 pm
23 Oct 2007
You posted on Climate Progress recently about how scaring the crap out of little kids (and everyone else) is probably counterproductive in the long run.
I would tend to agree. In particular, your tendency to report climate change research as seen through the lens of your apparent operating assumption that, basically, we're all doomed, and with the scary words conveniently highlighted for easy skimming, is really, really relentlessly depressing. I'm all for solving the problem. I just find it hard to do what needs to be done if I have to reconvince myself that there's even any hope left at all after reading one of your articles (which is something I typically do by going and reading your original sources, which are inevitably less pessimistic than your summaries).
James Hansen, by contrast, has a lot of scary things to say, but I'm eternally grateful that his position on all of it - soot in the arctic, the precedent for really rapid sea level rise, all of that - is that, well at least this means that that utopian renewable-energy future we need is coming that much sooner, because humanity collectively now has absolutely no choice but to develop it. And that's something to look forward to. Whereas all your articles offer is the prospect of inexorable catastrophe.
Alex Murray.
Permalink
justlou Posted 10:10 pm
23 Oct 2007
Alex Murray.
"really rapid sea level rise"
Would you please explain how this differs from the "prospect of inexorable catastrophe"?
How in the hell is hearing the "prospect of inexorable catastrophe" from James Hansen make it any more palatable than hearing it from Joseph Romm?
Or why does that mean "that utopian renewable-energy future we need is coming that much sooner, because humanity collectively now has absolutely no choice but to develop it." I would really like to know what signs you are seeing out there that this utopian future you hope for is coming that much sooner. There are obviously some pretty powerful forces we are dealing with that do not see any alarm or are discounting the alarm enough to keep us daudling until the "inexorable catastrophe" is upon us.
If anything, judging from the priority most people place on global warming in the polls, most people do not clearly perceive the alarm or have shut their eyes and ears to any signs of impending catastrophe. At least you are listening to James Hansen.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 4:48 am
24 Oct 2007
I was wondering WHY the ocean is becoming less of a sink for CO2. I think there's an issue with the word "saturation" also, since oceans can absorb an infinite amount of CO2 as carbonic acid and other forms. So perhaps some explaining would help me understand what is going on with CO2 and the oceans - last I checked carbonic acid was causing mayhem on coral reefs and was in fact INCREASING due to climate change.
Obviously, ocean pathways of CO2 uptake from the atmosphere would be complex, since oceanic biomass does not have leaves exposed to ambient are - only intertidal seaweed can absorb CO2 directly from the atmosphere and that is probably trivial.
I'm not being mean here - I just want to know what the heck is going on. Thanks! /sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink