The ocean carbon cycle [credit: IAEA]
Shockingly – for some – nature’s ocean carbon cycle is functioning quite well, despite constant attempts by feckless humans to undermine it [/sarc]. Time to revisit those troublesome computer models yet again.
– – –
The world’s oceans soak up more carbon than most scientific models suggest, according to new research, reports Phys.org.
Previous estimates of the movement of carbon (known as “flux”) between the atmosphere and oceans have not accounted for temperature differences at the water’s surface and a few metres below.
The new study, led by the University of Exeter, includes this—and finds significantly higher net flux of carbon into the oceans.
It calculates CO2 fluxes from 1992 to 2018, finding up to twice as much net flux in certain times and locations, compared to uncorrected models.
“Half of the carbon dioxide we emit doesn’t stay in the atmosphere but is taken up by the oceans and land vegetation ‘sinks’,” said Professor Andrew Watson, of Exeter’s Global Systems Institute.
“Researchers have assembled a large database of near-surface carbon dioxide measurements — the “Surface Ocean Carbon Atlas” (http://www.socat.info) — that can be used to calculate the flux of CO2 from the atmosphere into the ocean.
“Previous studies that have done this have, however, ignored small temperature differences between the surface of the ocean and the depth of a few metres where the measurements are made.
“Those differences are important because carbon dioxide solubility depends very strongly on temperature.
“We used satellite data to correct for these temperature differences, and when we do that it makes a big difference—we get a substantially larger flux going into the ocean.
“The difference in ocean uptake we calculate amounts to about 10 per cent of global fossil fuel emissions.”
Full report here.
Nature Communications (2020): “Revised estimates of ocean-atmosphere CO2 flux are consistent with ocean carbon inventory”
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
All this just proves that the so called ‘climate scientists’ know next to nothing about how the climate works or what it means to be a scientist. Yet despite all their failed predictions since 1970 they still manage to fool all the gullible politicians and so cost the tax payers of the world a fortune.
Maybe we will get too many fish.
Got to be some kind problem with getting too many fish- say all those mouth breathers
using up the oxygen, or something.
Reblogged this on Utopia, you are standing in it!.
Study: We conclude that, when correctly applied, two data-led independent estimates for the ocean sink for CO2, based respectively on observations of the surface flux and the interior inventory of CO2, agree within relatively well-constrained uncertainties. The sink so determined is larger than most ocean carbon models predict, and suggests that some revision of the global carbon budget is required. [bold added]
– – –
CO2-based climate theories still won’t work, but at least the data will be less faulty.
“…relatively well-constrained uncertainties…”?
Now that’s a rice krispie mallow.
The correction “amounts to about 10 percent of global fossil fuel emissions”.
A mosquito on the back of an elephant.
https://edberry.com/blog/climate-physics/agw-hypothesis/human-co2-emissions-have-little-effect-on-atmospheric-co2-discussion/
the modern version of ‘how many angels can dance on the head of a pin’
scientific models suggest
Suggest? But ‘the science is settled’ 😎
How did the ocean part of the carbon cycle work during the Mesozoic (250-65 million years ago) with 1000-2000 ppm CO2? The biosphere was in vibrant health on land and sea. Where was the carbon apocalypse? How were the carbon “sinks” not “overwhelmed”?
I guess a Brontosaurus was a carbon sink.
All these carbon cycle stories are short-sighted, fantastical and inconsistent with the evidence of palaeo-history.
And no – the “dim sun” lower past insolation won’t play a role as recently as the Mesozoic.
I suspect most of the purported CO2 uptake in the oceans comes from raindrops. The interface area where this occurs in the atmosphere is very large in comparison with the area of the oceans.
This report is arguing from ignorance!
From the effects of desert dust on the ocean surface, to underwater volcanoes affecting water temperature and chemistry — we just don’t fully understand.
From https://norwegianscitechnews.com/2015/06/we-know-more-about-the-moon-
than-the-ocean-floor/
So how many underwater volcanoes are there, where are they, and how do they each change the chemistry of the local waters and the oceans and seas in general. We have no long term records of how the oceans have changes over say the last 300 years or longer, so we can not say with any certainty what has happened recently is influence by man or (more likely) natural events.
The world’s oceans soak up more carbon than most scientific models suggest …
SOCAT gets it numbers from GOOS. GOOS is sponsored by the UN and WMO, and appears to incorporate the IPCC models in their analysis. Click on the ‘Climate’ red button on the left of this graphic
https://www.goosocean.org/index.php? option=com_content&view=article&id=120&Itemid=277 .
Both links have been broken when posted
The first
https://norwegianscitechnews.com/2015/06/we-know-more-about-the-moon-than-the-ocean-floor/
The second
https://www.goosocean.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=120&Itemid=277
Hopefully this works.
All previous modeling has been invalidated. You know, like the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report.
And the 4th.
And the 3rd.
Of course, you would have to be a chump to believe any of it, anyway.
Good grief! This diagram is wrong. Co2 from the atmosphere is only found in the top few meters of the Ocean. Geothermal activity puts out millions of tons of CO2 and CH4 into the oceans which rise into the atmosphere. NASA has photographed Methane coming from the Atlantic rift and measured in cubic miles. Methane by the way is broken down in the presence of sunlight and Oxygen into CO2 and H2O.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
If they can admit they are wrong about CO2 uptake by the oceans, maybe they can be wrong about venting of CO2 from the oceans. Maybe since 1850 and as the oceans gradually warm, the oceans have been a CO2 net contributor to the atmospheric CO2.
Maybe they know as much about the oceans as they do about clouds.
Admitting some cloud error is as close as most climate modellers come to admitting their projections are not fit for purpose. From the debate on this study https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab97c9 at https://theconversation.com/why-clouds-are-the-missing-piece-in-the-climate-change-puzzle-140812
these Klimate Klowns haven’t gotten even close to reality with their junk science and likely never will until we get a super massive quantum computer… HOWEVER… GIGO rules in computerland.