The ocean carbon cycle [credit: IAEA]
Of course it does, but there seems a hint of surprise in the findings. It’s long been known that colder water absorbs more atmospheric CO2, just as warmer water absorbs less. Anyone familiar with fizzy drinks knows the story, or ought to. The article here announces that ‘the oceans present vast and promising potential for storing carbon dioxide’. Surely this is not regarded as news? As for potential, it’s always happened.
– – –
The recent cold spell has plunged South Korea into a deep freeze, resulting in the closure of 247 national parks, the cancellation of 14 domestic flights, and the scrapping of 107 cruise ship voyages, says Phys.org.
While the cold snap brought relief by significantly reducing the prevalence of particulate matter obscuring our surroundings, a recent study indicates that, besides diminishing particulate matter, it significantly contributes to the heightened uptake of carbon dioxide by the East Sea.
According to research conducted by a team of researchers, including Professor Kitack Lee from the Division of Environmental Science & Engineering at Pohang University of Science and Technology (POSTECH) and Professor Tongsup Lee and So-Yun Kim from the Department of Oceanography at Pusan National University, the cold atmosphere in the Arctic is influencing the absorption of carbon dioxide by the East Sea.
The research findings were published in Geophysical Research Letters.
The research team investigated the correlation between the East Sea’s surface-deep circulation and its carbon dioxide absorption capacity, drawing insights from 1992, 1999, 2007, and 2019 observations. During the initial period (1992-1999), the ocean absorbed 20 million tons of carbon dioxide annually.
In the subsequent period (1999-2007), this amount decreased to under 10 million tons per year. However, in the final period (2007-2019), the carbon dioxide uptake surged to 30 million tons annually.
The team observed that the internal circulation along the East Coast within the East Sea was influenced by the Arctic cold wave. Cold air from the Arctic infiltrates the East Sea, causing the surface water, laden with carbon dioxide, to become denser. This process induces vertical ventilation as the water descends into the middle and deep ocean layers.
Consequently, the intensified descent of cold air from the Arctic strengthens the internal circulation, leading to a heightened uptake of carbon dioxide in the East Sea.
. . .
In a related development, the team’s earlier research uncovered how the ocean absorbs carbon dioxide. Approximately half of the carbon dioxide generated by human activities remains in the atmosphere [Talkshop comment – assertion with no evidence offered], with the other half entering marine and terrestrial ecosystems.
With a carbon content 400,000 times greater than that of the atmosphere, the oceans present vast and promising potential for storing carbon dioxide.
Full article here.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
‘The recent cold spell has plunged South Korea into a deep freeze, resulting in the closure of 247 national parks, the cancellation of 14 domestic flights, and the scrapping of 107 cruise ship voyages, says Phys.org.’
Global boiling takes a winter holiday. Has everyone stopped burning coal and gas?
Since the subject of this paper is a well known fact I assume the authors were caught up in the ‘publish or perish’ regime at the university especially considering how it can be applied to the ‘global warming’ band wagon.
Have these self-styled “scientists” forgotten their basic physics, the gas laws such as Dalton’s law, Henry’s law and Raoult’s law?
And how about the laws of thermodynamics, all very basic stuff without which it is impossible to have any grasp whatsoever of the processes involved?
Surely such matters ought to be second nature to any serious scientist?
Or – more likely – were they never taught them in the first place?
The point here is fallacious because it is presumptive as regards climate science, which is a particular branch of pseudo science, studied and presented by those more interested in epidemiological methods of proving a belief than the deterministic methods of real science, falsifying a definite theory.
Climate scientists are not real scientists because they overtly do not have the necessary formation, in particular the physics, to understand the subject they claim to be researching. So they will continue to discover things that have been widely known to real scientists for decades, or centuries, and publish it without checking to see what is already known, as if news. That ignorance and denial of what is known is the fundamental nature of the climate scientist, charlatans of no scientific merit, ignorant of much of the science facts they should know, and you identify the key areas of. A science spread by inadqaute “professors” at former technical colleges across the country as “settled science”, by lecturers with no understanding of what they are teaching, by wrote. No physics required.