Southern Ocean already losing ability to absorb CO2 – earth – 17 May 2007 – New Scientist Environment — This doesn’t sound good.
One of the world’s largest carbon sinks has stopped soaking up the carbon dioxide that humans are pumping into the atmosphere, according to a new study.
Global warming has caused the Southern Ocean to become windier, churning up the waters so that they are unable to absorb CO2 at the rate we produce it, the researchers say.
The implications are far-reaching, and once more imply that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s projections are conservative: temperatures are likely to rise higher than predicted.
“This is serious,” says Le Quéré. “All climate models predict that this kind of feedback will continue and intensify during this century.”
The Earth’s carbon sinks absorb about half of all human-produced carbon emissions. The Southern Ocean is one of the biggest sinks, absorbing 15% of CO2 emissions. The gas dissolves into the ocean’s surface waters and is stored at cool depths where it is retained far longer than it would be at the warmer surface.
found by TJ Geezer
OH MY GOD!!! We’re all going to DIE!!!!!!
I’m just waiting for the circumpolar current to disappear. Even chickenshit apologists for GM should notice the results of that.
#2 – Waiting?? I thought you were in charge of all this crap!
@1
well done
I too think all of the rigorous scientific investigation surrounding the current conclusions on global warming, including the human causes, and the eventual disastrous consequences can easily be completely dismissed as fear mongering.
I mean clearly the IPCC doesn’t really have any scientific backing for its positions.
oh wait, they have an enormous amount of scientific backing and you’re an idiot.
#4 – You know, you’re right. I’ll take it all back and do my part. At this very moment I promise not to fart for a whole year. That ought to make a measurable change.
Should have prefaced this with an “End of Times” banner. . .
There’s any number of things that can be done to increase CO2 absorption, but for some reason money isn’t being spent to research this. I think people feel that only man-made global warming should be stopped. If it’s a natural process, then we should just let it happen is the thinking. Trying to produce more plankton would be a research experiment. Spend a few million there rather than buying more supercomputers for climate simulations that create huge variations based on guesses for cloud feedback.
Well, John C. says that the leaders and owners of industries that stand to
losenot make trillions of dollars if they act to address the problem contend that it’s not true, and he further asks why we shouldn’t believe that they’re every bit as honest and objective as a group of people who don’t have trillions of dollars at stake?I mean, how could the lure of astronomical wealth dissuade businessmen and investors from doing what’s best for humanity, right? Those noble, selfless people? C’mon…
In other words, why should we assume that the side that stands to receive almost inconceivable benefit (and has unlimited propaganda resources!) isn’t honest?? And conversely, why should we give any special credence to the side which consists of the overwhelming majority of humankind’s experts and authorities on the subject??
I’ve been waiting for JCD to answer this for quite a while. Good thing I haven’t been holding my breath.
#1 – sorry, I shouldn’t have used a word with 4 syllables.
Jeez people, quit panicking. When your carbon sink gets plugged up, just call a carbon plumber!
“Global warming also increases windiness by exacerbating the pressure differences that fuel them.”
We need this to make all the wind farms everyone wants to build work better.
#7,
…but for some reason money isn’t being spent to research this
Good point. Most of the organizations that would be tasked with this don’t have the money or their political overlords are in denial.
We already know that there are huge CO2 absorption sinks. We also know some are being ruined by forest and jungle clearing. This report is just another indicator that nature’s system is also breaking down.
Spend a few million (breeding plankton) rather than buying more supercomputers for climate simulations
Why? We have had many too failures creating new species. Would you really seriously consider creating something and purposely allowing it into the wild?
Oh no!!! We’re all going to die!!! Well, I guess we’ll have to party like it’s 1999. Or is that 2009? Al Gore did say the world will be destroyed by 2010 right? Or was that 20010? A hell. Who knows…I’ll shut up now and go on a nice long cruise in my Hummer H2…
#1 – TheGlobalWarmer,
Yes. The death rate around here is still one per person. The problem is though that the damn homo sapiens keep fucking everything up for ourselves and many other species on the planet. We have already caused a mass extinction greater than the one that took out the non-avian dinosaurs 65.3 million years ago. I hope that you are correct that we will all die at once so that we can leave a habitable planet for the species that remain. Unfortunately, since we are not all committing mass suicide, we must take action to protect the environment to the best of our ability.
#7 – MikeN,
You said, “There’s any number of things that can be done to increase CO2 absorption, but for some reason money isn’t being spent to research this.”
Actually, a lot of money is being spent and/or committed to such research. All such technologies are currently purely theoretical and unproven. It is completely unknown whether we can safely store huge quantities of carbon dioxide underground or underwater and not have it suddenly released.
However, we have the technology right now to make huge cuts in our carbon emissions. We should be spending money on reducing consumption and developing wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal energy, all of which are proven to work. The first three are proven to be at least as cost effective as fossil fuels, especially when the subsidies for fossil fuels are considered.
#11 – TheGlobalWarmer (again)
That post was a joke, right??!!?
Global Warming (TM) is a serious matter. I never joke about it.
“However, we have the technology right now to make huge cuts in our carbon emissions. ” – Can this be done without lowering our standard of living? Don’t want a cure that’s worse than the disease.
“Global Warming ™ is a serious matter. I never joke about it.
“However, we have the technology right now to make huge cuts in our carbon emissions. ” – Can this be done without lowering our standard of living? Don’t want a cure that’s worse than the disease. ”
Or, we could use what is already developed and increase our available energy. Duh!
#15 – TheGlobalWarmer,
Actually, countries that are embracing renewable energy technologies are experiencing significant economic growth. We’re losing the economic as well as the environmental battle.
As for maintaining your precious consumerist lifestyle, I think wasting a bit less will not really affect your life. Further, some changes will be positive, if you’re willing to look at what you really want out of life.
For a simple example, take compact fluorescent bulbs. They’ll save you money on your electric bill while at the same time giving you the potential to upgrade the appearance of your home. How so? Well, you can choose the color temperature of your lighting. Once you see what 4100K looks like, or higher or full spectrum if you prefer, you’ll never want your dingy yellow incandescent and halogen lighting again.
Another example, that may or may not apply to you in particular, once we stop heating our homes to 78 degrees and cooling them to 68 degrees, we can experience far more comfort by having the temps reversed so that our homes are cooler when we’re dressed for winter and warmer when we’re dressed for summer.
CO2 is not the cause of global warming.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455
#18 – Shubee,
I guess it’s fair to post an hour and a quarter video in response to An Inconvenient Truth. But, for each of the facts presented in Al Gore’s film, there are scientific peer-reviewed articles. Perhaps the same is true for your video. Instead of wasting so much of my time watching that though, would you mind posting some peer-reviewed scientific articles?
You see, there is a point you may be missing. There are literally hundreds of climate scientists in the IPCC. Many of them were chosen by nations that have a vested interest in denying global warming, including China, Saudi Arabia, and the United States, the largest coal burner, oil exporter, and oil importer, respectively. In fact, Saudi Arabia gets 96% of their income from oil. So, when their climate scientist says that global warming is real and is human caused, with 90% confidence, I have to ask, what do you know that s/he doesn’t? Or, do you really think that the Saudis have a vested interest in propagating a hoax that would kill their economy?
Anyway, perhaps I’ll watch your video one day when I’m bored out of my skull. If so, I’ll respond then. For now, I’ll wait for peer-reviewed science.
I wasn’t suggesting inventing new species. Rather existing species can be strengthened. The theory is that this could substantially change the oceans’ carbon absorption. Remove the dead spots. It may be that it’s not a worthwhile change to the ecosystem, and perhaps we should just let nature take its course and warm the planet.
Scott, do you really think any changes to combat global warming are going to affect the Saudi economy? They know better. So do the Chinese. The reality is that actions to combat global warming will not be taken in China, and instead they will get more factories if other countries sign up for Kyoto. IT’s working that way for the Russians.
#19 I have noticed you rely on peer reviewed articles as a defense of you position about global warming. What are your thoughts about the veracity the claims though? Don’t you think it would suck if the guys were wrong?
#20 – MikeN,
I think that the Saudis have an interest in having high oil demand and high prices. Yes. As for China, I just recently read that they are starting a huge campaign to fight global warming. And, not being a democracy for good and bad, they will not have any political battles about it. They’ll just do it. They’re going to leave us far behind. Also, remember that even if they surpass our CO2 output next year, as predicted, they’re doing it with more than 3 times our population. So, we’re still the biggest per capita climate criminals on the planet. And also yes, I really do think knowingly killing people for no reason is a crime. IPCC is now forecasting a billion climate refugees. How many will die?
#21 – KVolk,
Well, it is true that peer-review is not perfect. It is also true that scientists have been wrong in the past. I recently heard, and am trying to find the source, that you can find more medical doctors that will deny a definite link between smoking and cancer than climate scientists to deny the link between CO2 and global warming. But, whether true or not, it is not the point.
The point is that without peer-review, anyone can say anything. A bunch of blithering idiots on a blog can have a nice long debate about the value of peer review. Or, we can quote IPCC that we already have documented 0.75 degrees Celsius in global warming. Or, we could just make stuff up. Did you know that 72.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot?
Peer-review is the best we’ve got. Peer-review kept science on track and provided the science behind the technology you use everyday. Why give up on it now?
Lastly, do I think it would suck if the guys were wrong? No. I’d be thrilled.
Presumably though, you meant, do I think it would suck if we actually spent a lot of effort on reducing greenhouse gases unnecessarily? Again, no.
Everything we need to do to reduce global warming is something we need to do anyway.
1) 70-130,000 people per year in the U.S. alone die of air polution.
2) Terrorism costs money. Bombs, training, reimbursement of the families of the suicide bombers, etc all cost money. The money is mostly oil money. Every unnecessary gallon of gasoline we burn funds terrorism.
3) We are already past peak oil. We’ll run out. We need to get off oil anyway.
4) Coal is dirty. Every coal plant releases mercury and other toxins into the environment. And many toxins get carried around the world. Inuit women have such high levels of mercury (and PCBs, though unrelated) in their breast milk that it can literally be classified as toxic waste.
5) Oil spills destroy the environment. They are inevitable.
6) Wars are fought over oil. We’re in one now.
7) Conserving energy just makes sense no matter what the source.
I’m sure I could go on, and probably have on other posts here and/or on the Mother Jones blog, but I’m getting a bit tired tonight.
#19. There are experts in climate science in the video link I posted and the whole production is extraordinarily entertaining and informative. I’m only sharing it for entertainment value, not scientific certainty.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455
Scott, that’s just it. The Chinese statements on global warming are ways to make more money, and will not actually reduce their emissions. The only emissions reductions they get is because their factories are not as efficient as those in Europe and America, and they might equalize on that point. The Chinese are not actually going to reduce their emissions. They are going to take Europe’s money to act like they are, the same as Russia.
My point about the Saudis is that regardless of what the scientists do, the government is smart enough to not get affected. Just look at how Europe isn’t reducing its emissions even after promising to do so under Kyoto.
So the scorecard appears to be:
US not reducing emissions
China not reducing emissions
Russia not reducing emissions
Europe not reducing emissions
Japan not reducing emissions
Australia not reducing emissions
Canada ???
Brazil???
India not reducing emissions
Some countries are lowering their emissions per GDP.
MikeN – if you really wish to differentiate your prattle from typical neocon agitprop, you’re going to have to come up with reliable sources for your nut dreams.
I’m not taking the time, this morning, to cite chapter and verse to you; but, sound international scientific bodies have verified – for example – last years reduction in emissions in China. Their criticism of efforts in their own press were for failure to reach reduction targets.
#24 – MikeN,
Even if true, though I expect a mix of varying degrees of truth in all of that, how does this argue that global warming is not a serious threat to our species? Will it matter if we die because everyone is pointing fingers at everyone else for not doing anything? In short, if all of those countries are jumping off their respective bridges, does it mean we must as well? Remember, we here in the U.S. are still the number one country in carbon emissions and have been for many decades. We are, more than anyone else on the planet, responsible for the severity of our current state of affairs.
Scott, you’re the one who’s been saying that the Chinese, US, and Saudis being at these conferences somehow makes it proof positive that global warming is happening. I’m pointing out that that logic is flawed. Those countries aren’t doing what you think they’re doing.
It could be that global warming is a severe threat. It could even be man-made. My suspicion is that the man-made part and the severity will be deemphasized in the future. The scientists are already peeling back some of their excesses. To do more than that is asking too much of scientists. They’re human too and won’t admit to error so quickly.
China is set to become the world’s largest emitter. Now if China is decreasing emissions as you say, then this means that the US must have decreased even more. Either that or their reduction stopped last year, or the reduction you cite is perhaps a reduction in emissions per gdp which is believable.
#28, MikeN
Your arguments remind me of what most mothers ask their children.
“So, if everyone else is jumping off the bridge, you want to too?”
So if, as you claim, no one else is trying to reduce CO2 and other green house gas emissions, then either should we? Maybe you should rethink this whole thing through.
#19. “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” – Richard P. Feynman.