Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiTHE oceans' ability to act as a "carbon sink" soaking up greenhouse gases appears to be decreasing, research shows, leading to new fears about global warming.
Measurements of the North Atlantic taken by British scientists over the decade from the mid-1990s to 2005 show the level of carbon dioxide in its waters fell by about half over that time.
One of the authors of the study, published on Saturday in a paper for the Journal of Geophysical Research, said the change may have been triggered by climate change and may also accelerate the process by leaving more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Natural processes mean the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is reduced when the gas dissolves into the waters of the oceans which cover much of the surface of the earth, turning them into vast "sinks" storing the carbon safely.
But the new study suggests the amount of carbon dioxide entering the oceans is declining, possibly because warmer global weather has heated the water near the surface.
Professor Andrew Watson, of the school of environmental sciences at the University of East Anglia, said there was no known means to artificially reverse the change.
As the 90,000 measurements, taken automatically by merchant ships as they criss-crossed the Atlantic, had been gathered for only a decade, it was too early to be certain whether they reflected a natural variation in CO2 levels or a man-made trend which could be expected to continue, Professor Watson cautioned.
He acknowledged that the processes driving the change were not yet known with certainty. "To be perfectly honest, we don't know," he told BBC radio. "We suspect that it is climactically driven, that the sink is much more sensitive to changes in climate than we expected.
"Therefore, if you have a series of relatively warm winters, the ocean surface doesn't cool quite so much, you don't get so much subsurface water formed and so the CO2 is not being taken down into the deep water."
He warned that the process may fuel climate change.
"It will be a positive feedback, because if the oceans take up less CO2 then CO2 will go up faster in the atmosphere and that will increase the global warming."
There have been proposals to increase the oceans' capacity to absorb CO2 by "fertilizing" them with iron or by building a network of millions of pipes to circulate water from deeper levels far below the surface.
But Professor Watson warned this would have little effect.
Another proposal to alter the weather has been made by US and Israeli scientists, who have revealed plans to weaken hurricanes and steer them off course to prevent tragedies such as Hurricane Katrina. The $US41 billion of damage done to New Orleans in 2005 has spurred two rival teams of climate experts to step up their efforts to enable people to play God with the weather.
Under a scheme proposed by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, aircraft would drop soot into the near-freezing cloud at the top of a hurricane, causing it to warm up and so reduce wind speeds. Computer simulations of the forces at work in the most violent storms have shown that even small changes can affect their paths - enabling them to be diverted from big cities.
Last month scientists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem said they had simulated the effect of sowing clouds with microscopic dust to cool the hurricane's base, also weakening it.
Press Association; Telegraph, London
Copyright © 2007. The Sydney Morning Herald.
18 Comments so far
Show AllThe problem is not strictly CO2 production, but where that CO2 comes from, if we were to limit the production of CO2 to only that which we can grow from current solar energy - and grow some extra to remove the extra CO2 we've injected into the atmosphere - we can survive. But that means we have to stop using the solar batteries that were produced hundreds of millions of years ago.
Besides, when we run out of fossil fuels we will discover all the other stuff we make from it - just before we all starve to death, naked.
Get busy people, we are on borrowed time!!!!
http://geocities.com/gwlinx
Think about it folks. Humankind cannot even exist without the Earths nauural pocesses like the oceans taking care of mucho Co2.or even the air we breathe for sure is not man made. Throw in that humans cannot exists unless they drink the Earth's water.
Then just why to humans think their little inventions will keep them safe and alive?
It seems the opposite has been true since made learned how to make fire.
Funny isn't it Every animal but humans knows who butters their bread.. Each of those animals contribute something special to this Earth but humans.
And in the Sci Fi Movie Soylent Green Edward G. Robinson finds out from book that the Oceans are dying , so he goes to a suicide center an gets himself turned into Soylent Green. So which one of you will be next. That movie and book seems to have become a reality.
With 6 1/2 billion humans on the planet, all generating CO2, it doesn't take much of a carbon footprint per person for the total amount of CO2 to become excessive. It appears that we have exceeded the capacity of the planet to absorb all of it. We have two fundamental problems, 1) too many people, 2) too much CO2 generated per person.
Since the population is still growing and we are slow to limit CO2 production, we should be making disaster plans to deal with worst-case scenarios. However, being shortsighted we aren't even doing that. This will not have a good outcome.
You know what? I think even dead people emit CO2, unless we could plant trees on all of them.
south korea owns the patent on the microflush toilet(waterless)america flushes its greatest resource down the toilet,but waterless toiletry plumbing will only be installed in third world countries.....if humans were to emit 0% carbon emissions as al gore suggests at the end of his inconvienant truth,a human can only emit 0% carbon emissions if they are dead !is that what you are saying,al ?common and everyday people need to take to the oceans...to help protect the brave people such as greenpeace and sea shepard,who are desperately trying to save what is left for mankind !!to hell with the nefarious nabobs !
At the same time lobbyists on behalf of corporations try to block all progress in limiting CO2 as they only want to sell more and more energy. Probably less than one percent of the world's population benefit from the profits made. This one percent acts like a vacuum cleaner on the incomes and savings of the middle class.
The world should prepare for a giant law suit against these corporations and their beneficiaries, because the moment the negative feedback starts to happen in earnest, processes will be accelerating and the world will need vast amounts of money to try to limit the effects somewhat. By that time all the shareholders and millionaires/billionaires will be on their island or in their gated communities and let those whose money they have taken (the middle class basically) scratch up the money to do something about climate change.
Why should the corporations get away with fooling the people, lying to the media and politicians, using their influence to just generate more profits while wrecking everybody's world ? Why cannot we work towards a pay day and by doing this make corporations and their bullish mindless leaders (cherished only in the US) be more careful today, forcing the greedy ones to be less greedy and to call back their lobbyists.
"To be perfectly honest, we don't know...Therefore..."
Strong-opinions from the confessed-ignorant, No?
A 50%-drop over 15-years -- with about a 1-degree rise in temperature -- simply makes no-sense [nonsense?]. There have been pattern/flow changes (perhaps more-telling than gross temperature-rise, here), but not nearly enough to account for this data and new content...
An Optimist would say it indicates the much-greater ability of the oceans to act as CO2-sinks for atmospheric-content than realized...a Pessimist would reach for litmus-paper, anticipating titration of 'oceans-to-acid' -- "...and the Seas ran Red".
We live in "interesting-times"...
Point to Cosmobilly, we are doing a giant titration experiment. Not only with CO2 but with so many other chemicals. One of the main components of biological systems are negative feedback loops and in well developed systems can be crucial. But when they are the result of outside influences such as a toxin (for an individual) or pollution (for an ecosystem) they can be fatal.
warm liquids have less capacity to store dissolved gases.
The hole in the ozone layer has nothing to do with this.
meanwhile, the hole in the ozone layer over the South Pole has returned to its normal size.
All attempts at alleviation are Pissing in the Wind. The only Way is to NOT burn it in the first place - Duh !
By the way... if we use all the oil we have already discovered without adding in that from newly discovered and undeveloped fields... some twenty five years worth... this planet is toast.
Do you smell smoke? "Nah that's just one of those 150 new coal fired plants they just built. Don't let it bother you...it's just smoke. Hear try this new filter mask. That'll fix the problem."
Correction> At present we smell smoke but others insist that since we don't see an actual fire... we should be discouraged from taking heed of that warning.
I'm heading for higher ground.
Warm water simply has significantly less ability to hold gases in solution than cold water. As the seas warm they may well become carbon sources, releasing what they have soaked up over the last several centuries of our "Big Burn".
Oh boy. Well, I gotta get in the car and pick up a cold soda...
Could there be a chance that the great global CO2 experiment could be like a giant titration experiment? One more drop and boom, instantaneous change of the entire environment?
In any event it certainly appears the system is becoming evident as containing an increasingly significant feedback loop?
If there has ever existed a timeless truth in science it is the inability to realize the finite nature and scope of our mortal understanding.
In the meantime, there are profits to be made, eh?
Recently it was reported that scientists have discovered that the southern oceans around Antarctica have already reached the saturation point and have ceased being a carbon sink. This point was reached several years ago though no one realized it until new testing revealed it.
Now we learn that the northern oceans have lost half of their carbon sequestering ability. We haven't wanted to know for so long that we find ourselves shocked that it has gotten so bad when we do try to find out. This study took ten years yet weren't there indications known in five? Due to a conservative backlash scientists have been afraid to sound early warnings and so we lag behind the data thus delaying meaningful change when earlier intervention would be easier.
When that happens we are like people who will only call the fire department and say that they smell smoke only after they can see a house has caught fire.
At present we smell smoke but insist that since we don't see an actual fire and are discouraged by others from taking heed of the warning. Where there is smoke there is a fire is an axiom. Except for us.