Arctic Sea Ice : Forum

AGW in general => Science => Topic started by: Bruce Steele on March 01, 2013, 04:59:16 PM

Title: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 01, 2013, 04:59:16 PM
Here is a model which gives future temps., pH, and productivity for the earths large water masses. In discussions you can download the full article.
 

Multiple stressors of ocean ecosystems in the 21st century: projections with CMIP5 models
Posted: 28 Feb 2013 12:44 AM PST
Ocean ecosystems are increasingly stressed by human-induced changes of their physical, chemical and biological environment. Among these changes, warming, acidification, deoxygenation and changes in primary productivity by marine phytoplankton can be considered as four of the major stressors of open ocean ecosystems. Due to rising atmospheric CO2 in the coming decades, these changes will be amplified. Here, we use the most recent simulations performed in the framework of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 to assess how these stressors may evolve over the course of the 21st century. The 10 Earth System Models used here project similar trends in ocean warming, acidification, deoxygenation and reduced primary productivity for each of the IPCC’s representative concentration parthways (RCP) over the 21st century. For the “business-as-usual” scenario RCP8.5, the model-mean changes in 2090s (compared to 1990s) for sea surface temperature, sea surface pH, global O2 content and integrated primary productivity amount to +2.73 °C, −0.33 pH unit, −3.45% and −8.6%, respectively. For the high mitigation scenario RCP2.6, corresponding changes are +0.71 °C, −0.07 pH unit, −1.81% and −2.0% respectively, illustrating the effectiveness of extreme mitigation strategies. Although these stressors operate globally, they display distinct regional patterns. Large decreases in O2 and in pH are simulated in global ocean intermediate and mode waters, whereas large reductions in primary production are simulated in the tropics and in the North Atlantic. Although temperature and pH projections are robust across models, the same does not hold for projections of sub-surface O2 concentrations in the tropics and global and regional changes in net primary productivity.


Bopp L., Resplandy L., Orr J. C., Doney S. C., Dunne J. P., Gehlen M., Halloran P., Heinze C., Ilyina T., Séférian R., Tjiputra J. & Vichi M., 2013. Multiple stressors of ocean ecosystems in the 21st century: projections with CMIP5 models. Biogeosciences Discussions 10: 3627-3676. Article.


 Also includes O2.  Many of these trends are stressors to biological communities and they also have synergistic effects , one stressor compounding another.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: gfwellman on March 01, 2013, 09:42:53 PM
Quote
For the “business-as-usual” scenario RCP8.5, the model-mean changes in 2090s (compared to 1990s) for sea surface temperature, sea surface pH, global O2 content and integrated primary productivity amount to +2.73 °C, −0.33 pH unit, −3.45% and −8.6%, respectively.
Ok, tell me I'm not the only one for whom those numbers are a "Holy ---k" moment.  Not the first one - actually it's less alarming than many projections.  But the others ... kiss seafood goodbye, prepare for war over food produced on land, and wheeze like an asthmatic while fighting for that food.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: ritter on March 01, 2013, 10:36:31 PM
Quote
For the “business-as-usual” scenario RCP8.5, the model-mean changes in 2090s (compared to 1990s) for sea surface temperature, sea surface pH, global O2 content and integrated primary productivity amount to +2.73 °C, −0.33 pH unit, −3.45% and −8.6%, respectively.
Ok, tell me I'm not the only one for whom those numbers are a "Holy ---k" moment.  Not the first one - actually it's less alarming than many projections.  But the others ... kiss seafood goodbye, prepare for war over food produced on land, and wheeze like an asthmatic while fighting for that food.

Just one more bit of evidence that business as usual can not continue if we wish to leave a home for our children.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 01, 2013, 11:03:21 PM
GFWellman, The projections are for what happens if we hit  900 -1000 ppm Co2. The transfer of atmospheric Co2 into the oceans is a chemical reaction but the transfer of that Co2( carbonic acid ) into the ocean depths is dependent on biological processes. The decrease in primary productivity also effects the transfer of Co2 into the deep ocean sink. The oceans are the ultimate destination for most of the Co2 we produce. They will continue to acidify for 200 to three hundred years should we make the mistake of proceeding on the BAU path. 
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: gfwellman on March 02, 2013, 12:38:39 AM
Actually, I misread that abstract (or read it too quickly).  I thought the O2 was atmospheric - which in retrospect I should've realized I was misunderstanding.  So it's still a pretty grim picture but not what I was thinking.  Very grim for anyone who gets most of their protein from the sea - which a quick google suggests is about 1 billion people.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 02, 2013, 01:45:10 AM
http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/bgd-10-3627-2013 (http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/bgd-10-3627-2013)               Hopefully this will link to full discussion paper in biogeoscience.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: StuartC on March 02, 2013, 03:09:58 AM
If it helps, there's a direct link to download the paper as pdf here:

http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/10/3627/2013/bgd-10-3627-2013.pdf (http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/10/3627/2013/bgd-10-3627-2013.pdf)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Edheler on March 02, 2013, 04:15:18 AM
That is a pretty scary paper. Thanks for the link!
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Lynn Shwadchuck on March 02, 2013, 10:40:25 PM
Yes, thanks for that paper. Very scary charts. I assume everyone here saw this 2009 lecture on the state of the oceans with regard to seafood production. After that I pretty much won't touch fish. The decreases in population have been fudged for decades. Mostly over-fishing, but these global warming related effects are just polishing them off.

Brave New Ocean - Lecture by Dr. Jeremy Jackson, UCLA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fRPiNcikOU#)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Lynn Shwadchuck on March 02, 2013, 10:41:37 PM
Did I break a rule by embedding that video?
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: gfwellman on March 02, 2013, 10:59:14 PM
Nope.  There's a thread where "how to embed a video" was worked out.  :-)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 03, 2013, 04:46:18 AM
Here's an old piece http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kwing/media/Steele_OceanAcidification.pdf (http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kwing/media/Steele_OceanAcidification.pdf)         I wrote for National Fishermen five years ago. I am a fisherman and climate campaigner. The California Current is more acidified than world  ocean averages due largely to upwelling of north pacific intermediate waters. As the Bopp et al paper says intermediate waters are acidifying rapidly. NPIntermediate waters form as the cold Oyashio current mixes with the warm salty Kuroshio current. The water sinks and carries organic matter to depths >500 meters where bacteria consume and remineralize it. 35 to 50 years after the waters left the surface they upwell with dissolved Co2 doubled to about 800 ppm here on the west coast of north America .   Fall freeze up of sea ice drives cold salty water to depth.  So if at some point the sea ice fails to form so too the downwelling will weaken or fail.   The freeze-up hasn't failed yet and the 8.6% decrease in primary productivity projected for 2100 Bopp et al  is still a ways into the future. The  oceans in my opinion are not dying and fish stocks locally are not in bad shape. If we don't burn the  remaining proven carbon reserves we have a chance to avoid the worst.           
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 05, 2013, 06:16:29 AM
Ocean acidification
 
Ocean acidification
Ocean acidification (video)
Impacts of ocean acidification on marine organisms: quantifying sensitivities and interaction with warming
Acid test: threat to oceans may also harm Great Lakes
Ocean acidification seminar to open Maine Fishermen’s Forum this Thursday, February 28
Effects of ocean acidification, temperature and nutrient regimes on the appendicularian Oikopleura dioica: a mesocosm study
Ocean acidification
Posted: 27 Feb 2013 05:11 AM PST
The oceans play a central role in the maintenance of life on Earth. Oceans provide extensive ecosystems for marine animals and plants covering two-thirds of the Earth’s surface, are essential sources of food, economic activity, and biodiversity, and are central to the global biogeochemical cycles. The oceans are the largest reservoir of carbon in the Planet, and absorb approximately one-third of the carbon emissions that are released to the Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities. Since the beginning of industrialization, humans have been responsible for the increase in one greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide (CO2), from approximately 280 parts per million (ppm) at the end of the nineteenth century to the current levels of 390ppm. As well as affecting the surface ocean pH, and the organisms living at the ocean surface, these increases in CO2 are causing global mean surface temperatures to rise.


Iglesias-Rodriguez M. D., 2013. Ocean acidification. In: Orcutt J. (ed.), Earth System Monitoring, pp 269-289. New York: Springer. Book chapter (subscription required).


 
 

Ocean acidification (video)
Posted: 27 Feb 2013 02:50 AM PST



California Academy of Sciences, Science Today, 25 February 2013. Video.


 
 

Impacts of ocean acidification on marine organisms: quantifying sensitivities and interaction with warming
Posted: 26 Feb 2013 09:14 AM PST
Ocean acidification represents a threat to marine species worldwide, and forecasting the ecological impacts of acidification is a high priority for science, management, and policy. As research on the topic expands at an exponential rate, a comprehensive understanding of the variability in organisms’ responses and corresponding levels of certainty is necessary to forecast the ecological effects. Here, we perform the most comprehensive meta-analysis to date by synthesizing the results of 228 studies examining biological responses to ocean acidification. The results reveal decreased survival, calcification, growth, development and abundance in response to acidification when the broad range of marine organisms is pooled together. However, the magnitude of these responses varies among taxonomic groups, suggesting there is some predictable trait-based variation in sensitivity despite the investigation of approximately 100 new species in recent research. The results also reveal an enhanced sensitivity of mollusc larvae, but suggest that an enhanced sensitivity of early life history stages is not universal across all taxonomic groups. In addition, the variability in species’ responses is enhanced when they are exposed to acidification in multi-species assemblages, suggesting it is important to consider indirect effects and exercise caution when forecasting abundance patterns from single species laboratory experiments. Furthermore, the results suggest that other factors, such as nutritional status or source population, could cause substantial variation in organisms’ responses. Last, the results highlight a trend towards enhanced sensitivity to acidification when taxa are concurrently exposed to elevated seawater temperature.


Kroeker K. J., Kordas R. L., Crim R., Hendriks I. E., Ramajo L., Singh G. S., Duarte C. M. & Gattuso J.-P., in press. Impacts of ocean acidification on marine organisms: quantifying sensitivities and interaction with warming. Global Change Biology. Article                                                                            A much newer synopsis of biological response based on results of many different species, and additional stressors.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 06, 2013, 06:30:10 PM
AbruptSLR, I have a concern about the decrease in Antarctic bottom water formation and the associated effects on the carbon cycle. Atlantic deep water formation is responsible for about 50% of the carbon transport to the depths and the other half is delivered by Antarctic deep water formation. The approximate lifespan of these waters is 1000 years before they are upwelled back to the surface in the eastern equatorial pacific. If the rate of Antarctic deep water formation has been reduced 60% then there must be an associated reduction in the carbon pump. Do you know of any papers which attempt to quantify effects of the ADW formation on the carbon cycle ?  It goes without saying that either a decrease in primary productivity or a slowdown in deep water formation would result in more Co2 accumulating in  surface waters and the atmosphere. This is a positive feedback which I haven't seen adequately described but the lifespan of these drivers would span tens of thousands of years. I have an interest in how AGW plays out in biological terms which means trying to understand bacterial remineralization, viruses, yeasts and carbonate chemistry. Thanks in advance for any insight you can   lend.       I reposted this query to AbruptSLR because any changes in deep water formation will have large and longterm feedbacks on the carbon pump.  A 60% drop in Antarctic deep water formation is another one of those jaw dropping figures that makes my head spin.   
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 07, 2013, 07:12:23 PM
I made a mistake in my last post. Although a large percentage of anthropogenic Co2 is subducted in Atlantic Deep Water formation, in the Antarctic anthropogenic Co2 leaves the surface in Antarctic Intermediate Water formation processes.   See Sabine et al 2004.      On a time scale of thousands of years it is estimated 90% of anthropogenic Co2 emissions will end up in the oceans. Archer et al. 1998.   Most of our Co2 legacy will end up in the deep oceans but due to slow mixing of water masses other than Atlantic Deep water ,it will take a long time to get there.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 09, 2013, 08:53:14 PM
As stated in the first carbon cycle post, warming, acidification, deoxygenation and changes in primary productivity are the major stressors of open-ocean ecosystems.  Ocean warming is driven by atmospheric temperature increases, acidification by increasing CO2, deoxygenation by stratification and bacterial remineralization of organic matter.  Salinity changes also affect calcium carbonate saturation (important in estuaries and nearshore). 

 Seminal papers on ocean acidification – Caldeira & Wicket, 2003; Royal Society 2005 – have been followed by a decade of expanding research.  On the west coast of North America, oyster aquaculture was challenged with major crashes in larval oyster production, mortality events at d-hinge stage (<4 days old), and near total failure of wild oyster recruitment in Washington State.

 A university researcher, Alan Barton, who worked closely with Whiskey Creek hatchery, a major oyster production facility at Netarts OR,  made the connection between upwelling events (strong offshore winds) and larval oyster recruitment failure.  (See Barton et al 2012).  With the addition of autonomous sensors to monitor pH and pCO2 at their ocean intake pipes, they have avoided most massive die-offs by not pumping during low pH conditions, thus avoiding introducing acidified, corrosive water into the hatchery.

 Fishermen, aquaculturists and researchers have joined forces to monitor these changes.  Buoys with autonomous pCO2 monitors at HOTS and BATS have documented the open-ocean decline of pH.  Nearshore and estuarine systems are subject to upwelling, fresh water inputs and high biological productivity.  This makes nearshore changes in carbonate chemistry more dynamic.

 We have formed a research and monitoring collaboration called C-CAN  (California Current Acidification Network).  We have a website – http://c-can.msi.ucsb.edu (http://c-can.msi.ucsb.edu) – which, along with archiving current news, research papers and communications efforts, maintains a list of active autonomous pH sensors (buoy data) on the west coast.

 Buoys sometimes fail, and biofouling interferes with the sensor probes, but patterns appear over time nonetheless.  We would like to develop a network of autonomous sensors to measure pH, pCO2, tCO2, salinity and temperature accurate enough to describe the aragonite saturation state of seawater at locations in the California Current, particularly near shore.   Five years ago no such instrumentation was available, but in major oyster production facilities, we now have three systems in place  (and a fourth one operational soon), which can in real time describe aragonite saturation.  This is adaptation on the hot-seat of climate change.  A quote from Alan Barton:  “I feel like I’m living in the future.”  We all are!
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 10, 2013, 07:23:27 PM
http://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=66246&pt=2&p=59368. (http://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=66246&pt=2&p=59368.)                      Here are some very nice graphics relating to acidification of the Arctic Ocean.   Fresh water from melting sea ice and large riverine sources reduces seawater alkalinity and contributes to current and future undersaturated conditions. As the permafrost melts frozen organic matter can add to contributions of Co2 released by bacterial remineralization. Projections for 2016 are 10% of the Arctic Ocean will be undersaturated but by 2050 the entire Arctic Ocean will be undersaturated part of the year.  There is undersaturation documented off the mouth of the Kuskokwim River in the Bering Sea. Along the edge of the shelf where the river freshened sea water meets the basin water which seasonal shoals ,areas of undersaturation occur. For some reason Tanner Crab aggregate in these areas. High productivity at the shelf break also increase coccolithophore blooms which naturally suppress carbonate mineral saturation. It is the addition of anthropogenic Co2 that will enlarge these current conditions until large areas of the Arctic and Bering Sea shelf waters are corrosive. I will follow up with a source for the Bering Sea research done by Jessica Cross and Jeremy Mathis at The University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 10, 2013, 09:20:38 PM
http://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=66246&pt=2&p=59368 (http://www.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=66246&pt=2&p=59368)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 28, 2013, 05:49:18 PM
Here is a talk that predicts the current acidification and hypoxia along the coasts of Washington ,Oregon and California will proceed to anoxia and hydrogen sulfide production. We had a  large die-off of Dungeness crabs and invertebrates in Oregon during hypoxic ,low pH conditions in 2006. Although hypoxia has reoccured annually since the fish-kills haven't. Hydrogen Sulfide is nasty stuff and should it occur coastal residents will realize the problems we have bestowed upon our oceans will not be strictly a problem for fish and fishermen.   
The College of the Environment and the School of Oceanography invite you a lecture featuring renowned ocean chemist and Walker-Ames Scholar, Peter Brewer. Hear him discuss the implications a changing climates has on the oceans in his talk titled: Common sense chemistry and a true tipping point for climate right off our shores.

About the Lecture:
Warming of the oceans is reducing oxygen content with important consequences for the survival of marine life. The implications of this can be far-reaching, but the basic problem can be described and understood quite simply: oxygen is less soluble in warm water,
and microbes decompose organic matter faster at higher temperatures. While the basic facts are clear, it is only recently that scientists have begun to understand the scale of this problem. In some areas, such as off the West Coast of the U.S., the effects can be so dramatic that toxic hydrogen sulfide gas is likely to appear there for the first time in tens of millions of years.

Brewer will describe and quantify the problem, discuss the fragile chemical buffer that now exists, and show video footage illustrating the cascade of processes unleashed by decreased oxygen levels, transforming viable fisheries into bacterial ghost towns.

When:    Tuesday, April 30, 2013 at 6:30 p.m.

Where:   School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences Auditorium, Seattle Campus
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on April 05, 2013, 11:10:35 PM
It takes time to test( stress test) various species to the effects of increased Co2  and reduced pH . Here is an important paper on how two very important  crab species respond to a near future pH of 7.5.  Juvenile Red King Crab suffer 100% mortality after 90 days exposure.  These are multimillion dollar industries for Alaska .    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0060959 (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0060959)
As an indication of how soon we can expect 7.5pH there aren't autonomous pH sensors deployed at depth in Alaska. Grab samples show undersaturation <7.8 pH in the Bering Sea but here in Southern Calif. at 87 meters we have 7.66 pH for weeks on end at a buoy near SanDiego. For Alaska and the Russian far east surface undersaturation < 7.8 pH is expected within 20-30 years, and at depth we can expect the area in the Bering Sea to expand rapidly. There are also areas near the mouth of the McKenzie River with documented undersaturation.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on April 11, 2013, 06:09:30 PM
Major reductions in the fatty acid ( FA ) content of diatoms in response to climate change may seriously impact food webs. " Algae inhibiting brine channels of the ice ,in particular diatoms, contribute significantly to primary production in ice covered polar areas, providing a substantial carbon source to higher levels."           Discussion paper at link below.                                                             http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/10/6637/2013/bgd-10-6637-2013.html (http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/10/6637/2013/bgd-10-6637-2013.html)       
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: ggelsrinc on April 12, 2013, 03:44:31 AM
Major reductions in the fatty acid ( FA ) content of diatoms in response to climate change may seriously impact food webs. " Algae inhibiting brine channels of the ice ,in particular diatoms, contribute significantly to primary production in ice covered polar areas, providing a substantial carbon source to higher levels."           Discussion paper at link below.                                                             http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/10/6637/2013/bgd-10-6637-2013.html (http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/10/6637/2013/bgd-10-6637-2013.html)     

Speaking of ocean acidification, have you came across any studies that looked at CO2 emissions on top of all the other acid rain we've spread around the world since the industrial revolution? I recall a time as a child when the rain didn't sting your eyes and when the Milky Way was easily visible within the city limits. There is definitely more to the change in clear skies than light pollution, because I've been going to the same mountain areas since I was a young child and had a good telescope since my early teens. On the east coast of the US, I've had some experiences with rain so acid you just couldn't see with stinging eyes and had to get away from it. I would think production records could be used for accurate calculations.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on April 12, 2013, 06:10:15 AM
ggelsrinc,  I thought you said you were a chemist by training so maybe you can answer this better than I can. Here is emissions of chemicals that cause acid rain.  When coal is burned, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury compounds are released. For that reason, coal-fired boilers are required to have control devices to reduce the amount of emissions that are released.

The average emission rates in the United States from coal-fired generation are: 2,249 lbs/MWh of carbon dioxide, 13 lbs/MWh of sulfur dioxide, and 6 lbs/MWh of nitrogen oxides.3

Mining, cleaning, and transporting coal to the power plant generate additional emissions. For example, methane, a potent greenhouse gas that is trapped in the coal, is often vented during these processes to increase safety.

Oil
Burning oil at power plants produces nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, methane, and mercury compounds. The amount of sulfur dioxide and mercury compounds can vary greatly depending on the sulfur and mercury content of the oil that is burned.

The average emissions rates in the United States from oil-fired generation are: 1672 lbs/MWh of carbon dioxide, 12 lbs/MWh of sulfur dioxide, and 4 lbs/MWh of nitrogen oxides.4

In addition, oil wells and oil collection equipment are a source of emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. The large engines that are used in the oil drilling, production, and transportation processes burn natural gas or diesel that also produce emissions.
Add up sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides produced and compare them to the 30+ giggatonnes of Co2 emitted annually.  The oceans are absorbing 10+ giggatonnes of Co2 emissions annually so my question to you is how many tons of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are the oceans absorbing?
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Jim Williams on April 12, 2013, 02:22:06 PM
When I moved from Washington State to Massachusetts in 1970 one of the first things I noticed was how the rain stung.  I also had to learn that the direction to the ocean was called East.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: ggelsrinc on April 12, 2013, 04:44:19 PM
ggelsrinc,  I thought you said you were a chemist by training so maybe you can answer this better than I can. Here is emissions of chemicals that cause acid rain.  When coal is burned, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury compounds are released. For that reason, coal-fired boilers are required to have control devices to reduce the amount of emissions that are released.

The average emission rates in the United States from coal-fired generation are: 2,249 lbs/MWh of carbon dioxide, 13 lbs/MWh of sulfur dioxide, and 6 lbs/MWh of nitrogen oxides.3

Mining, cleaning, and transporting coal to the power plant generate additional emissions. For example, methane, a potent greenhouse gas that is trapped in the coal, is often vented during these processes to increase safety.

Oil
Burning oil at power plants produces nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, methane, and mercury compounds. The amount of sulfur dioxide and mercury compounds can vary greatly depending on the sulfur and mercury content of the oil that is burned.

The average emissions rates in the United States from oil-fired generation are: 1672 lbs/MWh of carbon dioxide, 12 lbs/MWh of sulfur dioxide, and 4 lbs/MWh of nitrogen oxides.4

In addition, oil wells and oil collection equipment are a source of emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. The large engines that are used in the oil drilling, production, and transportation processes burn natural gas or diesel that also produce emissions.
Add up sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides produced and compare them to the 30+ giggatonnes of Co2 emitted annually.  The oceans are absorbing 10+ giggatonnes of Co2 emissions annually so my question to you is how many tons of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides are the oceans absorbing?

There is a little more to it than that to calculate all those emissions from the industrial age that would acidify an ocean. We get a lot of CO2 from making cement and many ores are sulfides, like nickel, zinc, lead, mercury, silver and copper. We also have the sulfur emissions to make coke for the steel industry. We make a lot of hydrogen sulfide making paper. There's a lot of hydrogen sulfide in natural gas, sometimes 90%. If it's taken out of the ground, it has to be somewhere and the Earth has plenty of sulfur, it's a cheap nasty fuel. Sewage is another source for H2S and rice production for methane and it's all going to acidify.

We can remove some of the metal pollutants and mercury tends to get the most press, but those scrubbers aren't very efficient. If there are other metals around, like cadmium, vanadium and arsenic, it will find it's way into that coal and other fuels. Sometimes coal deposits have a sulfur layer that will spontaneously ignite in areas where it's been piled up from a coal mine.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Jim Williams on April 12, 2013, 06:01:11 PM
There is a little more to it than that to calculate all those emissions from the industrial age that would acidify an ocean. We get a lot of CO2 from making cement and many ores are sulfides, like nickel, zinc, lead, mercury, silver and copper. We also have the sulfur emissions to make coke for the steel industry. We make a lot of hydrogen sulfide making paper. There's a lot of hydrogen sulfide in natural gas, sometimes 90%. If it's taken out of the ground, it has to be somewhere and the Earth has plenty of sulfur, it's a cheap nasty fuel. Sewage is another source for H2S and rice production for methane and it's all going to acidify.

We can remove some of the metal pollutants and mercury tends to get the most press, but those scrubbers aren't very efficient. If there are other metals around, like cadmium, vanadium and arsenic, it will find it's way into that coal and other fuels. Sometimes coal deposits have a sulfur layer that will spontaneously ignite in areas where it's been piled up from a coal mine.

Yummy stuff for a silicon based being.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on April 12, 2013, 06:24:58 PM
ggelsrinc,  Of course there are natural cycles for nitrogen, sulfur, and Co2. You were talking about acid rain. So2 and nitrogen oxides are the primary cause. U.S. Emissions of So2 reduced 83% in last few
decades.
 NOx emission by U.S. not increasing. Acid rain on the U.S. East coast reduced as a result.  73% of So2 emissions are from power plants , 20% for other industries.  If you compare the ~ 19 pounds of So2+ NOx to the 2,249 lbs. of Co2 emitted per MWh of energy produced in power plants you can get a rough approximation of So2+NOx to Co2 at 1%.   Not counting lesser sources.  So just ballpark says 99% of ocean acidification is from Co2 emissions. You are a chemist so you can figure this out yourself.  Co2 emissions have gone up from~ 22.5 billion tons( gt ) to ~ 32 gt  1990-2012. That is what is causing ocean acidification. 
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: ggelsrinc on April 13, 2013, 01:12:20 AM
ggelsrinc,  Of course there are natural cycles for nitrogen, sulfur, and Co2. You were talking about acid rain. So2 and nitrogen oxides are the primary cause. U.S. Emissions of So2 reduced 83% in last few
decades.
 NOx emission by U.S. not increasing. Acid rain on the U.S. East coast reduced as a result.  73% of So2 emissions are from power plants , 20% for other industries.  If you compare the ~ 19 pounds of So2+ NOx to the 2,249 lbs. of Co2 emitted per MWh of energy produced in power plants you can get a rough approximation of So2+NOx to Co2 at 1%.   Not counting lesser sources.  So just ballpark says 99% of ocean acidification is from Co2 emissions. You are a chemist so you can figure this out yourself.  Co2 emissions have gone up from~ 22.5 billion tons( gt ) to ~ 32 gt  1990-2012. That is what is causing ocean acidification.

You're a fisherman and you can't see that I mentioned years of acid rain emissions on top of CO2 emissions. I live between two estuaries and what do you think happens when it rains and the pH is 2.4? It's a big ocean experiencing the "Revelle Factor" with CO2 and that isn't the case with acid rain, which can concentrate in a local area with runoff. It doesn't surprise me these areas are considered the most vulnerable. This diagram puts 22% of CO2 emissions going into the oceans, so the contributions of other things besides CO2 to ocean acidification get changed by multiples and the world involves more than just a power plant. To come up with an honest assessment of things contributing to ocean acidification involves a lot more than just looking at power plant emissions.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fd%2Fd5%2FCarbon_cycle.jpg&hash=95141ec81df4d1053fde5f702304372c)

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F0%2F0c%2FAcid_rain_woods1.JPG%2F800px-Acid_rain_woods1.JPG&hash=9850b0247b721deeb1e4583201806d15)

I'd say most the carbon from that forest that was destroyed will get converted back to CO2 shortly.

Yes, we have cut back some on SO2 emissions to the air by using flue-gas desulfurization, which uses lime and lime is made from heating limestone above 825 C which gives off CO2. That's why manufacturing cement causes so much CO2 emissions and obviously fuel is needed to heat it. In the process, the ways the Earth has sequestered CO2 gets involved and has to do it all over again.

Much of that exported US coal is refined coal, so if you ever run across someone complaining about government subsidies for alternative energy, use it to compare. It's subsidized more for the electricity generated than solar and wind. Coal does a great job just laying in the ground and gases like natural gas are much easier to clean and transport. Alaska would be our number #1 producer of natural gas, but the oil companies didn't build a pipeline for it, because they viewed natural gas as competition to crude oil. The natural gas is used to the warm crude oil for transport and the rest is pumped back into the ground. When you're in a lab and want to collect nasty things, carbon is the first thing that enters your mind. If there is uranium around or other nasty metals, it will collect it. The potential pollutants depend on where coal is mined. It's common to have electrostatic precipitators gather some of the metals on top of scrubbers in power plants and oil refineries, because crude oil also has metals.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on April 13, 2013, 04:38:07 AM
ggelsrinc,  I am a fisherman and I have been at it  for 40 years, since I was 20. You are correct in pointing out terrestrially supplied runoff can exacerbate local pH conditions in estuaries. Fresh water even without acid rain is more acidic than the open ocean. Increased Co2 and phytoplankton blooms( that concentrate Co2 at the surface and release it at depth) together with increased nutrients from wastewater effluents and reduced O2 due to heating of the oceans all add up trouble for marine life. I post here on the carbon cycle because the interactions of biogeochemistry fascinate me but when I know someone has a strong chemistry background I get nervous. I could no more debate a chemistry major/ Phd than I could a geneticist . I try to link peer reviewed science when I post to provide a little cover.      The carbon cycle graphic you linked shows a 2 gt  carbon sink which gets deposited into the reactive sediments in waters above the saturation horizon. In the deep oceans ( below the saturation horizon )the carbonates dissolve and become part of the 37,000 gt  carbon pool in the deep oceans. The saturation horizon is shoaling( getting closer to the surface ) 1-2 meters per year in the Pacific and 4 meters per year in the Atlantic. As it shoals it dissolves some of the reactive sediments and a portion of the long term carbon sink disappears. The dissolved Co2 can go back into the atmosphere when those deep waters upwell  back to the surface in the eastern equatorial pacific . So we humans are dumping 10 gt carbon annually while the ocean can only store 2 gt of that carbon long term(hundreds of thousands of years). The rate this is occurring is many times greater than anything we can find in the fossil record. Here on the west coast of North America the aragonite saturation horizon will shoal to the surface in less than 50 years. Calcite( another form of calcium carbonate) will take longer but once shoaled to the surface it will take tens of thousands of years for enough terrestrially supplied alkalinity to rebalance the surface waters to 8.2 pH. Scares the hell out of an old salty dog. Very few people understand carbonate chemistry, I am an amateur. Life on this planet is dependent on the outcome of our little experiment...my opinion ,with the disclaimer, I am an amateur.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: ggelsrinc on April 13, 2013, 02:22:18 PM
Bruce Steele-

I was looking for studies involving sources of acidification other than CO2. I did find something related to my thinking under Chesapeake Bay, but couldn't find anything but a ton of studies talking about CO2 in Google Scholar, so it is being studied for that particular area. 

Quote
Yet while acidity is increasing in the more saline regions of the bay, the opposite is happening in the less saline waters, according to the study.  Lead author of the study, Dr. George Waldbusser   of Oregon State University, said “The regional changes in acidity revealed in our analysis are greater than what could be caused by increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide alone.”

Source: http://www.celsias.com/article/chesapeake-bay-acidity-affects-sea-life/ (http://www.celsias.com/article/chesapeake-bay-acidity-affects-sea-life/)

Here is the watershed:

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F9%2F9b%2FChesapeakewatershedmap.png%2F543px-Chesapeakewatershedmap.png&hash=5e1f920d2d4df33c5400238c1c1ae206)

The reason I brought it up is I've heard about the acidification along the east coast of the US is projected to being higher earlier. I do recall times where acid rain was so bad it forced you to get away from it. 2.4 is the pH of distilled vinegar and it's a strange feeling to have rain force you away, when it isn't even raining that hard.

That article says the Chesapeake Bay annually produces more fish and shellfish than any estruary in the country.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on April 13, 2013, 05:51:39 PM
ggelsrinc,  If the acidity was being modified by terrestrial sources one would expect the changes to be greater in the fresh water component rather than the saline waters. When I see George I will ask him but it might be a couple months. The pH is only one part of what is required to determine the saturation state of any particular water sample. TA ( total alkalinity ) is supplied by riverine inputs from bicarbonate . Bicarbonates are supplied by siliceous rock(olivine and serpentine ) which contain magnesium carbonate or karst landscapes which supply bicarbonate from calcium carbonate.  The buffering  of bicarbonate changes the saturation state ( the solubility of calcium carbonate). For the purpose of determining biological impacts on marine life we use aragonite saturation and for quality we need to know aragonite saturation within .2 degrees of accuracy. Aragonite saturation>1 is saturated and values <1 are undersaturated. Pacific Oysters suffer mortality at 1.5 but at 1.7 they are just a little drunk.  To monitor the pH and dissolved Co2 in seawater we have buoys. There is one at Grey's Reef Georgia . For buoy data see my C-CAN link on former post Mar. 9 , click buoy data. Pacific Marine Environmental Labs ( PMEL ) maintains dozens of buoys in the pacific and some in the Atlantic.             

 
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: ggelsrinc on April 14, 2013, 01:45:53 PM
Bruce Steele-

It is counter-intuitive to find more acidity in the more saline area, particularly in that place. The scientist say this:

Quote
The scientists believe that the diversity in acidity levels within the bay waters causes significant changes in the estuary's ecosystem.  Nutrients from sewage systems and agricultural runoff promote an increase in phytoplankton in the upper bay. As these plants grow they absorb large amounts of carbon dioxide, resulting in less acidic waters in those regions.  At the same time, when the phytoplankton are carried toward the ocean by the bay's currents, they are consumed by bacteria and animals that then release the carbon dioxide taken up the by phytoplankton.  This stays in the water making it more acidic.

Source: http://www.celsias.com/article/chesapeake-bay-acidity-affects-sea-life/ (http://www.celsias.com/article/chesapeake-bay-acidity-affects-sea-life/)

...and that's hard to swallow since phytoplankton don't live that long. It sounds like the phytoplankton graveyard hypothesis. What's more amazing is that more acidic higher saline area is the site of the largest known bolide impact in the country (Chesapeake Bay impact crater) and the marine impact area was rich in lime. There is also the Toms Canyon impact crater off Atlantic City which they think may have been the same event around 35 million years ago. At the time of impact, the shoreline was further west near Richmond.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fc%2Fca%2FChesapeake_Crater_boundaries_map.png&hash=ca64b081f35b0e796037eb17d4a4c86a)

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Ff%2Ffe%2FChesapeake_Crater_profile_view.png&hash=2e0b5702b57409a817aa57753238ce4e)

The impact explains why that whole area is rich in bivalves. The Chesapeake Bay once supplied over half the oysters consumed in the world and the Delaware Bay is also a rich estruary. I've been to beaches where the beach sand was mostly carbonates, like broken up shells.

There has been some marsh destruction down in the lower Chesapeake Bay by the nutria (coypu, river rat). I think they've been eradicated on the Delmarva Peninsula, but they are still in marshes on the west side of Chesapeake Bay. Since these marshes are nitrogen limited and span areas of natural drain, they are also having problems with agricultural runoff and poultry is a common business. I've seen large piles of waste without even a tarp to limit runoff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuAlrh4yjPw# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuAlrh4yjPw#)

Hypertrophication is Dr. George Waldbusser's explanation for the additional acidity and it was the desire to combat algae blooms that motivated the study. Oysters are only around 1% of their historic population in the Chesapeake Bay and they are trying to restore this keystone species to improve water quality. The catch-22 is in some places they want to use oysters to improve water quality, but they don't do it because of concerns that people will get hold of oysters unfit for consumption. They claim you could once see down 20 feet in the Chesapeake when the Europeans arrived, because there were so many oysters filtering the water. This unfortunately isn't a picture of celebrating Saint Patricks's Day on the Potomac:

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F3%2F36%2FPotomac_green_water.JPG%2F450px-Potomac_green_water.JPG&hash=d9997476285237d9ebbeedf695362e9e)

http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/oyster-restoration-study-kroeger.pdf (http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/oyster-restoration-study-kroeger.pdf)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: JackTaylor on April 20, 2013, 05:18:51 PM
Massive amounts of charcoal enter the worlds' oceans

The researchers analyzed water samples from all over the world. They demonstrated that soluble charcoal accounts for ten percent of the total amount of dissolved organic carbon.
Read more at http://www.sciencecodex.com/massive_amounts_of_charcoal_enter_the_worlds_oceans-110754#xsTMYvCsa2vLZbCI.99 (http://www.sciencecodex.com/massive_amounts_of_charcoal_enter_the_worlds_oceans-110754#xsTMYvCsa2vLZbCI.99)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on April 20, 2013, 07:06:11 PM
Jack, From the article. " Surprisingly,in any river across the world about ten percent of organic carbon that is dissolved in the water came from charcoal." " According to these estimates, about 25 million tons of dissolved charcoal is transported from land to the sea each year." So the total dissolved organic carbon(DOC) transport from this study is ~ 250 million tons per annum delivered from riverine sources to the oceans. There are also large amounts of particulate organic carbon(POC) delivered from riverine sources which through organic processes are converted into (DOC) dissolved organic carbon and dissolved inorganic carbon(DIC) once they flow into the oceans.   What would be helpful would be some calculations on the labile and semi-labile fractions of the (DOC) delivered from land to the sea. That is does the carbon delivered to the ocean get quickly converted into (DIC) or is there a fraction that enters a longer term carbon sink?       
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: JackTaylor on April 21, 2013, 06:49:23 PM
"does the carbon delivered to the ocean get quickly converted --- or is there a fraction that enters a longer term carbon sink?"     
Good Question(s). Hopefully they'll follow-up in future research.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: frankendoodle on April 22, 2013, 10:36:36 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/ancient-snail-shells-hint-future-global-warming-191044808.html (http://news.yahoo.com/ancient-snail-shells-hint-future-global-warming-191044808.html)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on April 23, 2013, 02:27:26 AM
frankendoodle,  Here's the abstract. The writer of your post was deep time challenged.                       http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/04/19/1210930110.abstract (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/04/19/1210930110.abstract)

                           
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on May 08, 2013, 05:52:02 PM
There are a few places around the world where Co2 vents into the oceans from volcanic activity. These sites offer the opportunity for researchers to study what projected Co2 increases will do to various taxa in real world conditions. There were only a few foraminifera that went extinct during the acidification event during the PETM. Larger ,longer acidification events during the end Permian caused the extinction of many more lifeforms. This new paper projects foraminifera extinctions to begin within the next 80 years based on how they respond to current conditions near Co2 vents in New Guinea. The shallow water tropical foraminifera can't handle 7.9 pH.  The fossil record is clear because calcium carbonate shells build up in shallow seas and drilled core samples can document past changes and extinctions. Because world average ocean pH will drop to ~ 7.8 by 2100 with BAU we can expect foraminifera to begin to go extinct by then but if we push projections another 100 years to 2200  surface ocean pH will drop to ~ 7.6 even if we curtail our Co2 inputs when we hit 1000ppm in the atmosphere . The atmosphere and the surface oceans will equalize partial pressures of Co2 long after we quit burning fossil fuels. (We are retracing the end Permian, terrestrial extinctions will follow. My opinion)        http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130503/srep01769/full/srep01769.html (http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130503/srep01769/full/srep01769.html)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on May 08, 2013, 06:17:48 PM
 The above link is having server problems but it worked earlier.   EPOCA blog has this article today.   Type foraminifera into the search box 
http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/ (http://oceanacidification.wordpress.com/)                   
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on May 13, 2013, 05:57:21 PM
This is a paragraph from the foraminifera paper. I would think this would garner more attention than it has so far. Extinction and lack of adaptability should ring bells .                                                        "Several mass extinctions of deep sea benthic foraminifera occurred in the geological past, most of which were linked to increased pCO2 and/or temperature, but some geological studies from shallow reef environments also observed increased foraminiferal dominance when corals became rare. None of these previous extinctions were as severe as the ecological or even taxonomic extinction in shallow carbonate areas we predict. Previous natural pCO2 increases occurred one to two orders of magnitude slower and were associated with less reduced calcite or aragonite saturation states than the anthropogenic increases presently observed."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: wili on May 13, 2013, 07:12:11 PM
This from Boa05att at the blog:

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2013/05/greenland-snow-drought-spells-trouble.html#comments (http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2013/05/greenland-snow-drought-spells-trouble.html#comments)

Quote

A new paleoclimate study in Science suggests that climate sensitivity in the arctic is even higher than previously thought, and that the GIS was likely to have frequently been in an almost ice free state.

' “One of our major findings is that the Arctic was very warm in the Pliocene [~ 5.3 to 2.6 million years ago] when others have suggestedatmospheric CO2 was very much like levels we see today. This could tell us where we are going in the near future. In other words, the Earth system response to small changes in carbon dioxide is bigger than suggested by earlier models,” the authors state. '

Press release:
http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/ice-free-arctic-may-be-our-future-say-umass-amherst-international-researchers (http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/ice-free-arctic-may-be-our-future-say-umass-amherst-international-researchers)

See this excellent talk for a presentation of the results:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxbOSB7zDgY&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxbOSB7zDgY&feature=player_embedded)

This is also being vigorously discussed over at CP:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/12/1993531/climate-sensitivity-stunner-last-time-co2-levels-hit-400-parts-per-million-the-arctic-was-14f-warmer/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/12/1993531/climate-sensitivity-stunner-last-time-co2-levels-hit-400-parts-per-million-the-arctic-was-14f-warmer/)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Lewis C on May 15, 2013, 04:35:56 PM
Can anyone give a clear outline - and or links to succinct papers - on the propensity for oceanic carbon dioxide outgassing in the event of airborne CO2 being peaked and then reduced by human agency ?

My interest in this stems from concern over just how long ocean acidification will be maintained even under our best efforts at a global program of carbon recovery.

Regards,

Lewis
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on May 15, 2013, 09:42:19 PM
Lewis, The eastern tropical pacific has upwelling that year round delivers Co2 enriched waters to the surface . Co2 is ventilated into the atmosphere as a natural process when partial pressures of dissolved Co2 exceed the partial pressure of the atmospheric Co2 concentrations. It's more complicated than that including temperature and salinity but here is a paper that describes and quantifies current fluxes.                                                                                                          http://www.biogeosciences.net/6/149/2009/bg-6-149-2009.pdf (http://www.biogeosciences.net/6/149/2009/bg-6-149-2009.pdf)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on May 16, 2013, 05:52:49 PM
Lewis,  the oceans will uptake ~ 80 % of anthropogenic Co2 in the hundreds of years timescale(Archer1997) see link. The time it takes the ocean to drop back to current dissolved Co2 levels or pH levels is dependent on total Co2 emissions. Caldiera and Wicket ran models that show where BAU takes ocean pH and how long it stays acidified under various emission pathways. The question of what is the future of ocean currents and the MOC ?and how will ocean heating and the slowdown of Antarctic Bottom Water formation ultimately change equatorial upwelling is still open.                http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_research/pdf/Caldeira_Wickett_JGR2005.pdf (http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_research/pdf/Caldeira_Wickett_JGR2005.pdf)          http://earthref.org/ERR/16966/ (http://earthref.org/ERR/16966/)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on June 12, 2013, 06:28:33 PM
It is melt season and focus is watching ice right now. Acidification is continueing apace but there aren't satellite pictures or weather models to watch on a daily basis. Just models and numbers from the few buoy's. We can look back at buoy archives from the last decade and see the drop in ocean pH and with a good degree of confidence predict how pH will change as we move into the future.  This latest paper by Hauri et al describes how conditions will change here along the coast of California over the next 30-40 years. " Undersaturation will become very likely the norm near the seafloor by 2030 and if atmospheric Co2 increases beyond~500ppm, this layer will become permanently undersaturated. Combined with a fourfold increase in intensity , the resulting increase in severity of low aragonite saturation state events will substantially affect the viability of calcifying organisms and will alter ecosystem structure.".    A full version of the paper is linked in the PDF ( open source ).                       http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50618/abstract;jsessionid=CA9DE3A01F49B3F2954F3CD8BEDCE858.d02t01 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50618/abstract;jsessionid=CA9DE3A01F49B3F2954F3CD8BEDCE858.d02t01)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: ritter on June 12, 2013, 08:09:57 PM
This latest paper by Hauri et al describes how conditions will change here along the coast of California over the next 30-40 years.

Thanks (?) for this. As a fellow Californian, I'm horrified at the thought of such radical changes to our coast. It has always represented for me that "bigness" that would be forever constant and has provided wonder, inspiration and comfort--perhaps much like others get from faith. We have left no stone unturned in our even handed destruction of our home.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: LurkyMcLurkerson on June 12, 2013, 10:29:04 PM
Part of the issue that will come up for many of the questions people ask in this thread is that the ocean chemistry of CO2 is actually pretty complicated -- it has been a long time since my quantitative analysis coursework, but we did focus on the chemistry quite a fair amount, and as I recall, there is a _very_ complex set of equilibria -- carbon dioxide to carbonic acid to bicarbonate to carbonate, the bicarbonate acting as a buffer, all of the concentrations on each other, and depending also on temperature.

I'm sure you're broadly aware of this already, looking at some of the things you've linked above, but my point is that underneath things like Bjerrum plots, oceanic pH and concentrations/solubilities of carbonate compounds are extremely complex. In ways I find incredibly disquieting, to be clear. With little idea how much heat is pumping into the deep oceans alongside the increasing [CO2 etc], I am extremely worried for the health of the deeper waters and for more benthic species as the hotter-than, low aragonite waters upwell and mix. Those upwelling areas will also create areas of altered CO2 dissolution, much more quickly than I think anybody has anticipated.

But I am no expert in this stuff, and my chemistry knowledge here is... we'll just say it's been a while. It is, though, one of the things I've found really deeply concerning as I've started to see evidence of greater heat than anticipated feeding into ocean systems, though. I don't believe that most modeling has accounted sufficiently for the effect that will have on the equilibrium concentrations of the various reactants and products in the pathway; I think that the ocean is taking in far more heat than we anticipated, deeper than we thought, and that will have profound effects on the pH we're talking about, too.   
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on June 13, 2013, 03:02:53 AM
  Lurky,  The chemistry is a challenge for most people ,myself included. The biological responses are equally difficult to research and understand and the monitoring instruments necessary for pH, total alkalinity, or pCo2 all require good calibration and maintenance.  How the ocean moves Co2 from surface waters into intermediate or deep waters , where those sources are and the time and processes that ultimately are responsible for their transport back to the surface I find fascinating. Antarctica and the southern oceans play a very large part.  The contribution of particulate organic carbon and dissolved organic from terrestrial sources and the parts that DOC and POC play in the carbon cycle all make the subject difficult.  These processes are ultimately responsible for maintaining ocean health and productivity. They provide a sink for carbon produced by living organisms both aquatic and terrestrial. Aragonite and calcite saturation state is recorded in the deep ocean strata so we have a record of how the ocean responded to Co2 perturbations in the past.  We have good evidence that acidification has been a part of some of the large extinction events over the last 250 million years. We also are quickly ( thirty years ) approaching  a state of ocean chemistry that hasn't happened since the PETM(56 million years)  for large parts of nearshore shelf waters and polar waters worldwide.  The PETM does not qualify as a large extinction event but there were extinctions of foraminifira.  The processes that balance ocean pH are dependent on rain carrying alkalinity from silica minerals or terrestrial carbonates back into the oceans and it takes tens of thousands of years to rebalance ocean pH after an acidification event. Because the processes of rebalancing pH are slow the rate of atmospheric Co2 increase determines the severity of acidification events. A large Co2 increase over a 100,000 thousand year time period doesn't result in acidification. A large increase over 200 years is unpresidented and the acidification event we are going to get may well be larger than the PETM event.  So for me understanding the exact mechanisms of carbon chemistry aren't as important as understanding what the fossil record has to say. Even if we slow down our emissions trajectory it will have zero ( 200 years to burn 5000 gt carbon or 500 years to burn it ) impact on the ultimate ocean pH. We have to leave a substantial part of the proven fossil fuel reserve buried. Waiting 40 more years with BAU is a road to the sixth extinction .   
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Laurent on June 17, 2013, 09:46:31 AM
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1832.html (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1832.html)
There is a study that may connect the carbon cycle and the nitrogen cycle !?
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: wili on June 17, 2013, 10:41:47 AM
Carbon Dioxide Is ‘Driving Fish Crazy’

http://climatestate.com/magazine/2013/06/carbon-dioxide-is-driving-fish-crazy/ (http://climatestate.com/magazine/2013/06/carbon-dioxide-is-driving-fish-crazy/)

Another highlight from last year's finding on how much CO2 uptake interferes with our crucial environment.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Apocalypse4Real on June 24, 2013, 04:58:45 PM
In regard to Arctic Ocean acidification, I have been watching the O-Buoy 7 CO2 readings for several weeks. They seem to be running between 465-480 ppm. If this is the CO2 release across broad areas of the Arctic Sea ice, it is very troubling.

The chart is attached, and link is: http://obuoy.datatransport.org/monitor#buoy7/co2 (http://obuoy.datatransport.org/monitor#buoy7/co2)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on July 09, 2013, 04:26:37 PM
Here is a thesis paper on acidification of the arctic ocean. Based on previous work the paper projects a switch to smaller Phytoplankton, increased bio-productivity and undersaturation of Arctic influenced waters. Atlantic influenced waters will still be saturated in 2100. Increased bio-productivity will lead to an intensification of the carbon pump causing deep waters to acidify at an increasing rate. The thesis is linked and written in a understandable way.
https://bora.uib.no/handle/1956/6744
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: wili on July 14, 2013, 04:05:06 PM
Apologies if this has already been linked:


http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-Nature-Science-Carbon-Tipping-Point-Coming.html (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-Nature-Science-Carbon-Tipping-Point-Coming.html)

Quote
there are 3.1 billion tons of extra carbon being added from the atmosphere.  Since carbon dioxide is a very stable compound, it will stay in the atmosphere for many years.  If we assume that this same kind of flux will be more or less maintained from now until the end of the century (the “end of now” time-frame that I talk about in my book), the atmospheric concentrations of carbon will grow by close to 50%. This is a major difference that directly affects our energy balance with the sun.

3.1 billion tons is less than half of what we emit into the atmosphere (red broken arrows in the picture).  The difference means that both the earth and its oceans have now become net “sequesters,” or absorbers of the excess carbon dioxide that we produce.  Vegetation and soil, in the form of enhanced growth because of the carbon dioxide that fertilization contributes, and areas of the ocean that absorb carbon dioxide, contribute as well.  As the temperature rises, the capacity of these methods of compensation is expected to decrease, until they reach the point where both the earth and our oceans no longer absorb the carbon dioxide, but instead reverse themselves to be net emitters.  Some would call this a “tipping point.”

This makes us part of the physical system that we investigate, and negates, at least in my mind, the option of waiting with remedies until the consequences of these changes are absolutely certain.  Science tells us that the danger exists, so the remedies should be approached as an insurance premium.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: ananthapriya on July 30, 2013, 06:26:02 AM
The wood burned off just a few years ago could have created co2 which through photosynthesis became part of a plant. When you eat that place, the same carbon from the wood which was burnt can become part of you.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Apocalypse4Real on July 31, 2013, 06:00:31 AM
It seems an area of high CO2 concentration registered on the METOP 2 IASI imagery on July 29, 12-24 hr.

The highest concentration was 447 ppm. I cannot narrow to an exact location, but suspect Antarctica.

Image attached.

 
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on August 29, 2013, 04:46:08 PM

 
 

Effects of low pCO2 conditions on sea urchin larval size
Posted: 23 Aug 2013 12:46 AM PDT
Ocean acidification results from an increase in the concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) impacts on marine calcifying species, which is predicted to become more pronounced in the future. By the end of this century, atmospheric pCO2 levels will have doubled relative to the pre-industrial levels of 280 ppm. However, the effects of pre-industrial pCO2 levels on marine organisms remain largely unknown. In this study, we investigated the effects of pre-industrial pCO2 conditions on the size of the pluteus larvae of sea urchins, which are known to be vulnerable to ocean acidification. The larval size of Hemicentrotus pulcherrimus significantly increased when reared at pre-industrial pCO2 level relative to the present one, and the size of Anthocidaris crassispina larvae decreased as the pCO2 levels increased from the pre-industrial level to the near future ones after 3 days’ exposure. In this study, it is suggested that echinoid larvae responded to pre-industrial pCO2 levels. Ocean acidification may be affecting some sensitive marine calcifiers even at the present pCO2 level.


Suwa R., Nojiri Y., Ono T. & Shirayama Y., in press. Effects of low pCO2 conditions on sea urchin larval size. Marine Ecology. Article (subscription required).
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on August 29, 2013, 05:04:48 PM
The last post says Atmospheric Co2 will have doubled by 2100 but we have the resources to push atmospheric past 900.
http://theconversation.com/change-the-fundamentals-and-you-are-in-an-ocean-of-trouble-17460 (http://theconversation.com/change-the-fundamentals-and-you-are-in-an-ocean-of-trouble-17460)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Laurent on September 29, 2013, 10:11:54 PM
Interesting study about possible involvement of the viruses in the carbon cycle !
http://www.mpi-bremen.de/en/Viruses_and_algae_in_the_Sea.html (http://www.mpi-bremen.de/en/Viruses_and_algae_in_the_Sea.html)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on September 30, 2013, 02:30:14 AM
Laurent, Viruses can also attack bacteria and release polysaccharides. The polysaccharides are more difficult to remineralize than simple sugars ,it takes several months to remineralize them. This semi-labile carbon can mix into deeper depths than the more labile carbon processes like the one described in the article linked above from Bremen although the article doesn't talk much about the fate of the crystal like  structures in the picture.Viruses do play a  role in the carbon cycle and the processes 
that transform Dissolved organic matter ,and Particulate organic matter ,into Dissolved
Inorganic Carbon( remineralization )  I would venture to say there is much to be learned about the interaction of viruses and bacteria in the carbon cycle and various carbon sinks. 
        http://plankt.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/08/12/plankt.fbr069.full (http://plankt.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/08/12/plankt.fbr069.full)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on October 09, 2013, 06:33:05 AM
Here is some of the latest news on both the politics and science on California Current acidification.
  "Here on the California coast, deep water rises to replace surface water driven offshore by seasonal winds. Ironically, the upwelling that fuels the biological bounty of the California Current brings acidified water toward the surface. Recent computer models predict that conditions here will reach a critical point for shell formation in mollusks and other marine creatures by 2050."

http://baynature.org/articles/ocean-acid-trip-hidden-harm-climate-change/ (http://baynature.org/articles/ocean-acid-trip-hidden-harm-climate-change/)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: ritter on October 09, 2013, 07:22:37 PM
Here is some of the latest news on both the politics and science on California Current acidification.
  "Here on the California coast, deep water rises to replace surface water driven offshore by seasonal winds. Ironically, the upwelling that fuels the biological bounty of the California Current brings acidified water toward the surface. Recent computer models predict that conditions here will reach a critical point for shell formation in mollusks and other marine creatures by 2050."

http://baynature.org/articles/ocean-acid-trip-hidden-harm-climate-change/ (http://baynature.org/articles/ocean-acid-trip-hidden-harm-climate-change/)

So sad. I can't imagine a lifeless California coast. But I guess that's where we are heading. You can't destroy the food web without serious repercussions.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on October 10, 2013, 07:22:37 AM
Ritter, The quote above wasn't mine but it should say ' some mollusks '.  Some mollusks have a nacre covering their calcium carbonate shells, some can better cope than others by internally compensating against changing seawater pH. Many mollusks do seem sensitive however and I shouldn't be nitpicking over a quote I chose to link in an otherwise very sound piece.
 I try to think about the potential impacts of any changes in the carbon cycle. Recent work that showed a change from larger to smaller phytoplankton in mesocosm studies portends changes in the oceans ability to move surface water pCo2 into deeper waters . The lifetime of various carbon sinks varies greatly but the deep oceans can hold Co2 for more than a thousand years. Surface water can release Co2 back into the atmosphere if the difference in partial pressure favors ventilation . The point is we don't want to interrupt the carbon sink , we are messing with feedbacks that take tens to hundreds of thousands of years rebuild once they are compromised . Given enough time almost all the carbon we produce will end up in the ocean.  The ocean could handle all the fossil fuel carbon we could throw at it if it were released over a 100,000 timeframe. It can't handle 5,000 giggatonnes of carbon in 300 or even a 1000 years however. 2000 years to burn all the fossil fuel reserves would still result in acidified oceans and extinctions .             
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: ccgwebmaster on October 10, 2013, 02:23:41 PM
The ocean could handle all the fossil fuel carbon we could throw at it if it were released over a 100,000 timeframe. It can't handle 5,000 giggatonnes of carbon in 300 or even a 1000 years however. 2000 years to burn all the fossil fuel reserves would still result in acidified oceans and extinctions .           

And of course it also can't/won't handle massive potentially abrupt releases of carbon from natural feedbacks on track to occur pretty much whatever humanity does now. That's the real killer - the system is dead on it's feet, it just doesn't know it yet.

I have you to thank(?) for dispelling my initial naive assumptions that the oceans would recover nicely without the pressure of billions of people exploiting and degrading them, leaving a world of marine plenty for people in the future. Instead it seems the oceans are going bye bye, at least as a reliable food source and diverse ecosystem.

My assumption now is that the ocean will substantially simplify and anoxic regimes will increase substantially (if not prevail) - is there any grounds to expect that any portion of the rich and diverse ecosystem the ocean still represents even now will persist in any regions? (and if so, in which regions?)

One can only plan on what seems probable and practical...
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: ritter on October 10, 2013, 06:40:56 PM
The ocean could handle all the fossil fuel carbon we could throw at it if it were released over a 100,000 timeframe. It can't handle 5,000 giggatonnes of carbon in 300 or even a 1000 years however. 2000 years to burn all the fossil fuel reserves would still result in acidified oceans and extinctions .           

Thanks, Bruce. Once again, we are looking at the rate of change as the principal thing that will spank us and every other system on the planet.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on October 11, 2013, 08:09:07 AM
Ccg, If I could venture an educated guess I would think the shift in ph by 2050 will begin to have its largest effects in the North Pacific and Arctic waters first with surface pH  reduction to 7.9 or less.The Antarctic circumpolar waters should be close behind by ~ 2060. The entire west coast of North America will also be ( at least seasonally ) seeing surface pH at levels at or below 7.8 with extreme conditions during strong upwelling periods at levels down to 7.4.  The Humboldt current will probably see similar extremes but I am not as familiar with those waters .Upwelling  in the eastern tropical pacific is where the oldest waters in the world ventilate( back into the atmosphere ) so at least in tropical waters these are going to be the first tropical waters seeing a large shift relative to world averages. Indonesia and the Indian ocean next. The North Atlantic is one of the last places where O/A will get to similar pH levels. The saturation horizon is very deep in the Atlantic and although it is shoaling about 4 meters per year( maybe the fastest anywhere ) it will take longer to reach the point where surface upwelling can bring it up, unlike the pacific northwest where the saturation horizon is naturally much shallower. The aragonite saturation horizon is beginning to shoal upon the shelf waters of the Iceland Sea but I haven't heard of surface conditions anything like current conditions in Oregon and Washington state. Fiords with sills that trap waters masses I think are also problem spots but they do not represent the general conditions of the North Atlantic.
 I think where you are now Ccg may be some of the most resilient waters worldwide. There will be decades of much more difficult conditions elsewhere. The tropics will also change much slower than polar waters and surface undersaturation should be post 2100 if ever.
 You are completely correct that any additional carbon from cathrates or permafrost melting and remineralization of frozen organic matter will move these timelines forward but even without additional forcing the next 30 years of  fossil fuel emissions will lock in many of the changes described above. Sensitive creatures in North Pacific waters will of necessity move into Atlantic waters or perish. Not everything is sensitive to the pH changes projected over the next 100 years but less diversity seems inevitable at this point under BAU. Sorry if I am failing to source these projections, I have been at sea 5 of the last seven days , I need to get some sleep. Too many 15 hour days. I took Craig Welch out today. The ocean is still a beautiful place and current conditions locally seem little affected although spring upwelling does cause short periods of surface pH below 7.8 in upwelling areas nearby.             
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: ccgwebmaster on October 12, 2013, 04:58:50 PM
Ccg, If I could venture an educated guess I would think the shift in ph by 2050 will begin to have its largest effects in the North Pacific and Arctic waters first with surface pH  reduction to 7.9 or less.The Antarctic circumpolar waters should be close behind by ~ 2060. The entire west coast of North America will also be ( at least seasonally ) seeing surface pH at levels at or below 7.8 with extreme conditions during strong upwelling periods at levels down to 7.4.  The Humboldt current will probably see similar extremes but I am not as familiar with those waters .Upwelling  in the eastern tropical pacific is where the oldest waters in the world ventilate( back into the atmosphere ) so at least in tropical waters these are going to be the first tropical waters seeing a large shift relative to world averages. Indonesia and the Indian ocean next. The North Atlantic is one of the last places where O/A will get to similar pH levels. The saturation horizon is very deep in the Atlantic and although it is shoaling about 4 meters per year( maybe the fastest anywhere ) it will take longer to reach the point where surface upwelling can bring it up, unlike the pacific northwest where the saturation horizon is naturally much shallower. The aragonite saturation horizon is beginning to shoal upon the shelf waters of the Iceland Sea but I haven't heard of surface conditions anything like current conditions in Oregon and Washington state. Fiords with sills that trap waters masses I think are also problem spots but they do not represent the general conditions of the North Atlantic.

Thanks for that - gives a good overview I think. I seem to recall reading about fish migrating their ranges in response to warming water - is there any evidence of species doing so to move away from acidity? I assume many species cannot relocate their ranges so readily (particularly ones that build shells), but it strikes me less species are likely to be able to detect a ph change? (a bit like humans cannot detect radiation with their senses).

From http://hms.stanford.edu/profiles/acid.htm (http://hms.stanford.edu/profiles/acid.htm)

Quote
While the benthic marine communities surrounding the vents are typical of Mediterranean rocky reefs (i.e., diverse communities with abundant calcifying organisms) the communities directly adjacent to the vents are dominated by fleshy algae and devoid of calcifying organisms such as sea urchins, gastropods, and coralline algae.

It seems volcanic vents might give us a little insight into what sort of species live under this regime. If it's mostly "fleshy algae" and you extrapolate that up across oceans, I guess the conditions will be replicated for the oil and gas deposits to be reformed (eventually)?

On an unrelated note, I'm inclined to wonder if large water oceans (as opposed to just "some water") might not be requirements for complex ecosystems to form at all (relevance to the hunt for extraterrestial life), given the role they play climatically.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on October 13, 2013, 08:36:37 AM
Ccg, Old water that hasn't been at the surface tends to be enriched with dissolved Co2 and low in oxygen. These old waters once upwelled also bring nutrients to the surface where phytoplankton blooms and their bacterial decomposition draws down oxygen levels further as it releases even more Co2 . There is some anecdotal evidence of fish and crabs moving away from these anoxic or very hypoxic events but it is most probably the low oxygen driving these movements rather than the low pH conditions. We also know from ROV surveys of the very hypoxic/anoxic conditions in the 2006 Oregon anoxic event at Cape Perpetua that large numbers of crab can succumb even if some manage to run away.
 Conditions of very low pH are seasonal and depending on the strength of the winds  the upwelling can vary year to year. We don't have a canary in the coal mine or any biological proxy for OA except oyster larva in aquacultured systems that regulate both temperature and if need be oxygen content. In the open ocean you can't control the variables so it's very difficult to identify causation.  That is why anecdotal evidence is all we have to make important management decisions sometimes.
    http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2012/08/is_a_pacific_ocean_dead_zone_d.html (http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2012/08/is_a_pacific_ocean_dead_zone_d.html)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on October 13, 2013, 08:57:10 AM
Link to Cape Perpetua video. Before and after anoxic event.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2008/02/12/319.5865.920.DC1/1149016s1.mov (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2008/02/12/319.5865.920.DC1/1149016s1.mov)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on October 18, 2013, 06:55:55 PM
At the start of this page back in March I linked ( Stuart linked ) a paper "Multiple stressors of ocean ecosystems in the 21st century: projections with CMIP5 models" Bopp et al 2013
  A new paper with some of the same authors is an examination of regional, Eco-systems, species groups, and human vulnerabilities worldwide to RCP 8.5  and RCP 4.5 emissions scenarios and ocean responses. "Biotic and human vulnerability yo projected changes in ocean bio-geochemistry over the 21st century: projections with CIMP5." Mora et al 2013
 This is a good followup on the Bopp  paper ..... Projections almost universally bad for Eco-systems and as a consequence people most dependent on those Eco-system services ( poor people ) will suffer more than the people largely responsible for the Co2 emissions... Part of a trend otherwise known as
" kick down "
  http://www.plosbiology.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001682&representation=PDF (http://www.plosbiology.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001682&representation=PDF)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on October 25, 2013, 07:38:33 PM
Pacific oyster are sensitive to current low pH waters that seasonally shoal onto the shelf along the west coast of North America. Oyster larva have a yolk to supply energy for the first few days of life but low ph waters < pH 7.8 cause an increase in metabolism and as a result the larva run out of energy before they can complete development.
Here is a paper that show market squid , California's largest fishery , may have similar yolk energy
issues but a levels around pH 7.56.
 
 
TITLE: Response of embryonic market squid, Doryteuthis opalescens, to oxygen, pH and pCO2 from upwelling margin environments

AUTHORS (LAST NAME, FIRST NAME): Kwan, Garfield T.1; Navarro, Michael O.1; Levin, Lisa A.1, 2

Abstract Body: Market squid, Doryteuthis opalescens, is commercially and ecologically important to the nearshore California Current Ecosystem. Encapsulated squid embryos are site-attached to the seafloor, develop using a limited energy source (yolk), and can simultaneously exposed to near-hypoxic and high pCO2 (low-pH) environments on a regular basis. To understand whether these factors might be driving growth rate and yolk utilization response, we used a laboratory approach to compare effect(s) of each single-factor (i.e. high pCO2 v. low dissolved oxygen (DO)). We hypothesize that low-levels of pH and DO are independent stressors during squid embryogenesis. Specifically, we hypothesize that exposure to (a) low-levels of pH causes embryos to deplete yolk stores prior to hatching, and (b) low-levels of DO causes metabolic suppression. To test these hypotheses, squid embryos were chronically exposed to each factor independently: pCO2=1,350.8 µatm (pH=7.56), and DO=83.6 µatm. Half of the embryos were randomly selected and removed after 27 days of exposure and the other half after 32 days. Squid embyros were analyzed using photo-microscopy, and ImageJ software. We categorized embryonic stages using developmental signposts based on allometry (head width: dorsal mantle length) and calculated growth and yolk utilization rates. Standardizing by the development signposts revealed that embryos exposed to low-pH had faster growth and yolk utilization rates than embryos exposed to low-DO. Further, the yolk utilization rate indicates that prior to hatching the external yolk will be completely depleted for low-pH group, signifying that the later stages may be most affected. Embryos in the low DO group did not show conclusive negative effects from exposure. Future comparisons of these single factor treatments to multiple factors (low DO and pH) and no factor (i.e control) treatments will further elucidate these results.

 
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: JimD on October 25, 2013, 09:06:13 PM
Bruce

Big surprise to me that squid would be Calif's biggest market fishery.  What is 2nd and 3rd?  Do you know the history of what catches were the biggest?  It sure would seem that it used to be salmon or tuna or other predator fish at one point. 
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on October 26, 2013, 12:28:39 AM
JimD,  California is a boundary between southern and northern water masses and is much influenced by ENSO and PDO cycles. Different fish population benefit from either colder nutrient conditions or warmer southern waters. The max cap for market squid is 118,000 tons at $500-600 a ton. Dungeness Crab is #2 by value with lobster, sea urchin and salmon usually in the top five although salmon is very cyclic. Prior to 1972 Tuna was number one but those landings were from large boats that fished international waters prior to 200 mile limits ( now Mexican waters ). Markets play a roll in fisheries values and currently China is a large buyer of squid, lobster, and even Dungeness. My fishery ( sea urchins ) is marketed in the U.S. and Japanese markets that are weaker than in the 1980's. Black cod is another fishery that competes in the top 5 or 6 fisheries and Asia is the market for black cod also.
Huge portions of the shelf( mostly federal waters ) are closed to fishing to protect rock cod  stocks in rebuilding programs and California has closed about 20% of all state waters to both recreational and commercial fisheries . The U.S. Imports about 85% of it's seafood and the fisheries that we still have in California are largely export fisheries. Local lobster sell off the boat for over $20 a pound and most American restaurants can't sell  a $50 dollar lobster...
 Aqua- culture isn't very big around here because ascetics is more important than a steady food supply. Some longstanding oyster operations have been shut down in the Parks movement. We can claim we have no current overfishing taking place but we also have unfished rock cod stocks at +virgin biomass while we import fish from heavily overfished areas around the world.     
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on October 28, 2013, 06:56:09 PM
Coral reef persistence
 "The projections here for conditions on coral reefs are dire, but provide the most up-to-date
assessment of what the changing climate and ocean acidification mean for the persistence of coral reefs." "There is no long term refugia from the effects of both acidification and bleaching. Of all reef locations( in this study ) 90% are projected to experience severe bleaching annually by 2055. Furthermore, 5% declines in calcification are projected for all reef locations by 2034."

 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.12394/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.12394/abstract)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: ChrisReynolds on October 28, 2013, 08:20:31 PM
Squid? This all reminds me of Gorrilaz "Superfast Jellyfish".

The headline is wrong! But the article is accurate.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130503094700.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130503094700.htm)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on October 29, 2013, 07:11:29 AM
Chris, A couple questions from the other side of the pond. Do you suppose cuttlefish bones are common on the beaches of Suffocks like I remember them as a lad?  The meare at Thorpness froze and ice skating was a dependable winter past time , do you think skating is a dependable winter sport these days?   And thanks for the Gorillaz ... Clint Eastwood kept me entertained while gardening

http://www.redbubble.com/people/waynebradshaw/works/1963153-thorpeness-beach-suffolk-3 (http://www.redbubble.com/people/waynebradshaw/works/1963153-thorpeness-beach-suffolk-3)


Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on November 01, 2013, 03:40:17 AM
Will I get away
 Will I see it through
   On the return to Waterloo
As a child I lived in Thorpness England on the coast of Suffock 1957 to 1960. One winter the
meare ( a shallow lake ) froze and people ice skated for a couple weeks. My memories are corroborated by my parents memories, I called mom about this yesterday.  A googlesearch on skating lakes in England didn't get me far, apparently the lakes don't freeze anymore.
 Chris sent me on a Gorillaz kick a couple days ago. The old Ray Davies ( kinks ) tune" Waterloo Sunset" goes nicely with Gorillaz " Meloncoly Hill".
 This should probably be somewhere besides the Carbon Cycle page
Oh well, 
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on November 04, 2013, 08:16:16 PM
Here is an article on O/A from Craig Welch , Seattle Times

http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2013/nov/2/can-sea-life-adapt/?cmpid=2628 (http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2013/nov/2/can-sea-life-adapt/?cmpid=2628)
 
Mea culpa, you can see my boat on the video( linked in the article ) 
 I burn lots of fuel and as a result doing what I do for a living causes me a certain amount of guilt. I try to farm and put resources into perfecting low carbon farming technics but the only way I have figured to reduce my fuel consumption as a fisherman is to fish less. Fishing pays about 10 to 1 compared to farming.After twenty  days diving I will put the boat on the trailer and not use it for another year.
 The farm has 4 listed species, most of the land is undisturbed riparian southern cottonwood forest..and willows. I have never deep tilled and as a result the reptiles , owls, and critters dependent on small rodents do very well. This year badgers showed up. There are beaver and endanger steelhead in the river on the back of the property.
 It is very difficult to balance the good with the bad.  Every farmer and most fishermen think about what kind of shape the world we leave behind will be in. Most don't feel guilt over burning fuel, most don't study the carbon cycle. I have to do better, I know it , I hope more people begin to understand how many of the little birds, reptiles, fish are headed over the brink. I have to do better     
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on November 13, 2013, 07:23:17 PM
But will the oceans always be able to take up that proportion of human CO2 emissions year in and year out?

Probably not in the near term, said Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego marine chemist Andrew Dickson. Dickson took over a program of measuring CO2 levels in the oceans that had been started by Charles David Keeling in the 1980s as a complement to his measurements of atmospheric CO2. Dickson has created the calibration standard for proper measurement of ocean CO2 levels. It is the basis of a protocol followed by marine chemistry labs around the world. Today Dickson’s lab prepares and bottles thousands of reference samples each year for distribution throughout the research community.

Dickson noted that although the oceans presently take up about one-fourth of the excess CO2 human activities put into the air, that fraction was significantly larger at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. That’s for a number of reasons, starting with the simple one that as one dissolves CO2 into a given volume of seawater, there is a growing resistance to adding still more CO2.

http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/how-much-co2-can-the-oceans-take-up/ (http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/how-much-co2-can-the-oceans-take-up/)

Andrew in a new TED Talks

   Baby oysters, the canary of the oceans: Andrew Dickson at TEDxAmericasFinestCity (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4VO2gRIixQ#ws)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on November 16, 2013, 08:11:53 PM
The first paper written about the biological impacts of ocean acidification was Kurihara and Shirayama 2004. I had a clipping service at the time for articles relevant to fisheries and they sent me the paper.  The Kurihara paper showed morphological changes to sea urchin larva due to " acidification ". This was bad news for a sea urchin fisherman.
I started trying to read everything I could find relevant to ocean acidification. For a fisherman ( even for a chemist ) carbon chemistry is a difficult subject but after rereading the papers available at the time I began to get some confidence in the subject matter I was trying to understand.  Into the rabbit hole I went.
Whatever education I have is self-education but having been involved in fisheries management since 1985 has given me access to some of the best sea urchin experts in the world. I needed to fact check my understanding of the carbon cycle and with a couple of introductions by the scientists I knew at the time I was able to connect with Vicki Fabry , Gretchen Hoffman and other scientists whose knowledge bridged the biological  and chemical aspects of acidification. It was difficult at the time trying to explain to my fishermen friends the ramifications of the changes taking place in ocean chemistry. Acidification isn't something you can see and for the most part the impacts are limited to larvae that you can't see either. When I did get through to some of my friends I managed to send them into some level of depression which takes time to struggle through.
By 2006 there was news of the oyster mortalities at hatcheries in Oregon  and Washington. The hatchery problems weren't directly tied to acidification at the time but collaboration between the shellfish growers association headed at the time by Robin Downey and  OSU scientists   Alan Barton and Burke Hales
discovered offshore winds, upwelling ,low pH and mortality events at Whiskey Creek hatchery coincided... The canary in the coal mine.
It has been a decade now since the Kurihara paper was published. Worldwide emissions of Co2 from cement and fossil fuels have increased from
~ 28gt( billion tons) to~ 35 gt annually. Recent projections are for global ocean biodiversity to decrease by 30 % over the next 80 years. This is an extinction event in progress.  The fishing industry as a whole hasn't been on the 10 year bummer that I have. The aquaculture industry is on high alert thanks in large part to the owners of Whisky Creek, Alan Barton , Robin Downey and the financial help provided by Washington Senator Maria Cantwell.
In summary it has been the effort of dedicated individuals ,and  cooperation that has largely put aside the downsides of academic competition or the sharp elbows that fly when trying to track down limited funds , that has moved us forward.
Locally acidification has been incorporated into the elementary school curriculum .
Maybe my fishing friends will not respond until the hatchet falls on their fishing quotas. None of this will make a damn bit of difference if our collective Co2 emissions continue to increase. We had about 40 years to stop all carbon emissions when I started and we have about 30 left to avert the sixth large extinction in the history of life on earth.  

Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: JimD on November 18, 2013, 04:06:36 PM
Bruce I just wanted to say I appreciate what you have been posting here.  I just don't know what to say about it other than it makes me sad.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on November 18, 2013, 05:40:29 PM
JimD, It's a long hard row. I very much value your contribution to the " forum ". Brothers in arms, and we take solace where we can.
 I sent some of the posts above to friends in the fishing community. My buddy Pete sent the following reply.
"hello Bruce,
My hat's off to your tenacity for the past decade in bringing the ocean acidification issue to everyone's attention.
However in this case you have stated the problem very clearly but have not suggested a plan of action for fishermen.
Addressing issues with little or no chance of success has never deterred me, so what can we as fishermen do?
Peter h "
 Since we both have 35+ years in fisheries management I have suggested modeling future catch rates for species where we can constrain larvae mortality at specific pH levels. For some fisheries this may mean managing towards zero catch rates. Anger will probably be mixed with a deep sadness for anyone participating in any such meeting.
 Farmers and fishermen live within the confines of nature.
For farmers we know the beauty and hope that every new birth on the farm delivers but we tend to outlive our farm animals so there is sadness too. For fishermen( I can't speak for all of them ) we are surrounded by the vastness of nature. It seems limitless ,although we know better. That the bounty should fail, and every tank of gas slowly suffocate it's vitality is more than a soul can bear. I carry with me a deep sadness and I ask for help to shoulder the load. It is the weight of the world.
 
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: wili on November 20, 2013, 06:42:23 PM
Well put.

"Anger will probably be mixed with a deep sadness"

I think that speaks for many of us as we face the multiple consequences of our ever-worsening predicament.

And now there's this (posted on the feedback thread, but perhaps more relevant here):

Current climate change models greatly underestimate the amount of methane being released by thawing permafrost in the Canadian Arctic, according to Canada's National Institute of Scientific Research (INRS).

Quote
Canadian, French and US researchers from the INRS have been studying the methane and greenhouse gas emissions in small thaw ponds, concluding that the emissions could have a significant climate impact.

"We discovered that although the small shallow ponds we studied represent only 44 percent of the water-covered surface in a Bylot Island valley, they generate 83 percent of its methane emissions," said Karita Negandhi, a water sciences doctoral student at the INRS's Environment Research Center.
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/4972/20131118/ponds-canadian-arctic-release-significant-greenhouse-gasses.ht (http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/4972/20131118/ponds-canadian-arctic-release-significant-greenhouse-gasses.ht)

(Thanks to COBob at neven's blog for this link.)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on November 21, 2013, 05:24:06 AM
Wili, I looked up the Plos one paper about the melt ponds. I will have to try and read it more carefully tomorrow. Interesting that the Canadian ponds have a higher organic carbon load than their Siberian counterparts. The whole paper reminded me how little I know about pond carbon, archea ,methanogens, and methane production.

  http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0078204 (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0078204)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on December 01, 2013, 02:59:22 AM
UK waters grow colder -and more acidic

http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/2013/11/uk-waters-grow-cooler-and-more-acid/ (http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/2013/11/uk-waters-grow-cooler-and-more-acid/)

With this link to a mccip ( marine climate change impacts report card )

http://www.mccip.org.uk/annual-report-card.aspx (http://www.mccip.org.uk/annual-report-card.aspx)

There is an acidification summary in this report that has a nice chart ( page 8 ) on all the positive ve+ and negative feedbacks ve- from continued acidification. It says we can expect the ocean to be 30% less effective as a carbon sink by 2100. They give confidence scores as well as sources .

 http://www.mccip.org.uk/media/13199/2013arc_backingpapers_5_ocac.pdf (http://www.mccip.org.uk/media/13199/2013arc_backingpapers_5_ocac.pdf)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: wili on December 01, 2013, 02:49:42 PM
Thanks for those links. We need to remember, of course, that other cycles, besides the carbon cycle, are also getting more and more out of whack: http://forests.org/blog/2013/06/terrestrial-ecosystem-biosphere-collapse.asp (http://forests.org/blog/2013/06/terrestrial-ecosystem-biosphere-collapse.asp)

The nitrogen cycle, in particular, is way out of kilter, and that affects the oceans powerfully, particularly in the ever-growing 'dead zones' where over-use of nitrogen-based fertilizer is having its deadliest effects.

Meanwhile, this just in:

Quote
...with the loss of sea ice, the Arctic Ocean is becoming more of a carbon sink
...
a somewhat paradoxical effect: A few Arctic regions where waters were warmest were actually less able to store carbon. Instead, these regions—such as the Barents Sea, near Greenland—were a carbon source, emitting carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

http://phys.org/news/2013-12-carbon-arctic.html (http://phys.org/news/2013-12-carbon-arctic.html)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: ccgwebmaster on December 05, 2013, 09:23:04 PM
I thought this article hinted at one or two interesting points - a negative feedback of sorts, but also a downside if so.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/01/extreme-science-weather-climate-seas-oceanographer (http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/01/extreme-science-weather-climate-seas-oceanographer)

Extrapolating in ignorance, but if the view is that storms will become worse and more frequent, this article seems to me to hint at an increase in the exchange (and absorption of carbon dioxide due to the imbalance) of gases between ocean and atmosphere (due to the much greater surface area available for said exchange in rough water conditions).

Wouldn't that be expected to help the oceans to continue to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but at the price of speeding up acidification? (assuming storms become more frequent and/or more violent)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: wili on December 06, 2013, 02:02:31 AM
It may, and in general, a warmer Arctic Ocean is likely to absorb more CO2 than a colder, icier one.

But there have also been areas where the Arctic Ocean has become less of a sink (Barents and...somewhere else; I forget right now). And of course, if the ESAS and Laptev are on an exponential trajectory toward more and more methane release, all bets are off. In fact the phenomena you speak of was found, in the recent Shakhova study, to increase the release of methane in the area to the atmosphere.

There are wheels within wheels within wheels...
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: ccgwebmaster on December 06, 2013, 02:05:46 AM
It may, and in general, a warmer Arctic Ocean is likely to absorb more CO2 than a colder, icier one.

Why? Warmer liquids generally have less capacity to dissolve gas. I could see the removal of ice cover helping carbon dioxide exchange - and postulate the increase in exchange to be the significant aspect of stormier conditions - for as long as the ocean and atmosphere are sufficiently far out of equilibrium at least.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on December 06, 2013, 04:26:53 AM
I found this in an abstract from a symposia.I.A. Repina and V.V. Ivanov        From measurements in the Laptev Sea.    " Comparing the distribution of Co2 fluxes with surface temperature and salinity shows that warmer and fresher water(which is probably river plume) acts as a source of Co2 while colder and saltier water near the ice edge is a sink."
  re Shakhova  If storms cause extra methane releases part of the methane will be absorbed in the water column and biologically converted to Co2 so with the above observation I would say that storms might increase the flux of Co2 in the areas close to the coast that are currently sources. At the same time wind would also intensify the sink in leads and near the icepack in early summer or when there's some open water around.

  http://www.amap.no/Conferences/aoa2013/FinalAbstracts.pdf (http://www.amap.no/Conferences/aoa2013/FinalAbstracts.pdf)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: wili on December 06, 2013, 09:37:28 PM
Sorry, ccg. Your are of course, right. I didn't get it quite right. An ice-free (or even relatively ice free) Arctic Ocean will absorb more atmospheric CO2 than a relatively ice covered one, if I understand correctly. But cold water generally can keep gasses dissolved better that warmer water.

Bruce wrote: "re Shakhova  If storms cause extra methane releases"

What she found, iirc, was that storms cause more methane to be released into the atmosphere from the water, exactly because of the foaming that waves produce. But perhaps I mis-interpreted you or her.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on December 29, 2013, 04:39:35 AM
The PETM had extinctions of foraminifera. Acidification can be predicted from global emissions projections. Current 500 gt C totals from land change+emissions would need to be pushed to about 2500 gt C to get to the 1000 CO2 ppm atmospheric projected for 2100. BAU. 
 This study shows morphological changes in Foraminifera at 1000 ppm.

   http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0083118 (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0083118)

Plants and animals that produce calcium carbonate can be expected to be more sensitive to the effects of acidification than those that don't. Andrew Knoll makes the case for acidification as a kill mechanism in the end Permian extinction.

   http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/new-studies-of-permian-extinction-shed-light-on-the-great-dying.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/01/science/new-studies-of-permian-extinction-shed-light-on-the-great-dying.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

Remineralization of organic matter frozen in the trundra, or under shallow seas that rapidly warm will be additive to our carbon emissions from fossil fuel emissions . That is the oceans will acidify faster than current projections if arctic and antarctic methane and Co2  emissions increase substantially.
If anthropogenic Co2 emissions and subsequent heating triggers large carbon releases from sources currently frozen even over a 200-300 year time period the list of extinctions will be very large.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: ccgwebmaster on January 02, 2014, 03:23:03 AM
What she found, iirc, was that storms cause more methane to be released into the atmosphere from the water, exactly because of the foaming that waves produce. But perhaps I mis-interpreted you or her.

I apologise if I already mentioned it, but I've been pretty much absent for a few weeks and somewhat lost track of everything in the online world - but I read an interesting article mentioning the effects of stormy ocean conditions on gas exchange with the atmosphere, by means of increasing the surface area available for exchange by breaking up the surface of the water.

I'm not sure that's really what Shakhova was thinking of - as the water in question over ESS is shallow enough increased storms could accelerate the mixing of heat down to the seabed (and hence the clathrates) which would be a different effect - but it all underscores just how complex the overall system is.

The complexity of the whole system must be immense. For instance if there is more energy available in storms to agitate the ocean, that will increase the rate of gas exchange (affecting both draw down from the atmosphere and acidification). However, if the ocean also becomes more stratified - that may lessen ability to draw down carbon dioxide as the surface layer becomes more easily saturated with less movement to lower layers.

Which effect is stronger? Which way does even just this one element of the system move as things change?
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: wili on January 03, 2014, 11:05:05 AM
Well put. IIRC, some parts of the Arctic are indeed absorbing more CO2 now that they are open more of the year. But other parts are actually emitting CO2 and methane; so a newly open (some of the year) Arctic isn't providing quite the negative (damping) feedback that some hoped it might.

Even the silver linings of tragic developments turn out to be rather tarnished.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on January 16, 2014, 04:26:57 PM
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL059142/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL059142/abstract)
Abstract.
[1] Time series of biogenic sinking particle flux in the western North Pacific subpolar region over two decades (1989 - 2008), revealed that the biogenic CaCO3 (CC) flux has shown a significant decreasing trend of 2.7 % year-1 (annual average, - 0.88 ± 0.13 mg m2 day-1 year-1) along with the decreasing particulate organic carbon (POC) flux of 0.7 % year-1 while the biogenic opal (OP) flux had no long-term trend. Comparing these results with the decreasing rate of satellite-derived surface CC with - 0.7 % year-1, we concluded that three-fourths of the decreasing trend of CC flux was derived from the strengthening of CaCO3 dissolution through seawater column due to the weakening of water ventilation and the rest was from the decline of CaCO3-shelled species, indicating the enhancement of the efficiency in oceanic sequestration of atmospheric CO2 in the sea surface of this region due to the increase of OP/CC ratio.

So although surface waters are absorbing more Co2 the resulting pH drop results in a decrease in the strength of the long term carbon sink at depth. Although diatoms ( and produced biogenic opal )are still apparently O.K. in these waters there are other studies from arctic waters that they too may have trouble due to competition for nutrients as pCo2 increases further. A 2.7% annual decrease in CaCo3 export seems like a number that would bother people but I doubt many people can understand the future ramifications of a failing ocean carbon sink. I have said before that these changes may take 100,000 years to return to pre-industrial rates. Terrestrial carbon sinks can't sequester additional carbon with increasing temperatures so extra Co2 will stay in the atmosphere longer. I do not believe these changes in the ocean carbon sink are incorporated yet into atmospheric Co2 projections.   
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on January 26, 2014, 10:25:20 PM
We do not understand all the feedbacks,again trouble we aren't counting on  and don't understand well enough to quantify.



"An unprecedented rise in tiny phytoplankton could threaten the spread of larger phytoplankton species, vital for curbing global warming."

"Shown to thrive as CO2 levels rise, pico- and nanoplankton — the sea’s smallest plankton — could upset the marine food web and affect key processes involved in counteracting global warming. This is the upshot of a recent publication1 based on research carried out in May 2010 in the Arctic as part of the European Project on Ocean Acidification (EPOCA, 2008–2012), which rallied more than 160 scientists from 32 European institutions."


Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, around 1880, oceans have absorbed approximately one third of man-made CO2 emissions, resulting in a 26% rise in their acidity levels. As CO2 is more soluble at low temperatures, the Arctic Ocean is especially prone to this ongoing trend. To investigate how acidification affects marine ecosystems in situ, an EPOCA team travelled to Kings Bay (west of Norway), to set up nine mesocosms, or giant floating plastic bags holding a range of plankton species in seawater. In seven of the 50 m3 bags, CO2 concentration was increased to reach that expected 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 years from now, while two controls were maintained in natural conditions.

The five-week study notably showed that at high CO2 levels, pico- and nanoplankton at the base of the marine food chain grow faster and absorb nutrients usually left for larger phytoplankton. Yet, the latter are crucial to sustain two vital climate regulation processes. First, large phytoplankton carry carbon from surface waters to the depths for storage, so their decline would cut the ocean’s carbon uptake capacity. Second, they release dimethyl sulfide (DMS) gas, known to favor the formation of clouds that block out solar radiation and reduce the greenhouse effect.

“Acidification is the root cause of the changes observed in the Arctic, and could hinder resistance to climate change,” explains EPOCA coordinator Jean-Pierre Gattuso of the LOV.2 “The best strategy is to limit CO2 emissions, but current trends are not promising.” In the meantime, the impact of acidification could be partially offset by “locally eliminating stress factors such as pollution to boost sea organisms’ resistance to higher acidity,” he concludes.

01. U. Riebesell et al., “Arctic ocean acidification: pelagic ecosystem and biogeochemical responses during a mesocosm study,” Biogeosciences, 2013. 10: 5619-26.
02. Laboratoire d’océanographie de Villefranche (CNRS/ UPMC).
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 10, 2014, 05:54:05 AM
The bulk of research on ocean acidification extends now about ten years. It has taken some time to  learn which species are sensitive and of those sensitive species which ones live in areas expected to acidify first. The University of Washington school of fisheries has begun to put together O/A projections with fisheries management models. The first example I know was a masters thesis by Dusanka Poljak( MS 2013 ) related to red king crab. There are now efforts to expand those initial efforts to other crab species.
" Andre Punt"
   " Ocean acidification may profoundly impact the North Pacific crab fishery. The high mortality rates for juvenile red king crab associated with ocean acidification mean that harvests may decrease, with potentially enormous economic consequences. However, those impacts won’t be evident for at least 20 years, so we have time to plan."
 
Other fisheries are also impacted and these changes will challenge sustainable fisheries management.

http://fish.washington.edu/news/newsletter/autwin_2013-14/ocean-acidification.html (http://fish.washington.edu/news/newsletter/autwin_2013-14/ocean-acidification.html)

There are some species like Pacific Oysters ( introduced as an aquaculture species )that have already seen economic impacts in the Pacific Northwest while there are others like the native Olympic Oyster that respond by producing smaller animals. These smaller oysters are more susceptible to attack by invasive predatory snails. So although acidification doesn't have the same effects on direct mortality it still may render some species  susceptible to secondary effects and increased mortality as a result.
  Although I am a fisherman and projections for fisheries impacts allow us to apply economic values to certain species I think Eco-system and secondary impacts will cut deeply into many species that
initial studies indicate as tolerant. This makes applying economic impacts very difficult.
  I need to also include this work by a young researcher from U of A Fairbanks. I am including it because it challenges the notion that polar waters will see the first impacts. It extends the timeline for Berring Sea undersaturation into the 2100-2150 timeline. The entire shelf waters from California to Canada are expected to be undersaturated most of the year by 2050.

http://gradworks.umi.com/36/07/3607053.html (http://gradworks.umi.com/36/07/3607053.html)

I am pleased to see the fisheries impacts and modeled economic consequences as a focus. I know this is a difficult subject but having quantifiable economic impacts allows fishermen to apply certain political pressure on legislators that might otherwise ignore this issue. Money talks .   
 
O


Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 10, 2014, 06:39:04 AM
It wanted to add this paper on the secondary effects of predatory snails on native oysters.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21594238-acid-seas-mean-smaller-more-vulnerable-oysters-shrinking-problem?fsrc=rss%7Csct (http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21594238-acid-seas-mean-smaller-more-vulnerable-oysters-shrinking-problem?fsrc=rss%7Csct)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 15, 2014, 04:12:02 PM

The California Coast is one of the first places worldwide that will experience surface to bottom aragonite undersaturation. This large scale change in the California Current ecosystem will happen within the next fifty years. The upwelling of nutrients that support our  fisheries also draw high Co2 intermediate waters to the surface along our coast.  The processes that deliver the high Co2 waters , the duration of the undersaturation,  and the timing of the event in relation to when sensitive larval species are in the water column will all need to be incorporated into fisheries management.
Some very important fisheries like oysters have already been affected and other ones like Red King Crab have larva that have been shown to be sensitive in laboratory studies.  Oysters are largely an aquaculture species and there has been progress on aquaculture adapting to the changing water conditions. Wild fisheries will persist or disappear depending upon the sensitivity of species harvested.    
The worlds oceans haven't experienced this degree of pH change in over 30 million years. Fisheries managers are unprepared for the upcoming changes. California fishermen and fisheries managers will witness these changes and what we learn may inform other fishermen worldwide as ocean conditions deteriorate.
 For commercial fisheries or aquaculture Pacific Oyster may be the most sensitive.
Aragonite saturation ( Omega ) is the best measure of determining a chemical threshold for sensitivity but pH is easier to use and it will have to serve as a number , call it a ballpark number, to explain at what level various species begin to have trouble.
Pacific Oyster      7.8 pH
http://scholarsarchive.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/31837/HalesBurkeCEOASPacificOysterCrassostrea.pdf (http://scholarsarchive.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/31837/HalesBurkeCEOASPacificOysterCrassostrea.pdf)
 Red King Crab.   7.5
Tanner Crab.      7.5
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0060959 (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0060959)
Market Squid.    7.56
From abstract Kwan, Navarro, and Levin
Olympic oysters  7.7
It wanted to add this paper on the secondary effects of predatory snails on native oysters.

http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21594238-acid-seas-mean-smaller-more-vulnerable-oysters-shrinking-problem?fsrc=rss%7Csct (http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21594238-acid-seas-mean-smaller-more-vulnerable-oysters-shrinking-problem?fsrc=rss%7Csct)

Pink salmon    7.8
Secondary effects of low ph on pteropods ( food supply for pink salmon )
  Other West Coast species
Bay scallop
Red sea urchin
Pinto abalone
Blue mussels
  East coast species
Hard shelled clam , Quahog
Virginia oyster
Atlantic cod
Atlantic squid,  Longfin squid

The response to acidification will require a good understanding of the sensitivity of various species, a good model to predict where to expect changes in ph( and more explicitly saturation state) with depth and seasonally relevant projections.  Sensitive sessile  organisms, larva or eggs that cannot move to avoid low pH conditions will be the first affected, more so at depth. If spawning stages are concurrent with spring upwelling season they will be especially hard hit. So spatially explicit maps including lat/long + depth combined with seasons and species known to be a risk are the starting point.  
 Aqua-cultured species allows that some species may be selectively bred to speed up the process of natural selection but a change in the management mindset that allows these new low pH tolerant  species to be cultured in open water setting will also need encouragement rather than prohibition. Wild species that may be both adapted to acidification and brought into
Aqua-culture type facilities should be studied as possible replacements for other species worldwide that fill similar environmental niches but are unable to adapt. Our waters are naturally acidified with local species potentially adapted to some degree in ways that other species worldwide are not. We need to keep in mind we are going to be the first hit and how we respond may prepare the ground for future responses worldwide (in temperate waters anyhow.)
 I guess I am saying the MPA( marine protected areas...no fishing),let the chips fall where they may,response shouldn't be the only tactic we utilize in response to changing water conditions.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 22, 2014, 05:36:39 PM
I have shared my knowledge of ocean acidification publicly for several years now. My delivery style is very straight forward ,emotional and dire. This is not how scientists conduct themselves. I am hardened I suppose by a lifetime of risk taking. I have lost dozens of friends at sea. As a commercial diver my odds are about the same as carrying a gun in Iraq.. One in three hundred... For forty years.I have three friends who have been in and out of the mouth of a White Shark and I have looked one in the eye at close range, no cage and had an 18 foot female swim by within 10 feet. I was totally alone on the boat that day got out of the water ,warmed up, and then got back in a few minutes later and finished my day diving. I have suffered hypothermia, atrial tachycardia underwater multiple times, lost air at depth several times, had my hose run over by another boat several times, had an angry two ton elephant seal jump right on top of me in the water and enough experiences with near death to discount any notion I am a coward. Nuts maybe but no coward. So when I get up in front of a group of people and tell them I am angry and sometimes saddened to the point of tears it is emotionally tough on everybody listening. It is hard to ear me out. I am not pulling punches. As they say, I got skin in the game.
 I have also attended training sessions on communicating acidification and climate change. My style is diametrically opposed to what they say I should do. They say people will turn me off but I do not think that is the case. The audience is usually as emotionally drained as I am when I am done. It is very hard to judge peoples response after one of my talks. We all have socially accepted limits to discourse and I think I am stomping on several limits at once.
 I have a talk at an upcoming S. Cal Academy of Science meeting and another at a calif. climate summit conference. Rant is a word I hear thrown around, weak attempts at humor, and an inability of scientist to actually deal with the fear this subject should honestly evoke. I also would say I think people who actually are willing to radically change their lifestyles or carbon footprints are generally not 
 in academia. So I have to deal with how to actually get to a target audience willing to make the tough decisions. I think the fact that scientists are very leery to invoke the emotional levels I am willing to communicate probably also saves me from the anger my style will undoubtable unleash in a
broader audience.
 I am writing this piece because I need a outlet for some pent up nerves after a talk yesterday.
If I am rather harsh on people believe me I am tougher on myself.         
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: JackTaylor on March 23, 2014, 02:51:32 PM
Bruce,

On ocean acidification and damage to fishing,
did you see, or am I duplicating, the size of fish caught around Key West, FL over the years.

Big Fish Stories Getting Littler
http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2014/02/05/257046530/big-fish-stories-getting-littler (http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2014/02/05/257046530/big-fish-stories-getting-littler)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 25, 2014, 04:11:20 PM
Comment: Shellfish die-off shows a future we must avoid
Published 25 March 2014    Media coverage Leave a Comment
The Feb. 27 headline, “Ocean acidity wipes out 10M scallops; Mass die-off near Qualicum Beach ominous sign for shellfish harvest,” should have hit British Columbians like a punch in the stomach.

The shellfish industry has been an economic powerhouse on central Vancouver Island for decades, providing hundreds of jobs and millions of dollars in revenue every year — more than $30 million in average wholesale value.


But when we talk about shellfish, we aren’t just talking jobs and economics. We are talking about food. Shellfish harvesting is one of our most robust local food systems, and the prospect of losing this industry makes us all feel, quite frankly, a little hungry.

Of the possible causes of the recent scallop die-off, ocean acidification seems the most likely. Ocean acidification is directly connected to climate change and to our runaway consumption of fossil fuels. In short, acidification occurs when carbon is absorbed into the ocean from the atmosphere, making the water more acidic. Acidification strips the ocean of carbonate ions, which marine species like scallops and oysters need to build their shells, therefore reducing the ability of these species to survive.

For years, groups like the B.C. Shellfish Growers Association have been raising the alarm about the verified threat of acidification to the shellfish industry.

Roberta Stevenson, the association’s executive director, told us that the public and our elected decision-makers need to understand how serious the situation is for shellfish growers on B.C.’s coast. She said the significant economic benefits the industry provides could disappear if we don’t start to see the health of the oceans as an economic priority.

A major source of atmospheric carbon is the burning of fossil fuels: oil, coal and gas. In B.C., we have a stake in important decisions over whether to build fossil-fuel export infrastructure. The proposed Enbridge and Kinder Morgan pipelines, the prospective B.C. liquefied natural gas industry and the proposed Raven coal mine will all put much more carbon into the atmosphere, further acidifying the ocean and directly threatening the survival of shellfish species and coastal communities.

All these proposed projects need B.C.’s consent. It’s important that we make the right choices and get on a path to a low-carbon future.

The recent scallop die-off is a clear illustration of what we will face if we don’t act now to reduce our carbon emissions. Climate change and ocean acidification will continue to have devastating consequences, not just for coastal economies, communities and families, but for anyone who depends on the ocean as a source of food.

What’s more, coal, oil, and gas are finite resources, guaranteed to go bust when they run out, become too expensive or when the environmental impacts are deemed not worth the risk. Any financial benefits we gain from extracting and exporting them will one day disappear completely. We will be left with the socio-economic hardship and lingering environmental problems well-known to many communities where boom-bust extractive industries have run their course.

By continuing to promote the extraction and export of coal, oilsands oil and fracked gas instead of sustainable sectors in B.C., our government is making a political choice to prioritize short-term profits over renewable industries that can provide economic stability and contribute to viable, healthy communities over the long term.

We all deserve good jobs that don’t destroy our children’s future. For the sake of these shellfish and the families that depend on them, let’s work together to develop a smart and creative strategy to transition away from fossil fuels and toward a low-carbon economy — with meaningful jobs in sustainable industries that don’t compromise ecosystems. A healthy coast is one with abundant food that can still be pulled from the ocean, as it always has been.

If we keep pumping carbon into our atmosphere, we’re investing in an acidic ocean for decades, if not centuries, to come, and we’re forsaking the sustainable shellfish industry and the communities, businesses and jobs it supports.

Caytlin Vernon & Torrance Coste, Times Colonist, 23 March 2014. Article.


Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: TerryM on March 25, 2014, 11:10:12 PM
"Oil sands" is a euphemism for "Tar sands" coined I believe by none other than Frank Luntz and found to be less of a negative than the more correct tar sands.


We don't refer to the La Brea Oil Pits.


Terry
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 26, 2014, 12:05:29 AM
It's the Pits
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 26, 2014, 12:38:36 PM
President Obama has released his 2015 budget request. It asks for $15 million to fund ocean acidification research and programs. Congress will modify this request and although $15 million is an increase of funding from previous years it is a pitifully small amount of funding. There are many homes in the greater Santa Barbara area valued at $30 million each. Big lawns, minimum wage staff, expensive cars and private jets. So bottom line is affluence is far more important , the war machine is far more important than stepping up and looking into our oceans future.
 If anyone out there feels like dropping a letter to your congressionally elected representatives that would potentially help.
 The U.S. Emits about 6 billion tons of Co2 annually . The vast majority( about 90%. ) will eventually end up in the oceans . If we spend $ 15 million on acidification that comes to ~ one dollar for each 400 tons of Co2 emissions, a Faustian bargain if ever there was one. Congress in it's infinite wisdom will undoubtable attempt to reduce Obama's request.
   http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aadams/a_blue_budget_beyond_sequester.html (http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aadams/a_blue_budget_beyond_sequester.html)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 26, 2014, 11:56:22 PM
http://news-oceanacidification-icc.org/2014/03/26/present-day-nearshore-ph-differentially-depresses-fertilization-in-congeneric-sea-urchins/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+wordpress/lRgb+(Ocean+acidification) (http://news-oceanacidification-icc.org/2014/03/26/present-day-nearshore-ph-differentially-depresses-fertilization-in-congeneric-sea-urchins/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+wordpress/lRgb+(Ocean+acidification))

When comes the wind
In the decade since Kurihara and Shirayama 2004 was published I have looked over the horizon and known this day would come. Christina Frieder 2014 has just published a paper documenting fertilization success in Red Sea Urchins. This species of urchin has fisheries in Calif. Oregon , Washington , British Columbia and Alaska.
Fertilization success is reduced 20% even under current pH conditions at 7.8pH and reductions of 60% may be happening in the next few decades as acidification and water conditions deteriorate to   7.5pH in parts of it's range by 2100.  The decreases in fertilization are linear as conditions for successful fertilization decline from 7.8 down to 7.5. That is Red Sea Urchin will have a harder time successfully recruiting into the fishery as time progresses. 
 How fishermen, processors and fish managers respond to deteriorating water conditions will now test management resolve. My fishery will now join Pacific Oysters and Red King Crab as victims of societies addiction to fossil fuels. All of these fisheries now have enough information to predict how and when they will decline. 
 This is a sad day for me. It isn't just a loss for fishermen, it is a harbinger for things to come. The wind has arrived from the storm clouds I saw on the horizon ten years ago. Now the sea will test our mettle. Give us strength. 
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: ritter on March 27, 2014, 10:20:02 PM
This is a sad day for me. It isn't just a loss for fishermen, it is a harbinger for things to come. The wind has arrived from the storm clouds I saw on the horizon ten years ago. Now the sea will test our mettle. Give us strength.
Some will be on the front lines, slapped down by climate change first. I'm sorry that you are one of them, considering the efforts you've put into calling attention to it and developing a new paradigm.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 28, 2014, 12:42:20 AM
Ritter, There are still things we can do. In Calif. we have put about 20% aside in closed areas. The problem with fertilization of Red Sea Urchins is that acidification slows down the swimming speed of the sperm. If urchins are close enough together there will be less trouble with the odds of and egg and a sperm finding each other as they are broadcast spawners and distance between males and females will become more important. Closed areas increase densities and sizes of formerly fished stocks.The other thing you can do is increase the size limit currently 3.25 inches in Southern Calif. and 3.5 in Northern Calif. in the open areas because this too will increase densities.
 We in the Sea Urchin industry have also paid for and helped maintain a long term larval recruitment study now into it's twenty second year. Newly recruited sea urchins ( both red and purple ) are collected on brushes hanging from piers along the Calif coast. The brushes have been collected at about 15 sites every two weeks, sonicated and counted for reds and purple under a biological microscope for a every good data set. Recruitment on the brushes does represent accurately settlement into the fishery. So unlike most invertebrates we have a baseline to compare changes in recruitment as they progress over time. University grant cycles are typically three years and getting funding for long term data-sets is extremely difficult. Not bad for a bunch of salty dogs, not bad at all. Because the effects of acidification on purples and reds are different we also can compare recruitment of two fairly similar inverts that live in similar habitats. If a trend towards decreased Red Urchin recruitment does show up we will see it in the data. Without a baseline this isn't possible. 
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: ritter on March 28, 2014, 04:45:10 PM
Yes, Bruce. There are still things we can do. The problem is that we've moved firmly into adaptation as we've failed to implement mitigation. And it's only going to continue to get worse.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Laurent on May 01, 2014, 04:32:49 PM
I like the animation !

Scientists have documented that souring seas caused by CO2 emissions are dissolving pteropods, a key marine food source. The research raises questions about what other sea life might be affected.

http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2014/apr/30/pteropod-shells-dissolving/ (http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2014/apr/30/pteropod-shells-dissolving/)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on May 03, 2014, 06:33:55 PM
Laurent, The nearshore areas where the NOAA survey documented 50% of living pteropods with partial shell dissolution was the same nearshore areas surveyed in 2007 that showed undersaturated (causes shell dissolution)surface waters along the coast of Calif. Oregon and Washington. In the animation that follows you can watch as the area , duration and intensity of the undersaturation expands over the next ~ 35 years.

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RppuoEkk9cY&feature=youtube_gdata_player# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RppuoEkk9cY&feature=youtube_gdata_player#)

As the biological impacts of acidification can be documented in the shells of live pteropods we may have an animal that can serve as a proxy for general damage being done to the ocean environment in localized areas. Those areas will begin to expand very rapidly over the next two or three decades with the entire California Current ecosystem being exposed to undersaturated waters for months at a time by 2050.  How pteropods respond to very low pH conditions ( < 7.5 pH ) and whether those conditions result in high mortality may demand other biological proxies be developed as pterpods may too sensitive to survive expected near term conditions. So developing a catalog of different species that respond at different pH levels and a map that indicates which species we can expect local expiration or chronically high annual mortality events  is a project for the the coming decade. No fun 
task this.   
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: wili on May 03, 2014, 10:16:36 PM
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/soil_may_absorb_less_co2_than_thought_20140503 (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/soil_may_absorb_less_co2_than_thought_20140503)

Report
Soil May Absorb Less CO2 Than Thought


Quote
They found that extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere meant more input into the soil – nearly 20% more – but it also meant more turnover, up by more than 16%.

So if more went in, more was released, because the teeming microscopic fauna that inhabit the soil, recycle nutrients and redistribute plant nourishment also became more active.

“Our findings mean that nature is not as efficient in slowing global warming as we previously thought,” said Dr van Groenigen. “By overlooking this effect of increased CO2 on soil microbes, models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may have overestimated the potential of soil to store carbon and mitigate the greenhouse effect.”
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on May 05, 2014, 05:40:08 PM
Wili, If you would ask me about the carbon cycle in soils or terrestrial systems in general I wouldn't be able to offer you much more than guesswork. Trees and living bio-mass,charcoal, peat moss , soil organisms and organic breakdown components like humus, cellulose or polysaccharides all are component parts but the length of time carbon can be retained in any of these forms,( or carbon pools ) where the largest terrestrial carbon pools exist or how climate change might affect them are all a mystery to me. Bacteria play a roll in both terrestrial and aquatic systems. Bacterial remineralization in the oceans  plays a critical role in the carbon cycle and on land I am sure bacterial play a similar roll. In the oceans I could offer up some info calcifiers like coccoliths or forams, or silica based lifeforms like diatoms or how with sediment traps one might go about quantifying their production and contribution to stored carbon. Soils on the other hand hide their breakdown processes and when you dig dirt up you change it's ability to cycle carbon.          
 Most of our current knowledge about ocean acidification and  all the studies on it's biological consequences are the product of the last ten years of research. I don't think the carbon cycle in soils has garnered anywhere near this level of scrutiny but how the terrestrial carbon cycle responds to global heating whether that be 3 or 6 degrees C is just as important as what is happening to the oceans. It is hard to believe how incredible ignorant we are of either process but in this case ignorance will not be bliss. 
 http://biology.duke.edu/jackson/frontiers04.pdf
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: wili on May 05, 2014, 08:22:50 PM
Thanks Bruce. Our ignorance is of such a basic things as what is in healthy soil and how it functions is stunningly vast indeed. It reminds me of some of Wendell Berry's essays on the importance of remembering the extent of our ignorance as we wade into ever deeper uncharted waters.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Laurent on May 09, 2014, 09:44:25 PM
It was already posted I guess, well let's show it again. That information is pretty important.

We can't count on plants to slow down global warming

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/may/09/cant-count-on-plants-slowing-global-warming (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/may/09/cant-count-on-plants-slowing-global-warming)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on May 13, 2014, 05:16:44 PM
Paper on the importance of South Atlantic mode water in carbon sequestration. ~ 38% of all oceanic carbon uptake is in the Atlantic with North Atlantic uptake at~ 1.9 PgtC per decade and Southern Atlantic uptake at ~3.0PgtC per decade.38 pages but intro pages 2-5 very instructive.

 http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/11/6755/2014/bgd-11-6755-2014.pdf (http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/11/6755/2014/bgd-11-6755-2014.pdf)
 
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Laurent on May 27, 2014, 02:28:51 PM
Colossal peat bog discovered in Congo
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27492949 (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27492949)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Laurent on June 01, 2014, 12:21:28 AM
I found that video conference about the soil science...quite interesting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwmqr3oo0Ms# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwmqr3oo0Ms#)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on June 16, 2014, 05:49:06 PM
Here is an opinion piece in Seafood Business Magazine. My opinion with some editorial help.

http://www.seafoodbusiness.com/articledetail.aspx?id=23073 (http://www.seafoodbusiness.com/articledetail.aspx?id=23073)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on July 25, 2014, 06:50:22 PM
I was interviewed for an NPR piece recently and quoted as supporting marine protected areas, that is large pieces of representative habitat closed to all fishing. As a fisherman it is very contentious and frankly doesn't feel very good. It isn't like any amount of closures will cure what is in store for life in the oceans but if it can do even a little to maintain intact ecosystems then I guess it is something fishermen can do to compensate for the larger ills of society. The thing that grates is that the general public probably figures closures are justified by poor fisheries decisions in the past when in reality they are better justified by very poor decisions currently being made by almost everyone alive on this planet.  Dumping Co2 will do damage to the worlds oceans for thousands of years after the damage comes more into view over the next few decades.
 The following link has a nice picture of a Bryozoa. They are as fragile as a sugar confection. In the end Permian extinction Bryozoa species suffered major extinctions. That day is coming again. If I hurt my fishing friends I am sorry but grasping at straws is better than ignoring the 6th extinction.

   http://www.mbl.edu/blog/calcification-in-changing-oceans-biological-bulletin/ (http://www.mbl.edu/blog/calcification-in-changing-oceans-biological-bulletin/)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: JackTaylor on July 28, 2014, 03:20:28 PM
Bruce,

#1. Good to hear NPR has activity on the west coast about conditions of fisheries.
East coast activity - from my 1960's "stomping grounds" -  linked below the dashed line.

#2.  Congratulations for not taking a NIMBY position on closing/protecting fisheries.
It must have took some soul searching to voice that - hope your fisherman peers are not too tough on you.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I do not believe carbon caused the reduction in size of catches.  What's the opinion of others?

From NPR Article "Big Fish Stories Getting Littler" by Robert Krulwich
http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2014/02/05/257046530/big-fish-stories-getting-littler (http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2014/02/05/257046530/big-fish-stories-getting-littler)
with further reference from research work by Loren McClenachan
"Documenting Loss of Large Trophy Fish from the Florida Keys with Historical Photographs"
http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR23_RD_10_McClenachan_09.pdf?id=DOCUMENT (http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/sedar/download/SEDAR23_RD_10_McClenachan_09.pdf?id=DOCUMENT)
A very interesting article

mid 1960's
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.npr.org%2Fassets%2Fimg%2F2014%2F02%2F04%2Fimage001_1965_custom-c98ca9a2c7761963a89e338a7db8fb5700f8d0df-s40-c85.jpeg&hash=3767b55bf8e6d3534aa992a9759e04f2)

mid 1980's
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.npr.org%2Fassets%2Fimg%2F2014%2F02%2F04%2F1980_custom-9bc742a8d3dacecff32564ac9b7801b437740e53-s40-c85.jpeg&hash=882576d4baddb231173645d99ab728f6)

mid 2000's
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.npr.org%2Fassets%2Fimg%2F2014%2F02%2F04%2Fimage001_2007_custom-a7285d7137523b1032fd219772ec8a1ca822ebee-s40-c85.jpeg&hash=4d7b5a6d830c754ce0710c4c33827fde)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on July 28, 2014, 04:15:36 PM
Jack, It is good to see you back. I am in complete agreement that to date fishing pressure can be held responsible for both a decline in catch rate as well as size of the larger ( older ) fish caught in a lot of areas. Local traditional fish management methods can be very effective at managing and maintaining stocks and the Pacific coast is a pretty good example of what success looks like if your looking for good examples of effective fish management. There are plenty of examples where it has failed however and there are plenty of reasons why including terrestrial inputs of fertilizer and sewage, increased marine mammal numbers, invasive species, and habitat modifications.
 I have spent a good part of my life in meetings with other fishermen and government regulators trying to manage fish resources and for the most part when honest fishermen and dedicated managers work at it we can do a pretty good job maintaining the health of fish stocks and maintain financially viable fisheries. Maybe sometimes fish aren't as big as they used to be but that isn't the only measure of a healthy stock and if it is important upper size limits can be a tool in your management bag to address it.
 I have come to the decision however that no amount of regulating local fish populations will be effective or sufficient if that management stops at the waters edge. Acidification and hypoxia are problems created on land and if we are going to save the oceans then changing how seven billion people go about their daily lives is critical. I was a fairly successful fish manager but providing answers for how we actually change 7 billion people is quite a challenge. It is far to easy for people to blame fishermen , wash their hands, and walk away. We need answers and not scapegoating. The Arctic Ocean looks like it will melt out some summer within our lifetime. It's melting will change weather patterns and food production for an overpopulated planet but changing the acidity of the oceans will outlive the damage we have done to the cryosphere. A hundred thousand years of hell for calcifiers, huge numbers of extinctions, and a compromised carbon sink is our collective contribution should we fail. Big fish - Small fish seems kinda minor in comparison .
   
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on August 13, 2014, 04:44:57 PM
For most fisheries we have very little data to make management decisions other than catch data.
We call this " data poor ". Fisheries independent data, like recruitment numbers, demands $ and time and both are hard to come by.
 I am banging the drum trying to get some interest in developing some predictive models of how this all works out for at least one fishery that does have some decent numbers, my fishery. If anyone wonders why I post on the forum it is because there really isn't a single place on the web where
acidification is discussed other than posting science paper abstracts. So you my friends get to watch my struggles

 
Christina Frieder 2014 has just published a paper documenting fertilization success in Red Sea Urchins. This species of urchin has fisheries in Calif. Oregon , Washington , British Columbia and Alaska.
Fertilization success may be reduced 20% even under current seasonal pH conditions at 7.8pH and reductions of 79% may be happening in the next few decades as acidification and water conditions deteriorate to   7.5pH in parts of it's range by 2100.  The decreases in fertilization are linear as conditions for successful fertilization decline from 7.8pH down to 7.5pH. That is Red Sea Urchin will have a harder time successfully recruiting into the fishery as time progresses. 
  abstract for Frieder paper
 Ocean acidification impacts fertilization in some species of sea urchin, but whether sensitivity is great enough to be influenced by present-day pH variability has not been documented. In this study, fertilization in two congeneric sea urchins, Strongylocentrotus purpuratus and S. franciscanus, was found to be sensitive to reduced pH, <7.50, but only within a range of sperm-egg ratios that was species-specific. By further testing fertilization across a broad range of pH, pH-fertilization curves were generated and revealed that S. purpuratus was largely robust to pH, while fertilization in S. franciscanus was sensitive to even modest reductions in pH. Combining the pH-fertilization response curves with pH data collected from these species’ habitat demonstrated that relative fertilization success remained high for S. purpuratus but could be as low as 79% for S. franciscanus during periods of naturally low pH. In order for S. franciscanus to maintain high fertilization success in the present and future, adequate adult densities, and thus sufficient sperm-egg ratios, will be required to negate the effects of low pH. In contrast, fertilization of S. purpuratus was robust to a broad range of pH, encompassing both present-day and future ocean acidification scenarios, even though the two congeners have similar habitats.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Both red and purple sea urchins have twenty two years of recruitment data collected at two week intervals from multiple sights along the California coast.
(Schroeder)
If acidification does differentially affect red sea urchin fertilization success this baseline dataset could be used to document future changes. Current analysis does not show any negative trend in red urchin settlement verses the hardier purple urchin.
Settlement studies do document recruitment into the fishery for red sea urchins, 
heavy settlement on the brush collectors is followed by strong recruitment years for new year classes recruiting into the fishery.
For  Red sea urchins we have data to begin populating a model about how red sea urchins may respond to projected changes in water chemistry and we have a control with the hardier purple sea urchin to test the accuracy of those projections.
There are also urchin density data sets that can inform potential density dependent
fertilization constraints. ( Channel Islands kelp monitoring dataset NPS ) ( Calif. Fish and Game dive surveys, Pete Kalvas ) and ( San Diego urchin monitoring, Pete Halmay) 
So questions might be 
 1) can fertilization success limit settlement success?
 2) does urchin density affect fertilization success - now and in the future?
 3) will the information we already have be sufficient to populate a model with data that can predict future impacts to the Red Sea Urchin fishery?
 4) are there management options that might address how density and consequent fertilization success can respond to potential problems?
   


Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: JackTaylor on August 17, 2014, 01:25:50 PM
Quote
Bruce Steele August 13, 2014.
"So you my friends get to watch my struggles"
Well continue to keep us posted.
Ocean "food" (seafood) is dear to my heart & belly.

Also, about the post above I made on "size of the catch"
some people are starting to discuss (blame) fertilizer run-off from the Mississippi River
and it's "dead zone" feeding the Gulf Stream which flows near Key West, Florida
as a contributing factor for reduction in size, not just over-fishing.  ?  ?  ?
Title: Artic sunlight driving co2 release in surface waters
Post by: morganism on August 22, 2014, 12:45:46 AM
http://m.phys.org/news/2014-08-sunlight-microbes-key-co2-arctic.html (http://m.phys.org/news/2014-08-sunlight-microbes-key-co2-arctic.html)

So, that seems to leave bacterial action as the methane producer ?
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on August 23, 2014, 03:01:57 AM
Morganism, ASLR posted that link on his Antarctic forcing page today. I was in the " it's bacterial remineralization" camp so the whole notion that Particulate and Dissolved organic matter photo degrade at those percentages is all new territory for me. I need more reading before I can add anything on this one, just questions here.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: F.Tnioli on August 25, 2014, 04:39:06 PM
Jack, It is good to see you back. I am in complete agreement that to date fishing pressure can be held responsible for both a decline in catch rate as well as size of the larger ( older ) fish caught in a lot of areas. Local traditional fish management methods can be very effective at managing and maintaining stocks and the Pacific coast is a pretty good example of what success looks like if your looking for good examples of effective fish management. There are plenty of examples where it has failed however and there are plenty of reasons why including terrestrial inputs of fertilizer and sewage, increased marine mammal numbers, invasive species, and habitat modifications.
 I have spent a good part of my life in meetings with other fishermen and government regulators trying to manage fish resources and for the most part when honest fishermen and dedicated managers work at it we can do a pretty good job maintaining the health of fish stocks and maintain financially viable fisheries. Maybe sometimes fish aren't as big as they used to be but that isn't the only measure of a healthy stock and if it is important upper size limits can be a tool in your management bag to address it.
 I have come to the decision however that no amount of regulating local fish populations will be effective or sufficient if that management stops at the waters edge. Acidification and hypoxia are problems created on land and if we are going to save the oceans then changing how seven billion people go about their daily lives is critical. I was a fairly successful fish manager but providing answers for how we actually change 7 billion people is quite a challenge. It is far to easy for people to blame fishermen , wash their hands, and walk away. We need answers and not scapegoating. The Arctic Ocean looks like it will melt out some summer within our lifetime. It's melting will change weather patterns and food production for an overpopulated planet but changing the acidity of the oceans will outlive the damage we have done to the cryosphere. A hundred thousand years of hell for calcifiers, huge numbers of extinctions, and a compromised carbon sink is our collective contribution should we fail. Big fish - Small fish seems kinda minor in comparison .
 
A bit of offtopic: very well said, Bruce! Much pleasure to read (despite the subject being tragic) thoughts of a wise man. Prosit!

In response to your thoughts, leaving unnesessary details behind:

1. Plenty of reasons indeed. But one you didn't mention which is of special importance - is this: differencies between local ecosystems' endurance and strength are great, and science is still oblivious to most of them (due to excessive complexity, mainly). I.e., what works fine on one coast, - won't nesessarily work somewhere else, i guess; could even lead to disaster, sometimes. Worst thing is, we don't know and can't know where and how and why.

2. When honest specialists and intending to actually make a difference managers work well - yes, results happen. Thing is, with environment deteriorating, it'll be more and more difficult to "do a pretty good job", you know. Especially looking at what happens in economies and politics of most powerful countries of the globe. Limits to growth...

3. We've already failed - if you meant mankind. "We" built a monster - fossil-fuel-powered global industrial civilization. It won't stop. Last two decades of (generally practically complete) failues to limit GHG emissions (lest reduce them) - what other proof we need to realize: it is business as usual, and it WILL be business as usual as long as business "as usual" at all possible? I guess you know the answer... I guess you feel it, inside. 800 ppm CO2e this century (not even including polar clathrates) is a certainty for any who spent at least few months to study how modern industries actually function, who own them, what their demands and duties are, etc.


I'd plan accordingly. Even if it's cruel. Because to me, sillyness and mental blindness is worse than cruelty.


Good luck to us all.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on August 25, 2014, 07:02:50 PM
F.Tnioli   1. Yes and without adequate foreknowledge we humans sometimes come crashing into environments where we do immense damage before we realize how badly we  have transgressed the bio-productivity limits not immediately obvious. Management of resources is benefited by a risk averse
decision process that honestly doesn't describe much of our history but still their are examples of good men and women living within limits. Limits they recognize and respect.
2. Yes and "pretty good"must sound kinda weak but I have to respect the fact we have so often exceeded our  carrying capacity and can't expect that the fisheries management examples I am most familiar with can actually stand the test of time. Motorized boats and therefore all modern fisheries
have less than 100 years of data to look at ( usually much less ). Not really enough info so again caution is warranted. There is really no way to manage what is coming our way over the next hundred years however. It is very popular to think we need to "adapt" to the coming worldwide surface ocean pH shift but who are we kidding?  These are changes of geologic scale crushed into a 100 year timeframe. I am not that good with economics but economics is going to meet the grim reaper , so much for economics...same timeframe.
3. We have already failed... Well all indications are full steam ahead and anything I might think of as a remedy would be viewed as a cataclysm otherwise so whether I said it or not ,there it is.
None of that darkness however should immobilize our efforts at building a better mousetrap.
So here we are.
 
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: F.Tnioli on August 26, 2014, 10:38:51 AM
...
None of that darkness however should immobilize our efforts at building a better mousetrap.
So here we are.
 
Ah, this really depends on how you define "better", though.

Let me clarify this one, please. If by "better" you mean "higher production and/or lower costs system" (ecological, monetary, human resource - whatever costs there are), system which is intended to work within present global-industrial system (and only able to work in it - since without it, it'd quickly fall apart, lacking parts for repairs, power source to function, specialists to service it, etc), - then no, i have to disagree. The "darkness" as you called it (i prefer the term "bottleneck", since there is a chance it won't be "dark" everywhere humans will manage to survive through), - this very darkness, in my opinion, is exactly the sound and proper reason to stop our efforts in creating better mousetraps of the sort i described in this paragraph.

And here's why. Because there is other sort of mouse trap possible. Designed to work _without_ present global industrial system, but still significantly productive and, of course, allowing to maintain the resource(s) sustainably (no overuse). It's darn difficult to make anything of this sort, considering all involved uncertainties and requirement to use only most simple, easily locally reproducible tools and matherials. You see, it's quite probable that global industrial system won't die slowly "bit by bit"; cascade failures of systems and chains of supply after the point of critical stress within the global system will be passed - is likely. And by then, noone will have time to design "new mousetraps". Doing it now is the only option. That's why it is, in my opinion, quite the time already to stop making effort in improving old (currently existing) ones.

The main problem (for me) - is quite very simple: number of people who understand what i just described - is extremely very small; diffused within and among huge masses of modern citizens (specialists or not, - any subsociety), those who understand can't unite, can't even sufficiently often meet each other. And as proverbial of my people goes, "just one man - is not a soldier in the field"...
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on August 26, 2014, 04:51:56 PM
F.Tnioli, Again I agree with what you have to say. I think many people have some notion of the  "bottleneck" or "darkness" ahead but when that will come is more difficult to predict than an ice free September at 90 degrees north. I don't know if it's because I am contrary, prescient, or just a little thick but I have a bit of a primitivist bent myself. I have mentioned before that I believe there are still residual examples of societies ( tribes ) living within the resource limits of their local habitat. I haven't had the desire to go join one of these( existing ) groups and I haven't ever met anyone who tried. Forming some modern equivalent would require more than an acceptance of a primitive tool-set , it would require the social structure that would cement a group together. I think a lot about the tools,and techniques for food production but unless the " bottleneck " happens while I am alive I doubt anyone feels like helping me  in the field and without that whatever I figure out will die with me. Short of getting experience before times get tough seems like a lot of people will be trying to figure this out in very difficult times. Resources even for a primitive existence aren't going to be at hands reach and sourcing the raw materials will require free movement. So getting through the bottleneck with your tribe and tool-set intact will require a lot of pre-planning and very good local knowledge of resources.
 So to some up, existing primitive societies and recreated versions will in my opinion have an advantage in a fast crash of civilization. Not many people want to go there voluntarily so likely very few will have the skill-set necessary to relearn what we walked away from a long time ago. Simple ain't easy. Getting along is part of that skill-set. 
 I would be interested in how you think Russians view primitive options? Is there anyone living years in their dacha  pursuing off grid locally sourced survival? Are there groups? Is the thought of a very simple life appealing to many people there? 
 P.S. This is the carbon cycle page but entertaining solutions is as important or more important than documenting the disaster. So thank you F.Tnioli
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: F.Tnioli on August 27, 2014, 03:05:15 PM
F.Tnioli, Again I agree with what you have to say. I think many people have some notion of the  "bottleneck" or "darkness" ahead but when that will come is more difficult to predict than an ice free September at 90 degrees north. I don't know if it's because I am contrary, prescient, or just a little thick but I have a bit of a primitivist bent myself. I have mentioned before that I believe there are still residual examples of societies ( tribes ) living within the resource limits of their local habitat. I haven't had the desire to go join one of these( existing ) groups and I haven't ever met anyone who tried. Forming some modern equivalent would require more than an acceptance of a primitive tool-set , it would require the social structure that would cement a group together. I think a lot about the tools,and techniques for food production but unless the " bottleneck " happens while I am alive I doubt anyone feels like helping me  in the field and without that whatever I figure out will die with me. Short of getting experience before times get tough seems like a lot of people will be trying to figure this out in very difficult times. Resources even for a primitive existence aren't going to be at hands reach and sourcing the raw materials will require free movement. So getting through the bottleneck with your tribe and tool-set intact will require a lot of pre-planning and very good local knowledge of resources.
 So to some up, existing primitive societies and recreated versions will in my opinion have an advantage in a fast crash of civilization. Not many people want to go there voluntarily so likely very few will have the skill-set necessary to relearn what we walked away from a long time ago. Simple ain't easy. Getting along is part of that skill-set. 
 I would be interested in how you think Russians view primitive options? Is there anyone living years in their dacha  pursuing off grid locally sourced survival? Are there groups? Is the thought of a very simple life appealing to many people there? 
 P.S. This is the carbon cycle page but entertaining solutions is as important or more important than documenting the disaster. So thank you F.Tnioli
We are doing offtopic here, but i sincerely hope that moderators will allow us to continue, considering that 1) what we discuss is actually important, 2) we arrived at it organically from discussing the topic, and 3) some few other people may find our here discussion useful for themselves.

In response to your post, 1st, let me express darn big pleasure: not often i am understood so well. You give me a breath of fresh air time and time again, Bruce. Thank you!

In general, i spent years considering what will be and what will not be possible in the truly post-industrial future (currently used "post-industrial" label, applied to countries which "went past" mainly industrial ways of development - is imho wrong; because these societies did not, so far, and most likely will not in their current scale and shape, manage to remove their dependencies on large-scale industrial processes; and these societies did not "stop" to be industrial ones - they merely "exported" their industrial processes to countries/regions remote from their main centers). Perhaps, some of considerations i arrived to - will clarify some points mentioned in your last message.

1. The exact date of the global industrial collapse - yep, indeed, difficult to impossible to predict. Perhaps one big and really competent think tank could do so, may be few did already (making the result available only to governments and/or corporate sponsors of such a research, but not to public, of course). However, even i - a single man, who spent few years to study where we (mankind) are going, - even i myself can see enough to be quite sure that (most of) global industrial system will fail to function within this century for sure, possibly as early as in 2030s, at best - as late as 2070s or 2080s. The fact itself - that it will fail, - appears to be undeniable to me, considering whole range of required materials and expected events (availability and reserves of most important metals, rare earth elements, soil fertility and climate viability for industrial agriculture, absence of sudden and large sea level increases - to ensure continuous functioning of ports worldwide, which ferry ever increasing amounts of industrially produced goods between countries and continents - Greenland will sooner or later make a big "surprise" here, when large part(s) of its much warmed up ice sheet will slide into the ocean, having lots of melt water underneath it - lakes of melt water between ice sheet and Greenland bedrock are already detected, as well as big parts of ice sheet naer bedrock which have liquid water "embedded" between ice crystals - mixed ice/water phase). My point here is: there is both sufficient certainty in the shutdown of global industrial system itself, and enough certainty about timeframe during which it will happen, to arrive to the simple conclusion: whomever will start to prepare for the bottleneck and past-bottleneck living earlier than later - will get an advantage during and after the bottleneck. Especially considering dwindling opportunities to do such preparation in many facets of our lives and systems as time goes by.

2. Primitivist bent. Bruce, you are not alone. The dream of "simple life" is shared by quite a few humans out there. I like this dream myself, too. I like the song "Bingo, Bango, Bongo (i don't want to leave the Congo)" extremely very much. But - only as a dream. In reality, we won't have such a luxury, i am sure. I mean: in order to "get back to primitive ways", to return to "hunter-gatherer ways of life, which are natural for a human being" (as some advocate), - there is one fat requirement: to do so, one needs the environment which can provide and support such a lifestyle. Our ancestors did not live in a vacuum; rather, they had the luxury of relatively (in compare to our days) stable climate, lots of flora and fauna now extinct (and the process is not complete - 6th great extinction is going on as we speak) which, back then, was all parts of very healthy ecosystems (in compare to present days), and seas, in particular, were not so acidic at all, too (not to mention how much more fish and other sea life they had, back then). Rivers full of fish, and lots of crystal clear water sources which now simply do not exist. Nowadays, mega-fauna is long gone, lots of eco-systems are on the verge of collapse, quite many are already dead; heck, half of forests which planet had in the beginning of the 20th century - are already wiped out by us humans during last ~100 years or so (and deforestation goes on, faster than ever, last i heard), - you see what i mean? Extrapolate such trends into the future, some 50 years, give or take. Don't forget to add an extra jump of surface temperatures, which will happen in a few years after most of currently emitted industrial aerosols settle down (as a result of the shutdown of most of global industrial civilization - no more continuous and huge (net global) source of those aerosols, most of industries being stopped), thus producing significant "brightening" effect in the athmosphere (and corresponding increase of surface temperatures). And don't forget to add significant radioactive contamination, which will be the result of popping here-and-there old-generations reactors of nuclear power plants (without grid electricity, and with diesel generators' fuel out, those won't remain stable for long). And possibly some other unpleasant things we simply can not foresee at this time.

Where exactly will we be able to survive in "primitive" ways during the bottleneck, i wonder? Granted, few areas lucky enough to retain relatively habitable climate, and sufficiently far from any popping nuclear power plant, and sufficiently pristine and sturdy in terms of their eco-systems - will provide environment suitable for rather primitive human society. I'd bet on relatively high-altitude (2000+ meters) platous, remote of any present industrial and population centers, in moderate or even subpolar belts, and at least some 1000+ kilometers from any ocean, preferably not any close to any tectonically active region, and preferably with some large lake within it (some 200+ square kilometers). I can tell you how many such places i know exist nowadays: zero. Earth is big, though, and i am not a geographist; possibly few such places exist, but i am unaware about them. Also possible that "primitive" humans will manage in few other locations, ones not like the type i described. However, for vast majority of now alive humans, there will be no chance to get into such a community/place - simply because of how few and small and remote such communities and places will be. I have no illusions about myself: most likely, i won't be able to make into one, too.

So you see, in general, i don't think there can be any reliable "way back to Congo" for us. Furthermore, majority of presently surviving remains of tribes and indigenous people, as far as i know, are just a shadow of their former strength; in other words, as people/communities/ways_of_life - most of "primitive people" are deteriorating (much like the rest of the biosphere in general). I can ask myself: if people who were living primitive ways all their life, with hundreds of generations of their ancestors also living the same way - and thus providing now-alive aborigens with lots of genes and knowledge needed to thrive in the wild, - if even those people are increasingly unable to survive within their own habitat, - then how i, a typical city dweller with some outdated farming experience, can hope to do well as any sort of hunter-gatherer, especially after above mentioned effects of global industrial system collapse? If i ask myself that, then my answer is: i can't hope for that.

As an extra: you may be interested in the story of Lykov family, widely available online, for example here: http://www.vice.com/read/meet-the-last-lykov-000001-v20n4 (http://www.vice.com/read/meet-the-last-lykov-000001-v20n4) . You never met such people, you said; perhaps it'd be interesting to read about such people and see photographs (pretty many are available online) about them. Their story - is exactly what happened when the dream of "getting back to nature" (which they had) was actually pursued in practice. They were few people - a single family, - who went away from civilization, into the wild siberian forest (taiga), and lived there for decades; back in 1930s...1970s, the last survivor of the family (2nd generation) - a single woman, now old, - was still alive in 2013, possibly she's still there, living in the forest. She refuses to leave; much like Daniel in the "Bingo Bango Bongo" song. They didn't end well. Their forest-born children lost much of their ability to speak (and to think - in a usual sense of the word), despite that fact they had and often read their Bible. They had LOTS of quite pristine eco-system (and rather clean - middle 20th century) to support themselves, and climate was definitely better than today's (and much better than future climate), much less forest fires (though even back then, at least once they almost succumbed to a forest fire). Yet, despite that quite healthy and vast natural environment, - starvation was often present; one of them died to it (the mother), sometimes they had to eat bark to survive. Details of their story bring much light on other practical dangers of "the primitive way". And when i try to imagine how well "neo-Lykovs" would manage during some 2050s or beyond, - i can't get rid of the suspicion that many times more intensive (than during 2nd half of 20th century) siberian forest fires (which is very likely future of the region) - would be their doom after quite a few years of such a living... If not less than that. Because the fire itself is not the most ugly thing - but what remains after it, is (in terms of human survival in such a burned region for several years / few decades afterwards).

3. Tool set. By all means, i didn't mean "primitive" tool set. It will be much simpler than sophisticated modern industrial designs, yes; it will have to be made outta most durable/abundant remains of global industrial matherials and/or outta easily reproducible local matherials, yes; but by no means it has to be "primitive". Quite the opposite: the amount of good thinking, invention and smart design put into those "new tool sets" - has to be high; the higher, the better. Thankfully, lots of modern engineering and scientific knowledge about strength and property of matherials will remain, and even more of it is available now for any entity who will construct mousetraps for the future before the global industrial shutdown. This was not the case when old - medieval, etc - systems (watermills, windmills, etc) were designed and built. That's why new mousetraps shouldn't be, can't be and won't be "primitive"; and frankly, remains of mankind will need every last bit of efficiency possible, so this is indeed important.
->
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: F.Tnioli on August 27, 2014, 03:05:47 PM
->
4. Social structure. Indeed, one of most important "mousetraps" to make for the bottleneck and past - because ability to co-exist and peacefully cooperate on a large scale is quite a "mouse" to be "caught", if mankind intends to have any hope of long-term survival. I've spent months considering what can be done here. Obviously, free-market capitalism (if to be formal - i mean capitalistic oligarchy, which is inevitable in any society which postulates "free market" as its most cornerstone feature) won't do: owners are, by definition, unable to properly maintain "commons". This produces "externalities". Environment suffers, eventually - to the point of becoming uninhabitable. Well known "tragedy of commons" is actually a big part of the current inability of the present global technological civilization to steer away from the path of environmental destruction. Inherent to capitalism, this means that capitalistic society won't do. Elements of it will certainly remain, this i do not doubt. But the governing social system will be something else, i am sure.

What, then, it'd be?

I am extremely pessimistic about communism. Born in USSR, and lived in USSR and Russia for over a third of a century, i know about it "from inside". Not only it was never actually achieved in USSR (nor in any other country or nation of the modern times), - it never was any close to achieving it in practice. 70 years of "building it" by a geopolitical block eventually nearly 1/4 of the world large (counting Warsaw pact countries, USSR "friends" in Africa and Asia and such), - and still it wasn't even close. Why? Reason is simple: communism is very against human nature. "Every human for himself" - is exactly opposite state to communism in its pure form ("every human for community" - that's why it's called "communism", you know). And yet, ultimately, "every human for himself" - is the "last resort" natural state of a human being. We suffer, experience joy, love, and death - individually. We're not ants. Communism won't ever work.

I am equally pessimistic about dictatorships and any sort of police-state, surveilance state, etc. It's possible, if not very likely, that at some stage, most or even all societies will have to become those, for a while, yes. In fact, i see lots of signs that some of most "developed" nations are already turning into those sorts. "Hard times call for hard measures" and all. But long-term though and past bottleneck, those won't do: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Because of such corruption, those societies are always temporary - where-ever in history i look, i can't find any force-based society to persist for much long (except some ancient ones and primitive ones - but i don't think the future is about stone age or hunter-gatherer ways of life).

Anarchy... Some folks seriously propose that. Few, though. I really doubt it'd work. Some folks will always prefer fighting and robbing others. Giving those complete freedom to act? Won't end well, i bet. In early USSR, lots of anarchy was present in late 1910s and early 1920s. Roaming bands and lots of factions, some independant "field commanders", etc. Extremely widespread starvation and death of millions (known as "golodomor") was the result. Lots of good people died even before starvation, - simply killed for whatever reserves of food and/or other goods they managed to stockpile. This is a lesson my country will remember for a long, long time.

Feudalism. This is, surprisingly, the best of all social-order systems mentioned so far, in my opinion. Obviously, not to be used in its medieval forms; something much more like multi-layered and multi-form kind of federation. I see efficient elements of this approach in quite many countries and on different levels. Examples:
 - EU is definitely an entity and in many regards - a structured society, despite all differencies of nations which make it. However, there is clear separation between "common" and "private" matters in EU: say, managing Euro currency - is a common thing, and no single nation controls it (OK, some are not allowed to participate - but still, no single nation controls Euro issues solely and completely); but, say, managing national immigration issues - is every country's own business. Etc.
 - Russia is a federation now. Nearly 90 members (one can call those "states", if so desired). Each one state has lots of freedom within its own territory, yet in the same time - lots of duties towards the federal government, its neighbours and federal budget. Basically, it's sort of "do what every state has to do, don't spoil the life of other states, pay your taxes - and then you're free to shape yourself as you see fit". USA is roughly the same system, as far as i know.
 - Even on most local level, i can see elements of federalism/fuedalism. When some small town in USA has a criminal problem - whom they rely on? Yep, on their sheriff. Who's sheriff? A person chosen locally (either by local folks or by local authorities - doesn't really matter) who is "the law" in his town. And as long as the problem is entirely within the town - nobody has higher ability to control how the solution proceeds than the sheriff (even if "federals" come in and try to command, - it is the sheriff who knows all things about local "who" and "why" and "how", so if he so desires, he may only formally cooperate with federals, still controlling how the case is solved, himself). Same thing in Russia, actually: the only negligible differencies is that russian word for "sheriff" is not so simple ("uchastkoviy"), and it's not local folks to appoint one - instead, local branch of ministry of internal affairs appoints one officer per every small town / village. Though if people are not happy with him, they have ways to get the guy replaced, of course.

Democracy. I mean actual working democracy. Rare thing, in practice. And highly inefficient. The idea of allowing large number of nonn-specialists to decide on matters which demand careful and competent consideration - amazes me. In a bad sense. Thankfully, nobody has an idea to allow democractic process when selecting engineers who design and maintain nuclear power stations. Yet, wrong leaders of large countries can do even much more harm than wrong guy working on a nuclear reactor: those folks can harm millions of even billions other humans _intentionally_, and using professional killers (i.e., armies). Worst of all, they often pretend to do it legally. And still, somehow, even most stupid drunkard of legal age can come in and vote for one or for other. And last nail - democracy is darn inefficient way to find answers to improtant questions. If we'd take every important (for most people of a country) question and put them on a referendum - then most people would simply spend the entirety of their lives reading and putting marks in voting sheets, eh.

That's quite it, as far as i can recall... Unless something cathegorically new would be invented, i expect future social structure to be further evolved and adapted to changing conditions form of federation. The concept of separating issues into "local ones" and "common ones", and establishing rules to deal with common ones, - rules accepted by all involved parties, and enforced by majority of involved parties whenever some one (or few) of parties would attempt to violate those rules, - such a system seems both efficient and long-term sustainable (if implemented well), to me. One additional reason to utilize it which is well known - is ability of federal system to work despite massive differencies between parties. This is true for all levels; in Russia, there are many nations, and some members of the Federation are very, very different from russians and are quite autonomous in most regards (for example, Tatarstan); even on personal level, - whenever individuals clearly define what exactly are issues which are to be solved together, and define acceptable methods to solve them, - it is usually no problem to gather and solve any such matters even if individuals are very different human beings between themselves. For example, any active member of a typical professional union - knows very well what i am talking about. :)

The only real difficulty (to say the least; very challenging) - is for all levels of federations to actually become 1) able and 2) willing to formulate, en-procedure and maintain _all_ common issues of importance. I see definite movements towards this direction. "Clean air acts" and lots of other actually enforced "common rules of the game" - are making very real and very positive net impact. As we go through the bottleneck and past, much more of that will have to be done. Whether remains of mankind will be able to do that, or not - i do not know. They better.

Oh, and just "by the way": what then i consider USA to be, today? I think, nowadays it's a hybrid of a police state with a capitalistic oligarchy, with a good portion of inverted totalitarianism (it's "face" being a democracy, of course, and its "arms" being all the control and manipulation though the mass media) on top. Lots of good observations about it come from one of greatest minds of our days - Noam Chomsky, and those observations of his are especially valuable since he is the resident of the country. And of course, lots of old good american traditions are still alive, and people's spirit is still alive. Many/much of that - i respect very much. All those political and social elements together form the society of USA, with all its contrasts and strangely opposing things somehow existing in parallel. Indeed, this one country is one of most curious creations of modern man.

5. "Whatever i figure out will die with me" - this is likely, but not inevitable. Look, just one example: this thing - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_Vault) - was initially proposed by someONE, designed by someONE, its contruction was led by someONE, etc. There is always some above-zero (even if small) chance that you (me, anyone) will 1) "figure something out" first, and then 2) meet people who will make use of it later. Besides, even if mousetraps we'd create would vanish with us, - still, we could die content that we've done our part, and with a hope someone will still discover our work after our death and will make good use of it. History knows such examples, both in scientific and/or engineering/inventing fields of knowledge.


6. Off-grid survival, small communities present, "dacha" life, etc.
In Russia, there is no relatively widespread "business" of survivalism like there is in USA. Fine books like "Beyond collapse: surviving and rebuilding civilization from scratch" (by the way, this one is available for free in electronic form from the author's website) - in Russia there is nothing even remotely similar available for russian-speaking public. In the same time, though, yes, there is that russian "dacha" thing - lots of families have their own small houses and some land some few...few_dozens kilometers from the city the live in most of the time, and most of those have people growing all sorts of food for themselves. Just yesterday, i've been reading about some folks near Moscow growing watermelons and grapes on their dacha - if you'd know details about Moscow region climate just few decades ago, you'd say the same thing interviewer said: "WOW". Just one more sign of global warming to me, though. Anyhows, i guess your question is more about "what you think about all those people who prepare by getting some land, settling down there (at least part-time), learning to live off the land, etc".

My answer would probably surprise you. I think, all those folks - are misguided, and will eventually vanish (ok, let's be fair - they'll die). Lykov family (link above) - is one badly made attempt of this "i/my_family will go away and make everything we need ourselves" motto. Sure, modern "Lykovs" have diesels, and lots of good supplies, and - often - quite many good neighbours around. But what they lack - is systematic approach. They can't make/replace every last tool they need to go on. They can't address - in a tolerable manner, - every possible disaster which may head their way. They can't defend themselves against anything larger than a few bandits working together (exceptions exist, but as soon as we talk some artillery - are insignificant). It is silly to expect human conflict to cease as conditions worsen. Modern armed conflicts are just an extra confirmation of this. So you see, i reject this approach. To me, it is obvious that
 - without sufficiently large-scale cooperation (i talk at least a society of dozens thousands souls),
 - without rather detailed specialization (over 200 hundreds distinct specialties at least),
 - without some form of sustainable and reliable information technology which does not depend on electronic media (sooner or later, large enough solar flare will wipe most of modern electronic equipment out, astrophysicists know that for a fact, it'd take at least few years to restore networks and databanks, and there will lots of information lost completely),
 - without some smart and well implemented defensive measures, features and forces, -
no human society will have any significant chances to make it through the bottleneck with significant part of its culture and knowledge and its civilization remaining functional.

Yes, i know what quite a few folks in USA expect that "folks will hole down on their own, or with their family, or with family and as a part of their neighbourhood, and they will have enough resources to live through the worst of SHTF situation, and after that, those individuals and groups will naturally cooperate for mutual benefit, and new entities will emerge - local cities, states, etc". Personally, i disagree with that. I expect much bigger rampage of armed and dangerous people roaming around, taking what they want by force, and shooting those who "holed down" in droves. This period of "force rules" will last within most of "developed" countries for way more than a year or two, i think. When it'd be over, too few and too little (both humans and matherial items) will be left to "unite" and "form" new "cities" or "states". That's why for me, issues of defense and security are ahead of issues of piling up food and enforcing one's house. And, of course, one can only ensure defense and security when one is a part of a large enough force which operates in favorable enough conditions. If one of most fertile regions of Europe - Ukraine, - suffered several millions dead to starvation during much more favorable for agriculture climate than what we expect past 2050 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor) ) when merciless dictator (Stalin) came to power, - then i really do not expect most of those who now "learn to live off the land" to be able to enjoy the fruits of their own labor any much (if at all) after some point, except if they are well protected against external threats. Methods of protection vary, there are quite a few. The only reasonable case when few people can actually avoid being robbed of their posessions regularly (and likely, their very life at some point) - is being very remote from most humans alive. Small remote island, this sort of thing. But then, it's again Lykovs' fate - by isolation...

I plan accordingly. I see the future for people who understand values and efficiency of specialization, large-scale cooperation, efficient (professional) defense, effective internal (within the society) peacekeeping, and proper care and account for common goods. For the rest... I don't.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: morganism on August 28, 2014, 10:27:21 PM
any chance some methanogen is using this to break methane, and in the process creating the huge amounts of carbon tet NASA just found ?

There dosn't seem to be many other mechanisms availible, but they have found bacteria using vanadium and iron and cobalt. maybe not that big a stretch

http://m.phys.org/news/2014-08-benzene.html (http://m.phys.org/news/2014-08-benzene.html)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: F.Tnioli on August 29, 2014, 09:55:04 AM
any chance some methanogen is using this to break methane, and in the process creating the huge amounts of carbon tet NASA just found ?

There dosn't seem to be many other mechanisms availible, but they have found bacteria using vanadium and iron and cobalt. maybe not that big a stretch

http://m.phys.org/news/2014-08-benzene.html (http://m.phys.org/news/2014-08-benzene.html)
"This"? I doubt. Methane - CH4, - doesn't require complex catalysts to be "broken". Simple oxygen will do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanotroph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanotroph) , you know. As for their ability to produce carbon tetrachloride (i guess this is what you refer to as "carbon tet"), - i think that certain ferments/enzimes/whatever are indeed used by those bacteria, but it's nothing really special. The strength of chemical bonds within CCl4 molecula is much, much higher than strength of bonds within CH4 molecula, since both carbon and hydrogen are nearly neutral elements, while chlorine is highly electronegative element. Granted, HCl forms somewhat easier than CCl4 (if i remember my inorganic chemistry course right), but the differense is not that big, significantly forming one instead of the other should be not a huge problem for a living cell. The only moment where the bacteria really needs some good catalyst (enzyme, ferment, whatever) - is when it "extracts" chlorine from (overabundant in the ocean) NaCl molecula. Frankly, this is extremely common biochemical process, which happens even within human body, and provides Na+ and Cl- ions for lots of important biochemical processes. For all animals and humans, the enzyme "responsible" for the key part of the process - is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%2B/K%2B-ATPase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%2B/K%2B-ATPase) , and i wouldn't be surprised if those bacteria use very same thing as well. I suspect that the enzyme is probably nearly as old as cellular life itself, - i.e. some 1+ billion years, eh.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on August 29, 2014, 09:33:28 PM
F.Tnioli, I don't know if you read this in an early post on this page, sorry for reposting, but I wrote this and it was printed in "National Fisherman Magazine" 2008.

 http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kwing/media/Steele_OceanAcidification.pdf (http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kwing/media/Steele_OceanAcidification.pdf)

It took some reading to get to where I could write something. So to be blunt I had my " Oh **** "
moment about a decade ago.
Total anthropogenic Carbon emissions were, like my article said, in the range of 500 gt Carbon back then but cumulative totals will be very close to 1000 gt Carbon by 2050.  If things are still accelerating and emissions continue at the 2.5% increase rate, somewhere around 2050 we pass 1000 gt Carbon totals.
( sorry for the total rewrite )
So as a response I have redoubled my concentration on food. For me it is something I was already committed to and including energy inputs into every decision about farming or producing food has changed my farming efforts and interests. It is something I can get lost in...on purpose. Hardly an escape but headed down that path.
 
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: F.Tnioli on September 02, 2014, 10:07:31 AM
...
Total anthropogenic Co2 emissions were, like my article said, in the range of 500 gt Co2 back then but cumulative totals will be very close to 1000 gt Co2 by 2020. ...
"Escaping" from the reality? It's the path of many. Must admit, i have my ways to do it too, and i do it rather often. "Only humans", eh. It helps to remain (relatively) sane, perhaps, - but it doesn't help with the big picture. I know it, i bet you know it, and probably it can't be changed, but still i feel... irritation about it. Equally so about myself and about others whenever i see them performing some "escaping", whatever form it gets.

And as a technical note: with all respect, Bruce, i am not sure where you get those numbers from. Let me show you this: http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/CO2EmissionsFromFuelCombustionHighlights2013.pdf (http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/CO2EmissionsFromFuelCombustionHighlights2013.pdf) , page 132, figure 1.

As you can see, that's some 41 years (1971...2011), with 1971 being ~14Gt CO2 annual total, and 2011 being ~32Gt CO2 annual total. The graph is not exactly linear, but not hugely far from it; 1st approximation (as if it'd be linear trend) allows to calculate total CO2 amount emitted buring those 41 years: 41*(14+32)/2=943Gt CO2. Even if we substruct some ~50Gt for the fact that it was not exactly linear growth, we still have ~900Gt of CO2 emitted during those 41 years. CO2 emissions grew since then, last 3 years - 2012, 2013 and 2014 - add ~100Gt CO2 on top of that. So you see, mankind _already_ emitted 1000Gt CO2. In fact, this "milestone" was passed quite a few years ago already, since few more hundreds gigatons of CO2 was emitted between the start of industrial revolution and 1971.

Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on September 02, 2014, 10:27:32 PM
F.Tnioli, It is such an amateur mistake, but those numbers should be Gt carbon not Gt Co2.
The trillionth ton site has cumulative totals.
http://trillionthtonne.org/ (http://trillionthtonne.org/)
The trillion ton carbon number is associated with both the + 2C temp. projections and atmospheric doubling at 560 ppm. The cumulative numbers are sometimes strictly fossil fuel emissions ,sometimes ff + cement manufacture, and sometimes ff + cement + land use changes.  Carbon totals can easily be converted into Co2 by multiplying C  times 3.67 = Co2
 I will go back and fix my error in above link

 Re. escape, Labor is a palliative, and not a very good one at that. I have worked alone almost all my life, underwater or in the field. Much time to mull things over. Farming does connect both the problem and also some potential solutions IMO.  To some extent " escape " was also intended as a double entendre, that is some escape from reality ( pain )and some escape from culpability.
 I reread your posts above a couple more times. I guess I purposely avoided the security issues you raised. L.A. is less than a tank of gas away. If things get very bad this would be a very unlikely place to circle the wagons. I can however reach  dozens of remote water sources and I can both identify and prepare some native foods so they won't poison you but provide emergency rations. I know where to locally source primitive weapons components and fashion at least bows, arrows and arrowheads. Even a very small group will attract attention and defending against what will exodus the city will be simply to avoid them first ,then outlast them. Not something I spend time on , just an interest in native culture and native foods.       
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on September 04, 2014, 05:09:23 PM
Here is a National Geo article that starts with the 2 trillion tons in cumulative Co2 emissions to date. Checking with thetrillionthton site we are on track to add another 1.5 trillion by 2040. The article makes some reference to planting mangroves and seagrass beds to mitigate the O/A. I have a hard time with the "feel good" message but it's so popular to end things that way. I keep hearing the public has " climate fatigue " from various professional writers.... so make nice endings... That is, manufacture them.

 http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2014/09/02/ocean-acidification-from-domestic-to-international/ (http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2014/09/02/ocean-acidification-from-domestic-to-international/)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: ritter on September 04, 2014, 06:52:59 PM
"climate fatigue"--that's funny. We don't have any idea what climate fatigue is yet.

I too get tired of the feel good summary. Tell me the truth, doc, and let me plan around that.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: jai mitchell on September 04, 2014, 11:17:28 PM
"climate fatigue"--that's funny. We don't have any idea what climate fatigue is yet.

I too get tired of the feel good summary. Tell me the truth, doc, and let me plan around that.

you want answers?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWSx0bBiNIs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWSx0bBiNIs)

Ok.

The simple fact is that speleotherm analysis of Russian permafrost caves shows that at 1.5C above pre-industrial times (.7C above now) a significant portion (about 60% of current) permafrost starts to melt.  This is a positive feedback that is NOT being currently considered by the IPCC.

at CURRENT greenhouse gas forcing levels we have already locked in .8C of additional warming (this is without additional feedbacks).

the additional feedbacks will significantly reduce the amount of naturally sequestered carbon from our atmosphere, making 65%-70% of our emissions remain in the atmosphere compared to our current burden of 55% (a term called "Atmospheric Fraction") - [This is ALSO not modeled by the IPCC]

with additional feedbacks, and with currently scheduled CO2 emissions over the next 50 years,  We are going to force this earth to endure a 5-7C rise by 2100.

This warming, on par with the warming that occurred from the depths of the last ice age to today, will create massive natural feedback mechanisms.  This will be a fundamental transformation of the surface of the earth, on par with the transformation that occurred at the end of the last ice age, in the space of 100 years.  This fundamental and irreversible transformation will produce a significant loss of sustainability to the majority of our current food production and population resource locations throughout the world.  It will also entail a complete collapse of the Amazon basin from tropical rainforest into a savannah grassland, the expansion of the Sonora, Gobi and Sahara deserts a full 15' latitude further North AND South.  The complete destruction, by fire, of the rainforests and peat of Indonesia and the total collapse of the current boreal forest and the conflagration of the boreal peat throughout the Northern Hemisphere.  This warming, unprecedented since the "Great Dying" of the Permian Triassic (P-Tr) event will produce a warming at a scale and speed that has NEVER BEEN EXPERIENCED BY PLANET EARTH SINCE LIFE EVOLVED HERE 3.5 BILLION YEARS AGO.   


.
.

by 2300 there will be no permanent ice left on planet earth below 27,000 feet elevation.  Globally averaged temperatures will be +16C above pre-industrial levels.  CO2 will be at 5,500ppmv and CH4 will be at 230 ppmv  CH4 efficacy will be 5X what it currently is today due to the collapse of the hydroxyl sink.   Average global specific humidity will rise to 92%.  Hydrogen sulfide and tropospheric Ozone will be major contributors to climate forcing.

by 2300 globally average sea level in the mid Atlantic northern hemisphere will be 200+ meters above today.  Most of this sea level rise is due to thermal expansion and the effect of the loss of Antarctica's gravitational pull on the world's oceans.

you want a plan?

we need to reduce ALL anthropogenic GHG emissions by 80% by 2050 to have even the barest chance of maintaining modern civilization.  Even with this we will have to employ massive atmospheric recovery programs to reduce carbon dioxide abundances below 350PPM

AT THE SAME TIME AS THE PERMAFROST AND LAND ARE RELEASING MORE AND MORE CO2.

well,
you asked.

Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on September 04, 2014, 11:43:14 PM
Jai, Under that scenario the average surface ocean pH will be reduced to 7.3 by 2300( Caldeira 2003 ) I don't think you get 200+ meters sea level so maybe you could give a reference. Not that 200 feet or 200 meters will make any difference to whatever scraps of " Modern civilization " remains. We either change course now or your prognosis seems valid, not that national geo would print it. You realize most people think we're nuts.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: ritter on September 05, 2014, 01:07:06 AM
"climate fatigue"--that's funny. We don't have any idea what climate fatigue is yet.

I too get tired of the feel good summary. Tell me the truth, doc, and let me plan around that.

you want answers?
....
well,
you asked.
;D

Yes, I did ask. But it was intended sort of as asking the doc the prognosis when you already know it's terminal. An excellent summary.

Bruce, I'm coming to discover that more and more people have reached similar conclusions. But the masses definitely think we're nuts!
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: jai mitchell on September 05, 2014, 07:13:20 AM
Jai, Under that scenario the average surface ocean pH will be reduced to 7.3 by 2300( Caldeira 2003 ) I don't think you get 200+ meters sea level so maybe you could give a reference. Not that 200 feet or 200 meters will make any difference to whatever scraps of " Modern civilization " remains. We either change course now or your prognosis seems valid, not that national geo would print it. You realize most people think we're nuts.

Bruce

I figured 80M of rise from glacial melt
another 20M rise from gravitational effects (loss of mass in Antarctica affecting the mid atlantic)
and a full100M of rise by 2300 as oceans warm an additional 10C above current temperatures (whole mass).

I significantly overestimated the thermal expansion, I have not looked at the long-term prognosis before.  the thermal expansion in this scenario is only 1% for a 7C warming (another estimate)  so this expansion was significantly overstated.

good catch.

revised level = ~110M  enough to swallow the golden gate, London and Brooklyn bridges.

The only reason they might think we are nuts is because they do not have the time/skills/effort to figure it out for themselves.  They rely on biased sources to summarize and package their information, or even worse, gather their information from heresay and watercooler content.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: ccgwebmaster on September 09, 2014, 06:00:27 PM
Forming some modern equivalent would require more than an acceptance of a primitive tool-set , it would require the social structure that would cement a group together.

From what I see, the denial is strong enough of both collapse and viable strategies for dealing with it, that such groups will only be cemented together when they are facing survival and it becomes a necessary for survival itself. That, of course, suggests a high probability of poor planning and preparation and a probable lack of long term strategy in most instances (which is what I'm trying, unsuccessfully, to counter).

I think a lot about the tools,and techniques for food production but unless the " bottleneck " happens while I am alive I doubt anyone feels like helping me  in the field and without that whatever I figure out will die with me. Short of getting experience before times get tough seems like a lot of people will be trying to figure this out in very difficult times. Resources even for a primitive existence aren't going to be at hands reach and sourcing the raw materials will require free movement. So getting through the bottleneck with your tribe and tool-set intact will require a lot of pre-planning and very good local knowledge of resources.

Getting through the bottleneck as you propose also then requires your local habitat remains habitable (including long term for your descendants) and that the resources you need remain present there - both of those far from certain. That's why I prefer an initial high mobility approach myself (although of course that likely also cannot be sustained indefinitely, and risks still apply to an ultimate site/region of settlement).

P.S. This is the carbon cycle page but entertaining solutions is as important or more important than documenting the disaster. So thank you F.Tnioli

I have a whole forum attempt that would welcome discussions of solutions along these lines, if one can get past the problem that it might not be read by anyone much for however long.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: ccgwebmaster on September 09, 2014, 06:05:59 PM
Their story - is exactly what happened when the dream of "getting back to nature" (which they had) was actually pursued in practice.

My understanding is these people were most certainly not "getting back to nature" - they were fleeing political oppression (of a potentially lethal nature), and fled into the wilderness with minimal planning and preparation.

In that context - notwithstanding that they didn't do a lot more than just survive - their achievements are remarkable and a testament to what even a tiny number of unprepared people could do. A well organised and prepared small group could potentially do much better - indeed my planning is predicated around the scope for such groups to rebuild advanced civilisations (over extended multi-generational timescales, I grant, not in our lifetimes).
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: morganism on September 19, 2014, 10:22:26 PM
some geo-engineering discussion here. Limestone sequestration, and using water pumped up with oil to clean other process streams, of Co2

http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/09/ocean-acification-mitigation-deatils.html#more (http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/09/ocean-acification-mitigation-deatils.html#more)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on September 20, 2014, 05:32:24 AM
Morganism, Although it is true that the addition of limestone will change the saturation state of aragonite in seawater it also includes fossil fuel use to mine, crush and transport the limestone.
Net benefit ?  As we add more Co2 to the atmosphere we can predict how the future ocean surface pH will respond. Without addressing the Co2 emission trends any attempt at mitigating local seawater conditions will quickly return to global trend lines when local additions of limestone stop. Net benefit?
 The transport of alkalinity in rivers does vary with the geology of the watershed . Those watersheds delivering high levels of alkalinity will in estuary conditions resist acidification better than watersheds delivering naturally low pH fresh water with low levels of alkalinity.If one is prepared to fight acidification by artificially augmenting riverine alkalinity then some rivers / estuaries will require less engineering than others.
Again fruitless without addressing cause...>Co2 emissions. Not saying it won't be attempted. 
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: wili on September 22, 2014, 05:17:18 AM
Scientists Report Global Rise in Greenhouse Gas Emissions

   
Quote
Global emissions of greenhouse gases jumped 2.3 percent in 2013 to record levels, scientists reported Sunday, in the latest indication that the world remains far off track in its efforts to control global warming.

    The emissions growth last year was a bit slower than the average growth rate of 2.5 percent over the past decade, and much of the dip was caused by an economic slowdown in China, which is the world’s single largest source of emissions. It may take an additional year or two to know if China has turned a corner toward slower emissions growth, or if the runaway pace of recent years will resume.

    In the United States, emissions rose 2.9 percent, after declining in recent years.

    The new numbers, reported by a tracking initiative called the Global Carbon Project and published in the journal Nature Geoscience, came on the eve of a United Nations summit meeting meant to harness fresh political ambition in tackling climate change. Scientists said the figures showed that vastly greater efforts would be needed to get long-term global warming within tolerable limits.

    “You can no longer have some countries go first and others come in later, because there is no more time,” said Glen P. Peters, a scientist at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo, who helped compile the new numbers. “It needs to be all hands on deck now.”

--NYT (sorry, someone else will have to find the link)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 22, 2014, 11:04:20 PM
wili,

Per the linked reference (& two associated attached images), both RCP 2.6 & 4.5, are highly dependent on the use of bioenergy and carbon capture storage (BECCS), which is highly uncertain technology for reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.


Sabine Fuss, Josep G. Canadell, Glen P. Peters, Massimo Tavoni, Robbie M. Andrew, Philippe Ciais, Robert B. Jackson, Chris D. Jones, Florian Kraxner, Nebosja Nakicenovic, Corinne Le Quéré, Michael R. Raupach, Ayyoob Sharifi, Pete Smith & Yoshiki Yamagata, (2014), "Betting on negative emissions", Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate2392

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2392.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2392.html)


Abstract: "Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage could be used to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. However, its credibility as a climate change mitigation option is unproven and its widespread deployment in climate stabilization scenarios might become a dangerous distraction."

Best,
ASLR
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: wili on September 23, 2014, 01:10:15 AM
"both RCP 2.6 & 4.5, are highly dependent on the use of bioenergy and carbon capture storage"

Thanks for that reminder.

Good graphs.

========================================

Now this from robertscribbler:

Worst Case Carbon Dioxide Emissions Increases Continue — Hitting 40 Billion Tons Per Year in 2013

http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2014/09/22/worst-case-carbon-dioxide-emissions-increases-continue-hitting-40-billion-tons-per-year-in-2013/#comments (http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2014/09/22/worst-case-carbon-dioxide-emissions-increases-continue-hitting-40-billion-tons-per-year-in-2013/#comments)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Laurent on September 23, 2014, 09:39:19 PM
The Carbon Underground: reversing global warming
http://www.theecologist.org/campaigning/2564393/the_carbon_underground_reversing_global_warming.html (http://www.theecologist.org/campaigning/2564393/the_carbon_underground_reversing_global_warming.html)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 24, 2014, 05:54:23 AM
Laurent,

Thank you for this link (in Reply #149). 

I sincerely hope that this initiative works before global temperature increases (and associated drought-flood cycles, wildfires, over-population, and stimulation of CO2 emissions from the soil due activation of microbes in the soil) over-stress the world's plants.

Best,
ASLR
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 24, 2014, 05:53:47 PM
Getting back to the figures that I posted in my Reply #147, showing that RCP 2.6 & 4.5, are highly dependent on the use of bioenergy and carbon capture storage (BECCS), I would like to note that when we acknowledge that BECCS is a possible negative feedback (if carefully managed by mankind as cited in Reply #149); it is important that we also acknowledge that most feedback mechanisms are skewed significantly towards the positive side of the spectrum; and currently due to ESLD (erring of the side of least drama) none of the RCP scenarios include the fat-tailed PDF (probability density function) positive feedback probability associated with possible CO2 emissions from carbon currently in the soil due to increasing world temperatures.  The attached image shows how big this impact could be for SRES AB1 (comparable to RCP 8.5), and this does not include the possibility of enhanced methane emissions say from permafrost and hydrate degradation.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: ritter on September 24, 2014, 06:51:04 PM
Per the linked reference (& two associated attached images), both RCP 2.6 & 4.5, are highly dependent on the use of bioenergy and carbon capture storage (BECCS), which is highly uncertain technology for reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.

These projections do not include CO2 and methane release from melting permafrost either.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: ccgwebmaster on September 24, 2014, 07:36:10 PM
Per the linked reference (& two associated attached images), both RCP 2.6 & 4.5, are highly dependent on the use of bioenergy and carbon capture storage (BECCS), which is highly uncertain technology for reducing CO2 in the atmosphere.

These projections do not include CO2 and methane release from melting permafrost either.

Or from a dying burning Amazon, or various other biosphere changes in other parts of the world?

Or, most likely, from the warming contribution of shifting ice albedo in an Arctic not forecast to vanish for far longer than reality hints at?
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 24, 2014, 11:00:36 PM
As it appears that most commenters posting here feel that the RCP (Representative Concentration Pathways) scenarios do not adequately capture the upper end of risks of positive feedback mechanisms.  I provide the following link (and associated selected images) from an August 2013 Skeptical Science guide explaining how these scenarios were developed.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/RCP_Guide.pdf (http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/RCP_Guide.pdf)

The first attached image shows that RCP 8.5 was developed to match the 90th percentile of published literature available before 2007, and thus ignores any ECS or economic information developed after that time.

The second attached image (with both world population and GDP data) shows that RCP 8.5 assumes that world population would be about 10 Billion people by 2050; which is the current median (not the 90% CL) projection for that date.

The third attached image shows the assumed primary energy sources for the RCP scenarios indicating that we are currently following a mix closely matching that assumed for RCP 8.5.

As creating new scenarios using our latest information would probably give alarming results, it would seem possible that the IPCC will stop developing such scenario and may not even publish an Assessment Report 6 (so as to avoid excess drama).
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 26, 2014, 04:11:50 PM
According to the linked reference the level of bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) required in order to achieve RCP2.6 both relies on optimistic assumptions for technology developments and/or puts the world's food supply at risk.  Thus it does not seem advisable to assume that BECCS will allow the world to remain below the 2 degree C temperature target.

Etsushi Kato, Yoshiki Yamagata, (2014), "BECCS capability of dedicated bioenergy crops under a future land-use scenario targeting net negative carbon emissions", Earth's Future, DOI: 10.1002/2014EF000249

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/2014EF000249/ (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/doi/10.1002/2014EF000249/)

Abstract: "Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) is a key component of mitigation strategies in future socioeconomic scenarios that aim to keep mean global temperature rise below 2°C above preindustrial, which would require net negative carbon emissions in the end of the 21st century. Because of the additional need for land, developing sustainable low-carbon scenarios requires careful consideration of the land-use implications of deploying large scale BECCS. We evaluated the feasibility of the large-scale BECCS in RCP2.6, which is a scenario with net negative emissions aiming to keep the 2°C temperature target, with a top-down analysis of required yields and a bottom-up evaluation of BECCS potential using a process-based global crop model. Land-use change carbon emissions related to the land expansion were examined using a global terrestrial biogeochemical cycle model. Our analysis reveals that first-generation bioenergy crops would not meet the required BECCS of the RCP2.6 scenario even with a high-fertilizer and irrigation application. Using second-generation bioenergy crops can marginally fulfill the required BECCS only if a technology of full post-process combustion CO2 capture is deployed with a high-fertilizer application in the crop production. If such an assumed technological improvement does not occur in the future, more than doubling the area for bioenergy production for BECCS around 2050 assumed in RCP2.6 would be required; however, such scenarios implicitly induce large-scale land-use changes that would cancel half of the assumed CO2 sequestration by BECCS. Otherwise, a conflict of land use with food production is inevitable."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Grunt on September 29, 2014, 01:38:20 PM
OSU part of major grant to study Southern Ocean carbon cycle
09/09/2014
CORVALLIS, Ore. – A new six-year, $21 million initiative funded by the National Science Foundation will explore the role of carbon and heat exchanges in the vast Southern Ocean – and their potential impacts on climate change.

The Southern Ocean Carbon and Climate Observations and Modeling program will be headquartered at Princeton University, and include researchers at several institutions, including Oregon State University. It is funded by NSF’s Division of Polar Programs, with additional support from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.

The Southern Ocean acts as a carbon “sink” by absorbing as much as half of the human-derived carbon in the atmosphere and much of the planet’s excess heat. Yet little is known of this huge body of water that accounts for 30 percent of the world’s ocean area.

Under this new program known by the acronym SOCCOM, Princeton and 10 partner institutions will create a physical and biogeochemical portrait of the ocean using hundreds of robotic floats deployed around Antarctica. The floats, which will be deployed over the next five years, will collect seawater profiles using sophisticated sensors to measure pH, oxygen and nitrate levels, temperature and salinity – from the ocean surface to a depth of 1,000 meters, according to Laurie Juranek, an Oregon State University oceanographer and project scientist.

“This will be the first combined large-scale observational and modeling program of the entire Southern Ocean,” said Juranek, who is in OSU’s College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences. “It is a very important region, but difficult to access – hence the use of robotic floats to collect data. However, not everything that we need to know can be measured by sensors, so we’ll need to get creative.”

Juranek's role in this project is to develop relationships between the measured variables and those that can't be measured directly by a sensor but are needed for understanding Southern Ocean carbon dioxide exchanges. These relationships can be applied to the float data as well as to high-resolution models. To do this work she is partnering with colleagues at NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory.

In addition to its role in absorbing carbon and heat, the Southern Ocean delivers nutrients to lower-latitude surface waters that are critical to ocean ecosystems around the world, said program director Jorge Sarmiento, Princeton's George J. Magee Professor of Geoscience and Geological Engineering and director of the Program in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences. And as levels of carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere, models suggest that the impacts of ocean acidification are projected to be most severe in the Southern Ocean, he added.

"The scarcity of observations in the Southern Ocean and inadequacy of earlier models, combined with its importance to the Earth's carbon and climate systems, means there is tremendous potential for groundbreaking research in this region," Sarmiento said.
Resources:
http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2014/sep/osu-part-major-grant-student-southern-ocean-carbon-cycle (http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2014/sep/osu-part-major-grant-student-southern-ocean-carbon-cycle)
http://www.scienceclarified.com/Ca-Ch/Carbon-Cycle.html (http://www.scienceclarified.com/Ca-Ch/Carbon-Cycle.html)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/sci_nat/04/climate_change/html/carbon.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/sci_nat/04/climate_change/html/carbon.stm)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on October 01, 2014, 09:25:38 PM
Grunt, I posted a link for the 21 million study on the "Selected Forcing " page. Abrupt SLR has a lot of good southern hemisphere info there. The carbon cycle work in the new study will be very interesting.  Welcome to the Forum.

 
Re: Selected Forcing Factor for Abrupt SLR from the Collapse of the WAIS
« Reply #302 on: September 12, 2014, 06:34:21 PM »
A  co-ordinated 21 million dollar study to deploy a large field of Argo floats has been funded and although the link below doesn't specify the deep dive abilities of the new Argo floats I am sure they will be deployed. We may get a much better picture of the current state of the Southern Oceans  carbon cycle with the new pH sensors that are also part of this study. What is going on with Antarctic Bottom Water formation? A clearer picture is soon to arrive .

   https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/southern-oceans-role-climate-regulation-ocean-health-goal-21-million-federal-grant
 Logged
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Laurent on October 06, 2014, 05:02:19 PM
Should we upgrade photosynthesis and grow supercrops?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429892.900-should-we-upgrade-photosynthesis-and-grow-supercrops.html?cmpid=RSS (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429892.900-should-we-upgrade-photosynthesis-and-grow-supercrops.html?cmpid=RSS)|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|environment#.VDKqHVFJzlc
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on October 09, 2014, 07:45:05 PM
http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-75-en.pdf (http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-75-en.pdf)

U.N. Report on acidification. If I might suggest pages 78-81 re. Ocean carbon cycle and potential effects on climate.  Some of these are better constrained than others but > 10 years ago we weren't much worried about any of them. Well I suppose a few people were, the fact that warm water holds less Co2 than cold water isn't news but the effects of  ballasting of organic matter by calcium carbonate? Still not news but maybe should be.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 09, 2014, 08:30:05 PM
Further to Bruce's post about ocean acidification, the following link reports on New Zealand's efforts to directly measure the local ocean acidification under areas of Southern Ocean sea ice:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1410/S00023/niwa-scientists-working-under-the-ice-in-antarctica.htm (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC1410/S00023/niwa-scientists-working-under-the-ice-in-antarctica.htm)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Laurent on October 10, 2014, 05:13:59 PM
Waterloo discovery: Tiny ocean organisms are big B12 producers
https://uwaterloo.ca/stories/waterloo-discovery-tiny-ocean-organisms-are-big-b12-0

Quote
Andrew Doxey and Josh Neufeld, professors in Waterloo’s Department of Biology, point out that the discovery has implications for climate change because the availability of vitamin B12 may control how much or how little biological productivity by phytoplankton takes place in the oceans. Phytoplankton remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere much like plants and trees.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Laurent on October 14, 2014, 10:58:56 PM
Climate change: Models 'underplay plant CO2 absorption
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29601644 (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29601644)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Pmt111500 on October 15, 2014, 04:36:43 AM
Climate change: Models 'underplay plant CO2 absorption
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29601644 (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29601644)

The relevant Abstract here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/10/10/1418075111 (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/10/10/1418075111) (can't find the whole article)

shorter and likely too simplified abstract:
CO2 getting into leaves diffuses far and wide in the cavities in leaves, this drops the amounts near photosynthetic centers, chloroplasts, more than previously estimated. Thus the 16% discrepancy between (some or nearly all) carbon cycle models and reality may have been  explained. CFE (carbon fertilization effect) has been included into models also previously, but results presented in this study are indicating these equations should be modified to better represent CFE in nature (previously most CFE calculations and models have been obtained from the studies conducted in greenhouses). At least looking at C3-plants (is it about a 1/2 of planets plantlife?). I think they're stating CFE in models should represent a larger proportion of carboxylation part of NPP than previously. This of course won't effect the other attributes in calculating NPP such as water amounts and nutrient scarcity/excess.

Sort of good news if the rise in ghg's stops someday, likely makes the recovery phase of this spike we're living through shorter, or so I gather. Other conclusions might be there too.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Pmt111500 on October 15, 2014, 05:32:24 AM
Waterloo discovery: Tiny ocean organisms are big B12 producers
https://uwaterloo.ca/stories/waterloo-discovery-tiny-ocean-organisms-are-big-b12-0 (https://uwaterloo.ca/stories/waterloo-discovery-tiny-ocean-organisms-are-big-b12-0)

Quote
Andrew Doxey and Josh Neufeld, professors in Waterloo’s Department of Biology, point out that the discovery has implications for climate change because the availability of vitamin B12 may control how much or how little biological productivity by phytoplankton takes place in the oceans. Phytoplankton remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere much like plants and trees.

Nice that this source has been identified. Pretty amazing, life. Those Archaea and bacteria are pretty clever. I wonder how many chemists there are in the world who could produce this one starting from the elements. It's of course been known that the algae get this from somewhere, but I doubt geoengineer-types will throw this in ocean to increase algal withdrawal of CO2, it's pretty expensive stuff. To those who think that's just a vitamin sold in pills and bottles the chemical formula might be more illustrative of the complexity of this essential nutrient:

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fe%2Fec%2FCobalamin.png&hash=af3ce87c6aca52d6b54d86144f40577b)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: morganism on October 19, 2014, 11:02:16 PM
don't know how i missed this methanogen paper, i was following microbial nanowires pretty closely

someone just imaged some living ones, and found that they were extending psuedopods, not building chemical bridges, and physically handing off electrons.

They do this by enlisting geobacter

http://phys.org/news/2013-11-microbiologists-reveal-unexpected-properties-methane-producing.html#inlRlv (http://phys.org/news/2013-11-microbiologists-reveal-unexpected-properties-methane-producing.html#inlRlv)

this may be very important in the arctic ponds studies done earlier, and referenced further up as

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0078204 (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0078204)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: morganism on October 21, 2014, 01:10:12 AM
and it looks like sequestering isn't going to work that well. It doesn't convert to limestone very quickly

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/10/natural-underground-co2-reservoir-reveals-clues-about-storage (http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/10/natural-underground-co2-reservoir-reveals-clues-about-storage)


would prob be more efficient to just pull it out of the atmo, and feed it to microbes.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on October 28, 2014, 07:40:15 PM
Back on May 1 Laurent posted a link to an article about current Pteropod shell dissolution along the West Coast of North America. The NOAA cruise that documented this problem was revisiting the same transects that an earlier cruise ( 2008 ) had documented undersaturated water conditions.The same transects that earlier showed
surface to bottom undersaturation were revisited to again test dissolved Co2 and aragonite saturation levels and also to test the fitness of Pteropod populations. In the graph linked below those areas with
greater degrees of  undersaturation also correspond to increased shell dissolution of sampled Pteropods.

  http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/suppl/2014/04/28/rspb.2014.0123.DC1/rspb20140123supp2.docx (http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/suppl/2014/04/28/rspb.2014.0123.DC1/rspb20140123supp2.docx)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on October 28, 2014, 07:56:36 PM
Here are some links to the two NOAA cruises mentioned above. The graph i linked was from the Proceeds of the Royal Society Paper.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20140430_oceanacidification.html (http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20140430_oceanacidification.html)

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Research+along+the+West+Coast (http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Research+along+the+West+Coast)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on November 13, 2014, 04:15:39 PM
Here is a new potential positive feedback resulting from extra Co2 enhancing bacterial efficiencies near the ocean /atmospheric surface. This one is new to science and as such not well studied but effects may change composition of organic particles in aerosolized surface water.

11.11.2014
The oceans’ sensitive skin
Ocean acidification affects climate-relevant functions at the sea-surface microlayer

November 11, 2014/Kiel. Ocean acidification might alter climate-relevant functions of the oceans’ uppermost layer, according to a study by a group of marine scientists published in the “Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans”. In an experiment led by GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, the researchers observed a close coupling between biological processes in the seawater and the chemistry of the sea surface microlayer. Also, they noted a growing number of specialised bacterial and algal cells in this microenvironment. These changes might influence interactions between the ocean and the atmosphere such as the air-sea gas exchange and the emission of sea-spray aerosols that can scatter solar radiation or contribute to the formation of clouds.

Like a skin, the sea-surface microlayer separates the ocean from the atmosphere. The exchange of gases and the emission of sea-spray aerosols – two functions that are crucial for climate – take place in this boundary film. A mesocosm experiment by scientists from GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research Bremerhaven (AWI) and the Institute for Baltic Sea Research Warnemünde (IOW) reveals for the first time how ocean change might affect the special physical, chemical and biological characteristics of the ocean’s uppermost boundary. The results are published in the “Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans”. First author is Dr. Luisa Galgani who conducted the study as part of her PhD at GEOMAR and AWI.

“Experiments have shown how ocean acidification, a change in the ocean chemistry due to the uptake of man-made carbon dioxide, influences the growth and efficiency of marine bacteria as well as the sinking of carbon-rich particles”, Dr. Luisa Galgani resumes. “We know that organic material and microorganisms accumulating in the sea-surface microlayer are similar to those found in the water column below. So we expected that ocean acidification-driven changes in ocean biogeochemistry in the water column can also be reflected in the microlayer. It is important to understand changes in this microenvironment, because it might have consequences for air-sea interactions that are relevant for our climate.”

To investigate consequences of ocean acidification on marine systems, future ocean scenarios have been simulated with the KOSMOS mesocosms (KOSMOS: Kiel Off-Shore Mesocosms for future Ocean Simulations) at Raunefjord, Norway. These nine large floating structures, each of which isolates 75.000 litres of seawater, were brought to different carbon dioxide (CO2) levels as to be expected for upcoming decades and centuries. For one month, the surface of six mesocosms was sampled daily with a glass plate.

Analyses of the samples verified that organic compounds in the sea-surface microlayer reflected the temporal development of phytoplankton growth in the water column. Also, at higher CO2 levels, the concentrations of bacterioneuston, marine bacteria inhabiting the surface, increased. More acidic conditions promoted changes in the dynamics of organic matter. Especially proteinaceous marine gels became smaller but more abundant probably because they served as a nutritional substrate in the sea-surface microlayer, where higher abundances of microorganisms were more efficient in degrading the organic material accumulated during a phytoplankton bloom.

“From previous studies we know that the activity of marine bacteria is stimulated at high CO2”, Dr. Galgani explains. “Based on our observations in the sea-surface microlayer, we think that this could be very important as it may imply a positive feedback on atmospheric CO2 from oceanic sources, that is, from microbial metabolism at the air-sea interface.”

Additionally, stimulated bacterial degradation might heavily affect the organic composition of nascent sea-spray particles, upon which relies the ability of marine aerosols to interact with the climate system. In the era of climate change, the contribution of marine aerosols is still poorly understood. “There is a long way ahead before we can determine how the ocean provides raw material for clouds formation”, Prof. Dr. Anja Engel, head of the research group Microbial Biogeochemistry at GEOMAR, states. “However, we think that our study provided an additional piece of the puzzle and we are directing our research in investigating more the structure and the dynamics of the air-sea interface to better estimate ocean-atmosphere interactions in a high CO2 world.”

http://www.geomar.de/index.php?id=4&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=2158&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=185&L=1 (http://www.geomar.de/index.php?id=4&no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=2158&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=185&L=1)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on November 16, 2014, 04:59:56 PM
Woods Hole has set and maintained data profilers that record temperature and salinity profiles of the water column in the Arctic Ocean. These ITP buoys ( ice tethered profilers ) show in real time the various water masses, stacked somewhat like a layer cake , all across the Arctic.
 This year buoy 84 is sending pCo2 ( Co2 dissolved in the water ) readings as well. I will look further to see if more buoys have pCo2 monitors on them but this is a nice addition to the water column profiles established for several years already.

   http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=139036 (http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=139036)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: johnm33 on November 19, 2014, 05:36:13 PM
I guess this is the best place for this interesting vid. http://www.space.com/27798-u-s-and-china-co2-litters-earth-s-atmosphere-one-year-timelapse.html (http://www.space.com/27798-u-s-and-china-co2-litters-earth-s-atmosphere-one-year-timelapse.html)   [about 3 min]
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: wili on November 19, 2014, 05:59:28 PM
And I guess this is the best place for this:

Quote
Vast amounts of methane appear to be leaking undetected from Australia's biggest coal seam gas field, according to world-first research that undercuts claims by the gas industry.

Testing inside the Tara gas field, near Condamine on Queensland's Western Downs, found some greenhouse gas levels over three times higher than nearby districts, according to the study by researchers at Southern Cross University.

The study has potential national consequences because last week's energy white paper forecast a massive expansion of Australian coal seam gas drilling, and called for environmental objections to be removed to make large-scale gas extraction easier

Methane, carbon dioxide and other gases appear to be leaking up through the soil and bubbling up through rivers at an astonishing rate, the researchers said.

"The concentrations here are higher than any measured in gas fields anywhere else that I can think of, including in Russia," said Damien Maher, a biochemist who helped conduct the tests. "The extent of these enriched concentrations is significant."

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/methane-leaking-from-coal-seam-gas-field-testing-shows-20121114-29c9m.html#ixzz3JWnwJbsm (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/methane-leaking-from-coal-seam-gas-field-testing-shows-20121114-29c9m.html#ixzz3JWnwJbsm)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: LRC1962 on December 10, 2014, 06:42:49 AM
Not sure about scientific veracity as I can not seem to find any literature to back it up, but did come across this in a documentary that seems to indicate that if you have high airborne concentration of nitrogen that falls onto trees an interesting event  occurs. The tree starts giving off more CO2 then it is taking in. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVQnPytgwQ0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVQnPytgwQ0) portion that deals with it starts at 30:52 min. If information is right then this is a feed back loop not talked about much, if wrong then I would like to be educated.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on December 10, 2014, 07:30:20 AM
LRC, i was under the impression that rising atmospheric nitrogen and Co2 levels have increased the terrestrial component of the carbon cycle. As both atmospheric nitrogen and Co2 have been going up over the last ~ 200 years the relative composition of atmospheric 50% terrestrial 25% and oceans25% portions
of the anthropogenic carbon sink have remained fairly constant. The only way for that to be true is if each component part increases the amount of carbon it uptakes as the amount we release increases.
 Here is a paper that shows increasing nitrogen and Co2 are synergistic not antagonistic on plant growth and as a result carbon uptake. There are other factors like temperature and moisture than can affect the ability of the terrestrial sink to hold on to that carbon ( sink it ) faster that respiration or decomposition releases it and climate heating may reach some point that fire , drought or microbial decomposition disrupts the current % balances of the terrestrial sink or stratification and acidification negatively  effects  the ocean sink but so far these sinks have kept pace. If either of these two sinks is compromised then the atmospheric percentage will as a consequence increase so it is something to understand as we stress the system but so far the carbon cycle has suffered our abuses.

    This link doesn't describe the nitrogen component but does show increased growth in earths biome for various reasons.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalGarden/ (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalGarden/)

   
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Laurent on December 16, 2014, 11:04:05 AM
Microbes discovered by deepest marine drill analysed
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30489814 (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30489814)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: wili on December 16, 2014, 05:18:54 PM
http://blog.ucsusa.org/global-warming-fact-co2-emissions-since-1988-764 (http://blog.ucsusa.org/global-warming-fact-co2-emissions-since-1988-764)

More than Half of All Industrial CO2 Pollution Has Been Emitted Since 1988

Quote
By the end of this year, more than half of all industrial emissions of carbon dioxide since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution will have been released since 1988 — the year it became widely known that these emissions are warming the climate.

I recently learned this startling fact from my colleague Richard Heede at the Climate Accountability Institute. Heede drew upon historic estimates of annual global carbon emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement manufacturing by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) and the 2014 annual update on the global carbon budget and trends published by the Global Carbon Project (GCP), an international scientific research consortium studying the global carbon cycle.

The GCP estimates that in 2014, we will release a record 37 gigatons (GT) of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from burning coal, oil, and natural gas, and manufacturing cement. That’s a 2.5 percent increase over emissions in 2013, itself a record year. This brings the total industrial carbon dioxide emissions since 1751 to an estimated 1480 Gt by the end of this year. And, remarkably, more than half of these emissions, 743 Gt, or 50.2 percent, have released just since 1988.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.ucsusa.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F12%2Fannual-global-co2-emissions-1751-2014.jpg&hash=8e85bb9460e8d9295fdce86a7e92468a)

Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on December 16, 2014, 05:24:03 PM
"The ultimate storage capacity of the ocean critically depends on the total amount of carbon emitted. Burning of 5000GtC of potentially available fossil fuel reserves would lead to a higher long-term Co2 level in the atmosphere and a reduced fractional ocean uptake capacity in comparison to, e.g. burning only 1000GtC 
( Archer 2005 ) . The impact on societies and life even after 100,000 years 
depends, thus, on our behavior concerning usage of fossil fuel reserves today." 

It has taken me ten years of reading to get a decent grip on this subject. In the below linked ( open access) paper is a very good synopsis of the ocean carbon cycle with some insights to the terrestrial carbon cycle included. 66 pages but well worth the effort.

http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/5/1607/2014/esdd-5-1607-2014.pdf (http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/5/1607/2014/esdd-5-1607-2014.pdf)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on December 16, 2014, 05:45:13 PM
Wili, When  I started my education on acidification in 2004 we were burning about 27 GtCo2 annually and like your link says we are now emitting around 37GtCo2. Nothing I have read on the policy and solutions page of this blog has changed that trend. Nothing in the dreamland certain people reside in can resolve this burning issue. The numbers in chart you linked+ land use change emissions are and will continue to scrub out various lifeforms on this planet.  If we continue, and all signs are we will, the downsides of our optimism , it's all good ,and full steam ahead f/f driven civilization are extinctions extending some 100,000 years into the future. The irony is we will have done it to maintain our creature comforts and expectations of unlimited growth. What a legacy ours. 
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: wili on December 16, 2014, 05:46:43 PM
Thanks, Bruce. It is a huge and subtle factor.

As I understand it, if we stopped all further CO2 emissions today, the oceans would continue to absorb CO2 because we have been raising atmospheric concentrations so fast, the oceans have not 'caught up' to an equilibrium level yet.

But then the oceans would release more CO2 whenever atmospheric levels started to drop, extending the effective atmospheric 'staying time' of CO2 in the atmosphere.

And of course, as we warm the oceans, it becomes harder for them to absorb as much CO2.

I still don't have a clear sense of whether we could at some point warm the oceans so much that they start shedding CO2. Basically, I wonder what level of heating overcomes what level of atmospheric concentrations. I'm sure there are some basic physics equations that would solve that. I'll look over your linked source to see if I can get some insights.

ETA: I found this bit from p. 14 particularly notable:

Quote
Burning of 5000 Gt C of potentially available fossil fuel reserves would lead to a higher long-term CO2 level in the atmosphere and a reduced fractional ocean uptake capacity in comparison to, e.g. burning only 1000 Gt C (Archer, 2005).

The impact on societies and life even after 100 000 years depends, thus, on our behaviour concerning usage of fossil fuel reserves today. This fact as well has to be taken into account for greenhouse gas emission reduction strategies.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 16, 2014, 06:21:56 PM
Past 2100, I think that our biggest concern may be methane emissions from hydrates and the permafrost as discussed in the linked article; which reported on the findings from cores that indicated two carbon pulses during the PETM, with the first one smaller than the second; which raises the possibility the with strong forcing, positive feedback mechanisms (possibly from methane hydrates) may be stronger than previously thought.  As we pump all of this heat into the oceans it will eventually contribute to decomposition of marine methane hydrates:

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/earths-future-ancient-warming-gives-ominous-peek-climate-change-n268721 (http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/earths-future-ancient-warming-gives-ominous-peek-climate-change-n268721)

Quote: "Intriguingly, Bowen and his colleagues determined that there were actually two releases of carbon into the atmosphere, one before the PETM and one shortly after it started.
And that may be a sign of scary things to come.
"One possible explanation is that the first, the smaller one, caused some climate change that triggered a second one," Bowen said. "So it's possible that the current pulse we are adding to the atmosphere may trigger unanticipated feedbacks that might lead to warming that could last hundreds of thousands of years."
That first release of carbon could have been the result of volcanism, Bowen says. And that might have caused the oceans to warm, which could have led to the melting of methane that lies in frozen deposits on the sea floor. And that could have accounted for the second pulse.
"We don't need a ton of warming for that to happen," Bowen said. "That's a little scary.""

http://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2316.epdf?referrer_access_token=8qL2xHzOIEYqtOXeHGWNHNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MFms2cyCBGVzLm4qXkc0yPPRqtmlhoybdEeLtzJY_dafXV2xa9tGePtpL1D8YTJOU%3D (http://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2316.epdf?referrer_access_token=8qL2xHzOIEYqtOXeHGWNHNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MFms2cyCBGVzLm4qXkc0yPPRqtmlhoybdEeLtzJY_dafXV2xa9tGePtpL1D8YTJOU%3D)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on December 16, 2014, 08:24:23 PM
The oceans are the ultimate sink for almost all anthropogenic carbon emissions. Although physical forces are responsible for the equalization of gas pressures across the oceanic/ atmosphere interface
( sea surface ) biological processes are largely responsible for transferring the carbon to depth . Although most carbon is recycled it is almost exclusively biologically produced shell that is responsible for very long term sequestration of carbon. So anything that cuts the oceans ability to sequester carbon changes the ability of the planet to put carbon away for very long 100,000 to millions of years time scales. Physical processes of rain dissolving both terrestrial carbonates and silicates can restore the pH balance of the oceans and thus it's ability to sequester carbon but this process takes ~ 100,000
years. 
 There are many interacting processes both biological and physical driving the carbon cycle. So by our release of Co2 we have forced a temperature spike in our atmosphere and oceans as well as a rapid shift in ocean pH. The heating will magnify further releases of terrestrial carbon and with enough heat force terrestrial sinks into sources.  Those releases will further both heating and acidification. Methane from both terrestrial and ocean sources will contribute to atmospheric heating and as Co2 is a breakdown product of methane reduction so too will methane contribute to acidification.
 Two big things then begin to compromise the oceans carbon cycle . Heating causes increased stratification. Very cold salty water is required for bottom water formation and ventilization. As the surface waters warm and as the arctic and antarctic ice begins to melt it both freshens and warms the areas responsible for bottom water formation, i.e. Less mixing and stratification. Downwelling drives both oxygen and nutrients to depth and upwelling brings back the nutrients to surface waters so stratification chokes off biological productivity and part of the carbon sink. Acidification is the second part that also interrupts part of the oceans ability to sink carbon.
 The net result of all this is that at the very same time the system becomes overtaxed with 
Co2 the earth processes to remove it long term begin to fail. This is why there is such a long tail on the effects of our carbon emissions and nobody can really tell you at what point we have crossed the rubicon. Once the sinks become sources we have locked  the earth system into finding a new stable state 
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Laurent on December 20, 2014, 10:41:41 AM
Where does the fat go when you lose it? (Hint: The fat fairy is not involved.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/12/16/where-does-the-fat-go-when-you-lose-it-hint-the-fat-fairy-is-not-involved/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2014/12/16/where-does-the-fat-go-when-you-lose-it-hint-the-fat-fairy-is-not-involved/)

Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on December 23, 2014, 08:38:34 PM
There are three lifeforms that predominate the shell builders in the open ocean. Coccoliths, forams, and diatoms. Anything that challenges the productivity of these lifeforms disrupts potentially the strength of the oceanic carbon pump. The study below looked at the effects of increased Co2 on diatoms in the Bering Sea.

 From the conclusion ,     The present study showed that an increase in Co2 levels could have negative impacts on diatom biomass in the Bering Sea, especially under Fe-limited conditions. Because diatoms play pivotal roles in carbon sequestration and food webs in the Bering Sea( Springer et al 1996 Takchashi 2002 ) our results indicate that ocean acidification might alter the biogeochemical processes and ecological dynamics in the study area.

http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/11/18105/2014/bgd-11-18105-2014.pdf (http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/11/18105/2014/bgd-11-18105-2014.pdf)

Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: werther on January 15, 2015, 11:00:39 AM
(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1036.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa446%2Fhanver1%2FClimate%25202015%2FMaunaLoamethaneinsitudailyaveragesper15012015_zpsb253f202.jpg&hash=098c6fe2ffa6cf69dfeee76aaf688cd0)

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1036.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa446%2Fhanver1%2FClimate%25202015%2FBarrowmethaneinsitudailyaveragesper15012015_zpsc87337c4.jpg&hash=2a28f59c1ef4b9365bc58c2f3ec2ea55)

I had a look at methane after my regular check of the Keeling Curve. Although the scale difference makes it hard to assess the similarity of both curves, it is clear both trend upward and accelerate through the last two years.

There’s no 'burp' yet. My guess is that the most important origin of the recent acceleration is to be found in the oceans. Their recent warming promotes the activity of bio-degrading microbes. There’s more than enough degradable biomass at hand. Human produced waste, sediment contamined with dung and fertilizers, oil spills, dying sea-life.

Second, the transition to use of natural gas (FI through fracking) and upscaled open coal mining in FI China and India could be a source.

I’d suggest the thawing and oxidization of permafrost biomass contributes, but is not yet the most important accelerator.
While that might be reassuring for now, it is ominous that even without passing the threshold for largescale permafrost thaw and hydrate release there’s no sign that human efforts to reduce GHG emissions have any success.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Laurent on January 16, 2015, 10:30:41 PM
Researchers identify missing component in marine carbon, sulfur cycles
http://phys.org/news/2015-01-component-marine-carbon-sulfur.html (http://phys.org/news/2015-01-component-marine-carbon-sulfur.html)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Laurent on January 22, 2015, 11:35:36 AM
Melting Glaciers Pose a Carbon Menace
http://www.livescience.com/49510-melting-glaciers-release-carbon.html (http://www.livescience.com/49510-melting-glaciers-release-carbon.html)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: jai mitchell on January 22, 2015, 05:16:42 PM
2C of warming is equal to 700 Gigatonnes* of Carbon Anthropogenic emissions:

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~victor/recent/friedlingstein_etal_C4MIP_2005 (http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~victor/recent/friedlingstein_etal_C4MIP_2005)

see figure 2a


*note: the 700 GT of Carbon emissions value is equivalent to 300 GT of Carbon from the earth since 55% of all human emissions are removed by the earth.  The carbon cycle emissions represent a net reduction in the earth's carbon removal ability.

-also note:  emissions from frozen soils not modeled below.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on February 16, 2015, 06:57:52 PM
Current methods of measuring temperature and salinity to determine acidity are restricted to in situ instruments and measurements taken from research vessels. This approach limits the sampling to small areas of the ocean, as research vessels are very expensive to run and operate.

The new techniques use satellite mounted thermal cameras to measure ocean temperature while microwave sensors measure the salinity. Together these measurements can be used to assess ocean acidification more quickly and over much larger areas than has been possible before.

Dr Peter Land from Plymouth Marine Laboratory who is lead author of the paper said: "In recent years, great advances have been made in the global provision of satellite and in situ data. It is now time to evaluate how to make the most of these new data sources to help us monitor ocean acidification, and to establish where satellite data can make the best contribution."

A number of existing satellites can be used for the task; these include the European Space Agency's Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity (SMOS) sensor that was launched in 2009 and NASA's Aquarius satellite that was launched in 2011.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-02/uoe-sir021315.php (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-02/uoe-sir021315.php)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Laurent on February 18, 2015, 11:20:56 PM
Solving carbon mysteries of the deep ocean
http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/solving-carbon-mysteries-deep-ocean-0217 (http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2015/solving-carbon-mysteries-deep-ocean-0217)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 26, 2015, 01:16:13 AM
The following link leads to a video showing a comparison of direct atmospheric CO2 measurements vs direct measurement of radiative forcing, and they track very closely with seasonal and long-term trends:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yq1MFUQ0fI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yq1MFUQ0fI)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Pmt111500 on February 26, 2015, 04:19:55 AM
The following link leads to a video showing a comparison of direct atmospheric CO2 measurements vs direct measurement of radiative forcing, and they track very closely with seasonal and long-term trends:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yq1MFUQ0fI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yq1MFUQ0fI)


they're claiming that's the first measurement from the ground (I guess without help from the satellites), though likely this has been done occasionally before, just not through a whole year.
the things scientists must do, for some idjots who believe the properties of gases change when gases are outside the lab.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: KeithAnt on February 26, 2015, 11:51:51 AM
I suppose this study might be termed a denier's nightmare, the measurement of the energy balance in situ:

 http://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=ctgr-item&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter (http://phys.org/news/2015-02-carbon-dioxide-greenhouse-effect.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=ctgr-item&utm_campaign=daily-nwletter)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 26, 2015, 10:04:15 PM
The linked reference (with a free access pdf) discusses 850 to 2100 CE calibration of carbon cycle dynamics & climate change:

Lehner, F., Joos, F., Raible, C. C., Mignot, J., Born, A., Keller, K. M., and Stocker, T. F.: Climate and carbon cycle dynamics in a CESM simulation from 850–2100 CE, Earth Syst. Dynam. Discuss., 6, 351-406, doi:10.5194/esdd-6-351-2015, 2015.

http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/6/351/2015/esdd-6-351-2015.pdf (http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/6/351/2015/esdd-6-351-2015.pdf)

Abstract: " Abstract. Under the protocols of the Paleoclimate and Coupled Modelling Intercomparison Projects a number of simulations were produced that provide a range of potential climate evolutions from the last millennium to the end of the current century. Here, we present the first simulation with the Community Earth System Model (CESM), which includes an interactive carbon cycle, that continuously covers the last millennium, the historical period, and the twenty-first century. Besides state-of-the-art forcing reconstructions, we apply a modified reconstruction of total solar irradiance to shed light on the issue of forcing uncertainty in the context of the last millennium. Nevertheless, we find that structural uncertainties between different models can still dominate over forcing uncertainty for quantities such as hemispheric temperatures or the land and ocean carbon cycle response. Comparing with other model simulations we find forced decadal-scale variability to occur mainly after volcanic eruptions, while during other periods internal variability masks potentially forced signals and calls for larger ensembles in paleoclimate modeling studies. At the same time, we fail to attribute millennial temperature trends to orbital forcing, as has been suggested recently. The climate-carbon cycle sensitivity in CESM during the last millennium is estimated to be about 1.3 ppm °C−1. However, the dependence of this sensitivity on the exact time period and scale illustrates the prevailing challenge of deriving robust constrains on this quantity from paleoclimate proxies. In particular, the response of the land carbon cycle to volcanic forcing shows fundamental differences between different models. In CESM the tropical land dictates the response to volcanoes with a distinct behavior for large and moderate eruptions. Under anthropogenic emissions, global land and ocean carbon uptake rates emerge from the envelope of interannual natural variability as simulated for the last millennium by about year 1947 and 1877, respectively."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Laurent on March 02, 2015, 01:13:19 PM
Keystone plankton 'go slow' as ocean acidity rises
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2775311/keystone_plankton_go_slow_as_ocean_acidity_rises.html (http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_round_up/2775311/keystone_plankton_go_slow_as_ocean_acidity_rises.html)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 02, 2015, 07:35:40 PM
Laurent, Thanks for the link to the variable light / diatom study. ASLR and I put some comments in over on the consequences page about the same paper. The issue of geo-engineering also came up so
as usual the same conversation could be posted on a number of different threads. How the carbon cycle interacts with light intensity is about as fundamental as it gets so I would expect similar experiments on different plankton species will be something we see in the future. The whole notion that moderating light intensity via geo-engineering might be temporarily beneficial to an important part of the carbon sink is something to contemplate. Spooky on so many levels.   
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Laurent on March 02, 2015, 08:48:55 PM
Sorry, I did see your post later on.
Here is something that may be involved in carbon cycle ?

These Ultra-Small Bacteria May Be The Tiniest Life Forms On Earth
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/02/smallest-life-on-earth-bacteria_n_6783382.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/02/smallest-life-on-earth-bacteria_n_6783382.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Laurent on March 02, 2015, 09:28:05 PM
 Hungry insects may halve forest carbon sink capacity

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27064-hungry-insects-may-halve-forest-carbon-sink-capacity.html?cmpid=RSS (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27064-hungry-insects-may-halve-forest-carbon-sink-capacity.html?cmpid=RSS)|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|environment#.VPTB5c13_z8
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 03, 2015, 06:45:55 PM
Decreased calcification in the Southern Ocean over the satellite record
Published 3 March 2015    Science Leave a Comment
Tags: Antarctic, calcification, chemistry, field
Widespread ocean acidification is occurring as the ocean absorbs anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, threatening marine ecosystems, particularly the calcifying plankton that provide the base of the marine food chain and play a key role within the global carbon cycle. We use satellite estimates of particulate inorganic carbon (PIC), surface chlorophyll, and sea surface temperature to provide a first estimate of changing calcification rates throughout the Southern Ocean. From 1998 to 2014 we observe a 4% basin-wide reduction in summer calcification, with ~9% reductions in large regions (~1×106 km2) of the Pacific and Indian sectors. Southern Ocean trends are spatially heterogeneous and primarily driven by changes in PIC concentration (suspended calcite), which has declined by ~24% in these regions. The observed decline in Southern Ocean calcification and PIC is suggestive of large-scale changes in the carbon cycle and provides insight into organism vulnerability in a changing environment.


Freeman N. M. & Lovenduski N. S., in press. Decreased calcification in the Southern Ocean over the satellite record. Geophysical Research Letters. Article (subscription required).

Rate this:
      Rate This
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Laurent on March 03, 2015, 08:22:42 PM
May be that other bacterias are important for carbon and nitrogen cycles.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-03/uomc-mmh030215.php (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-03/uomc-mmh030215.php)

Quote
Microbes can breathe oxygen like you and I, but when it goes away, they can breathe other things, such as nitrogen," she said. Understanding how these reactions work in low oxygen zones is important. As the ocean warms up, those zones may expand.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Tor Bejnar on March 09, 2015, 01:53:29 PM
There is a mention in this TED Talk by University of Manitoba Professor David Barber about CO2 exchange through sea ice at approximately minute 4:45 - 5:05:  [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ofaoiHYKtlc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ofaoiHYKtlc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ofaoiHYKtlc)[/url]
Also, near the end of the talk he says that we don't know if the Arctic (or Arctic Ocean?) will be a net CO2 source or sink.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: wili on March 12, 2015, 06:08:03 PM
Well, this paper suggests that, whatever the Arctic Ocean becomes, the other major global carbon sinks are weakening: http://www.biogeosciences.net/11/3453/2014/bg-11-3453-2014.pdf (http://www.biogeosciences.net/11/3453/2014/bg-11-3453-2014.pdf)

And here's Joe Romm's write up on it, where he notes:

this is one of the most consequential recent findings by climatologists, with significant policy implications

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/12/3632373/carbon-sinks-climate-action/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/03/12/3632373/carbon-sinks-climate-action/)

Quote
uptake rate, kS, “declined over 1959–2012 by a factor of about 1/3, implying that CO2 sinks increased more slowly than excess CO2.”
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Laurent on March 16, 2015, 06:22:39 PM
Oceanic microbes behave in a synchrony across ocean basins
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150316102112.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28Latest+Science+News+--+ScienceDaily%29 (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150316102112.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28Latest+Science+News+--+ScienceDaily%29)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 25, 2015, 03:47:53 PM
Laurent posted a link to this paper a couple days ago and I think it has some important new info on the oceanic dissolved organic carbon pool ( DOC )
 The ocean has the largest inorganic carbon pool with ~ 37,000 Gt C of inorganic carbon ( DIC ) and the ocean also contains a large ~ 660 Gt DOC pool. I was always under the opinion that the residence time of these carbon pools was similar to the overturning time of the worlds oceans at 1000-1500 years. This paper  finds however that there is DOC with residence times up to 30,000 years. I would be interested to know what forms of semi-labile carbon form such long lived carbon pools.
 
 
   Abstract
Marine dissolved organic carbon (DOC) is a large (660 Pg C) reactive carbon reservoir that mediates the oceanic microbial food web and interacts with climate on both short and long timescales. Carbon isotopic content provides information on the DOC source via δ13C and age via Δ14C. Bulk isotope measurements suggest a microbially sourced DOC reservoir with two distinct components of differing radiocarbon age. However, such measurements cannot determine internal dynamics and fluxes. Here we analyze serial oxidation experiments to quantify the isotopic diversity of DOC at an oligotrophic site in the central Pacific Ocean. Our results show diversity in both stable and radio isotopes at all depths, confirming DOC cycling hidden within bulk analyses. We confirm the presence of isotopically enriched, modern DOC cocycling with an isotopically depleted older fraction in the upper ocean. However, our results show that up to 30% of the deep DOC reservoir is modern and supported by a 1 Pg/y carbon flux, which is 10 times higher than inferred from bulk isotope measurements. Isotopically depleted material turns over at an apparent time scale of 30,000 y, which is far slower than indicated by bulk isotope measurements. These results are consistent with global DOC measurements and explain both the fluctuations in deep DOC concentration and the anomalous radiocarbon values of DOC in the Southern Ocean. Collectively these results provide an unprecedented view of the ways in which DOC moves through the marine carbon cycle.

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/47/16706.abstract (http://www.pnas.org/content/111/47/16706.abstract)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 26, 2015, 06:01:13 PM
The linked 2014 reference concludes: "Our results suggest that predicted future increases in ocean temperature will result in reduced CO2 storage by the oceans."

Marsay, C. M. et al. (2014), "Attenuation of sinking particulate organic carbon flux through the mesopelagic ocean", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1415311112

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/4/1089.abstract (http://www.pnas.org/content/112/4/1089.abstract)

Abstract: "The biological carbon pump, which transports particulate organic carbon (POC) from the surface to the deep ocean, plays an important role in regulating atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations. We know very little about geographical variability in the remineralization depth of this sinking material and less about what controls such variability. Here we present previously unpublished profiles of mesopelagic POC flux derived from neutrally buoyant sediment traps deployed in the North Atlantic, from which we calculate the remineralization length scale for each site. Combining these results with corresponding data from the North Pacific, we show that the observed variability in attenuation of vertical POC flux can largely be explained by temperature, with shallower remineralization occurring in warmer waters. This is seemingly inconsistent with conclusions drawn from earlier analyses of deep-sea sediment trap and export flux data, which suggest lowest transfer efficiency at high latitudes. However, the two patterns can be reconciled by considering relatively intense remineralization of a labile fraction of material in warm waters, followed by efficient downward transfer of the remaining refractory fraction, while in cold environments, a larger labile fraction undergoes slower remineralization that continues over a longer length scale. Based on the observed relationship, future increases in ocean temperature will likely lead to shallower remineralization of POC and hence reduced storage of CO2 by the ocean."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Laurent on March 31, 2015, 07:00:49 PM
Swirling currents deliver phytoplankton carbon to ocean depths
http://phys.org/news/2015-03-swirling-currents-phytoplankton-carbon-ocean.html (http://phys.org/news/2015-03-swirling-currents-phytoplankton-carbon-ocean.html)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 03, 2015, 04:21:25 PM
The linked article finds that the prevailing assumption that increased plant exudate activity due to global warming would increase mineral protection of soil carbon is too narrow of a worldview as in reality: "We find that a common root exudate, oxalic acid, promotes carbon loss by liberating organic compounds from protective associations with minerals. By enhancing microbial access to previously mineral-protected compounds, this indirect mechanism accelerated carbon loss more than simply increasing the supply of energetically more favourable substrates."

Marco Keiluweit, Jeremy J. Bougoure, Peter S. Nico, Jennifer Pett-Ridge, Peter K. Weber and Markus Kleber (2015), "Mineral protection of soil carbon counteracted by root exudates", Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate2580


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2580.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2580.html)


Abstract: "Multiple lines of existing evidence suggest that climate change enhances root exudation of organic compounds into soils. Recent experimental studies show that increased exudate inputs may cause a net loss of soil carbon. This stimulation of microbial carbon mineralization (‘priming’) is commonly rationalized by the assumption that exudates provide a readily bioavailable supply of energy for the decomposition of native soil carbon (co-metabolism). Here we show that an alternate mechanism can cause carbon loss of equal or greater magnitude. We find that a common root exudate, oxalic acid, promotes carbon loss by liberating organic compounds from protective associations with minerals. By enhancing microbial access to previously mineral-protected compounds, this indirect mechanism accelerated carbon loss more than simply increasing the supply of energetically more favourable substrates. Our results provide insights into the coupled biotic–abiotic mechanisms underlying the ‘priming’ phenomenon and challenge the assumption that mineral-associated carbon is protected from microbial cycling over millennial timescales."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Ymir on April 04, 2015, 03:47:45 PM
I've been very slowly making my way through several threads, I'm probably months of reading behind the level of debate frequently occurs on here. I have a question that is pethaps overly simple and this seems the best thread to ask it in. If carbon or the amount of carbon remains in the atmosphere for 500-1000 years and is causing warming for all, or at least a significant amount of time; is reducing emissions actually going to achieve much? Given the amount we have already spewed out? I mean isn't there already enough to heat the atmosphere by a number of degrees C. and won't that increase remain for that 500-1000 years?

Edit- and in that case aren't we fucked, sooner or later, probably sooner?
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 04, 2015, 10:55:51 PM
I've been very slowly making my way through several threads, I'm probably months of reading behind the level of debate frequently occurs on here. I have a question that is pethaps overly simple and this seems the best thread to ask it in. If carbon or the amount of carbon remains in the atmosphere for 500-1000 years and is causing warming for all, or at least a significant amount of time; is reducing emissions actually going to achieve much? Given the amount we have already spewed out? I mean isn't there already enough to heat the atmosphere by a number of degrees C. and won't that increase remain for that 500-1000 years?

Edit- and in that case aren't we fucked, sooner or later, probably sooner?

Ymir,

If society can reach zero net emissions (i.e. where society is emitting as much carbon as nature can absorb naturally) then using Negative Emissions Technology, NET [see attached image], as discussed in the linked document (such as reforestation/afforestation) can remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere (assuming that either society gets serious, or collapses to the extent that forests regrow around the world).

http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/research-programmes/stranded-assets/Stranded%20Carbon%20Assets%20and%20NETs%20-%2006.02.15.pdf (http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/research-programmes/stranded-assets/Stranded%20Carbon%20Assets%20and%20NETs%20-%2006.02.15.pdf)

See also:

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,363.0.html (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,363.0.html)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Ymir on April 05, 2015, 12:00:48 AM
Thanks, so making civilisation "carbon neutral" is only a first step? I'm ambivalent about geo engineering, it sounds like a great way to make things worse. I've read too many scientists say its too risky.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 05, 2015, 01:00:23 AM
Thanks, so making civilisation "carbon neutral" is only a first step? I'm ambivalent about geo engineering, it sounds like a great way to make things worse. I've read too many scientists say its too risky.

Ymir,

There are many different types of geoengineering, and I also do not trust Solar Radiation Management, SAR; which is why I only referred the Negative Emissions Technology, NET, as I assume that you that you are not overly concerned about planting more forests.

Best,
ASLR
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 10, 2015, 08:20:25 AM
Previously, I posted the following information in the "Arctic Methane Release" thread in the Permafrost folded; however, as jai pointed-out that the paper is about carbon emissions [most likely more about CO2 emissions from the soil (particularly due to heat generated by soil microbes) than methane releases], I decided to re-post this information here in the Carbon Cycle thread:

The linked reference (see also the associated attached image) characterizes the types of soil microbiomes in the permafrost, soil active layer and thermokarst bogs around the world that are becoming more active with increasing global warming.  This is a positive feedback factor that is not fully accounted for the AR5 projections.

J Hultman J, MP Waldrop, R Mackelprang, MM David, J McFarland, S Blazewicz, J Harden, MR Turetsky, AD McGuire, MB Shah, NC VerBerkmoes, L Lee, K Mavrommatis, and JK Jansson (2015), “Multi-Omics of Permafrost, Active Layer, and Thermokarst Bog Soil Microbiomes,” Nature, doi:10.1038/nature14238


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature14238.html (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nature14238.html)


Abstract: "Over 20% of Earth’s terrestrial surface is underlain by permafrost with vast stores of carbon that, once thawed, may represent the largest future transfer of carbon from the biosphere to the atmosphere. This process is largely dependent on microbial responses, but we know little about microbial activity in intact, let alone in thawing, permafrost. Molecular approaches have recently revealed the identities and functional gene composition of microorganisms in some permafrost soils and a rapid shift in functional gene composition during short-term thaw experiments. However, the fate of permafrost carbon depends on climatic, hydrological and microbial responses to thaw at decadal scales. Here we use the combination of several molecular ‘omics’ approaches to determine the phylogenetic composition of the microbial communities, including several draft genomes of novel species, their functional potential and activity in soils representing different states of thaw: intact permafrost, seasonally thawed active layer and thermokarst bog. The multi-omics strategy reveals a good correlation of process rates to omics data for dominant processes, such as methanogenesis in the bog, as well as novel survival strategies for potentially active microbes in permafrost."

See also:
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/climate-change-is-causing-arctic-microbes-to-be-more-active-and-increase-the-thawing-of-permafrost-2015-4 (http://www.businessinsider.com.au/climate-change-is-causing-arctic-microbes-to-be-more-active-and-increase-the-thawing-of-permafrost-2015-4)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: foolhardycougar on April 14, 2015, 03:12:35 PM
All living things are made of carbon. Carbon is also a part of the ocean, air, and even rocks. Because the Earth is a dynamic place, carbon does not stay still. It is on the move!In the atmosphere, carbon is attached to some oxygen in a gas called carbon dioxide.Plants use carbon dioxide and sunlight to make their own food and grow. The carbon becomes part of the plant. Plants that die and are buried may turn into fossil fuels made of carbon like coal and oil over millions of years. When humans burn fossil fuels, most of the carbon quickly enters the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and traps heat in the atmosphere. Without it and other greenhouse gases, Earth would be a frozen world. But humans have burned so much fuel that there is about 30% more carbon dioxide in the air today than there was about 150 years ago, and Earth is becoming a warmer place. In fact, ice cores show us that there is now more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there has been in the last 420,000 years.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: bosbas on April 15, 2015, 04:20:37 AM
Foolhardycougar wrote: " there is about 30% more carbon dioxide in the air today than there was about 150 years ago".
Well, no - there is about 42% more carbon dioxide in the air today than there was about 150 years ago, or, 150 years ago there was 30% less carbon dioxide in the air compared with today.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on April 16, 2015, 10:26:44 PM
Climate driven variability in the Southern Ocean carbonate system
Published 16 April 2015    Science Leave a Comment
Tags: chemistry, globalmodeling, modeling
We investigate seasonal and interannual variability in the Southern Ocean carbonate system using output from a historically forced (1948-2007) ocean general circulation model with embedded biogeochemistry. Atmospheric CO2 is fixed at pre-industrial levels to investigate carbonate system variability in the absence of an anthropogenic CO2 perturbation. We find that nearly one quarter of interannual variability in Southern Ocean Pacific sector surface carbonate ion concentration (CO23-) can be explained by variability in ENSO, with Pacific sector surface CO23- decreasing by 0.43 mmol m−3 per standard deviation decrease in the ENSO 3.4 index. ENSO related variability in vertical advection of dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) drives this relationship between ENSO and surface CO23-. We also find that positive phases of the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) are associated with decreased Southern Ocean surface CO23-, an association driven by SAM-related variability in vertical advection of DIC. Despite the influence of SAM on interannual variability in surface CO23-, we find that only 4.5% of the trend in natural Southern Ocean surface CO23- exhibits linear congruence with the trend in wind stress. Given this, we predict that the positive trend in SAM will not have a substantial impact on ocean acidification. Lastly, we find that ENSO alters the wintertime minimum in surface CO23-. Assuming a business-as-usual acidification rate of 0.5 mmol m−3 yr−1, exacerbation of the wintertime minimum during La Niña conditions may advance the date of aragonite undersaturation within the central Pacific sector of the Southern Ocean by as many as 8 years.


Conrad C. J. & Lovenduski N. S., in press. Climate driven variability in the Southern Ocean carbonate system. Journal of Climate. Article (subscription required).
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Ymir on April 18, 2015, 11:38:30 PM
Another question, that may be a bit simplistic: I've read that the last time we were at 400 ppm of CO2 the temperature was 3-4 Celsius warmer and sea level was many metres higher, does that mean that we are inevitably heading to at least those conditions, once the time lag in warming catches up with CO2 levels? I appreciate that it may be considerably more complicated than that and that the amount of CO2 is still in ncreasing each year.

Could I also ask how much warming is locked in? The figures of 1.5 sound ludicrously low to me but my understanding is limited.

Thanks.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on April 19, 2015, 06:34:45 AM
Ymir, Although about half of our carbon emissions are retained in the atmosphere the carbon emissions taken up by terrestrial and oceans sinks that have expanded as our emissions have increased return part of that sequestered carbon back into the atmosphere eventually. With enough time ( < 1000 years ) most of the sequestered carbon is moved back into the atmosphere where a fraction is again sequestered into the terrestrial and ocean sinks. Only a small fraction is sequestered into mineral forms that cycle on tectonic time scales.  So I am trying to say most of the carbon we emit will cycle back on fairly short ( < 1000 year ) timescales and only a small fraction will be sequestered in mineral forms that cycle in timeframes greater than 1000 years. So the carbon we emit will be with us a long time. The greater the amount of carbon we put into these short lived carbon pools the longer the time it will take to sequester that small fraction that can be annually moved into deep ocean sediments. It will take many cycles of plant to air/ ocean and repeat to eventually take up the 500 gigatonnes of carbon we have already emitted. 
 It will take significantly longer if we continue BAU and emit the 2500 gigatonnes carbon in proven fossil fuel reserves.
 The doubling of atmospheric Co2 from 280ppm to 560ppm depending on climate sensitivity 
will result in a temperature increase of 2.6-4.1 degrees C.    
    
   http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity-advanced.htm

 Since we obviously aren't going to stop emissions anytime soon picking some point within the next few decades when we do reach doubling will result in about a 3 degree temperature change on average with of course much of that heat concentrated in Arctic regions. If that doubling occurs when the Arctic Sea Ice has already reached summer melt out the climate sensitivity will increase as well as average world temperatures.
 So ballpark locked in 3+ degrees within the span of a human life assuming atmospheric CO2 doubling.
 Since we are currently only about half way to CO2 doubling the 1.2-1.5 degrees currently locked in seems reasonable. To bad we aren't calling it quits however.   
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Laurent on April 19, 2015, 12:39:37 PM
Ymir - I do ask myself the same question...I don't think anyone has the answer...

First you should not think of CO2 concentrations but of CO2 equivalent concentrations (485 ppm) that is where we are now, but you have to take into account the inertia of the system. Before the French revolution the earth was on a downward trend so the expectation was downward, today it is not anymore downward or flat, we are on an upward trend so the expectation is (even if we stop everything now) upward.

Secondly, the amount of CO2eq in the atmosphere is important but the amount of CO2 dissolved is also important. (We should have a better idea, when the superargos float will deliver some results) We have to consider also all the CO2 eq that we produce and the one that is due to increase (almost unknown) due to the temps increasing and chemical balance.

3°C for equilibrium, may be, but I think it is too low...

Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 29, 2015, 04:48:32 PM
The linked article points to research indicating that with increase plant activity (driven by increase atmospheric CO2 & global warming) that soils will release more CO2 (which was not realized previously).

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/04/29/3652020/global-soil-week-forum-recap/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/04/29/3652020/global-soil-week-forum-recap/)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Laurent on April 30, 2015, 09:58:33 PM
Bacterial Steroids: They Get 'Pumped Up' By CO2 From Dying Phytoplankton
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/bacterial_steroids_they_get_pumped_up_by_co2_from_dying_phytoplankton-155145 (http://www.science20.com/news_articles/bacterial_steroids_they_get_pumped_up_by_co2_from_dying_phytoplankton-155145)

Quote
"We typically think of temperature and other physiochemical factors as being critically important in determining the bacterial processing of diatom detritus and how deep it sinks in the ocean, but this work shows that the molecular composition of 'infochemicals' really matters," said Bidle.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Laurent on May 12, 2015, 10:57:34 AM
Is 2015 The Year Soil Becomes Climate Change’s Hottest Topic?
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/04/29/3652020/global-soil-week-forum-recap/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/04/29/3652020/global-soil-week-forum-recap/)

Quote
. A recent report by scientists at Oregon State University, however, found that when chemicals emitted by plant roots interact with minerals in soil, it can cause carbon to break free. This exposes the carbon to decomposition by microbes in the soil, which pass it into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. As the climate warms, the scientists found, more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will stimulate the growth of plants, which will in turn stimulate the production of the root compounds that breakdown carbon and soil minerals.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on May 12, 2015, 09:04:56 PM
UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. -- Around 55 million years ago, an abrupt global warming event triggered a highly corrosive deep-water current through the North Atlantic Ocean.  The current's origin puzzled scientists for a decade, but an international team of researchers has now discovered how it formed and the findings may have implications for the carbon dioxide emission sensitivity of today's climate.
            http://news.psu.edu/story/357102/2015/05/11/solving-corrosive-ocean-mystery-reveals-future-climate (http://news.psu.edu/story/357102/2015/05/11/solving-corrosive-ocean-mystery-reveals-future-climate)

The researchers explored the acidification of the ocean that occurred during a period known as the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), when the Earth warmed 9 degree Fahrenheit in response to a rapid rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and subsequently one of the largest-ever mass extinctions occurred in the deep ocean.  They report their findings in today's (May 11) issue of Nature Geoscience.

This period closely resembles the scenario of global warming today.

“There has been a longstanding mystery about why ocean acidification caused by rising atmospheric carbon dioxide during the PETM was so much worse in the Atlantic compared to the rest of the world’s oceans,” said lead author Kaitlin Alexander, ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, University of New South Wales, Australia. “Our research suggests the shape of the ocean basins and changes to ocean currents played a key role in this difference. Understanding how this event occurred may help other researchers to better estimate the sensitivity of our climate to increasing carbon dioxide.”

To get their results the researchers recreated the ocean basins and land masses of 55 million years ago in a global climate model.

During that time a ridge on the ocean floor existed between the North and South Atlantic that separated the deep water in the North Atlantic from the rest of the world’s oceans. The ridge was like a giant bathtub on the ocean floor.

The simulations showed this ridge became filled with extremely corrosive water from the Arctic Ocean, which mixed with dense salty water from the Tethys Ocean and sank to the seafloor, where it accumulated. The sediment in this area indicates the water was so corrosive that it dissolved all the calcium carbonate produced by organisms that settled on the ocean floor.

When the Earth warmed as a result of a rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, it eventually warmed this corrosive bottom water. As this water warmed it became less dense and denser water sinking from above replaced it. The corrosive deep water was pushed up and spilled over the edge of the giant “bathtub” and flowed into the South Atlantic.

“That corrosive water spread south through the Atlantic, then east into the Southern Ocean and eventually made its way to the Pacific,” said Tim Bralower, professor of geosciences, Penn State. “The pattern of the event corresponds very closely to what the sediment records tell us. Those records show almost 100 percent dissolution of calcium carbonate in the South Atlantic sediment.”

Determining how the event occurred also has important implications for today’s climate and how it might warm in response to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
 
If the high amount of acidification in the Atlantic Ocean was an indication of global acidification, then it would suggest enormous amounts of carbon dioxide are necessary to increase temperatures by 9 degrees Fahrenheit. However, these latest findings suggest that other factors made the Atlantic bottom water more corrosive than in other ocean basins.

“We now understand why the dissolution of sediments in the Atlantic Ocean was different from records in other ocean basins,” said Katrin Meissner, associate professor, Climate Change Research Centre, University of New South Wales. “Using all sediments combined we can now estimate that the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere causing a temperature rise of 5°C (9 degrees Fahrenheit), was around the carbon dioxide equivalent of 7,000 to10,000 gigatons of carbon. This is similar to the amount of carbon available in fossil fuel reservoirs today.”
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Laurent on May 15, 2015, 02:25:34 PM
I don't know if that news was shown here before, that's new to me.
Quote
But a December 2014 study of Pacific oyster and Mediterranean mussel larvae in Nature Climate Change determined that “the earliest larval stages are directly sensitive to saturation state, not carbon dioxide (CO2) or pH” (acidity). So what matters most is how much calcium carbonate is in the ocean water relative to the total amount it could hold.
I am not sure what type of saturation to they speak about, is it Ca2+ ?

Carbon Pollution’s Harm To Sea Life Coming Faster Than Expected
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/12/3657571/carbon-pollution-sea-life/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/05/12/3657571/carbon-pollution-sea-life/)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on May 15, 2015, 03:10:21 PM
Laurent, There are two forms of calcium utilized by mollusks ,aragonite and calcite. Because aragonite is the more soluble form it is the " saturation state " of aragonite used for biological studies. Oysters utilize aragonite in the first few days of life and switch to calcite as they grow into maturity. It is in the first few days of life while they are building their shells with aragonite that they are most vulnerable .
Saturation state ( or Omega) values below 1 cause shell dissolution but acquiring the calcium they need gets harder and harder the closer  Omega values approach undersaturation. Pacific oysters in aquaculture facilities begin to die at Omega values of 1.5   


Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Laurent on May 15, 2015, 05:38:13 PM
Thanks Bruce Steel !
So the Aragonit is CaCO3...and Calcite, CaCO3 too...ok...same compound but different cristals...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aragonite
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcite
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on May 16, 2015, 06:01:30 AM
Laurent, That's right, calcium carbonate is both aragonite and calcite, and also to make it a little more complicated there is also a high magnesium form.  For biological purposes the aragonite form is the one we use when we talk about the" saturation state". I would like to thank you for following the carbon cycle .... And I appreciate your contributions to the terrestrial part of the discussion + + . I feel a little lost in the weeds sometimes but how the earth cycles carbon is  the big game IMO. I love the lessons in meteorology I get on this site , I love the friendly discussions on politics, but how the carbon cycle responds to the stresses we are forcing on it will determine climate sensitivity , and ultimately how hot this planet really gets. Acidification , again in my opinion , will not be as big an impact on hominids as the temperature increases I think we will experience over the next 30-50 years. If somehow the damage of the loss of the arctic sea ice and the albedo consequences don't kick in positive feedbacks that overwhelm our current ff carbon inputs acidification will not interrupt the ocean in unrepairable ways. If however the current carbon sinks fail as we continue to ramp up carbon emissions then ocean acidification will result in a spectacularly large ocean extinction event. So the responsibility for triggering huge damage is ours , testing the outcome of BAU by ignoring how our climate might respond long term... After we damage the carbon sinks is just frigen terrifying . They  can't be revived if carbon feedbacks exceed current anthro contributions. Sorry for the rant, it's been a long day in meetings.What I wanted to say and didn't.     
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Laurent on June 30, 2015, 10:23:28 AM
Multicentury changes in ocean and land contributions to the climate-carbon feedback
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1002/2014GB005079/full (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1002/2014GB005079/full)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on July 10, 2015, 04:12:15 PM
"New research paints an unsettling picture of the future of shellfish in coastal Alaska. The effects of ocean acidification are worsening and could mean the end of hatcheries in the next 25 years if costly mitigation efforts aren’t put in place."

http://www.alaskapublic.org/2015/07/08/ocean-acidification-may-drive-shellfish-hatcheries-out-of-business-by-2040/ (http://www.alaskapublic.org/2015/07/08/ocean-acidification-may-drive-shellfish-hatcheries-out-of-business-by-2040/)

With enough money the hatcheries can adapt ( for awhile )but the native shellfish stocks and native shellfish recruitment will slow and then fail for numerous species. The long tail of acidifications effects should stretch out several tens of thousands of years and my yammering on about it for the last ten years hasn't made any difference in the outcome.   The arctic sea ice, the tundra, and then human populations will follow suit. It has been depressing watching .   
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on July 13, 2015, 05:03:07 PM
The linked reference (with an open access pdf) presents improved findings that between 2000 and 2012 both the natural and the managed tropical rainforest emitted relatively high levels of carbon into the atmosphere:

A Tyukavina et al (2015), "Aboveground carbon loss in natural and managed tropical forests from 2000 to 2012", Environ. Res. Lett. 10 074002, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/10/7/074002

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/7/074002/article (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/7/074002/article)
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/7/074002/pdf/1748-9326_10_7_074002.pdf (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/10/7/074002/pdf/1748-9326_10_7_074002.pdf)

Abstract: "Tropical forests provide global climate regulation ecosystem services and their clearing is a significant source of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and resultant radiative forcing of climate change. However, consensus on pan-tropical forest carbon dynamics is lacking. We present a new estimate that employs recommended good practices to quantify gross tropical forest aboveground carbon (AGC) loss from 2000 to 2012 through the integration of Landsat-derived tree canopy cover, height, intactness and forest cover loss and GLAS-lidar derived forest biomass. An unbiased estimate of forest loss area is produced using a stratified random sample with strata derived from a wall-to-wall 30 m forest cover loss map. Our sample-based results separate the gross loss of forest AGC into losses from natural forests (0.59 PgC yr−1) and losses from managed forests (0.43 PgC yr−1) including plantations, agroforestry systems and subsistence agriculture. Latin America accounts for 43% of gross AGC loss and 54% of natural forest AGC loss, with Brazil experiencing the highest AGC loss for both categories at national scales. We estimate gross tropical forest AGC loss and natural forest loss to account for 11% and 6% of global year 2012 CO2 emissions, respectively. Given recent trends, natural forests will likely constitute an increasingly smaller proportion of tropical forest GHG emissions and of global emissions as fossil fuel consumption increases, with implications for the valuation of co-benefits in tropical forest conservation."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on July 17, 2015, 11:07:04 PM
Ocean Acidification: A grim reaper for wild shellfish stocks ?

http://www.alaskapublic.org/2015/07/15/an-uncertain-future-for-wild-shellfish-stocks-in-a-changing-ocean/ (http://www.alaskapublic.org/2015/07/15/an-uncertain-future-for-wild-shellfish-stocks-in-a-changing-ocean/)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on August 17, 2015, 03:57:58 PM
World’s coral reefs doomed even if COP21 is ‘wildly successful’
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/worlds-coral-reefs-doomed-even-if-cop21-wildly-successful-expert-says-1515710 (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/worlds-coral-reefs-doomed-even-if-cop21-wildly-successful-expert-says-1515710)


Coral reefs, as they were 50 years ago, will not be found anywhere on Earth by the middle of the century, an expert has warned. Professor Peter F Sale, from the University of Windsor, Canada, claims the world’s coral reefs cannot be saved – even if the climate change talks in Paris in December (COP21) are “wildly successful”.

Presenting at a Plenary session analysis at the Goldschmidt conference in Prague, Sale said: “Even if Paris is wildly successful, and a treaty is struck, ocean warming and ocean acidification are going to continue beyond the end of this century. This is now serious; I find it very unlikely that coral reefs, as I knew them in the mid-1960s, will still be found anywhere on this planet by mid-century. Instead, we will have algal-dominated, rubble-strewn, slowly eroding limestone benches.


“I see little hope for reefs unless we embark on a more aggressive emissions reduction plan. Aiming for CO2 at 350ppm, or a total warming of around 1C is scientifically defendable, and would give reefs a good chance; a number of coral reef scientists have called for this.” At present, world leaders hope to reach climate change agreements that will lead to global temperatures increasing by no more than 2C by the end of the century.

Ocean acidification is considered a major threat to the world’s coral reefs. Last year scientists from the Carnegie Institution in Washington DC said coral growth rates in Australia’s Great Barrier Reef have fallen by 40% over the last 40 years – a drop they have largely attributed to the absorption of CO2 into the ocean.

Similarly, a more recent study from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany found it will take more than 700 years to reverse ocean acidification to the point of pre-industrial conditions – even with aggressive CO2 removal techniques.

Sale noted, however, that it is not just CO2 emissions that politicians should be concerned about when it comes to “other insults” to the world’s oceans: “We have lost 90% of our commercial fish biomass since the 1940’s, we are polluting coastal waters, and the great majority of marine protected areas are not being protected. Either we agree limits, which means the end of the’ high seas’, or we let large parts of the seas die.

“Knowing what we are doing, do we have the ethical right to eliminate an entire ecosystem from this planet? It’s never been done before. But watching as our actions lead to the loss of all coral reefs on the planet is like removing all rainforests. I don’t believe we have that right”.

John Veron, former chief scientist of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, added: “The extreme gravity of the current predicament is now widely acknowledged by reef and climate scientists. They also accept that only drastic action starting now will prevent wholesale destruction of reefs and other similarly affected ecosystems. Should humanity not be successful in preventing these threats from becoming reality, no amount of management or expenditure will save future generations from the consequences of our failed guardianship.”

Hannah Osborne, International Business Times, 16 August 2015. Article.

Rate this:
      Rate This
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on August 17, 2015, 04:23:49 PM
About one fourth of the CO2 produced by humans each day is being taken up by the oceans, resulting in a chemical reaction leading to a higher acid content in the water. In the long run, this can threaten marine life forms such as corals or shellfish as the acidification reduces the shell and skeleton production. This would affect biodiversity and the intricately interwoven food webs. Thus the CO2 uptake by the oceans is a danger for marine life. 

Therefore hopes have been placed on carbon dioxide removal measures. One option: huge amounts of biomass – for instance fast growing trees such as poplar - consuming CO2 during growth could be burnt in bioenergy plants where the CO2 gets captured and stored underground (CCS). While this technology is not yet proven at an industrial scale and would have to be carefully balanced against land needs for food production, one major intended benefit would be to preserve the oceans from acidification.

“In the deep ocean, the chemical echo will reverberate for thousands of years”

“We did a computer experiment and simulated different rates of CO2 extraction from the atmosphere – one reasonable one, but also a probably unfeasible one of more than 90 billion tons per year, which is more than two times today’s yearly emissions,” says co-author Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science in Stanford, USA, who worked on this issue during a research stay at PIK. The experiment does not account for the availability of technologies for extraction and storage. “Interestingly, it turns out that after business as usual until 2150, even taking such enormous amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere wouldn't help the deep ocean that much – after the acidified water has been transported by large-scale ocean circulation to great depths, it is out of reach for many centuries, no matter how much CO2 is removed from the atmosphere.”

https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/co2-removal-cannot-save-the-oceans-2013-if-we-pursue-business-as-usual (https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/co2-removal-cannot-save-the-oceans-2013-if-we-pursue-business-as-usual)

This study was referenced in the article on doomed coral ecosystems posted above. Important to note BAU till 2150 will cause damage much beyond the current and ongoing coral declines and likely extinctions. So even though we don't currently have the technology to remove GigaTonnes carbon from the atmosphere we are acting and emitting as though we do. 
atmosphere IPCC 
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 02, 2015, 04:03:35 AM
The linked MIT article discusses the major impact that ocean acidification will have on phytoplankton by 2100 (see extract):

ews.mit.edu/2015/ocean-acidification-phytoplankton-0720

Extract: "In a study published today in the journal Nature Climate Change, the researchers report that increased ocean acidification by 2100 will spur a range of responses in phytoplankton: Some species will die out, while others will flourish, changing the balance of plankton species around the world.

The researchers also compared phytoplankton’s response not only to ocean acidification, but also to other projected drivers of climate change, such as warming temperatures and lower nutrient supplies. For instance, the team used a numerical model to see how phytoplankton as a whole will migrate significantly, with most populations shifting toward the poles as the planet warms. Based on global simulations, however, they found the most dramatic effects stemmed from ocean acidification.

Stephanie Dutkiewicz, a principal research scientist in MIT’s Center for Global Change Science, says that while scientists have suspected ocean acidification might affect marine populations, the group’s results suggest a much larger upheaval of phytoplankton — and therefore probably the species that feed on them — than previously estimated.

“I’ve always been a total believer in climate change, and I try not to be an alarmist, because it’s not good for anyone,” says Dutkiewicz, who is the paper’s lead author. “But I was actually quite shocked by the results. The fact that there are so many different possible changes, that different phytoplankton respond differently, means there might be some quite traumatic changes in the communities over the course of the 21st century. A whole rearrangement of the communities means something to both the food web further up, but also for things like cycling of carbon.”"
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 03, 2015, 06:50:21 PM
For those who are interested the following linked PPT provides an overview of the chemistry for some key Earth Systems:

https://www.climatescience.org.au/sites/default/files/QMS512_2015_L6_Chase.pdf (https://www.climatescience.org.au/sites/default/files/QMS512_2015_L6_Chase.pdf)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on September 08, 2015, 05:34:53 AM
Skeptical Science has a good O/A overview that is written to stress timeframes of processes involved and in language most of us can understand. Bottom line is the rate of CO2 emissions plays a large role in acidification of surface waters of the earths oceans as the processes of terrestrial delivery of alkalinity are overwhelmed. Net result is increased hydrogen ions ( acidification ) decreased carbonates, rising saturation horizon and thus a smaller volume of the ocean that can absorb organic carbon supplied by primary productivity. Article also describes timeframes  for ocean heat absorption relative to atmospheric forcing and examples of former extinction events due to forcing events similar to current rates of CO2 emissions.

  http://www.skepticalscience.com/you-cant-rush-the-oceans.html (http://www.skepticalscience.com/you-cant-rush-the-oceans.html)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 09, 2015, 10:25:23 PM
The linked reference discusses observational based finding about climate sensitivity of shrub growth in the tundra around the Arctic region.  The findings are more complex than previously modeled; which, indicates that climate models should be updated to incorporate the new findings:

Isla H. Myers-Smith, et al. (2015), "Climate sensitivity of shrub growth across the tundra biome", Nature Climate Change, Volume: 5, Pages: 887–891, doi:10.1038/nclimate2697


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n9/full/nclimate2697.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v5/n9/full/nclimate2697.html)


Abstract: "Rapid climate warming in the tundra biome has been linked to increasing shrub dominance. Shrub expansion can modify climate by altering surface albedo, energy and water balance, and permafrost, yet the drivers of shrub growth remain poorly understood. Dendroecological data consisting of multi-decadal time series of annual shrub growth provide an underused resource to explore climate–growth relationships. Here, we analyse circumpolar data from 37 Arctic and alpine sites in 9 countries, including 25 species, and ~42,000 annual growth records from 1,821 individuals. Our analyses demonstrate that the sensitivity of shrub growth to climate was: (1) heterogeneous, with European sites showing greater summer temperature sensitivity than North American sites, and (2) higher at sites with greater soil moisture and for taller shrubs (for example, alders and willows) growing at their northern or upper elevational range edges. Across latitude, climate sensitivity of growth was greatest at the boundary between the Low and High Arctic, where permafrost is thawing4 and most of the global permafrost soil carbon pool is stored. The observed variation in climate–shrub growth relationships should be incorporated into Earth system models to improve future projections of climate change impacts across the tundra biome."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on September 16, 2015, 06:55:09 AM
I suppose I am more hung up on what acidification is projected to do to various invertebrates and especially sea urchins than most people here but when I see a paper projecting zero settlement within 80 years for a sea urchin species I take note. Purple urchins ( Paracentrodus Lividus )or Mediterranean sea urchins are like most urchins millions of years  in existence and apparently not long for time left.

"   Settlement was delayed by 8 days at pH 7.7 compared to pH 8.1, and no settlement was observed at pH 7.4. Overall, only sublethal effects were observed in larvae exposed to pH 7.7, while pH 7.4 induced both lethal and sublethal effects "

If I can get my g-mail to work I will link the paper but maybe it's just more numbers, one more species headed for extinction, one more million year old species getting rubbed out by manunkind.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 16, 2015, 05:38:39 PM
maybe it's just more numbers, one more species headed for extinction, one more million year old species getting rubbed out by manunkind.

As the Anthropocene is all about us, we probably shouldn't worry that since 1970 the number of fish and other species in the sea has been more than halved.


http://mashable.com/2015/09/16/marine-population-halved-since-1970/ (http://mashable.com/2015/09/16/marine-population-halved-since-1970/)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on September 16, 2015, 08:38:17 PM
ASLR, Neither the link you provide nor the one that makes similar claims that sigmetnow posted provide a shred of scientific evidence about their actual sources. So if you prefer to repeat crap put out by an NGO like WWF who is in the business of selling scare tactics for the benefit of their coffers I suppose me telling you that here on the US west coast we don't have Any overfishing currently taking place because we have regulated most fishing into nonexistence while at the same time importing over 90% of all seafood from countries with fewer or nonexistent fisheries protections. The few fishermen who still ply US waters and have struggled to both protect and enforce the most stringent fishery regulations in the world are thrown under the bus while corporate and NGO's interests cash in at the bank.
 My last post was about the upcoming Extinction of a sea urchin species that everyone is collectively promoting with BAU but there isn't any profit for WWF to fight that battle so they fly around the world, push regulations by expensive lawyers in DC that ultimately outsource the problems and the carbon footprint of their own actions.
 There isn't one fish species in the world you can show me that went extinct due to fishermen. So if everyone wants to get righteous maybe they could walk a mile I my shoes and watch as good efforts get you spit in the face.
 This rant is driven by current regulations that will be putting more of my friends out of business in the near future and not just the garbage printed in the above articles. Hard to watch and always amazing to see two different standards for science on this otherwise excellent forum. If you want fish science I could provide it but maybe pushing buttons makes some people feel good about themselves, nothing personal.     
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 16, 2015, 10:14:13 PM
ASLR, Neither the link you provide nor the one that makes similar claims that sigmetnow posted provide a shred of scientific evidence about their actual sources. So if you prefer to repeat crap put out by an NGO like WWF who is in the business of selling scare tactics for the benefit of their coffers I suppose me telling you that here on the US west coast we don't have Any overfishing currently taking place because we have regulated most fishing into nonexistence while at the same time importing over 90% of all seafood from countries with fewer or nonexistent fisheries protections. The few fishermen who still ply US waters and have struggled to both protect and enforce the most stringent fishery regulations in the world are thrown under the bus while corporate and NGO's interests cash in at the bank.
 My last post was about the upcoming Extinction of a sea urchin species that everyone is collectively promoting with BAU but there isn't any profit for WWF to fight that battle so they fly around the world, push regulations by expensive lawyers in DC that ultimately outsource the problems and the carbon footprint of their own actions.
 There isn't one fish species in the world you can show me that went extinct due to fishermen. So if everyone wants to get righteous maybe they could walk a mile I my shoes and watch as good efforts get you spit in the face.
 This rant is driven by current regulations that will be putting more of my friends out of business in the near future and not just the garbage printed in the above articles. Hard to watch and always amazing to see two different standards for science on this otherwise excellent forum. If you want fish science I could provide it but maybe pushing buttons makes some people feel good about themselves, nothing personal.   

As the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) study is not peer-reviewed perhaps it is best for me to reserve judgment on this matter until well document research comes out.  While I concur that pushing unsubstantiated research can be counter-productive; I also feel that following a BAU pathway (as the world is still doing today) until we have a 95% confidence level on every aspect of an issue before we take action, will likely lead to a world that your fishing associate's children will not want to live in.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: jai mitchell on September 16, 2015, 11:30:21 PM
Bruce.

it was the introduction of gil netting in the 1980s that swept the deep reefs of the west coast (I think mostly Hmong immigrants) this caused a collapse of the regional ecosystems in northern california.  Further, drought cycles and waterway pollution led to declining fish stocks returning to hatcheries and regional warming compounded with toxic algae bloom created a severe shock to the plankton food web.  This led to a complete brood collapse of auklets from california to oregon in 2014 and resulted in the collapse of the sardine population (and the massive losses in seal rookeries this last spring).

Under a changing environment, bau fishing practices have become unsustainable and human contributions are significant on a global scale.

Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on September 16, 2015, 11:57:21 PM
ASLR, You are the last person I would choose to offend. I live two lives perhaps and I am afraid i let the politics of my private life bleed over onto this site earlier today. Fish politics is very rough and
tumble and I am afraid watching as good men who have done an honest and honorable job at regulating their individual fisheries go down to dirty politics makes me hot under the collar. I will later put a link to a new web-page that I have access to but is currently embargoed. There you can read both the controversial papers like the one you linked earlier with a peer reviewed comment section by some of the best fisheries scientists in the world. I don't know how useful it will be in a country that is smitten by the likes of Donald Trump .
 We have to maintain a higher standard however . Not a high bar .

Yes I agree the next couple generations is going to be handed a bag of ....  I will struggle on and try to help avoid contributing to our collective demise. The carbon page and the 40,000 hits it has received is an intellectual attempt at describing some rather harsh inevitable outcomes as well as other even worse outcomes if " the Donald" and his irk hold sway. 

Jai, I don't agree but I don't want to bog down the "carbon cycle page"  If someone thinks we need a fishing page charge on.   
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 17, 2015, 12:28:58 AM
Bruce,

Actually, I appreciate it when some one critiques my citations, as sometimes I post too fast, and I know that I am not always right.  So no offense taken, and I hope that the fishermen that you interact with stop getting the short end of the stick.  Also, I could not agree more that the election of Donald Trump would be a disaster for fighting climate change.

Best,
ASLR
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: anotheramethyst on September 18, 2015, 02:02:26 AM
ASLR, You are the last person I would choose to offend. I live two lives perhaps and I am afraid i let the politics of my private life bleed over onto this site earlier today. Fish politics is very rough and
tumble and I am afraid watching as good men who have done an honest and honorable job at regulating their individual fisheries go down to dirty politics makes me hot under the collar. I will later put a link to a new web-page that I have access to but is currently embargoed. There you can read both the controversial papers like the one you linked earlier with a peer reviewed comment section by some of the best fisheries scientists in the world. I don't know how useful it will be in a country that is smitten by the likes of Donald Trump .
 We have to maintain a higher standard however . Not a high bar .

Yes I agree the next couple generations is going to be handed a bag of ....  I will struggle on and try to help avoid contributing to our collective demise. The carbon page and the 40,000 hits it has received is an intellectual attempt at describing some rather harsh inevitable outcomes as well as other even worse outcomes if " the Donald" and his irk hold sway. 

Jai, I don't agree but I don't want to bog down the "carbon cycle page"  If someone thinks we need a fishing page charge on.   

bruce,

i know nothing about fisheries in california, but i know what happened in texas.  there are almost no small scale commercial fishermen anymore.  the fish packing plants are closed.  nearest i can tell, the giant commercial factory fishing boats, far off the coast, that net everything and throw literally tons of bycatch, did contribute to overfishing.  little private commercial fisherman couldn't do that kind of damage in a thousand years, with or without nets.  but that's not all.  nitrogen pollution in the mississippi and rio grande created vast anoxic dead zones.  and the intracoastal waterway, normally 1-4 feet deep, is dredged to allow commercial sea traffic along the texas coast.  the dredging destroys the bay hatchery.  so now the only guys fishing for a living are fishing guides.  any form of federal regulation has been an abysmal failure for the fish.  many people think the factory ships deliberately lobbied to pur the little guys out of business.  they fish far enough off the coast that most communities don't see the real damage, and many people are infuriated that it's so difficult to get a çommercial license, particularly when fishing near the coast still seems abundant.  but even those that had commercial licenses lost the ability to make a profit years ago, and now my mom's seafood restaurant sells farmed tilapia instead of black drum because literally nobody is there to go catch it for her, even though the restaurant is walking distance from the ocean.  the only way to gey local seafood in that restaurant is to catch and fillet it yourself, and bring her fillets, and she will cook it for you.  (the "cook your catch" is still listed on the menu).
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on September 18, 2015, 09:42:54 AM
    http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheries_eco/status_of_fisheries/archive/2013/second/map_overfished_stocks_cy_q2_2013.pdf (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheries_eco/status_of_fisheries/archive/2013/second/map_overfished_stocks_cy_q2_2013.pdf)
Here is a map of overfished stocks but the four on the West coast are closed to all take by fishing area closures. We don't really control bluefin take because it is international and thus largely beyond our control                                                                                                                                                        Of the 199 fish stocks managed by NOAA that are exclusively managed domestically (i.e. Those we have control over) there are ~ 35 still overfished and about 40 in rebuilding plans. A rebuilding plan requires stocks to be returned to levels above ~ 60% of virgin biomass before relaxing precautionary protections that exceed MSY +( maximum sustainable yield plus a buffer ). The 199 stocks represent about 85% of volume of all sport and commercial species.

 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheries_eco/status_of_fisheries/fssi.html (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/fisheries_eco/status_of_fisheries/fssi.html)

Many of those fisheries have been "privatized " and all of them are subject to sales to the highest bidder which of late means foreign buyers are willing to pay more than domestic markets. We import over 90% of all seafood largely because the U.S. buys a lot of shrimp.

On the west coast huge areas are closed to all fishing that can impact an overfished stock in rebuilding so of the 127 rockfish stocks the chance that fishing might impact the 3 or 4 in rebuilding means many have rebuilt to 100% of virgin biomass but are still effectively closed.

There is also a lot of fishing gear that has been made illegal to use because interactions with whales or turtles is socially prohibitive even if it isn't threatening the mammals or turtles populations. So there is currently no economic way to catch certain fish and we import those fish from countries that don't control gear types or mammal/ turtle interactions.
Amethyst
I really wish if everyone wants to talk fish we make a dedicated page but your post was to polite to ignore.   
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on September 24, 2015, 06:10:08 PM
Maybe the platinum catalyst and hydrogen peroxide fuel make these a bit impractical as a solution to ocean acidification but it is interesting to see a micro machine that converts dissolved CO2 into calcium carbonate. It would be interesting to see a film version of them zipping around in a tank of seawater.

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/5437/tiny-motors-rev-tackle-rising-carbon-dioxide-levels (http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/5437/tiny-motors-rev-tackle-rising-carbon-dioxide-levels)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on September 27, 2015, 04:05:19 PM
For those of you that might be interested in a Webinar I will be moderating that features Alan Barton and George Waldbusser in a discussion of an industry / science collaboration on ocean acidification
and the oyster industry , please join us. ! You will need to preregister at the site below. Once registered you can download their bio's and a couple research papers . Alan was the person who made the connection between offshore winds, upwelling and oyster spat collapse events at the Oregon oyster hatchery ( Whiskey Creek ) where he was working on solving reoccurring oyster mortality events. Seems obvious with twenty twenty hindsight but at the time it was quite an insight and represents the first documented occurrence that ties ocean acidification to mortality events.

 https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/8078930335183560449

Webinar is scheduled for 12:00 noon Monday Sept. 28. Pacific daylight time. You will need to preregister before the start time.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: jai mitchell on September 28, 2015, 05:58:11 PM
Bruce,

Perhaps you can also inquire about his understanding of the cause of the rookery failure of Cassin Auklets in 2014.  Indication was that abnormal sea surface temperatures and the lack of upwelling/offshore winds produced this food web collapse.  Auklets feed exclusively on plankton.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/01/150123-seabirds-mass-die-off-auklet-california-animals-environment/ (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/01/150123-seabirds-mass-die-off-auklet-california-animals-environment/)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 29, 2015, 11:16:06 PM
The linked research present almost 15-years' worth of observations of data indicating that phytoplankton numbers are declining; which represents a positive feedback for global warming:

Cecile S. Rousseaux and Watson W. Gregg (2015), "Recent decadal trends in global phytoplankton composition", Global Biogeochemical Cycles, DOI: 10.1002/2015GB005139


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GB005139/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GB005139/abstract)

Abstract: "Identifying major trends in biogeochemical composition of the oceans is essential to improve our understanding of biological responses to climate forcing. Using the NASA Ocean Biogeochemical Model (NOBM) combined with ocean color remote sensing data assimilation, we assessed the trends in phytoplankton composition (diatoms, cyanobacteria, coccolithophores and chlorophytes) at a global scale for the period 1998–2012. We related these trends in phytoplankton to physical conditions (surface temperature, surface photosynthetically available radiation [PAR] and mixed layer depth [MLD]) and nutrients (iron, silicate and nitrate). We found a significant global decline in diatoms (−1.22% y−1, P<0.05). This trend was associated with a significant (P<0.05) shallowing of the MLD (−0.20% y−1), a significant increase in PAR (0.09% y−1) and a significant decline in nitrate (−0.38% y−1). The global decline in diatoms was mostly attributed to their decline in the North Pacific (−1.00% y−1, P<0.05) where the MLD shallowed significantly and resulted in a decline in all three nutrients (P<0.05). None of the other phytoplankton groups exhibited a significant change globally, but regionally there were considerable significant trends. A decline in nutrients in the northernmost latitudes coincided with a significant decline in diatoms (North Pacific, −1.00% y−1) and chlorophytes (North Atlantic, −9.70% y−1). In the northern mid-latitudes (North Central Pacific and Atlantic) where nutrients were more scarce, a decline in nutrients was associated with a decline in smaller phytoplankton: cyanobacteria declined significantly in the North Central Pacific (−0.72% y−1) and Atlantic (−1.56% y−1) and coccolithophores declined significantly in the North Central Atlantic (−2.06% y−1). These trends represent the diversity and complexity of mechanisms that drives phytoplankton communities to adapt to variable conditions of nutrients, light, and mixed layer depth. These results provide a first insight into the existence of trends in phytoplankton composition over the maturing satellite ocean color era and illustrate how changes in the conditions of the oceans in the last ~15 years may have affected them."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on September 30, 2015, 12:29:32 AM
I forget where I saw this article( someone may have already posted it) but it is of import in understanding the carbon cycle. Most of the previous quantification of surface to depth carbon transport was based upon sediment traps that catch detritus as it rains down from the surface. This study shows an additional transport of lipids by Copepods  as they migrate to depths of ~ one mile in an annual winter hibernation. The lipids( and carbon contained therein ) act as food stores for winter but as the copepods utilize these food stores they respire CO2 at depth . This respired CO2 may equal the amount previously documented that results from bacterial decomposition of the organic detritus previously documented by sediment trap data.

 http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/study-shows-plankton-play-big-role-in-carbon-cycle.html (http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/study-shows-plankton-play-big-role-in-carbon-cycle.html)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: TerryM on October 01, 2015, 01:32:32 AM
Bruce

In Arctic waters with the inverted thermocline do copepods still go to the bottom to hibernate.

(sorry, my question mark key as well as the apostrophe do not work - sometimes leaves things a little stilted)

Thanks
Terry
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on October 01, 2015, 03:13:58 PM
Terry, I don't have a good answer to your question. Copepods are an import part of the plankton in the Arctic with one study reporting copepod populations at 80% of plankton volume. They also appear to be resilient to the effects of ocean acidification.
 The study about their contribution to carbon transport was in the Atlantic and I don't know about their hibernation at depth further north. One Arctic study shows most ,94%,copepods at depth                                ( 300-2000meters)are dead but I would imagine where in the Arctic you look is important , Pacific or Atlantic side? 94% mortality would indicate something other than hibernation going on at least at the site studied.

  http://plankt.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/09/06/plankt.fbt079.full (http://plankt.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/09/06/plankt.fbt079.full)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: TerryM on October 01, 2015, 10:40:46 PM
Thanks Bruce
Considering a 94% mortality rate, any attempts of those viable at relocating to whatever thermal strata is most desirable at a particular time of year, or at a particular stage of their life cycle, might be considered a failure.
The inverted thermocline of arctic waters could be confusing to species adapted to diving deeper when heading for cooler regions, (or the opposite), hence huge die offs when advection of Atlantic or Pacific waters into the Arctic changes.
I wonder if the deeply penetrating and mixing waves now prevalent in so many fringe regions could be having an effect on species that evolved to make use of the former more static conditions. If so large die offs of copepods might be an additional exacerbating feedback.
Taking these measurements apparently is something new so it is possible that the 94% figure is nothing unusual & is in fact a common occurrence. ;-)
Terry
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: solartim27 on October 01, 2015, 11:55:48 PM
Nice article on Bryozoans off of Antarctica taking up carbon by British Anarctic Survey.

https://www.bas.ac.uk/media-post/press-release-sea-bed-life-captures-carbon/ (https://www.bas.ac.uk/media-post/press-release-sea-bed-life-captures-carbon/)

Less sea-ice stimulates more growth in the algae that feeds the bryozoans, providing longer meal times. The data reveal that the annual production of carbon in the bodies of these bryozoans has increased due to a combination of the animals growing more, living for longer and being more abundant. According to author Dr David Barnes from BAS these animals now take up 75,000 tonnes of carbon more than 20 years ago.

Author David Barnes interviewed on BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p032sj15 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p032sj15)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on October 03, 2015, 04:30:40 AM
If anyone has time for a bit of a read here is a open access article on the carbon cycle as it relates to the ocean.

http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/6/327/2015/esd-6-327-2015.html (http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/6/327/2015/esd-6-327-2015.html)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on October 05, 2015, 06:55:25 PM
Terry, Here is some backup for my claim that copepods can handle acidification fairly well. They can also handle water temperature changes expected over the next 80+ years but apparently starvation is kinda tough on them. Nothing can handle starvation too well however. :-\

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep13690 (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep13690)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: TerryM on October 05, 2015, 08:56:05 PM
Thanks Bruce
If the 11 day difference between hatch time and food availability were the primary reason for the 70% die off I would be watching for a huge jump in the prevalence of their prey species. It seems however that scarcity of prey through their full life cycle is more the problem and that AGW & or acidification is taking its toll even further down the food chain.
Robust little critters, but they still need to be fed.
Terry
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 08, 2015, 06:43:21 PM
The linked Climate Central article indicates that increasing heat in the oceans is causing a global coral bleaching event this year.  We should all remember that coral is the canary in the coal mine for the oceans, and this high ocean heat content will have serious consequences for other Earth Systems soon enough:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/hot-oceans-global-coral-bleaching-19528 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/hot-oceans-global-coral-bleaching-19528)

Extract: "For the past year, the world’s corals have been getting increasingly pummeled by climate change. Now with El Niño kicking ocean heat into overdrive, much of the world’s oceans have turned deadly for the world’s corals.

On Thursday, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced a global coral bleaching event. This year joins the ranks of 1997 and 2010 as the only times on record that bleaching has occurred in all three of the world’s oceans that support coral at the same time."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 08, 2015, 06:53:17 PM
As follow-up on my last post, the linked SkS article (see the attached plot) shows that the ocean heat content (from 0 to 2000m depth) has continued to increase through June 2015; which will short activate numerous Earth Systems for more future positive feedback:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/2015-Still-No-Let-Up-in-Ocean-Warming.html (http://www.skepticalscience.com/2015-Still-No-Let-Up-in-Ocean-Warming.html)

Extract: "Ocean warming has made up 93% of global warming in the last 5 decades (IPCC AR5 Chapter 3) and the first six months of ocean heat data for 2015 are now available from the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). Armed with the knowledge that increasing industrial greenhouse gas emissions trap ever more heat in the atmosphere and ocean, it will come as no surprise whatsoever to learn that the strong ocean heating of recent years has continued into 2015."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on October 13, 2015, 08:34:48 PM
A new meta-analysis of 642 papers results in  " Global marine analysis suggests food chain collapse "
News release:

http://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news81042.html (http://www.adelaide.edu.au/news/news81042.html)

From the PNAS paper
 Analysis of responses in short-and longterm experiments and of studies at natural CO2 vents reveals little evidence of acclimation to acidification or temperature change, except for microbes.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/06/1510856112.abstract (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/10/06/1510856112.abstract)

My thoughts:
What this analysis doesn't cover is the time frame of the damage done should we proceed with the chemical changes that result in the biological responses and food chain results here described. The time for chemical changes to resolve is in the hundred thousand year timeframe but the time for evolution to restore biodiversity after an extinction event is in the million year timeframe. 
 
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on October 15, 2015, 07:46:28 PM
http://www.biogeosciences.net/12/5853/2015/bg-12-5853-2015.pdf (http://www.biogeosciences.net/12/5853/2015/bg-12-5853-2015.pdf)


Today I am having my problems. My problems are with the inevitability of acidification over the next 30-50 years here along the California coast. 
From the conclusions of a paper released recently titled , Including high-frequency
variability in coastal ocean acidification projections
" Model projections suggest that anthropogenic ocean acidification will continue to progress in the Calif. Current System and other up-welling margins over the next several decades regardless of any changes in Co2 emissions ; any impacts from reduced emissions will only be observed mid-century and beyond"
 So in very rough numbers the 500 Gt of carbon we emitted so far will be matched by another 500 Gt over the next fifty years . The first 500 Gt has precipitated an acidification event that is already causing biological damage to Pacific Oysters and Pteropod populations. This damage will progress to include several more species with the CO2 already emitted and the 500 GT extra we are on track to emit will then take down hundreds of more species if we don't massively curtain our consumption, end capitalism, crash the world economy or ideally all three.
My problem is the only solutions I believe sufficient are also going to result in massive human economic system collapse and without this rather harsh outcome for my fellow humans we will continue to contribute to an already rather bleak outcome for numerous marine species already baked in for the next 30-50 and getting worse by the day.
 This is a message that will never be delivered and the few people who understand the ramifications have no idea how to respond. 
 In my state there are fewer than a handful of fishermen fluent in the problem, there have been zero government or private meetings that are designed to inform fishermen as to the inevitable downsides to the fish stocks or economics of their respective fisheries. I have been banging the drum for a decade now and other than radicalizing my presentation and bleak delivery I haven't gotten anywhere.
Neither has the situation improved for the species on a trajectory with doom.
Just another paper and a bad start to an otherwise beautiful day. I gotta go work until I burn some steam physically cause my intellectual forays are a waste of everyones time I guess.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: TerryM on October 17, 2015, 07:04:12 PM
Bruce

Hope it doesn't sound too ghoulish, but if a species is definitely destined for extinction within a very short time period, why not harvest them all, put a few in aquariums, like a seed bank, & eat the rest, (assuming they are tasty ;>)

This preemptive grave robbing might take pressure off other species that are projected to be decimated, but not to be eliminated.

Re. your flood concerns in another thread:
I'd come across some research showing that California has warmed so much that large mountain snowpacks could be a thing of the past, regardless of El Nino precipitation. They assume rain instead of snow. Bad news for the continuing drought, but possibly good news for those concerned about spring flooding. Alas, my computer crashed & I cant find the link again, but it is out there somewhere.

O.T.
Wondered if your hirsute, smitten, VW driving, porcine companion has a name. Was thinking of Harry (or Harriet), alternatively, Wooliam or Woolma, & possibly, if religiously inclined, Esau or Esauma?

Terry
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on October 18, 2015, 04:44:52 AM
TerryM,  I can't answer both halves of your query without a bit of levity. If that is your intent ,thank you.
 Re. Accepting extinction
If you were to pick a species that was  first to become locally extinct in the wild, Pacific Oysters might be a likely choice. George Walbusser in the webinar I recently hosted showed that the window of opportunity for recruitment is narrowing as the combination of temperature and acidification reduce the number of days where oyster larva can successfully develop through the first and critical week of their development. The Washington and Oregon coasts where this narrowing window of recruitment opportunity will continue to restrict successful recruitment isn't however native habitat for this species. In japan and Asia where this species is native it will be decades before these oysters suffer similar problems. Southern Calif. is another area where Pacific Oysters are now recruiting in the wild and the water conditions in S.C. will also remain favorable for decades after the Northwest Coast is no longer viable habitat for this species. in the long term Southern Calif. will follow the Northwest Coast before Japan and Asia do. In all these areas aquacultured Oysters grown in controlled conditions for their larval life stages  will still grow to maturity once past that critical stage of development.
 There are wild stocks of shellfish that do not have the aquaculture industry to help them however. For  stocks like pteropods human intervention isn't an option and they will become locally extinct as water conditions continue to deteriorate . They will not become extinct as a species until all of their range is too corrosive for their survival. Because pteropods are a major part of some fish species diets their local demise will cascade up through the food chain. These changes will likely have large impacts on major fisheries along the West Coast of North America. There may be similar forage fish problems in other upwelling systems like the Humboldt Current in similar timeframes. Again these problems will not likely respond to manipulation like aquacultured Oysters.
 So extinction is a local problem before it becomes a problem across the whole of a species range.

Pigs are the funny part of your post. Domestic pigs are largely a product of human intervention in their genes. For centuries after the ocean has entered it's full blown extinction event pigs will still be a major part of  the human diet. Human intervention in marine species genes  is a much more contracted in time and humans haven't manipulated genetic selection in marine mammals . Therefor any concept like affection from marine species is likely anthropomorphism. Pigs , dogs and other products of thousands of years of selective breeding may actually like us.
We tend to select for that. Seafood not so much.
 I really need smaller pigs to make my V.W a good joke. Petunia is just getting too big. She still might make a good truffle hunting hog however.

For Sierra snowpack you might be thinking of this
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-shrinking-california-snowpack.html (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-shrinking-california-snowpack.html)
For Sierra snowpack you might be thinking of this           
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 09, 2015, 08:19:59 PM
The linked (open access) reference discusses the complex factors affecting the lifetime of methane in the atmosphere over the past 40 years.  The attached plot shows that after a period of declining lifetime, since 2010 methane's lifetime has been increasing again:


Dalsøren, S. B., Myhre, C. L., Myhre, G., Gomez-Pelaez, A. J., Søvde, O. A., Isaksen, I. S. A., Weiss, R. F., and Harth, C. M.: Atmospheric methane evolution the last 40 years, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 15, 30895-30957, doi:10.5194/acpd-15-30895-2015, 2015.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/30895/2015/acpd-15-30895-2015.html (http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/30895/2015/acpd-15-30895-2015.html)

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/30895/2015/acpd-15-30895-2015.pdf (http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/30895/2015/acpd-15-30895-2015.pdf)

Abstract: "Observations at surface sites show an increase in global mean surface methane (CH4) of about 180 parts per billion (ppb) (above 10 %) over the period 1984–2012. Over this period there are large fluctuations in the annual growth rate. In this work, we investigate the atmospheric CH4 evolution over the period 1970–2012 with the Oslo CTM3 global Chemical Transport Model (CTM) in a bottom-up approach. We thoroughly assess data from surface measurement sites in international networks and select a subset suited for comparisons with the output from the CTM. We compare model results and observations to understand causes both for long-term trends and short-term variations. Employing the Oslo CTM3 model we are able to reproduce the seasonal and year to year variations and shifts between years with consecutive growth and stagnation, both at global and regional scales. The overall CH4 trend over the period is reproduced, but for some periods the model fails to reproduce the strength of the growth. The observed growth after 2006 is overestimated by the model in all regions. This seems to be explained by a too strong increase in anthropogenic emissions in Asia, having global impact. Our findings confirm other studies questioning the timing or strength of the emission changes in Asia in the EDGAR v4.2 emission inventory over the last decades. The evolution of CH4 is not only controlled by changes in sources, but also by changes in the chemical loss in the atmosphere and soil uptake. We model a large growth in atmospheric oxidation capacity over the period 1970–2012. In our simulations, the CH4 lifetime decreases by more than 8 % from 1970 to 2012, a significant shortening of the residence time of this important greenhouse gas. This results in substantial growth in the chemical CH4 loss (relative to its burden) and dampens the CH4 growth. The change in atmospheric oxidation capacity is driven by complex interactions between a number of chemical components and meteorological factors. In our analysis, we are able to detach the key factors and provide simple prognostic equations for the relations between these and the atmospheric CH4 lifetime."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on November 11, 2015, 04:35:48 PM
I have posted here on the vulnerability of Red King Crab larva to near term acidification in Alaska.
Most of the work on adaptation for fisheries has focused on Pacific Oysters , an aquacultured species.
I worry that wild fisheries will be left in the lurch without similar lab cultured work on wild stocks.
The following link shows Alaskan researchers making the first out plants of lab raised Red King Crab.
They state several reasons for their work but acidification is one of them.

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2014/01/01_06_14long_live_the_king.html (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/stories/2014/01/01_06_14long_live_the_king.html)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on November 11, 2015, 04:50:02 PM
Tanner Crab is another species sensitive to near term acidification although less so than Red King Crab. A new economic analysis shows "Catch & profits would be expected to decrease by 50% in 20 years if natural mortality is affected by ocean acidification" .  Punt et al 2015.  See below

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/11/06/icesjms.fsv205 (http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/11/06/icesjms.fsv205)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on November 15, 2015, 08:13:00 PM
There is a very good article over at Skeptical Science on ocean acidification by Rob Painting. It is focused on why a rapid rise in atmospheric Co2 results in a reduction in available carbonate and an increase in bicarbonate. With a rapid increase in Co2 carbonate can be reduced to levels where it becomes undersaturated and the shells of certain shellfish begin to dissolve. This is already happening in parts of the
California Current in nearshore areas annually dominated by upwelling.
 The article also explains why in past eras with high levels of atmospheric Co2 shellfish could still thrive. The rate of change in Co2 is the important factor because with a slow rate of change the natural weathering of terrestrial carbonates and silicates can maintain levels of alkalinity in the oceans sufficient to maintain supersaturation of carbonates. The article also talks to the unique nature of the current situation and the unprecedented rapidity of the current rise of Co2.
     Wili ( I think the same Wili that posts here ) asks why 300 million years is used as a limit to the records of past extinction events tied to acidification. I believe the reason is the lack of geological material still extant from earlier eras. Tectonics have recycled most of the crust from earlier times. If someone here has other ideas I would be interested to hear their thoughts.    

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-were-the-ancient-oceans-favorable-to-marine-life-when-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-higher-than-today.html (http://www.skepticalscience.com/Why-were-the-ancient-oceans-favorable-to-marine-life-when-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-was-higher-than-today.html)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on November 29, 2015, 04:29:23 PM
As the amount of Anthropogenic Co2 has increased  the atmospheric, terrestrial and oceanic percentages of the CO2 sinks have remained constant. This is a good thing because if either the terrestrial or oceanic sinks begin to fail the atmospheric portion will as a result rise at a faster pace than the current rate. It appears an increase in the population of coccoliths in the Atlantic , a tenfold increase from 1965, is at least partially responsible for the increasing efficiency of the oceanic sink.
 Although we humans are benefiting from this population increase in coccoliths there is likely an inflection point sometime in the future where the rising level of acidification will reverse this trend.
Coccoliths, like many other calcifying phytoplankton, dissolve when CO2 builds to a point where undersaturation results. For now the coccoliths are working to our benefit but when they and other calcifying phytoplankton begin to fail so to shall part of the oceanic carbon sink. If we cross this rather critical chemical rubicon it will be many tens of thousands of years before the current 25% ocean
25% terrestrial and 50% atmosphere portions of the carbon cycle are restored.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/11/24/science.aaa8026 (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/11/24/science.aaa8026)

http://phys.org/news/2015-11-rapid-plankton-growth-ocean-carbon.html (http://phys.org/news/2015-11-rapid-plankton-growth-ocean-carbon.html)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on December 02, 2015, 05:18:49 PM
From a fishermen's perspective a list of species vulnerable to increased ocean acidification is an important list. That list isn't very big at this point but it contains some extremely important species from an economic standpoint. Red King Crab, Tanner Crab, and Pacific Oysters are all on the list and Pteropods are on it as a very sensitive prey species.
 "    Ocean acidification, a decrease in ocean pH due to absorption of anthropogenic atmospheric CO2, has variable effects on different species. To examine the effects of long-term exposure on Tanner crab (Chionoecetes bairdi) embryonic development, hatching success, and calcification, ovigerous females were reared in one of three treatments: ambient pH (∼8.1), pH 7.8, and pH 7.5 for 2 years. Embryos and larvae in year 1 were from oocytes developed in the field and appear resilient to high pCO2. Embryos and larvae in year 2 were from oocytes developed under high pCO2 conditions. Oocyte development appears sensitive to high pCO2, effects carryover and altered embryonic development, and reduced hatching success with on average 71% fewer viable larvae hatched in the pH 7.5 treatment than in the other treatments. Per cent calcium was reduced among females exposed to pH 7.5 waters, and their carapaces were noticeably more pliable than those in the other treatments. Softer carapaces may result in reduced defences against predators, and a reduction in the ability to feed on prey with hard parts such as shells. The results from this long-term study suggest that projected ocean pH levels within the next two centuries will likely have a pronounced impact on Tanner crab populations unless the crab are able to acclimatize or adapt to changing conditions.


Swiney K. M., Long W. C. & Foy R. J., in press. Effects of high pCO2 on Tanner crab reproduction and early life history—Part I: long-term exposure reduces hatching success and female calcification, and alters embryonic development. ICES Journal of Marine Science. Article (subscription required)

http://news-oceanacidification-icc.org/2015/12/02/effects-of-high-pco2-on-tanner-crab-reproduction-and-early-life-history-part-i-long-term-exposure-reduces-hatching-success-and-female-calcification-and-alters-embryonic-development/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wordpress%2FlRgb+%28Ocean+acidification%29 (http://news-oceanacidification-icc.org/2015/12/02/effects-of-high-pco2-on-tanner-crab-reproduction-and-early-life-history-part-i-long-term-exposure-reduces-hatching-success-and-female-calcification-and-alters-embryonic-development/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wordpress%2FlRgb+%28Ocean+acidification%29)

Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on December 17, 2015, 07:00:45 PM
Domoic acid is a neurotoxin produced by a diatom ( Pseudo-Nitzchia ) that bioaccumulates in fish and shellfish. There has been a large event this year along the Calif. Coast, health warnings  go out with
when TA reaches 20ppm and some seafood samples have reached 1000ppm, triggering crab and coastal pelagic fishing closures.

A paper written by Dave Hutchins showed that high dissolved Co2 and phosphorus limited conditions caused Domoic acid to increase by a factor of four. The level of pCO2 that caused this DA spike was
700 ppm in the lab and the level of pCO2 measured at a buoy off Santa Barbara reached 650ppm in April this year just as the first DA warnings were being issued.

  http://mooring.ucsd.edu/projects/cce/data/img_old/cce2_01_xco2_999.png (http://mooring.ucsd.edu/projects/cce/data/img_old/cce2_01_xco2_999.png)

Large plankton blooms in upwelling regions tend to draw down phosphorus levels as the bloom matures. I don't have numbers on the phosphorus levels that accompanied this DA event but a large plankton bloom may have caused phosphorus limited conditions.

http://www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_56/issue_3/0829.html (http://www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_56/issue_3/0829.html)

I fixed the bad link to the Article( open access  PDF ) In reviewing it I also realized that phosphorus limitation resulted in a thirty fold increase with high pCO2 contribution a four fold increase at 730 ppm
 

Domoic acid can also present trouble for birds and mammals as was recently pointed out by Laurent.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 11, 2016, 11:56:12 PM
The linked article offers a nice (accessible) summary of the ocean acidification problem, and concludes that geoengineering offers no solution for this crisis:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pierce-nahigyan/ocean-acidification-is-ba_b_8952240.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pierce-nahigyan/ocean-acidification-is-ba_b_8952240.html)

Extract: "The ocean absorbs about 30 percent of the CO2 emitted from human activites. As the volume of atmospheric CO2 grows, the ocean collects its proportionate share. To give you an idea of how much that is, in 2013, countries emitted nearly 40 billion tons of carbon. According to the World Meteorological Organization, that represents the biggest surge in CO2 concentration since 1984.

That's bad news for the climate, but it's really bad news for the ocean. When the ocean absorbs CO2, it converts the gas into carbonic acid. Until the Industrial Revolution, there wasn't enough carbonic acid in the water to unbalance the ecosystem. But after more than a century of unchecked carbon emissions, the ecosystem has been measurably upended. The pH level of surface waters has dropped from 8.18 to 8.07, which is the lowest its been in the last 300 million years.

So what does more acid in the ocean mean? For one thing, it means less calcium carbonate. This mineral is a key ingredient in the shells of several marine species, and without it, fewer shellfish are surviving to adulthood. One oyster farm in Washington state reported that their oyster production declined by 42 percent in just 10 years. The tiny shellfish that feed Alaska's salmon stocks are also in danger, to say nothing of the state's lucrative crab fishery.

Carbonic acid not only dissolves calcium carbonate, it also dissolves limestone, which makes it more difficult for coral to grow. Combine that with the reduction of pteropods and other zooplankton at the bottom of the food chain and the impacts to marine life are potentially catastrophic.

Life above sea level will also be impacted. Investigations of carbon upwelling zones along the West Coast suggest that lower pH levels make it more difficult for certain phytoplankton to absorb nutrients, rendering them vulnerable to disease and toxins. And that's a problem, because healthy phytoplankton produce about 60 percent of the oxygen on Earth.

Some diatoms, like Pseudo-nitzschia, actually produce more toxin at lower pH levels. According to Dr. Vera Trainer, an oceanographer with NOAA's Fisheries Marine Biotoxins Program, ingesting toxins from Pseudo-nitzschia can cause permanent short-term memory loss and in some cases death. Studies have shown that this species of phytoplankton can be five times more toxic at levels of ocean acidification already occurring off the California coast. NOAA suspects that a string of bird and whale deaths in 2015 may be due to domoic acid poisoning, a byproduct of these toxic algae blooms.

...

When we take a step back, the bleak picture we've painted here comes into focus. The ocean is acidifying, making it less hospitable to marine life and less profitable to coastal economies; as it acidifies, some phytoplankton make less oxygen and others become more poisonous; as they become more poisonous, they contaminate our water and kill more fish. And while this is going on, ocean warming is just making it all worse.

Unfortunately, that's not the bad news. The bad news is, it could take a millennium for the ocean to recover from what we've done to it. Humanity does not have the power to reverse this crisis. In the best case scenario (i.e., we stop burning fossil fuels), it can only be prevented from getting worse."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on January 16, 2016, 07:36:18 AM
I once read a science piece on the effects of decreasing pH on  developing sea urchin larva. It's been about ten years since I saw that first evidence of changing atmospheric  Co2 levels and how it might impact the ocean and the sea urchins that provided me with a living. The oyster story came after the 2004 Shiryama  paper that caught my attention. Within two years the oyster hatcheries began to experience difficulties. I always thought using industry , aquaculture and wild fisheries , was a way to draw a focus on the problems of acidification. Much of the interest at a Congressional level, bipartisan interest, interest that can potentially drive legislation centers on industry and commercial interests.
The aquaculture oyster industry has very much contributed to educating the public and the halls of Congress. The full education on acidification and it's potential impacts goes far far beyond money interest of course but getting the public or legislators to understand what might happen if a little creature like a peteropod begins to fail. That is a challenge.
 The biological carbon pump may be damaged , it may already be starting in some places. Like the post ASLR put up says it will take a very long time to repair should we ignore each milestone, each new species whose individual members  no longer thrive. Shells that don't rain into the depths.
Tiny lives so easily ignored. First only in a few places in that great sea, then bigger areas, and the carbon that would rain down dwindles. The carbon pump falters. There is the story that counts , there is so much we don't know , but a great many people need to understand and care. It is a very sad story and it is difficult to get people to understand. 
 
So from an article written by a group of scientists looking back over the last ten years of evidence and trying to pick parts of the story to illustrate the larger risks I will quote some extracts.

     "Impaired shell production will reduce the strength of the biological carbon pump because less carbonate ballast will be produced in the upper regions of the water column ( Bednarsek  et al 2014 ).   Pteropods are responsible for an estimated 
20%-42% of the total carbonate production in the ocean ( Bednarsek et al 2012 )
so carbon pump effects may be large. At saturation states projected to occur in the northeastern Pacific by 2050 at a depth of 100 m, the flux of biological removal may be halved ( Bednarsek et al 2014 )
 This reduction in the carbon pump could potentially create a positive feedback that reduces the rate of biological removal of carbon from the upper atmosphere under conditions of intensifying carbon enrichment from anthropogenic sources. "

  http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/66/1/14.abstract (http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/66/1/14.abstract)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on January 16, 2016, 08:15:21 AM
Since I misspelled Shirayama and forgot to include the lead author , Kurihara I should at least include a link. Here is what ocean acidification looked like in 2004. Kurihara and Shirayama 2004

http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps2004/274/m274p161.pdf (http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps2004/274/m274p161.pdf)

Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 20, 2016, 04:16:06 PM
The linked article indicates that due to climate change related warming of the Indian Ocean, the mixing of the surface, and nutrient-rich deep, waters has decreased resulting in about a 20% reduction in phytoplankton.  While the article focuses on the impacts of this on seafood, it also means a reduction of a negative feedback, which will result in accelerating global warming in the future:

http://www.reuters.com/article/sri-lanka-fishing-climatechange-idUSKCN0UX0IQ (http://www.reuters.com/article/sri-lanka-fishing-climatechange-idUSKCN0UX0IQ)

Extract: ""Rapid warming in the Indian Ocean is playing an important role in reducing phytoplankton up to 20 percent," said Roxy Mathew Koll, a scientist at the Centre for Climate Change Research at the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology in Pune.
Over six decades, rising water temperatures appear to have been reducing the amount of phytoplankton – microscopic plants at the base of the ocean food chain – available as food for fish, according to research released in December by Koll and other scientists from the United States, South Africa and France.
That “may cascade through the food chain, potentially turning this biologically productive region into an ecological desert,” Koll said. Such a change would curb food security not only in Indian Ocean rim countries but also global fish markets that buy from the region, he said.
As waters in parts of the Indian Ocean have warmed by 1.2 degrees Celsius over the last century, the mixing of surface water and nutrient-rich deeper waters have slowed, the scientists said. That has prevented nutrients from reaching the plankton, which are mostly active in surface waters."

Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 21, 2016, 01:37:32 AM
The linked article indicates that sediments of river-dominated ocean margins (RiOMars) represent accumulation centers for Corg and that microbial metal reduction in Corg remineralization due to dissimilatory Fe(III) reduction may be more significant than previously thought in continental slope sediments.  This could mean that carbon cycling in the marine environment could serve as a positive feedback to emit CO₂ into the atmosphere at a rate faster than previously considered:

Jordon S. Beckler, Nicole Kiriazis, Christophe Rabouille, Frank J. Stewart & Martial Taillefert (20 January 2016), "Importance of microbial iron reduction in deep sediments of river-dominated continental-margins", Marine Chemistry, Volume 178, Pages 22–34

doi:10.1016/j.marchem.2015.12.003


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304420315300633 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304420315300633)

Abstract: "Remineralization of organic carbon in deep-sea sediments is thought to proceed primarily via aerobic respiration and sulfate reduction because the supply of nitrate and metal oxides is not usually significant in deep-sea sediments. Dissimilatory metal reduction, on the other hand, may represent a dominant pathway in coastal and continental shelf sediments where delivery of terrigenous Fe(III) and Mn(IV/III) oxides is sufficiently high or where physical mixing processes near the sediment–water interface can result in the reoxidation of Fe2 + or Mn2 +. Passive continental margin sediments receiving outflow from large rivers are well-known deposition centers for organic carbon and may also be hotspots for metal-reducing microbial activity, considering the simultaneous rapid deposition of unconsolidated metal oxides of terrigenous origin. Despite its potential, only a few studies have examined the role of microbial metal reduction in Corg remineralization in these environments. To investigate carbon remineralization processes in continental margin sediments, shallow cores across channels and levees in the Congo River fan (~ 5000 m) and Louisiana slope (< 1800 m) were profiled for the main redox species involved in early diagenesis using a combination of voltammetric gold mercury (Au/Hg) microelectrodes and conventional analyses. Interestingly, metal reduction dominated carbon remineralization processes in the top ~ 20 cm of sediment subject to high deposition, while evidence for sulfate reduction was lacking. These findings suggest that dissimilatory Fe(III) reduction may be more significant than previously thought in continental slope sediments, which may have important implications on carbon cycling in marine environments. In addition, these findings may have geological implications in controlling atmospheric oxygen levels over geological time and the evolution of microbial life on Earth."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on January 27, 2016, 08:25:26 PM
." Our results suggest that reduced respiration lead to increased net carbon fixation at high CO2. However, the increased primary production did not translate into increased carbon export, and did consequently not work as a negative feedback mechanism for increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration."

http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/bg-2015-608/ (http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/bg-2015-608/)

More evidence acidification may impair the carbon pump.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on February 07, 2016, 07:40:33 PM
From the same Mesocosm studies in the Baltic Sea that the above posted link was based upon. A shift in the microbial community.
"Overall our results point to a shift towards a more regenerative system with potentially increased productivity but reduced carbon export."

 http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/bg-2015-606/bg-2015-606.pdf (http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/bg-2015-606/bg-2015-606.pdf)

Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 12, 2016, 11:24:07 PM
The linked article indicates that for the past ten years the North Atlantic has been absorbing 50% more CO₂ than during the previous ten years.  Thus we are performing a one short experiment of the impact of accelerating ocean acidity on marine life:

http://climatenewsnetwork.net/north-atlantic-doubles-carbon-intake/?utm_source=Climate+News+Network&utm_campaign=6687b69c4e-North+Atlantic+doubles+carbon+intake&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1198ea8936-6687b69c4e-38798465&mc_cid=6687b69c4e&mc_eid=441cf4f801 (http://climatenewsnetwork.net/north-atlantic-doubles-carbon-intake/?utm_source=Climate+News+Network&utm_campaign=6687b69c4e-North+Atlantic+doubles+carbon+intake&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1198ea8936-6687b69c4e-38798465&mc_cid=6687b69c4e&mc_eid=441cf4f801)

Extract: "The North Atlantic Ocean is responding rapidly to climate change: it has absorbed 50% more carbon from human activities in the last 10 years, than in the previous decade, a new study shows.



The extra CO2 absorbed means a change in ocean chemistry: the oceans are becoming increasingly acidic at an unprecedented rate, with unknown consequences for corals, shellfish and juvenile fish."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 23, 2016, 07:36:26 PM
The linked reference indicates that the coral in the Great Barrier Reef will sustain more damage from ocean acidification than previously realized in AR5:

Mathieu Mongin, Mark E. Baird, Bronte Tilbrook, Richard J. Matear, Andrew Lenton, Mike Herzfeld, Karen Wild-Allen, Jenny Skerratt, Nugzar Margvelashvili, Barbara J. Robson, Carlos M. Duarte, Malin S. M. Gustafsson, Peter J. Ralph & Andrew D. L. Steven (2016), "The exposure of the Great Barrier Reef to ocean acidification", Nature Communications, Volume: 7, Article number: 10732, doi:10.1038/ncomms10732

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160223/ncomms10732/full/ncomms10732.html (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160223/ncomms10732/full/ncomms10732.html)

Abstract: "The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) is founded on reef-building corals. Corals build their exoskeleton with aragonite, but ocean acidification is lowering the aragonite saturation state of seawater (Ωa). The downscaling of ocean acidification projections from global to GBR scales requires the set of regional drivers controlling Ωa to be resolved. Here we use a regional coupled circulation–biogeochemical model and observations to estimate the Ωa experienced by the 3,581 reefs of the GBR, and to apportion the contributions of the hydrological cycle, regional hydrodynamics and metabolism on Ωa variability. We find more detail, and a greater range (1.43), than previously compiled coarse maps of Ωa of the region (0.4), or in observations (1.0). Most of the variability in Ωa is due to processes upstream of the reef in question. As a result, future decline in Ωa is likely to be steeper on the GBR than currently projected by the IPCC assessment report."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on February 24, 2016, 07:06:11 PM
Both of the linked articles discuss our on-going "longest-global-coral-bleaching" event ever observed; which is likely due to a combination of on-going global warming and the impact of the near-El Nino 2014 event combined with the Super El Nino 2015-16 event:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/longest-global-coral-bleaching-20062 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/longest-global-coral-bleaching-20062)


http://robertscribbler.com/2016/02/23/human-hothouse-sets-off-longest-coral-die-off-on-record/ (http://robertscribbler.com/2016/02/23/human-hothouse-sets-off-longest-coral-die-off-on-record/)

Extract: "The big coral die-off began in the Western Pacific as a massive ocean temperature spike built up during 2014. Back then, ocean heat accumulation had hit a very high ramp. A vicious, century-and-a-half long increase in atmospheric greenhouse gasses re-radiated greater and greater portions of the sun’s energy hitting the Earth — transferring the bulk (about 90 percent) to the world ocean system."

Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on March 17, 2016, 09:57:51 AM
The linked Australian Broadcasting Corp article discusses how boreal and temperate forests are quicker to adjust to increasing global temperatures than previously assumed:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-17/carbon-dioxide-from-plants-less-less-of-a-global-warming-problem/7248052 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-17/carbon-dioxide-from-plants-less-less-of-a-global-warming-problem/7248052)



See also:
http://www.nature.com/articles/nature17142.epdf?referrer_access_token=UWyNx6Kj1_4SXZF4-9xovtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OG6doUdStVVNlmDMCZ8MIQXnutG-QZTbO6R7AdIU-WmRR9rmq4V6zWTDtQeLHj1v8jI7f-NGkuHvDEOa8uOEH05i9HMkurs7Wus42hcr6JX6uzZ4LpB6oK9yw1dLprgbltrm6r5oF23Ev1_URq0hDJJpZEGUMirZorRQk0SQDRMyCz87mHn-1jsNpU8gjcqHsM804PKs1EdsaKMLzjkWln&tracking_referrer=www.abc.net.a (http://www.nature.com/articles/nature17142.epdf?referrer_access_token=UWyNx6Kj1_4SXZF4-9xovtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OG6doUdStVVNlmDMCZ8MIQXnutG-QZTbO6R7AdIU-WmRR9rmq4V6zWTDtQeLHj1v8jI7f-NGkuHvDEOa8uOEH05i9HMkurs7Wus42hcr6JX6uzZ4LpB6oK9yw1dLprgbltrm6r5oF23Ev1_URq0hDJJpZEGUMirZorRQk0SQDRMyCz87mHn-1jsNpU8gjcqHsM804PKs1EdsaKMLzjkWln&tracking_referrer=www.abc.net.a)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 17, 2016, 03:31:44 PM
" Simulations with a modified version of the Long-term Ocean-atmosphere-Sediment CArbon cycle Reservoir model, which includes a fully coupled carbon-calcium cycle, indicate that increased weathering rates and ocean acidification (potentially caused by Siberian Trap volcanism) are not capable of producing trends observed in the record, as previously claimed. Our model results suggest that combined effects of carbon input via Siberian Trap volcanism (12,000 Pg C), the cessation of biological carbon export, and variable calcium isotope fractionation (due to a change in the seawater carbonate ion concentration) represents a more plausible scenario. This scenario successfully reconciles δ13C and δ44Ca trends observed in the sediment record, as well as the proposed warming of >6°C."
 
This article includes " the cessation of biological carbon export " in achieving the carbon excursion documented by the sediment record for the largest extinction event in the history of earth.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015PA002834/abstract;jsessionid=CFEA9879A89D177F6B001267074A461F.f03t04 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015PA002834/abstract;jsessionid=CFEA9879A89D177F6B001267074A461F.f03t04)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 17, 2016, 03:50:05 PM
Although the 5,000 Gt carbon used in this simulation is less than half( 12,000 ) that used to drive the
Model used in the end Permian event( see last post ) the speed of the current CO2 anthropogenic release is much faster. Terrestrial weathering and deep sea calcium export and sedimentation can't keep up with the speed of the current event and the processes that regulate ocean pH . Only on a scale of tens of thousands of years do these processes modify the effects of current rates of anthropogenic CO2 inputs.

   http://news-oceanacidification-icc.org/2016/03/02/simulated-effect-of-deep-sea-sedimentation-and-terrestrial-weathering-on-projections-of-ocean-acidification/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wordpress%2FlRgb+%28Ocean+acidification%29 (http://news-oceanacidification-icc.org/2016/03/02/simulated-effect-of-deep-sea-sedimentation-and-terrestrial-weathering-on-projections-of-ocean-acidification/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wordpress%2FlRgb+%28Ocean+acidification%29)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on March 17, 2016, 04:23:54 PM
This study investigates the effects of potential CO2 fertilization upon phytoplankton in mitigating future atmospheric levels as well as future ocean pH. If extra CO2 stimulates bioproductivity and the carbon pump how does that impact future atmospheric and oceanic conditions? At least two recent mesocosym studies have shown carbon export and the carbon pump are negatively rather than positively effected under future BAU CO2 emissions so depending upon CO2 fertilization to continue far into the future is questionable but this study does address to what degree we are dependent upon continued increasing  efficiency of the biological carbon pump. It should also be pointed out that the failure of the carbon pump may be responsible for some part of the carbon excursion experienced during the end Permian event ( see the Komar and Zeebe article in earlier posting #281)

   " It is also found that the effect of CO2-calcification feedback on ocean carbon uptake is comparable and could be much larger than the effect from CO2-induced warming. Our results highlight the potentially important role CO2-calcification feedback plays in ocean carbon cycle and projections of future atmospheric CO2 concentrations."

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep20284 (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep20284)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 01, 2016, 06:51:54 PM
The linked reference discusses how drainage of groundwater is turning grasslands on peat from a carbon sink into a carbon source:

Bärbel Tiemeyer, Elisa Albiac Borraz, Jürgen Augustin, Michel Bechtold, Sascha Beetz, Colja Beyer, Matthias Drösler, Martin Ebli, Tim Eickenscheidt, Sabine Fiedler, Christoph Förster, Annette Freibauer, Michael Giebels, Stephan Glatzel, Jan Heinichen, Mathias Hoffmann, Heinrich Höper, Gerald Jurasinski, Katharina Leiber-Sauheitl, Mandy Peichl-Brak, Niko Roßkopf, Michael Sommer & Jutta Zeitz (31 March 2016),  "High emissions of greenhouse gases from grasslands on peat and other organic soils", Global Change Biology,  DOI: 10.1111/gcb.13303


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13303/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13303/abstract)

Abstract: "Drainage has turned peatlands from a carbon sink into one of the world's largest greenhouse gas (GHG) sources from cultivated soils. We analyzed a unique data set (12 peatlands, 48 sites and 122 annual budgets) of mainly unpublished GHG emissions from grasslands on bog and fen peat as well as other soils rich in soil organic carbon (SOC) in Germany. Emissions and environmental variables were measured with identical methods. Site-averaged GHG budgets were surprisingly variable (29.2 ± 17.4 t CO2-eq. ha−1 yr−1) and partially higher than all published data and the IPCC default emission factors for GHG inventories. Generally, CO2 (27.7 ± 17.3 t CO2 ha−1 yr−1) dominated the GHG budget. Nitrous oxide (2.3 ± 2.4 kg N2O-N ha−1 yr−1) and methane emissions (30.8 ± 69.8 kg CH4-C ha−1 yr−1) were lower than expected except for CH4 emissions from nutrient-poor acidic sites. At single peatlands, CO2 emissions clearly increased with deeper mean water table depth (WTD), but there was no general dependency of CO2 on WTD for the complete data set. Thus, regionalisation of CO2 emissions by WTD only will remain uncertain. WTD dynamics explained some of the differences between peatlands as sites which became very dry during summer showed lower emissions. We introduced the aerated nitrogen stock (Nair) as a variable combining soil nitrogen stocks with WTD. CO2 increased with Nair across peatlands. Soils with comparatively low SOC concentrations showed as high CO2 emissions as true peat soils because Nair was similar. N2O emissions were controlled by the WTD dynamics and the nitrogen content of the topsoil. CH4 emissions can be well described by WTD and ponding duration during summer. Our results can help both to improve GHG emission reporting and to prioritize and plan emission reduction measures for peat and similar soils at different scales."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 06, 2016, 11:54:35 PM
The linked reference discusses that gross primary production controls the subsequent winter CO₂ exchange in boreal peatlands:

Junbin Zhao, Matthias Peichl, Mats Öquist & Mats B. Nilsson (2 April 2016), "Gross primary production controls the subsequent winter CO2 exchange in a boreal peatland", Global Change Biology, DOI: 10.1111/gcb.13308


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13308/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13308/abstract)


Abstract: "In high latitude regions, carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions during the winter represent an important component of the annual ecosystem carbon budget; however, the mechanisms that control the winter CO2 emissions are currently not well understood. It has been suggested that substrate availability from soil labile carbon pools is a main driver of winter CO2 emissions. In ecosystems that are dominated by annual herbaceous plants, much of the biomass produced during the summer is likely to contribute to the soil labile carbon pool through litter fall and root senescence in the autumn. Thus, the summer carbon uptake in the ecosystem may have a significant influence on the subsequent winter CO2 emissions. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a plot-scale shading experiment in a boreal peatland to reduce the gross primary production (GPP) during the growing season. At the growing season peak, vascular plant biomass in the shaded plots was half that in the control plots. During the subsequent winter, the mean CO2 emission rates were 21% lower in the shaded plots than in the control plots. In addition, long-term (2001-2012) eddy covariance data from the same site showed a strong correlation between the GPP (particularly the late summer and autumn GPP) and the subsequent winter net ecosystem CO2 exchange (NEE). In contrast, abiotic factors during the winter could not explain the inter-annual variation in the cumulative winter NEE. Our study demonstrates the presence of a cross-seasonal link between the growing season biotic processes and winter CO2 emissions, which has important implications for predicting winter CO2 emission dynamics in response to future climate change."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 08, 2016, 04:27:13 PM
The linked reference presents observational findings that boreal forests can turn from a carbon sink into a carbon source in a short period of time (less than two decades):

David Hadden & Achim Grelle (15 June 2016), "Changing temperature response of respiration turns boreal forest from carbon sink into carbon source", Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, Volume 223, Pages 30–38, doi:10.1016/j.agrformet.2016.03.020


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168192316302131 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168192316302131)


Abstract: "Seventeen years (1997–2013) of carbon dioxide (CO2) fluxes were measured in a boreal forest stand in northern Sweden using the eddy covariance technique. During the measurement period the forest turned from a net carbon sink into a net carbon source. The net ecosystem exchange (NEE) was separated using values from periods of darkness into the gross components of total ecosystem respiration (TER) and gross primary productivity (GPP), which was calculated as GPP = −NEE + TER. From the gross components we could determine that an increase in TER during the autumn (September to end of November) and spring (March to end of May) periods resulted in the forest becoming a net source of CO2. We observed no increase in the GPP from the eddy covariance measurements. This was further supported by measurements of tree growth rings. The increased TER was attributed to a change in the forest’s temperature response at lower temperatures (−5 to 10 °C) rather than to a temperature increase. This study shows that changes in ecosystem functioning can have a larger impact on the carbon balance than climate warming per se."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 08, 2016, 04:31:24 PM
The linked reference cites an overlooked tropical oceanic CO₂ sink:

J. Severino P. Ibánhez, Moacyr Araujo & Nathalie Lefèvre (5 April 2016), "The overlooked tropical oceanic CO2 sink", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2016GL068020


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL068020/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL068020/abstract)


Abstract: "The intense rainfall in the tropical Atlantic spatially overlaps with the spread of the Amazon plume. Based on remote-sensed sea surface salinity and rainfall, we removed the contribution of rainfall to the apparent Amazon plume area, thus refining the quantification of its extension (0.84 ± 0.06 106 to 0.89 ± 0.06 106 Km2). Despite the previous overestimation of the Amazon plume area due to the influence of rainfall (>16%), our calculated annual CO2 flux based on rainfall-corrected sea surface CO2 fugacity confirms that the Amazon River plume is an atmospheric CO2 sink of global importance (-7.61 ± 1.01 to -7.85 ± 1.02 Tg C year-1). Yet, we show that current sea-air CO2 flux assessments for the tropical Atlantic could be overestimated in about 10% by neglecting the CO2 sink associated to the Amazon plume. Thus, including the Amazon plume, the sea-air CO2 exchange for the tropical Atlantic is estimated to be 81.1 ± 1.1 to 81.5 ± 1.1 Tg C year-1"
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on April 21, 2016, 06:48:59 PM
Eight years ago a group of industry representatives and scientists had a series of meetings to design a path forward for how the states , Calif. Oregon and Washington could address their shared needs for a California current acidification plan.
 Because of the problems with hatchery raised oysters the number one priority was to design a way to monitor the seawater intakes for a real time measure of the saturation state of aragonite. The technology wasn't available at the time but it has since been developed and put into use. One of the hatchery owners has described it as putting headlights on your car. Hatcheries have been able to monitor and modify seawater saturation and most of the hatchery crashes of oysters have been eliminated. Many of those instruments and methodologies are now being applied to other hatcheries on the U.S. east coast as well as in the Gulf states.
 Another major goal was setting up a monitoring network and although this is a goal that is never going to be as complete as the spacial variability of the problem demands there has been great headway made. The monitoring equipment at the hatcheries along the coast is an import advancement to the already existing offshore component of monitoring.
 A third goal we talked about was some sort of biological proxy for the effects of acidification on calcifying organisms in the wild. Bednarsek et al 2016 have published a paper utilizing
Pteropods as proxy for the biological effects of acidification in Eastern boundary currents around the world.
  http://www.imber.info/Products/Newsletters/Issue-n-30-April-2016#toc_3_6 (http://www.imber.info/Products/Newsletters/Issue-n-30-April-2016#toc_3_6)


 
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on April 22, 2016, 04:50:50 PM
The negative effects of O/A on Pteropods has been the subject of several posts above. Here is one showing a large negative impact on a temperate Copepod species. Pteropods and copepods are important prey species for fish and animals further up the food chain. Negative effects on these two species will likely affect higher trophic levels and as a result fisheries.

 "The critical role played by copepods in ocean ecology and biogeochemistry warrants an understanding of how these animals may respond to ocean acidification (OA). Whilst an appreciation of the potential direct effects of OA, due to elevated pCO2, on copepods is improving, little is known about the indirect impacts acting via bottom-up (food quality) effects. We assessed, for the first time, the chronic effects of direct and/or indirect exposures to elevated pCO2 on the behaviour, vital rates, chemical and biochemical stoichiometry of the calanoid copepod Acartia tonsa. Bottom-up effects of elevated pCO2 caused species-specific biochemical changes to the phytoplanktonic feed, which adversely affected copepod population structure and decreased recruitment by 30%. The direct impact of elevated pCO2 caused gender-specific respiratory responses in A.tonsa adults, stimulating an enhanced respiration rate in males (> 2-fold), and a suppressed respiratory response in females when coupled with indirect elevated pCO2 exposures. Under the combined indirect+direct exposure, carbon trophic transfer efficiency from phytoplankton-to-zooplankton declined to < 50% of control populations, with a commensurate decrease in recruitment. For the first time an explicit role was demonstrated for biochemical stoichiometry in shaping copepod trophic dynamics. The altered biochemical composition of the CO2-exposed prey affected the biochemical stoichiometry of the copepods, which could have ramifications for production of higher tropic levels, notably fisheries. Our work indicates that the control of phytoplankton and the support of higher trophic levels involving copepods have clear potential to be adversely affected under future OA scenarios."


Cripps G., Flynn K. J. & Lindeque P. K., 2016. Ocean acidification affects the phyto-zoo plankton trophic transfer efficiency. PLoS ONE 11(4):e0151739. Article.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 27, 2016, 11:14:11 PM
The linked research indicates that evidence of anthropogenically-driven reductions on oceanic oxygen can currently be observed in limited parts of the ocean and will become widespread by 2030-2040 (see image):

Matthew C. Long, Curtis Deutsch & Taka Ito (29 February 2016), "Finding forced trends in oceanic oxygen", Global Biogeochemical Cycles, DOI: 10.1002/2015GB005310


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GB005310/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GB005310/abstract)

Abstract: "Anthropogenically forced trends in oceanic dissolved oxygen are evaluated in Earth system models in the context of natural variability. A large ensemble of a single Earth system model is used to clearly identify the forced component of change in interior oxygen distributions and to evaluate the magnitude of this signal relative to noise generated by internal climate variability. The time of emergence of forced trends is quantified on the basis of anomalies in oxygen concentrations and trends. We find that the forced signal should already be evident in the southern Indian Ocean and parts of the eastern tropical Pacific and Atlantic basins; widespread detection of forced deoxygenation is possible by 2030–2040. In addition to considering spatially discrete metrics of detection, we evaluate the similarity of the spatial structures associated with natural variability and the forced trend. Outside of the subtropics, these patterns are not wholly distinct on the isopycnal surfaces considered, and therefore, this approach does not provide significantly advanced detection. Our results clearly demonstrate the strong impact of natural climate variability on interior oxygen distributions, providing an important context for interpreting observations."

See also:
http://phys.org/news/2016-04-widespread-loss-ocean-oxygen-2030s.html (http://phys.org/news/2016-04-widespread-loss-ocean-oxygen-2030s.html)

Extract: "A reduction in the amount of oxygen dissolved in the oceans due to climate change is already discernible in some parts of the world and should be evident across large regions of the oceans between 2030 and 2040, according to a new study led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)."

Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on April 29, 2016, 07:40:11 PM
As a follow-on by my Reply #290, Robert Scribbler has a nice article about the NCAR study on the climate change induced depletion of oxygen in most of the oceans by 2030:

https://robertscribbler.com/2016/04/28/ncar-global-temperature-increase-depletes-oxygen-in-most-ocean-zones-by-the-2030s/

Extract: "NCAR: Global Temperature Increase To Lower Oxygen Content of Most Ocean Zones by the 2030s
A reduction in the amount of oxygen dissolved in the oceans due to climate change is already discernible in some parts of the world and should be evident across large regions of the oceans between 2030 and 2040. — The National Center for Atmospheric Research in a press release on April 27th.
Loss of oxygen in the world’s oceans. It’s one of those really, really bad effects of a human-forced warming of our Earth. One of the those climate monsters in the closet that Steve Pacala talks about. The kind of thing we really don’t want to set loose.



The new NCAR study provides an excellent description of how warming the world’s surface waters can reduce ocean oxygen levels:
The entire ocean—from the depths to the shallows—gets its oxygen supply from the surface, either directly from the atmosphere or from phytoplankton, which release oxygen into the water through photosynthesis. Warming surface waters, however, absorb less oxygen. And in a double whammy, the oxygen that is absorbed has a more difficult time traveling deeper into the ocean. That’s because as water heats up, it expands, becoming lighter than the water below it and less likely to sink.



The fact that the NCAR study indicates that global warming has already reduced ocean oxygen levels in a region that is producing both dead zones and, in the case of Nambia, periods during which hydrogen sulfide producing bacteria appear at the surface, is cause for some concern. For by the 2030s, the NCAR model study indicates that global warming will be actively reducing ocean oxygen levels across the vast majority of the North Pacific, a majority of the South Pacific, most of the South Atlantic, and pretty much all of the Indian Ocean region covered in the new research. This raises the risk that open water dead zones like the ones seen off Africa and even hydrogen sulfide producing hot spots like Nambia may begin to creep into other regions of the world ocean — generating further threats to sea life, to fishing industry, and to human beings who depend on healthy oceans for livelihood and for life."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 02, 2016, 07:54:36 PM
The linked reference indicates that when the Amazon forest is subjected to repeated droughts that it sequesters progressive less carbon with each new drought.  Thus as we are now in a positive PDO phase we can expect that the Amazon (and other rainforests) will progressive absorb less carbon, for at least the next 20 to 30 years):

T.R. Feldpausch e.at. (30 April 2016), "Amazon forest response to repeated droughts", Global Biogeochemical Cycles", DOI: 10.1002/2015GB005133

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GB005133/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GB005133/abstract)

Abstract: "The Amazon Basin has experienced more variable climate over the last decade, with a severe and widespread drought in 2005 causing large basin-wide losses of biomass. A drought of similar climatological magnitude occurred again in 2010; however, there has been no basin-wide ground-based evaluation of effects on vegetation. We examine to what extent the 2010 drought affected forest dynamics using ground-based observations of mortality and growth utilizing data from an extensive forest plot network. We find that during the 2010 drought interval, forests did not gain biomass (net change: −0.43 Mg ha-1, CI: −1.11, 0.19, n = 97), regardless of whether forests experienced precipitation deficit anomalies. This loss contrasted with a long-term biomass sink during the baseline pre-2010 drought period (1998 − pre-2010) of 1.33 Mg ha-1 yr-1 (CI: 0.90, 1.74, p < 0.01). The resulting net impact of the 2010 drought (i.e., reversal of the baseline net sink) was −1.95 Mg ha-1 yr-1 (CI:−2.77, −1.18; p < 0.001). This net biomass impact was driven by an increase in biomass mortality (1.45 Mg ha-1 yr-1 CI: 0.66, 2.25, p < 0.001), and a decline in biomass productivity (−0.50 Mg ha-1 yr-1, CI:−0.78, −0.31; p < 0.001). Surprisingly, the magnitude of the losses through tree mortality was unrelated to estimated local precipitation anomalies, and was independent of estimated local pre-2010 drought history. Thus, there was no evidence that pre-2010 droughts compounded the effects of the 2010 drought. We detected a systematic basin-wide impact of drought on tree growth rates across Amazonia, with this suppression of productivity driven by moisture deficits in 2010, an impact which was not apparent during the 2005 event [Phillips et al., 2009]. Based on these ground data, both live biomass in trees and corresponding estimates of live biomass in roots, we estimate that intact forests in Amazonia were carbon neutral in 2010 (−0.07 PgC yr-1 CI:−0.42, 0.23), consistent with results from an independent analysis of airborne estimates of land-atmospheric fluxes during 2010 [Gatti et al., 2014]. Relative to the long-term mean, the 2010 drought resulted in a reduction in biomass carbon uptake of 1.1 PgC, compared to 1.6 PgC for the 2005 event [Phillips et al. 2009]."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 03, 2016, 09:08:20 PM
The linked reference indicates there are well over 1 trillion species of microbes in the oceans and earth (mostly in the soil as indicated in the attached image).  As the Earth warms-up a fraction of these microbes will likely contribute to the acceleration of carbon emissions from microbes:

Kenneth J. Locey and Jay T. Lennon (2016), "Scaling laws predict global microbial diversity", PNAS, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1521291113

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/04/26/1521291113.full (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/04/26/1521291113.full)

Abstract: "Scaling laws underpin unifying theories of biodiversity and are among the most predictively powerful relationships in biology. However, scaling laws developed for plants and animals often go untested or fail to hold for microorganisms. As a result, it is unclear whether scaling laws of biodiversity will span evolutionarily distant domains of life that encompass all modes of metabolism and scales of abundance. Using a global-scale compilation of ∼35,000 sites and ∼5.6⋅106 species, including the largest ever inventory of high-throughput molecular data and one of the largest compilations of plant and animal community data, we show similar rates of scaling in commonness and rarity across microorganisms and macroscopic plants and animals. We document a universal dominance scaling law that holds across 30 orders of magnitude, an unprecedented expanse that predicts the abundance of dominant ocean bacteria. In combining this scaling law with the lognormal model of biodiversity, we predict that Earth is home to upward of 1 trillion (1012) microbial species. Microbial biodiversity seems greater than ever anticipated yet predictable from the smallest to the largest microbiome."

Conclusion: "We estimate that Earth is inhabited by 1011–1012 microbial species. This prediction is based on ecological theory reformulated for large-scale predictions, an expansive dominance scaling law, a richness scaling relationship with empirical and theoretical support, and the largest molecular surveys compiled to date. The profound magnitude of our prediction for Earth’s microbial diversity stresses the need for continued investigation. We expect the dominance scaling law that we uncovered to be valuable in predicting richness, commonness, and rarity across all scales of abundance. To move forward, biologists will need to push beyond current computational limits and increase their investment in collaborative sampling efforts to catalog Earth’s microbial diversity. For context, ∼104 species have been cultured, less than 105 species are represented by classified sequences, and the entirety of the EMP has cataloged less than 107 species, 29% of which were only detected twice. Powerful relationships like those documented here and a greater unified study of commonness and rarity will greatly contribute to finding the potentially 99.999% of microbial taxa that remain undiscovered."

Caption: "Fig. 2. The dominance-abundance scaling law (dashed red line) predicts the abundance of the most abundant microbial taxa (Nmax) up to global scales. The pink hull is the 95% prediction interval for the regression based on 3,000 sites chosen by stratified random sampling (red heat map) from our microbial data compilation. Gray cross-hairs are ranges of published estimates of N and Nmax for large microbiomes, including Earth (Materials and Methods, Approximating Ranges of Nmax for Large Microbiomes). The light-gray dashed line is the 1:1 relationship. The scaling equation and r2 only pertain to the scatterplot data."


See also:
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2016/05/03/Study-Earth-may-host-1-trillion-species/7691462279730/ (http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2016/05/03/Study-Earth-may-host-1-trillion-species/7691462279730/)

Extract: "Using a series of large data sets, ecological models and global scaling laws, researchers estimated that Earth likely hosts upwards of 1 trillion species. Their models incorporated data sets on microbial, plant and animal communities compiled by governments, academic institutions and citizen scientists."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 06, 2016, 05:30:24 PM
The linked reference finds that the archaea & bacteria on the deep seafloor are sensitive to climate change:

Roberto Danovaro, Massimiliano Molari, Cinzia Corinaldesi and Antonio Dell’Anno (29 Apr 2016), "Macroecological drivers of archaea and bacteria in benthic deep-sea ecosystems", Science Advances, Vol. 2, no. 4, e1500961, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1500961

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/4/e1500961 (http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/4/e1500961)

Abstract: "Bacteria and archaea dominate the biomass of benthic deep-sea ecosystems at all latitudes, playing a crucial role in global biogeochemical cycles, but their macroscale patterns and macroecological drivers are still largely unknown. We show the results of the most extensive field study conducted so far to investigate patterns and drivers of the distribution and structure of benthic prokaryote assemblages from 228 samples collected at latitudes comprising 34°N to 79°N, and from ca. 400- to 5570-m depth. We provide evidence that, in deep-sea ecosystems, benthic bacterial and archaeal abundances significantly increase from middle to high latitudes, with patterns more pronounced for archaea, and particularly for Marine Group I Thaumarchaeota. Our results also reveal that different microbial components show varying sensitivities to changes in temperature conditions and food supply. We conclude that climate change will primarily affect deep-sea benthic archaea, with important consequences on global biogeochemical cycles, particularly at high latitudes."

See also:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/deep-sea-microbes-key-ocean-climate-feedback.html (https://www.skepticalscience.com/deep-sea-microbes-key-ocean-climate-feedback.html)

Extract: "A new study published Friday in Science Advances finds that seabed bacteria and archaea (which look like bacteria but have very different genetics and biochemistry) are sensitive to climate. Because their habitat covers 65% of the entire globe, they form a huge part of the biosphere and are important in the regulation of carbon in the deep ocean, which affects long-term climate change."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: werther on May 07, 2016, 09:29:06 AM
Usually, I only look at the Methane numbers for Barrow every once a while. Today, I visited some other places and took the period 1995-2016 to capture both super-El Nino’s.
This is an overview of Northern Hemisphere graphs:

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1036.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa446%2Fhanver1%2FNH%2520Methane%2520graphs%252020160507_zpspbzg4lcn.jpg&hash=4ae2ffee1bc2b6fbb761cc1385be041b)

And this for the SH:

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1036.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa446%2Fhanver1%2FSH%2520Methane%2520graphs%252020160507_zps5hloygtc.jpg&hash=e8f4db8eaf95d8babd3bc3fe743c0d29)

On first sight, all show a steepening of the graph since ’06. Most even steeper since ’14. Most show a bump for 1998-2000 too. But the uphill drive since ’14 is worse.

The effect is biggest in the Polar regions. Even at the South Pole. Mind, South Pole, Mauna Loa, Summit; they’re all stations at app. 3000 m ASL.  At SL, look at Ny Alesund (Svalbard) or Crozet Island (Roaring Forties), Palmer Station (Antarctic Peninsula).

Especially those graphs around the West Wind Drift circling Antarctica make me nervous… Have to have a better look there.

Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on May 13, 2016, 05:03:48 PM
Abstract
We assess the potential magnitude of the economic effects of an ocean acidification (OA) catastrophe by focusing on marine ecosystem services most likely to be affected. It is scientifically plausible that by 2200 OA could cause a complete collapse of marine capture fisheries, complete destruction of coral reefs, and significant rearrangement of marine ecosystems. Upper-bound values for losses from the first two effects range from 97 to 301 billion 2014 dollars per year (0.09 - 0.28% of current world GDP). We argue that aquaculture output would not be reduced, due to the high potential for adaptation by this young industry.

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.p20161105 (https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.p20161105)

"an ocean acidification ( OA ) catastrophe"  is a quote that pikes my interest. So for $9.50 I will get the full article. I somehow doubt an economist could put a value on the collapse  or partial collapse of the carbon pump.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 18, 2016, 05:13:49 PM
The linked SkS article describes the particulars of ocean deoxygenation, and indicates that it "… is the 3rd but less-reported member of an evil climate change trinity, along with global warming and ocean acidification."

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Ocean_Oxygen_another_climate_shoe_dropping.html (https://www.skepticalscience.com/Ocean_Oxygen_another_climate_shoe_dropping.html)

Extract: "Ocean deoxygenation is the 3rd but less-reported member of an evil climate change trinity, along with global warming and ocean acidification. It is not so much another shoe dropping out of our CO2 emissions as it is a large boot kicking ocean ecosystems, with significant knock-on impacts for hundreds of millions of people who depend on the oceans for a living, and with feedbacks on climate."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: TerryM on May 18, 2016, 08:07:05 PM
Wonder if Bruce Steel could comment on oceanic oxygen loss. Is this something else we should fear in the days ahead?
Terry
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on May 19, 2016, 07:20:23 AM
Terry, I am sure I couldn't do a better job describing the links between decreasing oxygen, increasing acidity and ocean warming than the skeptical science piece describes. I can link some added insights perhaps but in the head spinning run up in papers and research perhaps even a day or two adds to the information matrix we are able to pull information from. My head spins.
 I have been posting information about the precarious position Pteropods are in. Most of the studies have been done on the shell dissolution of adult animals. 
Today I read an article that finds Pteropod eggs are even more at threat than the adults. Pinning down a date for when dissolved CO2 ( pCO2 ) reaches 1200 at 600 meters in the Antarctic may be open for debate but an 80% reduction in pteropod egg survival is decades and not centuries away.
 Living animals that can make a diel migration from the surface to 600 meters carry surface production to depth , part of that is in fecal transport and part in animals that die at depth. Going deeper isn't an option when the shell material is dissolved at greater depths and lower pH. As pteropods are diminished smaller phytoplankton will thrive in surface waters as one of their main predators decrease. The strength of the carbon pump will diminish  however as the smaller organisms will not ballast surface production to depth as efficiently as heavier shelled pteropods . They won't make a diel migration and they won't produce carbonate shells . They will stay closer to the surface where bacterial remineralization will result in CO2 and nutrients being released closer to the surface where CO2 and nitrogen can re-enter the atmosphere.

   https://news-oceanacidification-icc.org/2016/05/18/pteropod-eggs-released-at-high-pco2-lack-resilience-to-ocean-acidification/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wordpress%2FlRgb+%28Ocean+acidification%29

The switch from larger to smaller phytoplankton has been modeled with an eye to the efficacy of the carbon pump. A 30 % reduction by ~ 2030 is at best a ballpark number considering the potential Pteropod crash hadn't been well described. Maybe the Pteropods can somehow adjust their preferred depth habitats and hang in there a couple decades extra but I think they are as threatened as the coral reef systems . 

  http://marine.unc.edu/event/seminar-dr-curtis-deutsch-uwash/ (http://marine.unc.edu/event/seminar-dr-curtis-deutsch-uwash/)

Where surface productivity releases it's CO2 via bacterial remineralization is a big deal. The depth that the ballasting of that productivity reaches before acidification eats away the carbonate shell that drives much of the ballast weight and stops it's descent is also important. Low oxygen levels are  at mid depth as the bacterial remineralization consumes oxygen where organic matter is released from it's descent. As acidification builds the depth that calcium dissolves gets closer to the surface. Much of the West Coast of North America will be bathed in undersaturated waters from surface to depth by 2040-2050 for several months each year. The largest problems in low oxygen will be expansions of already existing oxygen minima areas largely associated with eastern boundary currents, the Canary current, the Humboldt current, the California current and the Benguela current. There has also been very low pH levels measured in upwelling areas of southern Oman.
 It is difficult to look past the next eighty years. Carbon released by permafrost melt, boreal and tropical fires and potential shallow water hydrate releases will add to atmospheric CO2 levels long after athropogenic fossil fuel contributions begin to wane. The amount of carbon released in those feedbacks will likely be met with a compromised carbon pump. The CO2 therefore will stay in the atmosphere longer and cause extra heating. 
 
 
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on May 23, 2016, 06:28:14 PM
The linked reference concludes that via changes in the carbon cycle: "Overall our results suggest that the longer emissions of non-CO2 forcing agents persists the greater effect these agents will have on global climate."

Andrew H. MacDougall & Reto Knutti (18 May 2016), "Enhancement of non-CO2 radiative forcing via intensified carbon cycle feedbacks", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2016GL068964

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL068964/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL068964/abstract)

Abstract: "The global carbon cycle is sensitive to changes in global temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration, with increased temperature tending to reduce the efficiency of carbon sinks and increased CO2 enhancing the efficiency of carbon sinks. The emission of non-CO2 greenhouse gases warms the Earth but does not induce the CO2 fertilization effect or increase the partial-pressure gradient between the atmosphere and the surface ocean. Here we present idealized climate model experiments that explore the indirect interaction between non-CO2 forcing and the carbon cycle. The experiments suggest that this interaction enhances the warming effect of the non-CO2 forcing by up to 25% after 150 years and that much of the warming caused by these agents lingers for over 100 years after the dissipation of the non-CO2 forcing. Overall our results suggest that the longer emissions of non-CO2 forcing agents persists the greater effect these agents will have on global climate."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on May 29, 2016, 07:38:10 PM
The following link does have a section on carbon cycling and can be posted here but it would probably better if it had a home on a freshwater input page. It is a very nice summary of many subjects and a very recent open source offering.
 The focus is freshwater inputs to the Arctic.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JG003140/full (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JG003140/full)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Sigmetnow on June 16, 2016, 01:55:07 AM

Alpine soils storing up to a third less carbon as summers warm
Quote
The top metre of the world’s soils contains three times as much carbon as the entire atmosphere. This means that losing carbon from the soil can quicken the pace of human-caused climate warming.

A new paper, published today in Nature Geoscience, finds this is already happening in the forests of the German Alps. Soils there are losing carbon as summer temperatures rise, the researchers say.

In the last three decades, soil carbon across the German Alps has decreased by an average of 14% – and by as much as 32% for certain types of soils.

The findings might be a sign of how soils could amplify warming in future, other scientists say.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/alpine-soils-storing-up-to-a-third-less-carbon-as-summers-warm (http://www.carbonbrief.org/alpine-soils-storing-up-to-a-third-less-carbon-as-summers-warm)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on July 11, 2016, 05:30:50 PM
The linked article discusses how the impacts of ocean acidification may be more widespread and may last longer (multiple centuries) than most people think:

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-phytoplankton-acidic-oceans-20160708-snap-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-phytoplankton-acidic-oceans-20160708-snap-story.html)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on July 20, 2016, 10:50:32 AM
The linked article indicates that new research suggests that the Chesapeake Bay annually generates as much methane as all other estuaries in the world combined:

http://www.dailypress.com/news/science/dp-nws-chesapeake-bay-methane-20160719-story.html (http://www.dailypress.com/news/science/dp-nws-chesapeake-bay-methane-20160719-story.html)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on July 25, 2016, 09:24:09 PM
The linked reference focuses on carbon cycle feedback mechanisms when discussing uncertainties in future projections of these cycles in Earth System Model projections.  The reference indicates that relatively high model uncertainty still exist in land carbon cycle, and in some key regional (like the North Atlantic & Southern Ocean) ocean carbon cycle, fluxes.

Alan J. Hewitt, Ben B. B. Booth, Chris D. Jones, Eddy S. Robertson, Andy J. Wiltshire, Philip G. Sansom, David B. Stephenson & Stan Yip (July 2016), "Sources of uncertainty in future projections of the carbon cycle", Journal of Climate, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0161.1 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0161.1)

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0161.1 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0161.1)

Abstract: "The inclusion of carbon cycle processes within CMIP5 Earth System Models provides the opportunity to explore the relative importance of differences in scenario and climate model representation to future land and ocean carbon fluxes. A two-way ANOVA approach was used to quantify the variability owing to differences between scenarios and between climate models at different lead times.

For global ocean carbon fluxes, the variance attributed to differences between Representative Concentration Pathway scenarios exceeds the variance attributed to differences between climate models by around 2025, completely dominating by 2100. This contrasts with global land carbon fluxes, where the variance attributed to differences between climate models continues to dominate beyond 2100. This suggests that modelled processes that determine ocean fluxes are currently better constrained than those of land fluxes, thus we can be more confident in linking different future socio-economic pathways to consequences of ocean carbon uptake than for land carbon uptake. The contribution of internal variance is negligible for ocean fluxes and small for land fluxes, indicating that there is little dependence on the initial conditions.

The apparent agreement in atmosphere-ocean carbon fluxes, globally, masks strong climate model differences at a regional level. The North Atlantic and Southern Ocean are key regions, where differences in modelled processes represent an important source of variability in projected regional fluxes."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on July 29, 2016, 11:41:03 PM
The linked article is entitled: "Soil microbes burp carbon dioxide after drought-breaking rain", and it discusses a little understood carbon cycle feedback:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/soil-microbes-burp-co2-after-drought-breaking-rain/7652800 (http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/soil-microbes-burp-co2-after-drought-breaking-rain/7652800)

Extract: "An unpredictable source of carbon emissions in areas of sporadic rainfall, is the carbon dioxide released from soil when rain falls after drought. The emissions come from soil microbes, and as Catherine Osborne explains, these critters are very difficult to study. But recent advances in DNA sequencing technology have made things easier. In her work at the University of California Berkeley, Catherine investigated soil microbes."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 03, 2016, 05:17:51 AM
AR5 downplayed the importance of soil carbon feedbacks, but now "A new Yale-led paper makes the case that developing meaningful climate projections will rely on understanding the role of "soil carbon turnover" and how it might potentially trigger climate feedbacks in a warming world.":

Mark A. Bradford,   William R. Wieder,   Gordon B. Bonan,   Noah Fierer,   Peter A. Raymond   & Thomas W. Crowther (2016), "Managing uncertainty in soil carbon feedbacks to climate change", Nature Climate Change 6, 751–758, doi:10.1038/nclimate3071

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n8/full/nclimate3071.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n8/full/nclimate3071.html)

Abstract: "Planetary warming may be exacerbated if it accelerates loss of soil carbon to the atmosphere. This carbon-cycle–climate feedback is included in climate projections. Yet, despite ancillary data supporting a positive feedback, there is limited evidence for soil carbon loss under warming. The low confidence engendered in feedback projections is reduced further by the common representation in models of an outdated knowledge of soil carbon turnover. 'Model-knowledge integration' — representing in models an advanced understanding of soil carbon stabilization — is the first step to build confidence. This will inform experiments that further increase confidence by resolving competing mechanisms that most influence projected soil-carbon stocks. Improving feedback projections is an imperative for establishing greenhouse gas emission targets that limit climate change."

See also:
http://phys.org/news/2016-08-uncertainty-soil-carbon-feedbacks-affect.html (http://phys.org/news/2016-08-uncertainty-soil-carbon-feedbacks-affect.html)

Extract: "Warming temperatures can trigger two very different changes in soil carbon soil levels. On the one hand, they can stimulate the growth of plants, increasing the amount of carbon storage potential. Conversely, those higher temperatures can also accelerate the activity of organisms that live in the soil and consume decaying plant matter. In that case, there is a net increase in the amount of carbon released from the biosphere into the atmosphere.

In other words, one function puts carbon into the soil, keeping it out of the atmosphere, while the other emits it into the atmosphere. The twist, however, is that the processes that emit carbon from the soil also convert a small fraction of the decaying plant matter into stores of carbon that can be locked away over millennial timescales, which would be optimal to minimizing climate impacts."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on August 22, 2016, 07:03:32 PM
It seems to me that the annual trend for increasing atmospheric CH4 concentration at Barrow Alaska is beginning early (starting in mid-June) this year:
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on August 23, 2016, 08:20:13 PM
I like to post papers on the biological effects of ocean acidification here in the Calif. Current Ecosystem. The CCE is an eastern boundary upwelling system that has pCo2 , pH and biological impacts of acidification that precede conditions in most other oceans of the world. The base of the food chain is an important place to keep an eye on because negative changes there will cascade up through trophic levels to fish, birds and mammals ( including humans ). There have been studies documenting negative effects on Pteropods under current conditions and now Krill can be added to the list of negatively effected species under current conditions.

  http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps_oa/m555p065.pdf (http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps_oa/m555p065.pdf)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on August 23, 2016, 08:27:12 PM
Development of Euphausia pacifica (krill) larvae is impaired under pCO2 levels currently observed in the Northeast Pacific
Despite the critical importance of euphausiids in marine food webs, little ocean acidification (OA) research has focused on them. Euphausia pacifica is a dominant and trophically important species of euphausiid throughout the North Pacific and the California Current Ecosystem, where low pH conditions are occurring in advance of those in the global ocean. We assessed the impact of reduced pH on the hatching and larval development of E. pacifica in the laboratory and characterized the pH to which E. pacifica eggs and larvae are currently exposed in Puget Sound, Washington (USA), a large estuary connected to the California Current. In 2 independent sets of laboratory experiments that lasted 6 to 22 d and which involved broods from 110 different females, we found that hatching is robust to a wide range of pH levels, but larval development and survival are reduced at pH levels that are currently observed within their habitat. Survival from 3 d post hatch to the calyptopis 2 stage was reduced by an average of 20% at pH 7.69 compared to pH 7.96. Even though this population experiences a range of pH conditions on seasonal and daily timescales, it may be living near the limits of its pH tolerance. Continued OA may push these organisms past their threshold, which could have cascading negative consequences for higher trophic levels.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 22, 2016, 12:46:10 AM
The linked pdf presents abstracts from the recent "12th International Conference on Paleoceanography: 29 August – 2 September 2016, Utrecht, the Netherlands.  As I am traveling, I have not had time to review the numerous abstracts.

http://icp12.uu.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Poster-abstracts-sessie-3.pdf (http://icp12.uu.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Poster-abstracts-sessie-3.pdf)

Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on September 22, 2016, 11:14:54 PM
"Hopes that large amounts of planet-warming carbon dioxide could be buried in soils appear to be grossly misplaced, with new research finding that the ground will soak up far less carbon over the coming century than previously thought."

If soil is a much smaller / slower carbon sink than previously thought we are left with very few options other than the oceans.  Maybe it's high time to get honest about what carbon sinks we have at our disposal and concentrate on sinks that can operate in timeframes we are pushing.Understanding ocean carbon sinks seems a good place to start. Those processes that result in carbonate sedimentation at coastal shelf depths or expanded farming of kelp that is harvested and removed from the ocean are two places to put extra efforts.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/22/soil-carbon-storage-not-the-climate-change-fix-it-was-thought-research-finds (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/22/soil-carbon-storage-not-the-climate-change-fix-it-was-thought-research-finds)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 23, 2016, 01:16:02 AM
Abstract P-422 indicates the current ESMs modeling of the "Biological Pump" does not fully match the paleo record; while abstract P-406 indicates that global warming can weaken the "Biological Pump".  Taken together, these findings raise the risk that parts of the ocean (particularly the Southern Ocean) could become sources of net carbon venting rather than net carbon absorption, with continued global warming:

http://icp12.uu.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Poster-abstracts-sessie-3.pdf (http://icp12.uu.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Poster-abstracts-sessie-3.pdf)

P-422
Sensitivity of atmospheric CO2 and the marine carbon cycle to the Biological Pump
Jamie Wilson, School of Geographical Sciences, University of Bristol, United Kingdom
(jamie.wilson@bristol.ac.uk)
Sarah E. Greene, University of Bristol, UK
The exchange of CO2 between the ocean and the atmosphere is strongly mediated by the fate of organic carbon formed by phytoplankton the 'Biological Pump'). Organic carbon is exported as sinking particles that are degraded in the water column and buried at the seafloor. Modern field and laboratory observations suggest that organic fluxes are influenced by various environmental conditions, including (but not limited to!) temperature. For example, colder temperatures during glacial periods are hypothesized to have reduced the export of organic carbon but also slowed its degradation in the water column. Key questions remain such as: Which aspects of the biological pump is atmospheric pCO2 most sensitive to? Are there feedbacks between biological pump processes and what timescales do they operate? These questions have significance for interpreting palaeoclimate proxies and informing future climate predictions.
Here we present results using the Earth system model cGENIE to quantify the sensitivity of pCO2 and the marine carbon cycle to mechanistic uncertainties in controls on the biological pump. We systematically vary three key processes (export, remineralisation, and reactivity) to explore the different hypothetical modes of operation of the biological pump over different timescales. We show that the sensitivity of pCO2 to individual processes and their interactions is dependent on the timescale considered due to deep-sea CaCO3 sediment feedbacks. We also demonstrate that some modes of operation are contradicted by the deep-sea CaCO3 record, demonstrating how palaeoclimate can be used to constrain biological pump processes of critical importance for modern and future modelling.

P-406
A rise in Southern Ocean overturning over the Holocene
Anja Studer, Climate Geochemistry, Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, Germany
(anja.studer@mpic.de)
Daniel M. Sigman, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA; Alfredo Martinez-Garcia, Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, Mainz, Germany; Lena M. Thöle, Institute of Geological Sciences and Oeschger Center for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Elisabeth Michel, Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France; Samuel L. Jaccard, Institute of Geological Sciences and Oeschger Center for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Jörg Lippold, Institute of Geological Sciences and Oeschger Center for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Alain Mazaud, Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France; Xingchen T. Wang, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA; Gerald H. Haug, Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, Mainz, Germany;
Over the course of the Holocene, the ongoing 11,700 year-long interglacial period, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) rose by ~20 ppm. This CO2 rise is of particular importance for assessing the sensitivity of climate in its current state, but its cause remains a mystery. From three sediment cores in the Antarctic Zone of the Southern Ocean, we report diatom-bound nitrogen isotope measurements that indicate rising surface nitrate concentration throughout the Holocene, pointing to an acceleration in Antarctic overturning. As the combined physical and biogeochemical changes would have weakened the ocean’s “biological pump” that stores CO2 in the ocean interior, these data provide the first direct evidence for a change that would have worked to explain the Holocene atmospheric CO2 rise.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: GeoffBeacon on September 23, 2016, 10:56:42 AM
There was conference “1.5C conference on climate change”, organised by the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford. Carbon Brief reports a view that carbon budgets are much too pessimistic (https://www.carbonbrief.org/day-two-at-the-1-5-c-conference-on-climate-change-in-oxford)

Quote
Prof Pierre Friedlingstein, chair of mathematical modelling of climate systems at the University of Exeter, suggested the estimate that there are five years worth of current emissions left before we exceed the carbon budget to stay under 1.5C is too pessimistic. Accounting for the fact that the cumulative warming per unit of carbon dioxide observed recently is lower than in the majority of climate models extends the 1.5C budget timeline to 20-30 years.

Is this realistic? Is there any published material, peer-reviewed or otherwise?
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: GeoffBeacon on September 23, 2016, 11:37:16 AM
Professor Friedlingstein has kindly replied to an email. The report reflects his views. Writing it up is top of his list.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 23, 2016, 11:39:09 AM
There was conference “1.5C conference on climate change”, organised by the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford. Carbon Brief reports a view that carbon budgets are much too pessimistic (https://www.carbonbrief.org/day-two-at-the-1-5-c-conference-on-climate-change-in-oxford)

Quote
Prof Pierre Friedlingstein, chair of mathematical modelling of climate systems at the University of Exeter, suggested the estimate that there are five years worth of current emissions left before we exceed the carbon budget to stay under 1.5C is too pessimistic. Accounting for the fact that the cumulative warming per unit of carbon dioxide observed recently is lower than in the majority of climate models extends the 1.5C budget timeline to 20-30 years.

Is this realistic? Is there any published material, peer-reviewed or otherwise?

First, I note that through the end of August 2016 that we are currently at 1.3C above pre-industrial.

Second, I provide the following ESLD reference (including several authors that developed the RCP scenarios) that confirms that the true carbon budget is actually much lower than previously believed:

Joeri Rogelj, Michiel Schaeffer, Pierre Friedlingstein, Nathan P. Gillett, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Keywan Riahi, Myles Allen & Reto Knutti (2016), "Differences between carbon budget estimates unraveled", Nature Climate Change, Volume: 6, Pages: 245–252, doi:10.1038/nclimate2868


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2868.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2868.html)

Abstract: "Several methods exist to estimate the cumulative carbon emissions that would keep global warming to below a given temperature limit. Here we review estimates reported by the IPCC and the recent literature, and discuss the reasons underlying their differences. The most scientifically robust number — the carbon budget for CO2-induced warming only — is also the least relevant for real-world policy. Including all greenhouse gases and using methods based on scenarios that avoid instead of exceed a given temperature limit results in lower carbon budgets. For a >66% chance of limiting warming below the internationally agreed temperature limit of 2 °C relative to pre-industrial levels, the most appropriate carbon budget estimate is 590–1,240 GtCO2 from 2015 onwards. Variations within this range depend on the probability of staying below 2 °C and on end-of-century non-CO2 warming. Current CO2 emissions are about 40 GtCO2 yr−1, and global CO2 emissions thus have to be reduced urgently to keep within a 2 °C-compatible budget."

See also:
http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/26/world-carbon-budget/ (http://ecowatch.com/2016/02/26/world-carbon-budget/)

Extract: "There is general agreement that a limit of 590 billion tons would safely keep the world from overheating in ways that would impose ever greater strains on human society. The argument is about the upper limit of such estimates.

Dr. Rogelj said:
“In order to have a reasonable chance of keeping global warming below 2 C, we can only emit a certain amount of carbon dioxide, ever. That’s our carbon budget.
“This has been understood for about a decade and the physics behind this concept are well understood, but many different factors can lead to carbon budgets that are either slightly smaller or slightly larger. We wanted to understand these differences and to provide clarity on the issue for policy-makers and the public.
“This study shows that, in some cases, we have been overestimating the budget by 50 to more than 200 percent. At the high end, this is a difference of more than 1,000 billion tons of carbon dioxide.”
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: GeoffBeacon on September 23, 2016, 03:48:27 PM
ALSR

Thanks. What is odd is that it was a conference organised by the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford, Where Myles Allen is "Leader, Climate Research Programme". I suspect he will have been part of organising the conference.

As well as Myles Allen, another of the authors of the paper you quote, Joeri Rogelj, was present. He is on the video of the report of the first day (https://www.carbonbrief.org/day-one-at-the-1-5-c-conference-on-climate-change-in-oxford).

You can see my comments at the end, which start

Quote
[1] In the video, Professor Corrinne Le Quere says [to keep within 1.5°C] it is necessary to be “completely de-carbonising the economy in just a few decades."
Earlier this year Carbon Brief said (https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-only-five-years-left-before-one-point-five-c-budget-is-blown) “Analysis: Only five years left before 1.5°C carbon budget is blown”. There is a big difference between “a few decades” and five years.

[2] Corrine also says “Global emissions have stalled in the past few years”. Apart from the fact that “stalled” is nowhere good enough, this reduction is not yet seen in the increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere(2).

There were others in the “a few decades” to de-carbonise camp, something I'm sure I've heard the same implied at presentations at the London School of Economics recently.

Another thing is time scales.

Quote
Before the science talks, Dr Anna Pirani, head of the IPCC’s Working Group 1 Technical Support Unit, reminded everyone of the short timeline they’re working to. To be assessed in the IPCC’s special report on 1.5°C, papers must be submitted by October 2017 and accepted by April 2018.


The report is two years off (at least?). So that means three years of remaining carbon budget for 1.5°C.

What are we to believe about the remaining budget?

P.S. Five years means that we need degrowth (http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/green-growth-or-degrowth/). The politics of that are awful.

Two or three decades is a lot of long grass to hide in.



Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 23, 2016, 05:07:59 PM

What are we to believe about the remaining budget?

P.S. Five years means that we need degrowth (http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/green-growth-or-degrowth/). The politics of that are awful.

Two or three decades is a lot of long grass to hide in.

Those in authority (scientific or policy-wise) will never acknowledge the true risks of high climate sensitivity (including early temperature rise), as then there would no longer be grass to hide in.  The linked articles indicate that "experts" that we will exceed 1.5C in less than tens years; however, if ECS is 4.6C that might be less than five years:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-impacts-conference-idUSKCN11S1FE (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-impacts-conference-idUSKCN11S1FE)

See also:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/experts-see-few-paths-planet-saving-climate-goal-004414242.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/experts-see-few-paths-planet-saving-climate-goal-004414242.html)


Extract: "For many scientists, 1.5 C seems virtually impossible -- at least not without "over-shooting" the target.

"We may see the first year of 1.5 C above pre-industrial levels within a decade," cautioned Richard Betts, head of climate impacts research at the Met Office Hadley Centre in England."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 23, 2016, 05:43:15 PM
The linked article indicates that telling policy makers the truth (that exceeding 1.5C will cause serious damage and that we are likely to pass this target sooner rather than later) is dangerous because they only know how to react with geoengineering as a response to such "bad news", rather than reacting by co-operating together to cut emissions.  So damned if you do, damned if you don't. 

Furthermore, the first attached image of daily GMST anom values through Sept 20 2016, shows that the anom for Sept is increasing compared to projections, and the second attached image shows the daily Nino 3.4 values thru today, indicate that the chances of La Nina occurring anytime soon is decreasing by the day:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/22/paris-climate-goal-will-de-difficult-if-not-impossible-to-hit (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/22/paris-climate-goal-will-de-difficult-if-not-impossible-to-hit)

Extract: "For some scientists, even setting the target is a bad idea.
“There is a risk that the 1.5C temperature threshold is a distraction,” said Kevin Anderson, deputy director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research in England.


“The danger is that it will push us to look at geoengineering solutions rather than how to achieve deep decarbonisation.”"
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: jai mitchell on September 24, 2016, 08:23:14 PM
RadioCarbon Dating of soil-sequestered carbon indicates that carbon uptake to soil (in some cases) is 1/6th as rapid as many models hold - This reduces the likely century-scale carbon sequestration to soil by as much as 1/2 through 2100.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/09/22/the-earth-is-soaking-up-less-carbon-than-we-thought-which-means-global-warming-may-go-faster/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/09/22/the-earth-is-soaking-up-less-carbon-than-we-thought-which-means-global-warming-may-go-faster/)

The Earth is soaking up less carbon than we thought — which could make it warm up even faster

Quote
In any case, the results suggest the process can take a lot longer than scientists previously assume — up to thousands of years, instead of just tens or hundreds. This means that previous research may have significantly overestimated how much carbon the world’s soil can store away throughout the rest of the century. In fact, the new study suggests that, worldwide, soil’s carbon sequestration potential this century may only be half what we thought it was.

Study here (science)

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6306/1419 (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6306/1419)
Radiocarbon constraints imply reduced carbon uptake by soils during the 21st century
Yujie He

Abstract

Soil is the largest terrestrial carbon reservoir and may influence the sign and magnitude of carbon cycle–climate feedbacks. Many Earth system models (ESMs) estimate a significant soil carbon sink by 2100, yet the underlying carbon dynamics determining this response have not been systematically tested against observations. We used 14C data from 157 globally distributed soil profiles sampled to 1-meter depth to show that ESMs underestimated the mean age of soil carbon by a factor of more than six (430 ± 50 years versus 3100 ± 1800 years). Consequently, ESMs overestimated the carbon sequestration potential of soils by a factor of nearly two (40 ± 27%). These inconsistencies suggest that ESMs must better represent carbon stabilization processes and the turnover time of slow and passive reservoirs when simulating future atmospheric carbon dioxide dynamics.



Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on September 25, 2016, 12:35:50 AM
Jai, Thanks for the science magazine link that wasn't available in the Guardian piece I posted a couple days ago. This news is another ( Oh sh.. ) moment for me .  I have always thought there was a division of half of emissions to the atmosphere  a quarter to the terrestrial sinks and a quarter to the ocean sinks.  These numbers are admittedly general and now obviously erroneous. The oceans are somehow going to need to increase carbon sequestration from anthropogenic emissions and I fear they do not have the ability to do so at anywhere near the rate needed to avoid increasing atmospheric levels  at ever increasing rates. Hockey stick indeed !
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on September 25, 2016, 01:40:13 AM
I wrote a letter about my recollection of changes I have seen in the ocean over the last thirty years. To me it shows the ocean and it's inhabitants are already having trouble related to increased heat and acidification.  These aren't problems in the future they are problems that have been escalating over the last three decades. To date the response has been to shut down fisheries and increase closed fishing areas to compensate for decreasing ocean health. Although this may buy some time for species negatively effected it in no way addresses societies continued carbon emissions or the false notion that we have a remaining carbon budget . We are past the point of doing damage to our ocean environment and past the point of carbon sinks ability to sequester more anthropogenic carbon emissions.

  My story starts when Halley's comet made it's last visit. My friends Steve , Lennard and I were diving abalone at Gull Island . After diving enough repetitive dives out deep we decided to go visit a shallow spot . I knew a rock pile that usually had a few Pink abalone and Black abalone in shallow. There was an El Nino in 
82-83 and it had brought with it some disease  trouble for abalone and when we threw the anchor on the shallow spot we couldn't believe what we saw because all the abalone were dead, there were just thousands of empty shells. It was 1986 and we were witnessing a disease event later to be named withering foot syndrome and it would eventually cause over 90% mortality in seven different abalone species and close the commercial abalone fishery. It was a harbinger of things to come. Stress caused by a strong El Nino and very hot water allowed an opportunistic viral disease to get a foothold at Gull Island that eventually spread throughout all of Southern California waters and wiped out the abalone stocks.
 When the next big El Nino arrived in 97-98 the abalone were finished off and I watched another disease ravage the starfish populations around the Channel Islands. There was also a large die off of purple urchins. Heat stress and climate change were starting to show up as disease events that came with the temperature spikes that El Nino delivered. The starfish wasting syndrome reappeared in 2014, 15 & 16 and took down multiple starfish stocks from Canada to the Mexican boarder. It also hit the purple urchins like before but this time it also began to kill large numbers of Red Sea urchins. With the starfish virtually gone purple urchins had a spectacular recruitment event , especially in Northern California , and as a result without the starfish predators to contain the purple urchins vast areas turned into urchin barrens.
       Maybe the hazardous algae bloom that arrived 2011 on the Sonoma Coast was an outlier or maybe it too will reappear to kill off more abalone, sea urchins and other intertidal mollusks. It wasn't associated  with El Nino like many of the other problems i have been describing but it's multi-species toxicity caused a lot of damage in a fairly limited area. .Hazardous algae blooms like the diatom Psedo-nitzschia do seem to be progressively getting larger and more toxic. Whether that is heat related , the largest outbreaks also correspond to the three El Nino events I described, or due to the effects of acidification is something time will tell . Lab studies do show the toxicity of Domoic acid increases with acidification. Last year major portions of the dungeness and rock crab fisheries seasons were closed. We can't make very good predictions yet but lobster may also be added to that list over the next few years.
 I am trying to stress that climate change , increased water temperatures and acidification are collectively doing a lot of damage to invertebrates as well as bird and mammal mortalities associated with toxic algae blooms. Heat in inland waters,drought, and water diversions for agriculture and cities have severely reduced anadromous fish stocks. Acidification is currently causing negative effects on pteropods during spring upwelling season along the northern California and Oregon
Coasts and in the Puget sound it is also likely doing damage to dungeness crab recruitment, krill abundance as well as pteropod populations and abundance.
 None of the issues I am describing will be reduced by enormous efforts at closing fishing grounds for refuges. These are systemic issues that can only be reduced by reducing societies carbon emissions . These carbon reductions will come at a price to economic growth and they need to be dramatic reductions worldwide.
Making fishermen scapegoats for societal ills , excluding us from from planning processes for dealing with these issues and generally painting us a pariahs is not going to solve these problems. In the end you won't even have anyone  able to tell the story about how the oceans died.  That is what is happening however and fishermen are just the canary in the coal mine.              
Bruce Steele
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Hefaistos on September 25, 2016, 10:06:49 PM
The figure attached is from Scripps CO2 program page.

Solid Curve: Observed increase in atmospheric CO2 in units of PgC

Dashed Curve: Cumulative production of industrial CO2 from fossil fuel and cement versus time in units of PgC.

Under what assumptions regarding the carbon cycle and future emissions of CO2 would it be correct to interpret the figure as a forecast, where CO2 already emmitted from fossil fuel and cement will force the atmospheric CO2 to rise by about 140 PgC (the difference between the two curves in September 2016) in <20 years time ?

There is obviously a strong correlation between the two curves, although it would be more correct to illustrate accumulative trends over time with a logarithmic diagram.


Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on September 26, 2016, 01:40:27 AM
Hefaistos, Both terrestrial and ocean sinks absorb part  ( about half ) of annual anthropogenic carbon emissions. So cumulative atmospheric increases are less than total emissions. Calculating future atmospheric levels is dependent upon the efficacy of both terrestrial and oceanic sinks as well as future trends in wildfire , and agricultural patterns. We are also putting a lot of stress on oceanic carbon sinks so predicting continued increases in the amount of CO2 that the ocean is capable of sustaining should be framed with increasing amounts of uncertainty.
 There is also methane, HFC's, NO2 and increased water vapor that are additive to CO2 in net effective
warming that aren't included in the Scripps CO2 figures graphed.
 I think there is more uncertainty in how our land and ocean sinks will respond than science might lead you to believe. The 40% miscalculation of the soil carbon sink is illustrative of this uncertainty. There is plenty of evidence to lead one to believe things might be in worse shape than conventional science might lead you to believe.  Predictions should be taken with a grain of salt, mine or anyone else's.

Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Hefaistos on September 26, 2016, 09:31:30 AM
Bruce, thanks for your input. I'm well aware of the sinks and their role in the carbon cycle. What strikes me with this graph is the relationship between accelerating emissions and accelerating levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. What's scaring with this development, is that it's happening as we're speaking, it's totally unstoppable, and that it might cause a continued rapid temperature increase on earth even in the near term (20 years).

As a rule of thumb, it seems we can translate 1 PgC into 0.5 ppm of CO2. So if we have emmissions of 140 PgC 'unaccounted' for in terms of future ppm growth (due to delays involved in the carbon cycle), we'd end up with at least 470 ppm in less than 20 years time. The current y-o-y increase in CO2 is a bit more than 3 ppm. Which indicates to me that we have an acceleration of CO2 levels in the atmosphere to look forward to in the near term (20 years).
If the sinks, mainly ocean and soil, aren't able to absorb carbon as they used to do as you mention in your reply, the increase in atm CO2 might increase even faster.

It seems that in the near term, we will be following the upper extreme scenarios of CC models like the Bern CC or ISAM. It seems we're bound to follow IPCC's scenario RCP8.5 during the coming 20 years due to the 'overhang' from emmisions already made, even if GHG emissions are now eventually starting to decline.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on September 26, 2016, 04:38:54 PM
Hefaistos, I think the 470 ( minimum )is baked in already just as you say. If the 3 ppm +annual is added for twenty more years then  we get 530 , if that is reduced to an annual 2 ppm we  will get 510. There is the chance that the uptick in current annual increases is tied to carbon sinks already beginning to weaken and so if EIA anthropogenic inputs stays flat but annual CO2 increase still increases for another ten years ( averaged )we probably have passed some tipping point. I think everyone is hoping the discrepancy between the purported EIA  flatline figures and the continued atmospheric increases are due to the El Niño and short term sinks quickly releasing part of the 140 .  When the CO2e is added in we may be looking at something closer to 600 for a very disturbing 20 year forecast.
 I would like someone to point out the error in thinking we will have achieved atmospheric doubling in this timeframe but  I think twenty years is about right.  If ASLR is correct and earth climate sensitivity ( ECS ) is higher than most current estimates then most young people alive will see enormous negative effects on the environment  concurrent with spiking temperatures . If the current warm water PDO holds we can expect several more off the charts El Nino events in the next 20 years also. I think we are already seeing negative effects on the oceans here along the West Coast of North America

Edit. I may be double counting the 140 overhang and the 3 ppm annual emissions. The EIA may be undercounting emissions however. Lots of uncertainty
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 27, 2016, 05:59:14 PM
The linked reference indicates that the primary source for the increase in atmospheric methane from 2007 to 2013 was an increase in meteorologically related emissions from tropical wetlands and tropical agriculture:

E. G. Nisbet,et. al. (26 September 2016), "Rising atmospheric methane: 2007-14 growth and isotopic shift", Global Biogeochemical Cycles, DOI: 10.1002/2016GB005406

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GB005406/full (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GB005406/full)

Abstract: "From 2007 to 2013, the globally-averaged mole fraction of methane in the atmosphere increased by 5.7 ± 1.2 ppb yr-1. Simultaneously, δ13CCH4 (a measure of the 13C/12C isotope ratio in methane) has shifted to significantly more negative values since 2007. Growth was extreme in 2014, at 12.5 ± 0.4 ppb, with a further shift to more negative values being observed at most latitudes. The isotopic evidence presented here suggests the methane rise was dominated by significant increases in biogenic methane emissions, particularly in the tropics: for example, from expansion of tropical wetlands in years with strongly positive rainfall anomalies, or emissions from increased agricultural sources such as ruminants and rice paddies. Changes in the removal rate of methane by the OH radical have not been seen in other tracers of atmospheric chemistry and do not appear to explain short term variations in methane. Fossil fuel emissions may also have grown, but the sustained shift to more 13C-depleted values together with its significant interannual variability, and the tropical and Southern Hemisphere loci of post-2007 growth, both indicate fossil fuel emissions have not been the dominant factor driving the increase. A major cause of increased tropical wetland and tropical agricultural methane emissions, the likely major contributors to growth, may be their responses to meteorological change."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: GeoffBeacon on October 02, 2016, 07:24:18 PM
In the video of the recent conference in Oxford (http://www.1point5degrees.org.uk) that discussed keeping below 1.5°C, Professor Corrinne Le Quere says  "Global emissions have stalled in the past few years". Apart from the fact that "stalled" is nowhere good enough, thes reductions are not yet seen in the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. They seem to be accelerating.

These concentrations may be subject to lags or effects such as El Nino but, after allowance for El Nino at least,  Tamino writes (https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/04/17/co2-status-report/)

Quote
There’s been no deceleration. Whatever emissions reductions have happened, haven’t yet slowed down the rise of CO2.

CO2 concentrations may be subject to lags or effects such as El Nino. Are these the explanations or are carbon feedbacks kicking in (reducing our remaining carbon budget)?
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 02, 2016, 08:42:31 PM
CO2 concentrations may be subject to lags or effects such as El Nino. Are these the explanations or are carbon feedbacks kicking in (reducing our remaining carbon budget)?

Obviously, there can be no clear-cut answer to such a question, as who is to say how much un-reported anthropogenic is occurring, in addition to emission sources that AR5/CMIP5-type scientists do not count (such as CO2 from permafrost degradation and methane converted in the atmosphere into CO2).  Nevertheless, fluctuations and un-accounted for anthropogenic emissions aside; I firmly believe that positive feedback mechanisms are currently being accelerated by climate change as discussed in the linked thread entitled: "2015 - The Year of the Feedback".

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1419.0.html (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1419.0.html)

 Edit: Here are some specific examples of nature GHG emission sources not included in prior estimates of the "carbon budget":

The first linked article is entitled: "Reservoirs play substantial role in global warming"
http://phys.org/news/2016-09-reservoirs-substantial-role-global.html (http://phys.org/news/2016-09-reservoirs-substantial-role-global.html)
Extract: "Washington State University researchers say the world's reservoirs are an underappreciated source of greenhouse gases, producing the equivalent of roughly 1 gigaton of carbon dioxide a year, or 1.3 percent of all greenhouse gases produced by humans."
See also:
https://www.aibs.org/bioscience/ (https://www.aibs.org/bioscience/)

The next linked article is entitled: "Biologist comments on a startling new finding in climate change research":


http://phys.org/news/2016-09-biologist-comments-startling-climate.html (http://phys.org/news/2016-09-biologist-comments-startling-climate.html)

Extract: ""The authors report that the net effect of draining in their study is an increase in the amount of CO2 emitted to the atmosphere, which will ultimately magnify climate change," Zona wrote in her commentary.
Zona published a study about the effects of drainage in permafrost earlier this year in the journal Nature Geoscience. Additionally, she and fellow SDSU ecologist Walt Oechel, along with colleagues at several other institutions, published another study last year showing that the emission of methane, another greenhouse gas, is highest in the Arctic during the region's cold season. That was surprising, as most scientists thought little if any greenhouse gases escaped the frozen soil during the cold season.
Sure enough, Kwon's recent study shows a similar trend for carbon dioxide.
"Importantly, Kwon and colleagues show the increase is highest during the cold season, a notoriously under-studied part of the year in tundra ecosystems," Zona wrote."

See also:

Donatella Zona. Biogeochemistry: Long-term effects of permafrost thaw, Nature (2016). DOI: 10.1038/537625a
Min Jung Kwon et al. Long-term drainage reduces CO2 uptake and increases CO2 emission on a Siberian floodplain due to shifts in vegetation community and soil thermal characteristics, Biogeosciences (2016). DOI: 10.5194/bg-13-4219-2016
&
Anna K. Liljedahl et al. Pan-Arctic ice-wedge degradation in warming permafrost and its influence on tundra hydrology, Nature Geoscience (2016). DOI: 10.1038/ngeo2674

The next linked open access reference indicates that degradation of continuous areas of permafrost (such as in Siberia) currently results in increased local evaporation which in turn promotes local summertime rainfall that promotes snow cover loss, resulting in a current positive feedback for accelerated climate change (global warming).

Trent Ford & Oliver W. Frauenfeld (January 2016), Surface-Atmosphere Moisture Interactions in the Frozen Ground Regions of Eurasia", Scientific Reports, Vol 6, No 19163, doi: 10.1038/srep19163

http://www.nature.com/articles/srep19163 (http://www.nature.com/articles/srep19163)

See also:
http://www.newswise.com/articles/future-of-arctic-may-depend-on-permafrost (http://www.newswise.com/articles/future-of-arctic-may-depend-on-permafrost)

Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on October 03, 2016, 04:51:49 AM
Geoff, The comments on the Tamino link you posted we're interesting. There is a series of buoys that span the equatorial Pacific called the TAO buoys. ( linked below )  The latest El Niño is the first big El Niño documented by that series of buoys and there are some rather impressive results. The buoys at 110W  and 125W show a slight decrease in surface water pCO2 but the buoys farther east show a marked decrease for the duration of the El Niño . So counter to atmospheric increases documented at Mauna Loa the largest area of ocean to atmosphere ventilation decreased across the Pacific Equatorial Pacific.
 The reason is warm western Pacific water overrides the usual upwelling regions in the Eastern pacific as it is pushed westward and suppresses the upwelling of naturally high pCO2 1000 year old waters.
Now that the El Niño has abated ocean to atmosphere ventilation has resumed with increased vengeance.
 Although the Antarctic Circumpolar current is another region of ocean to atmospheric ventilation we don't have buoys there to watch. I would venture a guess that increased winds and a stronger ACC results in increased ventilation in the Southern Hemisphere but I have no idea how it is affected by the ENSO cycle.
 
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Open+Ocean+Moorings (http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Open+Ocean+Moorings)


Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 03, 2016, 05:18:14 AM
CO2 concentrations may be subject to lags or effects such as El Nino.

El Nino events on average induce drought conditions in most tropical rainforests (see attached image), as the reference looked at about 50-years of data and found "a two-fold increase of carbon cycle sensitivity to tropical temperature variations" primarily due to droughts.


Xuhui Wang, Shilong Piao, Philippe Ciais, Pierre Friedlingstein, Ranga B. Myneni, Peter Cox, Martin Heimann, John Miller, Shushi Peng, Tao Wang, Hui Yang & Anping Chen, (2014), "A two-fold increase of carbon cycle sensitivity to tropical temperature variations", Nature, 506, 212–215, doi:10.1038/nature12915


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7487/full/nature12915.html#extended-data (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v506/n7487/full/nature12915.html#extended-data)


Abstract: "Earth system models project that the tropical land carbon sink will decrease in size in response to an increase in warming and drought during this century, probably causing a positive climate feedback. But available data are too limited at present to test the predicted changes in the tropical carbon balance in response to climate change. Long-term atmospheric carbon dioxide data provide a global record that integrates the interannual variability of the global carbon balance. Multiple lines of evidence demonstrate that most of this variability originates in the terrestrial biosphere. In particular, the year-to-year variations in the atmospheric carbon dioxide growth rate (CGR) are thought to be the result of fluctuations in the carbon fluxes of tropical land areas. Recently, the response of CGR to tropical climate interannual variability was used to put a constraint on the sensitivity of tropical land carbon to climate change. Here we use the long-term CGR record from Mauna Loa and the South Pole to show that the sensitivity of CGR to tropical temperature interannual variability has increased by a factor of 1.9 ± 0.3 in the past five decades. We find that this sensitivity was greater when tropical land regions experienced drier conditions. This suggests that the sensitivity of CGR to interannual temperature variations is regulated by moisture conditions, even though the direct correlation between CGR and tropical precipitation is weak. We also find that present terrestrial carbon cycle models do not capture the observed enhancement in CGR sensitivity in the past five decades. More realistic model predictions of future carbon cycle and climate feedbacks require a better understanding of the processes driving the response of tropical ecosystems to drought and warming."


The caption for the attached image is (where CGR is "Carbon dioxide Growth Rate):

"CGR anomalies are from Mauna Loa Observatory and local MAT anomalies were derived from the CRU data set for the period 1960–2011. The correlation coefficients 0.23 and 0.28 are the critical thresholds at significance levels of 0.10 and 0.05 (n = 52), respectively."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on October 03, 2016, 05:29:20 AM
I attach below a long term time series called WHOTS collected from a buoy north of Maui. It shows a marked increase in ocean to atmospheric ventilation for the duration of the El Niño counter to Pacific Equatorial readings. The thing that gives me the willies is the relentless trend line. If the oceans turn to net carbon sources rather than sinks we are truly up the proverbial creek. Atlantic long term readings are similar. See Grey's Reef.



http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/WHOTS (http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/WHOTS)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 03, 2016, 03:48:10 PM
We not should lose track of the current relentless increase in atmospheric methane concentrations & the linked reference indicates net positive methane emissions associated with a thawing boreal forest wetland landscape in North America:

M Helbig, L Chasmer, N Kljun, W L Quinton, C C Treat & O Sonnentag (30 September 2016), "The positive net radiative greenhouse gas forcing of increasing methane emissions from a thawing boreal forest-wetland landscape", Global Change Biology, DOI: 10.1111/gcb.13520

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13520/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13520/abstract)

Abstract: "At the southern margin of permafrost in North America, climate change causes widespread permafrost thaw. Here, thawing permafrost in forested peat plateaus (“forest”) leads to expansion of permafrost-free wetlands (“wetland”) in boreal lowlands. Expanding wetland area with saturated and warmer organic soils is expected to increase landscape methane (CH4) emissions. Here, we quantify the thaw-induced increase in CH4 emissions for a boreal forest-wetland landscape in the southern Taiga Plains, Canada, and evaluate its impact on net radiative forcing relative to potential long-term net carbon dioxide (CO2) exchange. Using nested wetland and landscape eddy covariance net CH4 flux measurements in combination with flux footprint modeling, we find that landscape CH4 emissions increase with increasing wetland-to-forest ratio. Landscape CH4 emissions are most sensitive to this ratio during peak emission periods, when wetland soils are up to 10 °C warmer than forest soils. The cumulative growing season (May - October) wetland CH4 emissions of ~13 g CH4 m−2 is the dominating contribution to the landscape CH4 emissions of ~7 g CH4 m−2. In contrast, forest contributions to landscape CH4 emissions appear to be negligible. The rapid wetland expansion of 0.26±0.05 % yr−1 in this region causes an estimated growing season increase of 0.034±0.007 g CH4 m−2 yr−1 in landscape CH4 emissions. A long-term net CO2 uptake of > 200 g CO2 m−2 yr−1 is required to offset the positive radiative forcing of increasing CH4 emissions until the end of the 21st century as indicated by an atmospheric CH4 and CO2 concentration model. However, long-term apparent carbon accumulation rates in similar boreal forest-wetland landscapes and landscape eddy covariance net CO2 flux measurements suggest a long-term net CO2 uptake between 49 and 157 g CO2 m−2 yr−1. Thus, thaw-induced CH4 emission increases likely exert a positive net radiative greenhouse gas forcing through the 21st century."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 04, 2016, 06:21:07 PM
We should also not lose track of the fact that while AR5's RCP scenarios exclude emissions from fires, these fire carbon emissions are currently relentless increasing as indicated by both the first linked reference on trends in fire carbon emissions from Equatorial Asia and its non-linear sensitivity to El Nino (see also the linked Washington Post article) and by the last linked article by Scribbler on Siberian wildfires, and the exhaustion of man's discretionary resources to effectly fight such events:

Yi Yin, Philippe Ciais, Frederic Chevallier, Guido R. van der Werf, Thierry Fanin, Gregoire Broquet, Hartmut Boesch, Anne Cozic, Didier Hauglustaine, Sophie Szopa & Yilong Wang (23 September 2016), "Variability of fire carbon emissions in Equatorial Asia and its non-linear sensitivity to El Niño", Geophysical Research Letters; DOI: 10.1002/2016GL070971

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL070971/full (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL070971/full)

Abstract: "The large peatland carbon stocks in the land use change-affected areas of Equatorial Asia are vulnerable to fire. Combining satellite observations of active fire, burned area, and atmospheric concentrations of combustion tracers with a Bayesian inversion, we estimated the amount and variability of fire carbon emissions in Equatorial Asia over the period 1997-2015. Emissions in 2015 were of 0.51 ± 0.17 Pg carbon – less than half of the emissions from the previous 1997 extreme El Niño, explained by a less acute water deficit. Fire severity could be empirically hindcasted from the cumulative water deficit with a lead time of 1 to 2 months. Based on future climate projections and an exponential empirical relationship found between fire carbon emissions and water deficit, we infer a total fire carbon loss ranging from 12 to 25 Pg by 2100 in the coming decades, a significant positive feedback to future climate warming."

Also see:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/10/03/there-are-our-carbon-emissions-and-then-there-are-the-ones-the-earth-will-punish-us-with/?utm_term=.cd9f34ec5e21 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/10/03/there-are-our-carbon-emissions-and-then-there-are-the-ones-the-earth-will-punish-us-with/?utm_term=.cd9f34ec5e21)

Extract: "In the new study in Geophysical Research Letters, a team of researchers led by Yi Yin of the French Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement look at the potential of peat bogs in equatorial Asia — a region that includes Malaysia, Papua New Guinea and several other smaller countries but is dominated by Indonesia and its largest islands, Borneo and Sumatra — to worsen our climate problems. It’s timely, considering that last year amid El Niño-induced drought conditions Indonesian blazes emitted over 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalents into the atmosphere. That’s more than the annual emissions of Japan (or, needless to say, of Indonesia’s fossil fuel burning).

The study finds a tight relationship between El Niño events and large peat fire emissions over the past 19 years. And it projects that under a high global emissions scenario, a warming climate will trigger more intense El Niños that, in turn, will correspond to more intense blazes (barring, that is, some major policy or political change that stops humans from starting fires to begin with). And under more moderate warming, there could still be major peat fire emissions during the century, the research finds.
“Most climate models predict a little bit stronger, not more El Niños, but more intense El Niños,” says Guido van der Werf, one of the study’s co-authors and a fire emissions researcher at VU University in Amsterdam.
And so much carbon could be lost in this way that it could affect the global atmosphere in what the paper calls a “significant positive feedback to global warming.”
More specifically, the study forecasts that as many as 25 petagrams, or billion tons, of carbon could be released in a high warming scenario — and 13 billion tons in a more modest warming scenario, which would require significantly changing the globe’s emissions trajectory and shifting it downward, while still likely missing the goal of limiting warming to just 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
If these numbers are converted to carbon dioxide, which has a larger molecular weight, that would correspond to between more than 47 billion tons in the more moderate warming scenario and about 91 billion tons of carbon dioxide for the high emissions scenario. (In fires, most of the greenhouse gas emissions would be in the form of carbon dioxide, though there would also be some methane and nitrous oxide emitted.)
The carbon math is clear: The world simply can’t have such an additional source of emissions. For instance, the so-called “carbon budget” for holding warming below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels was about 1,000 billion tons of carbon dioxide, as of 2011. And that’s for human burning of fossil fuels — not for releases from peat fires. If these fire emissions happen, then the already extremely narrow carbon budget becomes even narrower.

The research suggests that, along with worrying about all the carbon stored in Arctic permafrost, which could greatly add to emissions in this century, we definitely have to worry about the carbon in peat, too.
“There’s definitely more carbon stored in boreal regions, but it’s not as vulnerable as this stuff,” van der Werf says. “If you get another few El Niño, you get a big pulse. Permafrost is a much more gradual process.”"

See also the following Scribbler article entitled: "“We are Suffocating from Smoke” — For Russia, Climate Change is Already Producing Fires that are Too Big to Fight".

https://robertscribbler.com/2016/09/28/for-one-month-we-are-suffocating-from-smoke-for-russia-climate-change-is-already-producing-fires-that-are-too-big-to-fight/ (https://robertscribbler.com/2016/09/28/for-one-month-we-are-suffocating-from-smoke-for-russia-climate-change-is-already-producing-fires-that-are-too-big-to-fight/)

Extract: "Exhaustion of emergency response resources is one of the big threats posed by climate change. In instances where entire regions see extreme weather conditions that are far outside the norm for an extended period of time, such as as severe droughts, floods, and fires, instances of exhaustion are more likely to occur. Exhaustion also occurs when events appear that are too large or intense to manage. It appears that firefighting efforts in Russia are starting to show some signs of exhaustion. Not good, especially considering the fact that these conditions are tame compared to what will happen in future years without some very serious climate change mitigation and response efforts now."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 04, 2016, 10:07:36 PM
The linked reference studies terrestrial permafrost cores from Siberia regarding the nature of the associated organic matter (OM) and concludes: "Considering the expected increase of permafrost thaw due to climate warming, this implies a potentially strong impact on greenhouse gas generation from permafrost areas in future with positive feedback on climate variation." 

Apparently, the OM is well suit for supporting microorganism that can generate methane that has 35 times the GWP of carbon dioxide:

J. G. Stapel, L. Schirrmeister, P. P. Overduin, S. Wetterich, J. Strauss, B. Horsfield &K. Mangelsdorf (30 September 2016), "Microbial lipid signatures and substrate potential of organic matter in permafrost deposits - implications for future greenhouse gas production", Biogeosciences, DOI: 10.1002/2016JG003483


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016JG003483/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016JG003483/abstract)

Abstract: "A terrestrial permafrost core from Buor Khaya in northern Siberia comprising deposits of Late Pleistocene to Early Holocene age has been investigated to characterize living and past microbial communities with respect to modern and paleoclimate environmental conditions, and to evaluate the potential of the organic matter (OM) for greenhouse gas generation. Microbial life markers - intact phospholipids and phospholipid fatty acids - are found throughout the entire core and indicate the presence of living microorganisms also in older permafrost deposits. Biomarkers for past microbial communities (branched and isoprenoid GDGT as well as archaeol) reveal links between increased past microbial activity and intervals of high OM accumulation accompanied by increased OM quality presumably caused by local periods of moister and warmer environmental conditions. Concentrations of acetate as an excellent substrate for methanogenesis are used to assess the OM quality with respect to microbial degradability for greenhouse gas production. For this purpose two acetate pools are determined: the pore-water acetate and OM bound acetate. Both depth profiles reveal similarities to the OM content and quality indicating a link between the amount of the stored OM and the potential to provide substrates for microbial greenhouse gas production. The data suggest that OM stored in the permafrost deposits is not much different in terms of OM quality than the fresh surface organic material. Considering the expected increase of permafrost thaw due to climate warming, this implies a potentially strong impact on greenhouse gas generation from permafrost areas in future with positive feedback on climate variation."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 06, 2016, 05:33:15 AM
Phosphorus feedbacks will likely constrain the response of tropical ecosystems to future increases in atmospheric CO2 levels; thus limiting the ability of this sink to absorb future CO2 emissions:

Xiaojuan Yang, et. al.,(2016), "Phosphorus Feedbacks Constraining Tropical Ecosystem Responses to Changes in Atmospheric CO2 and Climate.", Geophysical Research Letters, [doi: 10.1002/2016GL069241].


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL069241/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016GL069241/abstract)



Abstract: “The effects of phosphorus (P) availability on carbon (C) cycling in the Amazon region are investigated using CLM-CNP. We demonstrate that the coupling of P dynamics reduces the simulated historical terrestrial C sink due to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations ([CO2]) by about 26%. Our exploratory simulations show that the response of tropical forest C cycling to increasing [CO2] depends on how elevated CO2 affects phosphatase enzyme production. The effects of warming are more complex, depending on the interactions between humidity, C, and nutrient dynamics. While a simulation with low humidity generally shows the reduction of net primary productivity (NPP), a second simulation with higher humidity suggests overall increases in NPP due to the dominant effects of reduced water stress and more nutrient availability. Our simulations point to the need for (1) new observations on how elevated [CO2] affects phosphatase enzyme production and (2) more tropical leaf-scale measurements under different temperature/humidity conditions with different soil P availability. “
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 13, 2016, 05:05:34 PM
The two linked reference study pan-Arctic methane emissions and global lake methane emissions, respectively.  Taken together with discussion of the total global methane emissions, these reference help to clarify the complicated story of the multiple sources of the currently accelerating global methane emissions:

Tan, Z., Zhuang, Q., Henze, D. K., Frankenberg, C., Dlugokencky, E., Sweeney, C., Turner, A. J., Sasakawa, M., and Machida, T.: Inverse modeling of pan-Arctic methane emissions at high spatial resolution: what can we learn from assimilating satellite retrievals and using different process-based wetland and lake biogeochemical models?, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 12649-12666, doi:10.5194/acp-16-12649-2016, 2016.

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/12649/2016/ (http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/12649/2016/)

Abstract. Understanding methane emissions from the Arctic, a fast-warming carbon reservoir, is important for projecting future changes in the global methane cycle. Here we optimized methane emissions from north of 60° N (pan-Arctic) regions using a nested-grid high-resolution inverse model that assimilates both high-precision surface measurements and column-average SCanning Imaging Absorption spectroMeter for Atmospheric CHartogrphY (SCIAMACHY) satellite retrievals of methane mole fraction. For the first time, methane emissions from lakes were integrated into an atmospheric transport and inversion estimate, together with prior wetland emissions estimated with six biogeochemical models. In our estimates, in 2005, global methane emissions were in the range of 496.4–511.5 Tg yr−1, and pan-Arctic methane emissions were in the range of 11.9–28.5 Tg yr−1. Methane emissions from pan-Arctic wetlands and lakes were 5.5–14.2 and 2.4–14.2 Tg yr−1, respectively. Methane emissions from Siberian wetlands and lakes are the largest and also have the largest uncertainty. Our results indicate that the uncertainty introduced by different wetland models could be much larger than the uncertainty of each inversion. We also show that assimilating satellite retrievals can reduce the uncertainty of the nested-grid inversions. The significance of lake emissions cannot be identified across the pan-Arctic by high-resolution inversions, but it is possible to identify high lake emissions from some specific regions. In contrast to global inversions, high-resolution nested-grid inversions perform better in estimating near-surface methane concentrations.

&

Jorge Encinas Fernández, Frank Peeters & Hilmar Hofmann (12 October 2016), "On the methane paradox: Transport from shallow-water zones rather than in situ methanogenesis is the mayor source of CH4 in the open surface water of lakes", JGR Biogeosciences, DOI: 10.1002/2016JG003586

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016JG003586/abstract (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016JG003586/abstract)

Abstract: "Estimates of global methane (CH4) emissions from lakes and the contributions of different pathways are currently under debate. In situ methanogenesis linked to algae growth was recently suggested to be the major source of CH4 fluxes from aquatic systems. However, based on our very large dataset on CH4 distributions within lakes, we demonstrate here that methane-enriched water from shallow-water zones is the most likely source of the basin-wide mean CH4 concentrations in the surface water of lakes. Consistently, the mean surface CH4 concentrations are significantly correlated with the ratio between the surface area of the shallow-water zone and the entire lake, fA,s/t, but not with the total surface area. The categorization of CH4 fluxes according to fA,s/t may therefore improve global estimates of CH4 emissions from lakes. Furthermore, CH4 concentrations increase substantially with water temperature, indicating that seasonally resolved data are required to accurately estimate annual CH4 emissions."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on October 27, 2016, 07:06:00 PM
ASLR posted an article on the Hansen 3+ meter sea rise by 2100 page that has a link to this open sourced paper relevant to the carbon cycle.


http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2016/10/20/G38636.1.full.pdf (http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2016/10/20/G38636.1.full.pdf)

The paper is a study on core samples taken from an area in the North Atlantic from sea bottom dominated by ADW. In the core samples the sediments reflect changes between the deep water sources of North Atlantic origin or Southern Ocean origin.  When the Southern Ocean water dominates it's high pCO2 levels lead to corrosive conditions that result in dissolution of bottom sediments that increase alkalinity. Once upwelled these waters then can absorb more atmospheric CO2 and promote glaciation.  The last part of the article is a nice summary.
 Do to the long time required for water transport at these depths( and then back to the surface ) I wouldn't expect changes to be relevant at  anything less than multiple century to thousand year timeframes.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 08, 2016, 11:07:39 PM
The linked reference & associated following linked article indicate that from 2002 to 2014 there was a temporary pause in the rate of atmosphere carbon dioxide growth rate (down to around 2ppm per year, see the attached image) associated with an increase in terrestrial carbon uptake.  While that is nice, it appears that the pause is temporary in nature as from October 2015 to October 2016 atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa increased by 3.28ppm.  Furthermore, Hansen has warned that carbon temporarily sequestered in terrestrial organic material is subject to future release with continued global warming

Keenan et. al. (2016) "Recent pause in the growth rate of atmospheric CO₂ due to enhanced terrestrial carbon uptake", Nature Communication, doi:10.1038/ncomms13428.

http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13428 (http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13428)

See also the associated article entitled: "Rise in atmospheric CO2 slowed by green vegetation"

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37909361 (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37909361)

Extract: "The growth in the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has been slowed by the increased ability of plants to soak up the gas.

"We have a huge amount of vegetation on the Earth and that was being fertilised by CO2 and taking in more CO2 as a result."
Another important element in the story is the impact of a hiatus in global temperature increases on the behaviour of plants. Between 1998 and 2012 temperatures went up by less than in previous decades. This has impacted the respiration of vegetation.
"The soils and ecosystem are respiring so as temperatures increase they respire more, releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere," said Dr Keenan.
"In the past decade or so there hasn't been much of an increase in global temperatures, so that meant there wasn't much of an increase in respiration and carbon release so that was fundamentally different in the past decade or so compared to previous periods."
One consequence of a warming world that has been expected to increase was the number of droughts around the world. However, this new study suggests that, on a global scale, there has been little or no change in the prevalence of drought over recent decades.
Overall though the slowdown caused by vegetation hasn't stemmed the total rise of carbon which has now passed the symbolically important level of 400 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere."

Edit:

See also the following linked article entitled: "How scientists predicted CO2 would breach 400ppm in 2016"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/how-scientists-predicted-co2-would-breach-400pm-2016 (https://www.carbonbrief.org/how-scientists-predicted-co2-would-breach-400pm-2016)

Extract: "If the world’s nations are serious about halting global warming, the rise in CO2 concentrations also needs to cease. This means the annual change in CO2 concentration – generally 2ppm per year, and around 3ppm this year – needs to become zero. That is, the sinks need to balance the sources. Based on our current understanding of the carbon cycle, this task will be harder the longer we leave it."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 21, 2016, 06:43:39 PM
The linked reference identifies a source of marine methane emissions that was not previously recognized.  I am concerned that as the ocean's surface water temperature increases these methane emissions from bacterial activity will increase:

Daniel J. Repeta, Sara Ferrón, Oscar A. Sosa, Carl G. Johnson, Lucas D. Repeta, Marianne Acker, Edward F. DeLong & David M. Karl (2016), "Marine methane paradox explained by bacterial degradation of dissolved organic matter", Nature Geoscience, doi:10.1038/ngeo2837


http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2837.html (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2837.html)


Abstract: "Biogenic methane is widely thought to be a product of archaeal methanogenesis, an anaerobic process that is inhibited or outcompeted by the presence of oxygen and sulfate. Yet a large fraction of marine methane delivered to the atmosphere is produced in high-sulfate, fully oxygenated surface waters that have methane concentrations above atmospheric equilibrium values, an unexplained phenomenon referred to as the marine methane paradox. Here we use nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy to show that polysaccharide esters of three phosphonic acids are important constituents of dissolved organic matter in seawater from the North Pacific. In seawater and pure culture incubations, bacterial degradation of these dissolved organic matter phosphonates in the presence of oxygen releases methane, ethylene and propylene gas. Moreover, we found that in mutants of a methane-producing marine bacterium, Pseudomonas stutzeri, disrupted in the C–P lyase phosphonate degradation pathway, methanogenesis was also disabled, indicating that the C–P lyase pathway can catalyse methane production from marine dissolved organic matter. Finally, the carbon stable isotope ratio of methane emitted during our incubations agrees well with anomalous isotopic characteristics of seawater methane. We estimate that daily cycling of only about 0.25% of the organic matter phosphonate inventory would support the entire atmospheric methane flux at our study site. We conclude that aerobic bacterial degradation of phosphonate esters in dissolved organic matter may explain the marine methane paradox."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 21, 2016, 07:03:43 PM
The linked reference indicates that ocean acidification could drive a cascading loss of biodiversity in some marine habitats.


Jennifer M. Sunday, Katharina E. Fabricius, Kristy J. Kroeker, Kathryn M. Anderson, Norah E. Brown, James P. Barry, Sean D. Connell, Sam Dupont, Brian Gaylord, Jason M. Hall-Spencer, Terrie Klinger, Marco Milazzo, Philip L. Munday, Bayden D. Russell, Eric Sanford, Vengatesen Thiyagarajan, Megan L. H. Vaughan, Stephen Widdicombe & Christopher D. G. Harley (2016), "Ocean acidification can mediate biodiversity shifts by changing biogenic habitat", Nature Climate Change, doi:10.1038/nclimate3161


http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3161.html (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3161.html)

Abstract: "The effects of ocean acidification (OA) on the structure and complexity of coastal marine biogenic habitat have been broadly overlooked. Here we explore how declining pH and carbonate saturation may affect the structural complexity of four major biogenic habitats. Our analyses predict that indirect effects driven by OA on habitat-forming organisms could lead to lower species diversity in coral reefs, mussel beds and some macroalgal habitats, but increases in seagrass and other macroalgal habitats. Available in situ data support the prediction of decreased biodiversity in coral reefs, but not the prediction of seagrass bed gains. Thus, OA-driven habitat loss may exacerbate the direct negative effects of OA on coastal biodiversity; however, we lack evidence of the predicted biodiversity increase in systems where habitat-forming species could benefit from acidification. Overall, a combination of direct effects and community-mediated indirect effects will drive changes in the extent and structural complexity of biogenic habitat, which will have important ecosystem effects."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on November 24, 2016, 08:59:15 PM
"The analysis shows that concentrations of human-caused CO2 are greatest in shallow waters where the atmosphere gives up large amounts of its CO2 to the sea. The researchers also estimated that CO2 concentrations from fossil fuel emissions make up as much as 60 percent of the CO2 that enriches most West Coast nearshore surface waters. But the concentrations dropped as they measured deeper. It drops to 21 percent in deeper waters of 328 feet or 100 meters, and falls even lower to about 18 percent in waters below 656 feet or 200 meters. Concentrations vary depending on location and seasons as well.
 
Once researchers created a detailed map of the human-generated CO2 concentrations, they  looked at how pteropod shells fared in areas with varying seawater CO2 concentrations. They found more than 50 percent of pteropod shells collected from coastal waters with the high CO2 concentrations were severely dissolved. An estimated 10 to 35 percent of pteropods taken from offshore waters showed shell damage when examined under a scanning electron microscope."


http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/noaa-research-links-human-caused-co2-emissions-to-dissolving-sea-snail-shells-off-us (http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/noaa-research-links-human-caused-co2-emissions-to-dissolving-sea-snail-shells-off-us)


So anthropogenic CO2 in nearshore waters where it is the most concentrated results in severe shell dissolution in 50% of the pteropods sampled.  These rates of dissolution will both expand in range and severity over the next several decades even if we do somehow manage to reduce emissions...
The shape of things to come.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 27, 2016, 11:55:13 PM
The linked article is entitled: "The Big Blue Elephant in the Room"; and it points out that most current climate policy discussion inappropriately downplay the importance of the health of the ocean to sustaining the type of life on Earth that people are adapted to:

https://medium.com/@yearsoflivingdangerously/the-big-blue-elephant-in-the-room-29d1a0c5f423#.n9zqv3ip7

Extract: "… we know: the living ocean governs planetary chemistry; regulates temperature; generates most of the oxygen in the sea and atmosphere; powers the water, carbon, and nitrogen cycles; and holds 97 percent of Earth’s water and 97 percent of the biosphere. Quite simply, no ocean, no life. No blue, no green. If not for the ocean, there would be no climate to discuss or anyone around to debate the issues."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on November 28, 2016, 06:38:41 AM
Once again I would like to point out that the claims about 90% of the worlds bony fishes having disappeared is erroneous . Sylvia Earle should know better but I guess religion is more persuasive than fact checking her sources. The Worm et al 2003 paper that made the original claim was followed by Worm and Hilborn 2009 that revises the claims made earlier.
 At any rate closing fishing without addressing terrestrial emissions is scapegoating and if you look at the Calif. fishing reserves as an example existing oil drilling and extraction is exempted from regulation in the reserve designation process. There are zero fish stocks on the entire North Pacific coastline Mexico to Alaska that have been reduced to < 10% of virgin biomass by fishing. A couple abalone stocks might be so reduced but that  is  due to disease and abalone is closed to take.
 I have been far more involved in the reserve process here in Calif. than Sylvia Earl , we have about 25-30 % of all fishing grounds in state waters closed.  How those closures impact the carbon cycle is pure speculation but we closed the fishing grounds more with goal of risk aversion than somehow averting some impending disaster. The Carbon Cycle played no part in the discussions although I did try to raise the issue.
 Anyway I get tired of taking a beating by hit pieces like the one Abrupt posted and I will continue to try to support reasonable fish management that results in sustainable fisheries where and when i can make a difference. If the religiously inclined environmentalists would give credit to reasonable management where it occurs it would go a long way to encouraging similar efforts at risk averse fishery management in other parts of the world .
 Here is a review of the Worm /Hilborn  debate and resulting co-authored paper


https://theteteatete.org/2014/12/03/case-study-the-hilborn-worm-debate-on-the-status-of-global-fisheries/




Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Csnavywx on November 28, 2016, 06:38:12 PM
The linked reference & associated following linked article indicate that from 2002 to 2014 there was a temporary pause in the rate of atmosphere carbon dioxide growth rate (down to around 2ppm per year, see the attached image) associated with an increase in terrestrial carbon uptake.  While that is nice, it appears that the pause is temporary in nature as from October 2015 to October 2016 atmospheric carbon dioxide at Mauna Loa increased by 3.28ppm.  Furthermore, Hansen has warned that carbon temporarily sequestered in terrestrial organic material is subject to future release with continued global warming

Keenan et. al. (2016) "Recent pause in the growth rate of atmospheric CO₂ due to enhanced terrestrial carbon uptake", Nature Communication, doi:10.1038/ncomms13428.

http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13428 (http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13428)

See also the associated article entitled: "Rise in atmospheric CO2 slowed by green vegetation"

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37909361 (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37909361)

Extract: "The growth in the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere has been slowed by the increased ability of plants to soak up the gas.

"We have a huge amount of vegetation on the Earth and that was being fertilised by CO2 and taking in more CO2 as a result."
Another important element in the story is the impact of a hiatus in global temperature increases on the behaviour of plants. Between 1998 and 2012 temperatures went up by less than in previous decades. This has impacted the respiration of vegetation.
"The soils and ecosystem are respiring so as temperatures increase they respire more, releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere," said Dr Keenan.
"In the past decade or so there hasn't been much of an increase in global temperatures, so that meant there wasn't much of an increase in respiration and carbon release so that was fundamentally different in the past decade or so compared to previous periods."
One consequence of a warming world that has been expected to increase was the number of droughts around the world. However, this new study suggests that, on a global scale, there has been little or no change in the prevalence of drought over recent decades.
Overall though the slowdown caused by vegetation hasn't stemmed the total rise of carbon which has now passed the symbolically important level of 400 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere."

Edit:

See also the following linked article entitled: "How scientists predicted CO2 would breach 400ppm in 2016"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/how-scientists-predicted-co2-would-breach-400pm-2016 (https://www.carbonbrief.org/how-scientists-predicted-co2-would-breach-400pm-2016)

Extract: "If the world’s nations are serious about halting global warming, the rise in CO2 concentrations also needs to cease. This means the annual change in CO2 concentration – generally 2ppm per year, and around 3ppm this year – needs to become zero. That is, the sinks need to balance the sources. Based on our current understanding of the carbon cycle, this task will be harder the longer we leave it."

Tamino strongly refuted this in a great post (he's a stats guy):

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/11/11/another-pause-claim/ (https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/11/11/another-pause-claim/)

Doesn't look like a pause to me either. Looking pretty silly after the last two years of data showing 3 and (likely) 3.5 ppm of rise. Some of that is due to ENSO, but given how large those numbers are, it certainly doesn't fall in with a pause theory.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 28, 2016, 07:16:52 PM

Tamino strongly refuted this in a great post (he's a stats guy):

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/11/11/another-pause-claim/ (https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/11/11/another-pause-claim/)

Doesn't look like a pause to me either. Looking pretty silly after the last two years of data showing 3 and (likely) 3.5 ppm of rise. Some of that is due to ENSO, but given how large those numbers are, it certainly doesn't fall in with a pause theory.

As Gavin Schmidt likes to point-out, attribution without a fully calibrated advanced Earth System Model is impossible.  So no matter how sincere Tamino's statists may be, they cannot rule-out the probability that terrestrial plants may be temporarily soaking-up more carbon dioxide than they were a few decades ago.  If so things could become much worse for us all once our currently unprecedented rate of climate change starts to overstress both the terrestrial and oceanic plants.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Csnavywx on November 29, 2016, 03:53:09 AM

Tamino strongly refuted this in a great post (he's a stats guy):

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/11/11/another-pause-claim/ (https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/11/11/another-pause-claim/)

Doesn't look like a pause to me either. Looking pretty silly after the last two years of data showing 3 and (likely) 3.5 ppm of rise. Some of that is due to ENSO, but given how large those numbers are, it certainly doesn't fall in with a pause theory.

As Gavin Schmidt likes to point-out, attribution without a fully calibrated advanced Earth System Model is impossible.  So no matter how sincere Tamino's statists may be, they cannot rule-out the probability that terrestrial plants may be temporarily soaking-up more carbon dioxide than they were a few decades ago.  If so things could become much worse for us all once our currently unprecedented rate of climate change starts to overstress both the terrestrial and oceanic plants.

It's possible, but there's no direct evidence for it. I think that was the point of Tamino's article. It was perplexing to see a 12-year trend being used in a peer-reviewed paper, especially since we regularly lambast deniers for using such short intervals for spurious claims about global temperature trends. There's not even any evidence for a slowdown in the rate of acceleration.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Csnavywx on November 29, 2016, 06:09:49 AM
The linked article discusses how the impacts of ocean acidification may be more widespread and may last longer (multiple centuries) than most people think:

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-phytoplankton-acidic-oceans-20160708-snap-story.html (http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-phytoplankton-acidic-oceans-20160708-snap-story.html)

Speaking of acidification -- the latest episode of Years of Living Dangerously (s2) is called "Collapse of the Oceans" and is a particularly bone crushing episode that deals with this issue. Ove's experimental test plots with future temps and pH were alarmingly bad.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on November 29, 2016, 12:43:07 PM
Csnavywx, Acidification is the issue that brought me into the climate change discussion ~ ten years ago when the OA field was very young. I consider myself a very well informed amateur. If you go back to the beginning of the carbon cycle page ( three years ago ) I tried to link some relevant articles.
  I wish the effects of acidification were only going to last " hundreds of years "  like the LA Times article suggests but they are off by thousands or tens of thousands of years. Everything depends on when we actually stop emitting CO2 and to what degree feedbacks of carbon stored in sinks are released  due to the carbon excursion we are precipitating.
 So the physics of acidification are fairly straight forward and the duration of an acidification event can be reasonable well constrained ( although the carbon feedbacks are still a bit of a mystery ). Anyhow just the effects of releasing the proven carbon reserves  will result in thousands of years of acidification,not hundreds. ( see  Caldeira and Wicket 2003 ) below.


http://faculty.wwu.edu/~shulld/ESCI%20432/Caldeira_and_Wickett_2003.pdf (http://faculty.wwu.edu/~shulld/ESCI%20432/Caldeira_and_Wickett_2003.pdf)

We have already released ~ 600 Gt carbon and are releasing > 10 Gt carbon per year . We will most certainly hit 1000 Gt and acidification will proceed whether we take 50 or 500 years to do so. Caldeira's 5000 Gt release results in a -.7 pH change in the world surface waters in a couple hundred years. So pH 8.3 preindustrial becomes pH 7.6 and results in under saturation of all the worlds surface waters.
If there is a large release of carbon from carbon sinks ( and there will be ) that results from the heating and stress to terrestrial carbon sinks the resultant ocean pH will be even lower.   This is a classic trigger for a very large extinction event in the worlds oceans. If this should occur it would take millions of years for the oceans diversity to reestablish.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 29, 2016, 05:41:18 PM
It's possible, but there's no direct evidence for it. I think that was the point of Tamino's article. It was perplexing to see a 12-year trend being used in a peer-reviewed paper, especially since we regularly lambast deniers for using such short intervals for spurious claims about global temperature trends. There's not even any evidence for a slowdown in the rate of acceleration.

My post was about a "pause" in the rate of increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere from 2002 to 2014 (due to a presumed increase in CO2 uptake by terrestrial plants); while Tamino's post was about a faux "pause" in the increase in GMSTA.  While the two can be related in a ESM projection, the two issues are different and offset in time by lag.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 08, 2016, 02:01:10 AM
The linked article is entitled: "500-year-old clam reveals 'hugely worrying' evidence of climate change and its effects".  This indicates that changes in the ocean may soon accelerate to follow the rapidly changing atmosphere (as the clams indicate happened in the past).


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-clam-effects-500-years-old-quahog-global-warming-oceans-atmosphere-cardiff-a7460376.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-clam-effects-500-years-old-quahog-global-warming-oceans-atmosphere-cardiff-a7460376.html)

Extract: "… since humans started emitting large amounts of greenhouse gases through industrialisation, a switch has taken place and changes in the ocean are now led by the atmosphere, according to the international team of biologists."

See also the linked article is entitled: "What 500-year-old clams can tell us about climate change".

https://theconversation.com/what-500-year-old-clams-can-tell-us-about-climate-change-69926 (https://theconversation.com/what-500-year-old-clams-can-tell-us-about-climate-change-69926)

Extract: "Perhaps one of the most profound aspects of our research is the finding that human-driven climate change, resulting in an overall warming of surface air temperatures, has led to a reversal in the long-term natural coupling of the marine and atmospheric climate systems.
Evidence from the shells shows that over the modern industrial period (AD 1800-2000) changes in marine climate lagged behind the atmosphere. Surface air temperatures responded much faster to human-induced climate changes than the North Atlantic did."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on December 08, 2016, 06:00:33 AM
"This study assesses the impact of ocean acidification (OA) on phytoplankton and its synthesis of the climate-active gas dimethylsulfide (DMS), as well as its modulation by two contrasting light regimes in the Arctic. The light regimes tested had significant impact on neither the phytoplankton nor DMS concentration whereas both variables decreased linearly with the decrease in pH. Thus, ocean acidification could significantly decrease the algal biomass and inhibit DMS production in the Arctic."
http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/bg-2016-501/ (http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/bg-2016-501/)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: logicmanPatrick on December 22, 2016, 10:06:53 AM
Pardon the plug.  ;-)

A bit of carbon cycle science history for anyone who is interested.

Carbon Cycles by Arvid G. Högbom
http://www.science20.com/the_chatter_box/blog/carbon_cycles_by_arvid_g_hoegbom-196827 (http://www.science20.com/the_chatter_box/blog/carbon_cycles_by_arvid_g_hoegbom-196827)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 27, 2016, 12:51:30 AM
The linked article is entitled: "How NASA’s space laser might help save the world".  This research clarifies the substantial risk that polar phytoplankton might absorb less CO₂ with continued global warming:

http://www.ntnews.com.au/technology/how-nasas-space-laser-might-help-save-the-world/news-story/54da1605bf4835687bdb0cd694b38a1d (http://www.ntnews.com.au/technology/how-nasas-space-laser-might-help-save-the-world/news-story/54da1605bf4835687bdb0cd694b38a1d)

Extract: "Last week, NASA released a study that culminated a decade’s worth of data and imagery giving new insight into the boom-and-bust cycles of polar phytoplankton — a building block to the entire coastal and oceanic food chain.

The results showed that even the slightest environmental changes in the polar food webs significantly influence the microalgae, which also have another significant impact on the environment with their ability, through photosynthesis, to suck out carbon dioxide from the atmosphere."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on January 14, 2017, 08:25:02 PM
 
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v10/n1/full/ngeo2854.html (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v10/n1/full/ngeo2854.html)

This abstract is from the nature.com  link above that doesn't seem to properly load.

Coccolithophores—single-celled calcifying phytoplankton—are an important group of marine primary producers and the dominant builders of calcium carbonate globally. Coccolithophores form extensive blooms and increase the density and sinking speed of organic matter via calcium carbonate ballasting.     Thereby, they play a key role in the marine carbon cycle. Coccolithophore physiological responses to experimental ocean acidification have ranged from moderate stimulation to substantial decline in growth and calcification rates, combined with enhanced malformation of their calcite platelets. Here we report on a mesocosm experiment conducted in a Norwegian fjord in which we exposed a natural plankton community to a wide range of CO2-induced ocean acidification, to test whether these physiological responses affect the ecological success of coccolithophore populations. Under high-CO2 treatments, Emiliania huxleyi, the most abundant and productive coccolithophore species, declined in population size during the pre-bloom period and lost the ability to form blooms. As a result, particle sinking velocities declined by up to 30% and sedimented organic matter was reduced by up to 25% relative to controls. There were also strong reductions in seawater concentrations of the climate-active compound dimethylsulfide in CO2-enriched mesocosms. We conclude that ocean acidification can lower calcifying phytoplankton productivity, potentially creating a positive feedback to the climate system.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on January 15, 2017, 05:41:43 AM
I would like to emphasize the importance of the paper with the failed link above.
Riebesell et al 2016 "Competitive fitness of a predominate pelagic calcified impaired by ocean acidification"

https://news-oceanacidification-icc.org/2016/12/16/a-small-change-with-a-large-impact-mesocosm-experiment-reveals-how-community-interactions-amplify-the-response-of-a-calcifying-phytoplankton-species-to-ocean-acidification/
 
The coccolith in the study is the most important calcifying phytoplankton in the oceans. Although I haven't read the paper in full a 25% reduction in organic carbon ballasted to depth is a very sobering figure. I assume this is based upon projected pCO2 levels for the turn of the century. Pteropods aren't the focus of this study but they are also likely to contribute less towards organic carbon transport due to their susceptibility to lowered pH. So the the # 1 and # 2 oceanic calcifying organisms in the ocean will not be as effective at transporting surface Co2 to depth.
 The sediment carbon sink is about .2 Gt per year and although that doesn't sound like a huge number it is the most effective way to put carbon into a very long term sink. There won't be calcifying phytoplankton or animals to replace the carbon sink contributions of these two organisms, a plant and a mollusk.
 So while the arctic soils contribute an ever increasing amount of carbon to the atmosphere  the oceans will be less capable of absorbing the excess. More Co2 will stay in the atmosphere for longer periods of time.
 

 



 
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on February 23, 2017, 04:44:50 AM


https://news-oceanacidification-icc.org/2017/02/22/development-and-application-of-foraminiferal-carbonate-system-proxies-to-quantify-ocean-acidification-in-the-california-current/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wordpress%2FlRgb+%28Ocean+acidification%29

Development and application of foraminiferal carbonate system proxies to quantify ocean acidification in the California Current

The oceanic uptake of anthropogenic carbon has mitigated climate change, but has also resulted in a global average 0.1 decline in surface ocean pH over 20th century known as ocean acidification. The parallel reduction in carbonate ion concentration ([CO32-]) and the saturation state of seawater (Ω) has caused many major calcium carbonate-secreting organisms such as planktonic foraminifera to exhibit impaired calcification. We develop proxy calibrations and down core records that use calcification and geochemical characteristics of planktonic foraminifera as proxies for the marine carbonate system. This study focuses specifically on the surface ocean chemistry of the California Current Ecosystem (CCE), which has been identified as a region of rapidly progressing ocean acidification due to natural upwelling processes and the low buffering capacity of these waters. The calibration portion of this study uses marine sediments collected by the Santa Barbara Basin (SBB), California sediment-trapping program located in the central region of the CCE. We calibrate the relationships of Globigerina bulloides calcification intensity to [CO3 2-] and the B/Ca ratios of G. bulloides, Neogloboquadrina dutertrei and Neogloboquadrina incompta shells to Ω calcite using in situ measurements and model simulations of these independent variables. By applying these proxy methods to down core, our records from the SBB indicate a 20% reduction in foraminiferal calcification since ~1900, translating to a 35% decline in [CO 32-] in the CCE over this period. Our high-resolution calcification record also reveals a substantial interannual to decadal modulation of ocean acidification in the CCE related to the sign of Pacific Decadal Oscillation and El Niño Southern Oscillation. In the future we can expect these climatic modes to both enhance and moderate anthropogenic ocean acidification. Based on our historic record, we predict that if atmospheric CO2 reaches 540 ppm by the year 2100 as predicted by a conservative CO3 pathway, [CO32-] will experience a net reduction of 55%, resulting in at least a 30% reduction in calcification of planktonic foraminifera that will likely be mirrored by other adversely affected marine calcifiers.

Osborne E. B., 2016. Development and application of foraminiferal carbonate system proxies to quantify ocean acidification in the California Current. PhD thesis, University of South Carolina, 182 p. Thesis (restricted access).
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Archimid on February 25, 2017, 01:35:18 PM
Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818116304787 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818116304787)

Abstract(my emphasis):
Quote
Climate scientists presume that the carbon cycle has come out of balance due to the increasing anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion and land use change. This is made responsible for the rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations over recent years, and it is estimated that the removal of the additional emissions from the atmosphere will take a few hundred thousand years. Since this goes along with an increasing greenhouse effect and a further global warming, a better understanding of the carbon cycle is of great importance for all future climate change predictions. We have critically scrutinized this cycle and present an alternative concept, for which the uptake of CO2 by natural sinks scales proportional with the CO2 concentration. In addition, we consider temperature dependent natural emission and absorption rates, by which the paleoclimatic CO2 variations and the actual CO2 growth rate can well be explained. The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3%, its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years.


I don't have the full article, but it seems to me that another scientist lost his nerve. How can he possibly assume that all carbon sinks will perfectly accommodate the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere? How can all carbon sinks scale linearly with carbon concentration? Magic? Everything I know about the natural world tells me that there are limits to Carbon Sinks and all I know tells me that sinks can certainly become saturated.

Furthermore, meybe it says so in the full article, but how does he account for the historic increase in CO2 from 270 ppm's to the 400ppm's we have now? Magic again? Natural variability? arghh. 
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: logicmanPatrick on February 25, 2017, 04:26:23 PM

Quote
... How can he possibly assume that all carbon sinks will perfectly accommodate the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere? How can all carbon sinks scale linearly with carbon concentration? Magic?  ...
how does he account for the historic increase in CO2 from 270 ppm's to the 400ppm's we have now? Magic again? Natural variability? arghh.

The author, Hermann Harde, oversimplifies his model of the planetary atmosphere such that feedbacks and delays are, not so much minimised as trivialised.

Please see, e.g. -
    
Dinner with global warming contrarians, disaster for dessert (https://skepticalscience.com/denier-dinner-disaster-dessert.html)

Consider a Spherical Truncated Icosahedron (http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2011/03/toy-model.html)

Residence Time of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere (http://www.acamedia.info/sciences/sciliterature/globalw/residence.htm)

Quote
[Hermann Harde's] claim goes like this:

    (A) Predictions for the Global Warming Potential (GWP) by the IPCC express the warming effect CO2 has over several time scales; 20, 100 and 500 years.
    (B) But CO2 has only a 5 year life time in the atmosphere.
    (C) Therefore CO2 cannot cause the long term warming predicted by the IPCC.

This claim is false. (A) is true. (B) is also true. But B is irrelevant and misleading so it does not follow that C is therefore true.

source: Skeptical Science (https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm)

Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on February 25, 2017, 05:49:48 PM
I should read logicman links before I comment but I only gave the Herman harder link a cusory look and the graphic offered makes it look like there are no deep sinks or that they are all on some sort of ? 4 year cycle. That is of course ridiculous.
 There are deep sinks. We can date them with radiocarbon from our testing years. We know there are ~38,000 gigatonnes of carbon in the deep oceans . DIC dissolved inorganic carbon.
 Understanding how carbon is delivered into this sink and how carbon is then returned back into the atmosphere is of critical import . Time of circulation is on thousand year timeframes.
 For some further reading about carbon dating and for some more on radiocarbon dating of water masses and the carbon ages associated.

https://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC51/GC51InfDocuments/English/gc51inf-3-att3_en.pdf (https://www.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC51/GC51InfDocuments/English/gc51inf-3-att3_en.pdf)


Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: wili on February 25, 2017, 06:20:16 PM
Good points, Bruce and Patrick. Those were pretty much my first impressions. I asked about the paper over at RealClimate and this was Gavin Schmidt's response (He's the director of GISS, for those who don't know):

Quote
Oh dear me. Yes, it’s nonsense. But apparently it’s an “Invited” paper? (I’ve never heard of that either). Some questions are going to be raised about the peer review and editorial process here… – gavin]
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on February 26, 2017, 07:17:57 PM
Latest pan oceanic oxygen measurements show a 2% drop since the 1960's. In this study they are modeling a 7% decline by 2100 but in the models I inked in the first post on the " carbon cycle " page they projected an 8.6 % drop in the same timeframe.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/15/its-official-the-oceans-are-losing-oxygen-posing-growing-threats-to-marine-life/?utm_term=.b8fe6c02da97 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/02/15/its-official-the-oceans-are-losing-oxygen-posing-growing-threats-to-marine-life/?utm_term=.b8fe6c02da97)

Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: wili on February 27, 2017, 07:07:47 AM
GS has now opened a thread devoted to debunking the Harde study:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/02/something-harde-to-believe/#more-20160 (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/02/something-harde-to-believe/#more-20160)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Laurent on February 28, 2017, 06:38:05 PM
I have that graph about the residence time of CO2 showing up to 10.000 years remaining CO2 after a pulse. It is not clear to me, is it after a 100 year pulse ? I don't know. I have seen some of that king where you should count on 100.000 years before coming back to normal (but with uncertainties up to million years...).
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on April 22, 2017, 04:36:18 PM
Canary in the kelp forest
Published 21 April 2017   Press releases Leave a Comment
The one-two punch of warming waters and ocean acidification is predisposing some marine animals to dissolving quickly under conditions already occurring off the Northern California coast, according to a study from the University of California, Davis.

In the study, published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, researchers at the UC Davis Bodega Marine Laboratory raised bryozoans, also known as “moss animals,” in seawater tanks and exposed them to various levels of water temperature, food and acidity.

The scientists found that when grown in warmer waters and then exposed to acidity, the bryozoans quickly began to dissolve. Large portions of their skeletons disappeared in as little as two months.

“We thought there would be some thinning or reduced mass,” said lead author Dan Swezey, a recent Ph.D. graduate in professor Eric Sanford’s lab at the UC Davis Bodega Marine Laboratory. “But whole features just dissolved practically before our eyes.”


SKELETONS KEY

Bryozoans are colonial animals, superficially similar to, but not related, to corals. They are abundant in California kelp forests and are calcareous, meaning they build their honeycomb-shaped skeletons from calcium carbonate.

The scientists found that when raised under warming conditions, bryozoans altered their chemical composition by building higher levels of magnesium into their skeletons, particularly if they were also eating less food. When exposed to acidic conditions already observed off coastal California, these changes predisposed the animals to dissolve.

The researchers consider bryozoans a canary in the coal mine for other marine animals that build calcareous skeletons containing magnesium. These include sea stars, sea urchins, calcifying algae and tube-building worms.

The authors do not know why the bryozoans added more magnesium to their skeletons under warmer temperatures. But they conclude that marine organisms with skeletons made of high-magnesium calcite may be especially susceptible to ocean acidification because this form of calcium carbonate dissolves more easily than others.

Bryozoans grow in connected colonies. During the experiments, the animals shut down parts of themselves when undergoing the stress of ocean acidification, redirecting their energy to new growth. This was somewhat like closing down units of a condominium complex while building new ones at the same time. But the moss animals could not outpace the dissolution.

“They were trying to grow but were dissolving at the same time,” Swezey said.

CALCIFIED ANIMALS INCREASINGLY VULNERABLE

The authors said the study underlines the increasing vulnerability of calcified animals to ocean acidification, which occurs as the ocean absorbs more atmospheric carbon emitted through the burning of fossil fuels.

During the spring and summer months, deep ocean water rich in carbon dioxide periodically wells up along the California coast when surface waters are pushed offshore by strong winds. These upwelling events also push nutrients to the surface to help support kelp forests and productive fisheries. However, this deep water tends to be more acidic.

Climate modeling shows that the trends of warming ocean temperatures, stronger winds and increasingly strong upwelling events are expected to continue in the coming years as carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increase. This indicates that acidic conditions will likely become more common, rather than episodic.

MARINE LIFE FACES MANY CHANGES AT ONCE

“Marine life is increasingly faced with many changes at once,” said co-author Sanford, a professor in the UC Davis Department of Evolution and Ecology. “For bryozoans, their response to warmer temperature makes them unexpectedly vulnerable to ocean acidification. The question now is whether other marine species might respond in a similar way.” (…)

Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on April 22, 2017, 04:52:25 PM
Here is an old article on ocean acidification. Dr. Andrew Knoll found corals, brachipods, and bryozoan genera well represented in the paleorecord of the end Permian event. They are not physically well suited to rapid changes in ocean chemistry , acidification. History is rewalking a very scary route!

http://www.climos.com/news/articles/sourtimes.htm[/url

It will come from below
 and we will no more know than the trilobites
 our place in it
Brachiopods and bryozoans
 turned to rock
 like before
Cnidarian nightmares
 sulfur, floating fish
It would take a time machine
 to turn this back
And believe me
 It was us
 
A poem I wrote on the subject, I posted it before but somehow seems appropriate . Terry liked it !
 (http://www.climos.com/news/articles/sourtimes.htm)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: TerryM on April 22, 2017, 07:58:34 PM
Terry still likes it.


Terry
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: wili on April 22, 2017, 11:02:37 PM
As do I! (Though I confess to having to look up 'Cnidarian'!  ::))

Meanwhile,

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/we-just-breached-the-410-parts-per-million-threshold-21372 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/we-just-breached-the-410-parts-per-million-threshold-21372)

“We Just Breached the 410 Parts Per Million Threshold”
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on April 23, 2017, 04:01:55 AM
Thanks Wili and Terry, That line "cnidarian nightmares "rolls off the tongue better with the proper pronunciation of CNIDARIA.  The C is silent.
 https://sesquiotic.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/cnidaria-cnidarian/
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on April 23, 2017, 07:09:51 AM
There is the paleorecord and there is current biology and studies on the effects of elevated pCO2 on modern genera. The recent study on dissolution of bryozoans has sent me back into reading work by Andrew Knoll.
From a paper titled "Bio Mineralization and Evolutionary History"
 Permo-Triassic extinction and it's aftermath pages 341-344
   "Catastrophic carbon dioxide increases provides two distinct kill mechanisms - direct physiological inhibition of metabolism and climate change associated with greenhouse enhancement"

http://www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/289422.pdf (http://www.vliz.be/imisdocs/publications/289422.pdf)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on April 25, 2017, 05:29:56 PM
Is what we are looking at just one point in a cycle or is this more a reflection of where the nearshore reef ecosystem is headed ? I wonder if the fishermen in Kiribati are sitting in their houses staring out over their bleached dead reefs that have supported them for hundreds of generations wondering the same thing . Will the reefs repair themselves or is there something we as fishermen can do to help repair the damage before the next waves of hot , acidified, diseased water come again ?
 Will enough starfish recover from the densovirus to reassume their role in reef ecology?
Will the abalone hold on until the kelp recovers, will the purple urchin problem resolve itself ? Do we as humans try to intervene or just sit back slack jawed as pieces of the ecosystem die out never to be replaced ? How many people care if the bryozoans dissolve , never to be replaced ? How many people would know a Bryozoa if they were looking at one. Can they have empathy for something they just don't know or is extinction at their hands just one more necessary cost of human progress, greed, and demand for comfort ?
 So a fisherman would tell you , I am sure , that we should try to restore the starfish, kill a bunch of purple urchins by creating a market for them, help restore the kelp beds even if that means moving macrocystis into areas where nereocystis was once dominant .The ocean is heating and species just can't move north fast enough to adapt at a rate that human caused climate change has thrown at them. We are living in a world with atmospheric CO2 levels not seen in millions of years. The heat and acidification caused by this ,in geological terms,instantaneous change is wreaking habitats . Yet humans , humans largely disconnected from nature,somehow think we should just stand aside and let nature recover but any romantic notion of wilderness and the ability of nature to rebuild the world we used to know is continually challenged , crushed, by the rate of change taking place. Humans by a huge majority don't know life in the oceans. Humans will never know the life forms they are shoving into extinction.
 So we fishermen struggling against changes taking place are challenged not only by the scale of the challenge but so to challenged by romantic myths about wilderness and nature perpetuated by people living in shinning cities, flying in their jets, and eating food
grown in distant lands. The advice from these humans is as damaging as the consequences of their lifestyles and consumption habits.
 Rage against the machine and against the dying of the light
 Bruce Steele

https://cdfwmarine.wordpress.com/2016/03/30/perfect-storm-decimates-kelp/
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: TerryM on April 27, 2017, 06:03:09 AM
Beautifully put Bruce


I know nothing of the ocean's diversity, but hope that the fishermen understand that our insensitivity is born of ignorance, not malice. Until I discovered Neven's blog in the winter of 2011 I'd never considered that my way of life could be killing us all. That new years eve I'd stepped out for a cigarette and found to my amazement that the weather was balmy tee shirt weather here in Canada. It took a few false starts until I assured myself that climate change was real, and that what I'd experienced that night was no local anomaly, but a world wide change that probably meant the end of everything I'd known.
Since then I've paid attention to my own transgressions, and tried to alert others to what is surely ahead. I haven't done enough, I haven't done even a fraction of what I could and should do. But, thanks to Neven and his motley crew, I understand.


Terry
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on April 27, 2017, 09:02:27 AM
Terry, I have always been an avid science reader. I heard about acidification and read everything I could get my hands on. When I was writing a piece for "National Fisherman" I wanted to quote Andy Knoll. I wanted to get his permission so I got in contact with him. In our brief correspondence I asked him for some advice and he said I should write down the things I saw. I have tried but the story for the very brief Twelve years I have watched is becoming stranger and stranger. I need the support of you and my fellow travelers here on the forum. To be honest even though I copied the little piece  I posted above to several dozen of my fishermen friends I haven't received even one response back from the men I know living their lives in the same ocean I describe. They don't hold me in contempt, some of them are scared like I am , most of them go about their lives and fish and try to adapt to the changes. We don't in our short lives have any context to compare what we are seeing with what life used to be, or how strange our experiance is , or what we should compare it to.
 Tomorrow I will be on a conference call where several fisheries scientists and managers will discuss adaptation strategies to deal with nearshore reef issues tied to problems with climate change. In reality none of us has a lot of confidence in our abilities to manage our way out of this. We hope everything resolves itself , we are nowhere up to the challenges before us. Some problems will resolve themselves I am sure but some pieces of a world we don't understand are slipping away. I will get back into the water , write about the changes taking place and do my damn best to make some kind of difference.
 So if I might repeat myself you are part of my support and I appreciate your concern for our shared predicament.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on April 27, 2017, 04:58:05 PM
When I started diving in California there were seven species of abalone, six of which have almost totally disappeared. The one relatively healthy stock of red abalone is under starvation stress in the areas where it's population was ,until a couple years ago ,the healthiest. Starfish have suffered a major die-off from disease from Mexico into Alaska. Pycnopodia( sunstars ) , a large , fast moving reef predator has been reduced to levels that probably qualify it for listing on the ESA. Their are many other species of starfish also in trouble. There are three species of sea urchins I have seen on a regular basis for my forty year career. Disease is a reaccuring issue for one species, purples, and a couple years ago red urchins started dying. We have sent samples in to pathology labs with no results yet. These are just some of the larger nearshore reef fauna that because of their size we humans make ourselves familiar with. There are probably smaller creatures in trouble we just don't notice. Bryozoans are an example of creatures formerly ubiquitous that can dissolve its skeleton in a couple months exposure to acidified waters, waters currently upwelling in Northern California. Heat and acidification are the stressors but disease seems to be how those stressors manifest themselves. Pteropods and Bryozoans are under dissolution pressures but we don't even know what disease pressures would look like in those species, to small and largely unnoticed.
 Humans didn't even have the ability to dive and accumulate thousands of hours of dive time until one generation before me. Relative to our population numbers very few people can say they have tens of thousands of hours of dive time . Not everyone is a good observer and even some who are are in denial over what is happening. Very few people who have accumulated ten of thousands of dive hours have studied ocean acidification and denial is a problem even with some of them. We humans just aren't psychologically well suited to calmly witnessing wanton destruction of the world around us.
And if you are prescient or show anything like prescient knowledge you can expect major trouble from your fellow humans.
 Climate change, heat and acidification are killers among us. Much of what is going to happen ,what is already beginning to happen around us , can be foreseen. Denial is just another killer and it is just as deadly in the long run of things. Stand witness my friends , write ,tell us what you see from your place in the world.
 My wife's favorite line from " Out of Africa " is " God made the world round so we wouldn't ever be able to see too far down the road "
 We have satellites now


Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: oren on April 28, 2017, 12:03:02 PM
Bruce, you write beautifully on a very sad subject. I hope things recover somehow, though in the grand scheme of things we are all, indeed, screwed.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Martin Gisser on April 28, 2017, 07:27:58 PM
Bruce, do you know Jeremy Jackson (not of Baywatch fame but) from the Scripps institute?
He's an elderly oceanographer who since many years gives talks about the ruin of the oceans he has witnessed over his lifetime. It is the most depressing and enraging stuff about the state of the planet I've seen...
https://www.ted.com/talks/jeremy_jackson (https://www.ted.com/talks/jeremy_jackson)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on April 28, 2017, 11:25:23 PM
Martin, Of course I know who he is but Jeremy paints with a very broad brush that includes me. I am a fisherman and to me Jeremy chooses to create monsters to slay. I am no monster...or more accurately everyone is. I can accept I am nowhere near perfect but scapegoating fishermen for All the ills befalling the oceans will never fix ocean heating, acidification or invasive species problems. We are all culpable and we all need to take responsibility .
 If you look through the local California problems I described in my recent posts very few of them can be attributed to fishing. We don't have issues with overfishing , we have closed over twenty five percent of our state fishing grounds to all fishing and we have some damned serious problems that won't go away even if you get rid of every fisherman left.
 There are people that are willing to listen to a fisherman , people who might not listen to a scientist.
I will be here , I will try to describe what I see , I will accept my failures and try to remedy them.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: ivica on April 28, 2017, 11:36:23 PM
I will be here , I will try to describe what I see , I will accept my failures and try to remedy them.

Quote
    "I live for being wrong," said Lajoie. "That's where we learn."
 Yep.  (http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=post;msg=110914;topic=179.850) What more a human can do ?

Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: TerryM on April 29, 2017, 12:23:47 AM
Bruce
I can empathize. I was in commercial refrigeration when we were targeted for destroying the Ozone layer.


That said, surely we need more regulation, not less. What happens to California's fisheries under the next Governor Reagan, operating under the rheumy eyed oversight of the next President Trump? As far as I know Monterrey sardines fed generations, until the limits were lifted to feed the troops. We could need protein supplements for large armies in the near future, and trolling for the last Halibut might be expedient.
 
Globally has the bulk of the damage been done by unregulated fishing, or pollution, or global warming? I don't know the answer, but I do believe that unregulated fishing is among the big three.
Looking forward we can be assured that global warming & the accompanying acidification will only get worse. Doesn't it make sense to increase regulation of fisheries as well as pollution sources?


Terry
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on April 29, 2017, 01:51:36 AM
Terry, There are success stories for fish management and plenty of stories about stock collapse sometimes due to excess , greed and familiar human shortcomings. Do we acknowledge success when we have examples and hold those examples up for others to follow or do we retrace our failings with race relations, nationalism, and exceptionalizm? i.e. Polarization .There are fishermen who have helped manage themselves and protect the fish stocks that keep them in business. The "failure of the commons "is not universal and groups of humans willing to do the right thing, manage themselves and to a large degree self enforce their common good over their individual interests do exist. The common good and self interest are not mutually exclusive but there does ,as a rule ,always seem to be some element willing to break the common trust and sometimes we sink their boats.
 Although overfishing probably did contribute to the story about the collapse of the Monterey sardine fishery it also coincided with a PDO flip in ~ 1945. Many of the problems for California fisheries I have
been describing are driven by forces largely beyond our ( fishermens) control but yes as the environment deteriorates we have little option but to restrict fishing efforts.
 As a rule I have always strived to put the resource first and put economics as an important factor but not one that ever superceeds the importance of the resource. Keeping your priorities straight helps when  others ,or groups of other ,decide to challenge necessary controls.
 The difficult decisions I am talking about might serve as some sort of template for governance of terrestrial resources but the larger the group of humans you are trying to manage the more it seems money and power begin to erode these ideals. I just don't think concepts like the "failure of the commons "are things we should embrace like universal truths. We need sometimes to show a little faith in other people's good intentions, and sink boats when we have to.

I guess it's " the tragedy of the commons " ... Wrong either way
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: TerryM on April 29, 2017, 03:35:20 AM
Thanks Bruce
For some inexplicable reason I'd never considered over fishing as an example of a tragedy of the commons problem. It is of course, just that it's something I'd never considered.
In Newfoundland they had very harsh words for Chinese factory ships that they claimed were working just outside the line, then selling their cheap frozen produce in local marts.


A giant, foreign, factory ship will probably always seen as "the other". Do the captains of these vessels see themselves as responsible custodians of limited resources, or as pirates with little thought for the well being of the local fish stocks, since they'll move on when the fish are gone?


It seems almost as if the village commons is being destroyed by migrant herdsmen, free to choose another route in another year. 

edit:
This reads as if I'm blaming everthing on the fishery. Centainly not my understanding or intent.

Terry
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: jai mitchell on May 11, 2017, 06:12:15 AM
New study of Amazon river CO2 emissions shows that biosphere does not take up as much CO2 as once thought.

https://phys.org/news/2017-05-amazon-river-carbon-dioxide-emissions.html (https://phys.org/news/2017-05-amazon-river-carbon-dioxide-emissions.html)

Study finds Amazon River carbon dioxide emissions nearly balance terrestrial uptake
Quote
The results increase the most recent global estimates of CO2 emissions from rivers and lakes by almost 50%, with potentially huge implications for global climate policy

Paper here:  Henrique O. Sawakuchi et al, Carbon Dioxide Emissions along the Lower Amazon River, Frontiers in Marine Science (2017)
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00076 (http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2017.00076)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on May 26, 2017, 05:42:39 PM
For the study, published in the journal Scientific Reports, scientists raised foraminifera -- single-celled organisms about the size of a grain of sand -- at the UC Davis Bodega Marine Laboratory under future, high CO2 conditions.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170525161326.htm (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170525161326.htm)

These tiny organisms, commonly called "forams," are ubiquitous in marine environments and play a key role in food webs and the ocean carbon cycle.

Stressed Under Future Conditions

After exposing them to a range of acidity levels, UC Davis scientists found that under high CO2, or more acidic, conditions, the foraminifera had trouble building their shells and making spines, an important feature of their shells.

They also showed signs of physiological stress, reducing their metabolism and slowing their respiration to undetectable levels.

This is the first study of its kind to show the combined impact of shell building, spine repair, and physiological stress in foraminifera under high CO2 conditions. The study suggests that stressed and impaired foraminifera could indicate a larger scale disruption of carbon cycling in the ocean.

Off Balance

As a marine calcifier, foraminifera use calcium carbonate to build their shells, a process that plays an integral part in balancing the carbon cycle.

Normally, healthy foraminifera calcify their shells and sink to the ocean floor after they die, taking the calcite with them. This moves alkalinity, which helps neutralize acidity, to the seafloor.

When foraminifera calcify less, their ability to neutralize acidity also lessens, making the deep ocean more acidic.

But what happens in the deep ocean doesn't stay in the deep ocean.

Impacts for Thousands of Years

"It's not out-of-sight, out-of-mind," said lead author Catherine Davis, a Ph.D. student at UC Davis during the study and currently a postdoctoral associate at the University of South Carolina. "That acidified water from the deep will rise again. If we do something that acidifies the deep ocean, that affects atmospheric and ocean carbon dioxide concentrations on time scales of thousands of years."

Davis said the geologic record shows that such imbalances have occurred in the world's oceans before, but only during times of major change.

"This points to one of the longer time-scale effects of anthropogenic climate change that we don't understand yet," Davis said.

Upwelling Brings 'Future' to Surface

One way acidified water returns to the surface is through upwelling, when strong winds periodically push nutrient-rich water from the deep ocean up to the surface. Upwelling supports some of the planet's most productive fisheries and ecosystems. But additional anthropogenic, or human-caused, CO2 in the system is expected to impact fisheries and coastal ecosystems.

UC Davis' Bodega Marine Laboratory in Northern California is near one of the world's most intense coastal upwelling areas. At times, it experiences conditions most of the ocean isn't expected to experience for decades or hundreds of years.

"Seasonal upwelling means that we have an opportunity to study organisms in high CO2, acidic waters today -- a window into how the ocean may look more often in the future," said co-author Tessa Hill, an associate professor in earth and planetary sciences at UC Davis. "We might have expected that a species of foraminifera well-adapted to Northern California wouldn't respond negatively to high CO2 conditions, but that expectation was wrong. This study provides insight into how an important marine calcifier may respond to future conditions, and send ripple effects through food webs and carbon cycling."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 09, 2017, 05:06:38 PM
I don't know much about ocean acidification, but these hotspots in the North Pacific look troublesome.

"West Coast Waters on Acid Trip; Fishing Industry in Peril"

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/ocean-acidification-hotspots-west-coast-21517 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/ocean-acidification-hotspots-west-coast-21517)


Extract: "Hotspots of ocean acidification have been found in the waters that wash onto the shores of the West Coast, a major concern for the region’s billion dollar fishing industry as well as the region’s potentially fragile coastal ecosystems.

A new study of a 600-mile span of coastline found some of the lowest pH levels ever measured on the ocean surface, showing that significant acidification can be found in waters right along the shore."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on June 10, 2017, 04:59:25 AM
ASLR, We are seeing some of the lowest surface water pH readings here along the US West Coast.
We are seeing these readings in the same places in multiple years of upwelling seasons. Offshore winds and upwelling draw up low pH intermediate waters and deliver them onto the shelf. Riverine waters also dump additional nutrients that along with the nutrients produced in upwelling processes result in phytoplankton blooms that add to the low pH conditions when they die, sink and are remineralized by bacteria. This also results in low oxygen levels that co-occur with the extremely low pH events.
 A place called Fogarty Creek Oregon, close to Depoe Bay, has recorded the lowest readings at 7.43pH The long shore current takes the nutrient enriched waters from the Columbia River combines them with the upwelled intermediate water and sends them at the coast as it wraps around offshore reefs like the Stonewall bank.
 These conditions will continue to worsen because the intermediate waters feeding these upwelling areas are about 35 years old and the waters that will be delivered for the next 30 to 40 years are already in the pipeline and as atmospheric CO2 levels increase so too will the future waters delivered be more acidified than the waters currently upwelling that were formed 35 years ago.
 Mean DIC ( anthro ) in intermediate waters is ~ 37 umol per kg-1 that was in formation when atmospheric CO2 was ~ 350 ppm
 Intermediate waters currently in formation with current 400 ppm will arrive with DIC( anthro ) at ~ 56
 umol per kg-1. "When this water reaches the CCLME , the frequency of omega < 1.7 events at the CM site ( 40.34degrees north) in Northern California will rise to 61%, an 81% increase from current exposure and 14.5 fold increase over pre-industrial estimates." Omega <1.7 is the point where biological damage begins in sensitive shellfish.
 CCLME is the California curent large marine ecosystem. CM is Cape Mendocino
 The paper is open access

http://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-02777-y (http://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-02777-y)
     
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on June 13, 2017, 03:02:04 PM
ASLR, We are seeing some of the lowest surface water pH readings here along the US West Coast.

Bruce, thanks for the information.  It makes me concerned about the oceans off the western coast of South America (which also has upwelling with the potential for phytoplankton blooms).

Best,
ASLR
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on June 18, 2017, 11:25:47 PM
ASLR, Although the Humboldt Current that flows along the  coast of Chile is also an eastern boundary
current instrument readings in high upwelling regions of Central Chile record pCO2 peaking at slightly less than DIC =1,800. This hasn't resulted in surface water understaturation yet.
http://c-can.info/2017/03/20/species-specific-responses-to-ocean-acidification-should-account-for-local-adaptation-and-adaptive-plasticity/ (http://c-can.info/2017/03/20/species-specific-responses-to-ocean-acidification-should-account-for-local-adaptation-and-adaptive-plasticity/)
 pCO2 readings in upwelling regions off the Oregon Coast are exceeding DIC=2190 pH < 7.75 and omega( undersaturation ) < 1.0
The most recent Oregon Coast  readings of pH < 7.43 push omega quite a bit below aragonite saturation. Other Eastern boundary currents will catch up but we are seeing more extreme conditions here and can expect those conditions to further deteriorate.

https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel3087/feel3087.shtml (https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel3087/feel3087.shtml)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on July 11, 2017, 01:25:36 AM
I don't think I need to comment on this new paper on pteropods in the Calif. Current, the language is very clear. The acidification we can expect over the next 30 years is baked in the cake at this point but there will be decades and decades of increasing acidification beyond the 30 years of acidification already in the pipe even if we do manage to begin to reduce our CO2 emissions .

xposure history determines pteropod vulnerability to ocean acidification along the US West Coast

N. Bednaršek1,2, R. A. Feely1, N. Tolimieri3, A. J. Hermann1,4, S. A. Siedlecki 4, G. G. Waldbusser 5, P. McElhany3, S. R. Alin1, T. Klinger6, B. Moore-Maley7 & H. O. Pörtner 8

Abstract
The pteropod Limacina helicina frequently experiences seasonal exposure to corrosive conditions
(Ωar < 1) along the US West Coast and is recognized as one of the species most susceptible to ocean acidification (OA). Yet, little is known about their capacity to acclimatize to such conditions. We collected pteropods in the California Current Ecosystem (CCE) that differed in the severity of exposure to Ωar conditions in the natural environment. Combining field observations, high-CO2 perturbation experiment results, and retrospective ocean transport simulations, we investigated biological responses based on histories of magnitude and duration of exposure to Ωar < 1. Our results suggest that both exposure magnitude and duration affect pteropod responses in the natural environment. However, observed declines in calcification performance and survival probability under high CO2 experimental conditions do not show acclimatization capacity or physiological tolerance related to history of exposure to corrosive conditions. Pteropods from the coastal CCE appear to be at or near the limit of their physiological capacity, and consequently, are already at extinction risk under projected acceleration of OA over the next 30 years. Our results demonstrate that Ωar exposure history largely determines pteropod response to experimental conditions and is essential to the interpretation of biological observations and experimental results.

Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on July 17, 2017, 05:37:36 PM
Here is an open access link to the pteropods paper above.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-03934-z (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-03934-z)

The important points IMO are
Inability to acclimate , feed availability doesn't compensate for undersaturation stress, undersaturation stress can cause mortality even if pteropods are returned to saturated water conditions, results may explain decrease in pteropods numbers in the northern Calif. Current, predicted undersaturation over a much larger portion of the pteropods range in the Calif. Current in the next thirty years will likely affect pteropods population and carbon cycle contributions
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on July 22, 2017, 07:40:31 PM
Forward:

This thesis shows that purple urchins increase feeding rates by about 500% when exposed to acidified conditions that are currently occurring in Northern California during spring upwelling season. (see figure 8 below)

http://broncoscholar.library.cpp.edu/bitstream/handle/10211.3/194019/BriggsLauren_Thesis2017.pdf?sequence=4 (http://broncoscholar.library.cpp.edu/bitstream/handle/10211.3/194019/BriggsLauren_Thesis2017.pdf?sequence=4)
No wonder the kelp is all gone! Of course 150 purples per square meter can do plenty of damage without an increased  feeding rate. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife documented purples in those concentrations across their abalone survey transects.  (See https://cdfwmarine.wordpress.com/2016/03/30/perfect-storm-decimates-kelp/ (https://cdfwmarine.wordpress.com/2016/03/30/perfect-storm-decimates-kelp/))
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: TerryM on July 23, 2017, 12:46:51 PM
That was one sick looking abalone!
Probably of no interest commercially, but what will the effect be on the sea otter population? It seems as though they just start rebounding from the fur trade, and somebody eats their kelp forests. I've always considered them as special.
Terry
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on July 25, 2017, 02:40:36 AM
Terry, What will happen to sea otters is an open question. Their numbers have been going up for several decades and are approaching levels that could be sufficient for delisting. Too many purple urchins and not enough kelp would likely restrict sea otter diets for other herbivores dependent upon healthy kelp. There are some studies that show increased kelp and
associated  small crustacea and mollusks in CO2 vent areas so maybe conditions for otters would be OK but these studies aren't from areas within sea otters historical range.
 Sea Otter politics is a difficult terrain for a Sea Urchin diver. I have a long history in that arena and I guess the best compliment I ever got from all those years was from an environmental proponent who said I was a worthy opponent. I f you'd like to see some old history on the subject google my name plus Sea Otters.
 Otters, acidification, fisheries management and water politics are all tough political terrain. That is where I spend my time and energy.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: TerryM on July 25, 2017, 05:00:31 PM
Bruce
Sorry I touched on such a sensitive subject.


Abalone is my 2nd favorite sea food, uni is also on that list, but I have to confess to a love for the furry little buggers that apparently decimate the other two.
Your efforts on behalf of the shellfish appear to have been heroic over an extended period. FWIW I'll advise all in earshot that increasing the sea otter's territory might not be such a wonderful goal, should the subject ever arise.


Unfortunately, as the kelp forests keep disappearing, and ocean acidification intensifies, it may be totally out of our hands.


Terry
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on July 25, 2017, 06:06:44 PM
Terry, If ever the day comes that sea otters can't survive because of what we have done to their enviornment then I believe we will have also destroyed habitability for ourselves here on land .
I wish them no ill will and have gained ,over the years ,respect for them. I am merely a visitor to their world .  The ocean is an amazing place I have been privileged to spend so many years. Acidification scares me. People scare me.     The sirens still call.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: sidd on August 01, 2017, 10:03:57 PM
There is a paper out by Them and Gill

DOI:10.1038/s41598-017-05307-y

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-05307-y (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-05307-y)

about the Toarcian hothouse about 180 Myr ago.  Osmium isotope ratios indicate enhanced weathering drawing down atmospheric CO2 but also causing anoxic ocean events. This research ties into the Kidder-Worsley picture of hothouse events which I have referred to previously, see for example doi: 10.1130/G131A.1

Nice paper. Open access. Read all about it.

sidd


Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on August 11, 2017, 04:53:39 PM
Here is a paper about carbon fluxes in the area of the MacKenzie Shelf. It contains data collected from three buoy arrays monitored in the 2014 melt season. Temperatures at surface and at depth, current direction and velocity, DIC, and pCO2. 29 pages with lots of informative info relevant to late season melt and carbon transport in the Southern Beaufort.

https://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/bg-2017-318/bg-2017-318.pdf (https://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/bg-2017-318/bg-2017-318.pdf)

Abstract. The Mackenzie Shelf in the southeastern Beaufort Sea is a region that has experienced large changes in the past several decades as warming, sea-ice loss, and increased river discharge have altered carbon cycling. Upwelling and downwelling events are common on the shelf, caused by strong, fluctuating along-shore winds, resulting in cross-shelf Ekman transport, and an alternating estuarine and anti-estuarine circulation. Downwelling carries inorganic carbon and other remineralization products off the shelf and into the deep basin for possible long-term storage in the world oceans. Upwelling carries dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) and nutrient-rich waters from the Pacific-origin upper halocline layer (UHL) onto the shelf. Profiles of DIC and total alkalinity (TA) taken in August and September of 2014 are used to investigate the cycling of inorganic carbon on the Mackenzie Shelf. The along-shore transport of water and the cross-shelf transport of inorganic carbon are quantified using velocity field output from a simulation of the Arctic and Northern Hemisphere Atlantic (ANHA4) configuration of the Nucleus of European Modelling of the Ocean (NEMO) framework. A strong upwelling event prior to sampling on the Mackenzie Shelf is analyzed and the resulting influence on the carbonate system, including the saturation state of waters with respect to aragonite and pH, is investigated. TA and the oxygen isotope ratio of water (δ18O) are used to examine water-mass distributions in the study area and to investigate the influence of Pacific Water, Mackenzie River freshwater, and sea-ice melt on carbon dynamics and air-sea fluxes of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the surface mixed layer. Understanding carbon transfer in this seasonally dynamic environment is key to quantify the importance of Arctic shelf regions to the global carbon cycle and provide a basis for understanding how it will respond to the aforementioned climate-induced changes.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: logicmanPatrick on September 02, 2017, 04:25:03 PM
Thanks Wili and Terry, That line "cnidarian nightmares "rolls off the tongue better with the proper pronunciation of CNIDARIA.  The C is silent.
 https://sesquiotic.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/cnidaria-cnidarian/

Just caught up with your post.

A haiku

The sea is warm
death of cnidaria
the C is silent.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on September 14, 2017, 04:18:12 PM
The linked reference's findings that methane emissions from boreal wetlands and that the area of tropical wetlands is decreasing is not comforting:

Benjamin Poulter, Philippe Bousquet, Josep G Canadell, Philippe Ciais & Anna Peregon (2017), "Global wetland contribution to 2000–2012 atmospheric methane growth rate dynamics", Environmental Research Letters, Volume 12, Number 9, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa8391 (https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa8391)

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa8391/meta;jsessionid=3D6FF28E9F0A87ED717E47D4AB7BA992.ip-10-40-2-120 (http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa8391/meta;jsessionid=3D6FF28E9F0A87ED717E47D4AB7BA992.ip-10-40-2-120)

Abstract: "Increasing atmospheric methane (CH4) concentrations have contributed to approximately 20% of anthropogenic climate change. Despite the importance of CH4 as a greenhouse gas, its atmospheric growth rate and dynamics over the past two decades, which include a stabilization period (1999–2006), followed by renewed growth starting in 2007, remain poorly understood. We provide an updated estimate of CH4 emissions from wetlands, the largest natural global CH4 source, for 2000–2012 using an ensemble of biogeochemical models constrained with remote sensing surface inundation and inventory-based wetland area data. Between 2000–2012, boreal wetland CH4 emissions increased by 1.2 Tg yr−1 (−0.2–3.5 Tg yr−1), tropical emissions decreased by 0.9 Tg yr−1 (−3.2−1.1 Tg yr−1), yet globally, emissions remained unchanged at 184 ± 22 Tg yr−1. Changing air temperature was responsible for increasing high-latitude emissions whereas declines in low-latitude wetland area decreased tropical emissions; both dynamics are consistent with features of predicted centennial-scale climate change impacts on wetland CH4 emissions. Despite uncertainties in wetland area mapping, our study shows that global wetland CH4 emissions have not contributed significantly to the period of renewed atmospheric CH4 growth, and is consistent with findings from studies that indicate some combination of increasing fossil fuel and agriculture-related CH4 emissions, and a decrease in the atmospheric oxidative sink."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: jai mitchell on September 14, 2017, 05:18:44 PM
The linked reference shows that CO2 emissions from boreal lakes has been severely underestimated, this study doubles the rate of CO2 from boreal lakes.  The increase of surface area of boreal lakes is a primary feature of arctic amplification vis-a-vis permafrost melt.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13902/abstract?campaign=wolacceptedarticle (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13902/abstract?campaign=wolacceptedarticle)

CO2 evasion from boreal lakes: revised estimate, drivers of spatial variability, and future projections

Abstract

Lakes (including reservoirs) are an important component of the global carbon (C) cycle, as acknowledged by the 5th assessment report of the IPCC. In the context of lakes, the boreal region is disproportionately important contributing to 27% of the worldwide lake area, despite representing just 14% of global land surface area. In this study, we used a statistical approach to derive a prediction equation for the partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) in lakes as a function of lake area, terrestrial net primary productivity (NPP) and precipitation (r2 = 0.56), and to create the first high resolution, circumboreal map (0.5) of lake pCO2. The map of pCO2 was combined with lake area from the recently published GLOWABO database and three different estimates of the gas transfer velocity k to produce a resulting map of CO2 evasion (FCO2). For the boreal region we estimate an average, lake area weighted,pCO2 of 966 (678- 1325) μatm and a total FCO2 of 189 (74-347) Tg C yr−1, and evaluate the corresponding uncertainties based on Monte Carlo simulation. Our estimate of FCO2 is approximately twofold greater than previous estimates, as a result of methodological and data source differences. We use our results along with published estimates of the other C fluxes through inland waters to derive a C budget for the boreal region, and find that FCO2 from lakes is the most significant flux of the land-ocean aquatic continuum, and of a similar magnitude as emissions from forest fires. Using the model and applying it to spatially resolved projections of terrestrial NPP and precipitation while keeping everything else constant, we predict a 107% increase in boreal lake FCO2 under emission scenario RCP8.5 by 2100. Our projections are largely driven by increases in terrestrial NPP over the same period, showing the very close connection between the terrestrial and aquatic C cycle.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: wili on September 29, 2017, 08:27:19 AM
More failures of major carbon sinks, which are now turning into sources, this time tropical forests:

 Alarm as study reveals world’s tropical forests are huge carbon emission source

Forests globally are so degraded that instead of absorbing emissions they now release more carbon annually than all the traffic in the US


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/28/alarm-as-study-reveals-worlds-tropical-forests-are-huge-carbon-emission-source (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/28/alarm-as-study-reveals-worlds-tropical-forests-are-huge-carbon-emission-source)

Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: gerontocrat on September 29, 2017, 11:20:33 AM
More failures of major carbon sinks, which are now turning into sources, this time tropical forests:

 Alarm as study reveals world’s tropical forests are huge carbon emission source

Forests globally are so degraded that instead of absorbing emissions they now release more carbon annually than all the traffic in the US


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/28/alarm-as-study-reveals-worlds-tropical-forests-are-huge-carbon-emission-source (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/28/alarm-as-study-reveals-worlds-tropical-forests-are-huge-carbon-emission-source)
Also a major contribution to the 6th Mass Extinction currently underway and which at the current rate of progress will wipe out virtually all vertebrate life on earth by mid-century.

Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Pmt111500 on September 29, 2017, 02:04:58 PM
Just had to log on to check if the rainforest-study had been mentioned here. This looks like the endgame to 4-6---12 °C above 1950s, is about to begin. It feels quite ok to be rather aged and childless.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Pmt111500 on October 02, 2017, 03:30:19 PM
It could be time for a wide survey of natural carbon sinks still working.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: sidd on October 02, 2017, 09:04:06 PM
" ...  wipe out virtually all vertebrate life on earth by mid-century. "

 Any references ?

sidd
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 02, 2017, 09:46:47 PM
" ...  wipe out virtually all vertebrate life on earth by mid-century. "

 Any references ?

sidd


I don't know if this is what gerontocrat was referring to or not:

Gerardo Ceballos, Paul R. Ehrlich, and Rodolfo Dirzo (2017), "Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines", PNAS, vol. 114 no. 30,   E6089–E6096, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1704949114

http://www.pnas.org/content/114/30/E6089.abstract (http://www.pnas.org/content/114/30/E6089.abstract)

Abstract: "The population extinction pulse we describe here shows, from a quantitative viewpoint, that Earth’s sixth mass extinction is more severe than perceived when looking exclusively at species extinctions. Therefore, humanity needs to address anthropogenic population extirpation and decimation immediately. That conclusion is based on analyses of the numbers and degrees of range contraction (indicative of population shrinkage and/or population extinctions according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature) using a sample of 27,600 vertebrate species, and on a more detailed analysis documenting the population extinctions between 1900 and 2015 in 177 mammal species. We find that the rate of population loss in terrestrial vertebrates is extremely high—even in “species of low concern.” In our sample, comprising nearly half of known vertebrate species, 32% (8,851/27,600) are decreasing; that is, they have decreased in population size and range. In the 177 mammals for which we have detailed data, all have lost 30% or more of their geographic ranges and more than 40% of the species have experienced severe population declines (>80% range shrinkage). Our data indicate that beyond global species extinctions Earth is experiencing a huge episode of population declines and extirpations, which will have negative cascading consequences on ecosystem functioning and services vital to sustaining civilization. We describe this as a “biological annihilation” to highlight the current magnitude of Earth’s ongoing sixth major extinction event."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: sidd on October 02, 2017, 10:20:50 PM
Thanx for bringing up the Ceballos paper, it had slipped my mind. But it does not support the claim that virtually all vertebrates will be gone by midcentury. Barring meteor impact or Siberian/Deccan Traps scale event I find the claim difficult.

sidd
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 02, 2017, 11:21:05 PM
Thanx for bringing up the Ceballos paper, it had slipped my mind. But it does not support the claim that virtually all vertebrates will be gone by midcentury. Barring meteor impact or Siberian/Deccan Traps scale event I find the claim difficult.

sidd

Well, if human population growth combined with climate change were to trigger World War III by midcentury, then the claim become imaginable; however, I do not know that that is what gerontocrat was implying or not.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Daniel B. on October 03, 2017, 01:56:31 PM
Thanx for bringing up the Ceballos paper, it had slipped my mind. But it does not support the claim that virtually all vertebrates will be gone by midcentury. Barring meteor impact or Siberian/Deccan Traps scale event I find the claim difficult.

sidd

The Ceballos paper, along with many others, extrapolate the decline of other animal species due to human over-hunting and habitat destruction.  Most of the talk about the sixth mass extinction refer to these causes.  While we have taken many steps to stem overhunting and have worked to conserve several species, the destruction of many natural habitats is still progressing.  These have much greater consequences for life than the actual carbon uptake of the forests.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 03, 2017, 08:09:10 PM
The Ceballos paper, along with many others, extrapolate the decline of other animal species due to human over-hunting and habitat destruction.  Most of the talk about the sixth mass extinction refer to these causes.  While we have taken many steps to stem overhunting and have worked to conserve several species, the destruction of many natural habitats is still progressing.  These have much greater consequences for life than the actual carbon uptake of the forests.

It is certainly a mistake to look at climate change in a vacuum, but just because there are many problems/stresses (e.g. over-population, resource depletion, pollution, warfare, systemic fragilities etc.) in the world today, doesn't that climate change won't be the 'straw that broke the camel's back'. 
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Martin Gisser on October 04, 2017, 02:35:50 AM
A major stressor/extinctor is the rapid shift of climate zones. It is no longer about some megafauna like wooly elephants or about some local ecosystems or civilizations committing agricultural suigenocide or postcolumbian perverts burning down American forests to make soap... The background extinction rate is already that of a major catastrophe.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: gerontocrat on October 04, 2017, 12:03:39 PM
" ...  wipe out virtually all vertebrate life on earth by mid-century. "

 Any references ?

sidd
I repeat a post I put up some time ago and remembered to save.

Who needs Climate Change to implement the 6th Mass Extinction ?

Robertscribbler.com has just put this up:-
Half-way to Catastrophe — Global Hothouse Extinction to be Triggered by or Before 2100 Without Rapid Emissions Cuts
Fossil Fuel Burning = Race Toward a 6th Mass Extinction

Trouble is, the 6th Mass Extinction is well underway without much help from climate change. The following links give a clue:-

http://www.pnas.org/content/114/30/E6089.full (http://www.pnas.org/content/114/30/E6089.full)  -
"Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vertebrate-populations-plummet-in-4-decades/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vertebrate-populations-plummet-in-4-decades/)
Vertebrate Populations Plummet in 4 Decades

"Deforestation and other human actions have cut the populations of mammals, birds, amphibians and fish by 58 percent since 1970"

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/27/world-on-track-to-lose-two-thirds-of-wild-animals-by-2020-major-report-warns (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/oct/27/world-on-track-to-lose-two-thirds-of-wild-animals-by-2020-major-report-warns)
"World on track to lose two-thirds of wild animals by 2020, major report warns
Living Planet Index shows vertebrate populations are set to decline by 67% on 1970 levels unless urgent action is taken to reduce humanity’s impact"

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/49/14079.full (http://www.pnas.org/content/113/49/14079.full)
Large numbers of vertebrates began rapid population decline in the late 19th century

"Significance
The current rate of species extinction is ∼1,000 times the background rate of extinction and is attributable to human impact, ecological and demographic fluctuations, and inbreeding due to small population sizes. The rate and the initiation date of rapid population decline (RPD) can provide important clues about the driving forces of population decline in threatened species, but they are generally unknown. We analyzed the genetic diversity data in 2,764 vertebrate species. Our population genetics modeling suggests that in many threatened vertebrate species the RPD on average began in the late 19th century, and the mean current size of threatened vertebrates is only 5% of their ancestral size. We estimated a ∼25% population decline every 10 y in threatened vertebrate species."

Yes, climate change is now an increasingly major contribution to this process but mankind was doing a pretty good job anyway. 

PS: I did a quick and dirty projection, based on the assumption that population depreciation tends to be on a reducing balance basis, i.e. x percent loss each year of the remaining population. The studies quoted above suggest x is about 2.5%.

That suggests a remaining vertebrate total population of between 10 and 20 % by 2050 compared with 1970.

Real mathematicians are needed to estimate how many individual species extinctions that implies, and also assumes pressures on vertebrate populations remain the same in the future.

So maybe total extermination of vertebrates by 2050 is an exaggeration. Or maybe not.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Daniel B. on October 04, 2017, 05:30:21 PM
The Ceballos paper, along with many others, extrapolate the decline of other animal species due to human over-hunting and habitat destruction.  Most of the talk about the sixth mass extinction refer to these causes.  While we have taken many steps to stem overhunting and have worked to conserve several species, the destruction of many natural habitats is still progressing.  These have much greater consequences for life than the actual carbon uptake of the forests.

It is certainly a mistake to look at climate change in a vacuum, but just because there are many problems/stresses (e.g. over-population, resource depletion, pollution, warfare, systemic fragilities etc.) in the world today, doesn't that climate change won't be the 'straw that broke the camel's back'.

Possibly.  However, I think that any of those other causes could accomplish the decline (and eventually extinction) all by themselves.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: jai mitchell on October 06, 2017, 05:46:52 AM
https://scienmag.com/carbon-feedback-from-forest-soils-will-accelerate-global-warming-26-year-study-projects/ (https://scienmag.com/carbon-feedback-from-forest-soils-will-accelerate-global-warming-26-year-study-projects/)

Quote
WOODS HOLE, Mass. — After 26 years, the world's longest-running experiment to discover how warming temperatures affect forest soils has revealed a surprising, cyclical response: Soil warming stimulates periods of abundant carbon release from the soil to the atmosphere alternating with periods of no detectable loss in soil carbon stores. Overall, the results indicate that in a warming world, a self-reinforcing and perhaps uncontrollable carbon feedback will occur between forest soils and the climate system, adding to the build-up of atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by burning fossil fuels and accelerating global warming. The study, led by Jerry Melillo, Distinguished Scientist at the Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL), appears in the October 6 issue of Science.

Melillo, J.M. et al (2017) Long-Term Pattern and Magnitude of Soil Carbon Feedback to the Climate System in a Warming World. Science
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6359/101 (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6359/101)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 14, 2017, 04:20:45 PM
The linked article uses the Amazon as a canary in the coal mine for all tropical rainforest deterioration & it errs on the side of least drama by ignoring anthropogenic deforestation and possible synergies with other positive feedback mechanisms (like the ENSO as a climate attractor).  Nevertheless, this article finds that following a short period of biomass grow, most rainforest die-back will occur rapidly as GMSTA increases from 1 to 3C.  The attached image forces a climate model with SRES A1 and finds major die-back of the Amazon before 2100; however, I note that this die-back may occur faster (if the effective ECS this century is higher than the model assumed):

Title: "Climate Change & Anthropocene Extinction 23: Amazon ‘tipping point’ is a sliding process, from +1C"

http://www.bitsofscience.org/climate-change-amazon-tipping-point-7540/ (http://www.bitsofscience.org/climate-change-amazon-tipping-point-7540/)

Extract: "In this article we try to quantify the Amazon rainforest climate tipping point, based on available scientific literature. We conclude there’s no real basin-wide threshold temperature to activate the forest-killing biome switch. Rather it seems to be a sliding process, that we are already largely committed to under current CO2 concentrations.

The most rapid warming-induced die-back of the Amazon rainforest probably occurs at a global average temperature rise from 1 to 3 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial climate. The vegetation effect is delayed, initially masking part of the damage. Yes, that’s sadly yet more climate inertia…"
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 16, 2017, 05:48:29 PM
RealClimate has an interesting post focused on the use of OCO-2 to monitor the influence of El Ninos on the Carbon Cycle:

Title: "O Say Can You CO2…"

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/10/o-say-can-you-co2/ (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/10/o-say-can-you-co2/)

Extract: "As part of a series of OCO-2 papers being published this week, a new Science paper by Junjie Liu and colleagues used NASA’s comprehensive Carbon Monitoring System to analyze millions of measurements from OCO-2 and other satellites to map the impact of the 2015-16 El Niño on sources and sinks of CO2, providing insight into the mechanisms controlling carbon-climate feedback.

Uncertainty in Carbon-Climate Feedbacks is important

We’ve known for decades (Rayner et al, 1999) that El Niño influences the productivity of tropical forests and therefore CO2, but we had very few direct observations of the effects because they are so remote. Field experiments on the ground and aircraft profiling of CO2 over tropical forests have documented the impact of heat and drought on forest productivity, but they are few and far between. Vigorous convective mixing in the deep tropics also dilutes changes in near-surface CO2 much more than at higher latitudes, so low-altitude sampling contains relatively less information about carbon sources and sinks."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: GeoffBeacon on October 17, 2017, 05:53:39 PM
HELP!

I've been looking at a PDF of the Carbon Project's Carbon Budget 2016 (http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/16/files/GCP_CarbonBudget_2016.pdf). It has a graphic, Carbon quota for a 66% chance to keep below 2°C, with a sub-heading
Quote
The total remaining emissions from 2017 to keep global average temperature below 2°C (800GtCO2) will be used in around 20 years at current emission rates

This is the image:

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brusselsblog.co.uk%2Fimg%2FCarbonQuota2017.jpg&hash=8d6552c9e28a873abad0edd6292eae18)

(How do I do inline images?) <use the img tags, or highlight the image link address and then press the img button in the editor above the comment (next to the f sign, middle row, under the italics button). If you click the 'modify comment' button for this comment, you can see what I did; N. Thanks; Geoff>

I have also downloaded some of the numbers for CO2 emissions from RCP 2.6. Have I got the following right?

Quote
Net emissions for RCP2.6 are 824 Gt CO2 - for fossil fuel and cement. Adding in 180 Gt of CO2 from changes in land use for the period 2017 to 2100 give total CO2 emissions of 1004 Gt of CO2 – much larger than the 816 remaining CO2 quota. (Note: Wildfire emissions count as land use change emissions.)

The worse news is that World CO2 emissions are exceeding the emissions in the hypothetical numbers that are in the RCP2.6 CO2 scenario. CO2 emissions, including land use change, were 49.1 Gt CO2 in 2016, 11% more than in the RCP 2.6 scenario for that year.

These are only for CO2. Other climate pollutants are treated separately.

I got the 824 Gt CO2 emissions (2017 to 2100) from 889 Gt CO2 positive emissions (2017 to 2072) less 65 Gt CO2 negative emissions (20673 to 2100).

I'm not necessarily asking for a reworking of this (though that would be welcome) but is this result so unexpected that I must have misunderstood.

I thought RCP2.6 was our savior. Am I wrong?
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Daniel B. on October 18, 2017, 03:17:55 PM
HELP!

I've been looking at a PDF of the Carbon Project's Carbon Budget 2016 (http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/16/files/GCP_CarbonBudget_2016.pdf). It has a graphic, Carbon quota for a 66% chance to keep below 2°C, with a sub-heading
Quote
The total remaining emissions from 2017 to keep global average temperature below 2°C (800GtCO2) will be used in around 20 years at current emission rates

This is the image:

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brusselsblog.co.uk%2Fimg%2FCarbonQuota2017.jpg&hash=8d6552c9e28a873abad0edd6292eae18)

(How do I do inline images?) <use the img tags, or highlight the image link address and then press the img button in the editor above the comment (next to the f sign, middle row, under the italics button). If you click the 'modify comment' button for this comment, you can see what I did; N. Thanks; Geoff>

I have also downloaded some of the numbers for CO2 emissions from RCP 2.6. Have I got the following right?

Quote
Net emissions for RCP2.6 are 824 Gt CO2 - for fossil fuel and cement. Adding in 180 Gt of CO2 from changes in land use for the period 2017 to 2100 give total CO2 emissions of 1004 Gt of CO2 – much larger than the 816 remaining CO2 quota. (Note: Wildfire emissions count as land use change emissions.)

The worse news is that World CO2 emissions are exceeding the emissions in the hypothetical numbers that are in the RCP2.6 CO2 scenario. CO2 emissions, including land use change, were 49.1 Gt CO2 in 2016, 11% more than in the RCP 2.6 scenario for that year.

These are only for CO2. Other climate pollutants are treated separately.

I got the 824 Gt CO2 emissions (2017 to 2100) from 889 Gt CO2 positive emissions (2017 to 2072) less 65 Gt CO2 negative emissions (20673 to 2100).

I'm not necessarily asking for a reworking of this (though that would be welcome) but is this result so unexpected that I must have misunderstood.

I thought RCP2.6 was our savior. Am I wrong?

No, not necessarily.  Those calculations for cumulative emissions from the Carbon Project are based on an equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of 3.0, and their 3670 Gt comes from the 67% probability.  The calculations for a 50% probability is 4440, corresponding to an ECS of 2.5 (33% is 5760, ECS of 2.0).  The RCP2.6 scenario falls in between these two values.  Based on your value of 1004 Gt by 2100 and the Carbon Project analysis, temperatures under the RCP2.6 scenario would remain below 2C as long as the ECS is below 2.86, a probability of 62%.  Clear as mud?
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: GeoffBeacon on October 18, 2017, 04:58:49 PM
Thanks Daniel

I have just spent ages (and ages) redoing this. I'm going to post what I've done before looking at your kind response.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: GeoffBeacon on October 18, 2017, 05:21:23 PM
CARBON BUDGETS AND RCP2.6

I've been looking at this further and been comparing the Global Carbon Project's Carbon Budgets for 2016 and 2015 and found another useful diagram.  I had some confusion due to the fact that the diagram in the “2015 budget document” showed data to the end of 2014 but the similar diagram in the 2016 budget document  showed data to the end of 2016 - moving on a year. Here are the diagrams, with a little bit of extra annotation.

A: From Carbon Budget 2015 (http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/archive/2015/GCP_budget_2015_v1.02.pdf): Heading “The total remaining emissions from 2014 to keep global average temperature below 2°C (900 GtCO2 ) will be used in around 20 years at current emission rates”.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brusselsblog.co.uk%2Fimg%2FCarbonQuota_endOf2014.jpg&hash=3f94e2c702e02431e14e47a3737ca4e0)

From Carbon Budget 2016 (http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/16/files/GCP_CarbonBudget_2016.pdf):  Heading  “The total remaining emissions from 2017 to keep global average temperature below 2°C (800 GtCO2 ) will be used in around 20 years at current emission rates”.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brusselsblog.co.uk%2Fimg%2FCarbonQuota_endOf2016.jpg&hash=30563902f76549f9e6c7ebdd51799d45)

I interpret the diagrams like this

1) “Total quota 3670”: 3670 Gt CO2 is 1000  GtC as per Allen et. al Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/abs/nature08019.html).

2) “Non-CO2 770”: It is assumed that the effect of non-CO2 pollutants will have a similar climate effect on the carbon buget to emissions of 770 Gt of CO2.

3) Emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels between the ends of 2014 and 2016 have reduced the remaining carbon budget by the difference between 1542 Gt CO2 (A) and 1465 Gt CO2 (B) ie. 77 Gt CO2. This is two years worth of fossil fuel and cement emissions (38.5 Gt CO2/year?).

4) Emissions of CO2 from land use change have reduced the remaining carbon budget by the difference between 542 Gt CO2 (A) and 533 Gt CO2 (B) ie. 9 Gt CO2. This is two years worth of fossil fuel and cement emissions (4.5 Gt CO2/year?).

5) The “total remaining CO2 quota” has reduced from 903 Gt CO2 to 816 GtCO2 i.e. by 87 GtCO2. That averages at 43.5 Gt CO2/year.

In (A) the remaining budget is split between future land use change and future fossil fuel and cement emissions. I'm not sure where the “Future  LUC 138” comes from but I note that the numbers given in the RCP2.6 tables give “Other CO2 emissions”. These total 122 Gt CO2 between the end of  2016 and 2072. Year 2072 is the date that RCP2.6 goes into negative emissions fossil fuel and cement.

Taking 122 Gt CO2 off the “total remaining CO2 quota” at the end of 2016 gives 694 Gt CO2.

That's just over 91 tonnes CO2 each when it's spread over the world's population.  Using this methodology, I think we may have about 25% extra budget to emit non-CO2 emissions. That would take us to 120 tonnes CO2e each.

The average UK citizen gets through that in about eight years – if we do the decent thing and  measure emissions on a consumption basis rather than cheating and measuring on a production basis like our government does.

However,  there's lots of reasons for thinking the climate situation is worse. 

Anyway, according to my spreadsheet, RCP 2.6 runs out of the 816 Gt CO2 remaining budget in 2047 and that budget is for a 2°C rise in global temperature and we seem to be soaring way above RCP 2.6.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: GeoffBeacon on October 18, 2017, 05:23:52 PM
Daniel

Quote
Clear as mud?

No very helpful.

Thanks.

Geoff
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Daniel B. on October 18, 2017, 06:05:35 PM
CARBON BUDGETS AND RCP2.6

I've been looking at this further and been comparing the Global Carbon Project's Carbon Budgets for 2016 and 2015 and found another useful diagram.  I had some confusion due to the fact that the diagram in the “2015 budget document” showed data to the end of 2014 but the similar diagram in the 2016 budget document  showed data to the end of 2016 - moving on a year. Here are the diagrams, with a little bit of extra annotation.

A: From Carbon Budget 2015 (http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/archive/2015/GCP_budget_2015_v1.02.pdf): Heading “The total remaining emissions from 2014 to keep global average temperature below 2°C (900 GtCO2 ) will be used in around 20 years at current emission rates”.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brusselsblog.co.uk%2Fimg%2FCarbonQuota_endOf2014.jpg&hash=3f94e2c702e02431e14e47a3737ca4e0)

From Carbon Budget 2016 (http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/16/files/GCP_CarbonBudget_2016.pdf):  Heading  “The total remaining emissions from 2017 to keep global average temperature below 2°C (800 GtCO2 ) will be used in around 20 years at current emission rates”.

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brusselsblog.co.uk%2Fimg%2FCarbonQuota_endOf2016.jpg&hash=30563902f76549f9e6c7ebdd51799d45)

I interpret the diagrams like this

1) “Total quota 3670”: 3670 Gt CO2 is 1000  GtC as per Allen et. al Warming caused by cumulative carbon emissions towards the trillionth tonne (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7242/abs/nature08019.html).

2) “Non-CO2 770”: It is assumed that the effect of non-CO2 pollutants will have a similar climate effect on the carbon buget to emissions of 770 Gt of CO2.

3) Emissions of CO2 from fossil fuels between the ends of 2014 and 2016 have reduced the remaining carbon budget by the difference between 1542 Gt CO2 (A) and 1465 Gt CO2 (B) ie. 77 Gt CO2. This is two years worth of fossil fuel and cement emissions (38.5 Gt CO2/year?).

4) Emissions of CO2 from land use change have reduced the remaining carbon budget by the difference between 542 Gt CO2 (A) and 533 Gt CO2 (B) ie. 9 Gt CO2. This is two years worth of fossil fuel and cement emissions (4.5 Gt CO2/year?).

5) The “total remaining CO2 quota” has reduced from 903 Gt CO2 to 816 GtCO2 i.e. by 87 GtCO2. That averages at 43.5 Gt CO2/year.

In (A) the remaining budget is split between future land use change and future fossil fuel and cement emissions. I'm not sure where the “Future  LUC 138” comes from but I note that the numbers given in the RCP2.6 tables give “Other CO2 emissions”. These total 122 Gt CO2 between the end of  2016 and 2072. Year 2072 is the date that RCP2.6 goes into negative emissions fossil fuel and cement.

Taking 122 Gt CO2 off the “total remaining CO2 quota” at the end of 2016 gives 694 Gt CO2.

That's just over 91 tonnes CO2 each when it's spread over the world's population.  Using this methodology, I think we may have about 25% extra budget to emit non-CO2 emissions. That would take us to 120 tonnes CO2e each.

The average UK citizen gets through that in about eight years – if we do the decent thing and  measure emissions on a consumption basis rather than cheating and measuring on a production basis like our government does.

However,  there's lots of reasons for thinking the climate situation is worse. 

Anyway, according to my spreadsheet, RCP 2.6 runs out of the 816 Gt CO2 remaining budget in 2047 and that budget is for a 2°C rise in global temperature and we seem to be soaring way above RCP 2.6.

I am not sure what the future land use changes were either, but they disappeared from the most recent graph.  Possibly, they were lumped in with the total CO2 quota.  Curious how in 2014, 900 Gt would be used in around 20 years, and now, 816 Gt will be used in around 20 years.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: rboyd on October 19, 2017, 01:27:08 AM
The research is tending to an ECS at the higher end of the range than assumed in these carbon budgets, plus they do not take into account feedbacks (soil carbon, clouds, albedo etc.), plus they underestimate the effect of methane, plus the land use numbers are highly suspect. Apart from that, these carbon budgets are really useful /sarc.

There is no carbon budget if we take any realistic view of things and/or use a better (i.e. much higher than 2 out of 3, even in Russian Roulette its 1 out of 6) probability of success.

It will be interesting to watch the UN IPCC attempt to keep the carbon budget story going when confronted with updated scientific findings.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Daniel B. on October 20, 2017, 01:32:45 PM
The research is tending to an ECS at the higher end of the range than assumed in these carbon budgets, plus they do not take into account feedbacks (soil carbon, clouds, albedo etc.), plus they underestimate the effect of methane, plus the land use numbers are highly suspect. Apart from that, these carbon budgets are really useful /sarc.

There is no carbon budget if we take any realistic view of things and/or use a better (i.e. much higher than 2 out of 3, even in Russian Roulette its 1 out of 6) probability of success.

It will be interesting to watch the UN IPCC attempt to keep the carbon budget story going when confronted with updated scientific findings.



Have you seen these?  http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n9/fig_tab/nclimate3357_F1.html
https://www.hindawi.com/archive/2017/9251034/
https://principia-scientific.org/recent-co2-climate-sensitivity-estimates-headed-towards-zero/


Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: GeoffBeacon on October 20, 2017, 03:21:03 PM
I've put my postings above on my BrusselBlog website with some extra bits (http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/global-carbon-budgets-and-wildfires/).  It seems clear that the effects of increased wildfires are not in models or the emissions trajectories specified in RCP2.6.

In RCP2.6: exploring the possibility to keep global mean temperature increase below 2°C (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0152-3) by van Vuuren et. al, the developers of RCP 2.6 make no mention of wildfire activity. Also an increase in wildfire activity was not included in the computer models for the IPCC’s AR5 (http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/carbon-budgets-a-straightforward-answer-from-decc/).

Policy makers point to RCP 2.6 with the message “if we can keep emissions close to RCP2.6 levels, dangerous climate change can be avoided”. (See the end of Lord Stern’s lecture, The Stern Review +10: new opportunities for growth and development (http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/event/the-stern-review-10-new-opportunities-for-growth-and-development/).)

If we can't trust RCP 2.6 as a safe target to aim for, what can we trust?

Obvious questions for me are

Quote
1. Have wildfires been included in any scenarios for the future of our climate?

2. Why can’t representative carbon pathways be fed into climate models to tell us about the effects burning down forests, flying and eating beef?

3. How hard is (2)?


Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Shared Humanity on October 23, 2017, 06:25:27 PM
More failures of major carbon sinks, which are now turning into sources, this time tropical forests:

 Alarm as study reveals world’s tropical forests are huge carbon emission source

Forests globally are so degraded that instead of absorbing emissions they now release more carbon annually than all the traffic in the US


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/28/alarm-as-study-reveals-worlds-tropical-forests-are-huge-carbon-emission-source (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/28/alarm-as-study-reveals-worlds-tropical-forests-are-huge-carbon-emission-source)
Also a major contribution to the 6th Mass Extinction currently underway and which at the current rate of progress will wipe out virtually all vertebrate life on earth by mid-century.

And most of us shortly thereafter.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Shared Humanity on October 23, 2017, 06:26:59 PM
Just had to log on to check if the rainforest-study had been mentioned here. This looks like the endgame to 4-6---12 °C above 1950s, is about to begin. It feels quite ok to be rather aged and childless.

4 children (1 adopted) and 1st grandchild on the way. It is sad and depressing.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Shared Humanity on October 23, 2017, 06:31:56 PM

It is certainly a mistake to look at climate change in a vacuum, but just because there are many problems/stresses (e.g. over-population, resource depletion, pollution, warfare, systemic fragilities etc.) in the world today, doesn't that climate change won't be the 'straw that broke the camel's back'.

Possibly.  However, I think that any of those other causes could accomplish the decline (and eventually extinction) all by themselves.

Your point being?
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Daniel B. on October 23, 2017, 07:13:53 PM

It is certainly a mistake to look at climate change in a vacuum, but just because there are many problems/stresses (e.g. over-population, resource depletion, pollution, warfare, systemic fragilities etc.) in the world today, doesn't that climate change won't be the 'straw that broke the camel's back'.

Possibly.  However, I think that any of those other causes could accomplish the decline (and eventually extinction) all by themselves.

Your point being?

That climate change will be a minor contributor to extinctions.  Most plants and animals would be able to adapt to climate perturbations much easier that overhunting, pollution, or total habitat destruction. 
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 23, 2017, 08:34:10 PM
That climate change will be a minor contributor to extinctions.  Most plants and animals would be able to adapt to climate perturbations much easier that overhunting, pollution, or total habitat destruction.

Climate change doubters and skeptics like denigrate, and then ignore, one positive feedback mechanism at a time.  Unfortunately, there many serious positive feedback mechanisms (such as that discussed in the linked article about carbon emissions from the planet's soils) that have been omitted from AR5 and CMIP5 projections.  Thus we may not know whether we have crossed a tipping point until it is too late.

Title: "One of the oldest climate change experiments has led to a troubling conclusion"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/10/05/one-of-the-oldest-climate-change-experiments-has-led-to-a-troubling-conclusion/?utm_term=.59cc09198793

Extract: One of the regular complaints of climate change doubters and skeptics is that scientific projections of a dire future are too heavily based on computer simulations, or models, which — they say — rest on a variety of questionable assumptions.

But a major climate change study published Thursday relied not on models but experimental data — a 26-year record of observations, no less — to reach a conclusion perhaps just as worrying. The research, tracking the emissions of carbon from artificially heated plots of a forest in Massachusetts, reinforces fears about the possibility of a climate change “feedback” involving the planet’s soils, one that could pile on top of and substantially worsen the ongoing warming trend triggered by the burning of fossil fuels."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: wili on October 23, 2017, 10:31:55 PM
Daniel seems to be ignoring the mass of evidence that most and probably all of the previous mass extinction events were driven primarily by global warming.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: TerryM on October 23, 2017, 11:13:13 PM
Just had to log on to check if the rainforest-study had been mentioned here. This looks like the endgame to 4-6---12 °C above 1950s, is about to begin. It feels quite ok to be rather aged and childless.

4 children (1 adopted) and 1st grandchild on the way. It is sad and depressing.


My condolences.


Any concerns about whether they stay until the last ship has sailed, or bail out while still flying high? To mix a few metaphors before serving on the aft deck of the Titanic.


Terry
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: sidd on October 24, 2017, 06:09:47 AM
Re: " ...  most and probably all of the previous mass extinction events were driven primarily by global warming. "

I am not sure this is true. Cites ?

sidd
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Coffee Drinker on October 24, 2017, 08:13:23 AM

It is certainly a mistake to look at climate change in a vacuum, but just because there are many problems/stresses (e.g. over-population, resource depletion, pollution, warfare, systemic fragilities etc.) in the world today, doesn't that climate change won't be the 'straw that broke the camel's back'.

Possibly.  However, I think that any of those other causes could accomplish the decline (and eventually extinction) all by themselves.

Your point being?

That climate change will be a minor contributor to extinctions.  Most plants and animals would be able to adapt to climate perturbations much easier that overhunting, pollution, or total habitat destruction.

That's what I think too. No matter where I go, habitats are degraded not because of climate change but because of mechanical and chemical destruction through agriculture. Then add expanding cities and hunting/ fishing and you have the perfect storm for extinctions. 

Without all the human impact, most species would just migrate in the light of a warming climate.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bernard on October 24, 2017, 01:58:00 PM

No matter where I go, habitats are degraded not because of climate change but because of mechanical and chemical destruction through agriculture. Then add expanding cities and hunting/ fishing and you have the perfect storm for extinctions. 

Without all the human impact, most species would just migrate in the light of a warming climate.

There is a caveat to those points. Destruction by direct impact (agriculture, expanding cities, overfishing/hunting) can be stopped rather "rapidly", in a generation, say, if there is a real political will and action (which is, I agree, wishful thinking in the current state of affairs). Degraded soils can be restored in a matter of years, fishing and hunting policies can be enforced, urbanism controlled, etc. Even overpopulation, public enemy #1, can be curbed. All those are doable to some extent, and efforts are made here, there and everywhere in this direction. Far from enough, but not completely hopeless.
BUT the time scale of ongoing climate change will span for centuries whatever action we take now, because of all the feedback loops already at work and the huge inertia already built. Look at the Keeling curve and how it steadily grows despite whatever we do or don't about carbon. Even if we change something about the other causes, climate change is here to stay. And migration to better places is not an option for most species, far from it. If you are a fish or frog in a mountain lake or stream and the drought is drying up your home, you don't migrate. You dry on spot.
Maybe other direct causes are more obvious right now, but secondary impacts of climate change will be more and more prevalent I'm afraid. Of course, if we do nothing about the former, the latter will just be the last hit of the hammer on the nails of our coffins.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on October 24, 2017, 03:40:59 PM
I note that climate change does not only mean emissions of GHGs from anthropogenic fossil fuels.  It also includes all other anthropogenic radiative forcings such as changes in surface albedo, deforestation, acidification of the oceans, and all associated feedback mechanisms.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Daniel B. on October 24, 2017, 04:30:27 PM
Re: " ...  most and probably all of the previous mass extinction events were driven primarily by global warming. "

I am not sure this is true. Cites ?

sidd

It appears to not be so.  This link lists what many think are the primary causes of the "Big 5" mass extinctions:

1.  The Ordovician event (443 Myr) is thought to be due to periods of intense glaciation
2.

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v471/n7336/fig_tab/nature09678_T1.html
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Daniel B. on October 24, 2017, 04:45:15 PM
Sorry, got cut off.

1.  Ordovician event (440 Myr ago) is thought to have been cause by periods of intense glaciation and recession.
2.  Devonian event (360 Myr ago) by global cooling, likely caused by an asteroid impact or volcanism.
3.  Permian event (250 Myr ago)  by the eruption of a Siberian volcano (although this may have been ultimately caused by an asteroid impact leading to the eruption.
4.  Triassic event (200 Myr ago)  Atlantic volcanic lava flow, although an asteroid impact has not been ruled out.
5.  Cretaceous event (65 Myr ago)  suspected cause is an asteroid impact in the Yucatan, although volcanic activity in India has been cited frequently also.

In none of these was the primary cause listed as "global warming."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: wili on October 25, 2017, 03:37:45 AM
And what does 'volcanic activity' produce?
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: TerryM on October 25, 2017, 03:39:09 AM
Sorry, got cut off.

1.  Ordovician event (440 Myr ago) is thought to have been cause by periods of intense glaciation and recession.
2.  Devonian event (360 Myr ago) by global cooling, likely caused by an asteroid impact or volcanism.
3.  Permian event (250 Myr ago)  by the eruption of a Siberian volcano (although this may have been ultimately caused by an asteroid impact leading to the eruption.
4.  Triassic event (200 Myr ago)  Atlantic volcanic lava flow, although an asteroid impact has not been ruled out.
5.  Cretaceous event (65 Myr ago)  suspected cause is an asteroid impact in the Yucatan, although volcanic activity in India has been cited frequently also.

In none of these was the primary cause listed as "global warming."


How fortunate for us!
Our Anthropomorphic Suicide will be the first in the world's long history.


Perhaps only god can make a tree, but certainly only civilized man can pull the whole thing down on his own head.


With Trump out of the Paris Accord, perhaps we can now put some real teeth in the agreement. Say by putting CO2 based tariffs on every internationally traded item. If Mr. Keeting's curve continues upwards, so will our tariffs.
If we break a few countries, these will be among the worst offenders, and begging for food is preferable to dying of heat stroke.
Terry
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: wili on October 25, 2017, 03:45:20 AM
Hints:

"Viluy magmatism may inject enough CO2 and SO2 into the atmosphere to generate a destabilised greenhouse and ecosystem..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Devonian_extinction#Magmatism

"A recent hypothesis put forward is that the volcanism [from Siberian Traps] was a trigger that led to an explosion of the growth of Methanosarcina, a microbe that then spewed enormous amounts of methane into Earth's atmosphere...

at the peak of the extinction, the Earth underwent lethally hot global warming, in which equatorial ocean temperatures exceeded 40 °C (104 °F)"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Traps

... I could go on, but anyone who wants to can look this sh!t up and see the truth, unless they are hell-bent on ignoring it or trying to distract others from it.

Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: sidd on October 25, 2017, 05:07:59 AM
I entirely accept that there is evidence for some of the Great Extinctions being due to greenhouse or hothouse state, and there is good discussion in the series by Kidder and Worsely, as I have posted before. But I am not convinced as to the Devonian and Ordovican extinctons.  As to the postulated magmatic driven CO2 impact for the Devonian, I am not sure that outweighs the evidence for extensive glaciation, probably driven by evolution of the first forests in the Devonian pulling CO2 down.  But that last is a conjecture, as is the hypothesis relating magmatic eruption to the Devonian extinction.

sidd
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: wili on October 25, 2017, 05:38:06 AM
"...there is evidence for some of the Great Extinctions being due to greenhouse or hothouse state..."

Thanks, sidd. That's the main point. And I'm sure you have a far better grasp of the relevant science than most others here, including myself.

As you recall, the whole thing came up because some have been downplaying the potential role of ghgs/gw in extinctions. There is, indeed, good evidence that some were indeed due primarily to ghg's build up leading to gw.

So there is very good reason to expect that our current breakneck rate of gw will bring about many extinctions and likely at least greatly exacerbate the current mass extinction event now well underway. Would you agree?
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: sidd on October 25, 2017, 09:16:50 AM
Agreed that current extinction event is partly driven by human fossil carbon exhaust leading to CO2 forcing. But I think human killing of mega/micro fauna and flora and human driven habitat destruction is at least as much to blame.

sidd
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Daniel B. on October 25, 2017, 02:14:49 PM
Agreed that current extinction event is partly driven by human fossil carbon exhaust leading to CO2 forcing. But I think human killing of mega/micro fauna and flora and human driven habitat destruction is at least as much to blame.

sidd

Compared to past episodes, the recent temperature change pales in comparison to large warming and/or cooling estimated to have occurred during past mass extinctions (the estimated temperature drop of the seas during the Devonian event was 15F!).  Check out the animals on the endangered species list.  Habitat loss is estimated to be the main threat to 85% of those species listed.  Overhunting/fishing is the main threat to most of the others. 

https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/directory
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/species/problems/habitat_loss_degradation/
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Shared Humanity on October 25, 2017, 02:42:49 PM
Agreed that current extinction event is partly driven by human fossil carbon exhaust leading to CO2 forcing. But I think human killing of mega/micro fauna and flora and human driven habitat destruction is at least as much to blame.

sidd

Compared to past episodes, the recent temperature change pales in comparison to large warming and/or cooling estimated to have occurred during past mass extinctions (the estimated temperature drop of the seas during the Devonian event was 15F!).  Check out the animals on the endangered species list.  Habitat loss is estimated to be the main threat to 85% of those species listed.  Overhunting/fishing is the main threat to most of the others. 

https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/directory
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/species/problems/habitat_loss_degradation/

So human driven habitat destruction is the main threat to 85% of the species listed and likely then for the actual extinction of a similar percentage. Meanwhile we are determined to engage in planet wide habitat destruction as a result of human driven climate change. The difference being that previous habitat destruction required an aggressive migration of humans with the resultant hunting and agriculture temporarily altering a landscape that could rebound in several generations. This time we are destroying habitats across the planet without ever having to set foot in them using a method that will outlast human civilization.

I feel much better now.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Shared Humanity on October 25, 2017, 02:50:08 PM
Trust me, cutting down trees and turning vast areas of the planet into agricultural land while stripping every form of stored carbon, from trees to fossil fuels to support industry with its resultant pollution pales in comparison to altering the most basic processes of the planet like the carbon cycle or acidifying the oceans. We (humans) are now engaging in a living organism driven, planet wide habitat destruction (modification) not seen since the reign of bacteria and other small life forms.

And yes, I believe BAU extinction will rival the Permian extinction.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Shared Humanity on October 25, 2017, 02:53:59 PM
So now, can we get back on topic on this science thread that is intended to present for discussion the carbon cycle and the changes occurring as a result of climate change? The kinds of contributions that Bruce Steele intended for and provided when this thread was created.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Shared Humanity on October 25, 2017, 03:07:54 PM
For example, I am very concerned about ocean acidification impacting phytoplankton in the oceans and the long term impact on organic carbon deposition and the resultant levels of atmospheric CO2 and oxygen.

https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geology/article-abstract/24/10/867/206380/carbon-isotopes-and-the-rise-of-atmospheric-oxygen?redirectedFrom=fulltext

We know, for example, that seasonal variations in northern hemisphere terrestrial plant activity and the resultant carbon uptake causes the seasonal variation in atmospheric CO2.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JD090iD06p10529/full

Doesn't this suggest that any negative impacts on plant activity caused by increasing CO2 levels (ocean acidification) can impact O2 levels as well? More simply, reduced carbon uptake necessarily means reduced oxygen production and atmospheric oxygen levels, doesn't it?

Since I am not a scientist, I do not know if my fear is warranted.

(Would love to have my concerns set aside by contributions here from people better informed than me.)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Shared Humanity on October 25, 2017, 04:21:38 PM
If I interpret this correctly, reduced atmospheric oxygen due to less robust carbon uptake presents no risk to humans or any other life form.

https://www.wildsafe.org/resources/outdoor-safety-101/altitude-safety-101/high-altitude-oxygen-levels/

It would appear that ocean acidification and oxygen deprivation and its effects on the food chain are what to worry about.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Daniel B. on October 26, 2017, 12:42:12 AM
For example, I am very concerned about ocean acidification impacting phytoplankton in the oceans and the long term impact on organic carbon deposition and the resultant levels of atmospheric CO2 and oxygen.

https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/geology/article-abstract/24/10/867/206380/carbon-isotopes-and-the-rise-of-atmospheric-oxygen?redirectedFrom=fulltext

We know, for example, that seasonal variations in northern hemisphere terrestrial plant activity and the resultant carbon uptake causes the seasonal variation in atmospheric CO2.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JD090iD06p10529/full

Doesn't this suggest that any negative impacts on plant activity caused by increasing CO2 levels (ocean acidification) can impact O2 levels as well? More simply, reduced carbon uptake necessarily means reduced oxygen production and atmospheric oxygen levels, doesn't it?

Since I am not a scientist, I do not know if my fear is warranted.

(Would love to have my concerns set aside by contributions here from people better informed than me.)

Oxygen levels would be a concern, if the atmospheric levels were on the same order as carbon dioxide, as one molecule of oxygen is consumed for every molecule of carbon dioxide generated.  However, the atmosphere consists of 21% oxygen, but only 0.04% carbon dioxide.  Recent, the carbon dioxide levels increased ~0.01%, which would mean a resulting drop of oxygen by a comparable amount.  This is a 35% increase for carbon dioxide, but a  0.5% drop in atmospheric oxygen - not a notable difference.  The increased plant growth that would occur under such a scenario would have a negligible impact on animal growth.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on November 05, 2017, 10:23:45 AM
Understanding the impacts of recent biotic disturbances on US forest carbon cycling is critical for developing a better understanding of how these biotic disturbances will intensify under continued global warming, and the linked reference provides this legwork:

M. Kautz, P. Anthoni, A. J. H. Meddens, T. A. M. Pugh & A. Arneth (3 November 2017), "Simulating the recent impacts of multiple biotic disturbances on forest carbon cycling across the United States", Global Change Biology, DOI: 10.1111/gcb.13974 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.13974/abstract?utm_content=buffer0b718&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Abstract: "Biotic disturbances (BDs, e.g., insects, pathogens and wildlife herbivory) substantially affect boreal and temperate forest ecosystems globally. However, accurate impact assessments comprising larger spatial scales are lacking to date, although these are critically needed given the expected disturbance intensification under a warming climate. Hence, our quantitative knowledge on current and future BD impacts, e.g., on forest carbon (C) cycling, is strongly limited. We extended a Dynamic Global Vegetation Model to simulate ecosystem response to prescribed tree mortality and defoliation due to multiple biotic agents across United States forests during the period 1997-2015, and quantified the BD-induced vegetation C loss, i.e., C fluxes from live vegetation to dead organic matter pools. Annual disturbance fractions separated by BD type (tree mortality and defoliation) and agent (bark beetles, defoliator insects, other insects, pathogens, and other biotic agents) were calculated at 0.5° resolution from aerial-surveyed data and applied within the model. Simulated BD-induced C fluxes totaled 251.6 Mt C (annual mean: 13.2 Mt C yr−1, SD ±7.3 Mt C yr−1 between years) across the study domain, to which tree mortality contributed 95% and defoliation 5%. Among BD agents, bark beetles caused most C fluxes (61%), and total insect-induced C fluxes were about five times larger compared to non-insect agents, e.g., pathogens and wildlife. Our findings further demonstrate that BD-induced C cycle impacts (i) displayed high spatio-temporal variability, (ii) were dominated by different agents across BD types and regions, and (iii) were comparable in magnitude to fire-induced impacts. This study provides the first ecosystem model-based assessment of BD-induced impacts on forest C cycling at the continental scale and going beyond single agent-host systems, thus allowing for comparisons across regions, BD types and agents. Ultimately, a perspective on the potential and limitations of a more process-based incorporation of multiple BDs in ecosystem models is offered."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: jai mitchell on November 05, 2017, 06:44:15 PM
This study appears to be limited to the United States.  Since the majority of the worlds forests are located in Canada and Siberia I wonder what the projection of total global forest impacts would be.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: sidd on November 07, 2017, 07:35:32 PM
Comprehensive review of soil carbon stocks, taking into bedrock horizons, mineralization and food webs.

"The global SOC stock in the upper 2 m of soil is 2,273 Pg C, with the boreal forest biome containing 623 Pg, or 27% of the global total (Table 2). Peatlands contain 543 Pg SOC, most of it in boreal, temperate broadleaf and tropical, moist broadleaf forest biomes; permafrost regions contain 582 Pg SOC, or 26% of the global total (Table 2)."

They have limited data on the 2-3m carbon stock, but they attempt it:

"Thus, the global total soil carbon pool to a depth of 3 m is estimated as 2,800 Pg C. Deeper (>3 m) deposits include an additional ~300–500 Pg OC in the permafrost region (Schuur et al. 2015), ~30–50 Pg C in tropical peatlands, and an unknown quantity of OC in other environments with deep sediments such as deltas, floodplains, and loess deposits."

doi:10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-112414-054234

open access. Read all about it. I attach table 2.

sidd
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: sidd on November 28, 2017, 10:15:06 PM
I wasn't sure where to put this article reference, but it has relevance to the carbon cycle. Chalk et al. have a paper out arguing that the reason for the transition from 40Kyr to 100Kyr cycle was due to changing dust fertilization of southern oceans, and  find an increase in temperature sensitivity to CO2 across the transition.

"We argue that neither ice sheet dynamics nor CO 2 change in isolation can explain the MPT. Instead, we infer that the MPT was initiated by a change in ice sheet dynamics and that longer and deeper post-MPT ice ages were sustained by carbon cycle feedbacks related to dust fertilization of the Southern Ocean as a consequence of larger ice sheets. "

"The observed changes in the SL to ΔR CO2 relationships contain elements of both end member scenarios shown in Fig. 2 A and B, in which a greater slope is possibly related to changes internal to the ice sheets (scenario 1) and amplified glacial to interglacial CO 2 climate forcing is linked (this study) to increased glacial dustiness that causes enhanced Southern Ocean iron fertilization (scenario 2). Therefore, we propose a hybrid scenario (Fig. 2C) that incorporates both heightened ice sheet sensitivity to CO 2 forcing and dust-driven ocean sequestration of CO 2 to represent the observed climate system change across the MPT."

doi:10.1073/pnas.1702143114

open access, read all about it.

I attach fig 3.

sidd
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 01, 2017, 05:43:12 PM
The linked reference indicates that current models of methane emissions from peatlands need to be improved to account for hotspots in the peat/soil with varying conditions (including varying ground water elevation):

Yang et al. (2017), "Evaluating the Classical Versus an Emerging Conceptual Model of Peatland Methane Dynamics", Global Biogeochemical Cycles, doi: 10.1002/2017GB005622

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GB005622/abstract;jsessionid=120CA9C25B38DF660F8C127A470C3997.f02t01?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+unavailable+on+2nd+Dec+2017+starting+from+0800+EST+%2F+1300+GMT+%2F+21.00+SGT+for+2.5+hours+due+to+urgent+server+maintenance.+Apologies+for+the+inconvenience.

See also:

Thompson, E. (2017), A new model yields a better picture of methane fluxes, Eos, 98, https://doi.org/10.1029/2017EO086831

https://eos.org/research-spotlights/a-new-model-yields-a-better-picture-of-methane-fluxes?utm_source=eos&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EosBuzz120117

Extract: "… generally speaking, methane is produced below the water table, where there is little to no oxygen, and it is destroyed above the water table, especially right at the boundary, where the most methane accumulates. When the water table is high, a greater proportion of the soil falls into methane-producing conditions. Likewise, when the water table drops, more soil is exposed to oxygen and thereby able to destroy methane. Current models commonly use this relationship to predict net methane production essentially on the basis of water table height.

Now Yang et al. suggest updating this classical conceptual model to include new information on methane dynamics gleaned from recent studies: For example, oxygen-poor pockets within the soil produce methane even above the water table, and methane can be destroyed below the water table in the absence of oxygen, depending on the presence of specific microbes and molecules in the soil that can play the role of oxygen to gain the electrons lost by methane."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 04, 2017, 08:47:24 PM
The linked article documents how trees are the dominant source of methane emissions in the Amazon wetlands:

Title : "Trees are the dominant source of methane emissions in Amazon wetlands"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-trees-are-the-dominant-source-of-methane-emissions-in-amazon-wetlands

Extract: " … trees needing to get oxygen down to their roots to keep them alive in an otherwise anaerobic soil. The methane produced in the soil is emitted in the opposite direction, out of the stems and into the atmosphere.

Scaling up our findings using maps of known floodplain extent, we estimate that wetland trees emit between 14m and 25m tonnes of methane each year.

This is similar in size to emissions from Arctic tundra, all the oceans combined or the total emission from wild animals and termites across the world combined.

Remarkably, we found that tree stems contributed around half of all methane emissions from the Amazon, which – when added to the emissions from other pathways – gave very close agreement with the top-down aircraft based emissions estimates."

See also:

Pangala, S. R. et al. (2017) Large emissions from floodplain trees close the Amazon methane budget, Nature, doi:10.1038/nature24639

http://www.nature.com/articles/nature24639
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: TerryM on December 04, 2017, 09:21:58 PM
Ouch!
I thought the Amazon was a carbon sink.
Terry
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 04, 2017, 10:20:00 PM
Ouch!
I thought the Amazon was a carbon sink.
Terry

On the bright side, the methane emissions from these wetland tropical trees have been relatively constant for millennia, and who knows where deforestation (thus reducing the number of trees as methane sources) vs potential increased methane from more decaying submerged deadwood (due to deforestation), will result in an increase trend, or a decreasing trend, in methane emissions from the Amazon wetland trees (which currently do absorb a lot of CO2).
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Daniel B. on December 05, 2017, 03:48:49 AM
Ouch!
I thought the Amazon was a carbon sink.
Terry

Fear not.  It still is.  "For the nations of the Amazon basin as a whole this means that since 1980 the carbon uptake has matched the entire combined emissions from deforestation and fossil fuels."

https://phys.org/news/2017-02-carbon-uptake-amazon-forests-region.html
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: gerontocrat on December 07, 2017, 04:25:21 PM
Off topic but perhaps worth pointing out that atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to rise at an unabated rate.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: AbruptSLR on January 24, 2018, 04:45:06 PM
It looks like future methane emissions from shallow lakes in agricultural areas have likely been underestimated due to the synergy between nutrients (from the agriculture) and future warming:

Title: "Combined nutrients and warming massively increase methane emissions from lakes"

https://phys.org/news/2018-01-combined-nutrients-massively-methane-emissions.html

Extract: "Shallow lakes in agricultural landscapes will emit significantly greater amounts of methane, mostly in the form of bubbles (ebullition) in a warmer world, which is a potential positive feedback mechanism to climate warming.

The present study used the longest-running freshwater mesocosm climate change experiment in the world to investigate how warming and eutrophication might interact to change methane ebullition in the future.
The results here were striking as they showed that the combination of increased nutrient loading and warming had a synergistic effect on the ebullition of methane. In the absence of nutrient enrichment, warming alone increased annual methane ebullition by around 50 percent and its relative contribution to total methane emission rose from about 50 percent to 75 percent.
In stark contrast, when nutrient levels were high, warming increased total methane emission by at least six-fold, and in some cases, 17-fold, and the proportion of ebullition increased to 95 percent of total annual methane flux."

See also:

Thomas A. Davidson et al, Synergy between nutrients and warming enhances methane ebullition from experimental lakes, Nature Climate Change (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41558-017-0063-z
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: wolfpack513 on February 03, 2018, 11:23:48 PM
Correcting for ENSO and natural variability, CO2 concentration is still accelerating.  2017’s growth was lower than 2016 and 2015 but that was clearly Niño related.  Just like 1999 wasn’t the beginning of deacceleration after the 1997-1998 super Niño. 

(https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F&hash=35d7d5d7526c9897dfb55501e320295a)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Thomas Barlow on February 09, 2018, 01:02:16 AM
Don't know where to post this, but how much CO2 did Elon Musk put into the atmosphere yesterday?
Edited - May have got my maths wrong.
This person in the link below says it is more than an average diesel car would produce driving one million miles.
330,000kg of CO2 in 2.5 minutes. Still staggering to me. And the Falcon Heavy that just went up is much bigger than the SpaceX rocket used for the calculations this post below, so I'm going to say more like 500 metric tonnes for this newest rocket.

Does this sound right?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-carbon-footprint-of-a-SpaceX-rocket
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: SteveMDFP on February 09, 2018, 04:33:12 PM
Don't know where to post this, but how much CO2 did Elon Musk put into the atmosphere yesterday?
This person in the link below says it is more than an average diesel car would produce driving one million miles. (330,000kg)
Considering the annual global human emissions are about 36 billion metric tonnes, that would be about 200 metric tonnes per 5 minutes. In 5 minutes, Elon Musk put about 400 metric tonnes into the atmosphere (and his rocket that was supposed to land ... crashed into the ocean at 300mph. Twice the GLOBAL emissions for a 5 minute timeframe. Staggering to me.

Does this sound right?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-carbon-footprint-of-a-SpaceX-rocket

This is where I think Musk's vision of establishing humanity as a multi-planet species might be counterproductive.
Until off-world colonies become fully self-sufficient, the carbon footprint of a single human being living off-world will be ENORMOUS.  Food, water, medical care, manufactured goods, electronics, shelter.  Almost all of this will need to be shipped from earth's surface for a long time.

I can imagine a way that the endeavor might be done in a way that won't devastate Earth, but it will take a lot more time.  What I think is needed is to send a number of AI-controlled autonomous robots.  They need to do mining and manufacturing to build more of themselves.  Building electronic chip factories off-world will ultimately be needed.  They'll need to build the habitat and start farming some foodstuffs. 

When development reaches the point where humans merely need to be delivered to a home-like (mostly subterranean) environment, then we could maybe tolerate the ecologic footprint to start sending some humans.  Decades, for sure.  Maybe a century or two.

But regardless of how well and efficiently that might be accomplished, I'd think establishing a secure, sustainable habitat on earth would *always* be far less expensive.  Even one built to withstand nuclear fallout, high CO2 levels, hydrogen sulfide in the atmosphere, zero land or sea agriculture, whatever--would be far cheaper.  An inhospitable Earth environment is always going to be more amenable to human engineering than the Moon or Mars.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: TerryM on February 09, 2018, 08:18:43 PM
Don't know where to post this, but how much CO2 did Elon Musk put into the atmosphere yesterday?
This person in the link below says it is more than an average diesel car would produce driving one million miles. (330,000kg)
Considering the annual global human emissions are about 36 billion metric tonnes, that would be about 200 metric tonnes per 5 minutes. In 5 minutes, Elon Musk put about 400 metric tonnes into the atmosphere (and his rocket that was supposed to land ... crashed into the ocean at 300mph. Twice the GLOBAL emissions for a 5 minute timeframe. Staggering to me.

Does this sound right?
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-carbon-footprint-of-a-SpaceX-rocket (https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-carbon-footprint-of-a-SpaceX-rocket)

This is where I think Musk's vision of establishing humanity as a multi-planet species might be counterproductive.
Until off-world colonies become fully self-sufficient, the carbon footprint of a single human being living off-world will be ENORMOUS.  Food, water, medical care, manufactured goods, electronics, shelter.  Almost all of this will need to be shipped from earth's surface for a long time.

I can imagine a way that the endeavor might be done in a way that won't devastate Earth, but it will take a lot more time.  What I think is needed is to send a number of AI-controlled autonomous robots.  They need to do mining and manufacturing to build more of themselves.  Building electronic chip factories off-world will ultimately be needed.  They'll need to build the habitat and start farming some foodstuffs. 

When development reaches the point where humans merely need to be delivered to a home-like (mostly subterranean) environment, then we could maybe tolerate the ecologic footprint to start sending some humans.  Decades, for sure.  Maybe a century or two.

But regardless of how well and efficiently that might be accomplished, I'd think establishing a secure, sustainable habitat on earth would *always* be far less expensive.  Even one built to withstand nuclear fallout, high CO2 levels, hydrogen sulfide in the atmosphere, zero land or sea agriculture, whatever--would be far cheaper.  An inhospitable Earth environment is always going to be more amenable to human engineering than the Moon or Mars.


I'm not sure that we have "a lot more time."


Anything that distracts us from finding peaceful solutions to our political spats, solutions to the pollution of land, water and the air we breathe, the political will to close down everything that spews GHGs into our atmosphere, and a way to feed the additional billions that we're breeding is not something that should be celebrated.


I don't think our culture survives, but I hope that I'm wrong.
Terry
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Thomas Barlow on February 10, 2018, 12:20:59 AM
I think I got my maths wrong, so it's not as drastic as I thought (but it is close to 500 metric tonnes in 2.5 minutes), but Elon Musk wants to go to Mars and create a space colony of a million people there, as a sort-of 'back-up' for the human race, like backing up computer files. Not a bad idea.
But how many of those rockets will it take to put a million people up there in time?
I guess we are up against impossible odds in all directions with this current political intransigence worldwide.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Shared Humanity on February 10, 2018, 06:26:00 PM
Humanity's fate is inextricably linked to the fate of this planet. Musk and his ilk are a distraction from the task at hand.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: gerontocrat on February 10, 2018, 07:52:37 PM
Forget Musk, we are talking small beer about Falcon Heavy compared with :-

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-09/co2-emissions-seen-on-the-rise-this-year

Quote
A strong economy and low gasoline prices can be a bad combination for planet Earth. U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants, vehicles and other sources are forecast to rise for the first time this year since 2014, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The 1.8 percent uptick comes even as cleaner-burning natural gas and renewable energy replaces coal-fired power plants. “When the economy is doing well, energy demand is doing well,” Rhodium Group director John Larsen said in an interview Friday.

This is after:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-set-to-rise-2-percent-in-2017-following-three-year-plateau

Quote
Over the past three years, global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels have remained relatively flat. However, early estimates from the Global Carbon Project (GCP) using preliminary data suggest that this is likely to change in 2017 with global emissions set to grow by around 2%, albeit with some uncertainties.

Renewables and less coal haven't started to reduce emissions yet (plus expected world economic growth in 2018 at 3.9%)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on February 13, 2018, 08:28:43 PM
Meridional overturning circulation conveys fast acidification to the deep Atlantic Ocean
Published 13 February 2018   
Since the Industrial Revolution, the North Atlantic Ocean has been accumulating anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) and experiencing ocean acidification1, that is, an increase in the concentration of hydrogen ions (a reduction in pH) and a reduction in the concentration of carbonate ions. The latter causes the ‘aragonite saturation horizon’—below which waters are undersaturated with respect to a particular calcium carbonate, aragonite—to move to shallower depths (to shoal), exposing corals to corrosive waters2,3. Here we use a database analysis to show that the present rate of supply of acidified waters to the deep Atlantic could cause the aragonite saturation horizon to shoal by 1,000–1,700 metres in the subpolar North Atlantic within the next three decades. We find that, during 1991–2016, a decrease in the concentration of carbonate ions in the Irminger Sea caused the aragonite saturation horizon to shoal by about 10–15 metres per year, and the volume of aragonite-saturated waters to reduce concomitantly. Our determination of the transport of the excess of carbonate over aragonite saturation (xc[CO32−])—an indicator of the availability of aragonite to organisms—by the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation shows that the present-day transport of carbonate ions towards the deep ocean is about 44 per cent lower than it was in preindustrial times. We infer that a doubling of atmospheric anthropogenic CO2 levels—which could occur within three decades according to a ‘business-as-usual scenario’ for climate change4—could reduce the transport of xc[CO32−] by 64–79 per cent of that in preindustrial times, which could severely endanger cold-water coral habitats. The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation would also export this acidified deep water southwards, spreading corrosive waters to the world ocean.

 


Perez F. F., Fontela M., García-Ibáñez M. I., Mercier H., Velo A., Lherminier P., Zunino P., de la Paz M., Alonso-Pérez F., Guallart E. F. & Padin X. A., in press. Meridional overturning circulation conveys fast acidification to the deep Atlantic Ocean. Nature.

As the saturation horizon rises so too the long term sink for carbonates is reduced in size. For the short time spans we humans tend to worry about this may not seem catastrophic but it is a a problem that earth will have to deal with for ~ 100,000 years after we finally quit emitting CO2.  The calcium carbonate that would otherwise settle onto the shelves will instead desolve and reenter the oceans as DIC . The DIC will circulate and eventually upwell where it can again enter the atmospheric carbon pool. Our legacy is a very long term truncation of the ability of the oceans to sink carbon. Sad that, a legacy of death.
Bruce
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: TerryM on February 13, 2018, 09:04:50 PM
DIC=Dissolved Inorganic Carbon


Is this shoaling simply a case of the deeper regions becoming saturated and filling up? or is there some other mechanism at work here?
Terry
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on February 13, 2018, 10:00:11 PM
Terry, The shallow oceans are saturated and the deep oceans are undersaturated. As the ocean up takes CO2 it is transformed into carbonic acid. Carbonic acid then combines with seawater to form carbonate,  bi-carbonate and a hydrogen ion. The hydrogen ions that are released are measured as a decrease in pH. Downwelling takes this low pH water to depth along with organic matter and calcium carbonate from phytoplankton . The organic matter is bacterially reduced and releases bound CO2 where it meets the saturation horizon because it doesn't sink after the calcium carbonate dissolves .
 In short the surface supplied CO2 and organic matter is carried to depth where it increases hydrogen ions and reduces pH . This it somewhat complicated because as the calcium carbonate dissolves it reabsorbs some of the hydrogen ions.  There is however a net increase in deep ocean pooled hydrogen ions . As this proceeds the saturation horizon gets closer to the surface.
 In the area of the ocean above the saturation calcium carbonate builds up on the sea floor. This pool of carbon is very long lived and eventually is moved tectonically onto the continents as limestone , or other mineral forms. Thus the oceans are responsible for carbon sinks that can hold carbon for millions of years. As the saturation horizon moves closer to the surface there is less and less ocean bottom where calcium carbonate can build up.
 
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: gerontocrat on March 15, 2018, 12:41:37 PM
CO2, ph in the ocean and coral reefs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-43391388

Rising carbon dioxide levels impair coral growth
By Mary Halton
Science reporter, BBC News
Quote

Coral reefs are under threat if atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to rise, new research has shown. When CO2 dissolves in the ocean, it raises the water's acidity level. This prevents a build up of calcium carbonate, which corals draw from seawater to build their skeleton.

The study, published today in Nature, was conducted on the Great Barrier Reef in Australia.

Coral neighbourhoods
Previous lab-based studies have focused on how particular organisms are impacted by ocean acidification.

"But when we try to scale that to understanding how individual ecosystems respond, it would be comparable to looking at a single tree and saying that's how a rainforest would respond," said Dr Rebecca Albright from the California Academy of Sciences, lead author on the study.

Dr Albright and her team worked on One Tree Island, off the coast of Queensland. The system of lagoons on the site have a very particular structure, which means that water flows in one direction across the reef flat for 60 minutes just after low tide each day. This allowed the scientists to introduce CO2-saturated water to the lagoon and observe its impact.

The study was conducted across 30 days in 2016 and showed drop of about a third in calcification - the amount of calcium carbonate sucked out of the water by coral.

This reduction doesn't lead directly to coral death in the way that bleaching does, explained Dr Albright. But it does impair the coral's growth, and ability to repair and reproduce. In the wake of bleaching events, which are caused by increased temperatures, corals will be less able to recover if the ocean's pH continues to drop. The team replicated the ocean acidity levels that are likely to be present by the middle of this century.

Pre-industrial-era oceans had a pH of 8.2. Current measurements at the site are 8.1, and the acidified water introduced for the study had a value of approximately 8.0, marking a significant impact on the ecosystem from a relatively minor change.



https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25968.epdf?referrer_access_token=RC1nRBHSjKaPC9FCqV1NntRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0O4KHHBNa_fHAekziAr_qaA8pCZ-QBK2cMad1beRwSoIEik0A7DWv9aNFqD3VwxX9y7AD5SI_GgTwMwHTBjtYbhcNrd9g3uOx0mdgY1rpJOZmbtGL80S9OD7WzlqWcwsMqm3XQP_EUo-S8bw_fF9-kTG4FKBG8ll4Zfy8B0bgjFSq2d3Ubyn4gh0bW7haBvdh0%3D&tracking_referrer=www.bbc.co.uk
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on April 04, 2018, 06:50:21 PM
We can add diatoms to the list of phytoplankton that are negatively affected by ocean acidification. Although they build their shell with silica they need carbonates in seawater to utililize iron . Low levels of  Iron in seawater can restrict bio productivity . With available carbonates to drop 50% by 2100
Coccolithophores, foraminifera, pteropods  AND diatoms will all be negatively affected. What ever hit to the ocean carbon sink resulting will last ~ 100,000 years. That's the part that troubles me most. Ocean acidification caused by a three century energy spree by humans will have repercussions for all life for 
A very long time.

  https://www.newark.rutgers.edu/news/health-crucial-plants-base-marine-food-chains-disrupted-ocean-acidification
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on April 14, 2018, 02:27:55 AM
Here is a nice overview of how phytoplankton are expected to react to warming and acidification. This review anticipates diatoms to be benifited by future conditions but the paper I linked up thread questions how diatoms will fare. Because there are both species that benefit or are negatively affected
making projections about the health of the future ocean carbon sinks isn't attempted.

http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/3/869/htm
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: wili on May 30, 2018, 04:31:36 AM
Well, here's yet another carbon feedback that I didn't know about and never would have imagined...I wonder how many more of these there are in the 'wings'?

Some thing new in the ocean uptake of co2 and as with a lot of research these days (it seems) it’s not good.
Invisible scum on sea cuts CO2 exchange with air ‘by up to 50%. from the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/28/invisible-scum-on-sea-cuts-co2-exchange-with-air-by-up-to-50

“The world’s oceans absorb around a quarter of all man-made carbon dioxide emissions, making them the largest long-term sink of carbon on Earth.

Greater sea turbulence increases gas exchange between the atmosphere and oceans and until now it was difficult to calculate the effect of “biological surfactants”.

Teams from the Natural Environment Research Council, the Leverhulme Trust and the European Space Agency developed a system that compares “the surfactant effect” between different seawaters in real time.

They found surfactants can reduce carbon dioxide exchange by up to 50%.

Dr Ryan Pereira, a Lyell research fellow at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh, said: “As surface temperatures rise, so too do surfactants, which is why this is such a critical finding.

“The warmer the ocean surface gets, the more surfactants we can expect, and an even greater reduction in gas exchange”

the paper from Nature can be found here
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0136-2
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: aperson on May 30, 2018, 06:41:45 AM
Heat slows down the forward reaction from CO2 (gas) <-> CO2 (aqueous), and it sounds like these surfactants add another layer of buffering. So while it would keep more CO2 in the atmosphere it would slow down the rate of ocean acidification. Win some, lose some.

I was also under the impression that a significant slowdown of the thermohaline circulation would result in less deepwater upwelling which would dampen this effect, but the authors indicate that this effect should increase as warming increases. Looks like paywalled and I don't see the paper on scihub yet so not sure how they came to this conclusion.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: sidd on June 19, 2018, 10:34:52 PM
Apparently carbon uptake by land an ocean has been significantly misunderstood: Resplandy et al. find a coupling between heat and carbon transport and use the relation to show that

"This heat-based constraint requires a 20–100% stronger ocean and river carbon transport from the Northern Hemisphere to the Southern Hemisphere than existing estimates, and supports an upward revision of the global riverine carbon flux from 0.45 to 0.78 PgC/yr . These systematic biases in existing ocean/river carbon fluxes redistribute up to 40% of the carbon sink between northern, tropical and southern land ecosystems. As a consequence, the magnitude of both the southern land source and the northern land sink may have to be substantially reduced."


doi: 10.1038/s41561-018-0151-3

https://phys.org/news/2018-06-ocean-atmospheric-carbon.html

sidd
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: GeoffBeacon on June 25, 2018, 02:33:47 PM
I'm trying to find out the extra heating that comes adding an extra tonne of CO2 (& CH4) to the atmosphere. 

I think I'd like the answer in joules/sec, with perhaps the immediate change and some sense of the decay function. (CO2 - not much decay? CH4 - almost disappearing after a decade or so?)

Anyone know of an easily accessible source?

Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: dnem on June 27, 2018, 01:20:35 PM
Not sure where to post this, but this surely has an impact on the global carbon cycle:

http://www.wri.org/blog/2018/06/2017-was-second-worst-year-record-tropical-tree-cover-loss

2017 Was the Second-Worst Year on Record for Tropical Tree Cover Loss
         
Last year was the second-worst on record for tropical tree cover loss, according to new data from the University of Maryland, released today on Global Forest Watch. In total, the tropics experienced 15.8 million hectares (39.0 million acres) of tree cover loss in 2017, an area the size of Bangladesh. That’s the equivalent of losing 40 football fields of trees every minute for an entire year.

Despite concerted efforts to reduce tropical deforestation, tree cover loss has been rising steadily in the tropics over the past 17 years. Natural disasters like fires and tropical storms are playing an increasing role, especially as climate change makes them more frequent and severe.  But clearing of forests for agriculture and other uses continues to drive large-scale deforestation.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: gerontocrat on June 27, 2018, 10:18:04 PM
Not sure where to post this, but this surely has an impact on the global carbon cycle:

http://www.wri.org/blog/2018/06/2017-was-second-worst-year-record-tropical-tree-cover-loss

2017 Was the Second-Worst Year on Record for Tropical Tree Cover Loss
         
Last year was the second-worst on record for tropical tree cover loss, according to new data from the University of Maryland, released today on Global Forest Watch. In total, the tropics experienced 15.8 million hectares (39.0 million acres) of tree cover loss in 2017, an area the size of Bangladesh. That’s the equivalent of losing 40 football fields of trees every minute for an entire year.

Despite concerted efforts to reduce tropical deforestation, tree cover loss has been rising steadily in the tropics over the past 17 years. Natural disasters like fires and tropical storms are playing an increasing role, especially as climate change makes them more frequent and severe.  But clearing of forests for agriculture and other uses continues to drive large-scale deforestation.

I posted it on the Global Forest Watch thread.

The effect on the carbon cycle is both immediate and long-term.

Much of the cleared forest is simply burnt as part of land clearance for agriculture (annual crops, grazing, and plantations). Immediate CO2 emissions.

The crops, grazing and plantations are a feeble shadow of the carbon sink of the wild forest they replace. I wonder how many gigawatts of new renewable energy installations simply mitigate the loss to the Forest CO2 sink.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Sleepy on June 28, 2018, 08:03:14 AM
Let's hope those flying environmentalist globetrotters out there will compensate by planting even more trees.

Joking aside, planting trees to compensate for flying is delusional.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: magnamentis on June 28, 2018, 12:41:12 PM
Let's hope those flying environmentalist globetrotters out there will compensate by planting even more trees.

Joking aside, planting trees to compensate for flying is delusional.

YES, that's what i think each time they gather in masses in nice sunny places while tech allows for solutions with a much smaller footprint
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: jai mitchell on June 30, 2018, 04:22:59 PM
I'm trying to find out the extra heating that comes adding an extra tonne of CO2 (& CH4) to the atmosphere. 

I think I'd like the answer in joules/sec, with perhaps the immediate change and some sense of the decay function. (CO2 - not much decay? CH4 - almost disappearing after a decade or so?)

Anyone know of an easily accessible source?

I have seen a quote by Dr. Ken Caldiera that said the amount of heat applied to the earth from a single CO2 molecule was 10,000 times the heat energy that was released producing the molecule by combustion.  This was measured over a time period of thousands of years (I think)
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: kassy on June 30, 2018, 05:58:25 PM
Interesting question & a good memory (i think i would drop the last 0 over time too because 10k is already so bad).

They found that the carbon dioxide-caused warming exceeds the amount of heat released by a lump of coal in just 34 days. The same phenomenon is observed in 45 days for an isolated incident of oil combustion, and in 59 days for a single instance of burning natural gas.

“Ultimately, the warming induced by carbon dioxide over the many thousands of years it remains in the atmosphere would exceed the warming from combustion by a factor of 100,000 or more,” Caldeira said.

and more on:
https://carnegiescience.edu/news/greenhouse-gas-caused-warming-felt-just-months

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124002

also see:
http://4hiroshimas.com/#Science

Several Skeptical Science contributors worked together to publish a scientific paper1 which combined the land, air, ice, and ocean warming data. It found that for recent decades the earth has been heating at a rate of 250 trillion Joules per second.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: jai mitchell on August 16, 2018, 09:32:42 PM
https://phys.org/news/2018-08-abrupt-permafrost-beneath-lakes-significantly.html

'Abrupt thaw' of permafrost beneath lakes could significantly affect climate change models
August 16, 2018 by Jeff Richardson, University of Alaska Fairbanks

Quote
they determined the "abrupt thaw" beneath such lakes is likely to release large amounts of permafrost carbon into the atmosphere this century. The lake activity could potentially double the release from terrestrial landscapes by the 2050s.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: bluesky on August 26, 2018, 09:13:04 PM
Subtropical forests with older trees and higher number of tree species seem to accelerate the carbone cycle and store significantly more carbon according to a new long term research in several forest compartiments in China:

"Tree specie richness increases ecosystem carbon storage in subtropical forests"
Xiaojuan Liu et al, August 22, 2018, Proceedings of the Royal Society B

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/285/1885/20181240

"Abstract
Forest ecosystems are an integral component of the global carbon cycle as they take up and release large amounts of C over short time periods (C flux) or accumulate it over longer time periods (C stock). However, there remains uncertainty about whether and in which direction C fluxes and in particular C stocks may differ between forests of high versus low species richness. Based on a comprehensive dataset derived from field-based measurements, we tested the effect of species richness (3–20 tree species) and stand age (22–116 years) on six compartments of above- and below-ground C stocks and four components of C fluxes in subtropical forests in southeast China. Across forest stands, total C stock was 149 ± 12 Mg ha−1 with richness explaining 28.5% and age explaining 29.4% of variation in this measure. Species-rich stands had higher C stocks and fluxes than stands with low richness; and, in addition, old stands had higher C stocks than young ones. Overall, for each additional tree species, the total C stock increased by 6.4%. Our results provide comprehensive evidence for diversity-mediated above- and below-ground C sequestration in species-rich subtropical forests in southeast China. Therefore, afforestation policies in this region and elsewhere should consider a change from the current focus on monocultures to multi-species plantations to increase C fixation and thus slow increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global warming."
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on September 10, 2018, 06:34:22 PM
Royal Society.  Open access
 Title.   Placing our current" hyperthermal " in the context of rapid climate change in our geological past
 Foster, Hull, Lunt, & Zachos
 Sept 2018

http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/376/2130/20170086

Putting our hyperthermal in context of past events. A warning in the final sentences that biological impacts may exceed  any caused by climate change over the last 56 million years. But that assumes we continue our emissions to consume most fossil fuel reserves.
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Bruce Steele on November 09, 2018, 08:49:10 PM
Biogeosciences open access 
https://www.biogeosciences.net/15/6649/2018/

A mesocosm study that shows DMS reductions of 28% at atmospheric CO2 1000ppm compared to
400ppm .

"Over a period of 5 weeks, P. tricornuntum outcompeted T. weissflogii and E. huxleyi, comprising more than 99% of the final biomass. During the logarithmic growth phase (phase I), mean DMS concentration in high pCO2 mesocosms (1000µatm) was 28% lower than that in low pCO2 mesocosms (400µatm)"
Title: Re: Carbon Cycle
Post by: Sleepy on November 11, 2018, 07:01:49 AM
Drivers of future seasonal cycle changes in oceanic pCO2
https://www.biogeosciences.net/15/5315/2018/ (https://www.biogeosciences.net/15/5315/2018/)

4 Conclusions
Quote
In this study, we used output from seven CMIP5 global models, subjected to the RCP8.5 radiative forcing scenarios, to provide a comprehensive analysis of the characteristics and drivers of the intensification of the seasonal cycle of pCO 2 between present (2006–2026) and future (2080–2100) conditions. By 2080–2100 the δpCO 2 will be 1.5–3 times larger compared to 2006–2026. The projected amplification by the Earth system models and the possible causes of it are consistent with observation-based amplification for the period from 1982 to 2015 (Landschützer et al., 2018). However, the models slightly overestimate the present-day amplification, probably due to the larger pCO 2 trends in models than observations (Tjiputra et al., 2014).
The models confirm the well-established mechanisms controlling present-day δpCO 2 (Takahashi et al., 2002; Sarmiento and Gruber, 2006; Fay and McKinley, 2017). DIC s and T contributions are the main counteracting terms dominating the seasonal evolution of δpCO 2 . Furthermore, the models show that under future conditions the controlling mechanisms remain unchanged. This result confirms the findings of Landschützer et al. (2018) that identified the same regional controlling mechanism for the past 30 years. The relative role of the DIC and T terms is regionally dependent. High latitudes and upwelling regions, such as the California current system and the coast of Chile, are dominated by DIC s and the temperate low latitudes are driven by T. Only in the North Atlantic and northwestern Pacific do the models show a dominance of thermal effects over nonthermal effects, which is in disagreement with observations. This further illustrates the urgent need for models to accurately represent regional oceanographic features to accurately reproduce the δpCO2 characteristics.
In agreement with Landschützer et al. (2018), the model projections towards the end of this century also demonstrate that the global amplification of δpCO2 is due to the overall
long-term increase in anthropogenic CO2. A higher oceanic background CO2 concentration enhances the effect of T-driven solubility changes on δpCO2 and alters the seawater carbonate chemistry, also enhancing the DIC seasonality effect. The spatial differences of δpCO 2 amplification, however, are determined by the regional sensitivities and seasonality of pCO2 drivers.For example, polar regions show larger sensitivity to DIC and T and larger seasonal cycles of DIC and T. Therefore, these areas present a strong enhancement of δpCO2 in spite of smaller changes in mean pCO2.
Moreover, the pCO 2 seasonal cycle amplitude depends on the relative magnitude and phase of the contributions. The models ensemble mean reproduces the highly effective compensation of DIC s and T contributions when they are 6 months out of phase, confirming previous studies (Takahashi et al., 2002; Landschützer et al., 2018). The compensation of DIC and T prevents a larger amplification of δpCO2, even when both contributions are largely amplified.
The amplification of the TA and S contributions has a small impact on δpCO2 in most regions, except in the high latitudes at which the TA contribution complements the DIC one, enhancing the nonthermal effect in this region.
The use of Earth system models allowed us to state the importance of including future changes in driver seasonalities for future δpCO2 projections. The T seasonality is projected to increase in most of the ocean basins, thereby reinforcing the δpCO2 amplification. The δT increase is consistent with an increase in stratification that will confine the seasonal changes in net heat fluxes to a shallower mixed layer (Alexander et al., 2018). The DIC s seasonality decreases in some cold areas and its reduction prevents a larger amplification. For the sensitivities, while γ DIC increases, γ T decreases.
The latter phenomenon needs further study.
The increasing amplitude of δpCO 2 might have implications for the net air–sea flux of CO2, in particular in regions where there is an imbalance between winter and summer values (Gorgues et al., 2010). Examples of such behavior can be found in the Southern Ocean (between 50 and 60 ◦ S) (Takahashi et al., 2014a) and in the latitude band from 2–40 ◦ in both hemispheres (Landschützer et al., 2014). Moreover, seasonal events of high pCO 2 could have an impact on acidification, aragonite undersaturation events (Sasse et al., 2015), and hypercapnia conditions (McNeil and Sasse, 2016). Therefore, understanding the drivers of future δpCO2 may help to better assess the response of marine ecosystems to future changes in carbonate chemistry. Finally, our complete analytical expansion of δpCO2 in terms of its four variables provides a practical tool to accurately and quickly diagnose temperature and salinity sensitivities from observational or modeling data sets.