Sentences with phrase «by ocean uptake»

Not exact matches

The researchers were able to test their hypothesis that stronger winds were driving the ocean heat uptake by putting the observations of wind behavior into climate models.

This was due to a combination of factors: a less active sun, higher levels of cooling aerosols from volcanoes and Asian factories, and increased heat uptake by the oceans.

Dr. Houghton and colleagues conclude that the greater certainty in atmospheric carbon measurements has led to an increased certainty in the calculated rate of carbon uptake by land and oceans.

Since the emissions today are three times higher than they were in the 1960s, this increased uptake by land and ocean is not only surprising; it's good news.

Ocean acidification, another change caused by the oceans» uptake of carbon dioxide, also hurts corals.

The uptake of fossil fuel carbon dioxide (CO2) by the ocean increases seawater acidity and causes a decline in carbonate ion concentrations.

«Uptake of iron by diatoms is significant compared to what Mother Nature is able to naturally add to the ocean,» he said.

The foaming agent could interfere with ocean ecologies or inhibit the uptake of carbon dioxide by the ocean — effectively negating one of the major ways that the world's oceans fight global warming naturally.

These variations originate primarily from fluctuations in carbon uptake by land ecosystems driven by the natural variability of the climate system, rather than by oceans or from changes in the levels of human - made carbon emissions.

Not considering the change in net uptake of carbon by the ocean, you can put the following numbers on that (based on Ramanathan and Feng, 2009):

An increased uptake of carbon by the oceans (in the hypothetical situation of stopping all emissions immediately) is not likely to cancel the «unmasked» greenhouse warming in addition to canceling the «committed» ocean warming.

These rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations have led to an increase in global average temperatures of ~ 0.2 °C decade — 1, much of which has been absorbed by the oceans, whilst the oceanic uptake of atmospheric CO2 has led to major changes in surface ocean pH (Levitus et al., 2000, 2005; Feely et al., 2008; Hoegh - Guldberg and Bruno, 2010; Mora et al., 2013; Roemmich et al., 2015).

Almost everybody agrees that it has to do with fluctuations in the carbon uptake by the oceans, with a number of theories relying on enhancement of the biological pump, much along the lines you suggest.

Changing living conditions caused by climate change or ocean acidification — the decrease of ocean pH due to the uptake of human - induced carbon dioxide from the atmosphere — pose serious threats to marine organisms.

Injection of a large amount of surface freshwater in either hemisphere has a notable impact on heat uptake by the ocean and the internal ocean heat distribution (Fig. 12).

Oceanic uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) causes pronounced shifts in marine carbonate chemistry and a decrease in seawater pH. Increasing evidence indicates that these changes — summarized by the term ocean acidification (OA)-- can significantly affect marine food webs and biogeochemical cycles.

«This amount is in the order of magnitude of the annual net uptake of carbon by the biosphere of the oceans,» notes Markus Reichstein.

We review data on the absorption of anthropogenic CO2 by Northern Hemisphere marginal seas (Arctic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Sea of Okhotsk, and East / Japan Sea) and its transport to adjacent major basins, and consider the susceptibility to recent climatic change of key factors that influence CO2 uptake by these marginal seas.

Further uptake of carbon by the ocean will increase ocean acidification.

Purely physical processes like wind - driven mixing can increase the uptake of CO2 by the oceans, but biological processes also play an important role, as does the temperature difference between the air and the water:

By 2100, the ocean uptake rate of 5 Gt C yr - 1 is balanced by the terrestrial carbon source, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are 250 p.p.m.v. higher in our fully coupled simulation than in uncoupled carbon models2, resulting in a global - mean warming of 5.5 K, as compared to 4 K without the carbon - cycle feedbacBy 2100, the ocean uptake rate of 5 Gt C yr - 1 is balanced by the terrestrial carbon source, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are 250 p.p.m.v. higher in our fully coupled simulation than in uncoupled carbon models2, resulting in a global - mean warming of 5.5 K, as compared to 4 K without the carbon - cycle feedbacby the terrestrial carbon source, and atmospheric CO2 concentrations are 250 p.p.m.v. higher in our fully coupled simulation than in uncoupled carbon models2, resulting in a global - mean warming of 5.5 K, as compared to 4 K without the carbon - cycle feedback.

This is complicated by other uptake fluxes such as invasion into the ocean [Wennberg et al., 2004].

There's typically an initial ocean uptake as tropical East Pacific upwelling (CO2 degassing) is reduced, followed by a stronger release of carbon from land.

[Response: I'm sure Eric won't mind me stepping in with some questions for you instead — 1) why do you keep insinuating that terrestrial and ocean uptake of anthropogenic CO2 is somehow not accepted by mainstream scientists?

Since OHC uptake efficiency associated with surface warming is low compared with the rate of radiative restoring (increase in energy loss to space as specified by the climate feedback parameter), an important internal contribution must lead to a loss rather than a gain of ocean heat; thus the observation of OHC increase requires a dominant role for external forcing.

The estimated uptake timescales are within the range he reports for his data - driven calculation, 50 years or so, even though the mean uptake time of the ocean reservoirs in that model, weighted by their sizes, is 600 years.

Then posters like Mr. Benson in # 7 blithly exclaim, «Just so nobody is mislead by your maunderings, NOAA measures the uptake / outgassing of the oceans».

If we divide this number by the CO2 invasion flux into the ocean of 2 Gt C / year, we get an apparent uptake time scale of 80 years.

It is found that a radiative forcing from non-CO2 gases of approximately 0.6 W m -LRB--2) results in a near balance of CO2 emissions from the terrestrial biosphere and uptake of CO2 by the oceans, resulting in near - constant atmospheric CO2 concentrations for at least a century after emissions are eliminated.»

(82/49) Regardless of the potential effect on CO2 uptake by the seasonally icefree polar ocean, there are two major effects from the icefree ocean that should be of general concern.

Because the exchange flux is back - and - forth, it has nothing to do with the net uptake by the ocean of new CO2 to the system, which relies on the imbalance between the upward and downward exchange fluxes.

and should allow some greater CO2 uptake by the ocean.

The ocean uptake physics are governed by ocean circulation, which we know a lot about by measuring the carbon - 14 distribution in the ocean.

... a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades — unprecedented in observations / reanalysis data and not captured by climate models — is sufficient to account for the cooling of the tropical Pacific and a substantial slowdown in surface warming through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake.

Several chemical, physical and biological factors have the potential to affect the uptake of CO2 by the oceans (Houghton et al 2001).

McNeil et al. (2003), Anthropogenic CO2 uptake by the ocean based on the global chlorofluorocarbon data set, Science, Vol 299, 235 - 239.

Abstract:... Here we show that a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades — unprecedented in observations / reanalysis data and not captured by climate models — is sufficient to account for the cooling of the tropical Pacific and a substantial slowdown in surface warming through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake.

kim (1)-- Just so nobody is mislead by your maunderings, NOAA measures the uptake / outgassing of the oceans.

What I mean by this is: When you plot ocean heat uptake against climate sensitivity, I get the impression that the distribution of good models will be a large clump around a climate sensitivity of 3 but then there is a long tail out towards higher sensitivities.

The CaCO3 cycle was discussed briefly in regards to the uptake of fossil fuel by the ocean, here.

This too is questionable, as there are reasons to think the ocean uptake of heat varies at different time scales and may be influenced by ENSO, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO).

Almost everybody agrees that it has to do with fluctuations in the carbon uptake by the oceans, with a number of theories relying on enhancement of the biological pump, much along the lines you suggest.

This reduces CO2 uptake by the ocean.

In the absence of that ion supply, abiotic CO2 uptake in the ocean as a function of CO2 in air is at least somewhat limited by ions already present; acification can (over time) dissolve carbonate minerals that supply cations and carbonate ions, buffering pH and reacting with CO2 to form bicarbonate ions; new cations from chemical weathering have to be supplied to actually remove C from the oceans while keeping pH from dropping and without releasing as much CO2 from bicarbonate ions).

For example: 1) plants giving off net CO2 in hot conditions (r / t aborbing)-- see: http://www.climateark.org/articles/reader.asp?linkid=46488 2) plants dying out due to heat & drought & wild fires enhanced by GW (reducing or cutting short their uptake of CO2 & releasing CO2 in the process) 3) ocean methane clathrates melting, giving off methane 4) permafrost melting & giving off methane & CO2 5) ice & snow melting, uncovering dark surfaces that absorb more heat 6) the warming slowing the thermohaline ocean conveyor & its up - churning of nutrients — reducing marine plant life & that carbon sink.

The increased uptake of CO2 by forests and oceans of about 2 GtC per year each is already a result of the human emissions, which has added enormous amounts of CO2 to the system.

To make any sense, the net emissions by humans have to be compared with the net uptake by oceans and forests and atmosphere, not with the turnover rate of a cycle, which is an irrelevant comparison.

c) The uncertainties in the ocean heat uptake may be underestimated by Levitus, and there are additional uncertainties regarding the role of deep ocean heat uptake (Meehl et al. 2011 Nature Climate Change).

Model simulations for the North Atlantic Ocean and thermodynamic principles reveal that this feedback should be stronger, at present, in colder midlatitude and subpolar waters because of the lower present - day buffer capacity and elevated DIC levels driven either by northward advected surface water and / or excess local air - sea CO2 uptake.

The graphs on the right show the mean carbon uptake by land and ocean for each latitude line corresponding with the adjacent maps.