Sentences with phrase «from ocean outgassing»

Chemistry tells us how much CO2 should rise from ocean outgassing with each degree and it is a small fraction of the rise that has actually occurred with the first degree of warming.

If most of this is from the ocean outgassing (according to Henry's Law) as it tries to equilibriate with the new temperatures, atmospheric CO2 concentration will continue to rise along with the fossil fuel component part of it.

Natural emissions total: 198.2 GtC (primarily 78.4 GtC from ocean outgassing, and 118.7 GtC from total respiration and fire)

Not exact matches

This was probably due to outgassing of CO2 from the warming oceans and the reverse effect when they cooled.

Rising temperatures will cause outgassing of CO2 from the oceans, but its C12 / C13 ratio will be that of the atmosphere when sinking thermohaline circulation took the CO2 from the atmosphere ~ 1600 years ago, which is different from fossil fuels.

If this actually results in peak CO2 being less this year than less, it well lend support to the theory that the recent CO2 rise has been outgassing from the oceans.

These are the kinds of very complex space weather discussions that need to occur, and at the end of the day CO2 is DEPENDANT on these solar events as CO2 is ELECTRICAL from a conductivity standpoint in the oceans, connected to surface lows and outgassing and ocean surface ion counts.

And remember, during deglaciations, outgassing from the oceans would have occurred in a context in which warming was occurring, but not an exogenous increase in atmospheric CO2 — and outgassing (or not!)

The observed CO2 increase in the world ocean disproves another popular #fakenews piece of the «climate skeptics»: namely that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere might have been caused by the outgassing of CO2 from the ocean as a result of the warming.

I read online within the past two weeks that Russian scientists were up in the northern oceans somewhere and they saw tons of hot spots of methane bubbling out from the ocean surface.I think it was in ScienceDaily.The question posed by these scientists was «is this outgassing a normal melting of methane that has been going on for many thousands of years, or, is it an upward tick of significance?»

As the rate of net CO2 outgassing from the ocean then is affected by reduced solubility, this offers a simple physical explanation of the observed time lag.

Most interesting is that the about monthly variations correlate with the lunar phases (peak on full moon) The Helsinki Background measurements 1935 The first background measurements in history; sampling data in vertical profile every 50 - 100m up to 1,5 km; 364 ppm underthe clouds and above Haldane measurements at the Scottish coast 370 ppmCO2 in winds from the sea; 355 ppm in air from the land Wattenberg measurements in the southern Atlantic ocean 1925-1927 310 sampling stations along the latitudes of the southern Atlantic oceans and parts of the northern; measuring all oceanographic data and CO2 in air over the sea; high ocean outgassing crossing the warm water currents north (> ~ 360 ppm) Buchs measurements in the northern Atlantic ocean 1932 - 1936 sampling CO2 over sea surface in northern Atlantic Ocean up to the polar circle (Greenland, Iceland, Spitsbergen, Barents Sea); measuring also high CO2 near Spitsbergen (Spitsbergen current, North Cape current) 364 ppm and CO2 over sea crossing the Atlantic from Kopenhagen to Newyork and back (Brements on a swedish island Lundegards CO2 sampling on swedish island (Kattegatt) in summer from 1920 - 1926; rising CO2 concentration (+7 ppm) in the 20s; ~ 328 ppm yearly avocean 1925-1927 310 sampling stations along the latitudes of the southern Atlantic oceans and parts of the northern; measuring all oceanographic data and CO2 in air over the sea; high ocean outgassing crossing the warm water currents north (> ~ 360 ppm) Buchs measurements in the northern Atlantic ocean 1932 - 1936 sampling CO2 over sea surface in northern Atlantic Ocean up to the polar circle (Greenland, Iceland, Spitsbergen, Barents Sea); measuring also high CO2 near Spitsbergen (Spitsbergen current, North Cape current) 364 ppm and CO2 over sea crossing the Atlantic from Kopenhagen to Newyork and back (Brements on a swedish island Lundegards CO2 sampling on swedish island (Kattegatt) in summer from 1920 - 1926; rising CO2 concentration (+7 ppm) in the 20s; ~ 328 ppm yearly avocean outgassing crossing the warm water currents north (> ~ 360 ppm) Buchs measurements in the northern Atlantic ocean 1932 - 1936 sampling CO2 over sea surface in northern Atlantic Ocean up to the polar circle (Greenland, Iceland, Spitsbergen, Barents Sea); measuring also high CO2 near Spitsbergen (Spitsbergen current, North Cape current) 364 ppm and CO2 over sea crossing the Atlantic from Kopenhagen to Newyork and back (Brements on a swedish island Lundegards CO2 sampling on swedish island (Kattegatt) in summer from 1920 - 1926; rising CO2 concentration (+7 ppm) in the 20s; ~ 328 ppm yearly avocean 1932 - 1936 sampling CO2 over sea surface in northern Atlantic Ocean up to the polar circle (Greenland, Iceland, Spitsbergen, Barents Sea); measuring also high CO2 near Spitsbergen (Spitsbergen current, North Cape current) 364 ppm and CO2 over sea crossing the Atlantic from Kopenhagen to Newyork and back (Brements on a swedish island Lundegards CO2 sampling on swedish island (Kattegatt) in summer from 1920 - 1926; rising CO2 concentration (+7 ppm) in the 20s; ~ 328 ppm yearly avOcean up to the polar circle (Greenland, Iceland, Spitsbergen, Barents Sea); measuring also high CO2 near Spitsbergen (Spitsbergen current, North Cape current) 364 ppm and CO2 over sea crossing the Atlantic from Kopenhagen to Newyork and back (Brements on a swedish island Lundegards CO2 sampling on swedish island (Kattegatt) in summer from 1920 - 1926; rising CO2 concentration (+7 ppm) in the 20s; ~ 328 ppm yearly average

Temperature increase causes outgassing of CO2 from the oceans same way your soda fizzles when warm and calms down when cold.

Cold water in clouds is the nearest sink that absorbs the CO2 that is outgassed from the surface of the ocean.

No, I don't know what those natural sources are, but I would place outgassing from the oceans high on the suspect list.

However, ocean outgassing from current warming is not happening yet - not even close.

The likely candidates are outgassing from warming ocean waters...» Actually, more CO2 is being desolved into the ocean due the the sharply raised levels.

It remains a bit speculative just what they are, but there are a number of plausible mechanisms: outgassing from warming ocean waters, carbon released from warming soils, methane from thawing permafrost, methane from clathrates in ocean sediment.

However, followup work showed that when you zoom in on the scale, the temperature in each spike starts rising 800 years before the CO2 rises, implying instead that temperature is driving CO2 (via outgassing from oceans) rather than the other way around.

Climate sensitivity is the doubling of temperature from a rise in CO2 that is being outgassed by the oceans as a result of the rising temperature (and that are in fact absorbing, not emitting CO2).

CO2 was being increased by heating of the oceans and outgassing of CO2 from them, not the other way around.

In other words, first temperature rises, and then CO2 rises, not the other way round; possibly caused by CO2 outgassing from warming oceans.

It DOES N'T take any net CO2 outgassing from the oceans in the case that the atmospheric CO2 growth is caused to a significant degree by warming climatic factors — there's MORE than enough human input to achieve the equilibrium between ocean and atmosphere.

CO2 changes by about 10 - 15 ppm per degree C from outgassing, as we see since the last Ice Age, and it is largely the ocean chemistry that explains this magnitude.

I accept that most of the rise from 280 to 400 ppm is caused by human CO2 emissions with the possibility that some of it is due to outgassing from warming of the oceans.

He cites the outgassing of Co2 from oceans on p. 68, and in a talk of his that has circulated.

The emissions and their partitioning only include the fluxes that have changed since 1750, and not the natural CO2 fluxes (e.g., atmospheric CO2 uptake from weathering, outgassing of CO2 from lakes and rivers, and outgassing of CO2 by the ocean from carbon delivered by rivers) between the atmosphere, land and ocean reservoirs that existed before that time and still exist today.

MORE c02 outgassed from the ocean.

Perhaps it draws it down but the CO2 outgassing from warming oceans eventually starts to catch up — after 800 years.

Outgassing from the oceans makes its atmospheric concentration follow long - term global variations of temperature closely enough to inspire incredible surmises of causality, when viewing compressed time - histories from the Cenozoic onward.

I ask because the paper has a freshwater pulse (taking CO2 out of the air) and later CO2 outgassing from the (diluted) ocean.

RealClimate is wonderful, and an excellent source of reliable information.As I've said before, methane is an extremely dangerous component to global warming.Comment # 20 is correct.There is a sharp melting point to frozen methane.A huge increase in the release of methane could happen within the next 50 years.At what point in the Earth's temperature rise and the rise of co2 would a huge methane melt occur?No one has answered that definitive issue.If I ask you all at what point would huge amounts of extra methane start melting, i.e at what temperature rise of the ocean near the Artic methane ice deposits would the methane melt, or at what point in the rise of co2 concentrations in the atmosphere would the methane melt, I believe that no one could currently tell me the actual answer as to where the sharp melting point exists.Of course, once that tipping point has been reached, and billions of tons of methane outgass from what had been locked stores of methane, locked away for an eternity, it is exactly the same as the burning of stored fossil fuels which have been stored for an eternity as well.And even though methane does not have as long a life as co2, while it is around in the air it can cause other tipping points, i.e. permafrost melting, to arrive much sooner.I will reiterate what I've said before on this and other sites.Methane is a hugely underreported, underestimated risk.How about RealClimate attempts to model exactly what would happen to other tipping points, such as the melting permafrost, if indeed a huge increase in the melting of the methal hydrate ice WERE to occur within the next 50 years.My amateur guess is that the huge, albeit temporary, increase in methane over even three or four decades might push other relevent tipping points to arrive much, much, sooner than they normally would, thereby vastly incresing negative feedback mechanisms.We KNOW that quick, huge, changes occured in the Earth's climate in the past.See other relevent posts in the past from Realclimate.Climate often does not change slowly, but undergoes huge, quick, changes periodically, due to negative feedbacks accumulating, and tipping the climate to a quick change.Why should the danger from huge potential methane releases be vievwed with any less trepidation?

The net impact of the 2015 — 2016 El Niño event on the global carbon cycle is an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, which would likely be larger if it were not for the reduction in outgassing from the ocean.

The total temperature increase 1959 - 2004 was 0.6 °C, thus only 1.8 ppmv is caused by more ocean outgassing, the rest is from anthro emissions...

Strong AGW supporters on the other hand argue that while the sun may have caused the initial temperature spike and outgassing of CO2 from the oceans, further temperature increases were caused by the increases in CO2.

The time - lag between changes in temperature and consequent changes in CO2 concentration are caused by outgassing of CO2 from the oceans when they warm and uptake by the oceans as they cool.