It is important to mention that these processes are not uniform over the global ocean and thus the disequilibrium is not
only between ocean and atmosphere, but there are also differences in radiocarbon levels within the ocean.
Not exact matches
Then, last year, after analyzing crust samples collected from the Pacific, Atlantic
and Indian
oceans, scientists estimated that our planet had, sometime
between 2.6 million
and 1.5 million years ago, been buffeted by supernovae shock waves — ones that left their mark not
only on Earth's surface but also affected its
atmosphere.
But all three also point to the same bleak conclusion: human impacts on the
atmosphere promise
only the choice
between a dangerous future,
and a catastrophic one, as the planetary thermometer rises, glaciers
and icecaps melt, the
oceans become more acidic
and more likely to flood coastal communities, hurricanes
and typhoons become more intense
and destructive, heatwaves become more lethal
and droughts become more devastating.
According to Wikipedia they explain the RE by saying: «If CO2 in the
atmosphere is increased by one part per million, the CO2 in the
ocean is increased by
only a tenth of a part per million, because of the way that the carbon dioxide in the water is partitioned
between carbonate ions
and bicarbonate ions
and free CO2.
Yes they ad up: the natural flows in
and out are huge
and only rough estimates, but the difference
between the natural inflows
and outflows (for
oceans and vegetation
and all other processes together) is well known, as that is the difference
between increase in the
atmosphere and the human emissions.
Its turnover time is
only about four years because of the rapid exchange
between the
atmosphere and the
ocean and terrestrial biota.
Seasonal exchanges are huge: about 20 % of all CO2 in the
atmosphere is exchanged
between atmosphere and other reservoirs over the seasons, but as the exchanges with
oceans and vegetation are countercurrent with temperature (vegetation in the NH dominates), the net result is
only some 2 % change in the
atmosphere over the seasons which is visible in the Mauna Loa curve.
There's
only a rather fixed amount of CO2 in circulation
between atmosphere, biosphere / land
and ocean at any time, of order about 2000 Gt.
My educated layman's physicist's gut (layman as far as climate science goes, not physics) tells me 2W / m2 out of the
ocean seems pretty high given that the temperature difference is generated by a peak forcing of
only -3.4 W / m2 - it implies that the
ocean response is of the same order as the atmospheric response, which seems unlikely given the «impedance mismatch»
between the
ocean and atmosphere.
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.
The basic idea, as I interpret the point, is that variability in the state of
oceans does not affect climate
only trough heat transfer
between deep
ocean and surface /
atmosphere, but also trough albedo.
And warmer oceans (even if they are only marginally warmer) should absorb less CO2, and there is a fairly good year - to - year correlation between the fraction remaining in the atmosphere and the temperature change from the previous year (higher in warmer year
And warmer
oceans (even if they are
only marginally warmer) should absorb less CO2,
and there is a fairly good year - to - year correlation between the fraction remaining in the atmosphere and the temperature change from the previous year (higher in warmer year
and there is a fairly good year - to - year correlation
between the fraction remaining in the
atmosphere and the temperature change from the previous year (higher in warmer year
and the temperature change from the previous year (higher in warmer years).