Is this the latest excuse from the Cult of Climastrology? Or an acknowledgement that science can change when scientists do science things? Both?
Breathe in, breathe out, in, out… Like a giant lung, the Southern Ocean seasonally absorbs vast amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere and releases it back later in the year. But on an annual average the seas surrounding Antarctica absorb significantly more CO2 than they release. Most importantly, these seas remove a large part of the CO2 that human activities emit into the atmosphere, thereby slowing down the growth of this greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, lessening the rate of climate change. Although the Southern Ocean represents no more than a quarter of the total surface of the world’s oceans, it accounts for 40 percent of the global oceanic uptake of that human-made CO2.
Well, that’s a heck of a thing
From the year 2005, however, scientists pointed out that the Southern Ocean carbon sink might have begun to “saturate.” Based on model results, they suggested that it had not increased since the late 1980s. This was unexpected as one had assumed that a direct relationship existed between the magnitude of the carbon sink and the concentration of atmospheric CO2: the higher the concentration of CO2 in the air, the greater the amount of CO2 absorbed by the sea.
Whoops, 97% settled-consensus totally wrong again: "Upswing in absorption of CO2 in Southern Ocean over last decade" http://t.co/d6SBHntBnC
— hockey schtick (@hockeyschtick1) September 10, 2015
Of course, we will soon be told that this will lead to total doom in one form or fashion. We’ll surely hear about how all the sea life WILL DIE as the Southern seas turn to battery acid from “carbon pollution.”
(Jo Nova) The Southern Ocean absorbs 40% of the global oceanic uptake in CO2. For most of the last ten years researchers thought it was weaker, or at “saturation†point and not able to absorb more CO2. Instead, it looks like it has been absorbing more again and by the year 2010 was back up to full power. This means there was a lot more natural variation than scientists (and their models) thought.The GCM’s are meant to be able to predict the oceans.
Back in 2007, New Scientist broadcast that the slowdown has “far reaching implicationsâ€, things were worse than the IPCC’s projections. Things were 20 years ahead of the IPCC’s schedule and it was “scaryâ€. Instead the IPCC was 20 years behind real life, and the models were as bad as the skeptic projected. Will New Scientist tell the world?
No. No they won’t. And the 97% crowd won’t admit their mistakes, and that their computer models fail in the real world, either.
Don’t waste your time reading Teach’s pointless post. If you were unfortunate enough to have read it – summarize his point in a sentence or two. Can’t do it? It’s not your fault, it’s Teach’s.
Here are some summaries of the research papers from news sources.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/0911/Study-says-Southern-Ocean-uptake-of-atmospheric-CO2-recovers
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/the-good-earth/Antarctic-Oceans-carbon-dioxide-absorption-increased/articleshow/48913737.cms
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/09/150910144434.htm
This is the way science works. Were conservabloggers measuring CO2 in the Southern Ocean over the past decade? LOL. Scientists were. Did conservabloggers collate the data, prepare manuscripts and submit to scientific journals? LOL.
Does Teach have a point? Sure. Science is stupid. That’s his point. Not to educate, but to confuse.
Atmospheric CO2 is in a complex equilibrium (or non-equilibrium) with the oceans, that depends on levels in the atmosphere, in the ocean, ocean currents and the winds. What we know, and can easily measure, is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere – and it’s increasing.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Does Teach have a point? Sure. Science is stupid.