New Study Suggests Oceans Absorb More CO2 Than Previously Thought (scitechdaily.com) 38
Long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 shared this story from SciTechDaily:
New research confirms that subtle temperature differences at the ocean surface, known as the "ocean skin," increase carbon dioxide absorption. This discovery, based on precise measurements, suggests global oceans absorb 7% more CO2 than previously thought, aiding climate understanding and carbon assessments...
Until now, global estimates of air-sea CO2 fluxes typically ignore the importance of temperature differences in the near-surface layer... Dr Gavin Tilstone, from Plymouth Marine Laboratory (PML), said: "This discovery highlights the intricacy of the ocean's water column structure and how it can influence CO2 draw-down from the atmosphere. Understanding these subtle mechanisms is crucial as we continue to refine our climate models and predictions. It underscores the ocean's vital role in regulating the planet's carbon cycle and climate."
Until now, global estimates of air-sea CO2 fluxes typically ignore the importance of temperature differences in the near-surface layer... Dr Gavin Tilstone, from Plymouth Marine Laboratory (PML), said: "This discovery highlights the intricacy of the ocean's water column structure and how it can influence CO2 draw-down from the atmosphere. Understanding these subtle mechanisms is crucial as we continue to refine our climate models and predictions. It underscores the ocean's vital role in regulating the planet's carbon cycle and climate."
I'm not sure why this is important (Score:3, Insightful)
It's interesting, but we can measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and have been doing so for quite some time. The fact the oceans are absorbing 7% more than we'd thought they were doesn't really change the fact that we can measure atmospheric CO2 any time we want to do so.
It's not like this gives us 7% more breathing room than we had before, it's not like if we were actually reducing emissions we wouldn't see the effect on atmospheric CO2 directly.
Extra CO2 is bad for the oceans due to acidification, but if all we paid attention to was air, we'd have a very reliable measurement by which to judge our progress (or lack thereof).
It's supposed to make you think (Score:2, Interesting)
It's the same reason why we keep getting stories about carbon capture. It's pushed by the oil industry in order to slow down the transition to renewables.
Just because the oceans absorb more CO2 doesn't mean that CO2 doesn't have any effects. Having a large increase in CO2 in the oceans can do just as much damage just i
Re: (Score:2)
That we don't need to do anything about climate change because the planet will just take care of it for us.
To be fair, the first part is actually true. But humans will not be around anymore or at least nothing besides scattered tribes of primitive nomads, probably dreaming of a time when we had it all.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you expect that the structures of power will collapse along with the ecosystems and the loss of coastal cities?
If anything, they will be hardened. And militarized.
Think 1984, not Mad Max.
Followed by not Soylent Green but Rollerball. But that's way out in the future.
Re: (Score:3)
It amuses me that you post that like you're serious, but you aren't quite strong enough in your beliefs to post with your Slashdot account name attached.
Deep down, you know you're a fucking moron and you're ashamed of it.
If you're asking me to dox myself (Score:1, Informative)
It happens often enough that it's got a name, stochastic terrorism.
Basically guys like Trump say stuff that winds people up and they go off and do something violent and crazy and stupid. And Trump is blameless and somebody gets killed and somebody else goes to prison for the rest of their lives convinced a pardo
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me, do you think the laws of physics can be altered by your apathy? Do you imagine that thermodynamic behaviors can be altered if you show enough contempt for science?
No I don't (Score:1)
It's like people who think planting a shitload of trees is going to save us. It's not because trees have to breathe through little holes and they can close those little holes when water gets scarce like if there's a drought caused by climate change. Which is exactly what they do.
Basically there's no getting away from transitioning the clean energy and
Re: (Score:2)
When the leader cuddles up to Putin.
Re: (Score:1)
That we don't need to do anything about climate change because the planet will just take care of it for us.
It's not quite as simple as that. But Trump will be able to fix it if we just give him the chance.
Trump is going to fix it the same way he will fix the economy, and also fix immigration. With magic.
Sure the Trump has no actual plan besides soundbites and "experts" say they'll do the opposite of his claims. But that's the beauty of it. It will work because people believe it will work, magic.
And if it doesn't work and makes everything worse. So what. Look at how thoroughly we owned the libs along the way.
Elon musk literally said (Score:1)
The implication was things were going to be really bad for whoever it was you didn't like but of course just fine for you.
Survivorship bias is a hell of a drug.
I guess if the Republican party though take away all our cars and our electricity and plunge us into a new dark age in some sort of weird techno feudal society that would work too. Basically take away civilization from 95% of
Re: (Score:2)
They believed no such things. They are merely being craven and decide to ignore their senses and sensibilities so that they could "own the libs".
Down inside, they know it is wrong, yet their groomed hatred of not being rich or successful made them decide they too could be a bunch of liars like their leader and get away with it.
And the former alleged president gave them a group they could blame that could not hit back, immigrants. That allowed them to ignore their Christian upbringing and not help the truly
Re: (Score:2)
That we don't need to do anything about climate change because the planet will just take care of it for us.
One could spin it is a bit of good news as to the prospects of taking action. There's a whole bunch of folks saying "well it's too late, let's just role with it, the damage is done and whatever will be will be". If they find credibly more effective recovery mechanisms that ultimately add up to a levelling off of subjective conditions, or even maybe a slight improvement over decades, then there's good justification for it being a worthwhile pursuit to minimize hydrocarbon usage.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, you're not sure why this is important. Fortunately, it's not important that you understand why it's important. But for scientists who maintain and refine climate models, better information is universally good.
Re: (Score:3)
It's interesting, but we can measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and have been doing so for quite some time. The fact the oceans are absorbing 7% more than we'd thought they were doesn't really change the fact that we can measure atmospheric CO2 any time we want to do so.
It's not like this gives us 7% more breathing room than we had before, it's not like if we were actually reducing emissions we wouldn't see the effect on atmospheric CO2 directly.
Extra CO2 is bad for the oceans due to acidification, but if all we paid attention to was air, we'd have a very reliable measurement by which to judge our progress (or lack thereof).
Honestly, I wonder if this is (mildly) bad news.
For one, ocean acidification is bad, and this makes it worse.
But also, the fact 7% more CO2 is being absorbed means we're emitting more CO2 than we realized, and that means our efforts to reduce will need to overcome that added barrier.
Re: (Score:3)
Apart from anything else, let's remember that oceans absorbing CO2 isn't some wundercure for climate change. Even if it does slow it, it's at the expense of changing the pH of the ocean, making them more acidic, and having enormous effects on ocean ecosystems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's less about how much CO2 is currently in the atmosphere and more about determining factors and accuracy for more precise predictions moving forward.
Hypothetically, it might be a bit of 'good news' *if* you do reduce CO2 that this specific factor might accelerate recovery a little more than previously understood.
It might help shape predictions of degree and timeline of bad stuff, which can be useful because a lot of folks are super dismissive if the scientific consensus is generally right, but misses the
Re: I'm not sure why this is important (Score:2)
The climate is driven by a number of feedback loops, both positive and negative. You can't develop a predictive climate model with much value without modelling these feedback loops. Unless you capture these sorts of things, your model will pretty much always fail when attempting to model situations we haven't actually experienced.
This is why climate change tends to fall into religious camps. Those who focus too much on positive feedback loops will tell you well get runaway heating and the whole planet will
Link to the actual paper (Score:3)
Plants absorb 31% more CO2, too (Score:2)
This means that the climate-modeler assumptions about the lifetime of free CO2 in the atmosphere are out to lunch.