JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Southern Ocean back in business as a carbon sink (models were wrong)

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 implications”, things were worse than the IPCC’s projections. Things were 20 years ahead of the IPCC’s schedule and it was “scary”. 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?

Southern Ocean already losing ability to absorb CO2

By Catherine Brahic, New Scientist 2007

One of the world’s largest carbon sinks has stopped soaking up the carbon dioxide that humans are pumping into the atmosphere, according to a new study.

Global warming has caused the Southern Ocean to become windier, churning up the waters so that they are unable to absorb CO2 at the rate we produce it, the researchers say.

The implications are far-reaching, and once more imply that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s projections are conservative: temperatures are likely to rise higher than predicted.

“To me, it is quite scary that we can detect this impact of climate change already,” says Le Quéré. By releasing more CO2 into the atmosphere, people are participating in a “large and dangerous experiment”, she says.

The news of the “reinvigoration” on Science Daily:

“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.

Now the tables have turned. Since the beginning of the millennium the Southern Ocean carbon sink has become much stronger, thereby regaining its expected strength. This is demonstrated by an international research team led by Nicolas Gruber, a professor of environmental physics at ETH Zurich, and his postdoc Peter Landschützer in a study recently published in Science.”

It may involve the PDO, and El Nino phenomenon, (nearly everything else does) and the very last line says it may explain  “the pause” (ditto for that too).

Future trends cannot be predicted reliably

At present, the two researchers are unable to predict how the net carbon uptake of the Southern Ocean is likely to evolve in the future. “Our statistical model is not able to predict the future development,” says Landschützer, “so it is very critical to continue measuring the surface ocean CO2 concentrations in the Southern Ocean. “This is particularly important since current models are not able to reproduce the observed variations,” adds Gruber. Hence, long-term datasets are the only reliable means for determining the future evolution of the ocean’s sink for carbon.

Another factor that is not yet fully understood is the effect of large-scale climate phenomena such as El Niño and La Niña on the Southern Ocean carbon sink. It is particularly noticeable that the reinvigoration of the carbon sink coincides with a period of prevalent La Niña conditions, i.e., relatively cool sea surface temperatures in the Pacific. The reinvigoration of the ocean’s carbon sink also occurred during a period when global air temperatures have changed very little — the so-called climate warming hiatus — possibly related to a stronger heat uptake by the ocean.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (69 votes cast)
Southern Ocean back in business as a carbon sink (models were wrong), 9.1 out of 10 based on 69 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/p6mhx65

107 comments to Southern Ocean back in business as a carbon sink (models were wrong)

  • #
    Doonhamer

    OK. The carbon is sinking. What happens to the oxygen?

    100

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      Doonhamer.

      The oxygen sinks with the carbon.

      427

      • #
        James Bradley

        It could, Harry Twatter,

        Or it could combine with CO2 in the formation of carbonates and bicarbonates that are essential for maintaining a healthy environment for prawns and abalone and oysters and coral and crays and plankton and whales and indigenous species and everything else in nature connected to the carbon cycle.

        You know carbon, Twatter, and CO2, the stuff you are trying to eradicate.

        That’s the stuff without which you would need someone to – okay Twatter, don’t panic, one, two, now big deep breath – you would need someone to tell you when to breathe, one, two – another big deep breath Twatter, atta boy.

        As always…

        476

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          James Bradley.

          Your level of gibberish is astounding. Your persistence at thread-disruption is admirable, if somewhat misguided.

          313

          • #
            el gordo

            While you’re there Harry.

            http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/nasa-says-sea-levels-will-rise-by-a-metre-over-the-next-century/story-fnjwvztl-1227515406455

            On the advice I have received, sea level should be a meter lower within a century. Convince me otherwise or I’ll go with what I’ve got.

            114

            • #
              Harry Twinotter

              el gordo.

              Subject change?

              Hey you go ahead and believe what you want to believe despite evidence to the contrary. Freedom of expression and all that.

              The burden of evidence is on the one making the claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as they say.

              510

              • #
                James Bradley

                Well Twatter, at least you’re breathing,

                Now let’s just change the timing to 1… 9,10 – big, deep breath, 1… 9,10 – big, deep breath.

                Now that should help with your other problem – continually hyperventilating.

                94

              • #
                James Murphy

                “…The burden of evidence is on the one making the claim…” That’s hilarious coming from you, Twinotter.

                At least you made me laugh for once, well done. Maybe you should ‘practice what you preach’, as the saying goes?

                72

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Well Twatter, at least you’re breathing”

                At 40,000ppm CO2 per breathe.

                Thanks Harry for keeping the carbon cycle going.

                More the merrier. ! :-)

                73

              • #
                el gordo

                ‘Subject change?’

                Its the southern ocean.

                ‘The burden of evidence is on the one making the claim.’

                Is that a logical fallacy?

                ‘Burden of Proof is a fallacy in which the burden of proof is placed on the wrong side. Another version occurs when a lack of evidence for side A is taken to be evidence for side B in cases in which the burden of proof actually rests on side B. A common name for this is an Appeal to Ignorance.’

                92

            • #
              BilB

              You don’t male sense Gordo. You put up an article talking about 1 meter sea level rise then claim the opposite will happen!!! Are you dislexic?

              21

        • #
          sophocles

          James Bradley:

          you would need someone to tell you when to breathe, one, two …

          Shshshshsh. Jim. Shshshsh. Don’t tell him about the CRTT (Coprocephalic Respiratory Training Tape, the one which whispers in the ear: breathe in … breathe out …, breathe in … ) or he’ll get himself one.

          93

          • #
            James Bradley

            Soph,

            Naw, he’s ‘climatoligista’, he knows stuff, he would never take advice from a sceptic.

            He’ll just do the opposite to prove me wrong, even if it kills us laughing.

            103

  • #
    Mark D.

    Someone should get a comment from Corinne Le Quéré on this revelation. Perhaps she can spin it to be scarier than in 2007.

    271

  • #

    It is particularly noticeable that the reinvigoration of the carbon sink coincides with a period of prevalent La Niña conditions, i.e., relatively cool sea surface temperatures in the Pacific.

    The NOAA MLO CO2 increase over the last 12 months was below 2PPM at 1.81
    ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
    This during El Nino.
    From August 2010 to Aug 2011 it was greater at 1.93 PPM. This During La Nina.
    From Aug 1999 to 2000 it was 1.34 during a La Nina.
    This time around the Total Solar Irradiance was high during the July and August part of the annual Antarctic Ice growth phase.
    http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt
    Surprise Surprise the large long term Antarctic ice anomaly increase melted away back below zero.
    http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
    Me thinks the sun has something to do with CO2 growth rates too!

    151

  • #
    tom0mason

    Were the Southern Oceans ever out of business in mopping up CO2?
    Surely anyone who thinks(thought) so has little sense of perspective. Usually the numbnuts that do, fail to realize oceans are just a lot more than large bodies of static, evenly saline water, at one uniform temperature and pressure.

    314

  • #
    Richard

    The Southern Ocean sink might have begun to “saturate”

    The dissolution of CO2 in water can be described as the reversible chemical reaction: CO2 + H20 ==== H2CO3 (carbonic acid). We may observe that in this reaction, one molecule of CO2 combines with one molecule of carbonic acid. Obviously this reaction can proceed as long as there are any H2O molecules left for CO2 to combine with. Hence the saturation limit of CO2 is the number of H2O molecules in all the world’s oceans. How do they think fizzy drinks can hold so much dissolved CO2 at partial pressures hundreds of times higher than present in our atmosphere? I think we can safely say the oceans are in no danger of becoming saturated any time soon.

    In an article a few weeks ago from Skeptical Science when arguing that the oceans are having a hard time absorbing CO2 they said “The surface ocean layer is slowly replaced by water from the deep ocean, but that is a process that takes thousands of years“. Skeptical Science seem to think (as many others also do) that the transfer of CO2 from the deep ocean to the surface ocean is the same as it is for water and because of this very slow exchange this causes the surface ocean to become oversaturated with CO2. But they are wrong and CO2 diffuses to the deep ocean much faster than water. Based on the IPCC’s AR4 carbon-cycle the CO2 residing in the surface ocean amounts to 900 Gts and 90 Gts is transferred to the deep ocean every year giving us a residence time of only 10 years for CO2 in the surface ocean. Therefore any ‘saturation’ argument is false because human CO2 would be removed from the surface ocean very rapidly, and not on thousand-year time-scales.

    244

  • #
    Harry Twinotter

    So it can be argued that some of the models were correct after all – the effect is expected later “But climate models have suggested that this effect would not be seen for at least 20 years.”

    448

    • #
      James Bradley

      Ah Twatter, again,

      Your climate models are just monkeys sitting at typewriters for an eternity, only difference is that you ‘climateoligista’ always try to hide your crap under the carpet.

      507

    • #
      James Bradley

      Whoops, I feel another complaint to management coming on, probably a panic attack, Twatter – one, two – big deep breath, one, two – big deep breath.

      336

    • #
      James Bradley

      Hey, I’m just trying to help the guy out – atmospheric training for when the CO2 gets banned.

      306

    • #
      James Bradley

      One, two – big deep breath…

      296

    • #
      tom0mason

      No Harry, only the knowledge poor individuals with a stasis view of oceans as just large bodies of static, evenly saline water, at one uniform temperature and pressure would even consider such models worthy.
      Even if such models include simple regular cyclic motions, or variation in chemistry, or phases of the moon, or wind cooling, or …etc., it will still only be, at best, a computational models that offer a distorted, indistinct illusion of imprecise resolution; it is never reality. And reality is what all good science models should be validated against, to ensure that they can illuminate some real scientific truth.

      293

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        tomomason.

        Ignoring your straw man for the moment (not sure who you think the “poor individuals” are, you don’t say).

        “And reality is what all good science models should be validated against, to ensure that they can illuminate some real scientific truth”

        Well yes, true. There is a saying “all models are wrong, but some are useful”.

        And this is a case where a model was thought wrong, then later observations show that perhaps the model was not wrong.

        The way I look at it is the saturation effect reported back in 2007 could be cyclic. This is only partially good news, because if it is cyclic then the saturation effect can return.

        315

        • #
          James Bradley

          Twatter,

          You wrote – “Well yes, true. There is a saying “all models are wrong, but some are useful””

          But you didn’t understand that it means:

          ‘When all the CO2 based climate models fail then the useful thing is to recognise that their failure proves CO2 is not a factor and try something else.’

          How’s that banana going?

          132

          • #
            AndyG55

            More importantly, because we all need the comedy relief…

            How’s the breathing going, Harry..

            Managed to reduce that CO2 output yet ? :-)

            And your computer….. Coal powered, oil built…. great stuff hey. :-)

            82

          • #
            BilB

            Bratley, have you got anything even slightly intelligent to add to conversation here? Your remarks are totally witless and not even slightly funny.

            12

        • #
          tom0mason

          Harry,

          “Well yes, true. There is a saying “all models are wrong, but some are useful”.”

          I agree those broken model educate people how not to do science. That is indeed very useful.

          61

    • #
      James Bradley

      Geez, Harry,

      Gimme a break, I didn’t give you a red thumb.

      146

    • #
      James Murphy

      So, Harry, in your mind, a model can be validated regardless of discrepancies with time intervals? As long as the event happens ‘sometime’, you’re happy with the model…?

      102

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        James Murphy.

        Can I have that again in English?

        19

        • #
          James Murphy

          Your highly selective comprehension of English is a sign of immaturity which you can only hope to overcome by working on it yourself.

          There are 2 comments of yours -
          “…So it can be argued that some of the models were correct after all – the effect is expected later “But climate models have suggested that this effect would not be seen for at least 20 years.”…”

          “…And this is a case where a model was thought wrong, then later observations show that perhaps the model was not wrong”…

          So, you very much seem to be saying that you can validate, or “partially validate” models just because some proportion of the expected outcomes occurred, even if they didn’t occur in the timeframe indicated by said models? This is OK for you? – A model being out by 20 years on one aspect? I guess geologically, 20 years is nothing, but this is not the scale at which the modelling was done. I would think that given the context, timing is one of the fundamental criteria for model validation…?

          Do you not see the folly of (at the very least) scientists being on record as saying “my models say this should happen in 20 years, but its happening now, so things are really really terrible”, rather than “we expected to see this in 20 years, not now, so maybe we do not understand enough about what is happening, and we’ll have to go away and think about it”.

          The only vaguely sensible thing you’ve said – although unsurprisingly, it’s a highly simplistic approach, and you didn’t think of it yourself, – “…all models are wrong, but some are useful…”.

          122

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            James Murphy.

            I was hoping you would clarify your question so I could understand it.

            I see now you never intended your question to be serious.

            14

            • #

              James Murphy. Thankyou for such a clear explanation and demonstration showing how those who are determined to stay blind and “make a difference” by spreading blindness will defend even the most obvious model failures.
              Harry fell right into your trap. The next challenge may be to lure one of them into defending this model. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmFIqMyOlh4

              11

  • #
    Hugh

    “To me, it is quite scary that we can detect this impact of climate change already,” says Le Quéré.

    To me, it is scary how little knowledge makes you quotable in the New Scientist.

    432

  • #
    Greg Cavanagh

    But the laws of physics are well understood. We’ve had it right since 1940?. It’s the CO2 what’s dunnit.

    So many people have accepted the “science is settled” nonsense and forgotten that science is ever growing, ever refining, ever changing.

    I wish I knew how to wake up the world from it’s stupor. The MSM have a lot to answer for that’s for sure.

    362

  • #
    Miner49er

    Humans’ use of fossil fuels, and the resulting carbon dioxide air emissions, has no material effect on climate. Human activities cause only about 3% of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to the atmosphere. Most of the rest are the result of decomposing plant material. CO2 is in equilibrium. It is a weak greenhouse gas in theory, but its actual climate effects are nullified by stronger forces, particularly the formation of mineral carbonates from atmospheric carbon dioxide.

    The theory of fossil fuels-caused climate change is a false premise for any regulation.
    1. CO2 does not materially affect the Earth’s climate; and,
    2. Nature already effectively captures and sequesters CO2 as mineral carbonate; and,
    3. Climate cycles are natural, and caused by forces other than CO2; and,
    4. The average residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is 5 years; and,
    5. Human activities generate only about 3% of CO2 emissions. Most of the rest are from rotting plants.

    Anyone who passed 10th grade chemistry can conclude this using public information sources. Limestone and marble are the most familiar forms of mineral carbonate. CO2 is an essential component of mineral carbonate (CaCO3, for calcium). Carbonates are the ultimate repository of atmospheric CO2. Carbonates form in seawater and soils through biological and chemical processes. The formula is CO2 + CaO => CaCO3. Virtually all carbonates are formed from atmospheric CO2 that is taken up by seawater or soils. You can make magnesium carbonate in your kitchen by mixing carbonated water with milk of magnesia.

    The detailed perspective is presented in the paper http://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf by Danish researcher Tom Segalstadt. The paper is not “peer-reviewed”, but seems rigorous. (It has recently been shown that “peer review” really means “crony review”.) Activists use ad hominem arguments to dismiss the paper, as they do any argument they dislike.

    Fossil fuels (especially coal) producers and users are being persecuted in unprecedented fashion—a literal pogrom. A 21st century Scarlet Letter. It is now known that Soros-related investors and other progressive interests are buying up coal assets at deep discounts from their recent values. It seems like a Joe Kennedy “bear raid”. We should take a holistic view of this regulatory and political process. Where is it taking us? Who wins? Who pays? How is the public served?

    The media, regulatory and political structure built on the false premise of fossil fuels-caused climate change is a house of cards. Fossil fuels producers are uncompensated victims. The Federal government in the past compensated tobacco interests, and even some slave owners losses incurred in remedying proven harms. But fossil fuels caused global warming is unproven.

    If the Federal government really intended to change the methods of generating electric energy as part of a good-faith effort to produce a public good, the businesses that have sunk significant capital into these so-called “stranded assets” should have been compensated. Fifty billion dollars, more or less, would have done the job. Many affected businesses would have willingly cooperated.

    But that is not what the government intended. It now seems that it intended to drive down the value of those assets so politically connected cronies could “pick up the pieces” at deep discounts, after which fossil fuels will be, no doubt, rehabilitated under new ownership. This process was conducted in bad faith. “Secret science”, shadow communications, deceit and lies are commonplace at the involved Federal agencies. See “The Liberal War on Transparency” by Christopher C Horner; ISBN 978-1-4516-9488-8 and “The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science” by Dr. Tim Ball; ISBN 978-0-9888777-4-0.

    Businesses adversely affected by this process may have claims at law. These could include commercial defamation, and interference with contracts and prospective advantages. If it can be shown that parties acted in concert to deceive the public and were unlawfully enriched or caused damages, conspiracy and racketeering charges are in play. Further, if government and NGO officials acted with gross negligence or willful misconduct (ie, lying, cheating and fabricating evidence) any indemnities from their respective employers would be null and void. They could be held personally liable.

    523

  • #
    Miner49er

    Richard referred to the formula that allegedly creates carbonic acid in seawater: “The dissolution of CO2 in water can be described as the reversible chemical reaction: CO2 + H20 ==== H2CO3 (carbonic acid).”

    This would perhaps be true if the natural waters of the earth were comprised of pure deionized water. But they are not. Seawater is highly alkaline, and highly (infinitely?) buffered by alkali metals with which it is in contact. In the real world story, the simplified reaction (for calcium) is CO2 + CaO ==> CaCO3. The stable, durable equilibrium end product is mineral carbonate. In the case of calcium, it is calcite, or limestone.

    It can occur as a purely inorganic chemical reaction, but appears to be much accelerated by biological processes that utilize solar energy to create mineral carbonate. An acre of oysters can fix a hundred tons of carbonate in a single growing season. likewise coral, or ants, or termites, or phytoplankton.

    392

    • #

      Absolutely correct on all points.. Far too many base hypothesis on simplistic understanding when in reality the complexities far outstrip any claims to knowing what is actually going on… It’s one of the arguments I’ve tossed back at the “Oceans are becoming Acid Baths!!” folks … For millions of years the CO2 in the atmosphere was around 7000ppm during the Cambrian epoch… And from chemical analysis of sedimentary layers we know that during that time frame the Oceans were Alkaline… For about 90% of earth history CO2 levels have been above 2000ppm…. Yet the Oceans have Never even reached Neutral Ph .. The reason is simple and anyone that has ever owned a fish tank or actually attended chemistry class knows it…. The Oceans float on the Sea Floors and the Sea Floors are made of Trillions of tons of assorted Ph buffering minerals ….

      272

    • #
      tom0mason

      Miner49er,

      Excellent point as far as it goes but WRT http://www.seafriends.org.nz/oceano/seawater.htm#composition
      ,seawater is very complex dynamic chemical entity, or more accurately, entities, as actual chemical composition varies from place to place.
      More complex than clouds in the sky!

      141

      • #
        AndyG55

        Also , for millions and millions and millions of years, rivers have pumped water that is more often than not, slightly acidic, into the oceans..

        yet they remain stubbornly alkaline at around 8.1 pH, because that is the balance pH with all the absolutely massive sinks of carbonates that make up the ocean basins.

        203

      • #
        tom0mason

        That link (above) purports to say they know what CO2 does in the oceans.
        However there is a couple of known facts they have omitted. One is the formation and ultimate disposition/dispersal of oceanic methane hydrates. The other is that near underwater deep ocean volcanic vents (black smokers), CO2 puddles into liquid pools.(LINK) These ‘smokers’ are surrounded with yet more of this planet’s ubiquitous life.
        So far as I am aware there are not accurate figures for all the underwater volcanoes, vents, etc., so there’s no accurate grasp of the totality of what the oceans’ waters are doing.

        221

    • #
      David Maddison

      A lot of warmist “scientists” seem not to understand some very basic chemistry.

      173

    • #
      Robert O

      A good post, but let us not forget that the phytoplankton in the surface layers of the oceans use some of this CO2 to produce carbohydrate which is the basis of the food chains ultimately ending up in tuna for our dinner and a little oxygen to breathe.

      131

  • #

    If enough people guess enough things often enough someone will be right sometime. Then if they can convince everyone else to forget about the overwhelming number of times they were wrong, they can claim to be a prophet with a nearly perfect record of foretelling the future. Thereby justifying meeting their demands of power and control over the lives and wealth of others – many others.

    This is the same fallacy propagated by the so called climate “scientists”. You are not supposed to count the massively huge number of times they were wrong with their repeated pronouncements of doom and gloom and you are to worship them for the pathetically few times they were right.

    Clearly, this is a seriously pathological case of confirmation bias. It has caused and will continue to cause massively more damage to the health and wealth of We the People than the worse extremes of “climate change”.

    The impact of extremes of “climate change” are local. With enough wealth, the damage can either be avoided or mitigated to the point of being a just a nuisance. The consequences of their pathology are increasingly global in nature and associated with a massive destruction of wealth. Thereby limiting our ability to avoid and mitigate the effects of extremes of natural weather variations.

    Even worse. They increasingly place restrictions upon the generation of wealth while demanding that an ever greater fraction of the wealth created be given to them for their pet projects. This further reduces our ability to survive extreme weather events.

    Someday, we are going to have to learn how to say “NO! Not with my life and wealth you won’t.” and make it stick. The sooner the better.

    262

    • #
      Dave N

      “This is the same fallacy propagated by the so called climate “scientists”. You are not supposed to count the massively huge number of times they were wrong with their repeated pronouncements of doom and gloom and you are to worship them for the pathetically few times they were right. ”

      Worked for Ehrlich. Oh wait, I don’t think he has ever been close to being right.

      I expect the principal is closer to: “worship them if they make a dire prediction where humans are the cause, regardless of whether or not they end up being wrong”. It is a sad indictment on human society as a whole that the principle still holds true.

      00

  • #
    handjive

    ABC, Monday, 25 February 2013

    (S)cientists from Australia and Japan reveal a fourth source of Antarctic bottom water lying off Cape Darnley.

    Antarctic bottom water – cold, dense water that sits in the abyssal zone between 4000 metres and 6000 metres below the ocean’s surface – plays a plays a key role in global water circulation and the transport of carbon dioxide to the deepest layers of the ocean.

    The discovery of a fourth source of deep water is critical to our understanding of Antarctica’s contribution to global ocean circulation, and will improve modelling of its response to climate change, says study co-author Dr Guy Williams, of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystem Co-operative Research Centre.

    The discovery of a fourth source is like “finding a new component in the engine,” he says.

    Until recently only three sources of the deep waters were known – the Weddell and Ross seas and off the Adelie Coast.

    160

  • #
    Ruairi

    Some modelled the South’ ocean sink,
    To be carbonized up to the brink,
    Which has not come to pass,
    In that watery mass,
    Should mean those who trust models,rethink.

    160

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘Winds now tend to blow in an undulating pattern, whereas in the 1990s they mainly blew straight from the west to the east. In the 1990s these winds were also stronger over much of the Southern Ocean, causing more water to be upwelled to the surface from depth.

    ‘Since these deeper waters contain higher concentrations of dissolved CO2, this upwelling led to an anomalous release of this greenhouse gas into the atmosphere, resulting in a stagnation or even a decrease in the ocean’s net carbon uptake.’

    —–

    So the increase in CO2 at the end of last century indicates humans are bit players and now that the southern ocean is cooling we can expect normal operations from now on.

    A hiatus in CO2 levels, due to invigorated sinks, should theoretically bring an end to AGW hysteria.

    162

  • #
    Rollo

    Global warming has caused the Southern Ocean to become windier, churning up the waters so that they are unable to absorb CO2 at the rate we produce it, the researchers say.

    All else being equal(gas levels, temps etc) would a rough churning sea absorb more or less CO2 than still waters ?

    100

    • #
      bobl

      My thoughts exactly, assuming the water was at lower than equilibrium gas content (which is probably reasonable), then churning it up would INCREASE gas mixing and absorption the same way as shaking a bottle of water or a fish tank aerator can oxygenate (well more accurately nitrogenate) a container of water.

      Another question I have is – if it was so windy, then where did the kinetic energy for the wind get extracted from?

      130

    • #
      Hasbeen

      Yep Rollo, on the where do they find these dills scale, this one may be tops.

      I wonder if they avoid stirring their tea or coffee, so the sugar will be dissolved & absorbed more quickly.

      You couldn’t imagine anyone saying it, if you had not seen it theoretically scientific paper. I wonder if it is all those bubbles of air containing CO2 being carried much deeper by the rough conditions that is stopping it?

      81

  • #
    Yonniestone

    So far I haven’t seen any references to oceans becoming dangerously more ‘Acidic’ due to evil CO2, and these people call themselves unqualified fightbats……ppfftttttt.

    113

  • #
    Neville

    Whether we believe the IPCC or not we have the RS and NAS report telling us that we cannot make a scrap of difference to temp or co2 levels for thousands of years.
    And their report had 7 IPCC authors in the list. Five of these were lead authors like Solomon and Trenberth.
    Of course the book ” Taxing Air” ( Bob Carter and others) tells us that OZ and NZ absorb 10 times the co2 we emit. This is because the Southern Ocean is part of our exclusive economic zone.
    BTW OZ and NZ combined emit about 1.2% of global emissions, so it’s all BS anyway.

    132

    • #
      bobl

      No Neville, Carter only uses land sequestration and if I recall correctly only arable land. When you add sparse vegetation, the exclusive economic zone and carbonate fixing into the mix it probably close to double that.

      I estimate Australia’s sequestration is AT LEAST 20 times our emission and we know for every 2 PPM there is an average of 1% increase in photosynthesis. So since around 1999 when I started following this topic when CO2 was about 370 PPM there has been 30PPM increase in CO2 and 15% increase in photosynthesis.

      CO2 fixing (sequestration by plants) is 20x or 2000% of our emission so mathematically the increase in photosynthesis by Australia relative to emission is 2000% x 0.15 = 300% relative to emission

      - IE to the point: our INCREASE in CO2 sinking since ’99 is THREE TIMES our total emissions! Now China – Where’s that Cheque?

      110

  • #
    Manfred

    The most reliable observation that one can make about climate ‘science’ is the juxtaposition of settled certainty to a prodigious ability to demonstrate the opposite. From this perspective alone, it is beyond doubt that other agendas are in play’.

    The fact is that the current models do not fit the observations, so there we have a vital part of future climate prediction shown to be not predictable,” Dr Whitehouse GWPF

    .

    Contributing author Dr Dorothea Bakker, a Research Officer of The School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia, reportedly stated

    The Southern Ocean behaves like a giant lung — breathing in and absorbing vast amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere, and releasing it later in the year,”

    Such metaphors appear to sit unquestioned and rather well with many of the scientifically illiterate climate hucksters and their media megaphones. Most who have encountered third form elementary mammalian physiology will recognise this as the unmitigated garbage it is. There is no simplistic analogy to be made without doing enormous disservice to lungs, oceans and readers. But this is no concern to the intellectually vaporous MSM over at The Australian, who’s strongest analysis of climate ‘science’ is acting the parrot.

    UEA Climate ‘academic’ Dr Dorothea goes on to reportedly describe that, “The seas around Antarctica absorb significantly more CO2 than they release. They basically help to slow down the growth of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and lessen the rate of climate change.”

    More of the same bathetic unchallenged modeled nonsense. What and how is the ‘rate of climate change’, how is this illogical non-contradiction defined and how is it measured? Do we assume she is referring to UN defined ‘climate change’, which omits the Oceans altogether in favour of anthropogenic atmospheric composition and land use. So we witness yet again, another dismal fail for UN sponsored model world.

    But one has to admire the obvious. The imperceptible bat of an institutional eyelid as the demolition ball that is the complex grandeur of reality smashes the intellectual climate-up-schticks of model world, inconvenient truth after inconvenient truth embarrassingly and expensively pulverised.

    And yet, why is the flutter of the UN eyelid imperceptible? Because if you look, we now have UN 10 year plans (see section 28)

    The UN Sustainable Development Summit 2015 about to take place this September frames seventeen ‘Sustainable Development Goals’. Goal 13 states:

    ‘Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts (through the UNFCCC)’

    I recommend if you’re reading this, to spare a moment and take a look at Draft resolution submitted by the President of the General Assembly Draft outcome document of the United Nations summit for the adoption of the post-2015 development agenda.

    28. We commit to making fundamental changes in the way that our societies produce and consume goods and services. Governments, international organizations, the business sector and other non-State actors and individuals must contribute to changing unsustainable consumption and production patterns, including through the mobilization, from all sources, of financial and technical assistance to strengthen developing countries’ scientific, technological and innovative capacities to move towards more sustainable patterns of consumption and production. We encourage the implementation of the 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production Patterns. All countries take action, with developed countries taking the lead, taking into account the development and capabilities of developing countries.

    The UN considers 2015 a watershed year for implementation of the first Soviet style 10 year plan.

    We all know how those ended.

    [Manfred, this was likely caught because of the number of links and or length. Somewhere around five imbedded links or more makes the filters itchy. There is the possibility of a word ot two that also tempts the filters but because you have been very good in the past I have approved it without deep scrutiny.] ED

    132

  • #
    ROM

    .
    Head line correction required;

    Southern Ocean back in business as a carbon sink (models were wrong AGAIN! )

    120

    • #
      BilB

      No, Rom.

      “Skeptic headspace correction required”

      would be more meaningful.

      If the headline read “Southern ocean back in business AND global CO2 atmospheric levels falling” then there would be some hope for stabilising Global Average Temperatures. But alas CO2 levels continue to accelerate, so the Southern oceans’s influences are marginal at best against human CO2 emissions.

      11

  • #
    Paul

    Whatever you do, don’t mention to those mad scientists at the UN IPCC, that the end of the World has been postponed again.

    112

  • #
    Dave

    .

    If the Southern Ocean Carbon Sink models were wrong!

    Is this new PAPER by J.W. Partin an indication that Global Cooling is on the way and coming fast!

    I think more and more scientists are prepared to investigate Climate Science more truthfully.

    Is this the end of the CAGW scam?

    Also reported here at MSNMC and Iceagenow!

    62

    • #
      el gordo

      ‘Proxy data and transient climate model simulations support the hypothesis that freshwater forced a reduction in the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, thereby causing the Younger Dryas.’

      That is debatable, I’m a big fan of the cosmic impact theory.

      60

    • #
      ROM

      .
      Dave @ # 20

      Dave, you seem to have picked this up also.

      I noted around four or five months ago that there was underway a very subtle shift in the type of climate related science being reported and an increasing and quite subtle questioning appearing in many parts of the MSM and its use of phraseology when referring to the dreaded “Climate change”.

      And those very subtle changes are accelerating both in the reporting of science that throws a very large amount of doubt on the usual repeated ad nauseam and completely spurious claims of the CAGW/Climate change adherents.

      There is an increasing volume of climate related science that counters so much of the claims of the CAGW/ Climate change faithful, science which is now actually being published by the science journals and even some sections of the MSM that provides a number of alternative and far more rational hypothesis on the way that the global climate operates and acts and the influences, mostly still unknown or just guessed at that lead to the continuing changes and variations in the global climate that have always existed and always will.

      The very easy to believe for the unthinking and science ignorant, the simple, primitive, unsophisticated, unproven, modelled only science, totally lacking in any confirmed observed science that underlie all the claims of a Catastrophic Global Warming and a mankind induced unique and dangerous Climate Change so beloved of the cultists of the CAGW faith is being challenged now by new science that throws new light on the influences operating on our climate.

      Most importantly, this new science as we see in Jo’s headline post, is now being published, something that would have rarely occurred only a couple of years ago.

      Plus there has been and continues to be a very subtle change in both the type of MSM’s and the science journal’s reporting and the fact they are reporting more and more science and very importantly, more opinion pieces that are directly challenging the CAGW meme and its adherents directly and forcing those promoters of the CAGW claims to put up their science and prove it or shut up!

      The fact that in nearly every case the adherents of the CAGW cult, both the “degreed” ivory tower dwelling adherents who are often not at all au-fait at all with the latest “science” of the climate but are merely opinionated “degreed” hacks of some other branch of science, along with the MSM, a whole school of highly bigoted, biased Journo’s, a push of political hacks, a board of business ignoramuses and etc cannot counter the emerging science that puts the whole of the CAGW meme into an increasingly and fatally comprimised position.

      The only counter the climate catastrophe believing cultists and hacks have to so many of today’s skeptical questionings of their ideology is much arm waving, a whole plethora of circular arguments and much continuing abuse and threats against skeptics. coal miners, fossil fueled power generators and etc, all of which gives a pretty good indication that the whole CAGW cause and its cultist like ideology is heading towards an eventual collapse.
      A collapse that no doubt will be accompanied by much weeping, wailing, rending of garments and great showering of sackcloth and ashes for what might have been for them, wealth and power and influence over all of mankind.

      All gone because of those damn stupid hated never give up Skeptics and their constant drip, drip of doubt and alternatives and their demolitions of the believer’s arguments and their doubting of those climate modeled confirmations of an imminent catastrophic warming of the planet that will be due entirely to mankind’s sinfulness in exploiting the planet’s resources to make a better life for himself/ herself and their descendants.

      Those damn Skeptics with their constant drip, drip of doubt and questioning are wearing away the great immovable rock of the Man made Catastrophic Global Warming faith and its ideology until only a pebble will remain to be washed away forever into the sands of time.

      And mankind will sigh and say; Thank god and good riddance!

      122

      • #
        Ross

        I think you are right ROM. Bishop Hill is reporting how 3 of the lead AGW proponents in the UK ( Stern , Deben and Worthington) have changed their mind on fracking. They haven’t gone full way to changing their mind about AGW and probably never will but their change on fracking is a small step in the right direction.

        71

        • #
          ROM

          And the UK Government has just dropped the big boom on a massive off shore wind farm that was about to get built.

          Screams of imminent poverty and the despicable government deprivation of their rights as a renewable energy industry to have complete access at any time, anywhere to any amount of tax payer funding they might demand, can be heard right across the UK and Europe today.

          BBC News via the GWPF site;

          Navitus Bay wind farm refused permission by government

          61

      • #
        Mark D.

        ROM, this:

        Those damn Skeptics with their constant drip, drip of doubt and questioning are wearing away the great immovable rock of the Man made Catastrophic Global Warming faith and its ideology until only a pebble will remain to be washed away forever into the sands of time.

        Is well worded hope. My only suggestion would be to fit “acid rain” in there somewhere with the skeptic drip drip. It would drive the faithful nearly nuts.

        92

    • #
      BilB

      You did not read the article did you, Dave. Just like to flick around the headlines do you? So you would have messed this line in the article

      “Some climate change deniers might want to use Partin’s research – which focuses on cooling rather than warming – to claim that scientists can’t make up their minds about climate change or that it won’t be hot or dangerous. They’d be wrong to assume that.”

      Everything in the article is about global temperatures increasing, not plummeting into an ice age.

      01

      • #

        We could all be more like BilB where we read a line in an article that tells us skeptics are wrong, even if it has no evidence, substance or reasoning, we could soak it right up…

        11

  • #
    thingadonta

    “Based on model results…”. Says it all.

    It’s a form of psychological projection, projecting onto others, or in this case, onto nature, what you are doing yourself.

    The only thing that’s really ‘scary’ is the nearly constant distortion and exaggeration of data from climate research. They project distortion onto the populace, and then claim, ‘look see, it’s scary’. Of course it is, that is what they are doing, scarily making up nonsense, which is, in itself, ‘scary’.

    72

  • #
    Rollo

    Where is TdeF? He usually appears at the slightest reference to CO2/gas exchange, as surely as Anton fires up if coal fired power stations are besmirched!

    70

  • #
    Dennis

    The ABC falsely claims Dutton told a joke about rising sea levels. In fact, he told a joke about Pacific island leaders being late to meetings about saving their islands: “Time doesn’t mean anything when you’re about to have water lapping at your door.”

    The ABC falsely suggests Kiribati risks drowning from rising sea levels. In fact, Kiribati is growing in size, and most other Pacific atoll islands are either growing, too, or have been stable in size.

    The ABC has misrepresented a joke and repeated an untruth – both in service of its de facto agenda to destroy the Abbott Government and hype the global warming scare. And it treats Dutton’s joke as bigger news than any other item of domestic policy.

    The ABC is out of control.

    Andrew Bolt, Daily Telegraph today.

    102

  • #
    pat

    when will Labor supporters in Australia wake up and put pressure on their Party to remember who they claim to represent:

    11 Sept: WSJ: California’s Climate Change Revolt
    Democrats reject green schemes that raise energy costs for the non-rich
    The environmental lobby has tried to turn climate change into a social justice issue even though its anticarbon policies disproportionately harm the poor. Honest Democrats are starting to admit this, as we saw in this week’s stunning revolt in the California legislature…
    Yet this week 21 Democratic Assembly members representing middle- and low-income communities—including 11 blacks and Latinos—joined Republicans to kill a bill mandating a cut in state greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
    Democrats also forced Mr. Brown to scrap a measure that would have given the California Air Resources Board plenary authority to reduce statewide oil consumption in vehicles by half by 2030. Imagine the EPA without the accountability. “One of the implications probably would have been higher gas prices,” noted Democratic Assemblyman Jim Cooper. “Who does it impact the most? The middle class and low-income folks.”…
    The defeat is all the more striking for the failure of appeals to green moral superiority. Liberal groups targeted Catholic Democrats with ads featuring Pope Francis. Mr. Brown demonized oil companies for selling a “highly destructive” product.
    The most morally destructive product in California these days is green government. Take the 33% renewable electricity mandate…
    Cap and trade has also raised fuel costs, though its effect is hard to isolate from other environmental mandates…READ ON
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/californias-climate-change-revolt-1442014369

    50

  • #
    pat

    10 Sept: MSNBC: Tony Dokoupil: California folds on climate change
    Kathryn Phillips, who runs the Sierra Club’s California chapter: “The oil companies are ruthless,” she said. “They are determined to tell every lie they can and to scare people to death just so they can keep as much market share as possible.” …
    The California bill was backed by the might of billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer and powerful fourth term governor in Jerry Brown, not to mention a state assembly that’s 65% Democrats.
    If they can’t succeed in their ambitions, it raises serious questions about the fate of a hoped for global climate agreement this December in Paris…
    Executive orders by Brown and his Republican predecessor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, commit the state to cutting its emissions 80 percent by 2050. But until those orders become law, they can be easily retracted by a new governor.
    http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/california-folds-climate-change

    CSM asks a good question. the answer is “yes”, but I don’t know what Mr. Gass concludes as I have to answer a survey about how many movies I’ve seen lately if I want to access the article! the answer would be “none”, but I’m not interested in participating in the survey:

    11 Sept: Christian Science Monitor: Henry Gass: Did California try to go too far in fight against climate change?
    http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/2015/0911/Did-California-try-to-go-too-far-in-fight-against-climate-change

    20

  • #
    pat

    an alleged glitch, but Newsweek runs with it anyway! after all, it’s so CAGW:

    11 Sept: Newsweek: Zoe Schlanger: Google Maps Now Showing Southern California Coastal Cities Drowned in Sea Level Rise
    Updated | Google Maps appears to have encountered a rather futuristic glitch as of Friday afternoon.
    On the same day as a major study was released predicting 200 feet of sea level rise in a worst-case climate change scenario, bits of Southern California coastal cities began to appear underwater on Google Maps. Venice, Malibu, Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach are among the casualties. Their virtual watery demise was a just a glitch, Google Maps communications specialist Mara Harris said Friday afternoon, and may have something to do with the multiple streams of data Google pulls from to make their maps…
    ***Still, it is an interesting sight to behold, and not unlike other maps of cities imagined in a higher-sea-level world…
    ONE COMMENT ONLY: by Rod Aragon
    And do you really think it’s a glitch? GOOGLE is the CIA people! Most people think that an Internet company can comehow launch satilittes in the sky. LOL This is no glitch. This is preparing you for something coming sooner than you would like… Keep thinking. They are dripping this out….
    http://www.newsweek.com/google-maps-now-showing-southern-california-coastal-cities-drowned-sea-level-371464

    20

  • #
    RoHa

    So it’s the opposite of what they said before? So what?

    We are no less undoomed.

    20

  • #
    RoHa

    And no more undoomed, either.

    Our doomedness level does not change when they have to revise the settled science.

    20

  • #
    pat

    dress rehearsal!

    12 Sept: Irish Times: France turns up heat on climate change ahead of Paris conference
    The French are pulling out all the stops to ensure the COP21 is not a mere talking shop
    With only a few months to go before France hosts the COP21 conference on climate change, the presidential palace offered a sneak preview of events from November 30th to December 11th.
    The Elysee’s lavish reception rooms were filled with high-ranking officials, scientists, business executives, artists, representatives of NGOs and media. The half-day session was intended “to demonstrate the mobilisation and the unity of France’s team in the last stretch”, the president’s office said.
    The French prime minister, Manuel Valls, opened the meeting with the usual warning that “the survival of our planet is at stake”, that the first seven months of this year were the hottest ever recorded, and that “if we continue this tendency, temperatures will increase four or five degrees by the end of the century, which would be an ecological, economic, humanitarian and security cataclysm”…
    High finance “has begun to integrate climate change into their calculations and investment choices”, a sign not so much of hope as of the fact that reality has sunk in, the French president said…
    The conference will take place at the Le Bourget exhibition park, on the sometimes dangerous RER suburban train line that runs from the Gare du Nord to Charles de Gaulle Airport.
    The government will distribute free public-transport passes to the 20,000 delegates attending the conference in the hope of avoiding mass traffic jams. Another 20,000 members of the public are expected, along with 3,000 journalists, for a total of 43,000. An extra 70,000 bus and train seats will be provided each day…
    ***The Elysee’s presentation at times resembled an evangelical tent meeting with stand-up testimonials…
    The conference is also meant to be fun. Members of the public will be asked to transmit video messages to negotiators from prefabricated “COPBoxes” around the city. Mobile disc-jockey carts powered by velo generateurs and solar panels will ply the streets…
    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/france-turns-up-heat-on-climate-change-ahead-of-paris-conference-1.2348872

    Rachel Kyte still shilling for the World Bank until post-Paris, when she becomes Chief Executive Officer of the Sustainable Energy for All initiative and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s Special Representative for Sustainable Energy for All:

    11 Sept: WSJ: Chris Larano: World Bank Confident Funding to Back Climate-Change Deal Will Be Secured
    MACTAN, Philippines—The World Bank’s special envoy on climate change on Friday expressed confidence that industrialized countries will open their wallets when they gather in Paris later this year to bankroll a global strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
    “There will be a finance package and it will be a generous one,” World Bank Vice President Rachel Kyte told The Wall Street Journal at the sidelines of the meeting of Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation ministers in this central Philippine island.
    Ms. Kyte said talks on the financing package are continuing but she declined to quote the potential size of the financing package…
    Ms. Kyte said political leaders must understand that for every $1 spent on projects intended to mitigate the impact of climate, an estimated $4 are saved in relief efforts after a disaster strikes.
    “The science is very clear. The economics are clear as well. It is really a political decision now,” said Ms. Kyte, who is in Mactan to help muster support for the an plan on building economic resiliency amid natural disasters and financial shocks…
    Climate change “might be the biggest systemic risk the global economy faces,” said Ms Kyte…
    http://www.wsj.com/articles/world-bank-confident-funding-to-back-climate-change-deal-will-be-secured-1441975772

    20

    • #

      pat mentions this: (my bolding here)

      The World Bank’s special envoy on climate change on Friday expressed confidence that industrialized countries will open their wallets when they gather in Paris later this year to bankroll a global strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

      Note here the deliberate diversionary tactic of making it seem like this is all the fault of ….. Industrialised COUNTRIES, and by extrapolation, those Countries should pay.

      It’s not the damned Countries who pay at all. It’s the people who actually pay.

      The UN demands that the Countries impose the ETS which is the source of all their money.

      The Countries then introduce that ETS on those CO2 emitting entities, foremost among them, electrical power generating entities, who then pass all of those costs, lock stock and barrel immediately down to all people who use electricity.

      The left governments who support this, as did the former Gillard Labor Government also hide it by saying that the ‘derdy polluders’ are those who pay, when it is a direct impost on all electricity consumers.

      It’s not COUNTRIES who pay, it’s the people.

      Tony.

      82

  • #
    pat

    read all:

    11 Sept: WA Today: Ross Fitzgerald: Sydney University in the grip of groupthink
    (Ross Fitzgerald is emeritus professor of history and politics at Griffith University)
    As someone involved in academia for a number of decades, I hold our universities to the highest standards. And we all should…
    The decision of Sydney University to divest stocks in resource companies is, at its worst attacking one of Australia’s most successful industries. At best, it is rank hypocrisy.
    The Australian National University kicked this so-called “ethical divestment” of resource companies policy off last year, and Sydney University has followed suit by “reducing” investments in companies it believes contribute to global warming, including the large resources companies. More Australian universities are, sadly, “joining the mob” on the divestment bandwagon…
    But how does this fit within their academic mission? The truth is, it doesn’t.
    Let’s firstly go back to how universities source their funds…
    http://www.watoday.com.au/comment/sydney-university-in-the-grip-of-groupthink-20150911-gjkiou.html

    20

    • #
      James Murphy

      what next? calls for universities to stop teaching science or engineering in case some of the graduates go on to work in non-’green’ industries?

      20

  • #
    Another Ian

    Seems to be more trouble in the southern ocean

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/11/the-pages2k-goat-rope/

    11

  • #
  • #

    Just a thought: if they were honest, shouldn’t the Mann made global warming apologists describe their efforts as Post Science Modernism, as there would appear to be little, if any, science backing their proclamations of doom?

    11

  • #
    giordano bruno

    It seems the only certainty in the settled science of climate change is that the climate models are always wrong, as everybody not lobotomised for moneys or for free may easily understand. the only problem is the press not picking up on the false statements. as we have not run out of oil yet, even if somebody was claiming oil will finish tomorrow every day since 50 years ago, over this century polar bears are not extinct, sea levels have not risen, temperatures have not warmed, sea ices have not disappear, etc etc etc now, with reference to this paper, models usually wrong have claimed in the past the CO2 uptake of the southern ocean was reducing, now they are claiming it is increasing. I would not waste too much time with this kind of stuff, as the models say what the modellers want … that is basically what the funding body ask the pseudo-scientist to prove … sad time the commercial academy … everybody may get a degree if paying the fee …. everybody may get published the statement needed if the grant is rich enough …

    11

  • #
    BilB

    As usual, Jo, you do not read the articles properly, or you intentionally miss the essential information. It is all in the bit you jumped over between invigoration and future trends.

    It is the bit that explains why the CO2 uptake has increased. It is the bit that explains that Global Warming induced atmospheric air movements are improving the conditions for CO2 uptake, ie increased storm activity and decreased sea surface temperatures on the Pacific side as cold ice melting air moves off the southern continent. Furthermore the article suggests that the same feature of the weakening of the Arctic circumpolar jet stream may be appearing at the Antarctic as well.

    No matter how you look at it, it is all to do with Global Warming, and heading in the same direction, Climate Change on a global scale. Of course it is good news that the oceans are still working at scrubbing CO2 from the atmosphere, but the accelerating increase in atmospheric levels demonstrates that the environmental systems cannot possibly match human emissions as they currently are.

    23

    • #

      Yes, exactly Bill. No matter what happens it’s always Climate Change TM.

      And which climate model understood the ocean well enough to predict this shift? Ans: None.

      So, couldn’t find a single mistake in my writing eh?

      22

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        The article actually confirms the model predictions, it absorption of the southern ocean increased when the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increased.

        So your “models were wrong” in your headline is unjustified.

        10

      • #
        BilB

        Errors, Jo? That depends on what you call an error. I would not have said errors, more fallacies of logic. Your perpetual vendetta against climate modelling invalidates every argument that you have ever made about paleoclimates as determined from ice core information extractions, as a basis to invalidate climate change predictions. To examine the gas mix in a tiny bubble and draw conclusions on what that meant in terms of environment at the time of gas capture requires extensive use of modelling and the use of all of the climate modelling information that you choose to condemn when talking about present day environments. For some reason you feel comfortable to claim absolute certainty about science that is entirely speculative ie cannot be absolutely verified. I would call that a very unscientific approach to information.

        Every climate model that is run improves the accuracy of climate modelling as a whole. We do not have computers capable of predictively calculating the entire biosphere, so models focus on specific aspects, which progressively build towards accurately quantifying ever larger sections of our environment. Each piece, as in a jigsaw puzzle, builds towards a complete image model of our entire environment. But just as the a jigsaw image can be understood well before all of the pieces are in place, so too do models allow us to make ever more complete understandings of the workings of our biosphere.

        As to “which climate model understood the ocean well enough to predict this shift”, well, probably most of them. You don’t know that they did not, you are going on what you have read of published papers on the subject. That there may not have been any announcements on the subject does not mean that the models did not predict this change. In reality the fact that a research team was put to the task to perform a study on the carbon uptake of the Southern Ocean almost certainly says that the models DID predict such a change and so a team was formed to verify the prediction.

        Errors? it depends upon what you choose to call an error.

        23

        • #

          Bilb, your religious faith is touching. So, I made no errors. Thanks. Strangely, you think that because I promote some models and dismiss others (the ones which don’t predict anything) that’s a fallacy?

          Obviously you cannot name a single model which predicted this Southern Ocean shift because all the press releases ten years ago were telling us the models predicted the opposite.

          But it doesn’t matter what they predict does it? Whatever happens is “Climate Change”.

          22

  • #
    BilB

    As I have demonstrated many times, Jo, you only read what you want to read and you disregard the rest.

    This 2009 paper talks about the fluctuations currently being measured and predicts a potential decline in the Southern Ocean CO2 sink…….by 2100. So your claim is, as usual, garbage.

    https://instaar.colorado.edu/uploads/publications/lovenduski_2009_jmr.pdf

    30

    • #

      Bilb, what’s to disregard?. :-)

      I’m talking about predictions that were made in the past, and have come true.

      You have nothing, and everyone can see that. Witchdoctors and scientists both make predictions about 2100 and so far they have the same credibility because both have the same failure rate.

      12