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

Phytoplankton suck CO2 out of sky, dump to ocean floor

Phytoplankton, Carbon, sequestration, sink.

A new nature paper shows how little we know about the oceans and the whole carbon cycle. A paper (with 64 names!) suggests that phytoplankton might be sucking out extra CO2 from the sky and dumping it in Davy Jones’ Locker at the bottom of the deep blue sea.

Who needs a global carbon  market? Apparently plankton are doing it for free.  And all those windmills just got a bit more pointless.

Lots of living things absorb carbon, but phytoplankton seem to be more important than the others. The best predictors of sinking carbon were viruses of certain cyanobacteria. Few of the “thousands of phytoplankton species have been studied in this way”.

Jo

PS: This fits with Tom Quirks paper on the 9Gt massive carbon bubble of 1990 and previous research that shows plankton sucks up twice as much carbon as we thought it did. We’re going to be hearing more about phytoplankton.

The ocean’s power to rein in carbon and protect the environment is vast but not well-understood.

But now, an international team of scientists has begun to illuminate how the ocean plucks carbon from the atmosphere, where it contributes to global warming, and shuttles it to the bottom of the sea.

The new study establishes the important role of plankton networks in removing carbon from the atmosphere and depositing it deep in the ocean. And it opens up opportunities for caring for the ocean in ways that encourage it to absorb more carbon.

The knowledge comes out of the unprecedented three-year Tara Oceans Expedition, in which a team of more than 200 experts took to the sea to catalog and better understand the unseen inhabitants of the ocean, from tiny animals to viruses and bacteria.

The latest in a series of studies from the project appears in today’s issue of the journal Nature and includes work by Matthew Sullivan, an assistant professor of microbiology at The Ohio State University, and Jennifer Brum and Simon Roux, postdoctoral researchers in Sullivan’s lab.

“We’re trying to understand, ‘Does carbon in the surface ocean sink to the deep ocean and, if so, how?’” Sullivan said.

“The reason that’s important is the oceans help mitigate our carbon footprint on this planet.”

The Tara team used advanced genetic sequencing to survey tiny ocean dwellers and, through a complex analytical approach, was able to identify those clusters of ocean inhabitants most linked to depositing carbon in the deep ocean.

“It’s the first community-wide look at what organisms are good predictors of how carbon moves in the ocean,” Sullivan said.

For decades, scientists have sought a way to look at a community such as the ocean on a genetic level and to use that information to make larger measurements of complex communities and predict how the ecosystem works.

This study measured abundances of microbes (viruses, bacteria, archaea and small eukaryotes) and then used statistical approaches and computer modeling to determine which microbes are most closely linked with the downward movement of carbon in the ocean.

Phytoplankton, or the plants in the sea, are known to be able to take carbon from the atmosphere and carry it deep into the ocean. However, few of the thousands of phytoplankton species have been studied in this way.

This new work employed cameras to capture images of organisms at different depths of the ocean to better identify sinking patterns for all plankton. These measurements, combined with new knowledge about the interplay between organisms and advanced analyses, enabled the researchers to determine which phytoplankton best predict the movement of carbon from the ocean’s surface to the deep sea. And the strongest predictors were surprises.

Sullivan’s team played a key role in better understanding the role of viruses in this process, by providing a global map of virus abundances. After the numbers were crunched, it appears that the abundance of relatively few bacterial and viral genes can predict variation in sinking carbon. The most important viruses appear to infect cells called cyanobacteria.

The Tara project’s approach (fishing with a very large net rather than studying a limited number of organisms) allowed the team to establish a relationship between tiny viruses and carbon export in the phytoplankton community, Roux said.

“What was really surprising was that only a handful — less than 10 out of more than 5,000 — viruses seem to be specifically linked to carbon export. This means that we can now go after these key players specifically and try to characterize their impact on the ecosystem,” he said.

The Tara work could also help scientists understand how high carbon levels in the atmosphere are affecting the ocean, Sullivan said.

More carbon entering oceans acidifies the waters, which stresses marine organisms and alters marine life. Ultimately, this could mean the difference between whether there’s enough tuna for your sushi dinner, Sullivan said.

The study also included first-of-its-kind computer modeling that helps the team identify hotspots in the ocean where more carbon movement is happening, based on the microorganisms that are present.

“These findings help us better understand how the ocean works, but these new approaches can be used by anyone studying microbial processes in any ecosystem,” he said.

The Tara project included thousands of samples of ocean life collected at hundreds of sites in the Indian, North Atlantic, South Atlantic, South Pacific and Southern oceans and in the Mediterranean Sea. It has allowed for a better understanding of the interplay of organisms in the ocean and of their role in the health of the planet.

Science Direct

 REFERENCE:

  1. Lionel Guidi, et al x 64 names  (2015)  Plankton networks driving carbon export in the oligotrophic ocean. Nature, 2016; DOI: 10.1038/nature16942
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.0/10 (72 votes cast)
Phytoplankton suck CO2 out of sky, dump to ocean floor, 9.0 out of 10 based on 72 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/zeo376d

174 comments to Phytoplankton suck CO2 out of sky, dump to ocean floor

  • #

    I don’t think anyone is even pretending anymore that all of this Green Hoodoo is to do with saving the planet. It’s all about money and power.

    390

    • #

      they probably forgot to mention that in their Nature paper.

      1512

      • #
        Sceptical Sam

        Irrelevant and silly – but we’re used to those comments from you.

        The proof of bemused’s statement exists in today’s Senate Estimates hearing with Larry Marshall.

        Of course it’s about the money. Always was.

        We can expect the likes of Gee Aye and those of his comrades with their snouts in the trough to ramp this up.

        It’s the money. Every time.

        112

        • #
          Eddy Aruda

          Yep, it is always about the money. What amazes me is that the theory of global warming/climate change/climate disruption/whatever is that it is based on a fallacious appeal to ignorance. NASA had a page, long since removed, that stated that because we couldn’t find anything else to pin the trivial warming on then it must be CO2 that did it.

          Now, we have another example of what we didn’t know. And as with other instances, the new scientific revelation dispels ignorance but undermines the theory.

          When The Republicans win the white house it will be all over for the global warming gravy train. I hope they follow Australia’s lead and cut the funding because the science is “settled.” After that, task the FBI to investigate the climate cabal and let the prosecutions begin!

          Yep, change is in the air!

          180

          • #
            Mike

            “Yep, change is in the air!”

            It sure is. Recently it has been the norm to print money out of thin air. Now that money can be printed in a vacuum, with the advent of negative interest rates, it makes sense the same is being attempted with CO2. Unimaginable amounts of money will be generated so that printing money out of thin air will be superseded by printing money out of CO2 with even greater success. :)

            Just like other explosions in money printing (quantitative easing), it does not need to follow that jobs will be created. …..no, no, no… That is because in the modern age of economic-climate-science, money can be printed out of thin air, in the vacuum of negative interest rates, and of course now it can be printed out of CO2 also. :)

            30

          • #
            john karajas

            I agree with Eddy Aruda in that we still don’t know all that much about what is happening in natural systems. To believe that an astrophysicist (Hansen) from NASA could explain everything about the world’s climate was extreme folly to anybody who had a proper training in the natural sciences. However, taking into account the great esteem in which America’s space program was held, we have had enormous collateral damage imposed on the world economy as well as on the conduct of scientific programs since 1990 or thereabouts when this pseudoscience started getting promulgated.

            50

        • #

          The fact that my comment secured 12 up and 2 down thumbs is possibly an indication that there are 12 others who also find it annoying that a vacuous political comment is the first comment in a thread about the influence of ocean biota on carbon cycling and how this interacts with climate.

          414

          • #

            Isn’t climate science all about politics? The only thing that is vacuous is the belief that the ‘science is settled’.

            130

            • #

              Not sure that carbon atoms moving in and about the ocean via plankton have any sort of parliament. How do you get on in the world when you are so easily diverted?

              212

              • #

                Gee, Aye don’t know.

                71

              • #
                Mike

                Gee Aye…. From “The Meaning Of Life”…..
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2QJvc_SxFQ

                “One… people are not wearing enough hats. Two… matter is
                energy; in the Universe there are many energy fields which we cannot normally perceive.”

                70

              • #
                Bartender

                And if you look back in the history of time the atmosphere had very large amounts of carbon dioxide in it, it’s now got less than 0.4% where did that carbon dioxide go to? It went into limestone, chalk, shells and life. We’ve (life) been sequestering carbon for ONLY two and a half billion years. This planet has been degassing carbon dioxide since it first formed four and a half billion years ago and now we are at a dangerously low level. True, that the sea heat content is greater than the atmosphere which is not surprising with over three point seven four million volcanoes with pools of leaking carbon dioxide on the sea floor. But who cares? That’s just a bit of geological history not important.

                30

          • #
            Eddy Aruda

            The fact that my comment secured 12 up and 2 down thumbs…

            Argumentum ad numerum!

            vacuous politcal comment…

            Gosh, Gee, for a second there I thought you were referring to the latest IPCC assessment report!

            120

            • #
              Gee Aye

              You complain that I use numbers in an argument without actually saying why this is a fallacy in this case- hey stating Latin and stating fallacies in an argument is also fallacious, and you then follow with an unambiguous non sequitur. Brilliant

              01

    • #
      paul

      in fact putting co2 into the air is saving the world.

      Just say the industrial age did not occur for another 100 million years , what would the co2 ppm in air be then.

      would life have ended before it got started

      Any scientist out there that could tell us just how much co2 phytoplankton would have sucked of the air in that 100 million years

      151

  • #
    Alan

    Great future petroleum source rocks ;)

    171

    • #
      el gordo

      Carbonate.

      61

    • #
      Dariusz

      Geological layers are full of carbonates. Some of them are kms thick. The present day North West Shelf, an area off the coast of Western Australia between Carnarvon and Darwin is dominated by carbonates that were deposited in the last 100 mln years.
      What they “discovered” is a well known geological observation that was established some 200 years ago with far more than 64 names behind it.

      130

      • #
        Robk

        I seem to recall a similar conclusion (that phytoplankton were very good at removing a lot of CO2) from a fairly recent study based on satellite imagery. I’m guessing that this is a study to verify and qualify it. No surprises it seems.

        30

      • #
        Alan

        Dariusz, although modern sediments in these areas may contain significant carbonate sediments those that contain the main gas hydrocarbon deposits on the NWS don’t, see for a summary. The source and reservoir rocks are mainly Jurassic 200-150 Myr.

        With regard to phytoplankton, they use CO2, nitrogen, phosphorus and trace elements to form organic matter by way of photosynthesis and only some plankton combine calcium and dissolved carbonates to form CaCO3, others can combine silica.
        The organic matter of marine plankton is mainly proteins (50% or more), variable amounts of lipids (5-25%) and generally not more than 40% carbohydrates.
        These then become deposited as fine-grained organic rich sediments and become the main source rocks for hydrocarbons

        50

  • #

    The painfully obvious question is why would you want to decrease the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? I can also predict that if you reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere there would be less phytoplankton to transport it to the bottom of the ocean.

    270

    • #

      Can you imagine the outcome if some dedicated Green scientist discovered a way to seed the atmosphere, or some such, to reduce CO2 levels and the inevitable happened?

      190

    • #
      sophocles

      We neither need nor want to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but nobody has told the phytoplankton.

      Perhaps the day will eventually come when they do themselves out of a job and there is no CO2 left …
      (I don’t expect that to happen this century .. :-) )

      30

  • #
    peter

    As the temperature rises climate scientists fart more. A new source of rising CO2 levels?

    60

  • #
    Ursus AUgustus

    Considering the sheer relative size of the oceans and that wonderful air-water mixing mechanism called wind and breaking waves, how come it has taken this long for all those scientistas to have that well, duuhhh moment?

    151

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      Be fair. The idea has long been theorised, but I think it’s the first time it’s been measured.

      92

      • #
        Ursus Augustus

        I take your point Kevin but then again they have been ‘measuring’ an awful lot of stuff for quite a while and my point is that given the sheer size of the oceans and the theroisation, why has it taken this long? It seems it should have been one of the first things looked at, if only to get the ‘models’ set up properly.

        What is the point of ‘models’ if you cannot quantify the constituent parts?

        What is the basis for a model that you know is missing ‘theorised’ parts?

        60

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    “Lionel Guidi, et al x 64 names” Is that a consensus? Straight into AR6 then.

    81

    • #
      Leonard Lane

      Perhaps Kevin. But, I am always very suspicious of papers with lots of efforts. Here is how it works, they all site each other in the next paper and that builds everyone’s science citation index, then when they rotate the first 3 or 4 top authors on the next paper and at sometime many people are first or second authors and that builds the number of total papers up.
      Now, when this goes on for a few years the authors in the number 1 to 3rd or so get great numbers of papers cited and even a bigger citation index. This makes them look good on subsequent climate change (global warming)proposal and they get more grants to work on more climate change papers, and the cycle goes on and on. At some point the Hansons, Manns, etc. are on the top of the heap.

      120

      • #
        Michael

        That is “cite” by the way. Citation index is definitely dodgy. Citing is largely worthless- anyone can list hundreds of papers whether they have any relevance to the original paper and there is no checking whatsoever.

        41

        • #
          Another Ian

          Michael

          But that only helps the index of those that you cite but not you.

          You have to get the reciprocal to benefit yours.

          And I have long thought that, to maximise your CI, you need to publish the worst possible paper that can pass.

          Then you’ll be cited by those who know how bad it is and the “me toos” who didn’t need to cite you but do to show that they’ve heard.

          Sound like clisci by any chance?

          40

  • #
    PeterS

    Just another factor about the complex nature of our planet we didn’t know before. Imagine how much more we still have to learn. I bet we haven’t even scratched the surface (pun intended). Yet the so called climate scientists think they can model the climate decades in advance. What a joke. In any other field it would be laughed at like the flat earth theory. In fact there is more circumstantial evidence to support the flat earth theory than there is to support the AGW hoax. Yet we all know, well at least the intelligible ones, that the earth is not flat for a certainty.

    90

    • #

      So much to learn about Ma Naychur. Re scrubbing CO2 from the air,
      this from the chiefio… ‘a fertile pond growing pond scum could
      completely deplete about twenty times the volume of air as sits
      above it. In one year.’

      https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/of-trees-volcanos-and-pond-scum/

      90

      • #
        PeterS

        Interesting read. So the solution to the problem if it exists is simple; we scrub the CO2 out of the air in a very short period using nothing more exotic than trees and pond scum on a modest fraction of the earth’s surface. Now that just destroyed the trillion dollar scam peddled by the global warming industry. Why isn’t this the news of the century? The reason is in the article itself. There isn’t enough CO2 to make it worthwhile to grow huge areas of trees and pond scum. We need more CO2 to do so!!!!! Yet another argument to show the global warming alarmists are either scam artists or delusional (or both).

        130

    • #
      bobl

      But the derivative of the earth is flat and they use a flat earth in climate models so therefore the earth must be flat – in climate science anyway.

      130

      • #
        Popeye26

        And it’s a complete “black body” too AND there is no such thing as CLOUDS – lol

        Cheers,

        90

      • #
        Another Ian

        bobl

        You might get a free membership from the Flat Earth Society for that!

        40

        • #
          bobl

          Doubt it Ian, I’m still waiting for my Big Oil Cheque let alone a complimentary membership of the flat earth society. The Cheque from China to pay for my sequestration of chinese emissions is also late…

          80

          • #
          • #
            Another Ian

            bobl

            Sounds similar to my luck with those cheques.

            At least it rained here

            30

            • #
              bobl

              Rain? What’s that, my back tank pump pressure controller is on the fritz and the replacement doesn’t come till Tuesday, meanwhile the Ozzie Summer is frying the garden. I will probably have to butcher up the house waterand add an outside tap so I can connect a garden hose to the house water tank. A little rain every now and again would help right now.

              Mind you it was wet all last week – when the pump was working of course.

              30

              • #
                Another Ian

                Been there, done that. Didn’t get a T shirt.

                Years ago a friend moved to a city based business. The first report on the difference between city and country living was

                “I never realised how much time you spend in the bush looking after yourself”

                40

  • #
    sillyfilly

    “More carbon entering oceans acidifies the waters, which stresses marine organisms and alters marine life”
    ibid

    137

    • #
      tom0mason

      Limestone cliffs?

      140

      • #
        Annie

        Like the White Cliffs of Dover and their equivalents the other side of th English Channel in France. What about all the marble in the world?

        40

        • #
          tom0mason

          Yes, such limestone cliff (which is evidence of massive amount of shellfish alive when CO2 levels were higher than present) are all over the globe and should show increased erosion due to small changes in seawater pH. IMO this erosion would start long before any significant affects are seen on the marine biota.
          But without observations, evidence, and real world facts the alarmists feel free to push their speculative nonsense.

          Here is someone far more trained in the subject than I, and his bottom line is there is not enough observed evidence for us to be able to say.

          10

    • #
      The Backslider

      Can you show any evidence whatsoever of anywhere that the ocean has acidified due to CO2?

      190

    • #
      bobl

      Silly,
      Shellfish shells unlike the forcefed propaganda is made from Calcium CARBONate The CO2 you stress about is turned into the CARBONATE bit. So absent CO2 – no shells.

      211

      • #
        sillyfilly

        Obviously unaware of the impact of elevated CO2 on the oceans and the consequent decrease in calcium carbonate saturation.

        (More than 99% of the FREE CO2 are already in the ocean waters) CTS

        115

        • #
          el gordo

          Analitik mentioned this abstract earlier and it clearly shows that the Southern Ocean carbon sink was chock a block at the LGM.

          http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v530/n7589/full/nature16514.html

          40

        • #
          The Backslider

          I knew you didn’t have an answer.

          Are you aware that shellfish, yabbies, crayfish etc. grow quite happily in truly acidic fresh water?

          100

          • #
            bobl

            Well they do in my dam anyway which has a PH about 6, The Yabbies aren’t having a good time at the moment though because my back paddock needs a good soaking. I hope they can hold out till it fills again.

            40

            • #

              They should do OK. They usually bury themselves into the mud and simply wait until the rains come again. We see that happening all year round in our parts and our yabbies (our crayfish) live in the ground, digging holes like extra large trap door spiders.

              I have tried and tried to get photos of these critters, but they are so sensitive to vibrations. I have been able to get a look at one and they could be out of a horror movie, all black and spiny.

              40

              • #
                bobl

                I hope so Bemused, I would hate to lose them

                20

              • #

                They tend to be pretty resilient, as they can travel substantial distances across land just to find new and exotic places to live. If you saw where the ones around our home dig themselves into (quite hard ground), you could believe that they would survive anywhere. Our nearby historic park, where I go regularly, the ground is often like a scene from the ‘Man from Snowy River’, with all the miniature ‘wombat’ holes everywhere (though the ground there is a lot softer).

                20

        • #
          bobl

          Silly The Calcium Carbonate comes from the precipitation reaction of Calcium Hydroxide in the ocean with CO2 using the reaction Ca(OH)2 + CO2 -> CaCO3 + H20. Shellfish need CO2 from the ocean to make their shells, the Shellfish control conditions where the shell is to be precipitated for PH, Temperature and Ion Concentration and they bind the crystals that form in a protein matrix for strength but they don’t actually make the Calcium Carbonate. Because the Shellfish can control the precipitation conditions they are utterly unaffected by the piddling change in the ocean from being a base of 8.3 to being a base of PH 8.29 that might happen due to manmade CO2 Indeed shellfish can create conditions to precipitate shells even in acidic water where Calcium Carbonate is hard to naturally precipitate. I might note that in your own mouth which is probably somewhere between PH 6.5 and 7.5 (Ie Less alkaline than the ocean) and highly enriched in CO2 because of your breathing the little microbe buggers still seem to have no trouble precipitating lots of CaCO3 which persists in spite of drinking highly acidic soda drinks.

          Indeed if CO2 in the ocean were to increase it seems likely that given the shellfishes ability to regulate the PH at the precipitating surface, the rate of precipitation of Calcium Carbonate would increase, giving them a thicker shell. Now look at that reaction, what is the shellfish doing to the PH of the water as they extract and pretty much permanently sequester the CO2? The Shellfish are a buffer element.

          50

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      SillyFilly,

      Getting less alkaline is not the same as getting more acid. Alkaline and acid, in terms of pH, are actually two scales, with something in the middle, called neutral buffering, where there is zero acidity and zero alkalinity. Now, go an find a basic chemistry text book, and prove me wrong.

      80

      • #
        GregS

        Don’t expect Silly to read anything that isn’t on the approved list.

        60

        • #
          el gordo

          That’s true, but at least Silly is always polite and we can use her as a sounding board.

          To avoid the space becoming an echo chamber a counterpoint is required, so that we can have a lively, intelligent debate free of logical fallacies.

          Think of it as a warm up exercise before battle, we are greatly outnumbered by a ferocious hoard and at year’s end they will be rabid as global cooling kicks in.

          I’m unashamedly headhunting.

          30

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Using the words,

    - Global Warming. /check.
    - Community. /check.
    - Oceans acidifies. /check.
    - Carbon (incorrectly). /check.
    - Computer modelling. /check.
    - Health of the planet. /check.
    - Hotspots in the ocean. /check.

    , just completes a study doesn’t it?

    251

  • #
  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    It is not news that when there is an increase in availability of a chemical or compound in a complex system the processes that require it will respond. This is just the reason we fertilize our garden plants. It is nice that these (64 !) researchers recognize and document such basic ideas.

    Of course they might have done it sooner, like the first time any of them heard of CAGW.

    100

    • #
      sillyfilly

      So that’s why anthropogenic CO2 emissions have increased the carbon concentration in the atmosphere and the oceans, natural sequestration unable to cope with the combustion of land based carbon sinks. CAGW, that meme of the Oregon Petition, now seems a possibility.

      139

      • #
        el gordo

        The Southern Ocean carbon sink has a huge capacity to cope with any eventuality and acidification is an urban myth.

        190

      • #
        The Backslider

        Have increased the “carbon concenttation” by exactly how much Sillyfilly? I want to see some numbers which show exactly how much of that is in fact anthropogenic.

        Do you understand Henry’s Law?

        150

      • #
        el gordo

        ‘…claims of impending marine species extinctions driven by increases in the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration do not appear to be founded in empirical reality…’

        CO2 Science

        120

      • #
        tom0mason

        sillyfilly,

        When you say “…natural sequestration unable to cope with the combustion of land based carbon sinks.”, you obviously know so much more about all the natural processes’, the amounts and types of natural variation, and many natural cycles on this planet, and how these are separate from any man-made effects.

        Please sillyfilly, elucidate more… some figures perhaps?

        140

      • #
        Mack

        Here’s some more about this, Sillyfilly..
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSRgKKoLLiQ

        50

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          It is interesting that a Koch-funded video clip depicts atmospheric wind patterns in red, and not in some other colour.

          Hands up, all those who think that was not a deliberate choice of colour.

          40

      • #
        AndyG55

        “anthropogenic CO2 emissions have increased the carbon concentration in the atmosphere “

        And THANK GOODNESS for that.

        Although much more is still needed.

        151

      • #
        Another Ian

        Just reminding you that, on a past thread, the Twatter referred to

        “sillyfrilly”

        60

      • #
        Dave in the states

        How do you know that the increase comes from humans? Do the co2 molecules have tags on them or something?

        100

        • #
          AndyG55

          There is no doubt that when we use coal, oil, gas, we are releasing sequestered carbon back into the carbon cycle where it belongs.

          As I side benefit we get electrical energy, steel, etc etc.

          91

        • #

          Now did you expect an answer from SF? Do you do any investigation for yourself. The answer is out there.

          15

      • #
        AndyG55

        “anthropogenic CO2 emissions have increased the carbon concentration”

        Carbon in the atmosphere? I don’t think so.

        CO2 emissions do not increase the carbon concentration,

        just like steam does not increase the oxygen or hydrogen concentration.

        121

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          You have to explain things is very short sentences to SF.

          He/She/It has no concept of what “concentration” actually implies. Or if He/She/It does, they hope and prey that readers do not.

          Concentration of CO2 is only relevant in confined closed spaces where it displaces the other atmospheric gasses. Submarines routinely operate with an atmosphere that contains roughly twice the normal CO2 concentration, because a) It inhibits fire, and b) it prevents oxygen accumulating in the bodies of the submariners, which would otherwise cause them to suffer “the bends” – a severe case of cramps in the torso.

          How many cases have there been of submariners being asphixiated through breathing twice the normal open atmospheric concentration of CO2? None, because it is normal. The number of submariners who have been killed by the bends is significant.

          51

          • #
            AndyG55

            “You have to explain things is very short sentences to SF.”

            I know that.. My sentences were short and concise.

            ….. still probably too much for SF.

            10

          • #
            philthegeek

            You have to explain things is very short sentences to SF.

            And to you apparently. Here goes.

            b) it prevents oxygen accumulating in the bodies of the submariners, which would otherwise cause them to suffer “the bends” – a severe case of cramps in the torso.

            Seriously? “Bends” or more properly decompression illness is caused by NITROGEN, an inert gas, dissolved in the bloodstream (that has accumulated over time in an environment at over normal atmospheric pressure) coming out of solution too fast and causing bubbles. They tend to accumulate at joints (not torso), so people bend the joint to relieve the pain, hence bends.

            Get these bubbles in the brain and you can die, or even become really stupid and have to have things explained to you in short sentences. :) Oxygen and CO2 have nothing whatsoever to do with it.

            The number of submariners who have been killed by the bends is significant.

            Only doing hooded escapes or training for. And embolism is not bends.

            Subs keep a constant pressure of about 1 atm. That is why they are made of really strong steel or titanium alloy (think Alfa class) and even then have what are called “crush depths” which is a place submariners try to avoid if possible.

            Submarines need to be able to change depth quickly, and for crew who have spent days or weeks submerged, to be able to go on the deck and come back in without their blood going fizzy pop. Submariners dont like the fizzy pop thing. It affects personnel retention negatively so subs are designed to avoid it.

            20

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        sillyfilly,

        does your new T-shirt have the slogan Phytoplankton sucks?

        50

      • #
        el gordo

        Silly

        At the Lowest Glacial Maximum (LGM) around 19,000 years before present, Sydney was 20 kilometers inland and the oceans were saltier. Sea ice in the Southern Ocean was quite extensive during the winter months and the sky was full of Australian iron dust.

        Just go to the conclusion:

        http://www.ess.uci.edu/~jkmoore/papers/1999GB900051.pdf

        The draw down pump was working overtime until the waters warmed sufficiently, which allowed CO2 liberation from its cold watery grave.

        30

      • #
        sophocles

        Sillyfilly is not an oceanic chemist. CO2 acidifying the oceans … silly Sillyfilly.

        the oceans maintain their alkaline pH within a fairly narrow range by precipitating excess dissolved carbonate as calcium carbonate (lime stone)
        That;s after the phytoplankton have had their share.

        Precipitate: means it comes out of solution as a solid and settles on the ocean floor.

        The claims of the “Ocean Acidifiers” are an ocean chemistry for some other planet, not this one. .

        The ocean chemistry is clearly explained in the NIPCC Climate Change Reconsidered II; Biological Impacts

        41

  • #
    mark

    Still smells like an outcome looking for a hypothesis!

    90

  • #
    pat

    o/t but totally pathetic…

    11 Feb: ABC: CSIRO boss Larry Marshall sorry for saying politics of climate ‘more like religion than science’
    “I’d like to apologise for any offence I may have caused to anyone with respect to my reference to religion,” Dr Marshall said.
    “I was merely referring to the passionate zeal around this issue, not any other reference, and I deeply apologise.”…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-11/csiro-boss-apologises-for-climate-religion-comments/7160288

    and doesn’t ABC love it…

    120

    • #
      TdeF

      How can every religion be offended at once? After all, only one of them is right. Perhaps.

      70

    • #
      tom0mason

      …And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, …

      Matthew 18:9

      30

    • #
      el gordo

      Its weird to think this character was a Abbott government appointee, with an academic background in lasers, so it must be his innovative approach they fancied.

      My guess he was head hunted for the job.

      40

    • #
      Rollo

      Larry Marshall sorry

      Every time I read a paper or watch the news someone is saying sorry. You made a good call Larry, run with it and tellemstuffem.

      90

  • #

    I’m sure Nature will find find ways to make phytoplankton the new polar bear. The old green rag needs some fresh pin-ups.

    But it’s no surprise about the carbon thing. El Nino likes to deposit huge masses of iron-rich Australian dust into the Pacific every once in a while, maybe to help his sister along. (Thinking about early 40s, ’83, 2009.) Aeolian sediments and volcanic ash do a good job of fertilising. And those melty glaciers are good for a few million tonnes of iron-rich dust, not too digested and making a good spread as it goes. Seems you need a “disaster” or two to get your minerals where they need to be.

    Nice to see natural scientists taking a look at the natural world. They don’t get out often enough these days.

    100

  • #
    Richard111

    Just think of all that carbon on the seafloor disappearing down the subduction zones and spewing back up out of the nearby volcanoes. What is the mental level of people who claim they can control that process?

    100

  • #
    bobl

    And it opens up opportunities for caring for the ocean in ways that encourage it to absorb more carbon.

    My god, did you say that – just suppose they encouraged that phytoplankton too much and the type of phytoplankton being farmed was a type that could survive say down to 100PPM – that is, it, or a mutation of it, was capable of drawing down atmospheric carbon dioxide below 170 PPM. The only life left on the earth would be that phytoplankton. Personally I don’t want those idiots playing god with the ocean.

    90

  • #
    TdeF

    We humans came from the ocean which is why we are filled with saline and cannot go long with critical amounts of water and salt. The word for salt in many languages is sal, so salary, the pay of the Roman soldiers and the Egyptian pyramid builders, the building block of modern society, the essential right which led Mahatma Gandhi on his strikes which created modern India. Salt, the life giver. To ignore the ocean is to ignore our planet.

    More than half the biosphere is in the ocean and more oxygen and 50x as much CO2 as in the air. That is how fish breathe and phytoplankton perform half of the carbon dioxide capture of the planet and provide the oxygen we humans burn. Of course the BOM does not know this. Nor Al Gore or Tim Flannery.

    What is still not recognized is the rapid exchange of CO2 in the biosphere and the concept of equilibrium. Man cannot change the CO2 levels. That is real science but the Greens do not know any science. The periodic table will always be a mystery to them. They banned Chlorine. It’s a wonder they have not banned Carbon despite the fact that we and the plants are all made from carbon, carbon dioxide, something people just cannot believe. Yes, we have to be made from something but why not gold or platinum or diamond? Wait, that’s carbon.

    211

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Tdef was it you that mentioned recently that only 2% of all earths co2 is in the atmosphere?

      Apologies if I’m wrong it was something that stuck in my head.

      60

      • #
        Rollo

        Tdef was it you that mentioned recently that only 2% of all earths co2 is in the atmosphere?

        If you are counting only the oceans and the atmosphere 98% of the CO2 is in the sea and 2% in the atmosphere, if I remember correctly.

        80

        • #
          Yonniestone

          Thanks Rollo, it’s one of those little facts that makes the average person stop and think about what is claimed by CAGW.

          50

      • #
        Rollo

        Have a look at this German site. It shows that the amount of carbon stored in limestone and sedimentary rocks is greater by many orders of magnitude than the carbon(or CO2) stored in the atmosphere and the seas. You could argue that life is threatened more by carbon being sequestered and becoming unavailable for living things.

        http://www.science-skeptical.de/klimawandel/unbequeme-wahrheiten-die-biologisch-geologische-co2-sackgasse/0010011/

        90

        • #
          AndyG55

          “You could argue that life is threatened more by carbon being sequestered and becoming unavailable for living things. “

          And that is why it is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL that we continue to liberate sequestered carbon (coal, gas, oil) back into the carbon cycle where it belongs.

          70

        • #
          TdeF

          The majority of the universe is monotonic hydrogen. One proton and one electron. These smash together under immense gravity to fuse into helium and light our day, the source of all life. Then these collide forming heavier elements in the Periodic table. The heavier they are, the more unlikely. Conversely the probability of the lighter elements is much higher than the heavier. So Hydrogen, He, Li, Be, Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen. You can stop there. Apart from metals Calcium and Iron and tiny amounts of Phorphorous and others, you have all life on earth.

          So it should be no surprise that carbon is one of the most common elements in the universe but according to the Greens, it is black, dirty stuff and kills polar bears. I wonder if they believe H2O is really made from two gases? That CO2 is really an invisible gas? That we are made from CO2, H2O and sunlight and hydrated carbon dioxide is carbohydrate? Finally that Green Chlorophyll, the name of their party, is a filthy hydrocarbon. Ignorance is not bliss and science is not a religion.

          111

          • #
            TdeF

            Technically not monotonic, but under low pressure H2. In gas giants like Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune, mononuclear and monotonic but the majority of Hydrogen is possibly in vast interstellar space.

            50

          • #
            Howie from Indiana

            In think you mean monatomic hydrogen.

            40

            • #
              TdeF

              Right, monatomic not monatonic. I have been using monatonic in another connection far too much lately and it stuck. Malapropism.

              As for supernova explosions only, I do not know how anyone knows this. In such an explosion, you certainly see what is inside a sun but whether the explosion was the sole factory is surely debatable. Everything takes time and a deep cooking process which takes ten billions years is the likely source.

              30

          • #
            Howie from Indiana

            Elements heavier than iron are formed in supernova explosions. Iron is the most stable element with respect to fission and fusion.

            30

            • #
              TdeF

              Followed the link. Thanks. I am however skeptical and I have no idea how people came to such a conclusion. Talk about long distance analysis! A long term steady process over billions of years rather than an explosion makes more sense. The idea that the synthesis occurs just as things are flying apart at near light speed seems the opposite of what you would need. Still, how can anyone judge quantities, so it is possible. One quote I found ” both supernovae and ejection of elements from red giants are required to explain the observed abundance of heavy elements (in our solar system) and isotopes thereof.”

              10

              • #
                Howie from Indiana

                Nuclear fusion for the heavier elements is an endothermic process. In other words it takes a lot of energy to make the heavier elements. As it turns out you are half right. There are two processes whereby heavier elements are formed- an s-process and an r-process. The s-process takes place in certain stars not undergoing supernova and is relatively slow. The r-process takes place in stars under supernova conditions and is rapid.

                30

              • #
                Howie from Indiana

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-process

                Above link is a good summary even if it is from Wiki.

                30

  • #
    tom0mason

    PS: This fits with Tom Quirks paper on the 9Gt massive carbon bubble of 1990 and previous research that shows plankton sucks up twice as much carbon as we thought it did. We’re going to be hearing more about phytoplankton.

    ¯
    In making all that phytoplankton with CO2 and other marine nutrients, and the energy from sunlight; this solar energy is captured and stored away for a very long time.
    ¯
    So how is that global energy balance calculated? Based on the wrong headed notion that on this planet energy in equals energy out — natural life show this is a completely wrong assumption.

    Sunlight arrives at this planet and natural life secretes away as much as it can, for periods ranging from seconds to centuries to millennia. Secreted away in the changed chemical structures of life, structures that can not exist in abundance here with out sunlight. Ancient solar energy is easily seen in these structures; structures that have sequestered away solar energy to make the fossils, peat, coal etc. that litters our planet.

    Energy balance ideas are bull-hockey notions based on over-simplified theory of how this planet works.
    Like most of ‘climate science™’ it’s nice for overpaid academic theoreticians, utter nonsense for the rest of us.

    100

  • #
    Another Ian

    Jo

    O/T

    I tried this via email and got a “too many invalid recipients” message.

    WWF in the spotlight

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2016/2/11/greenshirt-thuggery-condemned.html

    30

  • #
    Richard

    Here is an interesting article from NASA on phytoplankton removal with a useful illustration (Adapted from ‘A New Wave of Ocean Science US Joint Global Ocean Flux Study’).

    Phytoplankton absorb CO2 through photosynthesis and when they die (or excrete faecal pellets) CO2 gets transferred down to the deep-ocean as particulate organic carbon (POC). The NASA illustration shows that some of this POC gets converted back into DIC by bacteria through decomposition and some gets taken up by zooplankton which is then either transported to the upper-ocean through the zooplankton migration or released through respiration and excretion. Whatever is not taken up by decomposition and consumption sinks to the deep-ocean (see NASA illustration).

    According to NASA:

    Phytoplankton consume CO2 on a scale equivalent to forests and other land plants. Some of this carbon is carried to the deep-ocean when phytoplankton die, and some is transferred to different layers of the ocean as phytoplankton are eaten by other creatures, which themselves reproduce, generate waste, and die. Worldwide, this biological carbon pump transfers about 10 gigatonnes [Gts] of carbon from the atmosphere to the deep-ocean each year

    10Gts of carbon is equivalent to 36.7Gts of CO2 or around 4.7 ppmv. This would give us a residence time for atmospheric CO2 of 400 ppmv/4.7 ppmv = 80 years through phytoplankton removal alone and would only take a mere 120 ppmv/4.7 ppmv = 25 years to remove the excess 120 ppmv of CO2 from the atmosphere assumed to be caused by humans. This is interesting of course, since according to the IPCC in AR4 2007:

    This adjustment time [of CO2], corresponding to the lifetime in table 1.1 is of the order 50-200 years, determined mainly by the low exchange of carbon between surface waters and the deep-ocean

    4.7 ppmv/year of atmospheric CO2 is hardly a “low exchange”.

    70

    • #
      TdeF

      “low exchange of carbon between surface waters and the deep-ocean”

      Who said? Where was this proven?

      This is precisely the sort of casual unproven stuff the IPCC push, that CO2 exchange only happens in the top layer and they can discount the other 4km of water stuffed with compressed CO2 as presumably the CO2 cannot escape for millenia. Their only argument is that because the currents do not mix, the gas cannot escape. Who decided this? What proof do they have?

      However CO2 is gas or gas compressed to a liquid, not water. Bubbles come from the bottom even when water does not mix. You will see this in any solution of CO2 like lemonade. So too the geologists attest to CO2 plumes from the bottom when looking for CH4.

      What is obvious now is the very rapid exchange of CO2 between the ocean and the atmosphere and this is not possible unless the entire ocean is involved, as is clear. Check Dr Murry Selby’s most recent talk on Youtube. If the 50x as much CO2 in the ocean is involved, destroying the Bern diagram and every IPCC argument, it is game over for CO2 Global Warming. The temperature sets the CO2, not the other way around.

      The simple test is to measure the C14 age with depth, the proportion of C14 in a given CO2 sample. Radio carbon date ocean CO2 samples at different depths. If CO2 does not make it to the bottom, it will have far less C14. If the half life of CO2 is 80 years as the IPCC say and the mixing time thousands, there will be almost no C14 in the CO2 even a km down.

      30

      • #
        TdeF

        It’s a very simple test. If as the IPCC says it take 80 years for half the aerial CO2 to exchange with the ocean and 1000 years say for the surface to exchange with the deep ocean, it will take 1,000 years for even 2% of the total CO2 to change. 50,000 years for half of the deep ocean CO2 to exchange with fresh C14 bearing C14.

        So with a half life of 5,400 years there should be no C14 in deep ocean CO2. Like fossil fuel.

        However if it take 14 years for half to exchange and the whole ocean is involved, it will only take 50*14 years or 800 years to exchange half of the ocean CO2. CO2 at the very bottom should have a date around 1,000AD, only very slightly less than at present, about 12% less than today.

        30

        • #
          TdeF

          Radio carbon dating molluscs has the answer, if not exactly what I had in mind.

          “Depending on the age of the marine carbonate, a 200- to 500-year correction (i.e. global marine reservoir correction) is applied automatically for all marine carbonates. This automatic correction means the radiocarbon date gets more recent in time due to the fact that it takes 200-500 years for present-day carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to be incorporated and distributed (equilibrated) through the ocean water column.”

          However this is not the deep ocean. I would want a sample from the bottom. Also everyone wants to sample molluscs and old coral. Why not just get a litre of deep water and measure the C14 concentration in the CO2?

          30

          • #
            tom0mason

            TdeF,

            Other elements can be used as a proxy for carbon life form matter build-up of marine sludge.
            Here in the document ‘Marine barite: Recorder of variations in ocean export productivity’ by Adina Paytan, Elizabeth M. Griffith’ (author’s freely available copy for personal use (1.1MB pdf)) microscopic Barium crystal are used.
            Opening with

            Large glacial to interglacial fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been observed in ice cores and could be related to variations in ocean
            productivity (Neftel et al., 1982; Barnola et al., 1987).
            Paytan et al. (1996) measured the barite accumulation rate fluctuations in two cores from the
            equatorial Pacific Ocean for the past 450,000 years (see Fig. 6). Pronounced variations in the barite accumulation rates indicate that export production likely increased during glacials in this region. Using an empirical correlation obtained from core-top sediments in the equatorial Pacific, it appears that the export production during glacials, in this region, was typically about twice as high as during interglacials (Paytan et al., 1996). This is consistent with other biologically related proxies, such as organic C, opal, benthic assemblages, and CaCO3.

            Overall the author accknowledges that more research is needed to find out how organic matter rates vary but so far as it goes this study does give a useful start to answering the many questions about how deep ocean organic matter is affected by climate, how it builds up, and what it all could mean for the future based on the historical evidence of past great climate events.

            There is much of interest on this subject from Adina Paytan if you care to search them out.

            30

  • #
    cedarhill

    Actually makes a lot sense as a vector for carbon. The oceans are lots bigger than the land masses and plants dearly love their food of CO2, sunlight and such. Thus, in times of great Sun (warm periods) and abundant CO2, the plants just get obese.

    80

  • #
    DennisA

    Just shows that Gaia is alive and well and looking after us…………

    60

    • #
      Posa

      Indeed. In their original work back in the 70s Lovelock and Margulis identified Plankton Networks as just one of several feedback- feedforward biological system that keep the atmospheric chemistry and climate of Earth operating within tight bands of variation that promote the existence of life on the planet.

      10

  • #

    And thus, these deposits seabed end up one day to be called Coal! Coal will be burned and will leave in smoke to redeposit a little loinb and again !

    Thus, man becomes dust dying while living there is a pile of dust on !

    When a man died on battlefields in the last centuries and was buried in a cemetery that is now a field of beets or potatoes or apple trees, etc, etc, each fruit, each seed consists of microscopic dust or decomposed bodies of humans or animals. Thus all our body is made up of pieces of our descendants or what they ate … (not to say another word!).

    Such that these trillions of alluvium transported by rivers to the oceans or fallen into by coastal erosion in the waves and storms, they are deposited on the seabed and … one day … they used to constitute an island during an earthquake.

    This is what is known as recycling.

    —————

    Et c’est ainsi que, ces dépôts en fonds marins finissent un jour à s’appeler du charbon ! Charbon qui sera brûlé et partira en fumées pour se redéposer un peu plus loinb et recommencer !

    Ainsi, l’homme devient poussière en mourant alors que vivant il n’est qu’un tas de poussières en marche !

    Quand un homme est mort sur un champs de bataille aux siècles derniers ou a été enterré dans un cimetière qui est aujourd’hui un champs de betteraves ou de pommes de terre ou de pommiers, etc, etc, chaque fruit, chaque graine est constitué de poussières microscopique du ou des corps décomposés d’humains ou d’animaux. C’est ainsi que tous notre corps est constitué de morceaux de nos descendants ou de ce qu’ils ont… mangé (pour pas dire un autre mot !).

    Pareil que ces milliards de milliards d’alluvions transportés par les fleuves vers les océans ou tombés dedans par l’érosion des côtes lors des vagues ou des tempêtes, ils se déposent en fonds marins et… un jour… ils serviront à constituer une île lors d’un tremblements de terre.

    C’est ce que l’on appelle le recyclage.

    40

    • #
      Dean

      Coal is formed from land based vegetation.

      30

      • #
        Manfred

        Abiotic Coal

        Dr Thomas Gold

        “The coal we dig is hard, brittle stuff [but] it was once a liquid, because we find embedded in the middle of a six-foot seam of coal such things as a delicate wing of some animal or a leaf of a plant. They are undestroyed, absolutely preserved, with every cell in that fossil filled with exactly the same coal as all the coal on the outside… The fact that coal contains fossils does not prove that it is a fossil fuel; it proves exactly the opposite. Those fossils you find in coal prove that coal is not made from those fossils. How could you take a forest and much it all up so that it is a completely featureless big black substance and then find one leaf in it that is perfectly preserved? That is absolute nonsense.”

        70

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    But…. phytoplankton hate CO2

    “We never expected to see the relative abundance of coccolithophores to increase 10 times in the North Atlantic over barely half a century,” Balch said.

    “If anything, we expected that these sensitive calcifying algae would have decreased in the face of increasing ocean acidification.”

    If one listens to the negative comments made by alarmists, this recent finding contradicts earlier assumptions made by scientists that the phytoplankton would find it difficult in ocean waters as they become increasingly more acidic.

    http://www.techtimes.com/articles/111718/20151130/increased-carbon-dioxide-levels-lead-to-rapid-plankton-growth-how-this-harms-the-environment.htm

    90

    • #
      PeterPetrum

      Love the title-

      Increased Carbon Dioxide Levels Lead To Rapid Plankton Growth: How This Harms The Environment

      There is no evidence that the increase in the plankton will cause any harm, just a throwaway line hinting at the “possibility” of competition with other organisms.

      Criminal alarmism!

      50

    • #
      TdeF

      “In the face of increasing ocean acidification”

      What? Where exactly? As NOAA has admitted, there is nowhere in the world this is true. Why do people say such untrue things.

      This deceit clearly implies that the oceans are acid and becoming more so but the oceans are all alkali. Adding an acid like CO2 makes no difference, except perhaps to make the oceans a tiny bit less basic and so closer to fresh water. With salt.

      Desalination for desert cities like Dubai and even Perth do not care about acid/alkali because the oceans are alkali and so close to neutral that it does not matter. They actually become more basic/alkali when transported through concrete pipes without eating the pipes away. Acid rain from NO2 and SO2 (HNO3 and H2SO4 acids) has nothing to do with CO2. I cannot believe that the warming lobby keeps pushing such blatant deceit, especially those who do understand basic chemistry.

      Fundamentally the corals and shellfish are protected because the endless trillions of tons of old coral and shellfish form the huge and obvious world reserves of limestone, like the white cliffs of dover. Until they melt away, the oceans can never be acid and the little molluscs are safe, assuming they could not survive in very slight acid, also untrue.

      20

  • #
    ScotsmaninUtah

    Tuna ? – Wait til’ they get a load of this…

    “who are you gonna trust ?” – As the Joker uttered just before he attempted to gas the non skeptics ! :D

    More carbon entering oceans acidifies the waters, which stresses marine organisms and alters marine life. Ultimately, this could mean the difference between whether there’s enough tuna for your sushi dinner, Sullivan said.

    This statement perplexes me for the simple reason that obviously changing the pH value of water does affect marine organisms.

    But then why after literally billions of years of naturally occurring emissions, where volcanoes have been emitting Mercury, Sulfur, CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere and the hydrothermal vents in the oceans have been emitting liquid CO2 and sulfur, there are still so many cans of Tuna ?

    I am very skeptical of scientists who claim that after only 150 years of Human emissions we are somehow wholly responsible for the composition of the oceans.

    I will of course admit that humans ARE responsible for the dramatic increase in the number of cans of Tuna over the last century. :(

    160

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Scotsman:

      Obviously rising CO2 causes tuna cans change. Hmm, I don’t think even the believers would swallow that.

      40

  • #
    Ted Swart

    The Science Citation Index clearly needs to be revamped. It should be based on citation credits NOT on mere presence as an author of a paper. If there are 64 authors then this should result in 1/64th of a credit

    . . Ted Swart ..

    40

  • #
    handjive

    No Phytoplankton in this comment, but something sucks:

    Q. Can renewable energy stop Doomsday Global Warming?

    11 Feb, 2016: More than 16,000 homes in the ACT have rooftop solar
    “And the number of Australian homes with rooftop solar is now more than 1.5 million.”

    A. No.

    11 Feb, 2016: Heavy hailstorms hit Queanbeyan and south Canberra
    “Queanbeyan SES said they were responding to more than 100 jobs, and that the roof at Queanbeyan Woolworths had partially collapsed.”
    . . .
    You know it makes 97% sense.

    50

  • #
    John Robertson

    It takes 64 authors to state that life responds to the materials available?
    That plants might consider more CO2 a boon?
    That biology responds positively to more food?
    Gee .. I am underwhelmed by todays “Climatologists”.

    Ted Swart 6:12 am; 1/64th ?
    Try 1/4096th.
    The inverse square laws seem to apply to this perversion of science.

    72

  • #

    Just part of the Carbon cycle isn’t it, nothing new really!

    50

  • #
    Julian Flood

    There are a few things that humans do that are global in scale — Haber process nitrogen fixation, dissolved silica run-off, oil and surfactant pollution of the ocean surface.

    The second will increase diatom blooms at the expense of calcareous phytoplankton. The third, by slowing ocean turnover will deplete nutrient levels near the surface, driving the phytoplankton population towards C4 carbon fixation. I don’t know what the first does.

    Diatoms have C4-like fixation of carbon which pulls down proportionately more heavy C but less overall, leaving a light C signal in the atmosphere but more CO2. The same with C4 phytos.

    I wish someone would have a look and see if that is really happening. It would explain a lot.

    JF

    30

  • #
    Unmentionable

    From Physi.org

    First nationwide survey of climate change education

    How is climate change being taught in American schools? Is it being taught at all? And how are teachers addressing climate change denial in their classrooms, schools, and school districts? …

    http://phys.org/news/2016-02-nationwide-survey-climate.html

    —-

    blah blah … so much for ‘science’, ‘education’, and ‘teachers’

    100

    • #
      Unmentionable

      Oh, and so much for Physi.org

      100

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      How is climate change being taught in American schools? Is it being taught at all? And how are teachers addressing climate change denial in their classrooms, schools, and school districts?

      Climate Change education? It’s more like indoctrination if they have to mention climate change denial.

      Can we just let our children grow up enjoying their childhood instead of giving them the whole long, convoluted menu of things they need to be afraid of? Our kids will come face to face with the world soon enough and we should be equipping them to be good competitors in a world that’s very cruel to the unprepared. And knowing all there is to know about climate change and how their parents screwed up the planet will not help them compete — unless, of course, every last one of them can find a job in the climate change industry — a self defeating idea at best.

      60

    • #
      • #
        Unmentionable

        Teaching actual natural history of the planet? These freakin’ subversives and counter revolutionaries are everywhere Ian, the UN may have to purge the schools of all these unbelievers.

        61

  • #
    Don Gaddes

    “However, (see Ref. Nos. 12 and 13) it [rising carbon dioxide level] could well turn out to be lucky for us, in the light of those other factors which act in the opposite way to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I refer to wind-blown and volcanic dust in the atmosphere and the ever-intensifying albedo factor.

    May be glad of Greenhouse Effect

    Who can say that sometime in the not-too-distant future, we will not be glad of the “extra blanket” provided by an enhanced “Greenhouse Effect?”

    Apart from the anti-Greenhouse Effect factors mentioned above, there is another powerfully active component at work, which governs the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    According to Rankama and Sahama (Ref. No. 14) the oceans act as a sink for any build-up in carbon dioxide above a partial pressure (PP) in the atmosphere; that once the critical PP in the atmosphere is reached, the excess carbon dioxide is taken into solution by the oceans.

    They note that the cold polar waters are capable of the greatest absorption of carbon dioxide. Apparently the equilibrium ratio of carbon dioxide in sea water to that in the atmosphere is 50:1.” (Extract from ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’, Alex S. Gaddes, 1990)
    (Ref. No. 14 is from Chicago Press 1950.)

    30

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    So something is hiding in the oceans after all. It just wasn’t the missing heat, it was the heater. That’s probably our good luck too. In fact I’m 97% sure of it.

    30

  • #

    Isn’t this the hypothesized source of natural gas and oil? The phytoplankton (and other dead sea organisms) fall to the bottom where they decompose without oxygen producing CH4, accumulating as methane ices, subducted via tectonic action and trapped under domes of rock, some of which gets further cooked by volcanic heat to be converted into longer chain hydrocarbons. Coal, on the other hand, seems to be the product of anaerobic decomposition that occurred closer to the surface. There’s also the primordial hypothesis which says that methane was trapped within the planet during its formation and that this is the source of natural gas and oil, in which case, its ultimately not renewable, but likely more abundant than we think.

    If atmospheric CO2 was not replenished by natural sources (mostly volcanoes), life would eventually sequester enough that it would die off, so mankind helping replenish the supply should be considered a good thing. Between calcium carbonate shells and methane ices, the sequestration rate of biology is not insignificant. Trees and most surface life return the atmospheric CO2 they consumed back to the atmosphere unless some unusual event subjects them to anaerobic decomposition, although during the entire life cycle, some atmospheric carbon is lost to elemental carbon, carbon monoxide, carbonates and methane.

    50

    • #
      ianl8888


      Coal, on the other hand, seems to be the product of anaerobic decomposition that occurred closer to the surface

      Decomposition of woody plant material under those conditions

      Although I have seen some comments to the effect that this can’t be true because we cannot observe it happening anywhere on the globe today, the fact is that during the great coal-forming Periods (mostly the Carboniferous and Permian) white-rot fungi, or eg. Phanerochaete chyrsosporium, which produce enzymes capable of breaking down lignin and so destroying the plant material before burial and coalification, did not actually evolve in a widespread sense until perhaps 50m years later

      As it stands now, any log left undisturbed in moist conditions in the open, can develop a wonderful array of fungi

      40

  • #
    pat

    11 Feb: Phys.org: Carbon dioxide stored underground can find multiple ways to escape
    When carbon dioxide is stored underground in a process known as geological sequestration, it can find multiple escape pathways due to chemical reactions between carbon dioxide, water, rocks and cement from abandoned wells, according to Penn State researchers…
    Their findings, published in the current issue of the International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, indicate that the host rocks can create different types of escape pathways…
    Peilin Cao, Penn State Ph.D. student, collaborated on this research.
    http://phys.org/news/2016-02-carbon-dioxide-underground-multiple-ways.html

    30

  • #
    pat

    11 Feb: Ecowatch: Lorraine Chow: Leonardo DiCaprio Joins Carbon Capture Technology Company to ‘Bring About a More Sustainable Future for Our Planet’
    Oscar-nominee and environmental philanthropist Leonardo DiCaprio has joined the newly-formed government and policy advisory board of Blue Planet, a prominent developer of carbon capture technology based in Los Gatos, California.
    Blue Planet uses patented technology to capture industrial carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and factories and converts it into concrete for commercial and residential construction.
    “Our world faces a very grim future if we do not begin to turn back from our current path of climate change,” DiCaprio said in a statement about joining the advisory board…
    It’s safe to say The Revenant star knows a thing or two about carbon capture. According to the announcement, DiCaprio made a personal investment in Blue Planet and produced last year’s documentary film Biomimicry, which covered carbon capture technologies, including those developed by the company. Watch here (starts at 7:50)…
    Daniel Tangherlini, former administrator of the United States General Services Administration, and Durwood Zaelke, president of the Institute for Governance and Sustainable Development, have also joined the Blue Planet advisory board…
    https://ecowatch.com/2016/02/11/dicaprio-blue-planet/

    40

    • #
      Rod Stuart

      If there is anyone that knows less about climate astrology than Cate Blanchette, it would have to be Leonard Decapitated.

      101

      • #
        Unmentionable

        The damage of the Cult-of-Personality works its poison just as well in Malibu, as it does in North Korea. It’s a good case for why mere actors should be paid a lot less money.

        50

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Blue Planet uses patented technology to capture industrial carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and factories and converts it into concrete for commercial and residential construction.

      How does that work, I wonder?

      How much carbon dioxide is required to produce a cubic metre of concrete?

      How much power does it require to transform that carbon dioxide into a cubic metre of concrete?

      How much carbon dioxide is produced in generating the power that is required to produce a cubic meter of concrete?

      Perhaps they have discovered a practical demonstration of the principle of perpetual motion, at the chemical level. Or alternatively, perhaps it is all bovine excrement (which also contains carbon dioxide, that could theoretically be transformed into concrete).

      30

  • #
    bobl

    Just thought I’d add. When Warren Truss announced his retirement I was worried that the National Party too would be overtaken by an AGW junkie. I am really pleased that an outspoken sceptic like Barnaby Joyce was chosen to replace him. If you can’t trust Joyce to keep Turnbull in line on AGW who could you trust. Jo, I’m surprised you haven’t written a story on this change?

    If I could vote National next election I would!

    72

    • #
      ianl8888


      If you can’t trust Joyce to keep Turnbull in line on AGW who could you trust

      Pretty much

      The arch hypocrite Tony Windsor, whose old seat Barnaby now occupies, is completely apoplectic … good :)

      101

    • #
      el gordo

      Barnaby wants decentralisation as a priority, so I’m thinking bullet trains satellite cities sprinkled throughout the food bowl. He once referred to himself as an ‘agrarian socialist’, hope that helps.

      10

    • #
      TdeF

      Malcolm’s ABC is already on the job, attacking Barnaby, using the old hack, enabler of Gillard’s government and the man whom Barnaby replaced, coal farmer Tony Windsor as the hatchet man. Was this organized by plotter Malcolm Turnbull? Turnbull spends more time attacking his own team than on the opposition.

      After all Malcolm desperately wants to bring in his ETS but he is on a promise to the Nationals to keep Abbott’s policies. Joyce could toss Turnbull out. You can only hope. The ABC has to keep attacking Abbott but now they have Joyce to worry about, not compliant Truss.

      What if the Nationals demand the return of Abbott? Turnbull will be out on his ear. He only won 54 to 44 which means only 5 changes are needed and if Morrison has had enough, that will be very tricky for Turnbull and Bishop who will end up on the backbench, like the competent Abbott ministers except the trio. Morrison has just been badly burned because he is a threat to Turnbull.

      20

  • #
    Truthseeker

    It’s all hiding in the Oceans … the heat, the CO2, the intelligence of the alarmists …

    52

  • #
    mikerestin

    “We’re trying to understand, ‘Does carbon in the surface ocean sink to the deep ocean and, if so, how?’” Sullivan said.

    Send us lots more money.

    “The reason that’s important is the oceans help mitigate our carbon footprint on this planet.”

    The science is settled.

    20