Global warming, some scientific say that oceans can absorb the half of Co2 than 10 years ago?

Question

Do you think it can be true?

Answer 1

Oceans do not absorb CO2. Living trees, and grasses, anything green absorbs CO2. They also give off O2. Look at the worlds forrests. They are the things that live on CO2. Therefore, there is no such thing as "Global Warming". It is a Myth, dreamed up by the Democrat Party to scare us into giving up more of our rights and put more of our taxes into Government programs to run our lives and tell us what is "right for us".

Answer 2

It's not true, let me explain...

The oceans absorb and release more CO2 than any other system on the planet. Each year they release 119 billion tons of the stuff and absorb 120 billion tons, all told that means they absorb one billion tons more than they release (they're a CO2 sink). To put this into some sort of context, the amount they absorb and release is each about 4 times the total amount that humans produce.

The chemistry, physics and biology behind it is complex but in a nutshell, as the oceans warm they release a greater proportion of CO2 compared to that which they absorb. So what we're likely to see in the years to come are the oceans contributing to global warming, up until now they've had a mitigating effect. It's worth noting that the oceans have such a massive volume of water that any change to their temps is a very slow one - if the air suddenly warmed up tomorrow (and stayed warm) it would take about 600 years before the oceans warmed up as much.

A pevious answer mentions 'saturation point'. The oceans are more or less at saturation point which is why the rate of CO2 released and absorbed is pretty much the same.

An interesting effect, had it been true that the oceans were absorbing half the CO2 that they were 10 years ago, is that the world would now be a very cold place and we'd have some serious global cooling to contend with. What would have happened is that the oceans would have removed so much CO2 from the atmopshere that the level of CO2 would have dropped so dramatically that the natural greenhouse effect, the one that keeps our planet at a habitable temperature, would have been adversely affected.

Answer 3

Yes, it is true but, it is worse than that.
Recent data collected near Antarctic, during winter, our summer, found that the ocean was fully saturated with CO2.
Water absorbs more CO2 the colder it is, which means,
oceans release CO2 when their temperature increases.
This means two things:
1. No more CO2 will be absorbed by the Antarctic Ocean and
2. All the other oceans are releasing CO2, already because they are in warmer latitudes.

Forget about the Arctic, it lost One Million square miles of ice floes MORE than last year. The Northwest Passage is open..

The other big storage of Carbon is in the soil (sequestered, how do they find such words?), put there by plants and trees but, drought and wildfires are taking care of that. NASA counted a few thousands in Brazil alone, but they do not know a new one from an old one, the data is uncertain) on wild fires count from satellites.
In short, the soil may emit a little, or a lot, CO2 but it does not absorb any or as much as it used to (sorry, Research on the subject is grossly incomplete).

Answer 4

You are referring to this article:

http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/20/2065101.htm?section=world

or something like it.

Here is a paper discussing the ocean storage of anthropogenic CO2:

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/sabi2683/sabi2683.shtml

Figure 1 is a little confusing, but the bottom line is that it shows the Atlantic, because of the strong thermohaline circulation during the wintertime when the water is cold, stores most of the anthropogenic CO2.

If the Atlantic were taking up half as much CO2 now as ten years ago, that would make a huge difference in the total amount of anthropogenic CO2 (a-CO2 for short) sequestered in the oceans. Since the oceans absorb approximately half of the a-CO2 produced on a yearly basis (pssst, Trevor, check your numbers, aCO2 is around 4 Gt per year, ocean uptake is around 2 Gt per year:

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/the_carbon_cycle

), if there was a large decrease in the major ocean sink of CO2 you would see that reflected in the atmospheric concentration of CO2. In other words, CO2 concentrations would be rising faster in the atmosphere than expected because not as much was going into the oceans (unless more were entering the oceans in a different region, which isn't likely (see the Sabine reference above) and if it were, say in the Southern Hemisphere, the interhemispheric gradient would be all messed up, which it isn't). However, there is not evidence that this is occurring:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/mlo145e_thrudc04.pdf

My guess is that if you dig up the peer-reviewed paper that this news article is taken from, or talked to the researchers, they would point out the atmospheric data don't support a slowdown in the uptake of CO2 in the Atlantic.

I know, clear as mud.

Answer 5

That's been known. The oceans can absorb some CO2--not much, but theesa lot of water out there! This aborbtion effect has been happening--and has slowed the increas of atmospheric CO2 9and thus, global warming) up till now.

Problem is, the oceans are already nearing the saturation point (when they can't absorb any more CO2) in some areas (Antartica, for one). As they become saturated, the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphee will rise--accelerating global warming and climate change.

Answer 6

The ocean is responsible for more biological production than the land with the waters overlying the continental shelf responsible for 25% of global biological production alone. The photic zone in the worlds oceans (0-200m) is home to the phytoplankton which are thought to account for 50% of the worlds oxygen production. Because these organisms are short lived the carbon they trap is held in the ocean because the cadavers of both phytoplankton and the animals that feed on them sink to the bottom of terh ocean (this is how oil formed int eh first place). Therefore the ocean probably accounts for much of the carbon trapped in living organisms and could play an important role in seqesting atmospheric carbon.

Every living organisms stores carbon hence we are carbon based life forms so dont forget the role of animals when you think of carbon sequestration. that includes bacteria. I think that in the future it will be possible to trap carbon by growing algae or something like algae that can grow quickly and be harvested effectivly.

Answer 7

Could be, terrible complex phenomenon though. Amount of CO2 water can hold depends on the temperature. Rate of dissolution depends on the partial pressure of CO2 in the air. Things like rate of mixing of the surface of the sea with layers below is also important.

Answer 8

i may not be reading the question right - i am not sure what you are saying.