"Unexpected / unpredicted global cooling" Topic

Enhanced CO2 uptake at a shallow Arctic Ocean seep field overwhelms the positive warming potential of emitted methane

link

Significance

Methane released from the seafloor and transported to the atmosphere has the potential to amplify global warming. At an arctic site characterized by high methane flux from the seafloor, we measured methane and carbon dioxide (CO2) exchange across the sea−air interface. We found that CO2 uptake in an area of elevated methane efflux was enhanced relative to surrounding waters, such that the negative radiative forcing effect (cooling) resulting from CO2 uptake overwhelmed the positive radiative forcing effect (warming) supported by methane output. Our work suggests physical mechanisms (e.g., upwelling) that transport methane to the surface may also transport nutrient-enriched water that supports enhanced primary production and CO2 drawdown. These areas of methane seepage may be net greenhouse gas sinks.

and

These findings challenge the widely held perception that areas characterized by shallow-water methane seeps and/or strongly elevated sea−air methane flux always increase the global atmospheric greenhouse gas burden.

That's why they are moving away from the term "Global Warming" and going with the all-encompassing term "Climate Change".

That way, whatever the weather ends up being in the distant future, they can still say it was all predicted. It's pure genius! :)

Dan

Yeah. "Climate Change" is supposed to be bad and caused by homo sapiens and our evil lifestyle/technology running rampantly after profit beggar the expense and the consequences. Show how modern economics is really the bastard child of European imperial colonialism. Then tax the hell out of everybody but the rich to pay for "fixing" the made up problem. "Pure genius", indeed. Except that nobody living below the taxation line (99% of the word's population) is going to buy into this kind of gov't overreach. Misrepresenting the science, far from "settled" (which makes it vulnerable to manipulation), is what control freaks do. Anyone in gov't pushing for more regulations and emergency measures should be tossed out yesterday………….

Interesting abstract and too bad the full article is behind a PNAS member paywall.

I'd be interested in how long the CO2 utilization takes place. I have a lakefront house on the largest Kettle Lake in North America. It is only spring fed and has to be dredged to maintain it's low depth. The problem with the dredging is that it releases the same nutrient rich sludge into the water as described in the abstract. It releases a lot of methane, but probably also fixes a large amount of CO2 from the ensuing algal bloom.

However, the increased turbidity of the water and the overgrowth of the CO2 utilizing phytoplankton will kill everything else. As the waters become more eutrophic the entire system flips over. The O2 content plummets and the pH drops into the acidic zone. Non photosynthetic microorganisms take over and they respire, releasing the CO2 into the water (further acidifying it) or releases it into the atmosphere. This is what I and the other lake property owners have to deal with to maintain our lake. We cheat and constantly re-stock the lake to build up the fish populations. Can't do that in the wild.

I wonder how long the CO2 will be utilized at the same rate over time. Interesting, and thanks for finding that. But to be fair, your title is misleading.

The claim is:

These findings challenge the widely held perception that areas characterized by shallow-water methane seeps and/or strongly elevated sea−air methane flux always increase the global atmospheric greenhouse gas burden.

and does not invite claims of global cooling.

Well just like Global Warming

Climate Change is not happening either.

But do not worry Martin will be here soon with his charts.

As opposed to a worldwide conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists and educators?

That's Ok. We have cartoonists who conflate weather and climate. Add to that an Ad Hominem comment about balding and getting dates.

In my part of the world, climate change is real and dramatic. I actually live in part of the world that has seen some of the greatest changes. As ocean currents have changed, warm currents have pushed south, raising sea water temperatures along the coast.

As a keen fisherman, fish that were not present when I was a child are now regularly caught.

I agree with Nick, there are tropical parrot fish in Forster NSW now, unheard of 30 years ago. Climate change is certainly occurring

We found that CO2 uptake in an area of elevated methane efflux was enhanced relative to surrounding waters, such that the negative radiative forcing effect (cooling) resulting from CO2 uptake overwhelmed the positive radiative forcing effect (warming) supported by methane output

Sure sounds like cooling to me. If the cooling effect overwhelms the warming effect, that does not sound like it is breaking even.

@Nick Bowler: "As a keen fisherman, fish that were not present when I was a child are now regularly caught."

Some natural cycles take generations. And some can be pretty brutal. Just like the drought that hit Peru and the US Southwest that lasted a couple of centuries during the Middle Ages. It happened more than once in the past, and will likely happen again in the future.

It may come as a complete shock to Martin, Bowman and other zealots here, but I'm no saying that man hasn't caused some impact. I'm just not turning everything that is natural and cyclical into some sort of man-made event. Or creating a convenient new term to cover all my bases if the warming ends up passing and we start heading in the opposite direction. That level of opportunistic sensationalism is wearing thin and can't be sustained indefinitely.

Dan
PS. By the way, the cartoons are there just to show that, despite all the loud propaganda from those who are always looking for a connection, those who are skeptic about blaming man for everything weather-related are not a minority or a fringe group. And are there also to show who among us lacks a sense of humor.

Wikipedia defines climate as statistics of weather over 30 years. Given that definition, even natural cycles produce climate change.

In my particular case, the marine biology has been pretty stable over the last 200 years. There have been collapses caused by aggressive whaling, sealing, and commercial fishing -- but the environment has generally returned to the stable equilibrium (whales are taking a while to come back though -- early settlers complained that they couldn't sleep because of the noise of the whales).

What is happening now is something completely different -- suddenly warmer water species are appearing in numbers and totally changing the ecosystem -- the kelp forests are gone, the crayfish are disappearing, prawns have established stable populations in some NE lagoons, etc. This can only be explained by climate change. I was mainly responding to the comment that climate change isn't happening -- it clearly is.

Whether climate change is man made is another discussion. But since one of my school friends is a climate scientist, and he says its man made, and I have no reason to think he is lying, I will go with him. And I agree that there is a lot of hysteria about climate change and groups using climate change to further their own agendas. But that doesn't mean its not happening.

Sure sounds like cooling to me. If the cooling effect overwhelms the warming effect, that does not sound like it is breaking even.

That not what they are saying. It's not like phytoplankton photosynthesizing is like standing next to an air conditioner. They utilise the CO2 to power photosynthesis and release O2. This "fixes" the CO2 and doesn't allow it into the atmosphere and is the "negative radiative forcing". Again what happened after an algal bloom occurs and the rate of CO2 consumption drops?

And are there also to show who among us lacks a sense of humor

So when Inhofe brought a snowball into Congress to show that global warming doesn't exist, you must have peed yourself laughing because you have such a well developed sense of humour.

I just saw it as stupid, as Inhofe couldn't tell the difference between weather and climate. The same problem as your "hilarious" cartoonists.

Bowman,

Please excuse my confusion of thinking there was cooling when they talk about cooling.

So if there is a coal burning factory and they install CO2 scrubbers, you think that the ambient temperature around the scrubbers drops?

@Bowman: "I just saw it as stupid … the same problem as your 'hilarious' cartoonists."

Lol. Good thing you're not a cartoonist or a comedian then.

Dan

Didn't we establish a few thread back that Bowman and Dan have different senses of humor?

"So if there is a coal burning factory and they install CO2 scrubbers, you think that the ambient temperature around the scrubbers drops?"

No but that isn't what the article was saying.

If there is a coal burning factory and there are more things taking CO2 out of the area than there is putting it in, I'd expect that the net effect would be cooling, just as you'd believe that the net effect of more CO2 is warming.