>>Do you (or your thesis, if you prefer) contend that the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations commencing approximately 1850 A.D. (as seen in ice core data) is due entirely to degassing of CO2 from a warming oceanic water column?
Ans.: No.
>>In fact that chart is the source of my claim in Post 200 that Mauna Loa sits in the chimney of a massive outgassing of CO2, while the ice core data are taken from an area surrounded by the deepest CO2 sink. ... You falsely imply that I misplaced Hawaii on that chart.
>>No, I figure you knew where it was. I place Hawaii at about 20 N Latitude, 160 W Longitude. That puts it in an area on the map that's light green or light blue. Those are indicative of areas with small negative fluxes (sink areas) or small positive fluxes (source areas). Most of the major source is in the eastern Pacific south of the Equator. So I'm not sure what you mean when you say "Mauna Loa sits in the chimney of a massive outgassing of CO2".
Ans.: My version of the chart was animated by month for 1990, so it had 12 different views. See for example http://ingrid.ldeo.columbia.edu/SOURCES/.LDEO/.Takahashi/.dataset_documentation.html. Run the animation and you’ll see large variations in the intense outgassing directly south and east of Hawaii. The Islands can be seen on this series as about a one pixel spec.
For my comments I also relied on descriptions of the atmospheric flow from the surface at the equator. The air initially rises, divides north and south, slowly heads poleward, and begins to cool. It appears to me that the heavier CO2-rich air should settle and feed the prevailing northeast trade winds that bathe Hawaii year round. All this is in lieu of any discovered analysis of the global CO2 pattern. After all, a massive amount of CO2 is emitted from the eastern Equatorial Pacific, and it has to go somewhere by some reasonable route.
He replied: "Ans.: No."
My confusion occurs for two reasons. The first is a quote from the second part of the Acquittal, addressing Gavin Schmidt's comments, which says:
"The cold ocean is a sink to all atmospheric CO2, manmade, accidental, or ocean emitted. The cold sink is limited not by capacity, but by exposure, pressure, and winds. But for the ocean outgassing, the cold waters would scrub the atmosphere of all CO2 in less than a decade by the climatologists own uncertain carbon and flux estimates. The natural source is dominantly the oceans. CO2 concentration has increased because the oceans are warming, and have been since the Little Ice Age and since the last glacial period."
The second reason for my confusion is based on Sabine et al. 2004, "The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2", Science, 305 (5682), p. 367-371. Abstract:
"Using inorganic carbon measurements from an international survey effort in the 1990s and a tracer-based separation technique, we estimate a global oceanic anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) sink for the period from 1800 to 1994 of 118 ± 19 petagrams of carbon. The oceanic sink accounts for ~48% of the total fossil-fuel and cement-manufacturing emissions, implying that the terrestrial biosphere was a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere of about 39 ± 28 petagrams of carbon for this period. The current fraction of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions stored in the ocean appears to be about one-third of the long-term potential."
This abstract and paper indicate that the oceans have been absorbing CO2 at least from 1800. You say that CO2 concentrations (presumably atmospheric) are increasing "since the Little Ice Age" - which ended in the mid-1800s - because the oceans are warming.
The only way that I can reconcile your answer to me, your statement above, and Sabine et al. is that you are saying that the CO2 flux from the atmosphere to the oceans is slowing down because the oceans are getting warmer. Is that a correct interpretation?
Run the animation and you’ll see large variations in the intense outgassing directly south and east of Hawaii. The Islands can be seen on this series as about a one pixel spec.
Done. There is a period in the summer when pCO2 increases in that region (there is no corresponding carbon flux animation). The 1990 flux map, like the 1995 flux map, puts Hawaii in an area where the annual flux is either neutral or slightly negative (sink). I don't interpret that as "massive" if there is only a positive flux for one season of the year.
The question here is (and forgive me if I haven't grasped this aspect) - are you saying that the Mauna Loa CO2 record is not accurately depicting increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations because it may "sample" an occasional positive flux from the adjacent ocean?
After all, a massive amount of CO2 is emitted from the eastern Equatorial Pacific, and it has to go somewhere by some reasonable route.
Hadley cell circulation would indicate that CO2 released from the ocean surface south of the ITCZ would be carried toward the South Pole - correct?
Errata to 219.
My post gives the false impression that I invented the equatorial circulation described. What I described and relied on is the Hadley Cell, which rises as described, and on the downslope directly feeds if not causes the Hawaii-bound northeast trade winds. These effects are well-known.
What may be novel is that climatologists have yet to recognize that this circulation causes Hawaii to be in the corkscrew chimney of the huge outgassing from the eastern Equatorial Pacific.