Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


OA not OK part 10: Is the ocean blowing bubbles?

Posted on 25 July 2011 by Doug Mackie

This post is number 10 in a series about ocean acidification. Other posts: Introduction, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, Summary 1 of 2, Summary 2 of 2.


Welcome to the 10th post in our series about ocean acidification. In the last post we asked "how can we be sure that atmospheric CO2 is entering the oceans to cause acidification?" That is, how can we be certain that the oceans are not a net source of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere? Our answer to this question is a modification of an earlier post by one of us (2010) at Skeptical Science.

We can use four  key observations to be confident the extra CO2 in the atmosphere has come from the combustion of fossil fuels and not from outgassing of CO2 from the ocean or from soil or land sources: (1) the decrease in atmospheric oxygen corresponds to the usage of fossil fuels, (2) the carbon isotope ratio in the atmosphere indicates that the excess CO2 comes from fossil fuels, (3) not enough warming of the ocean has occurred, and (4) known emission of CO2 from fossil fuel usage.

First, a quick word about 'ppm': Scientists use parts per million or ppm for concentrations that are much lower than percent (parts per hundred) or permil (parts per thousand). 1 ppm = 0.0001%.

1. Oxygen decrease

Atmospheric oxygen (O2) is going down by the same amount that atmospheric CO2 is going up.

We have seen in previous posts that carbon in the ocean is always bound to oxygen in some way – as H2CO3, HCO3, or CO32–. So if the oceans were the source of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere there would be no change in atmospheric oxygen as the carbon is already bonded to oxygen. On the other hand, we know that the burning of any sort of fuel (including non fossil fuels like wood) requires oxygen and produces CO2.

This suggests that the burning of some sort of carbon containing fuel is responsible for both the CO2 increase and the oxygen decrease.

Atmospheric Oxygen is so abundant at about 21% (209,500 parts per million or ppm) that we are in no danger of running out. However, the measured decrease in oxygen corresponds to the amount of oxygen required to burn the amount of fossil fuels known to have been burned. See the IPCC 3rd Assessment Report (2001) section 3.5.1, especially Figure 3-4 and the IPCC 4th Assessment Report (2007) Figure 2-3.

But how do we know that fossil fuels are the source of added carbon that is causing the decrease in oxygen? How can we be confident the extra CO2 has not come from some other source like changes to forests? In a word: Isotopes.

2. Isotope ratios

Isotopes are different forms of the same element that differ in the mass of the nucleus. You may have heard of uranium-235 and uranium-238. These are two (of the many) forms of uranium. The nucleus contains particles with a positive electric charge (protons) and particles with no electric charge (neutrons). Isotopes have the same number of protons but different numbers of neutrons. Mostly the properties of isotopes are the similar except for properties that depend on the mass of the atoms. For example, diffusion of a gas: A heavier gas diffuses more slowly than a lighter gas. This principle was used to separate uranium isotopes during the Second World War's atomic bomb programme, the Manhattan project.

Not all isotopes are radioactive. Isotopes that do not undergo radioactive decay are called stable isotopes There are two common stable isotopes of carbon, 12C and 13C, and one common radioactive isotope, 14C. The carbon in all living things is a mixture of all three of these isotopes of carbon.

14C is very rare; only about 0.0000000001% (1 part per trillion) of the carbon in the atmosphere is 14C, 98.9% is 12C, and 1.1% is 13C. Such a relative ratio of 12C to 13C is usually different for each type of carbon source.

For example, photosynthesis favours 12CO2 for several reasons (including poor diffusion of 13CO2 into cells because it is heavier). This means that living plants and fossil fuels (which are derived from plants) have a relatively low proportion of 13CO2 – chemists say fossil fuels are depleted in 13C. Also, because they are so old, fossil fuels contain no 14C. The half life of 14C is 5730 years so after a few million years of halving in number every 5730 years there is no 14C left as it has all decayed. Compared to fossil fuels, seawater water is enriched in 13C and 14C. Isotope ratios can be determined with great precision and have been monitored in the atmosphere and ocean for decades.

Observations show that the isotope ratios of carbon in the atmosphere are changing due to an influx of CO2 depleted in 13C That is, the new isotope ratios of carbon contained in atmospheric CO2 tells us that the additional carbon must be coming from 13C-depleted fossil fuels, not the 13C-rich oceans.

3. Not enough warming

You may remember from post 8, that warm water can hold less CO2 than cold water. Our knowledge of Henry's Law and the CO2 equilibria allow us to calculate the increase in seawater temperature that would be needed to cause the observed increase in pCO2 in the atmosphere (i.e. the partial pressure (or 'concentration') of CO2). The results show that to explain the 100 ppm of additional CO2 added to the atmosphere since preindustrial times by ocean warming, the average temperature rise of the surface ocean needs to be about 10o C, much larger than has occurred.

As we noted in post 8, the Henry's Law coefficient, KH, is dependent on temperature (and salinity to a lesser extent). However, there is no exact expression as seawater is sufficiently complex that the values for KH for seawater have been experimentally determined.

For constant salinity, the pCO2 in the atmosphere doubles (i.e. =200% the initial concentration) for every 16oC increase in seawater temperature*. Atmospheric CO2 is now 140% of the preindustrial value (it increased by about 110 ppm from 280 to 390 ppm). Thus the temperature change required to sufficiently change the Henry's Law coefficient is 140/200 × 16 = 11oC.

This calculation shows that the surface ocean would on average have to have warmed by about 10oC since about 1750 if the oceans had been the source of the CO2. Plainly the ocean does not have a uniform temperature, so the changes would actually need to be even more extreme in some places. Of course, no such warming has occurred.

*for the interested this is explained in detail in the appendix to: Takahashi et al. "Seasonal variation of CO2 and nutrients in the high-latitude surface oceans: A comparative study" Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 7(4), 843-878.

4. Known fossil fuel CO2 emissions

Most obviously, any alternative explanation for the source of the CO2 in the atmosphere must also come up with where the 30 billion tonnes of CO2 released yearly by fossil fuel burning goes.

We have a very good idea of the total amount of fossil fuel burned in the last 150 years. But, if we want to stick to really solid data we can limit our discussion to the last 30 odd years. The US Dept Energy publication The International Energy Annual shows that since 1980 to 2006 (the most recent year they have data for) a world total of 603 billion metric tons of CO2 have been released into the atmosphere from the 'consumption and flaring of fossil fuels'.

However, the amount extra CO2 that is currently in the atmosphere is less than the known amount of released fossil fuel CO2. That is, not only have humans released a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere over the last 30 years, but not all of it is still in the atmosphere. Where is this ‘missing’ CO2? In the next posts, we calculate the amount of missing CO2 and explain where it went.

Written by Doug Mackie, Christina McGraw, and Keith Hunter. This post is number 10 in a series about ocean acidification. Other posts: Introduction, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, Summary 1 of 2, Summary 2 of 2.




0 0

Bookmark and Share Printable Version  |  Link to this page | Repost this Article Repost This


Comments 1 to 16:

  1. Thanks - excellent summary of an important point that is much misunderstood, but has to be one of the most secure pieces of the big climate puzzle (not saying that other pieces do not have good evidence, but this one is, in my impression, totally in the bag and can be a good test of whether people are really out to lunch if they continuing questioning it).

    This post actually gave me a small piece of reassurance in saying that for the oceans to become a major net carbon source, they would have to warm a loooong way (especially since oceans warm much slower than atmosphere). One of the concerns about warming oceans is that their function as a carbon sink will decline, leaving more of our CO2 in the atmosphere. This is one of many potential positive feedbacks that magnify a small change into a bigger change. But even if the ocean declines as a carbon sink (which is bad), it seems unlikely to become a carbon source anytime soon (which would be really, really bad). And so here is my quick question on this topic: how much would the oceans have to warm to make the switch from sink to source?
    0 0
  2. Mr Smith: Excellent question; thanks for asking it. I too am curious.
    0 0
  3. "However, this amount of released fossil fuel CO2 is less than the amount of extra CO2 that is currently in the atmosphere."

    Should that be greater than?
    0 0
  4. Fixed.
    0 0
  5. Byron, your question has some subtleties that mean it is hard to give a soundbite answer so bear with me and I will answer what I think you mean.

    I think you mean: "Under the current regime of increasing retention of heat energy and of increasing atmospheric CO2, then how much would the oceans have to warm for the oceans to become a net source of CO2?"

    In a closed system in a laboratory water reaches an equilibrium with the gases above it. That equilibrium is described by a Henry's law coefficient. So the first point to clarify is that the atmospheric doubling per 16oC warming we noted refers to a system with constant atmospheric CO2 and is useful to describe what happens when water moves between the poles and the tropics.

    The second point to note is that unlike a closed system in a test tube the ocean is an open and dynamic system. In most areas the ocean is not in equilibrium with the atmosphere. See this plot of Hawaii ocean data (HOTS) and Mauna Loa atmospheric data.

    The disequilibrium has several causes, including biological uptake and export to deep water. Some areas of the ocean are a source of CO2, though overall the ocean is a strong sink. With biological processes taking up carbon then equilibrium is not reached and so long as the atmospheric pCO2 is greater than that of the surface ocean then (for realistic warming)the oceans will take up CO2. (Though the rate of uptake may change).
    0 0
  6. Thus the temperature change required to sufficiently change the Henry's Law coefficient is 140/200 × 16 = 11oC


    I am enjoying the series so forgive me for being picky. I read you as saying the quantity of outgassed CO2 is an exponential function of temperature. As this function is by definition non-linear, are you justified in using linear interpolation to get 11oC? I suggest this value should be a little higher.
    0 0
  7. Hi Alan,
    We simplified as we didn't think people would understand if we wrote
    where ∂ is the partial derivative. Thanks for noticing.
    0 0
  8. the resident 'skeptic' asks of the volcanos present somewhere them earth scientists haven't looked and points to
    0 0
  9. Thanks Doug, that is very helpful. A further question: If the ocean as a whole remains a carbon sink but some areas are a carbon source, what are the local conditions that contribute to the latter? Is it more common in certain parts of the globe? Do these areas shift significantly over time or are there long term patterns certain areas being sources?
    0 0
  10. @jyyh: Not for the first time your comment seems to be missing words. Can you clarify what your point is (or if there is one)? Are you asserting that volcanic emissions are a major source of CO2 in either the atmosphere or the ocean? If so it is plain you have not read (or understood) the post.
    0 0
  11. @Byron, we are getting a little ahead of the rest of the series. Hold on for a few more posts and then we can go over any gaps.
    0 0
  12. I can't resist adding that if ocean outgassing were the source of the rise in atmospheric CO2, then the pH of the surface ocean would be increasing. It's not, it's decreasing, as shown by several time series.
    0 0
  13. and I imagine if underwater volcanoes would be 100 times more active than they are sulfuric acid salts would show up much better in the measurements of ocean water (just channeling Plimer in the previous comment)
    0 0
  14. I am not sure what you are driving at. However, at just over 900 ppm, S (most as SO42- is the 4th most abundant element in seawater (after Na+, Cl-, and Mg2+).
    0 0
  15. [snip]

    Besides, this post is off topic - in fact discusses the origin of carbon. Therefore - and I am not off topic - comment on it briefly.

    [snip. link soup deleted]
    0 0
    Moderator Response: Nope. By all means draw our attention to interesting papers and the like but you don't get to claim the *post* is off topic and say that gives you the right to post link soup. Try again. Doug.

  16. second summary post

    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

The Consensus Project Website



(free to republish)



The Scientific Guide to
Global Warming Skepticism

Smartphone Apps


© Copyright 2014 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Contact Us