Slashdot Mirror
Invisible Scum on Sea Cuts CO2 Exchange With Air 'By Up To 50%' (theguardian.com)
An invisible layer of scum on the sea surface can reduce carbon dioxide exchange between the atmosphere and the oceans by up to 50%, scientists have discovered. From a report: Researchers from Heriot-Watt, Newcastle and Exeter universities say the findings, published in the journal Nature Geoscience on Monday, have major implications for predicting our future climate. The world's oceans absorb around a quarter of all man-made carbon dioxide emissions, making them the largest long-term sink of carbon on Earth. Greater sea turbulence increases gas exchange between the atmosphere and oceans and until now it was difficult to calculate the effect of "biological surfactants." Teams from the Natural Environment Research Council, the Leverhulme Trust and the European Space Agency developed a system that compares "the surfactant effect" between different seawaters in real time. They found surfactants can reduce carbon dioxide exchange by up to 50%.
As the world continues to heat and the subocean deposits of methane start flowing, 50% reduction in local surface reactions is not going to mean squat. This is a bandaid on an aneurysm. Even conceptually it is unpromising.
Reducing emissions is the obvious solution that we spend so much time effort and brainpower avoiding, because as a terraforming species we are lazy and deserve extinction. It's too bad higher order fauna on Earth goes with us.
Really it's just the coal-fired intellects of the GOP and their Chinese counterparts that deserve to be doomed to extinction in their own filth. The rest of us are roped along by the economics of the past. Humanity fails traditionally.
Yea science!
The solution is easy. We just need to install an air pump with a bubbler in the ocean to cause surface disturbance and aid gas exchange. That's what I do in my non-planted aquariums.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
So is ocean acidification not a bad thing anymore? Sounds like they stumbled upon a beneficial side effect of pollution for a change.
Hmm, global warming is due to the scum of the earth - so it is all Hillary's fault.
A partially visible layer of libertarian scum will now cover this thread.
- AC
But this invisible scum may actually deoxygenate the water, killing off the fish life.
This isn't a problem. The scum is biological. Further it is slowing the rate of change by 50%. The oceans and the atmosphere will still reach the same equilibrium given time. Also we don't want more CO2 in the oceans. It causes acidification and messes with all kinds of ocean life. You could debate where it does more harm, atmosphere or ocean, but ideally we don't want more in either place.
If the global ocean were to come to equilibrium with the atmosphere, exchange rate would only hasten or slow the time it takes to get to equilibrium. While I doubt there is a "scum" on a significant area of the ocean's surface which drastically changes exchange, its effect would be temporary. Unless the ocean (or atmosphere) is involved in other (significant) exchanges. I guess this article must factor in things such as (fresh) water "exchange" and CO2 exchange with the silt/mud/floor. Only if one of these other two is at about the same rate will changing rate by 50% matter. In my ignorance, I doubt that they are that large, but I really have no basis for that wild assed guess.
There can be no further climate research of any sort. We already knew everything many years ago. Thatâ(TM)s whatâ(TM)s science is settled means. We know everything. Nothing left to discover. Fake news. Move along. Nothing to see here.
Deep water stores more CO2 due to its higher pressure, but natural events can cause overturn. I'm not sure any climate models account for that. A major storm, earthquake or landslide could break up the layer while bringing the high concentrations of CO2 (and other gases) to the surface to effervesce. This could explains some of the unexplained coastal die offs. The events at Lake Nyos killed hundreds of people.
What effect does this chemical have on various forms of sea life? If CO2 is trapped in the ocean wouldn't that cause the oceans to be more acidic?
If you saw the senate hearings on climate change
Senate hearings are a stage, not science.
The Dems did not like to listen to this science and brought their own science with them.
Do you understand that both Dems and Reps only chose scientists who would say things they already like? They would be fools to do otherwise, because that would make them look bad on a stage.
Because I don't post left all my comments get modded down, bye bye Karma.
It's not because you don't post left, it's because you post clearly on the right. That is, you mold your opinion largely to match the party.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
What about non-manmade emmision?
We need aquatic scum sucking pigs!
Everything you said is BS and you know it making you a liar.
The disasters are predicted to happen towards the end of this century. So, of course they didn't happen.
And ALL of the near terms predictions have come true. The biggest one is the melting of the Arctic ice allowing ships through.
And *whoosh* in one ear out the other. Because you want to believe this all some sort of BS and it's not that bad so you can live your pathetic little life being a good consumer and ruining this planet for future generations.
That's easy, funding for climatologists and environmental related organizations.
What a load of horseshit. And you know it and that makes you a liar.
ok, best of luck to you.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."