Klimabedrag.dk

Is it correct to talk about sink of human attributed CO2 into the oceans, in isolation?
Only so if there is an enormous difference between the behavior of CO2 from human activity and that of more significant players like ants, bacteria and rising CO2 from oceans at Equatorial oceans.

The IPCC has failed to identify such a difference and despite that, they almost solely process the ~5% anthropogenic part of the CO2 in the atmosphere. It raises the suspicion, that the IPCC do so in order not to compromise their assumption, that all of the increase in atmospheric CO2, over the last 150 years, is caused by human contribution.

Whatever their reason and even if there should turn out to be a significant difference between anthropogenic CO2 (aCO2) and so called natural CO2 (nCO2), it is very important to take both into account. If you do not take both aCO2 and nCO2 into account, when estimating sink and source from the oceans, you will not be able to calculate the total stream of CO2 between the atmosphere and the oceans. Bare in mind that the oceans contain and control 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere.

If there is no difference between the composition of aCO2 and nCO2 in the waters at P1a and the atmosphere, then the behavior of aCO2 and nCO2 must be the same. In that case we can also assume the produced quantities of aCO2 and nCO2 is the same as the current quantitative relationship found in the atmosphere. This would imply that 5% is of CO2 production comes from anthropogenic origins and the remaining 95% comes from natural sources, like ants, bacteria and the warm oceans.

The reason why I particularly mentioned P1a is that this point (or area) is supplied with atmospheric CO2 within a fairly short timescale, whereas the transport via the conveyor belt to the Equatorial waters takes an awful long time, around 1200 years from P2 to P1. Therefore it would make no sense to evaluate the composition of aCO2 and nCO2 any length down the conveyor belt.

There is a problem though. Naturally melting ice bergs crystallizes CO2, which falls to the ocean floor and remains there for an unknown time. Depending on the effectiveness of this process, the composition of aCO2 and nCO2 at P1a could be subject to misrepresentation of the composition in the atmosphere and/or a possible sink difference between the two CO2 origins. Maybe this and other uncertainties can be compensated for by comparing the rising CO2 at P2a.

It is often said that the atmospheric CO2 concentration has never been higher during the last 125,000 years, than it has become during the industrialized era. This could be true, but in reality we don't know. The 150 years of industrialization is many times shorter than the sampling rate of the ice cores, which we compare to. So first in about a thousand years, we will know if we live in a time with more atmospheric CO2 than during the last 125,000 years.

Secondly, if the main cause of increased atmospheric CO2 is due to previous warm periods, in this case the Viking Age, then the rising trend will reverse in a foreseeable future of around 400-150 years. But there could be other causes, apart from industrialization and previous warm periods, like for example changing ocean currents around Hawaii, where the main CO2 measurement takes place and where the oceans source CO2. It is a bit like the controversy with the many thermometers in cities and airports, this gives a spot temperature, that is not representing the general temperature for a given area. As a matter of fact, we do not have a trustworthy representation of the average CO2 content in the atmosphere.

Conclusion
We are presented with significant uncertainties about the quantity of human introduced CO2 into the CO2 stream, we only have knowledge about CO2 content in the atmosphere in very few locations and our long term CO2 record is created with a low sample rate. The full picture of the CO2 stream is not fully analyzed and it is very uncertain if all major factors in the CO2 stream is taken into account. It would therefore be more prudent to selectively concentrate on these issues and transfer environmental action to more worthy tasks, like reducing real pollution, hunger and to develop useful, clean, competitive and stable energy concepts.

References

The Acquittal Of Carbon Dioxide by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD - revision 11/16/09

Emails from Lord Christopher Monckton - September 2010

Emails from DMI (Danish Meteorologic Institute) - August and September 2010

CARBOOCEAN - Core theme (CT) and Work package (WP) fact sheets - Summary of highlights