Skip to content
home Harvard Magazine
E-mail updates

Sign up to be notified of new issues.

View a sample newsletter

Follow Harvard Magazine on Twitter
  • Eliot Spitzer to speak on institutional corruption at Harvard's Safra Foundation Center for Ethics http://ow.ly/zSTd 1 day 15 hours ago
  • The Undergraduate: Melanie Long ’10 writes about her decision to leave pre-med behind http://ow.ly/zSEs 1 day 17 hours ago

 STAY CONNECTED

    

SabbaticalHomes.com. Worldwide home-exchanges, rentals, and housesitting opportunities by and for academics since 2000.

View more classifieds

The Ocean Carbon Cycle

 
Main Article: The Great Global Experiment,” November-December 2002

Of all the carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted into the atmosphere, one quarter is taken up by land plants, another quarter by the oceans. Understanding these natural mechanisms is important in forecasting the rise of atmospheric CO2 because even though plants and bodies of water now absorb surplus greenhouse gas, they could become new trouble spots. The ocean absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere in an attempt to reach equilibrium by direct air-to-sea exchange. This process takes place at an extremely low rate, measured in hundreds to thousands of years. However, once dissolved in the ocean, a carbon atom will stay there, on average, more than 500 years, estimates Michael McElroy, Butler professor of environmental science.

Besides the slow pace of ocean turnover, two more factors determine the rate at which the seas take up carbon dioxide. One is the availability of carbonate, which comes from huge deposits of calcite (shells) in the upper levels of the ocean. These shells must dissolve in ocean water in order to be available to aid in the uptake of CO2, but the rate at which they dissolve is controlled by the ocean’s acidity. The ocean’s acidity does rise with increased CO2, but the slow pace of ocean circulation prevents this process from developing useful momentum. It takes a long time for the increased acidity to reach the vulnerable calcite deposits, to dissolve them, and then to bring the carbonate cations to the surface where they can combine with CO2 in the surface waters of the ocean. There is no hope, says McElroy, that this process will take place fast enough to help control the build-up of CO2.

Another process, called "the biological pump," transfers CO2 from the ocean’s surface to its depths. Warm waters at the surface can hold much less CO2 than can cold waters in the deep. "This is the ‘soda bottle on a warm day’ effect," says Agassiz professor of biological oceanography James McCarthy, "and is not unique to carbon dioxide; it applies to all gases dissolved in water. There is a higher capacity to hold a gas with a lower temperature than with a higher temperature." This means that when deep ocean waters rise to the surface as part of normal ocean-circulation patterns, the water heats up and actually releases CO2.

The biological pump works in the opposite direction. One-celled plants, the remains of organisms that feed on them, and fecal matter sink, by force of gravity, into the deep ocean. This phenomenon was first described in the late 1800s by Harvard’s Alexander Agassiz, who referred to it as the "rain of detritus." Its effect is to pull carbon out of the upper ocean and cause it to rain down into the depths, where bacteria and other organisms metabolize and release it back into the water as CO2, enriching carbon dioxide in the deep ocean. (Either way, the chance is very small that a carbon atom in the ocean will be incorporated into organic matter or chemically combined with a carbonate cation to form calcium carbonate that will end up sequestered in sediments, where it might remain for hundreds of millions of years.)

For complex reasons, the fertilization effect of CO2 (see "The Great Carbon Sink," page 36) does not stimulate biological production in the oceans as it can on land. What regulates these plants’ growth is light (of which there is plenty near the surface) and the availability of nutrients. Patterns of circulation control both these parameters. For example, plankton does not thrive in sinking water masses such as those found deep in the North Atlantic, because it is pulled down and away from the light. Similarly, warm surface waters don’t hold much in the way of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. What these plants require is an upwelling of cold, nutrient-rich waters from lower levels of the ocean, and then a particular stratification of waters of different temperatures, in order to thrive.

"These upwellings follow natural cycles," says McCarthy, "which is why there are seasonal blooms of plankton in different places near ocean-circulation features. Here in New England, we see a spring bloom off Georges Bank that feeds the great cod and haddock fisheries." Nobody knows how climate change will affect currents, stratification, and nutrient supply. "But to say that the ocean will continue working just the way it is, and that the biological pump will continue to work the way it does at presentÑthis is sophistry," says McCarthy. "We know that it will not."        

Responses to “The Ocean Carbon Cycle

  1. February 12, 2009

    If your concern is with global warming, rising sea levels and the problems associated with it. Perhaps somme of your undergraduates could discuss the potentials proposed in the past concerning dumping seawater in certain areas. Namely the Qattara Hydroelectric Project and the Dead Sea mediterranean proposal. Many advantages, free non poluting electricity, free solar fresh water for a parched area. Frankly I take the views of David Archibald, Milankovitch and others. That the cold comes every 120,000 years and that the interglacial period has been around longer than its’ usual 10,000 years and we are all going to starve.

    ~nanodrv7

  2. April 8, 2009

    Quote: “But to say that the ocean will continue working just the way it is, and that the biological pump will continue to work the way it does at present, this is sophistry,” says McCarthy. “We know that it will not.”

    I submit that you could also say this and it would be equally true:

    “But to say that the ocean will NOT continue working just the way it is, and that the biological pump will continue to work the way it does at present, this is sophistry,”

    The argument works both ways. Moving on:

    Haven’t we documented a significant greening of the northern hemisphere’s land areas over the last decade or so, which, it’s important to note, is exactly the opposite of what Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmisim (CACCA, for short) predicts? Weren’t we equally sure that the biosphere “would not continue to work as it had”, so to speak? Well, I guess it didn’t - now it’s workng BETTER:

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=1804

    NASA suggests that this greening is due, apparently, to either warming or increased CO2 in the atmosphere OR BOTH!
    In fact, for similar reasons, with greater warmth and increased CO2 one might well expect richer plankton blooms and an energized biological pump which would tend to be a negative feedback mechanism for atmospheric CO2 and any actual resultant warming.

    Do we know what all the limiting factors are for the biological pump? What facts and observations lead one even to suggest “We know that [the biological pump] will not [continue to work as it is].” How do we know this? Ouija boards? Crystal balls? Or is it just because “We say so!”?

    Aren’t we seeing a move of the ocean waters towards a more neutral pH value? Won’t this tend to increase the rate of release of carbonate, all other things being relatively equal, at least for purposes of this discussion?

    And, in case you can correct me, though you didn’t mention it, I understand that, despite ever-growing atmospheric CO2 levels, and with the understanding that the real climate change signal is read in the oceans, where long term heat is stored or lost more significantly than on land or in the atmosphere, where heat is gained and lost daily, the short term oceanic trend is a reduction in sea surface temperatures and, along with it, a reduction in Accumulated Cyclone Energy, again exactly the OPPOSITE result of that predicted by CACCA theories.

    Is that a run-on sentence, or what?

    So my question is this: If we are really facing Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Adversity, why is it that every prediction of those who cling to these dubious theories keeps getting proven wrong?

    Think about it.

    ~Bob Roberts

  3. October 11, 2009

    The Vostek ice core data, when scaled and graphed on the same chart seem to indicate that CO2 is a function of temperature with a few hundred year lag.

    When the oceans warm they breath CO2 out, when they cool they breath it in.

    ~Jon O Johnson

  4. October 21, 2009

    Has anybody ever thought of how all the surplus carbon dioxide in the atmosphere might have an effect on the mysterious disappearances of the Bermuda Triangle? No more time warps or alien abductions. Just Co2. Plain and simple. You should look into it.

    ~Brady Knippa, 7th grade stdent

Add a new comment

Your email address is kept private and will not be shown publicly
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <ul> <ol> <li> <blockquote> <span> <b> <i> <br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • SmartyPants will translate ASCII punctuation characters into “smart” typographic punctuation HTML entities.

Copyright ©1996—2009
Harvard Magazine Inc.
Contact the webmaster