Yes, but do you really think that 1°C will make all that difference? The 
point from the figures I quoted is that the uptake is always slightly 
greater than the emissions, because of the carbon transfer to the lower 
depths and the eventual sedimentation (mainly in the form of calcium 
carbonate in the shells of dead animalcules). This will happen at all 
temperatures (within reason). This keeps the sea more or less in 
equilibrium, the annual variations of carbon content being <±0.1%. If 
your hypothesis were valid, the carbon content of ocean water would be 
constantly diminishing and that has not proved to be the case.

I am, of course, perfectly aware that the solubility of gases diminshes 
with temperature. The graphs on the site you link are, of course, 
totally irrelevant as they refer to pressures and salinity way beyond 
all natural ones.

I haven't researched actual figures under practical conditions.

I quote from Barry and Chorley:
...the operation of the atmosphere-ocean system is sufficiently complex 
that, for example, global warming may so increase oceanic convective 
mixing that the resulting imports of cooler water and plankton in the 
surface layers might exert a brake (i.e., negative feedback) on the 
system warming. (end of quote)

In other words, it is just as likely that the absorption of CO2 will 
increase with climate change because the ocean surface temps will 
actually diminish.

Another factor that will reduce CO2 levels - and this is more 
predictable - is the fact the ocean-atmosphere interface is increasing 
as polar icecaps are diminishing in size (obviously more so in the N. 
hemisphere) and as land is eroded away because of rising sea levels.

No, Karl, I do not believe that the oceans are responsible for the 
increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere from ~280 ppm to ~400 ppm over 
the last 150 years. This represents an overall increase of ~675 billion 
tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere, roughly equivalent to what we are 
burning from fossil fuels and not sequestering because of deforestation 
over the last 30 years. In practice, of course, it is a constant 
re-balancing of carbon in both directions but I firmly believe, along 
with most atmospheric scientists with whom I've worked that it is homo 
sapiens who is responsible for this increase of atmospheric CO2 (and CH4 
and NOx) and that this is causing harm to the equilibrium of the climate.

May I suggest you read the IPCC research reports? Also there are some 
quite digestible books, such as "The Changing Atmosphere" by John Firor 
(director of the Advanced Study Program at the National Center for 
Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO) or "A Year in the Greenhouse" by John 
Elkington, a consultant working for major energy companies inter alia or 
many of hundreds of more recent works (Earthprint have many). Perhaps if 
you knew more about the research that is constantly being undertaken by 
hundreds of dedicated scientists, you would understand better how the 
carbon cycle works and the role the ocean plays in it.

Brian

Karl Sauter wrote:
> Brian,
> 
> Not sure what you are refering to as my hypothesis.  The following site
> shows how with increasing temperature, CO2 solubility is dimished;
> http://www.kgs.ku.edu/PRS/publication/2003/ofr2003-33/P1-05.html
> 
> Karl
> 
> 
> Brian Ellis wrote On 11/04/05 09:03,:
> 
>>What you are saying is that the annual 15 billion tonnes of CO2 that are
>>spewing out of our chimneys and exhaust pipes, year in, year out, is for
>>nought? PLEEEEEEZE! Nor the 6 billion tonnes that are not absorbed
>>because of deforestation.
>>
>>Yes, the ocean surface waters contain 1000 billion tonnes of carbon,
>>some in life forms, some in dissolved CO2, but the annual carbon
>>emissions from the oceans are 90 billion tonnes, whereas the absorption
>>by the oceans is 92 billion tonnes. In fact, the annual increase of
>>carbon in the surface oceans is only 1 billion tonnes, because there are
>>other interchanges into deep waters and, eventually into sedimentation.
>>[figures from Sundquist, Trabalka, Bolin and Siegenthaler, IPCC 1990]
>>
>>Sorry, if your hypothesis were correct, we would be in a positive
>>feedback cycle, snowballing into ever-increasing GHG emissions, causing
>>more global climate change, causing more ocean heating... Hopefully, we
>>are not there - yet.
>>
>>No, I'm sorry, it is you and I who are responsible, not some quirk of
>>nature. This is now definite and no apologetics of bad science will
>>diminish our responsibilty. Even GWB is admitting it!
>>
>>Brian
>>
>>Karl Sauter wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Brian,
>>>
>>>Since the oceans contain a significant amount of carbon dioxide, and
>>>will emit carbon dioxide when heated, how do we know that more direct
>>>heating from the Sun is not causing the oceans to warm (generating most
>>>of the carbon dioxide increase)?  Also ocean heating and carbon dioxide
>>>levels to not seem to correlate well with anthropogenic carbon dioxide
>>>production (http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html).
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>
>>>Karl Sauter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Brian Ellis wrote On 11/04/05 00:05,:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You mean the Senate has some sense??? :-)
>>>>
>>>>Seriously, the crunch will lie in section (b)(1) which can be
>>>>interpreted as business as usual and (b)(2) tell China that they have to
>>>>implement strict measures so that they become less competitive.
>>>>
>>>>Maybe you can detect a tiny touch of cynicism.
>>>>
>>>>I have done some back-of-envelope calculations and I estimate that GHG
>>>>emissions must be reduced by 55-60% just to maintain the status quo,
>>>>i.e., not to add to the damage already done. At 60% reduction, there
>>>>will even be a slight improvement over time, perhaps dropping from the
>>>>current 390-400 ppm CO2 to 325-350 ppm in 300 years (the pre-industrial
>>>>revolution figure was 280 ppm). The most rapid drop would be if we could
>>>>reduce methane emissions, which accounts for ~15% of GHG emissions. This
>>>>would mean drastically cutting down on natural gas, which, holistically,
>>>>is the worst fossil fuel, although it is the least polluting fossil fuel
>>>>in other ways.
>>>>
>>>>I posted the following in another forum. It may be of interest:
>>>>
>>>>[quote]... To put the church back to the middle of the village, please
>>>>allow me to re-state my credo for the nth time. I believe that carbon
>>>>emissions are the current greatest threat to mankind and this planet.
>>>>They must be reduced as drastically and as rapidly as possible. For
>>>>this, I foresee a four-pronged approach:
>>>>1. Conservation: using low-consumption appliances, cars etc. to the
>>>>maximum possible, maximal recycling of all resources, implementation of
>>>>efficient electrical mass transport schemes for persons and merchandise
>>>>at both urban and exurban (inter-city) levels
>>>>2. Fixed renewables: defined as renewables that can run 24/7/50 (2 weeks
>>>>for maintenance): generation and hot water from the incineration of
>>>>household garbage, HE where feasible (not much scope left in most parts
>>>>of the world), but only if there are no major environmental impacts (no
>>>>3-Gorges, for instance), some biomass (limited by inroads to food
>>>>production)
>>>>3. Variable renewables: wind, solar, tide, waves. Whichever, where
>>>>feasible and economically viable. I happen to live in the most
>>>>solar-oriented country of the world, with ~95% of habitations having
>>>>solar hot water heating, so I know what it can do. However, because of
>>>>its variability, this category is limited for electricity generation to
>>>>~20% of the peak demand; above that, grid instability is too dangerous.
>>>>4. Nuclear: this must be sized to satisfy peak demand (when no sun, no
>>>>wind etc.) and cranked down to actually, at any given moment, provide
>>>>the power that the other systems cannot.
>>>>
>>>>I know of no other formula that will reduce carbon emissions
>>>>significantly without forcing the world back to a lower standard of
>>>>life. At the same time, it will reduce our dependence on oil, coal or,
>>>>worse, natural gas and allow the remaining reserves to be used sensibly
>>>>so that our great-great-grandchildren can still profit from them.
>>>>
>>>>Can you pick any real holes (based on science and technology and not on
>>>>perceived emotional responses) in this credo? [/quote]
>>>>
>>>>Best regards,
>>>>
>>>>Brian
>>>>
>>>>Joe Fjelstad wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Senate Amendment 866, Sec. 16 was adopted after being submitted by Sen.
>>>>>Bingaman for himself and Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA), Pete Domenici (R-NM), Lamar
>>>>>Alexander (R-TN), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), Frank
>>>>>Lautenberg (D-NJ), John McCain (R-AZ), James Jeffords (I-VT), John Kerry (D-MA),
>>>>>Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Barbara Boxer (D-CA).
>>>>>
>>>>>(a) FINDINGS. - Congress finds that -
>>>>>
>>>>>(1) greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere are causing average
>>>>>temperatures to rise at a rate outside the range of natural variability and are
>>>>>posing a substantial risk of rising sea-levels, altered patterns of atmospheric
>>>>>and oceanic circulation, and increased frequency and severity of floods and
>>>>>droughts;
>>>>>
>>>>>(2) there is a growing scientific consensus that human activity is a
>>>>>substantial cause of greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere; and
>>>>>
>>>>>(3) mandatory steps will be required to slow or stop the growth of greenhouse
>>>>>gas emissions into the atmosphere.
>>>>>
>>>>>(b) SENSE OF THE SENATE. - It is the sense of the Senate that, before the end
>>>>>of the first session of the 109th Congress, Congress should enact a
>>>>>comprehensive and effective national program of mandatory, market-based limits on
>>>>>emissions of greenhouse gases, that slow, stop and reverse the growth of such
>>>>>emissions at a rate and in a manner that -
>>>>>
>>>>>(1) will not significantly harm the United States economy; and
>>>>>
>>>>>(2) will encourage comparable action by other nations that are major trading
>>>>>partners and key contributors to global emissions.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>______________________________________________
>>>>Please note new e-mail address [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>--
>>______________________________________________
>>Please note new e-mail address [log in to unmask]
> 
> 

-- 
______________________________________________
Please note new e-mail address [log in to unmask]