Microbes of the genus Prochlorococcus, a photosynthetic plankton, are the base of the food chain in the world's oceans and also absorb a large amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Pictured: plankton bloom off the coast of South America.
Image: Flickr/NASA Goddard Photo and Video
For a while, Adam Martiny and some of his fellow scientists had suspected something was not right in how researchers understand the oceans. The object of their suspicion was something called the Redfield ratio, a principle stating that, when nutrients are not limiting, ocean microorganisms always have the same ratio of three elements: carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus.
This matters now because the Redfield ratio is used to help modelers and biogeochemists understand how important elements like nitrogen and carbon cycle in the oceans. If the Redfield ratio does not hold true, climate researchers might have to adjust how that process is represented in their climate models.
So Martiny, an associate professor of Earth system science at the University of California, Irvine, and a few of his colleagues set out to sample the ocean and test the ratios. What they learned, detailed in a paper published Sunday in Nature Geoscience, was that the ratios of carbon to nitrogen to phosphorus varied in different parts of the ocean. They also discovered the patterns of variation corresponded to different latitudes.
"How much carbon is attached to each molecule of nitrogen or phosphorus just used to be [considered] a constant," said Francois Primeau, a co-author on the paper and an associate professor of Earth system science at UC Irvine.
But that's not the case. For example, in warm zones near the equator that are low on nutrients, the ratio of carbon to nitrogen to phosphorus measured was 195:28:1; in cold, high-latitude regions with plenty of nutrients, the ratio changed to 78:13:1. Redfield's ratio is 106:16:1 oceanwide.
Many models have predicted that a warming ocean will take up less carbon because higher temperatures lead to smaller phytoplankton, which take less carbon to the bottom of the ocean when they die. The amount of carbon these plankton take with them is typically calculated based on the Redfield ratio.
What happens in science when a 'constant' isn't?
This change from a constant ratio to one that varies depending on latitude will likely shake up climate models, because it demonstrates regional variability, said Jasper Vrugt, another co-author.
"Likely we will see regional differences in the ocean. That will also have an effect on the climate change patterns that you simulate," he said.
Because the ratios vary by latitude, the plankton may actually take more or less carbon with them as they sink down to the ocean floor, depending on where they are.
The way the data played out with the variations correlated with latitudes is actually good news for modelers, even though they will need to do some revisions, Martiny said.
"I think most modelers, they get sort of a tired look when they hear the biologists come out with yet another mechanism, saying this is real important, you have to incorporate that," he said, laughing a little.
"But when I can also tell the modelers, here are what the ratios are in different ocean regions, and we can describe why it is different," he added, "I think that way it can pretty easily now be incorporated into a model."
Mick Follows, a senior research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a modeler who works on ocean circulation and biogeochemical cycles, said that while he was not surprised the Redfield ratios were "flexible," it was useful that the study mapped out latitudinal patterns in the variations.
See what we're tweeting about
17 Comments
Add CommentDemonstrating just one of the many issues that people who do not swallow the AGW argument whole.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisModellers use thousands of what they claim are 'standard' and 'accepted' ratios, relationships and assumptions to construct their models and derive their output.
The problem is that a significant number of these 'standard' and 'accepted' ratios, relationships and assumptions have never been rigorously tested or proven.
The result is that we are being fed 'modeling' predictions that are literally being 'shaped' to suit the desired outcome.
The truth is that the public have a gut feeling for this that many do not appreciate and this is one major reason why the Man made theorists are not winning the battle of ideas and evidence.
There is much we can all learn about CO2 and the climate, but you don't need to be a climate scientist to see that humans are destroying our planet with the tons of pollutants we dump into our air and water everyday. I would be willing to bet that Sisko, Carlyle, and HowardB are unhealthy and likely have cancer or obesity related illnesses because I have noticed that most people care for their own health in a similar manner to how they care for our planet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFolks,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't say mean things to greenhome123. It wouldn't be right.
I am in my seventies, still running my construction company. A tough business amoungst tough men. A heavy smoker untill my mid forties, I spent my early years working in an open cut uranium mine. Large family, drink beer, scotch whiskey & red wine in adequate quantities. No health issues, no medications. Sorry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarlyle, glad to hear you are healthy. HowardB, tweaking a model based on the most up to date data is what modelers do. It's called, in a word, "science." It's also what makes the models more accurate. Will they ever be just as good as the phenomenon they represent? No. That's okay, they are still useful and as long as they are getting more refined and more closely represent the actual world then we are moving forward. Your assertion that scientists are "shaping" data to fit a predetermined outcome is wrong, uniformed and offensive to the thousands of hard working scientists and researchers (like those mentioned in the article) who are not satisfied with the current level of understanding and risk life and reputation to challenge those accepted ratios. Here's the reality. There is NO worldwide scientific conspiracy to defraud the entire planet into believing in AGW. And sadly, there is no Easter Bunny. The evidence is irrefutable. Get used to it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFolks, don't use try to confuse syzygyygyzys with facts and evidence, it wouldn't be right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs this what you call " they are still useful and as long as they are getting more refined and more closely represent the actual world then we are moving forward."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html
Just what planet are you talking about?! GK
All I was trying to suggest was that we should not be unkind to someone who may be emotionally fragile. Wishing cancer on those with whom they disagree could be a sign of a disorder that might be worsened by having their post attacked. Some of the comments here get very personal. So, I can understand how you took my comment to be sarcasm. I was trying to phrase my comment to discourage people from provoking someone with personal problems. I guess I was less than successful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI read SA online in an attempt to inform myself on issues that interest me. The level of bitterness in the comments makes it unpleasant to sift through the comments. I thought about avoiding the comments altogether, but there are enough interesting views expressed to make it worthwhile on balance.
Please give some consideration to the prospect that not everyone who disagrees with you is evil or of low intelligence. I will attempt to follow that advice as well without feeling compelled to comment on every new topic.
A valid humanitarian gesture, however excessive alarmism is a disorder shared by all those CAGW advocates blogging here, as well as the articles themselves. We cannot comment without disturbing their delicate egos. I think skeptics are being as gentle as they can. I know, I am. GK
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I would be willing to bet that Sisko, Carlyle, and HowardB are unhealthy and likely have cancer or obesity related illnesses"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy God you are the sick individual ! How shameful.
"Get used to it."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGet used to the fact that the public, correctly, are not and will buy into it and will not buy into changing the economy to suit it . Good luck with that !
"A valid humanitarian gesture, however excessive alarmism is a disorder shared by all those CAGW advocates blogging here, as well as the articles themselves. We cannot comment without disturbing their delicate egos. I think skeptics are being as gentle as they can. I know, I am. GK"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIndeed. The extremism of the AGW faithful is disturbing and an embarrassment to Science. Having spent a life time in Science and having worked with Modeling specialists I have been able to experience the realities behind the smoke and mirrors. I base my views on reading original papers, not on blindly swallowing the pronouncements of the establishment or the promotional campaigns of the multi billion dollar Green Industry which is now far bigger than any mythical oil industry.
The irony is that if the Green Movement stuck with the original campaign of promoting conservation, efficiency, clean air and clean water, all of which I along with most people buy in to 100% - they would be FAR more successful. Instead they went off the deep end and thought that scaring people with this AGW bejeeezuz would work better. They have now been caught with their pants down and it has backfired.
Actually that was my point. There may be clinically ill people commenting here. When someone is that far gone, engaging them serves no purpose. Unless they are already confined, who knows what they might do in a fit of anger?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo if the "green" industry is a multi-billion dollar one, how is it larger than the multi-trillion dollar oil industry? Strange. Stop peddling shit.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving read the article, I would change the title to "Oceans May Or May Not Absorb More Carbon Dioxide" or "Oceans May Absorb More Or Less Carbon Dioxide." Even more precisely, "Phytoplankton" should be substituted for "Oceans" in the title.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my opinion, it would have been useful to readers to qualify a statement in the paragraph before the section title "What happens in science when a 'constant' isn't?" Specifically, the concluding clause in the first sentence, "which take less carbon to the bottom of the ocean when they die," might suggest to some readers that "falling to the bottom when they die" is the general fate of most phytoplankton. In fact, as noted in the photo caption, "photosynthetic plankton are the base of the food chain in the world's oceans," which implies that the general fate of phytoplankton when they die is to become part of a higher organism, in which aerobic respiration converts carbon-containing organic compounds plus oxygen into carbon dioxide and water.
The rate of photosynthetic conversion of carbon dioxide and water into carbohydrates by phytoplankton depends on the phytoplankton density, sunlight penetration, and water temperature. The phytoplankton density in turn depends on the rate of photosynthesis and the availability of limiting nutrients. The correlation of the C:N:P ratios with latitude is very interesting but tells only a small part of the story. Further, we cannot expect the average C:N:P to be the median of 195:28:1 and 78:13:1, i.e., 136.5:20.5:1. For all I know, the mean C:N:P ratio over the entire oceans may well be close to the Redfield ratio 106:16:1 when all the other factors are taken into account.
The A.Martiny et al. paper is an interesting contribution but in fact says almost nothing about the general picture, relating as it does to a minor detail. The general picture is that since the beginning of the industrial revolution, humanity has moved an ever-increasing number of gigatons of carbon from the lithosphere into the atmosphere-hydrosphere-biosphere climate system. This massive addition of carbon to the climate system is unprecedented in the last million years. The most recent precedent with such a movement of lithospheric carbon into the climate system to my knowledge led to the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.
No one knows what caused the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) event. All we know for sure is that temperatures and CO2 screamed up. Comets, asteroids, changes in oceans toxicity, volcanic out-gassing, algae blooms, etc etc, have all been suspect.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe do know that CO2, levels do not correlate with temperatures, in the geological past. First temperatures rise, then CO2 levels increase, much later.
"This massive addition of carbon to the climate system..."
I would suggest the term "carbon" be corrected to CO2, and I would be very interested, to read your source for the data. THX GK
G.,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm not sure Mr. Everett thinks it's worth replying to someone who says, "We do know that CO2 levels do not correlate with temperatures, in the geological past. First temperatures rise, then CO2 levels increase, much later."
The reason I'm replying is that I cannot let such a false statement stand unchallenged. We know that CO2 levels DO correlate with temperature. I can say this because I have all available science to back it up. You, on the other hand, have no science to back up your proclamation.
"First temperatures rise, then CO2 levels increase, much later."
Wrong. Okay, explain to me how in our present situation, human caused CO2 is increasing 10 to 30 times faster than the PETM, and it started 150 years ago after our planet had been cooling for the past several thousand years. Only now the earth stopped slowly cooling, but instead is suddenly heating at an accelerated rate. Why is that?
Milankovitch cycles and other forcings have initially started off warming with an almost concurrent rise in CO2, which serves as an amplifier. This we know. Now WE are the forcing, adding lots of CO2.