As Michael Shellenberger says Narcissism, nihilism, and fanaticism: the dark green triad. To have such certainty that it’s all about us when our understanding and observation of the planets climate is so poor.
The ocean carbon cycle [credit: IAEA] Nature’s carbon cycle works even better than was believed. The researchers say ‚it can be assumed that the global influence of this mechanism as a carbon sink is actually much greater‘. – – – Every year, the cross-shelf transport of carbon-rich particles from the Barents and Kara Seas could […]Arctic carbon conveyor belt discovered; ‘the surprise was great’
2 thoughts on “Arctic carbon conveyor belt discovered; ‘the surprise was great’”
“We could show that the co-location of dense water formation and transport with elevated biological production in the Barents Sea impacts the carbon budget of the Arctic Ocean by retaining substantial amounts of carbon in the deep Nansen Basin while providing a food source for deep sea organisms. The Barents Sea, however, is not the only shelf region with such co-location. For example, the Sea of Okhotsk, the Bering Sea or around northern Greenland19,42 and, in particular, the Antarctic Ross43 and Weddell seas44,45,46 are characterized by dense water formation and primary production, and it is therefore probable that high carbon injection rates also occur there as well. Moreover, high-density bottom waters produced around Antarctica47 can lead to even deeper injection with longer retention times than reported here for the Arctic Ocean.”
So, it’s taken them FOUR years to analyse just the Barents Sea data, which reveals 30% greater deep sea sequestration of carbon and only now they tell us that other regions of the Arctic AND Antarctic may be sequestering carbon at equal or even greater rates. Meanwhile, the alarmist freaks at COP27, the WEF, and elsewhere, tell us we must get to net zero by Thursday next week if we are to have any hope of saving the planet.
I’m taken back to what you said about the heatwave in July:
“In a normal world, this would prompt scientists to conclude that the models were faulty and that perhaps the science and a priori assumptions which are built into them need to be re-examined. Or they would ask themselves, did some other factor or factors contribute significantly to this event?”
Religious cults don’t change opinion based upon new facts, it always slips into the existing belief system. We live in an upside down 🤡 🌎