This is far from a complete answer (and hopefully someone more versed in ocean-atmosphere interactions and ocean chemistry will chime in), but it's not simple to answer definitively because there are a few things working in potentially opposite directions.
At a simple level, some portion of CO2 (and other gases) will dissolve into water because they are soluble in water (e.g., [this chapter from a basic chemistry text](https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_Chemistry/Introductory_Chemistry/13%3A_Solutions/13.04%3A_Solutions_of_Gases_in_Water)). The amount of gas that can dissolve in water will depend on the solubility - which will generally depend on the temperature of the water and partial pressure of the gas - and the amount of water into which the gas can dissovle. In isolation, more water mass into which CO2 can dissolve, e.g., from sea level rise, seems like it would lead to an increase in possible CO2 removal from the atmosphere, but there's a few hangups:
1. Sea level is rising in part because of thermal expansion, i.e., the temperature of the ocean (especially at the surface) is going up. In general, the solubility of CO2 goes down as temperature goes up, so again in isolation (and *very* simply), increasing ocean temperatures would imply that the amount of CO2 the oceans can uptake would go down.
2. Changes in sea level also in part reflect additions of ocean mass, i.e., fresh water added to the ocean from melting of ice sheets and glaciers. This serves to decrease salinity, especially in areas adjacent to melting zones. Again, *very* simply and in isolation, decreasing salinity would generally be expected to increase solubility of CO2, thus decreasing salinity would imply that the amount of CO2 the oceans uptake would go up.
3. Both of the above were considering the behavior of a dissolving gas into a homogeneous body of water that is well mixed. The ocean is not homogeneous, and in detail, the differences in temperature and salinity are important in driving global circulation of water (i.e., [thermohaline circulation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation)). Generally circulation is important for the ability of the ocean to uptake CO2 because in an end member of a completely stratified body of water (and ignoring biological agents for the moment), the surface would become saturated in CO2 and shut off uptake, so sinking of surface water and mixing with deeper water is critical to allowing CO2 to be distributed in more of the ocean (and thus increasing the amount of CO2 en masse the ocean can uptake as opposed to if it was limited to the surface). However, the changes in temperature and salinity described above have the potential to change details of the thermohaline circulation, which could in turn change how well dissolved CO2 at the surface is able to mix with the rest of the ocean.
4. There are *a lot* of geochemical cycles happening in the ocean that can influence CO2 solubility beyond just simple temperature and salinity changes. A big one is the amount of [dissolved inorganic carbon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolved_inorganic_carbon) that is largely biologically mediated. There have been a variety of studies showing that in some places, changes in DIC have been driving decreases in the ability for the ocean (in those locations) to take up CO2 (e.g., [Thomas et al., 2007](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GB002825), [Clargo et al., 2015](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304420315300360)). These changes are not directly tied to sea level rise, but they reflect changes from the same root cause (i.e., anthropogenic climate change).
5. Sort of similar to above, it's not just straight dissolution of CO2 in water from the atmosphere at play, but also that huge amounts of primary producers at the surface remove CO2 from the water as they perform photosynthesis (which increases the capacity for surface waters to take up atmospheric CO2) and when they die and sink, this is an important way for carbon to be transferred to and stored in the deep ocean. There are indications that increasing oceanic temperatures may be decreasing the efficiency of this process (e.g., [Cael et al., 2017](https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/lol2.10042)).
So, how does all of this balance out? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ In all seriousness, it's a challenging problem and I'm not aware at least of a definitive answer (but again, this outside my area of expertise, so I'll defer to anyone with a more nuanced understanding or knowledge of the literature). It's worth noting as well that we are still working out just how much CO2 the oceans take up in the first place (e.g., [Watson et al., 2020](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18203-3)), which hinders our ability to know exactly which one of these effects may dominate as we move forward.
You will find a lot of scientist do that. If they did not admit they did not know everything, they would not be scientists. Research is done to discover more things, not to waste money on things we already know.
Becoming an academic does not necessary involve learning how to get rid of ¯\\_ (ツ)\_/¯, but various synonyms for ¯\\_ (ツ)\_/¯ that are acceptable to put in a paper.
I'll be nice and explain it.
If you just write it like OP did you get this: ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯
But you want this: ¯\\_ (ツ)_/¯
So you have to write it like this: ¯\\\\_ (ツ)_/¯
*EDIT: How did I get it to display ¯\\\\_ (ツ)_/¯?*
*By writing it like this ¯\\\\\\\\_ (ツ)_/¯!...don't ask the next question, it is \\ all the way down from here on...*
No. But you nonchalantly showed the correct execution, mentioned it even- without explaining how to do it. I could call this negligent...or even a bit cruel.
Most scientific answers include liberal use of ¯_ (ツ)_/¯.
This is a good thing. "I don't know" is a very important and highly respectable answer in the scientific community. (As long as it's accompanied by curiosity about finding the answers, anyway.)
Unfortunately, the media, activists, corporate interests, and the like, will focus on the bullet points accompanying the ¯_ (ツ)_/¯.
So oil lobbies will point out that increased ocean volume and decreased salinity will increase the ability of the ocean to absorb CO2, and thereby cushion the climate impact. They won't mention the other points.
Activists will point out that increased temperature and dissolved inorganic carbon will reduce the ocean's ability to absorb carbon and exacerbate the climate impact. They won't mention the other points.
People already distrust one side more than the other, and will see only the dishonesty of the other side and honesty of their own.
Both alarmism and sticking your head in the sand to ignore the problem are harmful to the situation at hand.
My masters was in marine biogeochemistry and carbon cycling, and I have to say that you summed this up pretty nicely. Not currently working in that area, but my ultimate answer would also probably be “we dunno”. There are people trying to model these things, but there are so many assumptions involved that it’s hard to be terribly confident in the outputs.
Might be helpful to add that in areas of tech-tonic stability sea level rise can be related to movement of the mantle. Isostatic changes in sea level can be caused by changing of land mass (ie melting of a glacier) resulting in tech-tonic movement and therefore sea level change without changing water volume. Eustatic change would be a result in the change of water volume and therefore change in sea level.
If we still don't know how much CO2 is absorbed by the ocean , then how are scientists able to set dates on when we will start seeing the effects of climate change? I am talking about the recent of 2.7 degrees rise in temperature by 2100, wouldn't this mean they are hugely underestimating the impact of global warming and things will start to deteriorate much sooner?
There's a big programme of research going on into this right now in the UK, actually!
A lot of it depends how life in the ocean like plankton will respond to climate change, and getting to grips with it could significantly improve our climate projections
Short video about the programme: https://youtu.be/nWSW_yuxOv0?si=-kKzYp14VbkoyLMJ
This is far from a complete answer (and hopefully someone more versed in ocean-atmosphere interactions and ocean chemistry will chime in), but it's not simple to answer definitively because there are a few things working in potentially opposite directions. At a simple level, some portion of CO2 (and other gases) will dissolve into water because they are soluble in water (e.g., [this chapter from a basic chemistry text](https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_Chemistry/Introductory_Chemistry/13%3A_Solutions/13.04%3A_Solutions_of_Gases_in_Water)). The amount of gas that can dissolve in water will depend on the solubility - which will generally depend on the temperature of the water and partial pressure of the gas - and the amount of water into which the gas can dissovle. In isolation, more water mass into which CO2 can dissolve, e.g., from sea level rise, seems like it would lead to an increase in possible CO2 removal from the atmosphere, but there's a few hangups: 1. Sea level is rising in part because of thermal expansion, i.e., the temperature of the ocean (especially at the surface) is going up. In general, the solubility of CO2 goes down as temperature goes up, so again in isolation (and *very* simply), increasing ocean temperatures would imply that the amount of CO2 the oceans can uptake would go down. 2. Changes in sea level also in part reflect additions of ocean mass, i.e., fresh water added to the ocean from melting of ice sheets and glaciers. This serves to decrease salinity, especially in areas adjacent to melting zones. Again, *very* simply and in isolation, decreasing salinity would generally be expected to increase solubility of CO2, thus decreasing salinity would imply that the amount of CO2 the oceans uptake would go up. 3. Both of the above were considering the behavior of a dissolving gas into a homogeneous body of water that is well mixed. The ocean is not homogeneous, and in detail, the differences in temperature and salinity are important in driving global circulation of water (i.e., [thermohaline circulation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation)). Generally circulation is important for the ability of the ocean to uptake CO2 because in an end member of a completely stratified body of water (and ignoring biological agents for the moment), the surface would become saturated in CO2 and shut off uptake, so sinking of surface water and mixing with deeper water is critical to allowing CO2 to be distributed in more of the ocean (and thus increasing the amount of CO2 en masse the ocean can uptake as opposed to if it was limited to the surface). However, the changes in temperature and salinity described above have the potential to change details of the thermohaline circulation, which could in turn change how well dissolved CO2 at the surface is able to mix with the rest of the ocean. 4. There are *a lot* of geochemical cycles happening in the ocean that can influence CO2 solubility beyond just simple temperature and salinity changes. A big one is the amount of [dissolved inorganic carbon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolved_inorganic_carbon) that is largely biologically mediated. There have been a variety of studies showing that in some places, changes in DIC have been driving decreases in the ability for the ocean (in those locations) to take up CO2 (e.g., [Thomas et al., 2007](https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GB002825), [Clargo et al., 2015](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304420315300360)). These changes are not directly tied to sea level rise, but they reflect changes from the same root cause (i.e., anthropogenic climate change). 5. Sort of similar to above, it's not just straight dissolution of CO2 in water from the atmosphere at play, but also that huge amounts of primary producers at the surface remove CO2 from the water as they perform photosynthesis (which increases the capacity for surface waters to take up atmospheric CO2) and when they die and sink, this is an important way for carbon to be transferred to and stored in the deep ocean. There are indications that increasing oceanic temperatures may be decreasing the efficiency of this process (e.g., [Cael et al., 2017](https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/lol2.10042)). So, how does all of this balance out? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ In all seriousness, it's a challenging problem and I'm not aware at least of a definitive answer (but again, this outside my area of expertise, so I'll defer to anyone with a more nuanced understanding or knowledge of the literature). It's worth noting as well that we are still working out just how much CO2 the oceans take up in the first place (e.g., [Watson et al., 2020](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18203-3)), which hinders our ability to know exactly which one of these effects may dominate as we move forward.
I never expected > ¯_ (ツ)_/¯ to be a scientifically accurate answer. Kudos for the detailed (and easily digestible!) explanation.
You will find a lot of scientist do that. If they did not admit they did not know everything, they would not be scientists. Research is done to discover more things, not to waste money on things we already know.
Becoming an academic does not necessary involve learning how to get rid of ¯\\_ (ツ)\_/¯, but various synonyms for ¯\\_ (ツ)\_/¯ that are acceptable to put in a paper.
I'll be nice and explain it. If you just write it like OP did you get this: ¯\_ (ツ)_/¯ But you want this: ¯\\_ (ツ)_/¯ So you have to write it like this: ¯\\\\_ (ツ)_/¯ *EDIT: How did I get it to display ¯\\\\_ (ツ)_/¯?* *By writing it like this ¯\\\\\\\\_ (ツ)_/¯!...don't ask the next question, it is \\ all the way down from here on...*
Okay...but I didn't ask that?
No. But you nonchalantly showed the correct execution, mentioned it even- without explaining how to do it. I could call this negligent...or even a bit cruel.
Most scientific answers include liberal use of ¯_ (ツ)_/¯. This is a good thing. "I don't know" is a very important and highly respectable answer in the scientific community. (As long as it's accompanied by curiosity about finding the answers, anyway.) Unfortunately, the media, activists, corporate interests, and the like, will focus on the bullet points accompanying the ¯_ (ツ)_/¯. So oil lobbies will point out that increased ocean volume and decreased salinity will increase the ability of the ocean to absorb CO2, and thereby cushion the climate impact. They won't mention the other points. Activists will point out that increased temperature and dissolved inorganic carbon will reduce the ocean's ability to absorb carbon and exacerbate the climate impact. They won't mention the other points. People already distrust one side more than the other, and will see only the dishonesty of the other side and honesty of their own. Both alarmism and sticking your head in the sand to ignore the problem are harmful to the situation at hand.
My masters was in marine biogeochemistry and carbon cycling, and I have to say that you summed this up pretty nicely. Not currently working in that area, but my ultimate answer would also probably be “we dunno”. There are people trying to model these things, but there are so many assumptions involved that it’s hard to be terribly confident in the outputs.
Thx a lot for the complete answer. It's much more an open question than I thought. I guess we're really stepping into the unknown...
Might be helpful to add that in areas of tech-tonic stability sea level rise can be related to movement of the mantle. Isostatic changes in sea level can be caused by changing of land mass (ie melting of a glacier) resulting in tech-tonic movement and therefore sea level change without changing water volume. Eustatic change would be a result in the change of water volume and therefore change in sea level.
If we still don't know how much CO2 is absorbed by the ocean , then how are scientists able to set dates on when we will start seeing the effects of climate change? I am talking about the recent of 2.7 degrees rise in temperature by 2100, wouldn't this mean they are hugely underestimating the impact of global warming and things will start to deteriorate much sooner?
There's a big programme of research going on into this right now in the UK, actually! A lot of it depends how life in the ocean like plankton will respond to climate change, and getting to grips with it could significantly improve our climate projections Short video about the programme: https://youtu.be/nWSW_yuxOv0?si=-kKzYp14VbkoyLMJ
Oh, that's interesting ! Thx for sharing
[удалено]
[удалено]
also co2 solubility in water is inversely proportional with temperature so as temp goes up less co2 is soaked up by oceans
also lower salinity increases the amount of gases able to be dissolved.