4.7 Article

An Assessment of CO2 Uptake in the Arctic Ocean From 1985 to 2018

Journal

GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES
Volume 37, Issue 11, Pages -

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2023GB007806

Keywords

pCO(2); CO2 flux; sea ice; RECCAP2

Ask authors/readers for more resources

As a contribution to the RECCAP2 project, this study presents estimates of Arctic Ocean sea-air CO2 fluxes and their uncertainties. The results show that the Arctic Ocean has been a net sink of CO2 over the past few decades, with the uptake rate influenced by seasonal variations and climate change.
As a contribution to the Regional Carbon Cycle Assessment and Processes phase 2 (RECCAP2) project, we present synthesized estimates of Arctic Ocean sea-air CO2 fluxes and their uncertainties from surface ocean pCO(2)-observation products, ocean biogeochemical hindcast and data assimilation models, and atmospheric inversions. For the period of 1985-2018, the Arctic Ocean was a net sink of CO2 of 116 +/- 4 TgC yr(-1) in the pCO(2) products, 92 +/- 30 TgC yr(-1) in the models, and 91 +/- 21 TgC yr(-1) in the atmospheric inversions. The CO2 uptake peaks in late summer and early autumn, and is low in winter when sea ice inhibits sea-air fluxes. The long-term mean CO2 uptake in the Arctic Ocean is primarily caused by steady-state fluxes of natural carbon (70% +/- 15%), and enhanced by the atmospheric CO2 increase (19% +/- 5%) and climate change (11% +/- 18%). The annual mean CO2 uptake increased from 1985 to 2018 at a rate of 31 +/- 13 TgC yr(-1) dec(-1) in the pCO(2 )products, 10 +/- 4 TgC yr(-1) dec(-1) in the models, and 32 +/- 16 TgC yr(-1 )dec(-1) in the atmospheric inversions. Moreover, 77% +/- 38% of the trend in the net CO(2 )uptake over time is caused by climate change, primarily due to rapid sea ice loss in recent years. Furthermore, true uncertainties may be larger than the given ensemble standard deviations due to common structural biases across all individual estimates.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available