4.7 Article

Air-sea disequilibrium of carbon dioxide enhances the biological carbon sequestration in the Southern Ocean

Journal

GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES
Volume 27, Issue 4, Pages 1129-1138

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2013GB004682

Keywords

carbon; Southern ocean

Funding

  1. NSF [OPP-1142009]
  2. NOAA
  3. Directorate For Geosciences
  4. Division Of Ocean Sciences [1048926] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  5. Division Of Ocean Sciences
  6. Directorate For Geosciences [1259388] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  7. Office of Polar Programs (OPP)
  8. Directorate For Geosciences [1142009] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sinking and subduction of organic material removes carbon from the surface ocean and stores it in inorganic form after remineralization. The wind-driven upwelling of deep waters, notably in the Southern Ocean, counteracts the biological carbon sequestration by returning excess carbon from the abyss, potentially releasing it back to the atmosphere. Numerical models have shown that significant fraction of the excess carbon in the Antarctic Surface Water is not degassed to the atmosphere but reenters into the deep ocean due to the incomplete air-sea equilibration, effectively increasing the efficiency of biological carbon storage in the deep ocean. We develop a simple theory to consider the controls on this effect. The theory predicts a strong coupling between biological carbon sequestration and air-sea disequilibrium expressed as a linear relationship between the biological carbon pump and the degree of supersaturation in the deep ocean. Sensitivity experiments with a three-dimensional ocean biogeochemistry model support this prediction and demonstrate that the disequilibrium pump almost doubles the efficiency of biological carbon sequestration, relative to the effect of nutrient utilization.

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