Beyond CO2: Study reveals growing importance of HFCs in climate warming

Jun 22, 2009

Some of the substances that are helping to avert the destruction of the ozone layer could increasingly contribute to climate warming, according to scientists from NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory and their colleagues in a new study published today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The authors took a fresh look at how the global use of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) is expected to grow in coming decades. Using updated usage estimates and looking farther ahead than past projections (to the year 2050), they found that HFCs—especially from developing countries—will become an increasingly larger factor in future climate warming.

"HFCs are good for protecting the ozone layer, but they are not climate friendly," said David W. Fahey, a scientist at NOAA and second author of the new study. "Our research shows that their effect on climate could become significantly larger than we expected, if we continue along a business-as-usual path."

HFCs currently have a climate change contribution that is small (less than 1 percent) in comparison to the contribution of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The authors have shown that by 2050 the HFCs contribution could rise to 7 to 12 percent of what CO2 contributes. And if international efforts succeed in stabilizing CO2 emissions, the relative climate contribution from HFCs would increase further.

HFCs, which do not contain ozone-destroying chlorine or bromine atoms, are used as substitutes for ozone-depleting compounds such as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in such uses as refrigeration, air conditioning, and the production of insulating foams. The Montreal Protocol, a 1987 international agreement, has gradually phased out the use of CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances, leading to the development of long-term replacements such as HFCs.

Though the HFCs do not deplete the , they are potent greenhouse gases. Molecule for molecule, all HFCs are more potent warming agents than CO2 and some are thousands of times more effective. HFCs are in the "basket of gases" regulated under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.

The new study factored in the expected growth in demand for air conditioning, refrigerants, and other technology in developed and developing countries. The Montreal Protocol's gradual phasing out of the consumption of ozone-depleting substances in developing countries after 2012, along with the complete phase-out in developed countries in 2020, are other factors that will lead to increased usage of HFCs and other alternatives.

Decision-makers in Europe and the United States have begun to consider possible steps to limit the potential climate consequences of HFCs. The PNAS study examined several hypothetical scenarios to mitigate HFC consumption. For example, a global consumption limit followed by a 4 percent annual reduction would cause HFC-induced climate forcing to peak in the year 2040 and then begin to decrease before the year 2050.

"While unrestrained growth of HFC use could lead to significant implications by 2050, we have shown some examples of global limits that can effectively reduce the HFCs' impact," said John S. Daniel, a NOAA coauthor of the study.

Source: NOAA

Explore further: Conservation scientists asking wrong questions on climate change impacts on wildlife

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

US supports reducing climate-warming gases

May 04, 2009

(AP) -- The Obama administration called hydrofluorocarbons widely used in refrigerators and air conditioners "a very significant" threat to climate change Monday, and expressed a preference for drastically ...

US wants to move on climate change

Apr 30, 2009

(AP) -- The Obama administration, in a major environmental policy shift, is leaning toward asking 195 nations that ratified the U.N. ozone treaty to enact mandatory reductions in hydrofluorocarbons, according ...

Ozone hole repair 'could take decades'

Jun 14, 2005

There are indications that the hole in the ozone layer is being repaired, but the process of recovery will take decades, according to a report published on 8th June 2005 by the Institute of Physics. The report, which aim ...

Recommended for you

Big data confirms climate extremes are here to stay

16 hours ago

In a paper published online today in the journal Scientific Reports, published by Nature, Northeastern researchers Evan Kodra and Auroop Ganguly found that while global temperature is indeed increasing, so too is the variab ...

Peru's carbon quantified: Economic and conservation boon

16 hours ago

Today scientists unveiled the first high-resolution map of the carbon stocks stored on land throughout the entire country of Perú. The new and improved methodology used to make the map marks a sea change ...

How might climate change affect our food supply?

17 hours ago

It's no easy question to answer, but prudence demands that we try. Thus, Microsoft and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) have teamed up to tackle "food resilience," one of several themes ...

Groundwater is safe in potential N.Y. fracking area

17 hours ago

Two Cornell hydrologists have completed a thorough groundwater examination of drinking water in a potential hydraulic fracturing area in New York's Southern Tier. They determined that drinking water in potable ...

User comments : 23

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Chey
2.6 / 5 (10) Jun 22, 2009
Physorg. is really heading downhill by putting on the kneepads more and more for the AWG zealots. I find myself visiting less and less
jeffsaunders
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 23, 2009
This is consistent and right to be mentioned. When you have global warming caused by greenhouses gases as is the commonly held belief then you would be wrong not to point out the potential harmful effects caused by compounds that are thousands of times more potent than the CO2.
Shaoping
not rated yet Jun 23, 2009
Yes, In China only the R134a leakage of MAC is equivalent to 0.1 billion ton CO2,1% Chinese total emission of CO2 in future.I study the hydrocarbon refrigerants.Please contact me! dsp88@126.com
deatopmg
1 / 5 (1) Jun 23, 2009
see my comments on HFC's here; http://www.physor...343.html
Shootist
2.7 / 5 (7) Jun 23, 2009
This is consistent and right to be mentioned. When you have global warming caused by greenhouses gases as is the commonly held belief then you would be wrong not to point out the potential harmful effects caused by compounds that are thousands of times more potent than the CO2.


Then where are all the discussions about Methane and Water Vapor? And the fact that any effect caused by CO2 is so small as to be lost in the noise produced by these two potent, and far more prevalent, GHGs (green house gases). see Dyson.

Arizona has longest stretch of days below 100 degrees (38C) since 1913...

http://www.azcent...619.html

"We'll grow Oranges in Alaska" - Dale Gribble
GrayMouser
4 / 5 (4) Jun 23, 2009
Then where are all the discussions about Methane and Water Vapor? And the fact that any effect caused by CO2 is so small as to be lost in the noise produced by these two potent, and far more prevalent, GHGs (green house gases). see Dyson.

Arizona has longest stretch of days below 100 degrees (38C) since 1913...

http://www.azcent...619.html

"We'll grow Oranges in Alaska" - Dale Gribble

Your confusing politics with science.
Velanarris
2 / 5 (4) Jun 27, 2009

Then where are all the discussions about Methane and Water Vapor? And the fact that any effect caused by CO2 is so small as to be lost in the noise produced by these two potent, and far more prevalent, GHGs (green house gases). see Dyson.

Methane is not more prevalent than CO2, but the forcing associated is due to the greater potency of methane.

The big one is water vapor. And the world observations indicate that either the greenhouse effect is flawed, (which I doubt is the case), or CO2 is not a causative in global warming.

Think of it this way, warming oceans out gas more CO2 as well as produce more water vapor. Water vapor is responsible for the majority of the greenhouse effect. So more water vapor potential means a greater atmospheric partial pressure, and a greater average atmospheric temp. Since the atmosphere is such a poor conductor of heat the seas do not respond to the atmosphere's warming but to geological warming. When the geological process slows or stops, the oceans cool, and co2 re-enteres solution, atmospheric water vapor content drops via precipitation and cloud cover, causing a further drop in atmospheric temperature, until a shaky equilibrium is reached, regardless of CO2 content.

CO2 should be an indicator of global warming, not a causative.
SteveS
3 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2009
Since the atmosphere is such a poor conductor of heat the seas do not respond to the atmosphere's warming but to geological warming.


Is there any evidence for this?

Velanarris
3 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2009

Is there any evidence for this?

That the atmosphere is not a good conductor of heat? It's a well known fact that all gasses are poor conductors of heat when compared to liquids or solids. It's currently being researched as to how large a role geologic activity has on ocean temperature, but I'd bet on that horse early.
SteveS
not rated yet Jun 27, 2009
It's currently being researched as to how large a role geologic activity has on ocean temperature


I'm not convinced, but I would like to read more before I comment, can you provide links for this research?
PinkElephant
3 / 5 (2) Jun 27, 2009
Think of it this way, warming oceans out gas more CO2 as well as produce more water vapor.


Hold it right there. The oceans may be warming, but they do so very slowly. They have not yet began to out gas CO2; they are still net absorbers (google "ocean acidification"...) When they stop absorbing, and start releasing CO2, the planet will gain a powerful positive feedback mechanism, which will further accelerate global warming.

Water vapor is responsible for the majority of the greenhouse effect.


You miss the fact that unlike CO2, water vapor does not remain in the atmosphere very long. Excess water vapor rapidly cycles out of the atmosphere in the form of precipitation. Whereas excess CO2 hangs around for centuries. Water vapor amplifies the effect of CO2, but it is not a fundamental driver of growing greenhouse effect: it is merely yet another positive feedback.

Since the atmosphere is such a poor conductor of heat the seas do not respond to the atmosphere's warming but to geological warming.


That is wrong on several levels. First, the greenhouse effect is not due to "atmosphere's warming". It is due to the surface of the planet warming, because the atmosphere slows down radiative cooling of that surface. The atmosphere is largely translucent to solar radiation, and thus does not directly warm very much due to sunlight. Most of the sunlight passes right through the atmosphere, and is absorbed by the ground or the oceans. By absorbing solar energy, the surface of the planet heats up and radiates in infrared wavelengths. These infrared emissions are reflected back to the ground by the GHGs, thus slowing the rate at which the ground can cool off through radiative emission, and thus raising the overall average temperature at ground level (given that the energy input from the sun remains relatively constant.)

Secondly, a "geological warming" would tend to heat up the oceans at depth; whereas greenhouse warming would heat them up at the surface. The two are easy to distinguish. If we had some sort of "geological warming", we would have observed destabilization of methane clathrates on continental shelves, and a massive pulse of methane in to the atmosphere (google "clathrate gun hypothesis".) It would be a catastrophic event on many levels. Luckily, experience provides no evidence for any "geological warming".

CO2 should be an indicator of global warming, not a causative.


It was in the past, when swings in climate were not driven by emission of excess GHGs. Then, increased CO2 was indeed a consequence rather than a driver. This time around, CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere artificially and quite measurably. This time around, it is the driver. It's not orbital shifts (which take tens and hundreds of thousands of years.) It's not solar variability (which simply doesn't fit direct observations of irradiance.) It's not cosmic rays (a hypothesis that has been experimentally discredited.) It is definitely man-made emissions due to massive and exponentially accelerating world-wide combustion of fossil carbon.
mdk
3 / 5 (2) Jun 28, 2009
It's geological warming that's responsible for the loss of ice in part of Antartica and deep ocean warming is a factor in the decadal and multi-decadal oscillations of the Pacific and Atlantic. It's the ocean that changes the temp of the atmosphere, not the other way around as you can demonstrate in a sixth grade science lab.

Since this has devolved into a debate on global warming, please explain why we didn't have runaway warming when it was 8 degrees celsius warmer than it is now? How could we have entered an ice age with all that additional CO2 and water vapor in the air? Yet the Earth did go thru an ice age, while CO2 levels were 12 times higher than they are today. If there was a large positive multiplier to CO2 increases then the Earth would be nearly as hot as Venus by now.

And you're quite wrong that the cosmic ray hypothesis has been discredited or perhaps you should alert CERN and save them a few million dollars? They're beginning tests to prove or disprove the theory. CO2 does not 'hang around' for centuries, plants use it continually so it's impossible to claim that any given CO2 molecule will remain in the atmosphere for centuries.

In the geologic past it took CO2 levels almost 20 times higher than we have today to reach a temp 8C warmer than it is now, yet the IPCC warns that it may happen before we've even doubled the pre-industrial level. Pure fantasy masquerading as science.
Velanarris
3 / 5 (2) Jun 28, 2009
I hear the water vapor cycle argument all the time.

If an element is in the atmosphere for mere seconds, but is continually replenished through natural cyclical processes, then making remark that water vapor cannot be responsible is showing a large hole in the train of thought.

Water vapor amplifies the effect of CO2, but it is not a fundamental driver of growing greenhouse effect: it is merely yet another positive feedback.
This is wrong, completely wrong. Water vapor is responsible for an estimated 33% of current global temperature due to the greenhouse effect.

Atmospheric heat drives water vapor content. If the heat stays the same, or goes up, the atmosphere is holding more water vapor and therefore has a higher potential to capture black body radiation. Longevity in the atmosphere is only of note if you're attempting to perform reduction through elimination of source.

(given that the energy input from the sun remains relatively constant.)
Which it does not. The sun fluxuates quite a bit and the atmospheric filters, (clouds, ozone, etc) knock down some of that variability.

As for the rest of your commentary on the Greenhouse effect, yes, GHG's are a heat trapping element. They aren't "warming" the atmosphere persay, but the commentary is sound from a discussion standpoint.

Hold it right there. The oceans may be warming, but they do so very slowly. They have not yet began to out gas CO2; they are still net absorbers (google "ocean acidification"...) When they stop absorbing, and start releasing CO2, the planet will gain a powerful positive feedback mechanism, which will further accelerate global warming.

The CO2 cycle is a matter of equilibrium against temperature disparity and pressure. If the oceans warm by one degree, they will outgas until they attain absorption equilibrium where CO2 going into solution and CO2 comming out of solution will balance. There is no tipping point for CO2 release.

Secondly, carbon dioxide in water does not create carbonic acid. Carbonic acid is unstable in the presence of water. That's half the reason why many scientists didn't believe it existed until a pure form was created in a lab.

It was in the past, when swings in climate were not driven by emission of excess GHGs.

The partial pressure of the atmosphere was far higher, there wsa a far higher CO2 content, and none of it was from unnatural sources.

So if we are artificially increasing the atmospheric carbon content, then we should see a similar climate to the late cretaceous period, where the continenets were close to their curent positions and atmospheric co2 is suggested to be on the order of at least twice as high as it is today.
SteveS
not rated yet Jun 28, 2009
the seas do not respond to the atmosphere's warming but to geological warming.


As I said, I'm not convinced. From what I've read so far there is very compelling evidence that this is not the case. I'm afraid I haven't found any current research as to how large a role geologic activity has on ocean temperature, so I would still appreciate some links in order to get a balanced view on this.
PinkElephant
3 / 5 (2) Jun 28, 2009
@mdk,

"please explain why we didn't have runaway warming when it was 8 degrees celsius warmer than it is now?"

Global warming vs. runaway warming are two rather distinct concepts. I'm not a believer in runaway warming, particularly given Earth's recorded history as you rightly point out.

"Yet the Earth did go thru an ice age, while CO2 levels were 12 times higher than they are today."

Firstly, what are you talking about?

Secondly, all past climate events were obviously not man-made. They all, ipso facto, had their respective natural causes.

But I fail to see the relevance of this particular Red Herring, when today the physics of both the atmosphere and the surface of our planet are being very much and very obviously manipulated by modern civilization -- and at an exponentially accelerating pace, too.

Look, it's really not that complicated. All other things being equal, Earth has a particular natural thermal equilibrium at any given point in time. When you start messing with the natural system (e.g. by pumping gigatons of additional long-lived greenhouse gas into the atmosphere every year), you're going to upset the natural equilibrium. The end-result is that a new equilibrium will be established. With higher net content of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, an enhanced greenhouse effect is guaranteed, so the new equilibrium will be at a higher temperature point. That's really all there is to it. We can quibble over the exact numbers and the complex minutiae, and fail to discover the forest among all the trees, but in this particular case one really doesn't need to refer to the past to understand the general direction in which the future is pointing. Just a basic knowledge of physics is enough.

"And you're quite wrong that the cosmic ray hypothesis has been discredited or perhaps you should alert CERN and save them a few million dollars?"

http://www.scienc...5138.htm

"In the geologic past it took CO2 levels almost 20 times higher than we have today to reach a temp 8C warmer than it is now..."

All other factors being equal?

Aye, there's the rub. IPCC's estimates are based on the state of our planet today, which is not the same as it was in the past. Orbital factors are different. Continental formations are different. Erosion and circulation patterns are different. Factors affecting albedo are different. And so on, and so forth.
PinkElephant
3 / 5 (2) Jun 28, 2009
@Velanarris,

"Longevity in the atmosphere is only of note if you're attempting to perform reduction through elimination of source."

But that is exactly the issue. Once added, it takes centuries for the extra CO2 to circulate back out of the atmosphere. Contrast this with water vapor: if we were emitting extra water vapor into the atmosphere, it would quickly rain/snow out unless we were continuously pumping it back out. It would be very difficult to achieve an exponentially rising concentration of water vapor, just by pumping water into the atmosphere: the atmosphere simply will not support it, which is precisely why atmospheric water vapor is in natural equilibrium and isn't leading to runaway greenhouse. For CO2, there's no equivalent rapid precipitation mechanism. Concentrations are rising exponentially, and human emissions are the only explanation here (particularly given how little the Earth, with its enormous thermal inertia, has warmed so far.)

"The sun fluxuates quite a bit..."

No more so than it has in the past. There's nothing abnormal about the Sun today. So it isn't of any interest in figuring out why atmospheric CO2 is rising exponentially.

"There is no tipping point for CO2 release."

That wasn't the point. The point is that today, oceans are still net absorbers of CO2. We're increasing the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the ocenas equilibrate by taking up more of it. Thus the oceans act as a damper on our emissions (at a steep cost of acidification, but that's tangential.) As the oceans warm up, they will be able to absorb less CO2 from the atmosphere, so more of our emissions will remain in the atmosphere. That's the positive feedback I was talking about. If at some point we stop emitting additional CO2, the thermal inertia will continue to warm the oceans for some time, and they will continue outgassing additional CO2 until their temperature and the atmospheric CO2 content equilibrate again. That's another kind of positive feedback.

"Secondly, carbon dioxide in water does not create carbonic acid. Carbonic acid is unstable in the presence of water."

Oh boy, oh boy. That's excellent news for all crustaceans, corals, mollusks, and plankton everywhere!

Of course, there's no such thing as stable water, as everyone knows it's just a mixture of hydrogen and hydroxide ions. Said free hydrogen ions are precisely the corrosive agent boosted by any putative acid.

By the way congratulations, you just earned a FAIL in Chemistry 101, specifically when it comes to comprehension of chemical equilibria.

"So if we are artificially increasing the atmospheric carbon content..."

You mean to say you're not convinced that we are? You haven't noticed all the combustion of fossil hydrocarbons that's been happening all around you? You do realize all that carbon used to be in the atmosphere, before it got sequestered by life and buried under the ground? It had since been replaced, more or less, by volcanic emission. But we're determined to gasify and pump it ALL back out there, in one gigantic paroxysm of emission: all the millions of years worth, over just a couple of centuries. Not to worry; nothing to see here; move along?

Have you never seen the Keeling Curve? Here, take a look: http://en.wikiped...ng_curve

"...then we should see a similar climate to the late cretaceous period, where the continenets were close to their curent positions and atmospheric co2 is suggested to be on the order of at least twice as high as it is today."

Not to worry, it'll only take a few decades. These things happen overnight only on geological time-scales, you know.
Velanarris
3 / 5 (1) Jun 29, 2009
But that is exactly the issue. Once added, it takes centuries for the extra CO2 to circulate back out of the atmosphere. Contrast this with water vapor: if we were emitting extra water vapor into the atmosphere, it would quickly rain/snow out unless we were continuously pumping it back out.
And we are. Human activity is responsible for a significant amount of water vapor, far more than the palty amount of CO2 we produce.
No more so than it has in the past. There's nothing abnormal about the Sun today. So it isn't of any interest in figuring out why atmospheric CO2 is rising exponentially.
It depends on what your frame of "the past" is. We just exitted one of the greatest periods of solar inactivity, in regards to sunspots, that man has ever recorded. Keep in mind sunspots are far cooler than the sun's surface. The impact this would have on weather and climate is, as of yet, not well explored or understood.

That wasn't the point. The point is that today, oceans are still net absorbers of CO2. We're increasing the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the ocenas equilibrate by taking up more of it. Thus the oceans act as a damper on our emissions (at a steep cost of acidification, but that's tangential.)
Well oceanic acidification is not factually linked with CO2 yet. I can't concede this point as the science is not settled on why we've seen a marginal decline in pH (7.6 to 7.38) in measured ocean bays. This very well could be due to nitrite and fertilizer run off as Nitric acid is far more potent than carbonic acid and develps when you add NO2 and NO# into the waters. This goes along with my stance that there are far worse things we should be dealing with before CO2. Secondly, a CO2 increase of 100ppm in the atmosphere would theoretically only result in a 3 ppm increase in the oceanic chemistry at current oceanic temperatures. I would be more concerned with the presence of methan clathrates near thermal vents on the ocean's floor. Remember, over a period of 100 million yeras or so the majority of the oceanic surface is subducted through plate tectonics. If the clathrates aren't constantly migrating, (which I'm fairly sure they do not) you're looking at periodic releases of methane in great concentration regardless of ocean temperature.
Of course, there's no such thing as stable water, as everyone knows it's just a mixture of hydrogen and hydroxide ions. Said free hydrogen ions are precisely the corrosive agent boosted by any putative acid.
And when did I say anything about "stable water"? Carbon dioxide in aqueous solution is reacted down by seawater by the kH and GH of the water, otherwise known as mineral content, or hardness. The higher your kH at a stable pH, the greater your ability to "sequester" CO2 with no net pH fluxuation. The driver of Carbon solubility would be not just temperature but also salinity and hardness. As for corals, plankton, and other coccliophores, coral appears to be dying due to detection of the symbiotic algae contained within. The algae and corals have coevol;ved so that the corals build the shell, the algae grows on the outer surface, the coral provides a place for the algae to develop and the algae provides sugars for the coral to sustain itself. More carbon content means more base elements for algae growth and for coral shell creation. This is well evidenced by the remains of ancient coccliophores and corals, as well as some mollusks from the Cretaceous era, and pre-cambrian times, where the higher CO2 content drove greater shell thicknesses. Plankton doesn't die off from CO2. If anything these photosynthetic creatures would respond well to additional CO2. Ammonia, Nitrite, Urea, and Nitrate, would cause massive die offs and bleaching events. Not surprisingly, deadzones and coral bleaching occur in close proximity. Nitrous acids, which occur in seawater, do not have a natural buffer, they must be reacted into salts, or outgassed.
"So if we are artificially increasing the atmospheric carbon content..."

You mean to say you're not convinced that we are?
No I don't deny that we are, please don't put words in my mouth through your lack of reading comprehension.
SteveS
not rated yet Jun 30, 2009
Think of it this way, warming oceans out gas more CO2 as well as produce more water vapor. Water vapor is responsible for the majority of the greenhouse effect. So more water vapor potential means a greater atmospheric partial pressure, and a greater average atmospheric temp. Since the atmosphere is such a poor conductor of heat the seas do not respond to the atmosphere's warming but to geological warming. When the geological process slows or stops, the oceans cool, and co2 re-enteres solution, atmospheric water vapor content drops via precipitation and cloud cover, causing a further drop in atmospheric temperature, until a shaky equilibrium is reached, regardless of CO2 content.


If this is true then warming oceans would out gas all dissolved gasses in proportion to their solubility. Therefore if the increase in atmospheric CO2 were due to geological warming of the oceans we should also see an increase in atmospheric O2 concentrations as oxygen is more soluble than nitrogen. This is not the case.

It's currently being researched as to how large a role geologic activity has on ocean temperature


I would still be interested in any information you have regarding this research

but I'd bet on that horse early


I wouldn't bother, it looks like a non starter to me.

Velanarris
4 / 5 (1) Jul 02, 2009

If this is true then warming oceans would out gas all dissolved gasses in proportion to their solubility. Therefore if the increase in atmospheric CO2 were due to geological warming of the oceans we should also see an increase in atmospheric O2 concentrations as oxygen is more soluble than nitrogen. This is not the case.

Care to explain increasing anoxic dead zones in that case?
I would still be interested in any information you have regarding this research


http://news.rutge...20070425

http://www.geosoc...5-46.htm

http://geology.ge.../7/4/193

There's a few, a lot more is in the works.

I wouldn't bother, it looks like a non starter to me.
A lot of people said that about the global climate change hypothesis in the 70's, look where we are today.
SteveS
5 / 5 (2) Jul 02, 2009
I take it you mean hypoxic, anoxic water contains no oxygen at all. To make water anoxic using heat alone you would need to boil it. To reduce the amount of dissolved oxygen by half you only need to raise the temperature by about 40 degrees. Therefore neither hypoxic nor anoxic dead zones can be caused by observed increases in sea temperatures.
http://www.engine...148.html

Hypoxic dead zones are caused when phytoplankton growth, stimulated by nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus from commercial fertilizer or larger than normal upwellings of nutrient rich water, settles and decays in the bottom waters. The decomposition of these algae consumes oxygen faster than it can be replenished from the surface, leading to decreased levels of dissolved oxygen.
http://www.scienc...5891/926
http://gsa.confex...5830.htm


It's currently being researched as to how large a role geologic activity has on ocean temperature


None of your links appear to relate to how large a role geologic activity has on ocean temperature except possibly the first, which claims that CO2 from volcanic activity caused a global warming event that warmed the oceans

http://news.rutge...20070425
Scientists Link Volcanic Eruptions that Formed North Atlantic Ocean to Ancient Global Warming Episode; Jump in Prehistoric Ocean Temperatures from Greenhouse Gases Provides Perspective for Global Warming Studies

http://www.geosoc...5-46.htm
Continental-scale links between the mantle and groundwater systems of the western United States: Evidence from travertine springs and regional He isotope data.

http://geology.ge.../7/4/193
The effect of low-temperature alteration of basalt on the oceanic budget of potassium
mdk
2 / 5 (1) Jul 02, 2009
MDK: "Yet the Earth did go thru an ice age, while CO2 levels were 12 times higher than they are today."

PinkElephant: Firstly, what are you talking about?

Simple. See the graph at http://www.geocra...te.html. It shows CO2 during the Late Ordovician Period was 12 times the current level during an ice age, about 4400 ppm. Our contribution to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is miniscule, so is the level of CO2 at about .04% of the total. Both CO2 and temp have been much higher than they are now and as the graphic shows, there is virtually no link between the two.

As to disproving the galactic cosmic ray theory, I suggest you write to CERN and collect some reward as they're about to spend millions on CLOUD09 to actually prove or disprove this theory. Some find actual data more useful than models and claims of a consensus. http://cdsweb.cer...-046.pdf

About other factors being equal, it's the IPCC who claims CO2 is driving the climate, not me. They can't have it both ways so if it is CO2 then it's hard to see how our relatively low levels of CO2 will cause a catastrophe when historical data show otherwise.
Velanarris
not rated yet Jul 03, 2009
Steve, I keep a txt with relevant sources grouped. I have to track down my links, those are on oceanic chemistry. My apologies.
SteveS
not rated yet Jul 04, 2009
Vel

Here is a link you may like to add to your txt, it only relates to computer models but does suggest changes in out gassing rates when geothermal heating is taken into account.

This is of course the steady state, now all we need is information on how variable average geothermal output is to see if it can account for observed changes in the global climate. Any effect I feel would be small, as it is stated in the research that there is little or no effect on surface temperatures.

http://eprints.so...2001.pdf