Sensitivity of ocean acidification to geoengineered climate stabilization
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L10706, doi 2009
Although climate stabilization through geoengineering is a means of slowing climate changes, it seems to be less viable for the other CO2 problem; climate engineering may increase the rate of ocean acidification.
In their study, Matthews and Caldeira from Concordia University and Carnegie Institution of Washington respectively, showed that the global carbon cycle can be affected by the strong relationship between global temperatures and the rate of CO2 uptake by carbon sinks. They represent this pair with an intermediate-complexity global model.
The notion that geoengineering will not mitigate ocean acidification was previously assumed, but this study confirmed the assumption. Second-order interactions between climate engineering, the global carbon budget, and ocean chemistry may slightly increase or decrease the rate of ocean acidification, depending on changes in terrestrial carbon sinks in the future. The study highlights the fact that changes in ocean chemistry are not only the direct result of pH influences, other factors play large roles in ocean acidification.
I found your summary to be pretty good and discerning. However, I would recommend that it would have been better if you would have explicitly talked about the uncertainty in the scopes of climate engineering in tackling the problem. I think this was the point that was reflected throughout the primary research paper. In addition, the concluding line of the highlight could have been substituted with some other line in the paragraph, that serves to reinstate the fact that climate engineering is not a viable option. Other than these, good job!
It’s unclear to me how or why geoengineering would increase the rate of ocean acidification. Did Matthews and Caldeira present an explanation in their study?
Natasia, I think there are geoengineering proposals to sequester atmospheric CO2 into the oceans, which would increase acidification. I agree that you could have clarified this, Elan.