denmor, being the sceptic and across the science you would have followed up the original paper just to clarify that what is being reported in "antigreen.blogspot" was accurately portraying the conclusions of the authors and not cherry picking a few lines out of context.
With your knowledge of science you would be aware that due to Henry's Law and the partial pressure of gas, hotter liquids hold less gas than colder liquids. However this is modified by the partial pressure of the gas in question.
With your understanding of the relative gas exchanges over the ocean you would know that the higher latitudes with cooler waters act as a net sink for CO2 and the hotter tropical waters act as a net source of CO2.
Now the quoted statement in the "antigreen" article was According to the authors, "At the [research] site, the ocean is primarily a source of CO2 to the atmosphere, except during strong upwelling events."
The critical wording here is At the [research] site. Now being the sceptic you would have wondered where this research site was. I had a look at the original paper. The original research site was at Cariaco Basin off Venezuela, approximately 10 degrees off the Equator. How about that. It is in the tropics.
And having had a look at the original paper you would have seen that the authors make no extrapolations of their findings to the greater atmosphere and the CO2 levels.
Another cherry-pick from the top of Mt Stupid. Another fine example of the Anti-AGW crowds superb sceptical abilities.
read the paper here: http://reef01.marine.usf.edu/sites/default/files/project/cariaco/publications/Astor_et_al_2013.pdf
