Climate change study shows Earth is still absorbing carbon dioxide

The Telegraph ^ | 11/11/2009 | Louise Gray

[bruinbirdman]

The Earth has developed stores to absorb excessive levels of carbon dioxide, according to a study that challenges the conventional thinking on climate change.

The research, by Bristol University, suggests that despite rising emissions, the world is is still able to store a significant amount of greenhouse gases in oceans and forests.

According to the study, the Earth has continued to absorb more than half of the carbon dioxide pumped out by humans over the last 160 years.

This is despite emissions of CO2 increasing from two billion tonnes per year in 1850 to current levels of 35 billion tonnes per year.

Previously it was thought that the Earth's capability to absorb CO2 would decrease as production booms, leading to an accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

But Wolfgang Knorr, author of the new study, found that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has remained just over 50 per cent, with only tiny fluctuations being recorded despite the massive hike in output.

He pointed out that his study relied entirely on empirical data, including historical records extracted from ice samples in the Antarctic, rather than speculative climate change models.

"Previous studies suggested that in the next ten years the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will accelerate because there is a lot less uptake by the Earth, there is no indication of this," he said.

However scientists cautioned that the ability of the oceans and rainforests to absorb carbon dioxide in the future may collapse, leading to a massive increase in temperatures.

Another study released this week found the amount of CO2 released as a result of cutting down the rainforests could have been overestimated. The research by VU University in Amsterdam found emissions from deforestation could be as low as 12 per cent, rather than 20 per

[HiTech RedNeck]

However scientists cautioned that the ability of the oceans and rainforests to absorb carbon dioxide in the future may collapse, leading to a massive increase in temperatures.

Carbon dioxide is yum-yum for green plants. That is where they get the carbon from which their cellulose is made. Yes, those giant sequoias in the national forests are built out of carbon dioxide.

[Eagles2003]

“But Wolfgang Knorr, author of the new study, found that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has remained just over 50 per cent”

Wow, we have 50% of our atmosphere as CO2?

What kind of a**hole writes this crapola?

You should know better, you remind me of my frat brothers we wouldn’t let touch tools, made them clean toilets on work day. Although we all shared the rotten jobs, some just were kind of discriminated against because they couldn’t find their a** with both hands.

YITBOS, and you embarrass me.

[21twelve]

Later on the “writer” says:

“He pointed out that the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is still increasing, even though half is absorbed by the Earth.”

I’m guessing that the sentence that talks about “CO2 in the atmosphere has remained just over 50%” is some scramble of “half of the CO2 emitted remains in the atmosphere”.

What I always get a kick out of (well not really, it just pisses me off) is how they always talk about tons of CO2. Although 35 billion tons a year sounds a lot larger than 1% of total gases or whatever it is. I do know that when you take into account the greenhouse “effectiveness” (natural water vapor is VERY effective and accounts for something like 97% of the greenhouse effect), human CO2 accounts for 0.17% of the greenhouse effect.

The whole CO2 argument is stupid. But it works. ‘Cuz most people are stupid.

[SueRae]

Good. Follow the money. Those clamoring the loudest about climate change, Gore, Immelt, et. al., stand to make BILLIONS off of the rest of us. Biggest sham foisted on the American people, with the possible exception of the election of B. Hussein Obama.

[Rocky]

The whole CO2 argument is stupid. But it works. ‘Cuz most people are stupid.

Most people are willing to allow the experts in a technical field to provide advice in their specialty. What most people don't realize (call it stupidity if you want) is that scientists can skew their results to get a certain result. Their motives are not always pure. Motives may include:

1) Further a political agenda of government control over industry

2) Obtain government grant money to build a career or to build an academic department (government grants are only given to people who support global warming hysteria; no government money goes to global warming skeptics)

3) Further one's own career by publishing articles which support what the influential scientists have already said.

[Always Right]

He pointed out that his study relied entirely on empirical data, including historical records extracted from ice samples in the Antarctic, rather than speculative climate change models.

See there is the problem. The debate is over, Climate models are gobal warming gospel. You can not deny them.

[Sherman Logan]

Although 35 billion tons a year sounds a lot larger than 1% of total gases or whatever it is.

Actual amount of CO2 in atmosphere is less than 400 parts per million (ppm). To put this into perspective, 1% = 10,000 ppm.

BTW, 50% CO2 would be highly toxic and cause a massive greenhouse effect. Even 1% might. But we're a LONG way from those concentrations.

human CO2 accounts for 0.17% of the greenhouse effect.

I will assume your numbers are accurate. I'd just like to point out that in some types of systems such a tiny increase can have wildly disproportionate effects due to positive feedback. However, an ecosystem such as the Earth's is much more likely to have negative feedback effects that will prevent any significant effect at all.

[junkman_106]

Oh, for goodness sakes, don’t let the Gov’t know...Oops! too late! They depend on the stupidity of the masses.

[chainsaw]

The article says nothing about the O2 absorbed by the oceans and the mammals which prevent this globe from burning out of control.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[Citizen Tom Paine]

For all you folks it goes roughly like this. The amount of carbon in the atmosphere is 1, the amount in the oceans is more than 50 (carbon dioxide dissolves in water), and the amount in limestone rocks in about 250. The carbon dioxide in the air dissolves into the ocean (the rate is variable). When the ocean start to become saturated, the dissolved carbon dioxide is precipitated out of the ocean on its bottom as limestone (CaCO3). The limestone remains there until geological processes moves it somewhere - possibly to the top of a mountain or the surface of the Earth. This has been going on for about three to four billion or more years.

[Thermalseeker]

Actual amount of CO2 in atmosphere is less than 400 parts per million (ppm).

Or, in terms of a percentage of the total atmospheric gasses, CO2 accounts for .034%.......

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

***Wow, we have 50% of our atmosphere as CO2?***

I noticed this also. I rmeember my high school science teacher way back about 1961 saying..

Air is...

80% nitrogen
19% oxygen
1% of eight other elements.

[cookcounty]

Hey, about carbon offsets: Can I get Al Gore to buy the two trees I’m planning to plant next spring?

[exDemMom]

BTW, 50% CO2 would be highly toxic and cause a massive greenhouse effect. Even 1% might. But we're a LONG way from those concentrations.

I seriously doubt there'd be any living thing around to witness a 50% CO2 level. Any greenhouse effect would be irrelevant at that point.

[exDemMom]

However scientists cautioned that the ability of the oceans and rainforests to absorb carbon dioxide in the future may collapse, leading to a massive increase in temperatures.

I wonder at what point that would be. More CO2 means more plant mass; more plant mass means more food at the bottom of the food chain to support more higher level animals at the top. The limiting factors would be the availability of fresh water, and minerals the plants need for growth. Last time I looked outside, I saw minerals everywhere. The water is a little more complicated picture.

[Question Liberal Authority]

The limiting factors would be the availability of fresh water

It wouldn't need to be fresh water. The vast majority of life on Earth lives in the ocean. Also, over 90% of the biomass on the planet is microscopic.