New research: No rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide fraction in past 160yrs

science daily ^ | 12-31-2009 | science daily

[BROKKANIC]

Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

[BROKKANIC]

However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.

Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.

To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.....

[GeronL]

hahahahahahahaha

[icwhatudo]

Anyone know the bias of this magazine? Is it pro-globull warming? Anti-Globull warming?

From the linked articles it seems they play it straight.

[Snickering Hound]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbBhMnlXBTE

That can’t be true because Al Gore wrote a poem.

[steelie]

On first read it appears to publish all news stories no matter the source.

Without the data sets we don’t know what he is comparing.

On the face of it it shows other scientists have been lying!

To follow up google CO2/M&M’s for the theory that CO2 can only gather a limited band of solar radiation and had reached that capacity long ago.

The only theory now is that there is a “shoulder” effect if any more radiation can be absorbed.

Been reading up all I can in the last month

[okie01]

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

Even while we may have been pumping more carbon dioxide into the air, there is no reason for the airborne fraction to change -- if there is a consequent increase in users of carbon dioxide.

And the fact is, since 1968 -- when the U.S. launched the first Surveyor -- satellite measurements have shown a small, steady (but measurable) increase in the percentage of the earth that is tree-covered. Despite "the rape of the rain forest", "the attack on old-growth timber", and "thoughtless clearing of land to be covered with crops or concrete".

Somehow, you never hear this fact cited...even though it's generated by NASA.

[HiTech RedNeck]

If there is a factor that significantly affects the amount of sunlight getting to the earth’s surface, it might make a corresponding difference in the consumption of carbon dioxide by green plants. Other effects of purported global warming, like increased growable land area, would also encourage such consumption of carbon dioxide. I would not be surprised to see it be a wash.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[HiTech RedNeck]

It appears they mean the fraction of emitted carbon dioxide that stays as free gas in the atmosphere, not the fraction of the atmosphere comprised of carbon dioxide. The first could well remain constant as the second varies.

[HiTech RedNeck]

It appears they mean the fraction of emitted carbon dioxide that stays as free gas in the atmosphere, not the fraction of the atmosphere comprised of carbon dioxide. The first could well remain constant as the second varies.

[Sporaticus]

yeah that ‘article’ sounded way off base.
More or less too good to be true and heavily biased.
It would seem Science Daily is working hard at pulling the veil.

[Red Dog #1]

If you're interesting in reading up on the “nuts and bolts” of claimed AGW I highly recommend Heaven and Earth. Ian Pilmer, author, states the CO2 cycle is only 4 or 5 years.

[OldGuard1]

Reading the article, I have to agree with you. It sounds like they’re saying that the ratio of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to carbon dioxide dissolved in the water or taken up by plants hasn’t changed, not that the amount of carbon dioxide hasn’t changed. They’re saying that theories that predict that the percent that stays in the atmosphere versus being absorbed by other sources will rise haven’t held up.

I don’t think many would dispute the rise in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as that’s really easily measured. It’s the consequences that are up for debate.

[aruanan]

Ian Pilmer, author, states the CO2 cycle is only 4 or 5 years.

Look for more about this here at Correct Timing is Everything - Also for CO₂ in the Air.

[Red Dog #1]

Thanks for the link!

[Wuli]

Oh, gee, let me see:

Green plants love CO2.

Man makes a lot of CO2.

Green plants, in the oceans and on land say: “Thank You”

and absorb more of the CO2 man makes than they leave in the atmosphere.

Some call it science. Others call it common sense.

[aruanan]

Have you been reading through this? Climategate--analysis by John Costella, Ph.D.? I'm about 1/8 of the way through it and it's really good. It's amazing to see the depth of scientific depravity demonstrated by Mann and Jones. When you think of the, probably, billions of dollars of tax money spent on this non-existent problem already, what they did amounts to a fraud such as the world has never before seen--well, communism and socialism have been the biggest, most expensive, and deadliest frauds so far. But this was designed to deliver the entire world into the hands of such folks.

[gleeaikin]

One of the most worrysome things I have encountered is the risk the increasing CO2 absorption in the oceans will acidify the water, having profound effects on fish, coral, etc. Most likely not in a good way.

[Red Dog #1]

Interesting analysis and I very much like that it's readily hyperlinked to the source emails. But Costella should have picked a better site to post it on.

[Waco]

This CO2 scam is as foolish as freeze dried farts. All the other stupid schemes together, plus wars and pop. growth destroyed the earth 175 years ago, thought everyone knew that.