Thread: "No Rise in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide in Past 160 Years."

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 61
  1. #1 "No Rise in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide in Past 160 Years." 
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds

    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.

    snip

    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.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1230184221.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,172
    Another brick falls out of the AGW wall.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    35,194
    HOLY CRAP !

    Can anyone say smoking gun ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    eeeevil Sith Admin SarasotaRepub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Sarasota,FL
    Posts
    41,911
    Wolfgang Knorr!!!!

    He is obviously a Nazi and member of the BFEE and also in
    league with Big Oil!! :eek: How could you all be so blind????:D
    May the FORCE be with you!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    41,097
    Quote Originally Posted by SarasotaRepub View Post
    Wolfgang Knorr!!!!

    He is obviously a Nazi and member of the BFEE and also in
    league with Big Oil!! :eek: How could you all be so blind????:D
    Deniers! They are all deniers, the science is settled. Keep your hate facts!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Waiting for Wilbur to come and refute our blasphemy . . . .
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    Waiting for Wilbur to come and refute our blasphemy . . . .
    No, but I will come to hopefully show, that this article doesn't actually say what some seem to think it does, and that cheers of 'smoking gun' are simply the result of approaching things with extreme naivete and little to no attempt at understanding.

    Note that the title says: "No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction In Past....". Pay special attention to the word fraction. I suspect most of you read this and took it to mean that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has not increased since 1850 (leading to the happy dances we see from the usual suspects). However, that would be both false, and absurd.

    What the study actually investigates is the percentage of airborne CO2 that gets taken out of the air by carbon sinks, like the ocean, and how (or if) this percentage has changed over time. The article on sciencedaily cites the percent to be 45%. In other words, 45% of carbon emissions are removed from the atmosphere, by natural mechanisms.

    Scientists have theorized that as these carbon sinks reach their absorption capacity, that %45 percent absorption rate will start to drop, and more carbon emissions will remain in the atmosphere. There has been some data that suggests that the percent has changed somewhat. The study cited set out to see if the percentage has changed over time (as more carbon emissions have increased). From what I gather, it hasnt changed in any statistically significant way during the time period studied (though there is much variation). Interesting, but it certainly doesn't have the profound implications that some here seem to think.

    I don't know to what extent climate models rely on this percent, or estimates of projected drops in the airborn fraction - though I would be very surprised to see if none have taken into account a relatively static value.

    What this doesn't do, is refute the fact that the actual amount of carbon in the atmosphere has increased dramatically (and continues to increase dramatically), due to human activity.
    Last edited by wilbur; 01-01-2010 at 01:11 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,172
    What it seems to be saying is the amount of CO2 that is emitted by man and remaining in the atmosphere is being vastly over imagined in many climate models. Based on that, all future predictions using the anticipate levels of CO2 are untrustworthy.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
    Nothing like predictability.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    What it seems to be saying is the amount of CO2 that is emitted by man and remaining in the atmosphere is being vastly over imagined in many climate models. Based on that, all future predictions using the anticipate levels of CO2 are untrustworthy.
    BLASPHEMER! /wilbur mode
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •