Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Pardon, but what are the effects of CO2 on the climate? MMGW fanatics have tried to draw a correlation between atmospheric CO2 content and the
ambient temperature of the Earth.
Nothing new, the physics was in place over 100 years ago. CO2 is a GHG, it readily alters radiative balance.
As for Mars, it has a very thin atmosphere. But it still has warming from GHGs (several degrees).
Originally posted by Doc Velocity
And that's what you'll go to sleep telling yourself, just as all MMGW fanatics lurch through this existence, blissfully ignoring the
obvious.
yadda, yadda. And it was me who posted an article without really understanding it...
This article and this study contradict accepted MMGW science. That's what it says in the article itself.
So... You'll make of it whatever you want, in apparent defiance of the obvious.
It raises some important questions, but it's not the only study of it's kind. Others show AF is changing. Indeed, the focus is on AF over the last
few decades and near future rather than the trend over the last 150ish years. Easy to lose small changing trends in such an analysis.
For example, the study the author is actually criticising is Canadell et al (2007). In their paper they show an increase in Airborne Fraction (AF) of
.25% per year (+/- 0.21%) at only a probability of .89 (11% of false positive). Using the error range for confidence intervals, the actual figure very
likely lies between +0.4 to +4.6% per decade increases in AF.
In Knorr's paper he finds 0.7% (+/- 1.4%) per decade, Again, using error bars the confidence interval would be -0.7% to 2.1%. Due to the high error
range, this data says probably no difference as it covers 0.
But the two datasets overlap considerably. When Knorr also accounts for ENSO (cf. Canadell et al., 2007), he also found an increase in AF of 1.2%
(+/-.9%). Moroever, a second similar recent study (La Quere et al., 2009) shows an increase of 3% (+/-2) over the last 50 years.
Canadell's article is freely available on the PNAS website, worth a read. As it clearly points out that most models that even include variations in
sink activity involve a negative trend in AF during the 20th century, and only turn
positive during the 21st century.
And we don't really know for certain that will not be the case. The Knorr article doesn't even go there, being solely based on the carbon cycle in
the past. Moreover, his data covers the potential for a large positive trend, and even has a mean which is positive (increasing AF).
[edit on 31-12-2009 by melatonin]