STUDY: Atmospheric CO2 HAS NOT Risen in 160 Years

New Studies Find Atmospheric CO2 Has NOT Risen in 160 Years

Atmospheric CO2 Has Not Risen in 160 Years

ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — 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.

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.

Another nail in the coffin of the manmade global warming hoax.

— Doc Velocity

[edit on 12/31/2009 by Doc Velocity]

The actual title might have helped your misinterpretation of the study.

No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds

Maybe have a few ales, relax, enjoy the night, then have a little think about what the study really means tomorrow.

If I had a dollar for every 'nail int' coffin' of this well-established area of climate science, I'd be a zillionaire. Almost an every day occurance on here. Must be disheartening for y'all.

[edit on 31-12-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


AGW is quite big, ergo it needs many nails.

reply to post by melatonin


Dude - you know what a lack of increase in the fraction means????

It means that despite unailing emissions of "man-made CO2" (I didn't realize we were producing CO2 to release into the atmosphere, but anyway...) our bit of the pie hasn't increased, *EVEN THOUGH IT SHOULD HAVE*.

What is your analysis of its meaning?

It tells me that either our extra bit is being absorbed, or, the natural component of CO2 output is *also* increasing, keeping our part relatively the same.

If the former, it means our emissions of CO2 can not possibly have any effect on climate as it is not in the atmosphere to cause any warming.

If the latter, please explain the natural sources of CO2 that are rising in line with "man-made" sources thus keeping our part the same relative size, and why they are increasing at a relatively equal rate???

You can't have your cake and eat it.

Either way, it absolutely screws any argument that we are having an impact on the climate through CO2 emissions.

Great find!!! S+F!

[edit on 31-12-2009 by mirageofdeceit]

Originally posted by melatonin
Maybe have a few ales, relax, enjoy the night, then have a little think about what the study really means tomorrow.

The brief article says exactly what it means — that MMGW fanatics are making claims about CO2 in the atmosphere that can be disproven scientifically... Which is what we knew, anyway.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit
reply to post by melatonin

 

Dude - you know what a lack of increase in the fraction means????

Yeah, very much so.

It means that despite unailing emissions of "man-made CO2" (I didn't realize we were producing CO2 to release into the atmosphere, but anyway...) our bit of the pie hasn't increased, *EVEN THOUGH IT SHOULD HAVE*.

What is your analysis of its meaning?

Looks like you're not far wrong here in the general interpretation, but lets see...

What it means is that the sinks are removing a similar chunk (fraction) as they have been in the past. The AF is the percentage/fraction/proportion of emissions that remain airborne.

So, assuming AF of .5/50%, if we emit 28 billion tonnes per year, 14 billion tonnes remains. If we emit 30 billion, 15 remains. And, of course, if we emit 60 billion, then 30 remains.

It says nothing about atmospheric CO2 not increasing. Indeed, it has been increasing and accelerating. The AF will affect the rate at which CO2 accumulates, and so will the rate at which we emit.

It tells me that either our extra bit is being absorbed, or, the natural component of CO2 output is *also* increasing, keeping our part relatively the same.

No, that can't be assumed. If the biosphere is removing, say 50% of, our emissions then they are net sinks.

They absorb more than they emit.

If the former, it means our emissions of CO2 can not possibly have any effect on climate as it is not in the atmosphere to cause any warming.

That's a non-sequitor.

If the latter, please explain the natural sources of CO2 that are rising in line with "man-made" sources thus keeping our part the same relative size, and why they are increasing at a relatively equal rate???

Now you're showing that you don't really understand. The study suggests that the biosphere is removing a consistent proportion. Other studies suggest otherwise.

Either way, it absolutely screws any argument that we are having an impact on the climate through CO2 emissions.

Again, a non-sequitor.

All the study examines is the proportion of human-sourced CO2 absorbed by natural sinks, nothing to to do with the effects of CO2 on climate. Given, if sinks removed 100% of our emissions that would be something for you to cream over. But they don't.

This study has already been misinterpreted once in ATS news. Yet another vacuous zombie issue.

[edit on 31-12-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
The brief article says exactly what it means — that MMGW fanatics are making claims about CO2 in the atmosphere that can be disproven scientifically... Which is what we knew, anyway.

— Doc Velocity

Yeah, double down on the BS, why not...

Very simple. You post thread with title 'Atmospheric CO2 has not risen in 160 years', which is a pure misinterpretation of the study. It says nothing of the sort.

The actual study shows otherwise (check figure on page 2):

Knorr (2009)

Originally posted by melatonin
All the study examines is the proportion of human-sourced CO2 absorbed by natural sinks, nothing to to do with the effects of CO2 on climate.

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. But there is no correlation with a demonstrable precedent.

The planet Mars presently has a 95% CO2 atmosphere, yet there is no apparent effect on its ambient temperature, which hovers around ±0°F on average, even though we know Mars supported a much warmer climate in the distant past.

Your answer will be Mars is farther away from the Sun... Which means you acknowledge that proximity to the Sun is a far more significant factor than atmospheric CO2 content in regard to climate change.

The Earth aint broke and does not need "fixing" — what we do know is that Mankind has never "fixed" anything about the Terran environment. To presume we can fix something that we cannot even properly analyze scientifically is almost as preposterous as presuming we have analyzed it properly.

Which we haven't.

That's the import of this little article — that there is MORE science that needs consideration before we leap to "fixing" a climate that isn't broken.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by melatonin
You post thread with title 'Atmospheric CO2 has not risen in 160 years', which is a pure misinterpretation of the study. It says nothing of the sort.

And that's what you'll go to sleep telling yourself, just as all MMGW fanatics lurch through this existence, blissfully ignoring the obvious.

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.

— Doc Velocity

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]

Originally posted by melatonin
Nothing new, the physics was in place over 100 years ago.

Ah! Now you've stepped on the cat's tail!

The point is, Mankind's 100-year-old "understanding" of Nature is not a sufficient database for rendering a diagnosis on 4-billion-year-old natural processes on Earth.

We simply don't know how Earth climate works nor how we can fix it. Which makes our dire predictions of MMGW little more than half-baked guessing.

THAT is the truth of the matter.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
The point is, Mankind's 100-year-old "understanding" of Nature is not a sufficient database for rendering a diagnosis on 4-billion-year-old natural processes on Earth.

We simply don't know how Earth climate works nor how we can fix it. Which makes our dire predictions of MMGW little more than half-baked guessing.

THAT is the truth of the matter.

Oh, OK, why didn't you just say that! I thought you actually thought this climate science article you posted meant something knowledge-wise when, in contrast, you'd rather just foster mystery, doubt and ignorance.

My mistake.

[edit on 31-12-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by Doc Velocity


It seems to me good sir that the gentleman has you in check mate and you have decided to try and play another game instead of admitting defeat with the first game.

Rather then change the topic, you should try and counter his points he made above. It's only fair since he did so to you.

This line seems fitting here.

You have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting

reply to post by Doc Velocity

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

Atmospheric carbon dioxide record from Mauna Loa, (2009)
Atmospheric CO2 records from 11 sites in the SIO air sampling network (2009)
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Mixing Ratios from the NOAA CMDL Carbon Cycle Cooperative Global Air Sampling Network (2009) NDP-005 - Abstract
Atmospheric carbon dioxide records from sites in the NOAA/CMDL continuous monitoring network, (2009)
Atmospheric CO2 record from continuous measurements at Jubany Station, Antarctica, (2009)
Atmospheric carbon dioxide record from flask measurements at Lampedusa Island, (2001)
Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations--Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii, 1958-2003 (revised 2004), NDP-001 - Abstract
Monthly atmospheric CO2 mixing ratios from the NOAA/CMDL network
CSIRO GASLAB Network: Individual Flask Measurements of Atmospheric Trace Gases (2003)
Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations from the CSIRO GASLAB Flask Sampling Network
Atmospheric CO2 from flask air samples at 10 sites in the SIO air sampling network (2004), NDP-001A PDF
Historical atmospheric CO2 record from the extended Vostok ice core, (2003)
Historical CO2 record from the Siple Station ice core, (1997)
Historical atmospheric CO2 records from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores, (1998)
The Increasing Concentration of Atmospheric CO2 : How Much, When, and Why? (2001)
(Presented at Erice International Seminars on Planetary Emergencies, 26th Session, Erice, Sicily, Italy, 19-24 August 2001.)
AmeriFlux - Carbon Dioxide, Water Vapor, and Energy Balance Measurements
Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations from in situ Measurements at Amsterdam Island, 1980-1995, (1997)
Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations--The Canadian Background Air Pollution Monitoring Network (1993), NDP-034 | Abstract
Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations Derived from Flask Samples Collected at U.S.S.R.-Operated Sampling Sites (1991), NDP-033 | Abstract | PDF
Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations--The CSIRO (Australia) Monitoring Program from Aircraft for 1972-1981 (1984), NDP-007 | Abstract | PDF
Carbon Dioxide Concentrations in Surface Water and the Atmosphere During 1986-1989 NOAA/PMEL Cruises in the Pacific and Indian Oceans (1995), NDP-047 | PDF
Surface Water and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Nitrous Oxide Observations by Shipboard Automated Gas Chromatography: Results from Expeditions Between 1977 and 1990 (1992), NDP-044 | Abstract | PDF
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Working Group 1, 1994: Modelling Results Relating Future Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations to Industrial Emissions (1995), DB1009 | Abstract

cdiac.ornl.gov...

They didn't start testng fo atmosphereic carbon dioxide until 1958 in Hawaii and 1972 in Australia. So how do they come up with 1850?

Originally posted by JBA2848
They didn't start testng fo atmosphereic carbon dioxide until 1958 in Hawaii and 1972 in Australia. So how do they come up with 1850?

Ice cores (e.g., Siple and Law dome).

Cheers. And happy new year to all. Night.

Dude what the heck are you talking about. This article doesn't disprove man-made global warming one bit.

What it does say is we don't have an "absolute" understanding of how nature work.

So pretty much with the increase in CO2 and decline in the worlds forests, there should have been a shift in the ratio of CO2 in the air and CO2 sequestered by trees and the ocean. However the ratio has stayed the same despite deforestation, a 45:55 ratio.

What this article may tell us is there are probably other terrestrial factors or mechanisms at play to cause this consistent ratio.

However it doesn't mean CO2 hasn't increased in the last 160 years, so please putting stuff out of context guys.

Here's a good analogy from a user from digg.com

by sousademiamisousademiami:


For those who didn't read the article, the title is misleading, and the submitter leaving out part of it is even more misleading...
Actual Title: "No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds"

Keyword: Fraction

The fraction of CO2 that is airborne is still as it was 150 years ago. However the total amount has still increased.

Compare it to a Pizza....If I offer you half of an 8" pizza or half of a 20" pizza, which way do you get more pizza?

There IS more Atmospheric CO2, but there is also more CO2 in other places...

EDIT: I'd just like to mention despite a consistent ratio, increase in CO2 it does no good for any terrestrial or aquatic organism, especially the aquatic animals who are very sensitive to environmental changes. This could kill off entire species, causing an chain reaction that could disrupt or destroy the food chain, starving people dependent on that food sources.

[edit on 31-12-2009 by skyblueff0]

Originally posted by whoshotJR
It seems to me good sir that the gentleman has you in check mate and you have decided to try and play another game instead of admitting defeat with the first game.

From the article itself:

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.

Now, how does Melatonin have me "in checkmate"? My point is, as stated in the OP, that this study is a contradiction of "science" that maintains the airborne fraction of CO2 should be or has increased.

This study finds to the contrary, that the airborne fraction of CO2 has not increased.

No checkmate; rather, the dogmatic believers out there would rather disregard the import of the new study.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by melatonin
All the study examines is the proportion of human-sourced CO2 absorbed by natural sinks, nothing to to do with the effects of CO2 on climate.

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. But there is no correlation with a demonstrable precedent.

The planet Mars presently has a 95% CO2 atmosphere, yet there is no apparent effect on its ambient temperature, which hovers around ±0°F on average, even though we know Mars supported a much warmer climate in the distant past.

Your answer will be Mars is farther away from the Sun... Which means you acknowledge that proximity to the Sun is a far more significant factor than atmospheric CO2 content in regard to climate change.

The Earth aint broke and does not need "fixing" — what we do know is that Mankind has never "fixed" anything about the Terran environment. To presume we can fix something that we cannot even properly analyze scientifically is almost as preposterous as presuming we have analyzed it properly.

Which we haven't.

That's the import of this little article — that there is MORE science that needs consideration before we leap to "fixing" a climate that isn't broken.

— Doc Velocity

Whatever - venus has one of the densest carbon atmospheres - this in turn causes massive global warming on the planet through increased trapped heat from the sun and pushes it to around 460 degrees - which is hotter than mercury at 420 degrees - wow - how about that - it is actually cooler CLOSER to the sun - why - green house effect - don't believe me - look it up - case closed.

We are unable to put any nails in the coffin of debunker's as all the space is taken up - and there are boxes and boxes of nails lying around in case we need spares - debunkers are on the same level as creationists - the stupidity is just hilarious.

You clearly haven't worked out the intertubes -
hypertextbook.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by Doc Velocity

Originally posted by whoshotJR
It seems to me good sir that the gentleman has you in check mate and you have decided to try and play another game instead of admitting defeat with the first game.

From the article itself:

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.

Now, how does Melatonin have me "in checkmate"? My point is, as stated in the OP, that this study is a contradiction of "science" that maintains the airborne fraction of CO2 should be or has increased.

This study finds to the contrary, that the airborne fraction of CO2 has not increased.

No checkmate; rather, the dogmatic believers out there would rather disregard the import of the new study.

— Doc Velocity

Wow - you really are stupid aren't you. I have never ever seen anyone quoting something which quite clearly proves them wrong with such gusto.

The assumption is that the capacity for oceans to absorb carbon dioxide will decrease as it becomes saturated. The carbon absorption is causing what is known as acidification of the ocean. One of the negative feeds backs associated with this is the limitation of plankton to produce their lime casings (shells) which require a more alkaline environment - these lime casings are one the major stores of Co2 - and the basis of the entire oceanic food chain.

So as the ocean becomes saturated with Co2 its ability to absorb carbon decreases which in turn increases the fractional amount that the atmosphere is absorbing relatively. Hence a reduction in the oceanic absorption rate will translate to an increase in the atmospheric rate.

This has not occurred yet - and this makes sense as it would not be a gradual process - rather a sudden shut down - which is very worrying as it makes the process that much more dramatic.

So overall you have deliberately misquoted the title of the article in your header - this is in violation of ATS rules and you should receive warnings for this - reaches for alert button - however it is commendable that you have further highlighted the incredible stupidity of debunker's by providing concrete evidence not JUST of AGW but how moronic debunker's are - concrete resolute proof of total fecklessness - brilliant.

reply to post by Doc Velocity

ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009)
Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase.

Well, considering this study contradicts an important element of computer models that predict global warming, then anything these models predict will be flawed.