Skip to main content

30 replies

No Change In CO2 in 160 Years

I interventor12Hall of Famer
The entire man made global warming scheme is based on the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere due to human activity. All the models depend upon the increase of CO2. However, the actual data shows not only isn't it happening, but it hasn't happened in the last 150 years -- 150 YEARS!

The premise pushed by the warmists depend upon something that isn't happening. Time to stop the carbon trading, end tax exemptions for carbon trades and investigate the entire mess.

Madoff, "meet your new cellmate, Gore!"

"No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds
ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — 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.

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.

The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.../12/091230184221.htm
Last edited {1}
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

F FreidaHall of Famer
Interesting. Maybe someone can get the whole article.

Abstract

Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
Wolfgang Knorr

Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.

Received 18 August 2009; accepted 23 September 2009; published 7 November 2009.

Knorr, W. Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? Geophysical Research Letters, 2009; 36 (21): L21710 DOI: 10.1029/2009GL040613
K kperk014Post Master
If you watch the movie "The Global Warming Swindle," the scientists display the data that shows the rise and fall of global temperatures have absolutely NO correlation with CO2 levels. However, the temperature changes fit like a hand in glove with solar storms and sun spot activity. The movie is extremely informative but since it goes against the temple of the global warming scam, very few people have seen it.
unclegusunclegusOld Faithful
160 years is not really a long time when you are speaking the history of the earth. I am sure at that time there was a lot more coal being burned with no regulations at all.
Please be advised that I don't put a lot of belief in the global warming fear either. Raising the CO2 levels is not the only worries we have when it comes to clean air.
K kperk014Post Master
I don't believe anyone will say there hasn't been global warming from time to time just as there has been occasional cooling. Because it has gone on throughout time, fanatics shouldn't be brazen enough to blame it on man. You know what's going to happen if we COULD make drastic cuts without destroying our economy? Well all the trees and plants will begin to die because CO2 is what they depend on for life. Of course trees also release CO2 back into the air when plant matter breaks down the sugars they make during photosynthesis. They are as guilty as we are which means they aren't.

Instead of admitting they were wrong, the fanatics will begin to blame something else they want shutdown. It will be a never-ending attempt to destroy what made our country the greatest on Earth.
F FreidaHall of Famer
Would really appreciate your reference on the CO2 production by wetlands. Please.

The wetlands sequester carbon. There is also the CO2 cycle - make it then use it to produce bio mass: around and around.

By draining the wetlands we have already released what are referred to as carbon bombs - turning loose that which has been stored up for years.

Not a very good idea.
Last edited by Freida
I interventor12Hall of Famer
A couple of references below. I was referring to, in part methane, which is not only considered a greenhouse gas, but breaks down into CO2 in the atmosphere.

“The concern is that those darn wetlands release methane which is another greenhouse gas. Methane has about 10 times the warming effect of CO2. So as the earth warms, we get more wetlands. Those wetlands produce more methane and the earth warms even more.
The only conclusion I can reach is that we need to get rid of the wetlands. Fill in the wetlands and the earth will cool. Pave them over and our problems are solved.”
http://swampschool.org/those-darn-wetlands/

Methane Emission from Rice Fields
Wetland rice fields may make a major contribution to global warming
http://www.ciesin.columbia.edu...004-032/004-032.html
8I8IHall of Famer
Climate change has been going on for billions of years. It will continue long after mankind is gone. The planet is fine, it'll shake us off and keep turning.

It's people that are the problem.

Copenhagen, Gore and the like are nothing more than political charlatans looking to cash in.

Carbon Credit Derivatives and taxes?

A complete and total scam.

It's all about the Benjamins.
B beternUOld Faithful
Other , concurrent studies from the same research institution reach different conclusions.

"According to research published this week in Nature Geoscience, emissions of carbon dioxide continue to outstrip the ability of the world’s natural ‘sinks’ to absorb carbon.
The new report follows another study published only ten days earlier by Dr Wolfgang Knorr in Geophysical Research Letters, which concludes that a decline in the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 cannot be detected within the available data.

Both studies involved researchers from the University of Bristol’s QUEST programme on climate change and earth system modelling."

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6678.html

The article includes the observation that:

"Despite the knowledge gaps, all authors are in agreement that the only way to control climate change is through a drastic reduction in global CO2 emissions."

The "all authors" reference includes Dr. Knorr. So the person you have cited, notwithstanding his technical and esoteric conclusions, nevertheless argues that we need to do something to reduce CO2.

Next time, you should tell "the rest of the story."
NashBamaNashBamaOld Faithful
The world's natural "sink" to absorb CO2 is plant life. The more CO2 there is, the more they absorb. The more they absorb, the more plants such as crops flourish and produce oxygen.

The majority of the planet's oxygen comes from the oceans. 2/3 of the Earth is covered by oceans that are filled with algae. The algae absorbs huge amounts of CO2 and produces equally huge amounts of oxygen.

Also, keep in mind that late last year many e-mails were released showing that climate scientists that don't get the results they want will fudge or hide the data.

It's all political, scientists get funding from politicians. In return, they give politicians data that fits their agenda. More and more people are starting to see the reality that global warming is a hoax.
ferrelljferrelljOld Faithful
quote:
"Despite the knowledge gaps, all authors are in agreement that the only way to control climate change is through a drastic reduction in global CO2 emissions."

The "all authors" reference includes Dr. Knorr. So the person you have cited, notwithstanding his technical and esoteric conclusions, nevertheless argues that we need to do something to reduce CO2.


Translated this means even though there is no scientific proof, we need to sign treaties and pass laws to redistribute the wealth.
I interventor12Hall of Famer
quote:
Originally posted by beternU:
Other , concurrent studies from the same research institution reach different conclusions.

"According to research published this week in Nature Geoscience, emissions of carbon dioxide continue to outstrip the ability of the world’s natural ‘sinks’ to absorb carbon.
The new report follows another study published only ten days earlier by Dr Wolfgang Knorr in Geophysical Research Letters, which concludes that a decline in the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 cannot be detected within the available data.

Both studies involved researchers from the University of Bristol’s QUEST programme on climate change and earth system modelling."

http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6678.html

The article includes the observation that:

"Despite the knowledge gaps, all authors are in agreement that the only way to control climate change is through a drastic reduction in global CO2 emissions."

The "all authors" reference includes Dr. Knorr. So the person you have cited, notwithstanding his technical and esoteric conclusions, nevertheless argues that we need to do something to reduce CO2.

Next time, you should tell "the rest of the story."


"Despite the knowledge gaps, all authors are in agreement that the only way to control climate change is through a drastic reduction in global CO2 emissions."

A statement of opinion, not based on either study. Similar to the statment of opinion from the learned men of the day that indeed the earth did not revolve around the sun, observations to the contrary.
B beternUOld Faithful
quote:
Originally posted by ferrellj:
Then how can a group come to a definate conclusion if there are "knowledge gaps"? Exactly what is the definition of a "knowledge gap"?


There are always "knowledge gaps," since our knowledge is not perfect and complete as regards any natural phenomenon. But that does not mean that we have insufficient knowledge upon which to to base reasonable conclusions. Insist upon complete and perfect knowledge, e.g. wait until all gaps are closed, before taking action and nothing will get done!

Add Reply

Post
affilated websites:
Times Daily | Decatur Daily | Courier Journal | The Hartselle Enquirer | Moulton Advertiser | The Redstone Rocket | The Madison Record | The Franklin County Times | Reach256 | TNValleyStuff.com TNValleyHomefinder.com | TNValleyWheels.com

Terms of Service | Private Policy | California Privacy Policy/Private Policy

Untitled Document

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×