No Rise of Atmospheric CO2 Fraction in Past 160 Years

[Bill]

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.

[Dmitri]

Wait a minute, how come it's not in the news? If it were true, I bet we'd hear about it on CNN and Fox and MSNBC. What TV channel is this "Geophysical Research Letters" stuff anyway?

[Steve James]

Well, Science Daily is available over the internet. I get it. You can, too; either as a rss feed, email or go to the site.
But, why are we trusting scientists again??

[GrahamB]

Sadly we are hardwired to believe this crap

http://www.badscience.net/2009/12/copen ... blah-blah/

[Doc Stier]

Your eyes are feeling heavier and heavier, and...

[Bill]

Snowstorm squelches climate change protest
By Judy Fahys

The Salt Lake Tribune

Updated: 12/30/2009 06:36:58 PM MST


A downtown protest of the climate change talks in Copenhagen became a victim of Wednesday's snowstorm.

"Not many people showed up because of the blizzard conditions," said organizer Clea Major, an international studies student at the University of Utah.

It didn't take long for the six friends to pack up a bullhorn and posters they'd planned to use for their "scream-in," an outlet for their frustration about the failure of the Copenhagen climate talks earlier this month to curb the pollution blamed for climate change.

Still, they chatted with a few passers-by during the commuter-hour protest near the Gateway, and explained that, blizzard aside, climate change is expected to bring chaos to the global climate, said Major.

She called Wednesday evening's effort a success and possibly the first in a series. As for the snow, it's not entirely new; a protest she attended last year in Washington, D.C., suffered a similar fate.

"There is always the irony element," Major said.

[Chris Fleming]

Read something the other day about how just 16 of those large cargo ships (you know, the ones that transport cheap Chinese goods across the ocean) cause more emissions than every car on the planet. And I bet there are lots more than just 16 ships. Don't know for sure what it is like to run one of those ships but you've got to be thinking that something like this is at least somewhat accurate. Those are much bigger than a car and run on basically the same idea in terms of the internal combustion engine.

Funny how nothing is ever said about that. It's always about how the people have to be taxed for their car, house, land, children, etc. Meanwhile, those fake liberals who call for such things are the owners of oil companies (like Al Gore), have tens of thousands of dollars in utility bills per month, have dozens of homes and vehicles, have large families, etc.

[Doc Stier]

Yeah, so?

LOL

[klonk]

500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

[Chanchu]

I told you its bull shit....

[yusuf]

oh for fucks sake.. forget what everyone says.. spend half an hour reading about cybernetics and systems theory..

Darwin emphasized competition between individuals of the same species to survive and reproduce, whereas Wallace emphasized environmental pressures on varieties and species forcing them to become adapted to their local environment.

...Wallace appeared to have envisioned natural selection as a kind of feedback mechanism keeping species and varieties adapted to their environment.[76] They point to a largely overlooked passage of Wallace's famous 1858 paper:

The action of this principle is exactly like that of the centrifugal governor of the steam engine, which checks and corrects any irregularities almost before they become evident; and in like manner no unbalanced deficiency in the animal kingdom can ever reach any conspicuous magnitude, because it would make itself felt at the very first step, by rendering existence difficult and extinction almost sure soon to follow.[62]

I've paraphrased and quoted Evolution as described by Wallace (before Darwin cam up with his theory on natural selection) from Wikipedia. The central point is the idea of a system in some sort of balance. If something changes then something else must change as well. It's that simple. Now the fact that we have been outputting greenhouse gases, all sorts of pollutants into the waters etc etc means one thing for certain, the system (i.e. Earth) will adapt and change in response to that. Forget calling it global warming or any such bullshit. Just look at what changes are affected by our change, and then map that onto a background of what changes are happening in geological time during this phase of the earths development.

If you look at it this way the nonsense of climate change pseudo science on both sides of the argument get wiped away pretty quickly.

[AllanF]

Sitting here in Shenyang where we are having the coldest winter for about 10 years. I have to say i a leaning towards the skeptical side of global warming! Also Scotland and the rest of the UK is having it's heaviest snow and coldest winter for 30 years!

Personally i think the climate goes in cycles, very 30 years or so we have a record winter and then a record summer it will be the same now and in the future.
Does that mean that we should stop caring about the environment, hell no!

[bailewen]

Thank you for yet another article supporting the scientific consensus on climate change.

As is usually the case with climate change deniers, this argument relies on the innumeracy of the audience and confusing title of the article. The key word here is fraction. What the study showed is NOT that atmospheric CO2 is not rising. What it showed was that the percentage of CO2 in the environment that is in the atmosphere is not rising. Atmoshpheric CO2 continues to rise, even according to this very study. The surprise was that the ratio of atmospheric C02 to C02 contained in our oceans has not changed.

Furthermore, the fact that so much excess C02 is being absorbed by our oceans is no cause for calm. The environmental repercussions of increased oceanic C02 are just as severe as for atmospheric.

Once again, EPIC FAIL for the anti-intellectual, anti-science, climate change deniers.

As usual.

[Chris Fleming]

Omar, faggy internet speak like "epic fail" is so 2009.

[bailewen]

lol.

Kids today.