New research shows no increase in CO2 over last 150 yrs. Is anyone still buying all of the AGW nonsense?

There is a lot of evidence contrary to AGW but It's like the old saying "You can take the horse to the trough but you cant make it drink"or some people here cannot read simple English so I'll quote the end summary from the article

"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."

The article is clearly talking about the airborne fraction of the man-made CO2 has not been increassing which means that our CO2 emissions are not having a large effect on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Given that man only adds 5.53% of the CO2 per year and nature adds the other 94.47%, If you do n ot have the 40% of man-made CO2 in the atmosphere that you have been claiming, then you have no ability to attribute more than 5.53% of the change in temp to man-made CO2. That a serious problem for the AGW case.

Of course their entire case is crumbling as the temps are not rising as predicted. The models are broken, the temps are cold, the science is bad and even the beleivers (like Gwen) are becoming so desperate so as to pretend that they can't even read correctly.

Look if you have only 55% of the 5.53% of the CO2 that is put out by man a year, actually getting into the atmosphere, than the idea that we have caused 45% or 40% or whatever percent you all quote is untenable. Without the claim that man has placed a majority of the new CO2 in the air (or if the CO2 is increasing, mostly because of nature) than the whole argument for changing and immediately reducing our output goes out the window. The whole argument that man is causing the warming is reduced to man causing only a portion of the warming and that is only true if CO2 is the main driving force, which has also yet to be demonstrated. You AGWers are on such shakey scientific ground yet you pretend certainty and insult those who doubt. That's foolish and unscientific.

Seriously people, you really should read. As others of pointed out, the article is about the fraction of CO2 that remains airborn. It simply says that there is some debate about whether the oceans are yet saturated with CO2. Airborn CO2 is increasing, as is water-born CO2. This research found that they are increasing at the same rate, whereas other researchers have found that the oceans are becoming less able to absorb more.

Anybody who believes the article has enough credibility to cite it should look further at the researcher himself. You can find Wolfgang Knorr's page here.

http://www.gly.bris.ac.uk/people/xwk.html

Among his areas of interest is "engaging in measures to mitigate climate change". He is a leader at Quest,

http://quest.bris.ac.uk/

Quest's opening statement is

"Human activities are altering the atmosphere and oceans, transforming ecosystems, and changing the climate, over and above natural changes. Although people are global players in the Earth system, we don’t understand well enough how it works, why it changes, and how it will respond to our growing influence. Yet environmental changes are gathering speed, increasingly affecting ecosystems and human welfare"

If you believe that AGW is a hoax, then why do you cite such a leading researcher in the field who is adament that is it not a hoax? If you believe Knorr is an expert, the why do you not believe what he says?

a million.) confident, I agree that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have bigger with the aid of approximately one hundred PPM over the final one hundred fifty or so years. 2.) No i believe "the generally with the aid of burning fossil fuels" area is extra like an advert to make human beings prefer to go faraway from utilising fossil fuels. i believe it quite is extra a mix of quite some factors mutually with: scaling down forests with out changing them - it quite is now being addressed with sturdy forestry practices, yet we nevertheless have a situation with scaling down the rain wooded area to plant bio-gasoline vegetation. while the sea warmth up they provide off extra CO2 then they take up and that i additionally examine that cakes try this too. there is even a threat that volcanoes are extra energetic these days than they have been in the previous, yet that ones extra sturdy to be attentive to for specific, because of the fact it took human beings an prolonged time to verify how many Volcanoes have been even on are stunning little planet. So no not merely burning of fossil fuels. 3.) No, considering the fact that we weren't around back then, to degree it, to be attentive to that previous a shadow of a doubt.

It's not the TOTAL amount of CO2 in the air that isn't changing.

It's the FRACTION of CO2 emitted that isn't removed by nature.

That fraction has long been known to be about 45% of the total emitted. Some scientsts had speculated that, as TOTAL CO2 levels increased the FRACTION that is absorbed by nature would decrease slightly, maybe to 40%. Others that it would increase slightly, to maybe 50%.

This study says the FRACTION absorbed by nature is remaining constant at about 45%. It would make no great difference to global warming if it increased or decreased slightly, anyway. This is a minor detail. There's a reason it's not front page news, and it's not the "liberal media conspiracy."

EDIT - From Eric, below:

"What this study is saying that the climate models are over predicting the amount of co2 from humans that will stay in the atmosphere."

Not true, most present climate models use the 45% number, changing it is just speculation from some scientists. And changing it by the amounts that have been suggested would not have a large impact, anyway.

Why on Earth can't deniers READ simple English? Don't you realize that the article you cite directly contradicts the premise of your question? When it says, "45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere," does that ring a dim bell in your head?

The point of the article is that 45% of the CO2 emitted in 1900 stays in the air, and 45% of the CO2 emitted in 1950 stays in the air, and 45% of the CO2 emitted in 2000 stays in the air. That doesn't mean there's the same amount of CO2 in the air. That means the same fraction of the stuff we emit is absorbed by natural sinks.

While it is true that you misunderstood the study, to play down its significance is dishonest. What this study is saying that the climate models are over predicting the amount of co2 from humans that will stay in the atmosphere. Less co2, less warming. From the press release:

New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.

This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.

The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.

http://bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html

According to Pat Michaels at World Climate Report:

Quote:

Dr. Knorr carefully analyzed the record of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and anthropogenic land-use changes for the past 150 years. Keeping in mind the various sources of potential errors inherent in these data, he developed several different possible solutions to fitting a trend to the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. In all cases, he found no significant trend (at the 95% significance level) in airborne fraction since 1850.

(Note: It is not that the total atmospheric burden of CO2 has not been increasing over time, but that of the total CO2 released into the atmosphere each year by human activities, about 45% remains in the atmosphere while the other 55% is taken up by various natural processes—and these percentages have not changed during the past 150 years)

like we have repeated over and over, if the models can’t replicate the past (for the right reasons), they can’t be relied on for producing accurate future projections. And as things now stand, the earth is responding to anthropogenic CO2 emissions in a different (and perhaps better) manner than we thought that it would.

Endquote

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/1...

Bob: Read the press release "The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket."

“there has been no significant increase in atmospheric CO2 levels for at least the last 150 years”

That's not what it says. Read it again and this time concentrate. If you don't understand the words we will be right here to help you.

Edit as requested by Starbuck

Starbuck, Pegminer summed up the problem that the asker has with his comprehension.

As far a summation of the article, it can be found in two lines within the conclusion-

“A further analysis of the likely contributing processes is necessary in order to establish the reasons for a near-constant AF since the start of industrialization.” And

“Given the importance of the AF for the degree of future climate change, the question is how to best predict its future course”

Failing to understand why a constant 40% of anthropogenic emissions remain in the atmosphere means we are less able to predict future CO2 concentrations when mechanisms of sequestration begin to fail. Without understanding this we could easily find ourselves up the creek sooner than we expect.

Edit for Lee J

Read all of the words. Better yet read the sentence of the introduction to the source document linked below. You seem to have trouble understanding what "airborne fraction" means

Gwen why don't you tell everyone what your take is on this article then. To most it means they don't know what the **** is going on.

I never did, just like I didn't believe the nutcase paul erlich about the population disaster,or the nutcases in the 70's about the coming iceage,nor merly streeps alar scare,nor the ddt scare which has killed millions since its ban,nor the ozone scare nor any of the rest of the doom and gloom put out by these people