No rise in atmospheric carbon fraction over the last 150 years: University of Bristol

posted at 8:48 am on January 4, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Science Daily reported on a new study from the University of Bristol released over the holidays that deserves to get wider attention.  In contrast to claims from anthropogenic global-warming activists, this new analysis refutes one of the key principles of carbon-driven warming:

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. …

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 thumbnail argument for AGW is this: the CO2 emitted by industrialization over the last 150 years has accumulated in the atmosphere, along with other gases such as methane, warming the globe more rapidly than otherwise would have happened.  The continuing emissions of CO2 from industrialized and developing nations will result in an exponential explosion of warming the longer it continues as the CO2 accumulates at faster and faster rates in the atmosphere, both because the previous emissions have not been absorbed and more people are emitting than ever.  Therefore, we have to control emissions just to contain the damage, and it might already be too late!

Of course, that’s why everyone flew private jets to Copenhagen last month — in order to warn about carbon emissions.

If this University of Bristol analysis is correct, CO2 hasn’t been accumulating in the atmosphere at all.  That means whatever warming we have experienced (and we have experienced warming) did not come from increased CO2 in the atmosphere.  That would explain why we have experienced a cooling cycle for the last ten to twelve years despite an increase of CO2 emissions, albeit an increase at a slower rate than before.  The new analysis completely destroys the AGW argument, because if CO2 is not accumulating in the atmosphere, it can’t be causing global warming.

No one doubts the necessity of curtailing particulate emissions into the air.  If anyone did, the Beijing Olympics and the thick & chunky smog would have removed those doubts.  Moving towards cleaner energy and renewables is a laudable goal and a necessary process.  But succumbing to AGW hysteria and destroying the very economy that could produce that type of progress is not just absurd, it’s counterproductive to the goal.

Update: I changed the title of this post to more accurately reflect what UB found – no change in the ratio of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.  One correspondent says that it doesn’t change the fact that we’re still dumping carbon into the atmosphere, where it could cause global warming.  However, if the ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere hasn’t changed in 150 years, then the CO2 is getting reabsorbed, not remaining in the atmosphere to cause global warming.  Unless there are other agents adding oxygen and nitrogen to the air and increasing the volume of all three, then the increased CO2 isn’t staying in the air.  If CO2 accounted for 0.04% of the atmosphere in 1860 and 0.04% today, then CO2 isn’t a cause of warming — at least not now, and not over the last 150 years, as AGW hysterics claim.

Update II:  A friendlier message says this:

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.
The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.
However, the percentage of CO2 on the planet which is airborne (as opposed to dissolved in the oceans, trapped in ice, or incorporated into biomass through photosynthesis) is not increasing.  That is the meaning of airborne fraction. It doesn’t mean the fraction of the air which is CO2.  It’s an easy mistake to make, and many others have on other sites.

Why this matters:  One of the claims of the alarmists is that the oceans cannot hold any more CO2, that they are “saturated,” and therefore additional CO2 emissions will increasingly stay in the atmosphere.  This now appears to be false. It undermines the alarmists’ arguments a little, but not too much.  They will simply shift their position to:  “Well, they oceans aren’t saturated yet, but they will be soon.  And then the airborne fraction will increase dramatically.  Just you wait.”

There are a couple of problems with this.  First, AGW alarmists say that increased CO2 in the air causes global warming.  Second, I’m old enough to remember rainforest hysteria, where we were all going to asphyxiate ourselves by chopping down trees that produced O2 from CO2, as we reduced biomass.  If we’re producing larger biomass, then we’re creating more capacity to absorb CO2 and produce more oxygen (and food, too) as a result.  And that’s supposed to be bad?

Update III: Here’s the summary from Knorr, emphases mine:

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.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Stop confusing us with the facts, you denier!

JammieWearingFool on January 4, 2010 at 8:52 AM

destroying the very economy

Key phrase describing what’s behind newly recoined “global climate change”…….

JoeinTX on January 4, 2010 at 8:54 AM

The Climategate e-mails didn’t sway the environmentalist wackos. What makes anyone think this will? We know AGW is a load of BS. But it’s also becoming clear that this was never about the environment.

Doughboy on January 4, 2010 at 8:54 AM

Oil company propaganda or something.

ONWARD, MOTHER EARTHEN SOLDIERS!

Good Lt on January 4, 2010 at 8:54 AM

algore must be apoplectic with rage over this report.

OmahaConservative on January 4, 2010 at 8:54 AM

No rise in atmospheric carbon over the last 150 years: University of Bristol

oopsie

cmsinaz on January 4, 2010 at 8:54 AM

It’s amazing that apparently there were even deniers working in the 19th century to undermine the Goracle.

VelvetElvis on January 4, 2010 at 8:55 AM

Halliburton paid for that study!

SouthernGent on January 4, 2010 at 8:56 AM

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.

So AGW hysteria will revert back to Save The Whales hysteria instead. Will I have to give up my yacht?

LastRick on January 4, 2010 at 8:57 AM

No rise in atmospheric carbon over the last 150 years: University of Bristol

I made a similar post on another site and got beat up because I didn’t say No Rise in Airborne Fraction of atmospheric carbon over the last 150 years.

huckleberryfriend on January 4, 2010 at 8:57 AM

Sadly, this report will get no attention in the mainstream.

BierManVA on January 4, 2010 at 8:58 AM

Well that sucks; I just renewed my subscription to “Sod House Monthly” in preparation for living as one with the land again.

Bishop on January 4, 2010 at 8:58 AM

But…but…but…The Polar Bears!

kingsjester on January 4, 2010 at 8:58 AM

OT:Email this video to everyone you know.

OmahaConservative on January 4, 2010 at 8:58 AM

You can tell that this fraud is starting to take on water because some liberal bloggers and Democrats are starting to make noise about how Republicans (e.g. McCain and Graham) also supported the battle against Global Warming.

RedSoxNation on January 4, 2010 at 8:59 AM

This will make absolutely no difference to the AGW crowd. They will ignore it just like they ignored (or attacked) the “faked” temp records.

Johnnyreb on January 4, 2010 at 8:59 AM

In the clear light of day. Finally!

OldEnglish on January 4, 2010 at 8:59 AM

Incline, not happening.

ted c on January 4, 2010 at 8:59 AM

Heh.

It’s amazing what can turn up when no AGW grants are at stake.

Huzzah for Real Science!

CPT. Charles on January 4, 2010 at 9:00 AM

This is directly contradicted by another English climate study. The University of Gin did analysis of arrest records for drunken women over the past century and over 80% responded that it was harder to breathe lying face down in the gutter so CO2 levels must be higher.

A French study from the University of Pusse’ also suggests atmospheric CO2 levels are rapidly rising due to spontaneously combusting automobiles, so cars should be banned.

Rocks on January 4, 2010 at 9:00 AM

Here is some interesting insight into what forces are really at work behind all of this climate change crap. Can you say George Soros?

singlemalt_18 on January 4, 2010 at 9:00 AM

I read somewhere that CO2 is connected to global warming, but in the opposite direction than is commonly believed: CO2 levels increase several hundred years after a warming period.

JS on January 4, 2010 at 9:01 AM

This is the most blatant example of governments imposing a scam for money on the people of the world that I have seen in my 56 years of life. The very fact that the American government is on board with this scam should tell every American what they need to know about our government for generations to come.

Don’t believe a word coming from government or big media; fact check and support those who provide us with facts and truth.

I might add that Hollywood should be made to pay a severe price for it’s involvement in this scam.

Keemo on January 4, 2010 at 9:01 AM

Guess Bristol didn’t get the memo that science was settled and no facts that come out now will change that. The government wants your money and Global Warming is the way to get it.

Brat4life on January 4, 2010 at 9:01 AM

If I understand correctly, CO2 increased overall, but the fraction didn’t since the Earth absorbed more, proportionally.

Phoenician on January 4, 2010 at 9:02 AM

Ummm… haven’t you misread the article?

You claim “no rise in atmospheric carbon”, but the article is talking about the airborne fraction of carbon. Total carbon may well be increasing, but the fraction which is airborn is staying level.

RufusW on January 4, 2010 at 9:02 AM

Thanks, Ed. They almost got away with this, and may still yet if we don’t keep pushing back.

petefrt on January 4, 2010 at 9:02 AM

BierManVA on January 4, 2010 at 8:58 AM

sad ain’t it…

cmsinaz on January 4, 2010 at 9:03 AM

Ever since the enlightenment (sic), elites have co-opted the trappings of religion to sell what no rational person would otherwise buy. Same with climate change hoax.

Look at the climate-scientist’s emails which were recently leaked. That panel of insiders who were privately deciding which scientists should be admitted into the “peer reviewed” inner circles, and which scientists should be destroyed, not on the basis of the quality of their work, but based on how reliably they toe the left wing ideological line.

I’ll tell you what that little panel is: it’s the modern version of the Inquisition. That’s exactly what that is.

jeff_from_mpls on January 4, 2010 at 9:03 AM

singlemalt_18 on January 4, 2010 at 9:00 AM

Thanks for that… The truth will circulate despite the governments efforts to squash our abilities to do so.

Keemo on January 4, 2010 at 9:03 AM

I recently heard that Tony Blair among others in Europe had their own Global Warming start up companies waiting in the post=political wings to cash in on their self imposed global trading system, Al Gore style.

abobo on January 4, 2010 at 9:04 AM

OT:Email this video to everyone you know.

OmahaConservative on January 4, 2010 at 8:58 AM

good stuff, thanks.

ted c on January 4, 2010 at 9:05 AM

I’m holding off any judgement,until I hear what kind of
footprint AQ has,the Taliban,and especially the sheep and
goats that are probably ruining the pristene mountains in
Afghanistan!!

canopfor on January 4, 2010 at 9:06 AM

This is a bit misleading.

The PERCENTAGE of CO2 in the atmosphere vs in the oceans and land hasn’t increased, but the AMOUNT has.

bnelson44 on January 4, 2010 at 9:07 AM

Alls I know,is that dogs are worse than SUVs,who knew!

canopfor on January 4, 2010 at 9:08 AM

Ummm… haven’t you misread the article?
You claim “no rise in atmospheric carbon”, but the article is talking about the airborne fraction of carbon. Total carbon may well be increasing, but the fraction which is airborn is staying level.

RufusW on January 4, 2010 at 9:02 AM

If it isn’t airborne it isn’t in the atmosphere is it?
No one is stupid enough to suggest less carbon is being emitted now than 150 years ago.

Rocks on January 4, 2010 at 9:08 AM

But the science is settled!

And people are dying of cold due to global warming.

forest on January 4, 2010 at 9:09 AM

Does the University of Bristol understand they and Knorr will be attacked savagely by the enviro-communists?

darwin on January 4, 2010 at 9:10 AM

Now can I have my normal light bulbs and seltzer back? OK, what about the Pop Rocks?

ParisParamus on January 4, 2010 at 9:10 AM

The PERCENTAGE of CO2 in the atmosphere vs in the oceans and land hasn’t increased, but the AMOUNT has.

bnelson44 on January 4, 2010 at 9:07 AM

So, when inflation ramps up this year thanks to Obama’s irresponsible policies, the AMOUNT of money in your paycheck is going to go way way up!

But the FRACTION of things you’ll be able to buy compared to last year will stay the same, or more likely go way down.

You can focus on the amount to make you feel better, I’ll focus on the percentage because it reflects the leverage of the thing to accomplish its end.

jeff_from_mpls on January 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM

No one doubts the necessity of curtailing particulate emissions into the air. If anyone did, the Beijing Olympics and the thick & chunky smog would have removed those doubts.

Obviously, we want “clean” air, but this isn’t about clean air, this is about changing the environment. Every week it gets clearer and clearer, we have nothing to do with changing the climate. Now we should, being reasonable, continue to clean our air just for health sakes.
Like a thread on a sweater, as real scientists pull at this garment of deception called global warming, it is becoming unraveled.

right2bright on January 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM

OT:Email this video to everyone you know.

OmahaConservative on January 4, 2010 at 8:58 AM

OmahaConservative:Excellent video,let the Liberal Backlash
begin!:)

canopfor on January 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM

(and we have experienced warming)

Are you sure? I know this is the mantra that we all must repeat but… all the data has been played with! How do we know anything is true about any of this anymore.

The very foundation of Global Warming is the data that was “destroyed” by “accident”. So that the only data left is the faked data.

You keep believing if you want. And in polite company I will probably keep saying the mantra myself so as not to get stoned as a sinner, however, there is real abiding doubt in my mind.

petunia on January 4, 2010 at 9:14 AM

And people are dying of cold due to global warming.

forest on January 4, 2010 at 9:09 AM

Of course! Bill Clinton said global warming causes global cooling … remember?

darwin on January 4, 2010 at 9:14 AM

singlemalt_18 on January 4, 2010 at 9:00 AM

Thanks for linking Cheap natural gas & its enemies

Wondering if Soros and Sandlers are behind Obama’s anti-energy policies is like wondering if the sun’s going to rise tomorrow.

petefrt on January 4, 2010 at 9:15 AM

The Climategate e-mails didn’t sway the environmentalist wackos. What makes anyone think this will? We know AGW is a load of BS. But it’s also becoming clear that this was never about the environment.

Doughboy on January 4, 2010 at 8:54 AM

If the head of the IPCC himself came out and admitteed AGW is a hoax and he can’t live a lie anymore and shot himself in the head…

It still wouldn’t convince the wackos. It’s not about the environment or the climate. It’s about the money, the redistribution, and the destruction of America.

uknowmorethanme on January 4, 2010 at 9:15 AM

that Kool aid hangover is gonna hurt!!

RealMc on January 4, 2010 at 9:15 AM

If this University of Bristol analysis is correct, CO2 hasn’t been accumulating in the atmosphere at all.

I don’t think this reflects what the article says. Again, the study was about the fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere compared to all CO2 not increasing. The actual level is, the fraction apparently isn’t.

RufusW on January 4, 2010 at 9:15 AM

Careful folks! This is talking about the FRACTION of CO2 that remains in the air (vice being absorbed into the environment). This is a very important result, but not for the reason many think. The runaway AGW modeling clowns have always had a basic assumption that the environmental uptake of CO2 maxes out at some point. After that supposed point is reached, 100% of all CO2 emitted would stay in the atmosphere, thus causing the runaway. What this study shows is that this assumption of environmental saturation is bogus. In other news, the world’s plants were too busy chowing down on CO2 to be reached for comment.

fyzycyst on January 4, 2010 at 9:15 AM

Now can I have my normal light bulbs and seltzer back? OK, what about the Pop Rocks?

ParisParamus on January 4, 2010 at 9:10 AM

NO! Unless we all use light bulbs that take 15 minutes to warm up we all die tomorrow! So it has been said so it will be so!

petunia on January 4, 2010 at 9:16 AM

Are you sure? I know this is the mantra that we all must repeat but… all the data has been played with!

petunia on January 4, 2010 at 9:14 AM

No kidding! I find it hard to believe anything that comes out of NASA and NOAA. The more one digs the more one finds virtually all the data they’ve used has been “adjusted”.

darwin on January 4, 2010 at 9:16 AM

This is a bit misleading.

The PERCENTAGE of CO2 in the atmosphere vs in the oceans and land hasn’t increased, but the AMOUNT has.

bnelson44 on January 4, 2010 at 9:07 AM

It could be misleading in a test tube, but not in the atmosphere; are you suggesting that we are doomed, and won’t be able to breathe because oxygen is going down? Or nitrogen?

If true, this shows AGW to be a lie, since it claims the percentage–parts per million of CO2–has gone up.

ParisParamus on January 4, 2010 at 9:17 AM

That doesn’t mean that CO2 can’t rise. It’s better to be safe than sorry. Bring on the Cap and Trade. Like Obi Wan Kenobi it’s out only hope.

Tommy_G on January 4, 2010 at 9:18 AM

No one doubts the necessity of curtailing particulate emissions into the air. If anyone did, the Beijing Olympics and the thick & chunky smog would have removed those doubts. Moving towards cleaner energy and renewables is a laudable goal and a necessary process.

One may note that current technology reduces particulate emissions quite well. (Check the difference in air quality over most U.S. cities vs. China or India.) We don’t need solar or wind power to remove particulates. What we need is prosperous societies who have the wherewithall to reduce particulates. But we’re going in the opposite direction.

Christian Conservative on January 4, 2010 at 9:18 AM

No one is stupid enough to suggest less carbon is being emitted now than 150 years ago.

Rocks on January 4, 2010 at 9:08 AM

Wait a minute, since one volcano eruption can immensely increase the amount of carbon “being emitted”, we don’t know if it is less or more. There very well could have been more carbon emitted 200 years ago.
The statement I think you wanted to state is: “No one is stupid enough to suggest less carbon, made by man, is being emitted now then 150 years ago”…the fact is, whatever man “emits” is minor compared to the macro environment.

right2bright on January 4, 2010 at 9:18 AM

Does this mean that we can stop holding our breath?….*whew*

ted c on January 4, 2010 at 9:20 AM

Many climate models also ASSUME that the airborne fraction will increase.

Emphasis mine… but ant science that ASSUMES the conclusion without evidence is not truly science.

They’re gonna “assume” the US to third world status if we don’t stop this hoax.

mankai on January 4, 2010 at 9:20 AM

VERY IMPORTANT: As others have noted, Ed has misunderstood the article.

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.
The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.
However, the percentage of CO2 on the planet which is airborne, as opposed to dissolved in the oceans or trapped in ice, is not increasing. That is the meaning of airborne fraction.

Why this matters: One of the claims of the alarmists is that the oceans cannot hold any more CO2, that they are “saturated,” and therefore additional CO2 emissions will increasingly stay in the atmosphere. This now appears to be false.

SwampYankee on January 4, 2010 at 9:20 AM

That doesn’t mean that CO2 can’t rise. It’s better to be safe than sorry. Bring on the Cap and Trade. Like Obi Wan Kenobi it’s out only hope.

Tommy_G on January 4, 2010 at 9:18 AM

I can only hope you’re not serious.

darwin on January 4, 2010 at 9:20 AM

HERETICS!!!1!!

Kensington on January 4, 2010 at 9:21 AM

NO! Unless we all use light bulbs that take 15 minutes to warm up we all die tomorrow! So it has been said so it will be so!

Er, I think Pharoah said So let it be written, so it shall be done. Or at least Yul Brenner did…

ParisParamus on January 4, 2010 at 9:21 AM

Remember science decides things by majority vote so we have to wait for the “consensus” who depend on AGW grant money to agree.

jhffmn on January 4, 2010 at 9:22 AM

Ed:
The headline and your statements aren’t really reflective of the piece.

The study claims that:

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 fraction may not have increased but the amount of CO2 over the past 150 years has indeed increased. The head that reads:

“No rise in atmospheric carbon over the last 150 years” should read “No rise in the fraction of …..”

Second, there have also been reports that the ability of the oceans and plants to absord CO2 may be declining and that both the fraction and amount of the gas will now increase.

The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere has certainly increased over the past 150 years and the capability of our overall environment to manage it is being affected. Whether that will lead to the dire environmental changes that the warmists state is another matter.

SteveMG on January 4, 2010 at 9:22 AM

Hmmmmmm.

First, Sarah Palin has a daughter named “Bristol”, and now, the Footprintmongers produce this Denier-fodder from the “University of Bristol”.

I smell a conspiracy.

SlimyBill on January 4, 2010 at 9:23 AM

This is going to upset the “settled science” crowd.

coldwarrior on January 4, 2010 at 9:24 AM

Corrupt politicians worldwide using false information and fear to promote their power-grabbing, bureaucracy-enlarging, tax raising, more-government-control-in-your-life-is-better agendas.

albill on January 4, 2010 at 9:25 AM

right2bright on January 4, 2010 at 9:18 AM

In a post where I criticize someone for being too literal you are suggesting I am not being literal enough? I think you missed the point.

Rocks on January 4, 2010 at 9:26 AM

You’ve completely misread the article.

1) it has been known that some of the carbon in the atmosphere is absorbed by oceans and ecosystems.

2) CO2 emissions have been emitted faster than these can go, causing atmospheric CO2 levels to go up.

3) There has been concern that these would saturate, causing CO2 concentrates to shoot up rapidly.

4) This study indicates that (3) is not the case and that CO2 levels will only continue to rise with emissions.

This mitigates the disaster scenarios protrayed by Algore, but doesn’t disprove global warming.

Hal_10000 on January 4, 2010 at 9:27 AM

When I was a kid and totally clueless about what was going on in the world, I seem to remember the Ohio River catching fire. I don’t think I imagined the story. We’ve come a long way and since we love to innovate I expect us to always strive to have a cleaner and better Earth. Or at least the U.S.. I tend to push back against scare tactics and vilification. I am pretty sure I am not alone.

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2010 at 9:29 AM

The looney left will be forced to conjure up another phony crisis to coerce the public and sell their political snake oil.

rplat on January 4, 2010 at 9:29 AM

This mitigates the disaster scenarios protrayed by Algore, but doesn’t disprove global warming. Hal_10000 on January 4, 2010 at 9:27 AM

A thermometer disproves global warming.

Mojave Mark on January 4, 2010 at 9:29 AM

The question of the century: Will the “smart” people ever catch on?

BetseyRoss on January 4, 2010 at 9:31 AM

Hal_10000 on January 4, 2010 at 9:27 AM

It exposes the danger of scientific “assumptions.”

Because the GW models are constructed partially on such assumptions, the study casts even more doubt on the “data” used to assume GW.

mankai on January 4, 2010 at 9:32 AM

Except there is no evidence of warming either in the sense that temps have not risen in 11 years and that the earth obviously warms and cools over centuries and millenia. The warming data put out by the ICC were based on models that were manipulated to produce the outcome–cherry picked tree rings,distributed averages, etc.

Haunches on January 4, 2010 at 9:32 AM

darwin on January 4, 2010 at 9:20 AM

I’m usually serious, just not today.

Tommy_G on January 4, 2010 at 9:33 AM

What a great day! Coke can keep it’s fizz. Of course, at higher altitudes that means more body gas being emitted which in turn increases the fraction of co2 which leads to polar bears drowning. See how this works.

Kissmygrits on January 4, 2010 at 9:34 AM

Total carbon may well be increasing, but the fraction which is airborn is staying level.

RufusW on January 4, 2010 at 9:02 AM

Total carbon? Does that mean that the total amount of carbon within the boundary of our atmosphere including the carbon contained in the Earth itself and it’s oceans is increasing? How can that be? Is some mysterious alchemical process at work busily converting silicon into carbon? My guess is that the total amount of carbon is generally fixed with the exception of whatever is captured from space. The amount of carbon dioxide, on the other hand can and does vary.

Oldnuke on January 4, 2010 at 9:35 AM

In a post where I criticize someone for being too literal you are suggesting I am not being literal enough? I think you missed the point.

Rocks on January 4, 2010 at 9:26 AM

It isn’t being “literal” it is being accurate…you are the one calling people stupid for thinking that CO2 has to be more then 200 years ago, I don’t know if it is…and certainly I don’t know if man has contributed anything significant…relax…

right2bright on January 4, 2010 at 9:35 AM

Don’t believe a word coming from government or big media; fact check and support those who provide us with facts and truth.

You’re preaching to the choir here, Keemo. Ending this madness starts with irrefutable facts, presented in a clear, concise way. Convincing the masses that they have been duped will not be easy.

People don’t like to be told that they bought a blatant lie.

How hard will big media try to tell the real truth, when they have been complicit in perpetuating the lie? They are the enablers of this scam.

Alternate media will have to carry the load on this one.

donh525 on January 4, 2010 at 9:36 AM

This mitigates the disaster scenarios protrayed by Algore, but doesn’t disprove global warming.

Hal_10000 on January 4, 2010 at 9:27 AM

Lookit, the global warming people have made bold claims that just aren’t checking out.

In science, the burden of proof lies with those making the claims, and in this case, the proof just isn’t there.

At this point, anybody who believes in AGW without any doubt is doing so as an article of faith or politics.

forest on January 4, 2010 at 9:37 AM

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2010 at 9:29 AM

It was the Cuyohoga, in Ohio.

Oldnuke on January 4, 2010 at 9:39 AM

Oh boy, really makes all that hard work done to hide the decline harder to justify, if one were truly logical. Of course the study has the usual caveat that we should still fear AGW because the models still say so, but the underlying truth is that the Earth is far larger than a “globe,” and the climate system far beyond our current abilities to understand it.

TQM38a on January 4, 2010 at 9:39 AM

Or at least the U.S.. I tend to push back against scare tactics and vilification. I am pretty sure I am not alone.

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2010 at 9:29 AM

We have done a great job in cleaning up our messes, our messes from the 40′s and 50′s. When we grew at such a rate we had no idea what effect we were having on the environment.
Many rivers and bays were contaminated by industry, but they are clean, and getting cleaner.
We are the only species that can clean up after themselves, the only species that is not so greedy as to consume everything, like locusts, or ravaging birds. We re-plant, and re-build, and even make mistakes, then correct them.
Is it better to dam up a river? I don’t know, but since our dams last a few hundred years, it doesn’t really matter…

right2bright on January 4, 2010 at 9:40 AM

Let me be perfectly clear, the POTUS has acted stupidly about global warming to Americans and to the world.

mmmmm mmmmm mmmmm mmmmm

bluegrass on January 4, 2010 at 9:41 AM

When I was a kid and totally clueless about what was going on in the world, I seem to remember the Ohio River catching fire. I don’t think I imagined the story. We’ve come a long way and since we love to innovate I expect us to always strive to have a cleaner and better Earth. Or at least the U.S.. I tend to push back against scare tactics and vilification. I am pretty sure I am not alone.

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2010 at 9:29 AM

You are not mis-remembering. Back when I was a kid in the early 1960s the Cuyahoga river used to catch on fire quite regular. We all used to get in the car and drive up to Cleveland to watch it burn. Oh and it was a real funny purplish green kind of color then too.

Johnnyreb on January 4, 2010 at 9:42 AM

any doubt is doing so as an article of faith or politics.

forest on January 4, 2010 at 9:37 AM

I think for many it has moved beyond “faith”, if they give in then they will feel they have lost. It has become a corner stone of their liberal beliefs.
People of true faith challenge themselves all the time, and refine their faith. Liberal environmentalists do not do that, they have to accept it, since so much is tied to the mantra that man is bad, industry is bad, capitalism is bad…take away that, before they have created another idol, and they will be lost…you can see the desperation now seeping in.

right2bright on January 4, 2010 at 9:44 AM

Ed, you have totally misunderstood the article.

The question is what percentage of emitted carbon stays airborne versus being absorbed elsewhere. It has been hypothesized that this percentage has been increasing at a very slow rate. This paper suggests that the percentage is not increasing.

This does NOT lead to your conclusion:

If this University of Bristol analysis is correct, CO2 hasn’t been accumulating in the atmosphere at all.

The amount of carbon emitted has been increasing steadily. It is now claimed that the percentage of that emitted carbon that stays in the atmosphere is constant. That still means that the amount of carbon going into the atmosphere is rising — and rising at the same rate that emissions are rising.

You need to issue a correction on this.

tneloms on January 4, 2010 at 9:45 AM

It is almost as if God had a plan.

ctmom on January 4, 2010 at 9:45 AM

Unless there are other agents adding oxygen and nitrogen to the air and increasing the volume of all three, then the increased CO2 isn’t staying in the air.

I can’t think of anything that would be adding nitrogen to the atmosphere, but there has been an increase in plant life as the level of CO2 increased. Plants (eventually) turn CO2 into O2.

MarkTheGreat on January 4, 2010 at 9:46 AM

Global Warming is easily the biggest scam of the century. It is probably a PR campaign for the Nuclear Power Industry, which went horribly wrong and snowballed to THE END IS COMING form.

TomB on January 4, 2010 at 9:46 AM

A correction to this statement is needed: “If this University of Bristol analysis is correct, CO2 hasn’t been accumulating in the atmosphere at all.”

See Watt’s write up http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/10/bombshell-from-bristol-is-the-airborne-fraction-of-anthropogenic-co2-emissions-increasing-study-says-no/

“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.”

John E. on January 4, 2010 at 9:47 AM

I see that several commenters beat me to pointing out Ed’s misunderstanding. (And that the rest of the commenters are now totally convinced that there is no increase in carbon in the atmosphere, which is ridiculous.)

Also, you only have to look at the first figure in the paper (page 2) to see that carbon has been steadily rising in the atmosphere: http://radioviceonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/knorr2009_co2_sequestration.pdf

tneloms on January 4, 2010 at 9:48 AM

Second, I’m old enough to remember rainforest hysteria, where we were all going to asphyxiate ourselves by chopping down trees that produced O2 from CO2, as we reduced biomass

This was always a lie. 3/4ths of the oxygen that we breath comes from the oceans. Of the 1/4 that comes from the land, only a small percentage is generated in the rain forests. And even if the rainforests were completely cut down, they would be replaced by grasses and shrubs which due to the large amounts of rain and sunshine found in the tropics, produce large amounts of O2.

MarkTheGreat on January 4, 2010 at 9:48 AM

SteveMG on January 4, 2010 at 9:22 AM

I thought I saw this posted before on HotAir — and the poster made exactly the point you made. I seem to remember it was Ed, in fact. Maybe he’s having a senior moment, as we seniors like to say.

That said, CO2 dissolved in water becomes carbolic acid — the stuff that gives Champagne and soda pop their fizz. As the pH of the water is lowered, we should see environmental changes in the ocean, including fish die-offs in areas of greatest concentration, and algae blooms, etc. as well.

I’m not sure this is being caused by the industrial age, and am waiting for evidence to conclusively show it. We have over a century of data — sadly, a considerable amount dirty due to changes in measurement techniques or to politicized “science”.

unclesmrgol on January 4, 2010 at 9:49 AM

If this University of Bristol analysis is correct, CO2 hasn’t been accumulating in the atmosphere at all. That means whatever warming we have experienced (and we have experienced warming) did not come from increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

Racist!!

Baxter Greene on January 4, 2010 at 9:50 AM

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.

I saw an interesting study several weeks ago that found that various shellfish and crustaceans grew bigger and had stronger shells when the amount of disolved CO2 in the water increased.

MarkTheGreat on January 4, 2010 at 9:50 AM

Global Warming is easily the biggest scam of the century. It is probably a PR campaign for the Nuclear Power Industry, which went horribly wrong and snowballed to THE END IS COMING form.

TomB on January 4, 2010 at 9:46 AM

While I agree that AGW is a huge scam I’m curious as to why you think it has anything to do with the nuclear power industry.

Oldnuke on January 4, 2010 at 9:50 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3