A paper published in Geophysical Research Letters finds no statistically significant increase inÂ the airborne proportion of anthropogenicÂ carbon dioxide over the past 150 years. Being that climate scientists like those from the Climactic Research Unit at Hadley and alarmist members of the UNâ€™s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that increased CO2 is to blame for warming patterns over the past several decades and that the warming Â will soon accelerate out of control, due to an inability of the ecosystem toÂ cope with increased CO2 emissions, this research poses a problem. How can carbon dioxide be causing warming if the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has not actually been on the rise?
We know that mankind does produce and emit a relatively small (compared to naturally occurring CO2) amount of CO2 and industrialization has increased our overall CO2 emissions, but now it seems that it hasnâ€™t mattered. The earthâ€™s natural mechanisms have effectively dealt with the increase. Vegetation, like forests and ocean algae, of course thrive on CO2 and convert it into Oxygen.
A December 31st article in Science Daily noted, â€œMost of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems.â€
Despite the new evidence that CO2 cannot have been responsible for the recent reported warming (that ended around 1999), the warmists are undeterred. The article goes on to say, â€œHowever, 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.
â€œMany 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.â€
So, the new line may well be: Even though it hasnâ€™t happened at all yet, future increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide will cause global warming, because weâ€™re on the verge of maxing out the earthâ€™s ability to absorb CO2.
It seems the climate models may now rely on predicting a heretofore unobserved increase in anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in order to predict future CO2-driven global warming, even though (despite earlier claims) neither has actually been observed.
Every claim of the warmists has been disproven. Not a single catastrophic prediction has come to pass. They insist the science is settled and the debate is over but science is based on observation and duplicable results. Observation shows no CO2-induced warming and the CRUâ€™s climate models havenâ€™t produced one accurate result, let a lone a duplicate. The warmists it seems, will unabashedly stretch to any length to try to maintain their dreams of carbon-based economic control, but the thing about stretching something is that it also grows thin.
Abstract: Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
Science Daily: No Rise of Airborne Fraction of Carbon Dioxide in Past 150 Years, New Research Finds
I read the abstract and it says the fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere that is due to mankind has not increased significantly. So the total amount of CO2 could have increased, both the part emitted by mankind and by nature, and the fraction could stay the same.
What about other greenhouse gases?
â€œThere is little doubt about the main trends,â€ Professor Ole Danbolt MjÃ¸s, Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, said in awarding the Peace Prize to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Al Gore in December 2007: â€œMore and more scientists have reached ever closer agreement concerning the increasingly dramatic consequences that will follow from global warming.â€ Likewise, a growing body of energy experts has concluded that the global production of conventional oil will soon reach a peak (if it hasnâ€™t already) and decline, producing a worldwide energy shortage. Meanwhile, fears of future food emergencies, prompted in part by global warming and high energy prices, are becoming more widespread.
All of this was apparent when world leaders met in Copenhagen and failed to establish an effective international regime for reducing the emission of climate-altering greenhouse gases (GHGs). Even though they did agree to keep talking and comply with a non-binding, aspirational scheme to cut back on GHGs, observers believe that such efforts are unlikely to lead to meaningful progress in controlling global warming in the near future. What few doubt is that the pace of climate change will accelerate destructively in the second decade of this century, that conventional (liquid) petroleum and other key resources will become scarcer and more difficult to extract, and that food supplies will diminish in many poor, environmentally vulnerable areas.
Scientists do not agree on the precise nature, timing, and geographical impact of climate-change effects, but they do generally agree that, as we move deeper into the century, we will be seeing an exponential increase in the density of the heat-trapping greenhouse-gas layer in the atmosphere as the consumption of fossil fuels grows and past smokestack emissions migrate to the outer atmosphere. DoE data indicates, for example, that between 1990 and 2005, world carbon dioxide emissions grew by 32%, from 21.5 to 31.0 billion metric tons. It can take as much as 50 years for GHGs to reach the greenhouse layer, which means that their effect will increase even if — as appears unlikely — the nations of the world soon begin to reduce their future emissions.
In other words, the early manifestations of global warming in the first decade of this century — intensifying hurricanes and typhoons, torrential rains followed by severe flooding in some areas and prolonged, even record-breaking droughts in others, melting ice-caps and glaciers, and rising sea levels — will all become more pronounced in the second. As suggested by the IPCC in its 2007 report, uninhabitable dust bowls are likely to emerge in large areas of Central and Northeast Asia, Mexico and the American Southwest, and the Mediterranean basin. Significant parts of Africa are likely to be devastated by rising temperatures and diminished rainfall. More cities are likely to undergo the sort of flooding and destruction experienced by New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. And blistering summers, as well as infrequent or negligible rainfall, will limit crop production in key food-producing regions.
Thanks for that regurgitated and disproven agitprop. It’s very useful.
You’re very welcome sir but, uh, I need to pointout that the article above is about “ONE PAPER”. And apparently based on a “study.” Wow, talk about useful… yawn.
I will admit however that the video and study re: cloud formation and repetitive climate change is VERY interesting and appeals to my sense of logic. It would be interesting to learn more about that.
Glad you liked it.
They say “Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity”, so I am trying to believe you honestly misread the article published in Geophysical Research Letters. The article does not say that atmospheric CO2 hasn’t increased. What it says is that the fraction (or percentage) of each year’s anthropogenic CO2 emissions hasn’t increased. For example, about 40% of the 1950 emissions stayed in the atmosphere, and likewise 40% of the 2005 emissions stayed in the atmosphere. So the fraction (40%) hasn’t been going down. The yearly emissions themselves have, of course, increased, and they add more and more CO2 to the atmosphere each year, where it progressively accumulates (with only slow rates of removal). If you want to see a graph of atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the years, just google “CO2 concentrations”. You will find thousands of versions of the plots of the measurements taken at Mauna Loa, which is located far away from any major emission sources.
Please prove this was a misunderstanding and not pure malice, by removing your article from the internet.
Isn’t Mauna Loa an active volcano?
Go read it again. If you need some help understanding the significance, try here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm and here: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110141842.htm
Ok, I read it again (the scientific article’s abstract). I also read the “Science Daily” article. They’re at odds with each other, i.e. Science Daily misrepresents the scientific article. And your article is at odds with both. Actually, I had never heard of anyonw (until you) claim that atmospheric CO2 wasn’t rising. It’s astonishing that anyone would state that with a straight face. The fact that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have been rising is completely undisputed. As they say, we are all entitled to our own opinions but not to our own facts.
Now you read the scientific article’s abstract, will you?
The scientific article says the fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions that stays in the atmosphere (as oposed to being absorbed by the earth’s surface) hasn’t increased. What that means is that the earth’s surface is still capable of absorbing the usual large fraction of our ever-increasing emissions. (This of course is done at the expense of ocean acidification, but that’s a separate topic.) The remainder CO2 stays in the atmosphere, where it progressively accumulates.
This reminds me of Freud’s joke:
1. First of all, I never borrowed a kettle from you. (Atmospheric CO2 is not rising.)
2. Secondly, when I returned the kettle to you it was unbroken. (Despite the CO2 rise, the globe has not been warming.)
3. Finally, the kettle was already broken when I got it from you! (The warming is not caused by the rising CO2, but by something else – perhaps those cosmic rays.)
Three (mutually-incompatible) levels of denial.
These ideas are not at all incompatible. It simply is what it is. We know that mankind contributes to the overall level of atmospheric CO2 emissions, but it is a very small fraction of overall CO2 emissions. We now know that despite claims by warmists to the contrary, the Earth’s natural ability to deal with higher CO2 EMISSIONS has not been exhausted. We know that CO2 levels have been higher in the past and we also know that the geologic record shows that increases in atmospheric CO2 proportions follow, rather than preceed warming. We also know that the earth has indeed warmed, and cooled and warmed again over millenia. The average global temperatures WERE moderately increasing during the 80’s and 90’s. That warming trend has stopped and may be reversing, despite increased anthropogenic CO2 output. By cosmic rays, you are referring to the sun, not some mysterious, invisible magic of the universe. That great big ball of nuclear fire in the sky that makes summers hot and generally warms the planet goes through cycles. Turn up the flame (so to speak) on the big burner that is the sun and it stands to reason it will get warmer here. CO2 doesn’t factor into it – whatever the level of CO2 in the air at the moment, except that perhaps a warmer earth causes higher natural production of CO2. If you can simply detach yourself from the religious belief that mankind’s tiny contribution to global CO2 emissions is causing warming, you could see how the facts you argue are incompatible fit together or in some cases aren’t even connected and/or causal.
And, by the way, Mauna Loa IS an active volcano in case you didn’t know the answer (you didn’t reply). It’s the biggest in the world. Here’s another question for you: Don’t active volcanoes emit a LOT of carbon dioxide?
Also, I love that you are prepping the warmist fall-back position of ocean acidifiation (we talked about that quite a while ago). Already qued up and ready to roll as soon as the anthropogenic global warming lie completely crashes, huh?
You posted a lie (claiming that CO2 hasn’t been rising) and have refused to remove your lie from the internet.
Please do so promptly.
You seem to have run out of useful things to contribute to the discussion. Come back later when you have something of substance to add.
You won’t remove your article that falsely asserts that CO2 has not been rising, and you still want me to engage in discussion? Is “discussion” what you use for “smoke and mirrors”, so we won’t notice that this totally fraudulent article remains online?
What a joke! CO2 has not been increasing, you say! How can anybody write that????? Mauna Loa’s CO2 measurements are determined by its own volcanic emissions! Wow!!!!! These are astounding and incredibly ridiculous statements! Ignorance of a magnitude never previously seen!
One article on this web site claims the earth is cooling. The next article claims it’s warming because of clouds. One says CO2 isn’t increasing (an amazing statement). Another says CO2 is increasing but that doesn’t affect the climate.
Wow! Wow! Wow! What a way to spend your time on this earth! Go take that article down, Dan. Be a man, for heavens sake! Take down the lies, write about what is true. Shave, take a shower, breathe the air, start a new and honest life.
Mariza, I like your style, but I see nothing horrible in reading different claims on CO2 emitions. I would be more interesting in knowing why “human” CO2″ hasn’t increased in a post industrial revolution period. Then, knowing that all “human CO2” can be absorved by the sea in just 23 days, I wonder why so many people dedicate such importance to this wonderful gas? Or even better, why we believe we could change so easily the global climate? Humans are simply arrogant creatures.
Thank god someone has some sense. The arrogance of our world leaders is astounding. At Copenhagen didn’t nObama sign something with several other countries saying that they are to attempt to keep the globe from warming 4-5 degrees F or C by 2050? Yea, good luck with that guys. Natural forces are not to be reckoned with. I guess they will build something that will keep volcanoes from erupting and put the red dusting all over natural forests to keep them from burning. Those two natural occurrences produce/emit a much more higher percentage of CO2 than humans ever will.
I posted an article that reports on a scientific paper’s findings and the analysis on that paper done by a scientific journal. I think I’ll give them a touch more weight in determining whether the assertions are valid than youself.
You’re new here, so I’ll cut you some slack and allow you some time for everything to sink in. I know it’s probably hard to accept new information that contradicts a decade or more of steady indoctrination. Let me help you piece this all together. The earth is not presently on a warming trend. It WAS. When it was, it was probably due to solar activity above all else. Nobody is saying the Earth is getting hotter because of clouds. The articles say that the most potent greenhouse gas is water vapor, accounting for something like 90% of the earth’s ability to retain heat. It’s insulation.
Anthropogenic (man-caused) CO2 emissions have been on the rise for the past 60 years or so – this isn’t in dispute, but it’s still a tiny, tiny amount compared to natural forces and now it seems that the Earth is fully able to deal with the tiny rise in emissions. (note emissions and atmospheric proportions are not the same thing).
The Earth is indeed cooling. It has been for years. By that, I mean average global temperatures. To summarize: man-made CO2 emissions are up. Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are not. The earth was warming. Now it’s cooling. This is natural, normal, and there’s little, if anything we can do to alter he natural warming and cooling cycles of the Earth. I hope that helps put the articles in context. Good luck.
Dan, I find it incredibly difficult to believe that virtually ALL of the major public figures across the globe, all of whom have a lot to lose from such a big scandal as this would/could be, if in fact they turn out to be wrong- are more or less out-spoken in their belief that climate change IS a dire issue. Of course there are also many (not as many) major public figures who for their own reasons have come out publically against it. Not to mention the magnitude of data in support of climate change. So- THIS in the face of GLOBAL COOLING???? Really?????? It’s one thing to be wrong about something, but to be COMPLETELY WRONG IN AN OPPOSITE WAY ??????? Won’t they look stupid eh? Very stupid indeed.
How about this for a conspriacy theory? (Disclaimer: my own, I just made it up) – All these elitist Leftys (mostly) created a false doctrine (global warming) so as to make people around the globe become VERY dubious if not out-right skeptical of ANY further major (or minor) claims made by the scientific community, once the truth makes itself known (it will either get arming, cooler or stay the same). Why would they go to all that trouble and risk their own reputations like that? They only thing I can think of is this: So They (and their private worker bees) can control and manipulate the flow of information to us peons because no one will believe the”experts”. This is, of course, already occurring; but bits and pieces of real and raw data still slip thru to the huddled and dirty masses. Not a bad conspriacy theory if I do say so myself…! Any one have a better one?
There isn’t really that much original data/research to support global warming. There’s Mann et-al’s work on constructing the (now debunked) “hockey-stick chart,” some (fudged, inaccurate) climate modelling software, and a whole bunch of studies that just rehash and repackage previous work. There’s a lot written about these few things but very little original data.
If you say so. What do you think about my thesis?
I think Obama’s guys want to stop you posting such theories. Be careful.
Since you didn’t anwser, I will go ahead myself, as usual, eh?
I think by design or not (although the Repubs are truly guilty of this, by design) there has been a concerted attack on science especially starting wtih Bush Jr. or Shrub as we like to call him. Maybe it will turn out to be a good thing, maybe science needed a wake up call to keep them honest. I doubt this because there are many honest scientists out there still. Money has corrupted science, but not for a Liberal bias, but the opposite. but those that have been attacking it have gone too far, of course, and now just about everyone, myself included, barely believes anything any more. It is a very strange place for supposedly modern intelligent humans to be in. I dearly hope we get thru this period relatively unscathed. This worries me a lot however because there is real science out there that is being either ignored or drowned out with bad science. We can’t exist very long (at least in a healthy way) in this mess we are in.
I’m not worried- Obama isn’t half the fascist Bush/Cheney was/is. Not yet anyway.
Time will tell my friend.
You wise-est words yet my friend.
As stated, time will tell as it always does. Actions speaks bs weeps. What will it be?
It would be helpful if you would actually give the citation to the research article that this piece is based on. The link doesn’t take you to the article.