No Rise in CO2 Levels During the Past 160 Years

[Agonaces of Susa]

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. ...

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.

 

[chaim]

Your title directly contradicts the article you are quoting. Nice work.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Your title directly contradicts the article you are quoting. Nice work.

Obviously you didn't read the article. Nice work.

I would suggest you read the article before you opine.

My title was taken directly from the article title.

 

[laconicstudent]

Did anyone else notice the difference between "No rise in CO2 Levels" and "No rise of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide..." ?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Did anyone else notice the difference between "No rise in CO2 Levels" and "No rise of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide..." ?

Do you think we're talking about something other than atmospheric CO2 levels?

 

[laconicstudent]

Do you think we're talking about something other than atmospheric CO2 levels?

The title of this thread would imply that, yes.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

The title of this thread would imply that, yes.

Why?

Obviously CO2 levels can increase in a greenhouse for example but we're talking about the atmosphere.

That should be obvious.

At least I thought it was obvious.

 

[juvenissun]

No rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide fraction in past 160 years, new research finds

What would you say about this data, which is used all over the places?

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

What would you say about this data, which is used all over the places?

I would say that data is an absolute lie and no better than the fairy tales of children.

Where did they take their measurements? Inside a Hawaiian volcano?

 

[SithDoughnut]

What about this?

zipcodezoo[dot]com/Trends/Trends%20in%20Atmospheric%20Carbon%20Dioxide.asp

 

[Assyrian]

What about this?

zipcodezoo[dot]com/Trends/Trends%20in%20Atmospheric%20Carbon%20Dioxide.asp

Thanks. Link: Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

 

[SithDoughnut]

Thanks for that. It's annoying, this inability to post links. I understand why, though.

 

[plindboe]

No Rise in CO2 Levels During the Past 160 Years

The paper isn't about CO2 levels, but about the airborne fraction (i.e. the fraction of human CO2 emissions that stay in the athmosphere). The airborne fraction has remained more or less constant, the CO2 levels has risen.

The graph below might help you understand. The 46% value remain constant, but the athmospheric CO2 levels rise, because the emissions increase, and we can see it lines up well with direct measurements.

The article it's from is also an interesting read: Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?

Peter

 

[juvenissun]

I would say that data is an absolute lie and no better than the fairy tales of children.

Where did they take their measurements? Inside a Hawaiian volcano?

Yes, it could be a problem.
I wish they did the measurement at the top of the Himalaya Mt. Or, at least at the peak of the Rocky Mt. or similar places.

 

[Molal]

Yes, it could be a problem.
I wish they did the measurement at the top of the Himalaya Mt. Or, at least at the peak of the Rocky Mt. or similar places.

Hi Juvenissun,

I'm not sure how that data would help? Even so, we do take temperature readings with satellites. It would be unsurprising to find some data points from the vicinity of those mountains, if not on them.

M

 

[juvenissun]

Hi Juvenissun,

I'm not sure how that data would help? Even so, we do take temperature readings with satellites. It would be unsurprising to find some data points from the vicinity of those mountains, if not on them.

M

Hi, M:

Glad to see you are still around. Is Columbus cold enough for you?

Are you saying that they took the CO2 data by measuring the air temperature? If so, I guess the CO2 would be really low at Columbus these days.

I am not saying they did not do a good work. But I do think it is a better idea to take CO2 data at places where no active volcano is around. There are plenty dead volcanoes in the Pacific. Is the elevation a concern too?

 

[Molal]

Hi, M:

Glad to see you are still around. Is Columbus cold enough for you?

Are you saying that they took the CO2 data by measuring the air temperature? If so, I guess the CO2 would be really low at Columbus these days.

I am not saying they did not do a good work. But I do think it is a better idea to take CO2 data at places where no active volcano is around. There are plenty dead volcanoes in the Pacific. Is the elevation a concern too?

Columbus is pretty cold today - it's about 10 F at the moment - or thereabouts!

I absolutely agree with you. CLimatologists should obtain CO2 readings that best describes the atmosphere. This means taking samples away from volcanoes, industrial areas, high density housing/agriculture. And, upon reading some climatological papers, this is exactly what I found.

As I am sure you know, the higher in elevation you go, the fewer of the atmospheric gases are available - the air thins. However, the proportion of the atmospheric gases remains the same. There is the same percentage of oxygen at sea level as there is at elevation. Thus, when taking samples, one must be aware of the "thinning atmosphere" at elevation.

Two examples would be climbing Mt. Everest (most climbers that O2 bottles) and Richard Bransons around the world in a hot air balloon - he needed O2 for portions of the trip.

I am not saying climatologists took air temperature by measuring CO2 concentrations. This would not be an accurate method of obtaining atmospheric temperature.

It's good to see you too, Juvenissun. I hope you had a wonderful Christmas and all the best for the New Year!

 

[kharisym]

Abstract of the original article:

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.

<www agu org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613 shtml>

A few points, Agonaces of Susa, your claim, indeed the claim of the article you linked does not equate to the claim of the actual research (in the article's case, it just shows the effect of bad scientific journalism). Indeed, the actual research even *proves* that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is increasing- get back to this in a minute. Basically the article is saying:

paraphrased: "The amount of CO2 being absorbed has stayed consistent, there has been no reduction in the capacity for the planet to absorb airborn co2."

Note that this says nothing about the amount of co2 being *emitted*. The article claims that the airborne fraction being absorbed has stayed constant, and also says that roughly 40% of all emissions stay in the atmosphere. If we apply a little basic mathematical reasoning to this we see a few things: If 40% of emitted co2 stays in the atmosphere, then above a certain threshold of emitted co2, the amount of co2 in the atmosphere will start to increase exponentially. Therefore this argument supports a case for global warming being real and dangerous.

As a side note, your selection of a 2ndary source making a claim directly opposite the article said 2ndary source provides a link to says several things about the quality of proof you provide. You either didn't look at the original paper or didn't read it carefully enough to understand, and you also discounted the full body of evidence against your point in deference to a single article that agrees with your preferred conclusion- ie you chose your proof selectively (and poorly) in a method called 'cherry picking' and didn't research the proof to ensure validity. In the future, please make an attempt to read and understand the primary sources, and also weigh said primary source against the body of existing evidence, this way you'll have a better chance of making a well thought out and effective argument.

 

[sandwiches]

Abstract of the original article:
<www agu org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613 shtml>

A few points, Agonaces of Susa, your claim, indeed the claim of the article you linked does not equate to the claim of the actual research (in the article's case, it just shows the effect of bad scientific journalism). Indeed, the actual research even *proves* that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is increasing- get back to this in a minute. Basically the article is saying:

paraphrased: "The amount of CO2 being absorbed has stayed consistent, there has been no reduction in the capacity for the planet to absorb airborn co2."

Note that this says nothing about the amount of co2 being *emitted*. The article claims that the airborne fraction being absorbed has stayed constant, and also says that roughly 40% of all emissions stay in the atmosphere. If we apply a little basic mathematical reasoning to this we see a few things: If 40% of emitted co2 stays in the atmosphere, then above a certain threshold of emitted co2, the amount of co2 in the atmosphere will start to increase exponentially. Therefore this argument supports a case for global warming being real and dangerous.

As a side note, your selection of a 2ndary source making a claim directly opposite the article said 2ndary source provides a link to says several things about the quality of proof you provide. You either didn't look at the original paper or didn't read it carefully enough to understand, and you also discounted the full body of evidence against your point in deference to a single article that agrees with your preferred conclusion- ie you chose your proof selectively (and poorly) in a method called 'cherry picking' and didn't research the proof to ensure validity. In the future, please make an attempt to read and understand the primary sources, and also weigh said primary source against the body of existing evidence, this way you'll have a better chance of making a well thought out and effective argument.

More blatant and unethical quote mining by dear ol' AoS. What a surprise.

 

[kharisym]

More blatant and unethical quote mining by dear ol' AoS. What a surprise.

Please, give them more credit on this one. All I see is someone jumping to a conclusion without seriously reading the material. I see no evidence of conscious attempts at misleading.