Science Daily: 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.
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
27 comments:
OIM,
The real story is that nearly half or 45% of CO2 emited remains in the atmosphere and emissions of man-made CO2 are rising exponentially, while the ability of oceans to hold more CO2 and other man-made stuff is depleting... The increase in atmospheric CO2 may hasten the greenhouse effect causing the earth temperature to rise faster...
KV,
"The increase in atmospheric CO2"
There is no increase atmospheric CO2.
It was 0.038% in 1850 and it is 0.038% today.
Why don't you just admit you want to take away what little CO2 there is because you hate life and want to kill every living thing on Earth?
OIM,
This is from the article:
In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.
What does this mean? Right way to say is that oceans and other natural processes are able to absorb only half of the CO2 emitted.
Measure CO2 in ppm, not in percentage, and take the ratio of ppms for different times.
You used percentage to support your lies, as you are hellbent on doing the hot rock throwing whimps work, which is to kill all because they fucked up again!
Computational Physics is what you lack. Go to school.
KV,
"In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere."
It doesn't mean anything since CO2 levels were 0.038% in 1850 and they are 0.038% today.
KV:
No, the really story is that only 4% of CO2 in the atmosphere is Man caused in the first place.
And, if the percentage was .038% in 1850 and .038% today, then there has been no increase.
Yes, parts per million -- 388 parts per MILLION.
Face it, KV, you along with a lot of other people I might add were taken in by the fraud of Man-made global warming.
And besides that, there is no clear scientific evidence that CO2 at the levels we are talking about, roughly 400 parts per MILLION, has ANY effect on the Earth's climate at all.
KV, sometimes, you reveal yourself as just a part of the herd.
And a rather arrogant herd member at that.
Anaconda,
wimps are those who created man seven times stronger than them to dig ditches in Mesopotamia - as posted by OIM.
I will let you research CO2 levels in ppm for yourself and let you decide marked exponential increase since man began fossil fuel binge.
In my many previous comments on this blog I amply made clear to you that fossil fuel use for six billions of us is killing us in our cities, environment, oceans, and everything else we do (including plastic bags from the grocery stores), and I have also stated that I am not concerned about global warming, and I have also said that we need competition in energy production. If we incentivise renewables creating jobs and cleaner air, water and better living, do you have a problem with that? By the way, do you know how much of fossil fuel production is subsidized? And, how many wars do you want to fight for oil, like that Mad Max movie? Do you know how many of our youngs are pemanently disabled for the fossil fuels?
I think ignorance, especially willful ignorance, is worse than arogance.
It is the herd that remains willfully ignorant and like lemmings goes over the cliff, and I hope you are not a lemming.
Anaconda,
Since 1960, the atmospheric CO2 level has increased by over 22%.
KV:
As I have stated before, I have no problem with alternative energy that actually pays for itself and is competive in price with existing energy sources.
Competive alternative energy sources will help keep the price of oil in line.
Competition is a good thing.
As for the post's citation of the Science Daily article -- it speaks for itself.
At present, CO2 is about 388 parts per million as I stated above.
KV wrote: "...I amply made clear to you that fossil fuel use for six billions of us is killing us in our cities, environment, oceans, and everything else we do..."
For an investor in oil you have an interesting view...
But in actuality, oil makes our Western Civilization possible as we know it.
Are there steps we can take to make our environment cleaner?
Sure. I have no problem with that in general. But the devil is in the details as you well know.
War for oil is unnecessary.
There is plenty of oil if we go get it at sea and deep in the ground.
Right now, there is a glut of natural gas in the United States.
And likely, there is plenty the world over, too.
"Peak" oil is the faulty rational for wars. But as I stated above, war is unnecessary for America and the world for that matter to meet its oil needs.
KV, you imply I am ignorant.
Of what information do you accuse me of being ignorant of?
KV, you claim that you have no worries about supposed climate change: "...I am not concerned about global warming..."
But you comment above: "The increase in atmospheric CO2 may hasten the greenhouse effect causing the earth temperature to rise faster..."
The two statements seem contradictory...would you care to explain?
KV: "Since 1960, the atmospheric CO2 level has increased by over 22%."
So, from a small percentage to a larger small percentage.
Wake me up when it gets to 1000 parts per million and even then there is no clear scientific evidence that such a level would have any impact on climate.
Increased CO2 levels are beneficial for plant growth.
You know, so we can feed all those hungry people.
Global warming science is a fraud -- it's that plain and that simple.
I rarely agree with The New York Times, but here is a good statement:
“Apocalyptic scenarios are a diversion from real problems — poverty, terrorism, broken financial systems — needing intelligent attention. Even something as down-to-earth as the swine-flu scare has seemed at moments to be less about testing our health care system and its emergency readiness than about the fate of a diseased civilization drowning in its own fluids. We wallow in the idea that one day everything might change in, as St. Paul put it, the “twinkling of an eye” — that a calamity might prove to be the longed-for transformation. But turning practical problems into cosmic cataclysms takes us further away from actual solutions."
AGW is a diversion from real problems Man faces.
And is more about power and control of an elite than about actual concern for the environment.
Anaconda, you stated: …For an investor in oil you have an interesting view...
I invest in oil for income. Alternate energy sources will extend the life of these investments and my income remains stable for long term. This is a selfish, but realistic reasoning.
By 2050, we will be nearly 10 billions, and it is the emerging economies – China, India, etc. – are increasing fossil fuel use, exponentially, and may be even parabolically. Right now, both India and China has middle class that exceeds ours in size. This middle class is starting to increase consumption mostly produced and driven by the fossil fuels. By 2050, this new middle class will be six to ten times larger than ours. At our present rate of oil consumption of about 20M barrels, this will add demand for 100 million barrel more, or the world production has to more than double.
Now, think a bit further, They also have money and they are buying fossil and other natural resources world over. These countries can easily deploy armies that are six to ten times bigger than ours. What if they decide to protect their “investments”? What kind of wars are we going to win against fairly modernized armies with nuclear weapons?
At 1000 ppm of CO2 levels, we will be choking in our own filth world over. We don’t have to go there, if we only use the giant thermonuclear energy in space 94 millions miles away.
Anaconda,
Note I used may hasten global warming, I did not say it will...
For me, the real causes - note the plural please - for global warming may be many amd may be many not known or recognized today. But, we do know the role of green house gases, CO2 is one of the many, and we can only control or change what we do!
Increased CO2 may produce bigger plants, but our problem is that we will be dealing with 10 billions consuming at unprecedented rate...
KV: "...the emerging economies – China, India, etc. – are increasing fossil fuel use, exponentially, and may be even parabolically."
Not in the last couple of years, but, yes, certainly the consumption of oil will go up -- at what rate, no one knows with certainty.
It depends on the price.
Middle class in China or India is not the same as middle class in America or even Europe.
China and India's middle class likely will not consume energy at the rate of America's middle class.
Today, it's not even close.
As far as future demand, no one knows with certainty and no one knows what the Earth is capable of producing with present and more important future technology.
(Oil exploration & production technology has increased dramatically this past decade.)
KV: "What kind of wars are we going to win against fairly modernized armies with nuclear weapons?"
If they use nuclear weapons, there won't be much demand in the aftermath, will there?
Skipping over your implication of nuclear war for resources -- a very self-defeating strategy, these countries are still not likely to go on the war path because even widespread conventional war would wreck their economies overnight.
America, while at present relies on many imports of all kinds, still has the potential for self-reliance, although, not in total.
KV: "At 1000 ppm of CO2 levels, we will be choking in our own filth world over."
What "filth" are you talking about?
Where is your evidence for this assertion?
You are no better than OilIsMastery it would seem when it comes to backing up your assertions with evidence.
KV, it seems you are repeating other's statements with no specifics to back it up.
On the other hand, there is scientific evidence, how reliable I don't know, that CO2 has been as high as 6000 parts per million and the world didn't end, rather, apparently it thrived.
KV: "But, we do know the role of green house gases, CO2 is one of the many..."
Actually, as I already stated, Science doesn't know the role of CO2 in the atmosphere beyond that increased CO2 causes plants to grow more vigorously.
Frankly, for Capitalism it is a good thing that there will be increased consumption (over capacity it the problem for Capitalism - read your Marx), but sadly most of those ten billion will live in physical poverty, just as most of the six billion, today, live in physical poverty.
It seems, you are close to being in the "doomer" camp.
At present and in the reasonable future, we are not even close to being in that situation.
Someday, maybe, but not within the next 30 years and that is the economic horizon -- any further out and it has no impact on today, the next day, or the day after that.
And, yes, if we are able to connect into the electrical potential of the Sun, the plasma, that is the solar wind, and the electrical energy derived from same, then the future is quite bright.
The aurora is an electrical phenomenon.
But I will grant you that if our technology doesn't keep increasing in sophistication and power, there will be difficulties.
That's why faulty science must be exposed as such, we don't have the time or the luxury of going up a bunch of blind alleys because of prior assumptions by scientists that want to protect their world-view or their comfy careers on the grant "dole" train.
(I may be wrong, but, KV, you sound suspiciously a lot like a raging limousine liberal.)
By implication, I'm paraphrasing, KV: "For the good of the "little people" of the world the elite must control all economic activity."
(You know, KV, I hope I'm wrong about you on this question -- set me straight -- I'll listen.)
Which is what "carbon control" amounts to in the end.
But when have the elite actually had the interest of the "little people" at heart in their economic dealings?
No, it's about their power and control derived from machanations put forward in the guise of providing for the "little people".
Such has been the justification of tyrants down through the centuries, but particularly in the last century.
So-called resource "shortages" predicted by elites, as in the Club of Rome report, have repeatedly proven false, and have been mostly if not entirely about the welfare of the elite, not the "little people".
Yet liberals seem to drink these rationals up like Kool-Aid.
Why?
Because they think they know better than everybody else, the great "unwashed", so they need to run everybody elses lives.
But really in the end it is about power.
My answer to their desire for power: Go to bloody hell.
Anaconda,
A gentle reminder: please be concise and on the topic. It is fundamentally impossible to comment on parsed observations (or creating a negation or personal attack as OIM is predisposed to).
1. All your observations about India and China “middle class” are wrong. Why? The US “middle class” and Indian and Chinese “middle class” incomes and assets are equal. The US middle class is swimming in debt with falling values of hard assets, while Indian and Chinese middle class is enjoying increased earnings, with no significant debt, and increasing values of the hard assets. Their percent of population going into the middle class is rising, while ours is dropping, or we are making new poor. What you have written about them is stereotypical at best…
2. What I was referring to is that China and India are becoming world military powers, and they have their own interests to protect, like we have done for oil. Nuclear weapons deter all from engaging in all out war, and force diplomatic solutions.
3. 1000 ppm CO2 without filth is impossible. You might want to look up the smog problem of Los Angeles, CA before we started controlling emissions to understand the filth. Also, you might want to travel to industrial cities of the new world to understand. Or, go to Mexico and see the rivers of filth…
4. You introduced “Carbon Control” with derogatory paraphrasing… You know the results of Copenhagen summit: So called “little people” countries did not concede anything about carbon emission. It became a show and tell, and nothing more. Yes, it is about power and control, which we tried by being the only superpower since the collapse of Soviet Union, unsuccessfully. Now, we are trying to be transparently diplomatic. Here is my prediction: as the filth levels rise in India and China, they will change their ways, but in the time it would take, they will sacrifice a few hundreds of millions.
KV wrote: "All your observations about India and China “middle class” are wrong. Why?"
You may be right about the debt situation.
But that has nothing to do with per capital energy usage.
You need to provide some data to back your assertions -- I'm sure there are data sources on per capital energy usage -- but that is your job, since you are making the assertion, it's not my job.
You contention fails for lack of data.
KV wrote: "What I was referring to is that China and India are becoming world military powers..."
India is far from being a world military power that would be tempted to project military power around the world in the search or protection of oil.
China is a world military power, but has not done anything to suggest it will project its power beyond its regional theater. But that could change in the coming years.
Still your initial implication (at least that's the way I took it) was that these powers will engage in resource wars. Now you are asserting that their military power will stop the U.S. from engaging in resource wars.
Fine.
As I already stated: Resource (oil) wars (excluding border skirmishes) are unnecessary for America or anybody else.
KV wrote: "1000 ppm CO2 without filth is impossible. You might want to look up the smog problem of Los Angeles, CA before we started controlling emissions to understand the filth."
Your analysis is 20 years old regarding Los Angeles (as you acknowledge), smog is much better now, although, not eliminated.
And what you suggest is that CO2 from all over the world will cause "filth" (smog), but this is dispersed.
We just don't know how all that will shake out (besides are you going to tell China how they are going to conduct themselves internally -- fat chance).
Or any other country for that matter (oh, I forgot that's exactly what you want to do).
Won't happen...even if they ostensively agree, cheating will be rampant.
Hypocrisy will reign.
Besides, your statement suggests you are fine with severely limiting carbon usage in the developing world. To save the "little people".
Keeping "little people" in poverty is necessary to protect the "little people".
Makes sense...
Not.
KV: "You introduced 'Carbon Control' with derogatory paraphrasing…"
Absolutely right.
But apparently, your're down with "carbon control".
You can attempt to take other people's freedom away, but if you come my way with that shit, all you'll get is a headache.
KV: "Now, we are trying to be transparently diplomatic."
For an investor, you are naive about international diplomacy.
Anaconda,
You are full of hot air in your last comment. You go on crapping without any context. For the near term, the whole Western world is looking forward to the middle class of India and China to spend so that we are all bailed out. Why don’t you research the wealth of Indian and Chinese middle class for yourself and find out?
I make a descent living from investing, I do not have to work for anybody, and if I were to listen to your investment advice, I would go broke. Like, the abiogenic oil is going to solve all the problems, etc.
KV:
You are ignoring basics.
"hot air"?
I simply asked you to back your assertions with data, is that too hard to ask?
Frankly, I have no problem with a growing middle class in China and India.
But I'm more concerned with growing the middle class in America.
KV: "Why don’t you research the wealth of Indian and Chinese middle class for yourself and find out?"
You were the one who raised the issue of the middle class in China and India, remember?
Doesn't that go beyond the scope of the post to begin with?
If you want to worry about the middle class in China and India using too much carbon or in a filthy manner, then I suggest you invest in economical clean technology that the Chinese and Indians will buy.
But remember they will only "buy it" if it is truly economical and competitive, not by globalist dictate.
And as I've stated before (but you seem to ignore) I have no problem with economic alternative sources of energy and reducing pollution.
CO2, itself, is not a pollutant, rather, it is a trace gas necessary for plant growth.
Production of CO2 many times comes with pollution which can be reduced by technology and I'm all in favor of reducing, say sulphur dioxide (which causes acid rain) and other polluting externalities associated with hydrocarbon burning.
But that isn't achieved by globalist dictates.
Which was the point of my earlier comment where I quoted The New York Times. AGW scaremongering is taking our eye off the ball.
Reduced pollution is achieved by demonstrating it is in the Chinese and Indian's economic and "quality of life" interest to do so.
KV wrote: "...if I were to listen to your investment advice, I would go broke."
I didn't offer any investment advice.
But if I did, oil is still a good place to invest, wouldn't you agree?
KV wrote: "Like, the abiogenic oil is going to solve all the problems, etc."
No, certainly not, but the big scare of "peak" oil is a fraud.
Abiotic Oil is a physical reality.
Predictability and steadiness are important in economic matters where capitalists plan for the future.
False scares of "imminent" "peak" oil do nothing for predictability and steadiness.
A continuing availability of oil at reasonable economic prices that can be incorporated into economic projects of the future is a good thing.
And is consistent with the physical reality of this planet's Abiotic Oil sources.
Anaconda,
After reading your post, I am forced to conclude that you are a moron. You whine for trees and forest at the same time.
In a single breath, you said you do not advice me on investing, but here you are: …then I suggest you invest in economical clean technology that the Chinese and Indians will buy.
You are ignorant of capitalists. You wrote: Predictability and steadiness are important in economic matters where capitalists plan for the future.
Right on! That is why we just went through financial crisis that required patching it up by over 2 Trillion dollars, and may be even up to $20 Trillions, nobody really knows, because they will not release Feds’ books.
It was really predictable for them that the US Govt. will bail them out to keep the steadiness of the economy! So they went out and looted all they can and let you and me do the predictions and steadiness by our tax dollars.
Abiogenic oil in the ground is nfg for investment considerations. I need production at profit. I suggest you read up the Ferengi’s rules of acquisition.
If we burn 2 billion gallons of gasoline into the air each day, and 55% of that spent fuel goes into the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems each day, then that means the atmosphere is gaining 0.90 billion gallons of burnt gasoline each day....that's 328.5 billion gallons of gasoline being added to the atmosphere each year, assuming that the number of cars doesn't increase that is....
QF,
Numbers! They matter, and thanks for showing OIM (aka Anaconda?) how to compute them.
But both OIM and Anaconda can not extrapolate anything, and they can not think because the beamfuckers did not write it down in the book.
I agree with OIM and Anaconda on this.
The stangards of debate are slipping, so it seems that some reality is shining through into their lives. The NWO are aligning US wealth with the rest of the world so in fact the herd have stumbled onto the truth.
When this happens there will be more science on plasma and some surprizes, not just project bluebeam, and so fundamentally things will be fine. But gringoes can forget their old wealth. It is gone. Once the investments are made worthless by wars and plasma induction, there will be few investments open to gringoes except to work in tandem with others, currently despised as inferior.
Interesting times gentlemen!
"Never allow family to stand in the way of opportunity.
Change Family to Country and you got the bankers and financiers."
This is nothing new.
Thomas Jefferson stated much the same thing:
"Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains." --Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, 1814. ME 14:119
"The selfish spirit of commerce... knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain." --Thomas Jefferson to Larkin Smith, 1809. ME 12:272
Communism is no better, selfish corruption is indemic to human nature.
Actually, Communism is worse because its proponents hold out Communism as virtuous.
Capitalism makes no such claims.
There are plenty of honest business people who do their best to follow the law, make profit and treat their employees decently.
"Never pay more for an acquisition than you have to."
Again, nothing new (and nothing particularly wrong, either).
"Buy low, sell high."
Anaconda,
What about "Once you have their money ... never give it back."? Remember TARP? Remember depreciation of $100K for so called small business under Bush? Remember Obama's Cash for clunkers?
By the way, there are nearly 200 rules of acquisitions for Ferengi... I only gave three...
There are plenty of honest business people... but their honesty disqualifies them from being capitalists.
"What about 'Once you have their money ... never give it back.'?"
That works only in one time transactions.
If you want to have ongoing business transactions with indiviuduals (customers), and in business repeat customers are the key to success, then there are times when customer happiness requires you "give it back", or you lose a customer and that customer goes around telling all their contacts to avoid that vendor.
Good will and reputation for fair dealing are important in many lines of business.
I suppose as a rule of thumb, "once you have their money ... never give it back", is okay, but there are numerous exceptions.
Warranties -- the product breaks before the warranty expires, well, then you have to give back the money or get sued (or fix the product depending on the contract).
Obviously, there is a big difference between "one-off" transactions and ongoing transactions.
But if somebody figures they sold at too low a price after the fact and come back to you, and it is a "one-off" transaction, then the deal is done.
(Although, some businessmen might give it back, as an act of good will, but it's not required.}
I suspect your definition of capitalist and mine are different.
Mine seems more broad, as I include all people in a for profit business.
It is important to distinghish between corrupt practices and Capitalism in general.
Corrupt practices are neither Liberal nor Conservative.
As immorality is neither Liberal nor Conservative.
Unfortunately, corrupt practices are riddled through Wall Street and high finance these days.
Corrupt practices are unacceptable to moral men.
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
"Never take on more power than you can handle properly, for the devil will try to give you partial control and full power while you're still in the channel locks."
Post a Comment