No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds
crunch
Please comment fully.
David Christainsen - Meteorologist
Newton, Mass. USA
Sir David
shirt:
> Please comment fully.
You first, Crunchy.
> Carl Crunchystain, janitor at a weather company
Hassled Dad
Difficult with only an abstract.
crunch
The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters.
"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."
crunch
Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing?
Wolfgang Knorr
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml
David Christainsen - Meteorologist
Dawlish
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yes. Why should we. Crunchy decided to post this; let Crunchy the
significance.
7
All the tankers and all the oil in the world won't amount to 1 cubic
mile of CO2 for the past 100 years. Yet there are millions of cubic miles of
CO2 locked up in rocks, sediments and plants. Even if you released a cubic
mile of CO2, it would be absorbed by plants and marine planktons
within days. Thats what happens when volcanoes erupt. And volcanoes
erupt all day and all night all across the planet.
CO2 is an extremely rare gas (<0.05%) in the atmosphere
because so many plants and marine planktons consume it instantly.
Talk of land and seas slowing down the ability to absorb CO2
is utter nonsense. The CO2 exchanged between atmosphere and sea
in one day is more than all the CO2 ever produced by ALL human activity.
The scales and numbers are no match for what nature does with
its volcanoes, planktons and plants all day and all night.
I M @ good guy
How much does a cubic mile of dry ice weigh,
a fact not discussed in the atmospheric CO2 fantasy.
While the AGW nuts are certain that increasing
atmospheric CO2 will mean disaster, the claim of
high concentrations over the past few hundred years
may be just as questionable.
Times have really changed with a bunch of
nutcases concerned about a few tenths of a degree
too warm, while many millions are freezing in typical
or extremely cold winter weather.
Single digit F temperatures here are fairly rare,
but 2010 seems to be starting off with a big bunch.
richp
>
> - Show quoted text -
Both you and 8 7 are too full of shit to waste much time with
richp
a fact not discussed in the atmospheric CO2 fantasy. <<
What the fuck does that have to do with anything
richp
<spamtrap...@AT.frankenexpress.de> wrote:
> crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 31, 2:27 pm, Hassled Dad <i...@socliblaw.org.uk> wrote:
> > > On Dec 31, 7:16 pm, crunch <pchristain...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
>
> > > > Please comment fully.
>
> > > > David Christainsen - Meteorologist
> > > > Newton, Mass. USA
>
> > > Difficult with only an abstract.
>
> > The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters.
>
>
>
>
> > "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."
>
> > David Christainsen - Meteorologist
>
> - Show quoted text -
Like you the idea that atmospheric CO2 hasn't increased in 160 years
is complete crap
richp
wrote:
Hey asshole when comes to volcanoes emitting vast quantities of CO2 go
fuck your dog
Roger Coppock
That's the fraction of manmade CO2 which stays in the atmosphere,
something one should expect not to change quickly. There's no
news here.
Rav1ng rabbit
The GRL article of Knorr et al is fairly easy to read. It says that
about 40% of the emitted CO2 since the start of the industrial
revolution stays in the atmosphere (the so called airborne fraction of
AF), and that the remaining 60% is taken up by land use and the oceans.
In the conclusions they say:
> From what we understand about the underlying
> processes, uptake of atmospheric CO2 should react not to a
> change in emissions, but to a change in concentrations. A
> further analysis of the likely contributing processes is necessary
> in order to establish the reasons for a near-constant AF
> since the start of industrialization. The hypothesis of a recent
> or secular trend in the AF cannot be supported on the basis of
> the available data and its accuracy.
If you want to read more than you should buy the article, or mail the
authors and beg for a personal copy.
Hope this helps,
Q
--
Well, opinions are like assholes... everybody has one. -- Harry Callahan
http://tinyurl.com/m7m3qd
Rav1ng rabbit
Come on Roger, the news is that the AF stays at 40%, and that it doesn't
correlate to ENSO or the Volcanoes.
IOW, the more we emit, the more stays airborne, the more the land and
oceans absorp.
The OP wanted to read of course something else, and my best guess is
that the OP is now pulling his hairs out that he did not find any
evidence against global warming,
ROFL,
Dawlish
Why should we "buy the article"? Crunchy posts this, but can't be
bothered to buy it and read the whole article, or to comment on it. I
do wish he wouldn't bother cross-posting this rubbish.
crunch
Grow up, kid.
JohnM
Ecosystem services largely depend on an environment that is not too
volatile. They are not getting it these days.