http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1230184221.htm
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.
However, 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.
Many 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.
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.
But if human excess CO2 is being absorbed by the oceans, human logic dictates that the consequence of that is very bad as well............
Also 45% of human co2 in the atmosphere is still alot of co2 that would not be there otherwise.
Also it's proven that co2 causes a greenhouse effect.
What is really needing to be figured out is how much human co2 is effecting the global temperatures.
If anything, this supports global warming long term.
What it means is that there is very little impact to global warming that is due to man.
so global warming does exist?
It doesn't mean that at all.
The article you cite is not evidence against the theory of anthropogenic climate change. If you understand how the carbon cycle works you'd know that CO2 is constantly in a state of flux through the atmosphere and terrestrial and oceanic ecosystems, and this article adds to our understanding of the carbon cycle, nothing more, nothing less.
Here is what Knorr had to say when interviewed about the article:
Way to misinterpret what you don't understand and show your ignorance!This work is extremely important for climate change policy, because emission targets to be negotiated at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen early next month have been based on projections that have a free carbon sink already factored in. Some researchers have cautioned against this approach, pointing at evidence that suggests the sink has already started to decrease.
So is this good news for climate negotiations in Copenhagen? “Not necessarily”, says Knorr. “Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed”.
http://www.physorg.com/news177059550.html
Bull .
There is a little thing called the Keeling Curve which unequivocally illustrates that humanity is responsible for a ~35% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the industrial age. No scientist, denier or rational, disputes that humans are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, and the consequent increase in acidity of the oceans. Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is measured all over the world.
We also have very accurate taxation records of pretty much every bit of fossil fuel sold (and thus burned), and can thus work out exactly how much carbon humanity has dumped in the atmosphere. That figure is around 3,600,000,000,000t. I'd love you to explain where the ~8,000,000,000t of carbon humans currently emit annually from fossil fuels alone magically disappears to when the average life of a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere before it enters a sink is 100-120 years? But you can't answer that because the CO2 is building up in the atmosphere, as has clearly been widely observed.
The Keeling curve:
Extra credit if you can explain the annual oscillation evident in the graph.
Why do you continue to raise articles that you don't read (citing a secondary source's "interpretation" of a primary journal article is simply disingenuous) on a topic you have been proven many times to understand nothing about?
Last edited by RuffnReadyOzStyle; 01-01-2010 at 06:06 AM.
Grow more plants.
Nor is it evidence that CO2 has the effect you alarmists claim.
Bull . First off, there is no way to distinguish between fossil emissions of the surface and undersea volcanoes in the are these measurements are take. There is no way to eliminate other possible isotopic ratio changes. This science is a joke, and on top of that, doesn't matter. In the long run, CO2 is CO2. Anthropogenic or not.
Where can I get some of that wacky weed you're on?
There are plenty of us who dispute this as you laid it out.
There is far better evidence that the increased solar radiation has increased ocean temperatures enough to both raise the sea level by 15 to 20 cm in the last 100 years and change the equilibrium so that the ratio the ocean absorbs of gasses less than before. Then on top of that, CO2 increases alone cannot account for more than maybe a 0.06 pH decrease. Like any other complex system, other factors are in play.
Let's assume that the NASA/GISS simple carbon cycle model is correct. This one, found in Wikipedia, Carbon Cycle:
Please notice that sinks and sources are both over 200 GtC (giga-tons-carbon). I only mention that because it places man made CO2 at less than 4% of the carbon cycle flux. Let's even increase the anthropogenic carbon to 8 GtC annually rather than the 5.5 since this is an older model. Please notice, the atmospheric CO2 is 750 GtC which corresponds to 350 ppm. Therefore, we have about 2.143 GtC per ppm.
Here is what becomes very important that alarmists deny. By this model, the ocean contains 39,120 GtC and the atmosphere 750. Notice I am only including the surface and deep ocean forms. If we look at just these two numbers, the ocean contains 98.119% of the carbon, and the atmosphere contains a measly 1.881% Lets just scale this back a little, for say, 1750, when the atmosphere was about 280 ppm. If the oceans absorbed 55% of the added CO2, the numbers to start with for 1750 would be about 600 GtC in the atmosphere and about and about 38,937 GtC in the ocean. We now have 1.518% in the atmosphere and 98.482% in the ocean.
Doesn't Henry's Law tell us that this is wrong?
Unless....
The ocean has increased in temperature, decreasing the solubility of CO2 in water...
Now it's only a 0.37% decrease. Let's see... That is in line with an approximate 0.046 C rise in average ocean temperature.
Tell me my math in this regard is wrong.
I wonder...
What happens if the ocean stayed at this temperature. What if, throughout the CO2 mankind added, the equilibrium stayed at 64.694:1?
OK, we start... Oh... On top of that, lets add 8 GtC per year, starting at 1750! I'll round to whole numbers.
Start, 1750, 38,937 in the ocean, 600 in the atmosphere, 280 ppm.
1760, 39,016 in the ocean, 601 in the atmosphere, 281 ppm
1770, 39,095 in the ocean, 602 in the atmosphere, still 281 ppm
1780, 39,173 in the ocean, 604 in the atmosphere, 282 ppm
This is going too slow....
1800, 39,331 in the ocean, 606 in the atmosphere, 283 ppm
1900, 40,119 in the ocean, 618 in the atmosphere, 289 ppm
2000, 40,907 in the ocean, 630 in the atmosphere, 294 ppm
2010, 40985 in the ocean, 632 in the atmosphere, 295 ppm
Isn't this a bit interesting?
I have done similar calculations based on equilibrium changes and concluded that even if there was no anthropogenic carbon added to the atmosphere, CO2 levels would be nearly as high as they are today.
Your 3.6E12 number is wrong. I don't know what the real number is, but that could a factor of 10 off. Your number is the equivalent of emitting 8 GtC annually for 450 years. There is no way mankind has emitted that much. Even if it were true, that added CO2 becomes only 305 ppm in the atmosphere with no increase of ocean temperature/equilibrium.
Source?
As for your 100 to 120 years. Another convenient misconception by alarmists. Look at the slope of your oscillations in the Keeling curve. CO2 has a half-life to absorption in the equilibrium by somewhere under 10 years. With such a curve, the truth of absorption is far better than what 100-120 years implies.
Please read the various articles by Dr. Glassman. Especially these three:The Keeling curve:
CO2: "WHY ME?", one paragraph:
THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDERegardless of which way one poses the problem, the existing CO2 in the atmosphere has a mean residence time of 1.5 years using IPCC data, 3.2 years using University of Colorado data, or 4.9 years using Texas A&M data. The half lives are 0.65 years, 1.83 years, and 3.0 years, respectively. This is not "decades to centuries" as proclaimed by the Consensus. Climate Change 2001, Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report, p. 25.
IPCC'S FATAL ERRORS, part of article:
1. IPCC errs to add manmade effects to natural effects. In choosing radiative forcing to model climate, IPCC computes a manmade climate change, implicitly adding manmade effects to the natural background. Because IPCC models are admittedly nonlinear (Third Assessment Report, ¶1.3.2), the response of the models to the sum of manmade and background forces is not equal to the sum of the background response and the response to manmade forces.
A computer run, for example, that assumes the natural forces are in equilibrium, and then calculates the effects of a slug of manmade CO2 that dissolves over the years is not valid. The run needs to be made with the natural outgassing process and anthropogenic emissions entering the atmosphere simultaneously to be circulated and absorbed through the process of the solubility of CO2 in water.
2. IPCC errs to discard on-going natural processes at initialization. IPCC initializes its GCMs to year 1750 in an assumed state of equilibrium. At this time, Earth is warming and CO2, while lagging the warming, is increasing, both at near maximum rates. This initialization causes the models to attribute natural increases in temperature and CO2 to man. The error occurs not because the models fail to reproduce the on-going natural effects. It occurs because subsequent measurements of temperature and CO2 concentration, to which IPCC fits its modeled AGW response, necessarily include both natural and manmade effects.
Earth is currently about 2ºC to 4ºC below the historic peak in temperature seen in the Vostok record covering the four previous warm epochs. IPCC models turn off the natural warming, then calculate a rise attributed to man over the next century of 3.5ºC.
3. IPCC errs to model the surface layer of the ocean in equilibrium. IPCC models the surface layer of the ocean in equilibrium. It is not. It is thermally active, absorbing heat from the Sun and exchanging heat as well as water with the atmosphere. It is mixed with vertical and horizontal currents, stirred by winds and waves, roiling with entrained air, active in marine life, and undulating in depth.
This assumption of equilibrium in the surface layer leads IPCC to model CO2 as ac ulating in the atmosphere in contradiction to Henry's Law of solubility. This causes its model of ACO2 uptake by the ocean to slow to the rate of sequestration in deep water, with time constants ranging into many millennia. A consequence of Henry's Law instead is that the surface ocean is a reservoir of molecular CO2 for atmospheric and ocean processes, and causes it to be in disequilibrium.
Assuming the surface layer to be in equilibrium leads IPCC to conclude that the measured increase in CO2 is from man's emissions, without increases due to background effects or warming of the ocean. It also supports IPCC's conclusion that atmospheric CO2 is well-mixed, contradicting its own observations of CO2 gradients in la ude and longitude. This false assumption allows IPCC to use the MLO record to represent global CO2, and falsely calibrate CO2 measurements from other sources to make them all agree.
4. IPCC errs to erase the global pattern of atmospheric CO2 concentration from its model. IPCC admits that East-West CO2 gradients are observable, and that North-South gradients are an order of magnitude greater. IPCC ignores that MLO lies in the high concentration plume from massive CO2 outgassing in the Eastern Equatorial Pacific. At the same time, IPCC ignores that ice core data are collected in low CO2 concentrations caused by the polar sinks where the ocean uptakes CO2. These features show that CO2 spirals around the globe, starting at the equator and heading toward the poles, and diminishing in concentration as the surface layer cools. The concentration of CO2 should be maximal at MLO, and minimal at the poles, but IPCC makes them contiguous or overlapping through arbitrary calibrations.
5. IPCC errs to model climate without the full dynamic exchange of CO2 between the atmosphere and the ocean. IPCC ignores the planetary flows of CO2 through the atmosphere and across and through the surface layer of the ocean, and then into and out of the Thermohaline Circulation. CO2 is absorbed near 0ºC at the poles, and returned about one millennium later to the atmosphere at the prevailing tropical temperature. IPCC does not model this temperature-dependent exchange of about 90 gigatons of carbon per year, even though it swamps the anthropogenic emission of about 6 gigatons per year.
The outgassing is a positive feedback that confounds the IPCC model for the carbon cycle.
6. IPCC errs to model different absorption rates for natural and manmade CO2 without justification. IPCC considers the ocean to absorb ACO2 at a few gigatons per year, half its emission rate. It reports natural CO2 outgassed from the ocean as being exchanged with the atmosphere at about 90 gigatons per year, 100% of the emission rate. IPCC offers no explanation for the ac ulation of ACO2 but not natural CO2.
Thus IPCC models Earth's carbon cycle differently according to its source, without its dynamic patterns in the atmosphere and the ocean, without its ready dissolution and ac ulation in the surface ocean, and without the feedback of its dynamic outgassing from the ocean.
As a result, IPCC's conclusions are wrong that CO2 is long-lived, that it is well-mixed, that it ac ulates in the atmosphere, and that it is a forcing, meaning that it is not a feedback.
7. IPCC errs to model climate without its first order behavior. IPCC does not model Earth's climate as it exists, alternating between two stable states, cold as in an ice age and warm much like the present, switched with some regularity by unexplained forces.
In the cold state, the atmosphere is dry, minimizing any greenhouse effect. Extensive ice and snow minimize the absorption of solar radiation, locking the surface at a temperature determined primarily by Earth's internal heat.
In the warm state, the atmosphere is a humid, partially reflective blanket and Earth's surface is on average dark and absorbent due primarily to the ocean. The Sun provides the dominant source of heat, with its insolation regulated by the negative feedback of cloud albedo, which varies with cloud cover and surface temperature.
As Earth's atmosphere is a by-product of the ocean, Earth's climate is regulated by albedo. These are hydrological processes, dynamic feedbacks not modeled by IPCC but producing the first order climate effects and the natural background which mask any effects due to man. IPCC global climate models do not model the hydrological cycle faithfully. They do reproduce neither dynamic specific humidity nor dynamic cloud cover. They are unable to predict climate reliably, nor to separate natural effects meaningfully from any conjectures about at most second order effects attributed to man.
8. IPCC errs to model climate as regulated by greenhouse gases instead of by albedo. IPCC rejects the published cosmic ray model for cloud cover, preferring to model cloud cover as constant. It does so in spite of the strong correlation of cloud cover to cosmic ray intensity, and the correlation of cosmic ray intensity to global surface temperature. Consequently, IPCC does not model the dominant regulator of Earth's climate, the negative feedback of cloud albedo, powerful because it shutters the Sun.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 01-01-2010 at 02:05 PM.
Dam Ruff throwing down the smack and pulling out the charts!
I can see mouse taught you well.
This is just further proof the earth is not 4 Billion years old.
Sure it does if you consider Knorr's analysis to be accurate.
Of course Ruff got completely PWNED by Wild Cobra just like mouse gets PWNED in every evolution debate.Dam Ruff throwing down the smack and pulling out the charts!
I can see mouse taught you well.
Can someone PM me the Phyzix list on who is allowed to post in this debate?
Thanks!
I agree.
Since he says the fraction in essence hasn't changed since 1850, then it is farther proof that the fraction changes with temperature, and that temperature drive atmospheric CO2. Not the other way around.
That concept just doesn't fit the dogma people have learned however.
So it's all about scoreboard with you not about real debating or leaning. I bet you paint your face before every debate.
feel free to post a link to where mouse got PWNED..as you call it?
pardon me but I don't have a MySpace page I may be out of touch with the lingo you young kids use these days.
In the debates where he says we didn't go to the moon.
Just post!
Oh, that's right.
He incorrectly applies carbon dating and believes the earth is something like only 10,000 years old.
Maybe you need to go re-read that topic, you bailed and mouse was the last person to post when no one wanted to address his questions.
Also Phyzix got butthurt and brought up some FTP server like it had anything to do with NASA. You guys resort to insults and FTP servers to avoid answering the tough questions. Your not here to debate, your here like TLongII is because your bored and still upset your wife left you.
You can't speak fore the Moderators, I will join in only when Phyzix says I can. I don't want to get banned like mouse did.
carbon dating does not equal radiometric dating
Some day mouse will understand this.
Never been married.
I don't recall why I didn't respond to Mouse's last. I was getting sick and tired of repeating myself though. I gave clear evidence why he was wrong, yet he kept bringing the same up.
How many times must a person repeat themselves?
Is the the person who repeats himself the most, the winner? Not in my book. Their comes a time that it just isn't worth trying to change someone's mind.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
