no rise in atmospheric CO2 in 160 years

[dogtowner]

say what ?

Something is wrong with this picture !

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.

 

[dahermit]

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.

Begs the question: How accurate was Carbon Dioxide data taken in 1850? Also, this is not a "study" it is an abstract from an actual study. How was the data taken? Was the data based on Ice cores? What data was considered? How was the data tested?, etc. An abstract is a conclusion by the researcher/author. Show me the actual study so that I can see if it was legitimate or based on flawed methodology.

 

[dogtowner]

Begs the question: How accurate was Carbon Dioxide data taken in 1850? Also, this is not a "study" it is an abstract from an actual study. How was the data taken? Was the data based on Ice cores? What data was considered? How was the data tested?, etc. An abstract is a conclusion by the researcher/author. Show me the actual study so that I can see if it was legitimate or based on flawed methodology.

I provided the link which notes the study. Have fun !

 

[dahermit]

I provided the link which notes the study. Have fun !

I went to your link. Evidently you do not know what a research study is. What you linked is an article that talks about alleged findings. The actual study was not there. Nor was any of the things I questioned.

 

[dogtowner]

I went to your link. Evidently you do not know what a research study is. What you linked is an article that talks about alleged findings. The actual study was not there. Nor was any of the things I questioned.

Go to the bottom of the link. Read. Have fun !

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Go to the bottom of the link. Read. Have fun !

On the same page you cited there is another referenced article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090128104533.htm
and that article disagrees with the one you cited.

 

[dogtowner]

On the same page you cited there is another referenced article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090128104533.htm
and that article disagrees with the one you cited.

OK, and your point is ?

Seems like there are a wide variety of opinions on all facets of this climate deal.

They report, you decide.

Thats the way science is supposed to work.

 

[dahermit]

OK, and your point is ?

Seems like there are a wide variety of opinions on all facets of this climate deal.

They report, you decide.

Thats the way science is supposed to work.

And your purpose for posting this was?

 

[dogtowner]

And your purpose for posting this was?

your amusement and amazement.

the science is NOT settled nor is it conclusively pointing at anything.

but its good to see a broader picture of whats being found so that, as Pete Townsend said, we don't get fooled again.

 

[mogur]

Nine bucks to read the entire article. Let's see, a good cigar or scientific enlightenment? Hmmmm... anyone got a light?

 

[dogtowner]

Nine bucks to read the entire article. Let's see, a good cigar or scientific enlightenment? Hmmmm... anyone got a light?

i wouldn't give you a dime for a cigar but by the same token I would not give you a dime for some research paper when i can get the summary for nothing.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

OK, and your point is ?

Seems like there are a wide variety of opinions on all facets of this climate deal.

They report, you decide.

Thats the way science is supposed to work.

My point was that ONE article does not make a consensus. In science we work towards a consensus, and right now the consensus among scientists is that we are having a negative impact on the ecosystems that provide us with clean food, water, air, and a stable climate.

You know as well as I do that a complete consensus will never happen, we still have people claiming that cigarette smoking doesn't cause cancer even though we had more than enough evidence to come to a rational consensus more than 50 years ago.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

i wouldn't give you a dime for a cigar but by the same token I would not give you a dime for some research paper when i can get the summary for nothing.

The drawback to the summary is that it's someone ELSE'S opinion of what the research says, you have to be able to trust the summarizer or you'l just get fooled again.

 

[dogtowner]

My point was that ONE article does not make a consensus. In science we work towards a consensus, and right now the consensus among scientists is that we are having a negative impact on the ecosystems that provide us with clean food, water, air, and a stable climate.

You know as well as I do that a complete consensus will never happen, we still have people claiming that cigarette smoking doesn't cause cancer even though we had more than enough evidence to come to a rational consensus more than 50 years ago.

No, you dont. You work to a preponderance of facts that make any other conclusions unreasonable.