Free Markets, Free People

More From The “Settled Science” Of Global Warming

This little nugget from Science Daily:

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.

Hmmm … now if this is true (notice how, unlike alarmists, I still skeptically caveat my acceptance of this research until I see verification) it would put a very large dent in the argument for the draconian measures the warmists are attempting to write into law in various countries around the world, wouldn’t it?

Or at least it should. So why do I have this feeling that if true it will be mostly ignored.

Experience I guess.

The research was done by Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol.

[Knorr] 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.

I left that last line in there so that you understand that it is indeed published research and most likely his peers will try to replicate his analysis using his methods and data. As I recall, that’s how the scientific method works. We’ll see how “settled science” reacts to that if it should be validated.

Unfortunately, it leaves me still on my quest to find the answer to the following question: “If rising CO2, as science has told us, lags global warming by 800 years and is an “effect” of such warming, how in the world did it suddenly become a “cause” of such warming?

And I’m no closer to getting the answer to my second question either: “What is the optimum temperature for the “globe”?”

Any assistance in answering them would be greatly appreciated.

~McQ

[ad] Empty ad slot (#1)!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

16 Responses to More From The “Settled Science” Of Global Warming

  • But hasn’t Scott Erb lectured us repeatedly that the CO2 concentrations have exactly matched temperature increases over the past 50 years?

  • There is lake in Alaska that gives off more CO2 than all humans combined.  So, the global warming is just another step to taxing us & making money for the rich.  Americans need to stand up & fight these corrupt politicians.

    Finally, there is a new book just out that’s about a small town in America that stands up to corrupt federal tyranny & ends up starting the 2nd American Revolution.  It’s a great read & maybe, just maybe history is calling us to our destiny & legacy.  I recommend the book for what’s coming in 2010.
    http://www.booksbyoliver.com

  • All average global temperatures since 1895 are predicted by a simple model. There was no need to consider any change to the level of CO2 or any other greenhouse gas. Global warming stopped in about 2004.
     
    The model, with an eye-opening graph, is presented in the October 16 pdf at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true. (The PDO index indicates a substantial measure of sea surface temperatures but not all so replace all references to PDO with EOT for Effective Ocean Turnover)
     
    This model predicted the ongoing temperature decline trend. None of the 20 or so models that the IPCC uses do.
     

  • Brighten up McQ!
    The other 55% of emitted carbon dioxide is obviously going to Mars and causing its polar
    caps to melt!—–CONEY

  • You’re misreading the results. This does not really affect the case for regulating emissions.

    It says that, of the extra carbon emitted by humans, it has been entering the environment in fairly stable proportions. It has been thought that the oceans’ ability to absorb carbon would be diminished over time. That would mean, given a constant rate of carbon emission from humans, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere would actually accelerate.

    Humans are still pumping a lot of carbon into the environment, and will likely pump at a faster rate in the future. All this study says is that the increase in atmospheric CO2 will be in proportion to the rate of emission. It is possible that in the future this will accelerate, but we’ve not reached that point.

    • What is shows is that there has not been an increase in CO2, and hence the AGW claims that NASA, NOAA, and CRU claimed to easure are bunk. Perhaps in the future, increasing CO2 will lead to AGW, but if these results are correct, the current climate science results are bunk.

      • Don, you’re wrong. This research is about the fraction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the absolute PPM (which is certainly increasing)

        Roger Pielke Jr noted this when it came out a couple months ago here: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/wolfgang-knorr-on-uncomfortable.html

        He and his father are among the researchers that were consistently slandered in the CRU emails. They support the idea of anthropogenic global warming. However, they have a subtle take on it compared to the ‘alarmists,’ and thus are hated for it.

        The comments there are also good, discussing both the results and the author’s opinion on publishing the results.

        • I’ll have to read your link, but I have always considered parts per million to be a fraction.

        • Sean,

          I assume you are saying that the total amount of CO2 is increasing. That is probably true, but I see no reason to consider it “certain”.

          My comment was specifically about CO2 in the atmosphere, since that is the CO2 of direct interest in AGW. I do get the point that the CO2 sinks could be approaching their limit, but we really don’t know that, do we?

          The bottom line is that we really don’t understand GW, attempting to “fix” a problem we don’t understand (to the point that we don’t even know if it is a problem) is stupid.

  • The earth exhibits numerous carbon cycles, whereby carbon dioxide is emitted, stripped out of the atmosphere and stored. One such cycle is the transformation of CO2 into plant material, some of which  then becomes animal material. Plants consume CO2 from the oceans and atmosphere whereby to contruct their own carbon-based chemical makeup. About 80% of the world’s plant biomass is in the oceans. When plants and animals die, they leave carbon deposits that collect and transform into fossil fuels, to put it simply.
    Another carbon cycle is the absorption of atmospheric CO2 by the oceans, where it is dissolved and converted by animals into calcium carbonate (limestone) in the form of shells (shell fish) and coral. The massive white cliffs of Dover, the small mountain ranges in the Great Basin of Nevada and Southeast Arizona and the large limestone deposits of the Midwest all represent CO2 that was stripped out of the atmosphere and stored in the form of limestone.

    One of the tip-offs for me that the Global Warmists were pushing a fraudelent agenda is that these carbon cycles where CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere never fit into their pronouncements. Ask the average citizen today and they will tell you that CO2 simply collects and concentrates in the atmosphere without any mechanism for its removal.

  • And I’m no closer to getting the answer to my second question either: “What is the optimum temperature for the “globe”?”

    Well, let me help you out.   You’re just confusing yourself with all this talk of “science” and “truth,” as if that were anything other than a construct of the evil, imperialist, white Yanquis.

     It is the temperature at which Hugo Chavez is entitled to receive the the maximum cash transfusion from the developed world.  It could be any temperature really, as long as it makes that sweet, sweet “development” dough rise.

    • My optimal temp varies. Sometimes I prefer it a bit cool, other times a bit warm.

      There probably isn’t an optimal temp for the globe, but humans have a definite range that is best. We would likely be best off with slightly higher temps.

  • One of the things that worries me now about the climate debate is that the counter-narratives are drifting in a lot of different directions. That’s not a bad thing, but I think that much of the focus must remain on one central fact.
    Global warming was presented as a dramatic and unprecedented uptick in global temperatures due to human influence since c. 1850.
    The fact is that it wasn’t dramatic or unprecedented and the human influence is sketchy.
    There’s been some warming. It is nothing unprecedented. It came after the Little Ice Age of app two/three centuries duration, when things got quite cold. It is not as warm as the Medieval Warm Period, when the Greenland cap receded and Vikings settled on usuable land, thereafter driven off by subsequent cooling and re-icing.
    We know about climate change that climate changes. Glaciers don’t simply recede, they advance. Which of those is preferable, given that they never stay put?
    Again, we are in the Holocene, for about the last ten thousand years coming out of the depths of an ice age when mile-thick glaciers covered much of North America. Where we are now is called an “inter-glacial period,” usefully implying where the other direction leads. And this ten thousand year warming has been much warmer than it is now, most recently in the aforesaid Medieval Warm Period.
    I’m very tired of the AGW hoax, and that’s what it is. But I suggest that the next time someone uses the term “denier” to put you in the same category as a Holocaust denier because you know that the skeptics’ case has prevailed, that you have a response prepared that will shame said person or persons, if they are capable of shame.

  • As much as a year before the lleaked emails I had come the conclusion that it was all a collasal scare hoax.
    It just seemed to me that if the people screaming about how we were destroying ourselves had really believed that, then they would have been frantically supporting any measure that would lead us away from carbon, including Nuclear.  But since the very same people remained opposed to nuclear then it drew rad flags for me.

  • I see this as back pedaling.  It says there’s still a threat from CO2, but “oops our predictions of imminent collapse have to be delayed a decade or two.”
     
    “And now we found the flaw in our models which still predict collapse, but just a little further out.  We may even have a cooling spell or two, but we’re still on a course for Doom!  Doom, I tell ya!”