View topic - Atmospheric CO2 not increasing?

It is currently December 13th, 2017, 1:40 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: January 8th, 2010, 10:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 29th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 5848
Location: Bancroft, Ontario Canada
If this research is valid, it may contradict computer models that have been assuming airborne CO2 is increasing with time, leading to climate warming. The findings seem to suggest that the world's oceans and vegetation are absorbing more CO2 than previously thought.



Quote:
No Rise of Airborne Fraction of Carbon Dioxide in Past 150 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.

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.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 184221.htm

_________________
><((((º>


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: January 8th, 2010, 2:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: July 30th, 2006, 1:31 pm
Posts: 392
Location: Hamilton ON
frozentripper wrote:
If this research is valid, it may contradict computer models that have been assuming airborne CO2 is increasing with time, leading to climate warming. The findings seem to suggest that the world's oceans and vegetation are absorbing more CO2 than previously thought.



Quote:
No Rise of Airborne Fraction of Carbon Dioxide in Past 150 Years, New Research Finds
The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 184221.htm


Frozentripper: I don't believe that you have intrepreted this study properly.
Only a fraction of the CO2 that is emitted remains in the atmosphere. The study is only saying that there is little or no evidence that this FRACTION has changed in 150 years. The concentration of CO2 is of course still increasing.
Jim


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: January 8th, 2010, 5:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 29th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 5848
Location: Bancroft, Ontario Canada
You're right, I should have said that the fraction of airborne CO2 isn't increasing. There still may be an effect on the reliability of computer models used to predict rate of climate change, since the possibility of a "tipping point" might be reduced if it was modelled that the tipping point suddenly occurs when oceans and vegetation become saturated with CO2 and unable to remove carbon more rapidly.

There may be an effect if the positive feedback loop that's been predicted by others becomes less possible in the same way. It seems intuitive to me that negative feedback loops should have evolved in the biosphere to moderate climate change over periods of time, making climate more stable in it's response to CO2. If the reverse was true, if a positive feedback loop defined climate most strongly, life could soon cease to exist because of wildly fluctuating temperatures responding to the slightest change in CO2 concentration..

The article might be implying that negative feedback loops do exist to moderate cliamte at higher CO2 concentrations, but it's only intuition for me. This is out of my background and the actual climate scientists have the greatest credibility.... thanks for pointing out my omission, my $0.02 anyway.

_________________
><((((º>


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: January 11th, 2010, 5:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: May 23rd, 2006, 2:01 pm
Posts: 734
Location: Toronto, Ontario
New Univeristy of Waterloo study finds CFCs, not CO2, to be the cause of recent global warming.

This study was published in a scientific journal and was peer reviewed. It'll be interesting to see the reaction to this hypothesis.

Did someone say the science was settled?

OZONE

Quote:
The ozone hole did it
Posted: January 09, 2010, 12:41 AM by NP Editor
By Lawrence Solomon

Climate change is real and man-made, explains University of Waterloo professor Qin-Bin Lu, author of a new study published this week in the peer-reviewed journal, Physics Reports.

Professor Lu also explains that the climate change crisis is over. Thanks to an international environmental treaty, the planet is no longer in peril. We have, in fact, begun a long cooling period that will bring Earth’s temperatures back to normal.

The man-made cause of global warming is not CO2 and the international treaty that saved the planet is not the Kyoto Protocol. Rather, says Dr. Lu, the true cause of global warming has been CFCs, or chlorofluorocarbons, a class of chemicals that was once widely used in aerosol cans and refrigeration. As CFC use soared in the decades following World War II, he explains, the globe started warming dramatically. The world stopped warming dramatically when government regulations began to phase out CFCs, an event that culminated in the western world in 2000. Almost immediately afterward, in 2002, the world began to cool as CFCs started to diminish in our atmosphere.

The heroes in this tale are environmentalists and world leaders such as U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, who got together to sign the Montreal Protocol of 1987. This protocol was designed to stop the Ozone Hole from developing above the Antarctic by ridding the planet of ozone-destroying CFCs. Little did either the environmentalists or the world leaders recognize at the time, explains Professor Lu, that their actions would also eliminate the threat to the planet of global warming.

Professor Lu, a path-breaking scientist in the field of ozone protection, made his CO2 discovery by accident — he was looking for culprits in the formation of the ozone hole over Antarctica. A chief suspect was CO2: Climate models produced by climatologists showed that CO2 would have devastating effects on the ozone layer, significantly enlarging the ozone hole over Antarctica and dramatically enlarging it over the Arctic. But when Dr. Lu compared the imagined output of the climate models with the actual measurements taken real-time by satellites and weather balloons, the models turned out to be soaring failures.


Ozone hole over South Pole: “Warming on Earth’s surface between 1950 and 2000 is pretty much due to CFCs,” says Prof. Qin-Bin Lu. Photo credit NASA.

“I didn’t see any CO2 effect on temperature or ozone depletion over the South Pole from 1956 to 2008,” explained Dr. Lu, surprised at how totally different the real-world measurements were from those that the climate model predicted. The real-world measurements showed CO2 to be largely irrelevant – “the global warming on Earth’s surface between 1950 and 2000 is pretty much due to CFCs,” he concluded. “The models say that CO2 is a major greenhouse gas but the facts show otherwise.”

In contrast, CFCs have long been known to be a greenhouse gas that, on a molecule per molecule basis, is 10,000 times more potent than CO2. Professor Lu’s satellite and balloon measurements showed that factor of 10,000 to have been a gross underestimate!

Had CFCs never been widely used in our air conditioners and refrigerators, Dr. Lu believes, the Earth would not have warmed in the last century. And had CFCs not been banned, he would not be predicting a period of global cooling.

But with the CFC ban, and the subsequent phase-out of this ozone destroying chemical, global warming stopped and, early this decade, a period of global cooling began. This cooling will last “at least 50 years, and possibly 70 years” as the global temperatures return to their pre-CFC levels, he explains, barring the rise of an alternative to CFC, or the introduction of another greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.

The cooling, he predicts, will be gentle – “after 2010 or so, the globe temperature will experience a small bounce back but a general declining tendency will not change.” Neither will the new levels be worrisome – Earth will find itself back at the levels of the 1950s, which themselves hadn’t changed much over the previous century.

Dr Lu’s study is now published and the reviews he has received to date have been favourable but he may find himself writing a postscript in three year’s time. Like hundreds of other scientists around the world, Dr. Lu may have unwittingly relied on invalid data for a portion of his study. His real-time satellite and balloon data, which shows CO2 does not cause climate change, is not in dispute. Not so for the historical temperature data, on which he based his estimates of how much global cooling we face as Earth’s temperatures return to their historic pre-CFC levels. “My temperature data comes from the UK – the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University,” he reveals when questioned.

As a result of the Climategate Scandal, this temperature data is now in doubt. Investigations into the Climategate emails are underway at East Anglia and the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. More significantly, CRU’s data is so suspect that the UK Met Office, which partnered with the Climate Research Unit in producing datasets for researchers, is undertaking a mammoth three-year investigation during which it will re-examine 160 years of original temperature data to determine to what extent, if any, CRU cooked the books.

Because of all this uncertainty, “I cannot say how reliable their data is,” states Professor Lu, who has done his best to reassure himself that all is in order. When the Climategate scandal erupted as his study was being completed, he cross-checked the CRU data to that of NOAA, another prominent organization, and then he cross-checked his data again when CRU’s partner, the UK Met Office, released more data. “All of them look similar,” Professor Lu says. Professor Lu’s cross-checks provide scant reassurance, however, because all these data-handling agencies had drawn their data from the same tainted pool. Although Professor Lu declines to comment on the Climategate scandal, he cannot be confident that his study will not need to be redone in three year’s time, when the UK Met Office completes its re-examination.

One calculation in his study that may change with revised CRU data: His 50-70 year estimate of the coming global cooling may change by two or three decades. One calculation that won’t change: CO2’s contribution to global warming remains approximately nil.

Financial Post
LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com


Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute and author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud.

_________________
"When the green, dark forest was too silent to be real" - Gordon Lightfoot


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: January 11th, 2010, 6:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: January 11th, 2009, 6:49 am
Posts: 820
What CFC's made the move of the Thule easier from Russia across our Arctic to Greenland?

While I am a big supporter of reducing consumption, and preventing pollution I can't understand why this isn't just called a cycle. This has happened before in history.

_________________
http://www.awholebunchofings.com

Self propelled mindfullness kayak and canoe travel


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: January 11th, 2010, 8:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: February 8th, 2005, 10:34 pm
Posts: 726
:clap: :clap: :clap:

Good to see that we are not alone in looking at the big picture. Welcome aboard.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: January 14th, 2010, 4:26 am 
Offline

Joined: January 11th, 2009, 6:49 am
Posts: 820
Cheer's.

I for one will not be part of the humans causing global warming believers. How will these people feel when things cool off again....and they killed a forest making cardboard protest signs these last few years? :lol:


Ironic?

_________________
http://www.awholebunchofings.com

Self propelled mindfullness kayak and canoe travel


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: January 14th, 2010, 8:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 20th, 2001, 7:00 pm
Posts: 7511
Location: Scarbados, Ontario Canada
Quote:
How will these people feel when things cool off again....

That's an honest question that deserves an answer.

First, I'd like to modify it since we all agree that the science needs some more settling before we know for sure, thus the question should be:
Quote:
How will these people feel if things cool off again....


I on my part, would be happy, the same feeling I have after I entered a stretch on the 401 where blowing snow obscured the vision and I thought there was a chance of a collision scene ahead of me, making a mess of the highway.

The point I am making is the risk that we all assess at different levels. But ignoring the risk would be a dumb and irresponsible act that I would not want to be part of.

_________________
“What is the good of having a nice house without a decent planet to put it on?” - Thoreau


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: January 14th, 2010, 10:48 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 11th, 2005, 11:19 am
Posts: 1872
Location: Boise, ID
Image

You guys never quit ...and good thing, certainly lots of ways to ask new questions and raise issues about current state of knowledge. But this paper is not new research. IPCC in 2007 summarized: ""There is yet no statistically significant trend in the CO2 growth rate since 1958 .... This 'airborne fraction' has shown little variation over this period."

So what does this mean ... the current study confirms what we already know. About 46% of human generated CO2 emissions stays in the atmosphere. The remaining gets absorbed in ocean and other carbon sinks. This ratio has not changed looking at "observed" measurements at Mauna Loa (starting in 1958).

Want to know what the study means ... don't follow the press coverage, but listen to the scientist himself:

http://jonesthenews.wordpress.com/2009/ ... ge-denial/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: January 14th, 2010, 12:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 29th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 5848
Location: Bancroft, Ontario Canada
Here's a news report from today's Science Daily... it describes some new developments in forecasting weather along with some clarifications on the role of water vapor in positive feedback loops that amplify climate change.

I've bolded the paragraphs that have to do with positive feedback loops making climate change likely... the scientist that made the comments also left open the possibility that negative feedback loops could still emerge with time somewhere in the system that could work towards moderating climate change.

Quote:
Large Changes in Climate Likely Over Next Century, Daily Carbon Dioxide Measurements Suggest

ScienceDaily (Jan. 14, 2010) — Researchers studying climate now have a new tool at their disposal: daily global measurements of carbon dioxide and water vapor in a key part of Earth's atmosphere. The data are courtesy of the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) instrument on NASA's Aqua spacecraft and confirm the mainstream scientific view that large changes in the climate are likely over the next century.

Moustafa Chahine, the instrument's science team leader at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, unveiled the new measurements at a briefing on recent breakthroughs in greenhouse gas, weather and climate research from AIRS at this week's American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco. The new data have been extensively validated against both aircraft and ground-based observations. They give users daily and monthly measurements of the concentration and distribution of carbon dioxide in the mid-troposphere -- the region of the atmosphere located between 5 and 12 kilometers, or 3 to 7 miles, above Earth's surface and track its global transport.

Users can also access historical AIRS carbon dioxide data spanning the mission's entire seven-plus years in orbit. The product represents the first-ever release of global daily carbon dioxide data that are based solely on observations.

In another major finding, scientists using AIRS data have removed most of the uncertainty about the role of water vapor in atmospheric models. The data are the strongest observational evidence to date for how water vapor responds to a warming climate.

"The argument that the scientific community does not understand water vapor is one of the most durable urban legends in the climate change debate," says Andrew Dessler, a climate scientist at Texas A&M University.

"AIRS temperature and water vapor observations have corroborated climate model predictions that the warming of our climate produced by carbon dioxide will be greatly exacerbated -- in fact, more than doubled -- by water vapor."

Dessler explained that most of the warming caused by carbon dioxide does not come directly from carbon dioxide, but from effects known as "feedbacks." Water vapor is a particularly important feedback. As the climate warms, the atmosphere becomes more humid. Since water is a greenhouse gas, it serves as a powerful positive feedback to the climate system, amplifying the initial warming. AIRS measurements of water vapor reveal that water greatly amplifies warming caused by increased levels of carbon dioxide. Comparisons of AIRS data with models and re-analyses are in excellent agreement.

"The implication of these studies is that, should greenhouse gas emissions continue on their current course of increase, we are virtually certain to see Earth's climate warm by several degrees Celsius in the next century, unless some strong negative feedback mechanism emerges elsewhere in Earth's climate system," Dessler said.


Originally designed to observe atmospheric temperature and water vapor, AIRS data are already responsible for a greater improvement to five- to six-day weather forecasts than any other single instrument, said Chahine. JPL scientists have shown a major consequence of global warming will be an increase in the frequency and strength of severe storms. Earlier this year, a team of NASA researchers showed how AIRS can significantly improve tropical cyclone forecasting. The researchers studied deadly Typhoon Nargis in Burma in May 2008. They found the uncertainty in the cyclone's landfall position could have been reduced by a factor of six had more sophisticated AIRS temperature data been used in the forecasts.

AIRS observes and records the global daily distribution of temperature, water vapor, clouds and several atmospheric gases including ozone, methane and carbon monoxide. With the addition of the mid-tropospheric carbon dioxide data set this week, a seven-year digital record is now complete for use by the scientific community and the public.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 173146.htm

_________________
><((((º>


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group