University of Bristol study shows that CO2 levels haven't changed in 160 years
"Controversial New Climate Change Results"
New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.
This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO2 than had been previously expected.
The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.
The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.
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 carbon free sink of 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”.
Another result of the study is that emissions from deforestation might have been overestimated by between 18 and 75 per cent. This would agree with results published last week in Nature Geoscience by a team led by Guido van der Werf from VU University Amsterdam. They re-visited deforestation data and concluded that emissions have been overestimated by at least a factor of two.
Read the Report!!!
Hey Ron
Please read the report! It does not say that CO2 levels have remained constant. It says that the percentage of CO2 absorbed by the environment has remained constant.
Grossly mis-stating the results of studies destroys your credibility.
Basically, it says that the exchange of approximately 550 Gtons/annum of natural CO2 emissions are balances by the 550 Gtons/annum of depletion by photosynthesis and absorption by the ocean. This study shows data to support the contention that this ratio is continuing, and not declining as CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere increase.
This study indicates that about 1/2 of the human CO2 emissions of 26.4 Gtons/annum are currently being depleted by oceans and plant photosynthesis, the same fraction as in the past. We all knew that the oceans would absorb some of the human CO2 emissions. This means that there is an imbalance in the historical CO2 emission vs depletion balance of about 13 Gton/annum, instead of some expectations that the ocean's absorptive capacity was declining. This remaining imbalance has resulted in the recent increase of the atmospheric CO2 from about 300 to 380 ppm.
Although this study is good news, don't immigrate to Kiribati, or buy ocean front property yet, The atmospheric greenhouse gas level continues to climb.
This study shows that absorption rates have not significantly decreased, however the theoretical problem still accrues: The oceans can only sequester a finite amount of CO2. The geologic record shows that there have been rapid changes climate in the past. We know that global ability to moderate increases or decreases in greenhouse gases is a non-linear effect, but we have little data to tell us the threshold where an entirely new regime begins.
In summary, this study shows that moderation of global warming continues: It still proceeds, but is not accelerating as fast as predicted by some. It does not predict what will happen in the future. It says what has been going on since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution continues unabated, and has increased by an amount proportional to the increase in CO2 emissions from human action..
So in a nutshell
The Carbon sink is bigger than the climate models predicting gloom and doom have assumed. So we can say that the climate models have probably predicted erroneously.
Climate models also have failed to predict or explain ice ages, which we know occur.
Climate models cannot predict surface temperature effects from el nino.
The real elephant in the room is the assumed connection between CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere. H2O is far and away the greater greenhouse gas, and climate models assume a connection between CO2 Forcing of global temperatures and Water vapor in the atmosphere. This connection is not well understood, and suffers from local effects, and can cause cooling as well as warming, depending on details of weather, and Cloud cover.
Then there are the satellite temperatures vs Surface thermometers, and the comparisons to tree rings, and the yamal controversy - basically no real good data for the Climate models Hockey stick - http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2...
I would not put too much credibility in the climate models, and we have yet to see a really good experimentally ( i.e. reality) based connection between CO2 and temperature.
The Hill: "Plants need more CO2, not less"
The more people know about this scam, the better.
Excerpt:
"We know CO2 is vital for plants, but what about the argument that it is a dominant contributor to the greenhouse effect? Again, science does not support this argument either. CO2 is not even close to being the most important of the greenhouse gases. Most of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, which is more than 30 times as abundant in the atmosphere as CO2.
By PlantsneedC02.org Chairman H. Leighton Steward -
11/09/09 04:55 PM T
Congress and federal regulators are poised to make a misguided and reckless decision that will stifle our economy recovery and spur long-term damage to plant and animal life on earth.
In the coming months, the Environmental Protection Agency will hold hearings to justify the movement to brand carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant. Congress will also consider cap-and-trade legislation that, if enacted, could also regulate CO2 as pollution. Why is it such a catastrophic decision? Because there is not a single piece of evidence that CO2 is a pollutant. In fact, lower levels of carbon dioxide actually inhibit plant growth and food production. What we see happening in Washington right now is the replacement of politics for science in conversations about CO2.
For plants, CO2 is the greatest, naturally occurring air-borne fertilizer that exists. Even schoolchildren learn in elementary science class that plants need carbon dioxide to grow. During photosynthesis, plants use this CO2 fertilizer as their food and they “breathe out” oxygen into the air so humans can inhale it, and in turn exhale CO2. This mutually beneficial and reinforcing cycle is one of the most basic elements of life on earth.
An article appeared recently in the Environment and Energy Daily that claimed a “modeled” nitrogen deficiency will occur as CO2 rises. Well, CO2 has already risen over 37%, 105 parts per million, and where is the real world nitrogen deficiency? Why are Earth’s forests lush if the added growth that has already occurred, due to big bursts of CO2, has depleted the nitrogen supply? The nitrogen supply of pristine ecosystems has been resupplied through natural processes for eons. Computer models, manipulated to produce desired results, can generate catastrophic, front page, forecasts. We encourage our government’s scientists to step back from their models and observe what is and what has happened in the real world as well as in actual plant experiments. Doesn’t anyone recognize the good news that is staring them in the face?
More:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-a-environment/...
Bump for the truth.
CO2 levels were much higher (about 3X) thousands/millions of years ago. Some greenhouses enrich their air with CO2 to help plants grow better. The present CO2 level is low compared to former times.
I've heard this
to be true, but do you have any links to articles about it? I've studied the chemistry of carbon dioxide in the blood, and do believe we would do great if we had much higher levels (perhaps 100X what we have now) in the air. For example, asthma is almost always related to low carbon dioxide in the blood. I wrote an article (not published though) about low carbon dioxide and SIDS.