PDA

View Full Version : No Rise in CO2 in 150 Years



Terry Britton
01-03-2010, 06:00 PM
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

ErinsEdge
01-04-2010, 03:15 PM
OK, so this is a reply from an engineer who understands this stuff. "Where did you get this article? I can see how this article will be misinterpreted. The article/research deals with the percentage of emitted CO2 the atmosphere absorbs vs the ocean and plants. It does not deal with the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is increasing or further more the changing compositional percentage in the atmosphere. Most models assume certain values for CO2 atmospheric, oceanic absorption and plant based photosynthesis...the research is only indicating that some of the past % assumptions and future assumptions of this rate could be different."

Buzz
01-04-2010, 05:42 PM
Well, we may as well get all the engineers in on it.

Correct, no rise in airborn fraction.

So, what does that mean?

dr_dog_guy
01-04-2010, 07:25 PM
It means that 45% of of the CO2 emitted by human activity stayed in the atmosphere 150 years ago, and that same 45% fraction of CO2 emitted today stays in the atmosphere. The other 55% was absorbed elsewhere 150 years ago, and also today. The study, in contrast to others, suggests that the 55% fraction is still being absorbed (and the other 45% is still remaining in the atmosphere).

It doesn't speak to the absolute quantity of CO2, just the fraction.

Bubba
01-04-2010, 08:21 PM
It means that 45% of of the CO2 emitted by human activity stayed in the atmosphere 150 years ago, and that same 45% fraction of CO2 emitted today stays in the atmosphere. The other 55% was absorbed elsewhere 150 years ago, and also today. The study, in contrast to others, suggests that the 55% fraction is still being absorbed (and the other 45% is still remaining in the atmosphere).

It doesn't speak to the absolute quantity of CO2, just the fraction.

But but but.....

Unless there is suddenly more or less air then it would seem to me that the total quantity is the same.

That's how the math at this end of the trailer park works anyhow. .45 * X = samo samo assuming that X is a constant (and yes I know what the assume thing is).


Simple arithmetic regards

Bubba

Henry V
01-04-2010, 08:57 PM
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
Terry, if you are going to title a thread with a bold statement and expect it to be viewed with any credibility you should at least provide a reference that actually supports the title of the the thread. The article you linked to does not.

Bubba, you may want to refrain from trying to argue with math. Here is a simple graph that directly refutes the title of this thread with empirical evidence - no theories or models.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png
As has been discussed here before, those dam gooberment scientists at NOAA and around the world started this nonsense back in the 1950's and have conspired together ever since. ;) Actually, the real problem here is that they can measure in the parts per million, if we could still only measure in parts per thousand there would not nearly be as much of a rise (using simple math of course).

Buzz
01-04-2010, 10:13 PM
It means that 45% of of the CO2 emitted by human activity stayed in the atmosphere 150 years ago, and that same 45% fraction of CO2 emitted today stays in the atmosphere. The other 55% was absorbed elsewhere 150 years ago, and also today. The study, in contrast to others, suggests that the 55% fraction is still being absorbed (and the other 45% is still remaining in the atmosphere).

It doesn't speak to the absolute quantity of CO2, just the fraction.


I should have been more specific. I know what they meant about fractions being absorbed. What I was addressing in my mind with the question is related to the bolded statement in your comment. What does this mean with regard to the absolute concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere...

I can't say that I understand Bubba's math either. Or maybe it's his assumption about a constant X that I can't wrap my head around, especially with Henry's chart in mind.

The thing that surprises me about Henry's curve is that the slope is fairly constant, and not really increasing. I wonder how our rate of CO2 emissions have varied over that time period?

Terry Britton
01-04-2010, 10:25 PM
The full research as cited in the article can be found at http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml.

Before you read any of this or even Bubba's chart, you do need to read "How to Lie With Statistics". Bubba's chart is an example how to make a curve look much worse than it really is by cutting off the parts per million range on the left hand side at 320 to 380 rather than showing full visibility of 0 to 400 parts per million on the chart, and possibly adding more years on the left hand side. If there is 150 plus years of data, then it should be shown.

All of this is statistically insignificant in the history of the Earth.

Terry Britton
01-04-2010, 10:27 PM
Well, we may as well get all the engineers in on it.

Correct, no rise in airborn fraction.

So, what does that mean?

That means CO2 is no more of a greenhouse gas today than it was 150 years ago. :)

dr_dog_guy
01-04-2010, 10:31 PM
But but but.....

Unless there is suddenly more or less air then it would seem to me that the total quantity is the same.

That's how the math at this end of the trailer park works anyhow. .45 * X = samo samo assuming that X is a constant (and yes I know what the assume thing is).


Simple arithmetic regards

Bubba

Sorry, Bubba - 45% of the emisions, not of the amount of air. And we do emit a lot more CO2 than we did a 150 years ago. You're in the wrong end of the trailer park.

dr_dog_guy
01-04-2010, 10:42 PM
I should have been more specific. I know what they meant about fractions being absorbed. What I was addressing in my mind with the question is related to the bolded statement in your comment. What does this mean with regard to the absolute concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere...

I can't say that I understand Bubba's math either. Or maybe it's his assumption about a constant X that I can't wrap my head around, especially with Henry's chart in mind.

The thing that surprises me about Henry's curve is that the slope is fairly constant, and not really increasing. I wonder how our rate of CO2 emissions have varied over that time period?

Buzz, my comment about the fraction - let me put it like this. I'm making the numbers up to show the relationships. If there were 100 tons of CO2 emitted 150 years ago, 45 tons stayed in the atmosphere. 150 years later, if 1000 tons of CO2 are emitted, 450 tons stay in the atmosphere. So if the rate of emission goes up, the percentage that stays in the atmosphere stays the same, but the amount varies with total emissions.

Does that make more sense?

Buzz
01-04-2010, 10:48 PM
That means CO2 is no more of a greenhouse gas today than it was 150 years ago. :)

I thought it meant that the atmospheric concentration may not increase at as high a rate as some models suggest, that is, models that assume the earth and ecosystems are losing capacity to absorb CO2.

Terry Britton
01-04-2010, 11:08 PM
Yes. There is another article on one of those links that says that the Earth is absorbing CO2 much faster than the models thought.

Terry Britton
01-04-2010, 11:14 PM
I thought it meant that the atmospheric concentration may not increase at as high a rate as some models suggest, that is, models that assume the earth and ecosystems are losing capacity to absorb CO2.

Here is the other article. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110141842.htm

All of these articles are being generated from one scientific report in a journal. Does anyone have access to the report without having to subscribe?

twall
01-05-2010, 01:35 PM
Henry,

What is the link between CO2 and global temperature? How does CO2 fertilization impact plant growth rates thus increasing photosynthesis?

Tom

Henry V
01-06-2010, 10:49 PM
The full research as cited in the article can be found at http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml.

Before you read any of this or even Bubba's chart, you do need to read "How to Lie With Statistics". Bubba's chart is an example how to make a curve look much worse than it really is by cutting off the parts per million range on the left hand side at 320 to 380 rather than showing full visibility of 0 to 400 parts per million on the chart, and possibly adding more years on the left hand side. If there is 150 plus years of data, then it should be shown.

All of this is statistically insignificant in the history of the Earth.
It surprises me that an engineer consistently undermines basic science by suggesting that a data plot that you do not like misrepresents the facts and insinuate that it is a lie. I assume the chart you're referencing was the one I posted. To suggest this NOAA chart of raw data is a lie or somehow misrepresents the facts is a testament to your level of denial. Using the logic in the argument you present above, I will assume that you believe that every xy graph that does not include the origin (0,0) must be an attempt to misrepresent data. A laughable position, if not including the origin in a plot makes a graph a lie I can't image what you think of graphs where the data has been transformed to a log scale?
Since the graph is a lie or at least misrepresents the facts what do you call the fact that CO2 levels have increased from 314.69 in 1958 to 388.07 in 2009. The percent increase over this time period is thus 23.3183%. Does this statistic somehow misrepresent the facts too?

I posted the CO2 graph because it is data, plain and simple. As your science daily article notes
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.

Speaking of the longer historical record and ice core data, I posted the following graph on one of the many climate change threads started on this site the past couple years (did you ever notice that only the deniers start these threads- hints at insecurity to me)
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/lawdome.gif
I know this chart does not include the origin but it doe sinclude more of the y-axis so it must be less of a misrepresentation of the facts than the last graph using you logic. After you have noted that the graph does not include the origin, turn your attention to the historic record here that shows CO2 levels at their highest ever. It's almost like there was some sort of CO2 equilibrium or balance on the planet up until about 140 years ago and then it looks like something changed.

You can find more CO2 graphs, methane graphs, etc beginning in this thread here http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=47927&page=9

I’ll give you credit for being consistent in your point of view. Last June you said
The manmade global warming crowd does little to promote actual scientific analysis by tainting data such as adjusting, moving, or placing sensors so that heat will increase or be much higher (south side of buildings near asphalt). They leave out full analysis such as the changing of earth's orbit over time, and other external radiations. They ignore the many glaciers that are growing, and the major significance that under water volcanoes have. They ignore places where the sea levels are going down rather than increasing as their models state they should. It is a big money grab and political push.

You are buying into unethical marketing.

Do you realize the start of the global warming craze was concocted to end coal mining strikes in the UK, and to help push nuclear plants in the UK so that the miners union would have less power?
I am curious, since the paper you started this thread with uses this same ice core data, why do you believe this study? Also, could you cite your references for these facts that you apparently base your perspecitve on?

Henry V
01-06-2010, 10:54 PM
Henry,

What is the link between CO2 and global temperature? How does CO2 fertilization impact plant growth rates thus increasing photosynthesis?

Tom
Do a search on climate change and my name. Numerous links to in depth articles that answer your questions are provided there.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas that contributes to heat retention in the atmosphere. There are many potential positive and negative feedback mechanism to the increased level of CO2.

Henry V
01-06-2010, 11:01 PM
Buzz, Check this one out from Science Daily.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080423181652.htm There is some discussion of the rates of the CO2 rise over the past few decades.
Also, note the methane discussion and concerns that their is now evidence that the tundra is turning into a carbon and methane source rather than a sink. (aka - big time positive feedback in the climate models).

SMITTYSSGTUSMC
01-07-2010, 11:29 AM
Buzz, Check this one out from Science Daily.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080423181652.htm There is some discussion of the rates of the CO2 rise over the past few decades.
Also, note the methane discussion and concerns that their is now evidence that the tundra is turning into a carbon and methane source rather than a sink. (aka - big time positive feedback in the climate models).

the International Panel on Climate Change. Henry do not trust these tools.