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."
Well, we may as well get all the engineers in on it.
Correct, no rise in airborn fraction.
So, what does that mean?
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.
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, 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.
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).
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?
The full research as cited in the article can be found at http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/200...GL040613.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.