New Scientific Study: CO2 Absorption Into Atmosphere Hasn't Changed in 160 YEARS

Most of the man-made CO2 caused by man does not remain in the atmosphere, it is absorbed by the oceans and continents. Only about 45% of man-made CO2 stays in the atmosphere. However, the global-warming moonbats have suggested the ability of oceans and plants to absorb CO2 recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of man-made CO2 emissions is therefore beginning to increase causing the amount of CO2 to increase also .

Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. For the moonbats, understanding this number 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. Wolfgang Knorr took another look at the available data for atmospheric CO2 and emissions data since 1850, and found that some recent studies were wrong. He found that the airborne fraction of CO2 has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

The University of Bristol (Wolfgang Knorr's school) released the following statement

Not only can he not edit his copy, this author is scientifically illiterate, and posting this kind of lunacy just discredits this website. There is no doubt that man made activity is increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. The Mauna Kea data alone settles that issue.

The open scientific question is to what extent increases in CO2 in the atmosphere are causing or will cause climate change, if any. It is an open scientific question. No one really knows, on either side. The nay sayers have no better a case than the GCC doom and gloomers. That is what being an open scientific question.

While one must be careful about accepting implicit premises, the premise that CO2 is increasing because of human activity is a sound premise. What it signifies, if anything, is the issue. That the East Anglia crowd were frauds just allows us to toss out all the data and arguments used to justify the conclusions that they tried to reach. Doing so does nothing to address the soundness of the underlying hypothesis, which can only be addressed with scientifically sound explication of convincing and credible data, either for or against.

Just because the witness is dead does not mean the mob boss is innocent.

The blog linked above says "Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. For the moonbats, understanding this number 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"

That being his most controversial statement, I don't see much wrong with it except that he is implying that the "moonbats" actually care about things like "accurate knowledge". A better statement would be "For the moonbats, coming up with ever higher predictions of the mad-made CO2 fraction is an important part of the alarmist global warming agenda." The blogger did not imply that CO2 was decreasing or that mankind was not responsible for some CO2 increase.

Your point is valid, except for the implication that the whole rise in CO2 is man-made. There is likely a natural component mainly due to natural warming following the LIA. Quantifying the natural and man-made portions is difficult and nobody has quantitatively shown that the whole increase is man-made.

Your main point is very important, that there is slight warming due to CO2 increases but weather feedback is still up for grabs. That's mainly because people on both sides are still trying to come to grips with weather, although some try to oversimplify and ignore it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.