Controversial New Climate Change Data: Is Earth's Capacity To Absorb CO2 Much Greater Than Expected?

Science Daily ^ | Nov. 11, 2009 | Science Daily

[Salman]

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.

[Salman]

Emphasis added. Not doomed after all?

[K-oneTexas]

This flys in the face of reason as stated by the omnipotent AlGore!

Good article. When will science talk to the masses of people and present truth.

Truth! Stranger then Fiction ... in this Global Warming world.

[Lauren BaRecall]

All we have to do is cultivate more plant life. And I’m not kidding.

[Lauren BaRecall]

More greenscapes in urban environments.

[traderrob6]

Related...

http://exposingtheleft.blogspot.com/2009/11/global-warming-where.html

[RonnieFan]

Why is it that the same people that need to believe that evil dictators are not really that bad also fall hook, line and sinker for the environmental Armageddon de jour?

[xjcsa]

All we have to do is cultivate more plant life. And I’m not kidding.

We don't even need to do that - nature is quite efficient on its own. Plants will grow faster and easier as the CO2 in the air increases, providing a natural negative feedback mechanism. If anything, we'll have to work harder to keep plants from encroaching on development.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[HKMk23]

REPEATING FOR EMPHASIS:

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.

THAT is a very significant strength, indeed. Numbers that have not been "massaged" by a computer model have also not been coerced into saying anything other than what they actually mean.

[TurtleUp]

Why would they still be studying this? “The science is settled.” There is no need for further questioning or research, is there?

[mountainlion]

OOPS they blew it again. Silly scientists.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Self-ping

[wolf78]

Emphasis added. Not doomed after all?

With rising CO2 levels there has been more algae growth in the oceans (algae which in a few hundred thousand or million years will again turn to oil, essentially storing carbon in the form of biomass on the ocean floor). The problem is: We just don't know. The doomsayers are just as ignorant in this regard as the coal lobbyist.

Anyway the real reason for alternative energy is population growth and spread of capitalism (i.e. rising living standards in China and India). In a world world where 3 billion (instead of 300 million) people demand the same amount of energy as present-day Americans, not only fossil fuel but also uranium (as used in present-day nuclear reactors) will be in short supply. Energy efficiency is a given (insulation, heat pumps / heat recovery, waste management / waste to energy). Wind, solar, fusion, breeders, thorium will grow in importance as less volatile alternatives to traditional energy sources. Who will get the biggest share of the future pie depends on which technology delivers the most bang for the buck at an acceptable ecological impact.