No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds

ScienceDaily ^ | Dec. 31, 2009 | staff

[saganite]

Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere. However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.

snip

To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

[dennisw]

Our idiot child president should read this about no CO2 increase for 160 years....0bama is the one who talks about science so much and how he is going to increase science spending over what GW Bush did

0bama is a science dunce like your typical female liberal arts major...Just a big talker and braggart like JayZee or any other rap star

[bmwcyle]

bookmark this one ping

[dennisw]

Dr Wolfgang Knorr

Contact details

Phone: +44 (0)117 3314468
Email: Wolfgang.Knorr (at) bristol.ac.uk
Room: G19
Postal Address:
Dept. of Earth Sciences
University of Bristol
Wills Memorial Building
Queen's Road
BRISTOL BS8 1RJ
United Kingdom

Position | Departmental responsibilities | Research Interests | Publications | Further information

Position

Senior Research Fellow and QUEST Deputy Leader

---

Departmental responsibilities

Teaching: Modelling, Forecasting and Data Assimilation unit for MSc in Earth System Science

Admin: Departmental examinations officer

---

Research Interests

My main areas of research are the global carbon cycle and the terrestrial biosphere, and how both interact and react to human activities. Human activities may alter them directly, by emitting CO₂ from fossil fuel burning or deforestation or other forms of land-use change, or indirectly through man-made climate change. I am interested in understanding the causes of the current imbalances in the global carbon cycle, in forecasting its possible future, and in engaging in measures to mitigate climate change and the adverse effects of deforestation. As QUEST Deputy Leader, I am responsible for further development of CCDAS and have initiated a demonstrator study of sustainable forest management for climate protection.

---

Publications

Link to Dr Wolfgang Knorr on the University's on-line database of research outputs (opens in a new window)

---

Further information

Dr Wolfgang Knorr is a member of the Earth System Science Research Group at Bristol, and of QUEST, where he also has a personal page

[Mrs. Don-o]

Oh, good. That means I can exhale now?

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Not necessarily... You can have a 50% decrease over the last 150 years, but a 20% increase in the last 50 years (meaning the first 100 years saw a 60% decrease); basically a decline with a rise following. It makes sense either way, and both data points are needed to show you’re not pulling out from a historical low.

[slowhandluke]

I am guessing that Wolfgang mentioned 50 years and 150 years, but the Staff failed to grasp that the last 50 should be mentioned first, because if the fraction has not increased in the last 150 years, OF COURSE it has not increased in the last 50!!!!

Your 'OF COURSE' point is true only if the value has been a flat line throughout the last 150 years. It could be true that the value of 1859 equals the value in 2009, without matching the 1959 value.

I would like to see a graph of this, but the original article is behind a paywall.

[muawiyah]

Defiitely a "money shot".

What is amazing is that a researcher tested samples from different periods of time before announcing "no change".

He would have gotten more money for simply writing up a "model" that predicted "rapid rise in CO2 foreseen".

[muawiyah]

CO2 simply can’t be demonstrated to be increasing. The primary record of such measurements is taken from a gas sampling operation on top of a volcano in Hawaii.

[mikey_hates_everything]

"Oh, good. That means I can exhale now?" Not until the EPA takes CO₂ off of their list of pollutants.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Upshot: Humans’ CO2 contribution to the greehouse effect is 0.117%.

All one needs to know.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Oh, crap. (Gasping out another illegal dose.) That's another thing we've gotta change.

"Obama's historic hope and change" => "Hope we can make Obama history... and change it all back."

[DesScorp]

How can you have a theory of global warming from excess atmospheric CO2 if there is no excess atmospheric CO2?

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

0bama is a science dunce like your typical female liberal arts major...Just a big talker and braggart like JayZee or any other rap star

What do you get when you cross Albert Einstein with Obama?

e = mc hammer

[Professional Engineer]

Am I going to hell now ?

You're hopeless. Not even the re-education center will help you.

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

This link had an audio track of Knorr saying something like CO2 absorption is not changing, but we have to take drastic action anyway because things might get worse in the future. So I credit Knorr with honestly reporting his results, but his judgment is still clouded by the AGW faith.

LINK from leftist site

[dennisw]

On one hand Knorr wants to keep his job at the university. What else is he trained for? But the net effect of his research is to make a very good case for the AGW skeptics. So he has helped us no matter what kind of AlGore nonsense he feels compelled to say in public

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

On one hand Knorr wants to keep his job at the university. What else is he trained for?

Yes, we don't know if he really believes in the dogma or is just looking out for number one, or both. Sometimes individuals start with a sense of self preservation, and somehow their principles turn out to be consistent with their sense of survival. For example, in times of war with mandatory conscription, we see a big increase in conscientious objectors.

But the net effect of his research is to make a very good case for the AGW skeptics. So he has helped us no matter what kind of AlGore nonsense he feels compelled to say in public.

True, although the MSM doesn't seem to pay much attention to such heretical findings.

[I Drive Too Fast]

ping

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

Global Warming on Free Republic

Latest from Global Warming News Site

Latest from Greenie Watch

Latest from Junk Science

Latest from Terra Daily

[palmer]

I debunked the 0.28% number a while ago here http://shpud.com/myths.html#nothuman but the bottom line is that is doesn't matter one whit whether the number is 0.1% 0.28% or 10 times those numbers. The much simpler answer is that the response to very slight CO2 warming will be determined by weather processes in the tropics. Those are not modeled usefully by climate modelers (completely inadequate horizontal and vertical resolution). The studies in the real world show everything from cooling processes (negative feedback) to warming ones, but both studies make the 0.XX% arguments completely moot.