You are simply misreading this study. The amount of C02 in the atmosphere is increasing. The percentage of the C02 being emitted by human acivity that stays in the atmosphere is not changing - about 40%. But more is being emitted than before and there is more in the atmosphere than before.
Knorr (GRL, 2009) is a study about how much of the human emissions are staying the atmosphere (around 40%) and whether that is detectably changing over time. It does not undermine the fact that CO2 is rising. The confusion in the denialosphere is based on a misunderstanding between ‘airborne fraction of CO2 emissions’ (not changing very much) and ‘CO2 fraction in the air’ (changing very rapidly),"
But I do commend you for citing a real scientific study and it is good news that the percentage of C02 that is released that stays airborne is not changing because it it were GW could get very ugly very fast. But again the amount of C02 in the atmosphere is rising and this study does not say otherwise.
Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide 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"
You can try to twist it if you want but the FACT is that according to this article its the percentage of Co2 that is important to predicting climate change. The percentage hasn't changed.
But this study isn't about the percentage of C02 in the atmosphere, which is rising. Its' about what percentage of C02 emission remain in the atmosphere. Facts are facts. I"m not twisting anything.
gary i'm about to block you from commenting because you don't know how to read.
is it because he uses the word "fraction" instead of "percent" that you're getting confused?
"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."
seriously man please learn how to read. i'm at work and can't waste any more time with you.
This is how I read it. It's really not an indicator because if the remaining percentage of CO2 from human activity stays at 40% for ever, it doesn't mean there is less Co2 in the atmosphere. If there were 100ppm and say humans emit 10ppm, but 40% stays which is 4ppm. Now take 1000ppm, 100ppm, and 40ppm. Still 40% but much more Co2. So only 4ppm remains in example one but 40ppm remain in example 2.
That's what I'm trying to figure out. Why say it's important? They never mentioned that in the article. Sure the fact is that it hasn't changed in 150 yrs. What does that mean, exactly?
I think getlive has it about right. What's of primary importance is the total amount of C02 in the atmosphere,which no one denies is increasing. How much of the C02 that is released every year that remains airborne vs. being absorbed by the oceans is another matter. Some scientists have suggested that the oceans are losing some of their C02-absorbing capacity, which would raise atmospheric levels even faster. So it it good news if that is not happening. But nothing in this study has anything to do with whether AGW is real or not.
ummm...ok so gary is now admitting that the story IS about the % of Co2 but says even though it has remained constant there is still more of it in the atmosphere.
So is the new argument that EVERY gas or particle in the atmosphere is increasing at the exact same rate as always and that's why the % hasn't changed?
You guys are not that bright.
The argument WAS that the airborne Co2 couldn't be absorbed fast enough and it was therefore increasing in the atmosphere and somehow causing global temperatures to rise. According to this study that is NOT the case.
Therefore Co2 can NOT be causing any kind of change in global temps.
I really don't know why any reasonably intelligent person can't figure this out. So I understand why gary doesn't get it because as i've been saying for some time now he's not a smart man, but I've know Getlive for decades and I expect more from him.
Let me put it real simple for you because I know the horn on your nose takes away some of your thought capacity. We all agree that the study found that the absorbtion of co2 has not degraded. Right?? That alone doesn't prove co2 is causing or even not causing change in global temps. That just proves that the absorbtion percentage is the same. The amount of co2 in the atmosphere has been increasing, this is a fact. The absorbtion percentage has not changed, this is fact. Right?? I will go back to my example: Instance A: 100ppm of co2, 40% absorbtion leaves 60ppm.
Instance B: 1000ppm of co2, 40% absorbtion leaves 600ppm.
End result: Same absorption percentage MORE co2.
If more co2 is emitted, which it is, because it's it's higher, the amount left over from 40% is higher.
It's not your fault, everyone knows Rhino's can't do simple mathematical calculations.
Now whether or not an increase in co2 is changing global temps is a whole other discussion.
Well said, getlive, C02 is being released every day, every year, and about 60% of it is absorbed by the oceans, leaving about 40& airborne. This says nothing about the amount of C02 released, or the percentage of C02 in the atmosphere. Rhino is drawing unfounded conclusions that the author of the study does not make.
Let me explain again for you two because common sense seems to be escaping you. It doesn't have to be that difficult. PAY ATTENTION.
if the ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere hasn’t changed in 150 years, then the CO2 is getting reabsorbed, not remaining in the atmosphere to cause global warming. Unless there are other agents adding oxygen and nitrogen to the air and increasing the volume of all three, then the increased CO2 isn’t staying in the air. If CO2 accounted for 0.04% of the atmosphere in 1860 and 0.04% today, then CO2 isn’t a cause of warming — at least not now, and not over the last 150 years.
Why is this so difficult for you two hammer heads to figure out?
Again, that is a conclusion you are making that is not made by the article. Stay on task. What you are concluding is a whole other discussion. That's all.
By the way, Gary already inadvertantly came up with the new argument that i bet we'll be hearing.
Oh good the oceans aren't full and can still absorb the Co2. Thats great news! But they're full now and if we don't drastically change the world it will be over!
Rhino, let me try to explain the point you're missing. The study isn't about the percentage of C02 in the atmosphere. It's about the percentage of the C02 that is released that is absorbed vs. remaining airborne. The total percentage of C02 in the air could double or triple and the percentage of the C02 that is released that stays airborne could still stay at 40%.
If we released 100 tmes as much C02, and 40% of that stays in the air, the amount of C02 in the air will go up.
Some scientists were speculating that the oceans were reaching their C02-aborbsing limit. This study says that this hasn't happened, the oceans still absorb some 60% of the C02 released every year.
You were drawing the conclusion that the C02 ratio is not going up. It is, and this study does not say otherwise.
Micheal, you are right that this shows that planet may be more resilient than some thought. Some thought that the oceans were reaching the C02 absorbtion limit. But still the C02 levels in the atmosphere are rising. That is a fact that everyone knows to be true, including the authors of this study. (Only Rhino does not seem to grasp this).
Now we are getting somewhere. The earth is counteracting the extra co2. So, the next question is: Does an overall increase in co2 in the air cause climate change?????
The earth is counteracting 60% of the extra C02 at any rate. That also raises the question as to what higher C02 levels in the oceans might have, as well as the extra C02 in the atmosphere. Of course C02 is a greenhouse gas, and most scientists believe that global temperatures are rising as a result.
You are still assuming that the percentage of C02 in the air is the same. For the last time, this is not what this study is even measuring. I will try one last time. If in a 1 year period 100 tons of C02 were released, according to this study 40 tons would end of up the atmospher and 60 in the oceans. If 100,000 tons were released multiply the other numbers by 1000. C02 levels as a percentage of the total atmosphere could double or triple or quadruple, and yet theoretically the 40% airborne rate could stay the same. Your option 1 only shows that you STILL do not understand what this study is all about.
Rhino, for some reason you are thinking this study is showing that there is always the same percentage of co2 in relation to the other elements in the atmosphere. That is not what this study is about. All it's about is the percentage of absorption of the c02 by the earth. ppm means parts per million. So, Out of a million particles, in 1965 there were 320 parts co2. Or, .032%. In 2010 there is 385 ppm of co2, or .0385%. The percentage of co2 in the atmosphere is not the same. There is MORE because more has been released and the earth kept it's constant absorption rate as described numerous times in this post.
Maybe you should borrow someone else' brain on this one because your sense is uncommon.
25 comments:
You are simply misreading this study. The amount of C02 in the atmosphere is increasing. The percentage of the C02 being emitted by human acivity that stays in the atmosphere is not changing - about 40%. But more is being emitted than before and there is more in the atmosphere than before.
Knorr (GRL, 2009) is a study about how much of the human emissions are staying the atmosphere (around 40%) and whether that is detectably changing over time. It does not undermine the fact that CO2 is rising. The confusion in the denialosphere is based on a misunderstanding between ‘airborne fraction of CO2 emissions’ (not changing very much) and ‘CO2 fraction in the air’ (changing very rapidly),"
from today's RealClimate blog.
Happy I could clear that up for you.
But I do commend you for citing a real scientific study and it is good news that the percentage of C02 that is released that stays airborne is not changing because it it were GW could get very ugly very fast. But again the amount of C02 in the atmosphere is rising and this study does not say otherwise.
I am not reading anything wrong.
Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide 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"
You can try to twist it if you want but the FACT is that according to this article its the percentage of Co2 that is important to predicting climate change. The percentage hasn't changed.
You need to work on your reading comprehension.
here endeth the lesson.
But this study isn't about the percentage of C02 in the atmosphere, which is rising. Its' about what percentage of C02 emission remain in the atmosphere. Facts are facts. I"m not twisting anything.
gary i'm about to block you from commenting because you don't know how to read.
is it because he uses the word "fraction" instead of "percent" that you're getting confused?
"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."
seriously man please learn how to read. i'm at work and can't waste any more time with you.
This is how I read it. It's really not an indicator because if the remaining percentage of CO2 from human activity stays at 40% for ever, it doesn't mean there is less Co2 in the atmosphere. If there were 100ppm and say humans emit 10ppm, but 40% stays which is 4ppm. Now take 1000ppm, 100ppm, and 40ppm. Still 40% but much more Co2. So only 4ppm remains in example one but 40ppm remain in example 2.
here's how i read it.
the airborne fraction of Co2 has not changed in 150 yrs.
if it's not an indicator then why study it and why say it's important for predicting climate change?
Seems pretty obvious to me that this study debunks the Co2 global warming correlation.
That's what I'm trying to figure out. Why say it's important? They never mentioned that in the article. Sure the fact is that it hasn't changed in 150 yrs. What does that mean, exactly?
you mean they never mention why it's important?
True
Probably because they want you to believe Co2 is creating problems.
I think getlive has it about right. What's of primary importance is the total amount of C02 in the atmosphere,which no one denies is increasing. How much of the C02 that is released every year that remains airborne vs. being absorbed by the oceans is another matter. Some scientists have suggested that the oceans are losing some of their C02-absorbing capacity, which would raise atmospheric levels even faster. So it it good news if that is not happening. But nothing in this study has anything to do with whether AGW is real or not.
ummm...ok so gary is now admitting that the story IS about the % of Co2 but says even though it has remained constant there is still more of it in the atmosphere.
So is the new argument that EVERY gas or particle in the atmosphere is increasing at the exact same rate as always and that's why the % hasn't changed?
You guys are not that bright.
The argument WAS that the airborne Co2 couldn't be absorbed fast enough and it was therefore increasing in the atmosphere and somehow causing global temperatures to rise. According to this study that is NOT the case.
Therefore Co2 can NOT be causing any kind of change in global temps.
I really don't know why any reasonably intelligent person can't figure this out. So I understand why gary doesn't get it because as i've been saying for some time now he's not a smart man, but I've know Getlive for decades and I expect more from him.
Let me put it real simple for you because I know the horn on your nose takes away some of your thought capacity. We all agree that the study found that the absorbtion of co2 has not degraded. Right?? That alone doesn't prove co2 is causing or even not causing change in global temps. That just proves that the absorbtion percentage is the same. The amount of co2 in the atmosphere has been increasing, this is a fact. The absorbtion percentage has not changed, this is fact. Right?? I will go back to my example:
Instance A: 100ppm of co2, 40% absorbtion leaves 60ppm.
Instance B: 1000ppm of co2, 40% absorbtion leaves 600ppm.
End result: Same absorption percentage MORE co2.
If more co2 is emitted, which it is, because it's it's higher, the amount left over from 40% is higher.
It's not your fault, everyone knows Rhino's can't do simple mathematical calculations.
Now whether or not an increase in co2 is changing global temps is a whole other discussion.
Well said, getlive, C02 is being released every day, every year, and about 60% of it is absorbed by the oceans, leaving about 40& airborne. This says nothing about the amount of C02 released, or the percentage of C02 in the atmosphere. Rhino is drawing unfounded conclusions that the author of the study does not make.
O.K.
Let me explain again for you two because common sense seems to be escaping you. It doesn't have to be that difficult. PAY ATTENTION.
if the ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere hasn’t changed in 150 years, then the CO2 is getting reabsorbed, not remaining in the atmosphere to cause global warming. Unless there are other agents adding oxygen and nitrogen to the air and increasing the volume of all three, then the increased CO2 isn’t staying in the air. If CO2 accounted for 0.04% of the atmosphere in 1860 and 0.04% today, then CO2 isn’t a cause of warming — at least not now, and not over the last 150 years.
Why is this so difficult for you two hammer heads to figure out?
Again, that is a conclusion you are making that is not made by the article. Stay on task. What you are concluding is a whole other discussion. That's all.
"you mean they never mention why it's important?
True "
there are only 2 possible conclusions.
1. everything in the atmosphere increased at the exact same rate over the last 150 years to keep the ratio of Co2 exactly the same!!!!!
or
2. The extra Co2 that we're producing is being absorbed.
You and gary can wait for a scientist with a PHD to tell you what the deal is.
Personally i like to use my own brain and some basic common sense.
Do The Math
By the way, Gary already inadvertantly came up with the new argument that i bet we'll be hearing.
Oh good the oceans aren't full and can still absorb the Co2. Thats great news! But they're full now and if we don't drastically change the world it will be over!
How much do you want to bet on that one?
Rhino, let me try to explain the point you're missing. The study isn't about the percentage of C02 in the atmosphere. It's about the percentage of the C02 that is released that is absorbed vs. remaining airborne. The total percentage of C02 in the air could double or triple and the percentage of the C02 that is released that stays airborne could still stay at 40%.
If we released 100 tmes as much C02, and 40% of that stays in the air, the amount of C02 in the air will go up.
Some scientists were speculating that the oceans were reaching their C02-aborbsing limit. This study says that this hasn't happened, the oceans still absorb some 60% of the C02 released every year.
You were drawing the conclusion that the C02 ratio is not going up. It is, and this study does not say otherwise.
Micheal, you are right that this shows that planet may be more resilient than some thought. Some thought that the oceans were reaching the C02 absorbtion limit. But still the C02 levels in the atmosphere are rising. That is a fact that everyone knows to be true, including the authors of this study. (Only Rhino does not seem to grasp this).
Now we are getting somewhere. The earth is counteracting the extra co2. So, the next question is: Does an overall increase in co2 in the air cause climate change?????
The earth is counteracting 60% of the extra C02 at any rate. That also raises the question as to what higher C02 levels in the oceans might have, as well as the extra C02 in the atmosphere. Of course C02 is a greenhouse gas, and most scientists believe that global temperatures are rising as a result.
So you guys are going with option 1?
Everything else in the atmosphere has increased at the exact same rate as Co2?
Really?
we todd did
You are still assuming that the percentage of C02 in the air is the same. For the last time, this is not what this study is even measuring. I will try one last time. If in a 1 year period 100 tons of C02 were released, according to this study 40 tons would end of up the atmospher and 60 in the oceans. If 100,000 tons were released multiply the other numbers by 1000. C02 levels as a percentage of the total atmosphere could double or triple or quadruple, and yet theoretically the 40% airborne rate could stay the same. Your option 1 only shows that you STILL do not understand what this study is all about.
Rhino, for some reason you are thinking this study is showing that there is always the same percentage of co2 in relation to the other elements in the atmosphere. That is not what this study is about. All it's about is the percentage of absorption of the c02 by the earth.
ppm means parts per million. So,
Out of a million particles, in 1965 there were 320 parts co2. Or, .032%. In 2010 there is 385 ppm of co2, or .0385%. The percentage of co2 in the atmosphere is not the same. There is MORE because more has been released and the earth kept it's constant absorption rate as described numerous times in this post.
Maybe you should borrow someone else' brain on this one because your sense is uncommon.
bottom line.
The debate is clearly not over.
Post a Comment