I’ve been getting a lot of requests to cover this story, probably 20 or so now with wonderings about “why haven’t you covered this yet?”
How quickly you all forget. WUWT was the very first to cover this story back on November 10th, 2009.
Everybody else in the media today is playing catch-up. So if you’d like to read the original press release and participate in the already ripe comments left then, see this WUWT story:
“Nick Stokes (11:31:18) :
Anthony,
OK, I apologise for thinking that your story was about there being no increase in the airborne fraction of CO2.”
So you do want a flamewar or what?
The article says
“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.”
So contrary to Nick Stokes and Peter Hearnden, the article unequivocally states that the airborne fraction is not increasing as a function of increasing CO2 emissions. Mind you, I do not understand how this squares with the statement earlier in the article that 45% of CO2 remaining airborne, but then again, there is no discussion of how long this percentage remains in the air.
Talking about Gaia….
/ Joke_on
Do you know why a Carnivore allways will have a highere IQ than a herbivore ?
Answer: It doesnt take much IQ to sneak up on a straw.
/Joke_off
Peter Hearnden (11:31:20) :
No tipping point.
The Bristol paper is a bombshell because the AGW bandwagon has been claiming irreversible runaway CO2 warming has been reached. The Earth is still absorbing the same fraction of C02 content as it did before the Industrial Revolution. C02 isn’t driving anything currently, but the people who have been driving the C02 overheating bandwagon have been pulled over.
Let’s see, this same claim was made in the 30’s.
So, this is a 2nd offence.
Suspended liscence is in order.
Gah! I should proofread better! Also, as has been noted in many other posts on WUWT, the problem with the AGWers is they always fail to consider what sinks there may be for CO2 in any given system. Now they want to treat the oceans as a closed system without sinks of its own, and hence in danger of acidification by excess CO2. I find it quite ironic that this new worry about CO2 ignores the fact that carbon is a principle component of calcium carbonate, which, as stated in Wikipedia (sorry, but it’s a handy shortcut here), “is a chemical compound with the chemical formula CaCO3. It is a common substance found in rock in all parts of the world, and is the main component of shells of marine organisms, snails, pearls, and eggshells. Calcium carbonate is the active ingredient in agricultural lime, and is usually the principal cause of hard water. It is commonly used medicinally as a calcium supplement or as an antacid…” No discussion of ocean volume or buffering is usually included in alarmist media articles. However, I would not be surprised if the “crying wolf” effect leads the general public to shrug off the new alarm.
A bit off topic, but I have a lot of respect for Burt Rutan, and apparently he has a whole page on his website dedicated to “Climate Change” here. In particular, I found his most recent paper on the subject quite interesting. His intro here (.pdf). He is expecting to have completed a full report sometime Q1 of 2010. I think it will be interesting to read his take on this subject once he completes his entire report.
Oh, further, Burt Rutan also has a complete video series on AGW here.
Does this not mean that the biosphere is soaking up a lot of the extra manmade CO2 since the industrial revolution? Or does it mean that natural CO2 has also been increasing along with manmade industrialisation CO2? I’m confused. :o(
—
Nick Stokes (10:40:36) :
Is there a difference between “1958” and ”
1850“? If the IPCC quotes 1958 they were first to publish 1958 and not 1850!!! Sorry in advance Nick if I’m “dense” but I got a hangover. :o(
rbateman:
“The Earth is still absorbing the same fraction of C02 content as it did before the Industrial Revolution.”
And if emissions increase (as they have and clearly (post the inaction at Copenhagen) will) then atmospheric CO2 conc increases.
Re CO2 stabilisation times (Bart)- I don’t know better than Dr Archer and others. If anyone here does perhaps they can add a post?
Robuk (11:46:24) : The frost fairs on the thames,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_frost_fairs
Thanks Robuk. Interesting reading!
I searched for Bristol and found the older article. Maybe the Tips page’s instructions should emphasize use of Search before submitting a Tip.
I don’t know if that is already on the Tips page because it’s too much trouble to make the Tips link visible in Google Chrome. Those spacers you have in the menu are just too wide.
Let me see if I get this straight. The paper claims that the proportion of man-made CO2 retained in the atmosphere is more or less constant. In other words, if we generate a million tons of CO2 in a given period, about half a million (.55) tons are retained. This means that half a million tons are absorbed by the oceans, lakes, rocks, trees, etc. What is the physical mechanism behind this strange process, pray tell?
I mean, how does the earth know that it must retain only half of the man-made CO2? How about the naturally emitted CO2? How does nature tell the difference between the two types of CO2? I sense some unseen magic in the woodwork.
Peter Hearnden (11:31:20) :
…
Oh, no I don’t dispute you reported this first (well, first to the blogsphere, clearly Science Daily beat you 😉 )…
From the abstract of the paper:
“Received 18 August 2009; accepted 23 September 2009; published 7 November 2009.”
Anthony Watt’s’ first posting was on November 10, mentioning the University of Bristol press release dated November 9.
ScienceDaily piece dated December 31 2009.
Do you have a working carbon monoxide detector at your residence? Any strange unexplained headaches lately? Have you been tested for possible low blood sugar levels?
Peter Hearnden (11:31:20) :
“Oh, no I don’t dispute you reported this first (well, first to the blogsphere, clearly Science Daily beat you”
Really? Anthony posted the first article on the 10th of November.
“Date : November 10, 2009”
first post was also dated the 10th.
The first Science Daily article:
“ScienceDaily (Nov. 11, 2009)”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110141842.htm
The misrepresentation and subsequent arguing a strawman position are enough for me to doubt anything you say. You may want to at least support this latest claim that ScienceDaily “clearly beat” Anthony.
Squidly (12:13:52) : A bit off topic, but I have a lot of respect for Burt Rutan, and apparently he has a whole page on his website dedicated to “Climate Change” here.
Sure. I agree with Burt Rutan.
My conclusion is that, if the analysis (yes, the analysis by climate scientists) had been required to pass a typical engineering preliminary design review, the crisis theory would have never been passed on to the non-technical audience.
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
The main point is the worrying concept/possibility that….
“….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.”
In other words have the oceans and other eco-systems “maxed” out in their ability to absorb CO2 (be it anthropogenic or otherwise) but the main theme/thesis of Knorr’s paper and WUWT original post in Nov is that they have not…this is great news
I don’t care about whether or not it is anthropogenic or otherwise….
Bart says:
Really? Can you explain that logic? I don’t see how they have anything to say one way or the other on that subject. (Note: I don’t know what you mean by “the dominant time constant” but the actual claim has been that the persistency is not determined by a single time constant because it is highly non-exponential (see http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/how-long-will-global-warming-last/ ), with ~1/4 of the perturbation still remaining after hundreds of years.
vigilentfish says:
It doesn’t ignore that at all. What you ignore is that there is a timescale associated with how long it takes the CaCO3 in the rocks to make it into the ocean to neutralize things, and unfortunately, this timescale is on the order of a thousand years or more. You can read about this, for example, in David Archer’s book “The Long Thaw”.
Nick Stokes can’t understand why I used the word “bombshell” (though I think it’s just his way of conversation steering), from the Univ of Bristol press release in my original story:
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.
That paragraph, and the fact that “Bombshell from Bristol” makes for a good headline, far better than “nothing to see here, move along, covered before by the IPCC, from Bristol”.
😉
Sorry completely O/T but this is just too funny, it’s on the
right side of the ScienceDaily page, a link to…
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091223074659.htm
My field of expertise (that provides me employment) is test and measurement. I have always been suspicious of the reports of CO2 levels and have many questions. For one thing, how are ice core based data correlated with other data? For another, how are the data from Mauna Loa validated (calibration, correlation, controls, uncertainty), and what is there relationship to reality? It seems that a lot of importance is placed in what this one observatory ( under questionable management) is supposedly telling us. The AIRS product sure does not help in increasing confidence in the reported CO2 trends. Any study that assumes an even distribution of atmospheric CO2 can be tossed out the window.
I would be interested in finding a primer on the science of CO2 measurement that answers some of my questions. I have considered writing to Dr. Roy Spencer, asking him to write one (but I am sure he does not to be pestered by dweebs like me).
Kadaka, Glenn,
Ooppss, yes, my mistake. Got my articles mixed up…
Nick Stokes (11:13:04) :
“So how is the Knorr paper a “bombshell”?”
The article tells you:
“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.”
And, as you know very well, recent studies have all tended to ‘worse than we thought’ hype. the Knorr paper refutes those studies on this subject.
And the world didn’t even need Steve McIntyre’s help with this slapdown!
Does this mean what I think it does? There was a site (that was linked to from this blog a few months ago, but it would take me a while to find the link) that was claiming that the percentage of one isotope of carbon compared to another was proof that all of the additional CO2 that was being emitted was from man. If I understand this correctly, this paper directly challenges that assertion.
The use of the term “airborne fraction” of anthropogenic CO2 muddles Knorr’s conclusions….he should have stated “that fraction of all CO2 remains constant”
Re: Mapou (12:21:51) :
“I mean, how does the earth know that it must retain only half of the man-made CO2? How about the naturally emitted CO2? How does nature tell the difference between the two types of CO2? I sense some unseen magic in the woodwork.”…
it doesn’t…and about half of the natural CO2 is also absorbed…..
“Nick Stokes can’t understand why I used the word “bombshell” (though I think it’s just his way of conversation steering), from the Univ of Bristol press release in my original story”
Anthony, so do you think the Knorr paper in the final word on this issue?