• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

No trend in atmospheric CO2, he said.

mhaze

Banned
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Messages
15,718
Hmm....

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml

Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.

This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero.
 
Hmm....

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml

Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.

This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero.

The entire abstract makes much more sense:

Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.

It helps to understand what is actually being talked about here, at its most basic, when human CO2 emissions were low, CO2 additions to the airborne fraction were low, as human emissions have risen, so have the airborne fractions, and the atmospheric rises have remained approximately stable at ~40% of the human generated emissions since the mid 1800s.

For those interested, Skeptical Science has an explanatory page up on this subject, just this morning!

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-the-airborne-fraction-of-anthropogenic-CO2-emissions-increasing.html
 
One wonders about the quality of the research given the quality of the spelling....:rolleyes:

Wolfgang Knorr
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emis
:garfield:
 
As per the posts above that paper doesn't even come close to saying there is "No trend in atmospheric CO2"

It's talking about the airborn fraction, the % of yearly human CO2 emissions retained by the atmosphere.
 
T'would seem to be a deniers.....errr....last stand..

Picture33-1.png


now even the fossil fuel interests have admitted to the reality and the problem

it's getting warmer
We're primarily responsible through use of fossil fuels
Resulting climate change represents a risk in need of management to reduce emissions of fossil CO2


Yours truly ...Exxon et al


Seems easy enough - I suggest the head-in-sand gopher stance will be passing fad...:garfield:
 
As per the posts above that paper doesn't even come close to saying there is "No trend in atmospheric CO2"

It's talking about the airborn fraction, the % of yearly human CO2 emissions retained by the atmosphere.

So then what does this say: " It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero." ?

Does it say the tend per decade is zero, while Lomiler is saying the "trend per century is huge" ? I've been taking the news that CO2 us up 50% as truth.

"air born fraction IS atmospheric, isn't it? Doiesn't it say so in the OP? per "...the airborn fraction, the % of yearly human CO2 emissions retained by the atmosphere..."

I think I understand every word in both quotes, but they seem to be mutually exclusive.
 
I think I understand every word in both quotes, but they seem to be mutually exclusive.


Atmospheric fraction is
(atmospheric CO2 increase) / (CO2 emitted)



The article says this ratio has stayed very constant at 0.43 +/- 0.014 since 1950

I.E.

If 10Gigatonnes were emitted in 1950 the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere went up by 7.5*0.43=3.23 Gigatonnes

If 15 Gigatonnes were emitted in 1990 the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere went up by 15*0.43= 6.46 Gigatonnes. Atmospheric CO2 increased more in absolute terms but the ratio of Atmospheric increase / CO2 emitted.

Note that while this may be true globally, there are multiple papers dealing with specific CO2 sinks that indication they are reaching the limit of their ability to keep pace, so others sinks must be picking up the slack for the time being.
 
One wonders about the quality of the research given the quality of the spelling....:rolleyes:


:garfield:

Macdoc, being pedantic about spelling does not gain you the respect of the masses. Or anybody else either.

And it looks even more like you are attacking the messenger rather than the data.
 
:rolleyes: It's a "pendantic paper" - give it a rest....it's sloppy - you know it...a mistake like that in an abstract of a formal paper is indicative of haste and poor preparation.
That's it's not been corrected.....all the more damning.

The rest isn't what mHaze purported it implied anyways.....this gives you an idea of the "seriousness" he assigns it..

mhaze
Figgered that one'd have you guys digging like gophers.

Get over it....the fossil interests have by their public admissions and ads....you seem to be lagging here. :garfield:
 
It helps to understand what is actually being talked about here, at its most basic, when human CO2 emissions were low, CO2 additions to the airborne fraction were low, as human emissions have risen, so have the airborne fractions, and the atmospheric rises have remained approximately stable at ~40% of the human generated emissions since the mid 1800s.

For those interested, Skeptical Science has an explanatory page up on this subject, just this morning!

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Is-the-airborne-fraction-of-anthropogenic-CO2-emissions-increasing.html

Here is something that helped me understand.


Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Authors: Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
(Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Mar 2009 (this version, v4))

Abstract: The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
 
LOL thast piece of stupidity? He’s essentially trying to argue that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist because there isn’t a glass sphere around the earth. He never bothers to take such simple steps as finding out what the greenhouse effect is before setting out to refute it on the grounds that the earth doesn’t work like an actual greenhouse…

Oh, yes and he thinks there is no such thing as global temperature so both warming and cooling are impossible…
 
...essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.


If this layperson may be permitted an observation, I would ask if there is no greenhouse effect what then explains the surface temperature on Venus?


...(b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet...


Seems to me that ought to be easily determined by simply comparing the surface temperatures on those bodies in the solar system which have either no atmosphere or an extemely thin one and then seeing if there is any relationship between the surface temperatures and the distance of that body from the Sun. So, for example, compare the temperatures on Mercury, the Moon, Phobos, Deimos, any of the major asteroids, Gannymede, Callisto, Europa, Rhea, Titania, Triton, etc.
 
Here is something that helped me understand.


Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Authors: Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
(Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Mar 2009 (this version, v4))

Abstract: The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161

"Helped you understand" is an oxymoron. The paper just help you misunderstand. It is a pile of non-science, rejected even by people such as Spencer. He says there is a greenhouse effect, on his own web page.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/what-if-there-was-no-greenhouse-effect/
 
It's easy to lie to the Marks about science, a_unique_person; Most do not have the intelligence or education to know they are being lied to. We see that in "Intelligent Design," AGW Trutherism, and in countless medical quackeries.

All you need to do it is a lot of the words of science strung together to sound plausible to the Marks, and the utter lack of scruples necessary to never have any twinges of conscience.
 
Case in point

Quite a history - I'm sure there will be a new cause celeb to sow confusion over....

A Well-Documented Strategy

August 17, 2009 at 11:18 am
Exhibit A:
“There is no experimental data to support the hypothesis that smoking causes lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema, or chronic bronchitis………any number of things can influence the onset of a disease. The list includes genetics, diet, workplace environment, and stress…….we understand public anxiety about smoking causing disease, but are concerned that many of these much-publicized associations are ill-informed and misleading……….the media continue to uncritically accept and vigorously promote an anti-smoking agenda…….after hundreds of millions of dollars spent on clinical research, and decades of screaming headlines, we have no more certainty today about smoking causing disease than we did decades ago……….if even a small part of the time and money spent trying to link smoking to cancer were spent instead on studying the other causes of cancer, millions of lives could be saved.”
​
Exhibit B:
“The claim that human activities cause climate change has not been scientifically proven……….it is a reductionist error and not keeping with the current theories of climate science to attempt to assign each temperature change to an exclusive single cause………..the use of results from flawed computer models to frighten people by attributing catastrophic future change to current human activities may be misleading and is highly regrettable……..that emotionalism can override objective analysis is illustrated by the headlines………..despite millions of dollars spent by the government on climate modeling and research, many questions about the relationship between human activities and global temperature change remain unanswered……….indeed, many scientists are becoming concerned that preoccupation with anthropogenic global warming may be both unfounded and dangerous – unfounded because evidence on many critical points is conflicting, dangerous because it diverts attention from other suspected hazards.”
​
Now read the originals.
Exhibit A
“There is no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavourable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape…….any number of things can influence earth’s temperature. The list includes volcanic eruptions, variations in the amount of energy received from the sun, El Niños, and La Niñas – all of which are natural………we understand public anxiety about climate change, but are concerned that many of these much publicized predictions are ill-informed and misleading……….the media continue to uncritically accept and vigorously promote shrill global warming alarmism………after hundreds of millions of dollars spent on climate modeling, and decades of screaming headlines, we have no more certainty today about global warming prediction than we did decades ago………..if even a small part of the money spent trying to reduce carbon dioxide emissions were spent instead on fighting hunger or disease in Third World countries, millions of lives could be saved.”
-from the various articles on the Heartland Institute’s global warming page
​
Exhibit B
“The claim that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer has not been scientifically proven………..it is a reductionist error and not keeping with the current theories of cancer causation to attempt to assign each cancer to an exclusive single cause…………the use of results from flawed population studies to frighten people by attributing large numbers of death yearly to smoking may be misleading and is most regrettable……….that emotionalism can override objective analysis is illustrated by the headlines………despite millions of dollars spent by the government on smoking and health-related research, many questions about the relationship between smoking and disease remain unanswered…………indeed, many scientists are becoming concerned that preoccupation with smoking may be both unfounded and dangerous – unfounded because evidence on many critical points is conflicting, dangerous because it diverts attention from other suspected hazards.”
-from Smoking and Health: 1964-1979: The Continuing Controversy, published in 1979 by the Tobacco Institute
​
If I hadn’t told you which set of quotes was unchanged, and which I had replaced words like “smoking” and “cancer” with “human activities” and “climate change”, or vice versa, would you even have known the difference?
A Well-Documented Strategy ClimateSight

Excellent work! Not a big surprise given that climate deniers Singer, Seitz, and Milloy were all tobacco lobbyists in previous incarnations.
For those who are not aware that the climate Denier and tobacco Denier are some of the same organizations and people, never mind identical tactics … an introduction:
“Smoke and CO2: How to Spin Global Warming”
ANP INVESTIGATION: How to Spin Global Warming | American News Project
“A Climate Deniers take on Tobacco Smoke”
Kevin Grandia | A Climate Deniers take on Tobacco Smoke
Tobacco, part 1: “What cigarette do you smoke, Doctor?”
Tobacco, part 1: “What cigarette do you smoke, Doctor?” lightbucket
Tobacco, part 2: “A Frank Statement”
Tobacco, part 2: “A Frank Statement” lightbucket
I wonder if they used to work for Philip Morris…
I wonder if they used to work for Philip Morris… - Claudia Deutsch - The Bottom Line - True/Slant
Read this before your start your global warming “research”…
Read this before your start your global warming “research”… Yet Another Atheist Blog
fine fellow travellers deniers keep....:biggrin:
 
Here is something that helped me understand.


Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
Authors: Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
(Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Mar 2009 (this version, v4))

Abstract: The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161


What, precisely, did it help you to understand and exactly what have these gentlemen's peers said about their presentation?
 
Last edited:
What, precisely, did it help you to understand and exactly what have these gentlemen's peers said about their presentation?

I'm curious if you have any problem with the stated conclusions:
(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects,
(b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet,
(c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly,
(d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately,
(e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical,
(f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero

Ergo, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

​
And if you do, with which of these minor and/or major conclusions are problematic.

Hint: You can skip describing the apparent strawman of (a), in the paper a large number of variations of (a) are described and handled.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom