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

[Denny Crane]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

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

ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — 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.

Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. 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.

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.

The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters.

 

[mook]

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

Obviously, there's a 99% chance that global warming is a hoax. Just like there's a 99% chance that if I leave a handgun lying in one room, with shells in another room within easy reach, my 4 year old won't figure out a way to shoot himself. So really there's no point in worrying about either. Some risks are just worth it.

Besides, imagine if we made a massive effort to clean our atmosphere and wean the world off middle eastern oil, only to find for 100% certain global warming was a hoax. We'd be stuck with all these new energy sources and clean air for no damned reason.

 

[Blazer_Hippie]

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

Obviously, there's a 99% chance that global warming is a hoax. Just like there's a 99% chance that if I leave a handgun lying in one room, with shells in another room within easy reach, my 4 year old won't figure out a way to shoot himself. So really there's no point in worrying about either. Some risks are just worth it.

Besides, imagine if we made a massive effort to clean our atmosphere and wean the world off middle eastern oil, only to find for 100% certain global warming was a hoax. We'd be stuck with all these new energy sources and clean air for no damned reason.

That would suck!

 

[Denny Crane]

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

There's a 99% chance aliens won't attack earth, but we may as well build massive defenses against an invasion.

It is no conspiracy that we burn things that are most efficient to generate the energy we need. A good analogy might be a community of 100 people who survive on fish. A small number can go out and get a few large fish and feed everyone, leaving the rest to go to blazers games or post on message boards. But when fishing for large fish becomes politically incorrect and people are convinced they need to eat small fish, it takes all 100 people to catch enough fish to feed everyone. This is true of energy and efficiency - burning oil, 1 in 40 people are needed to gather the energy, while the best (I've seen) of the alternatives require 1 in 3.

I would also ask for an answer to this question: why did Obama and the Democrats talk about a Manhattan Project for energy for years, then when they have full control over the government they spend $trillions on anything but?

 

[MARIS61]

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

Just curious why all your Flat World Society Science threads are always only supported by obscure British studies.

You do realize how lame that makes your case look, don't you? They have trailed and mimicked scientific discoveries of other nations for decades, contributing little of worth themselves.

Add in the lack of integrity of any study relying on corporate contributions, as ALL universities do, and you have fiction.

 

[mook]

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

There's a 99% chance aliens won't attack earth, but we may as well build massive defenses against an invasion.

So you think there's as much scientific consensus on alien invasion as there is on global warming?

Uh, OK.

 

[mook]

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

It is no conspiracy that we burn things that are most efficient to generate the energy we need. A good analogy might be a community of 100 people who survive on fish. A small number can go out and get a few large fish and feed everyone, leaving the rest to go to blazers games or post on message boards. But when fishing for large fish becomes politically incorrect and people are convinced they need to eat small fish, it takes all 100 people to catch enough fish to feed everyone. This is true of energy and efficiency - burning oil, 1 in 40 people are needed to gather the energy, while the best (I've seen) of the alternatives require 1 in 3.

That's the same thinking IBM used in the late 60's when they speculated that some day there might be 10 or 12 computers worldwide by now. It's just more efficient to put all the processing power in one room, rather than trying to distribute it across thousands or millions of homes on personal computers.

 

[barfo]

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

That's the same thinking IBM used in the late 60's when they speculated that some day there might be 10 or 12 computers worldwide by now. It's just more efficient to put all the processing power in one room, rather than trying to distribute it across thousands or millions of homes on personal computers.

I think that must have been said in the late 40s, not the late 60s.

Edit - oh, maybe I misunderstood. I was thinking of speculation that one day the world might have a use for 10 or 12 computers, max. Pretty sure someone said something like that somewhere along the line. But maybe you were referring to speculation on consolidation of existing computers into supercomputer sites?

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

Just curious why all your Flat World Society Science threads are always only supported by obscure British studies.

You do realize how lame that makes your case look, don't you? They have trailed and mimicked scientific discoveries of other nations for decades, contributing little of worth themselves.

Add in the lack of integrity of any study relying on corporate contributions, as ALL universities do, and you have fiction.

Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol

ScienceToday.com

Sounds corporate.

 

[Denny Crane]

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

So you think there's as much scientific consensus on alien invasion as there is on global warming?

Uh, OK.

I think the logic is the same, regardless of the so-called consensus.

 

[Denny Crane]

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

That's the same thinking IBM used in the late 60's when they speculated that some day there might be 10 or 12 computers worldwide by now. It's just more efficient to put all the processing power in one room, rather than trying to distribute it across thousands or millions of homes on personal computers.

The trend is to putting all the processing power in few places and people accessing those systems via light-weight netbook like things.

If you want to consider thoughts from decades ago, it's been 35 years since Jimmy Carter put solar panels on the roof of the white house and the efficiency of them are still so bad that it makes no sense to spend huge amounts of money installing them anywhere. That's with huge govt. subsidies around the world.

 

[Denny Crane]

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

Interesting article about Solar Energy costs in the Albuquerque newspaper by a guy who has several energy related patents:

http://www.abqjournal.com/opinion/guest_columns/15920553228opinionguestcolumns01-15-09.htm

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Free Solar Power Is Hoax

By James P. O'Loughlin
Placitas Engineer

The article “N.M. Solar Energy Plan Expanded,” about the state Public Regulation Commission's promotion of grid-tied photovoltaic (PV) power generation states that homes and commercial establishments that invest in PV installations will have “free” electricity.

I evaluated such an installation for our house using Public Service Company of New Mexico PV information on its Web site. I checked the results against more sophisticated resources and found the PNM results to be in good agreement.

For my house, the required system has a DC rating of 4kw to accommodate a match to our average energy consumption of 475kwh per month. The PNM Web site states that a PV system's cost is about $10,000 per kw, or for our case about $40,000.

This is consistent with the numerous PV system components and integrated packages available, plus the installation, fees, periodic inspections, maintenance, taxes, insurance and other incidentals. Based on a 20-year life and 6 percent cost of money, this comes to a monthly cost of $286.57. The monthly cost for the same amount of energy from PNM service is $42.75 — where is the “free” electricity?

There is an insurmountable fact of nature that forces photovoltaic to be several times more expensive than conventional power generation: The sun doesn't shine for 24 hours a day. This requires that a PV generation installation must have a power rating that is about six times higher than a continuously running convention installation for the same energy output.

At this time, PV panels account for around 50 percent of a system's cost, or $5,000 per kilowatt. The other part of the PV system is based on mature technology, the cost of which cannot be reduced. The only way to reduce the PV power generation cost is to reduce the cost of the panels. Even if we take the most extreme, totally unrealistic case of reducing the PV panel cost to zero, the immutable factor of six in power rating still dominates and results in a cost of $143.29 for $42.75 worth of electricity.

The cliché about investing in research and development to decrease the cost of panels and make PV power generation competitive is an unachievable myth that is fanatically pursued by the government and other groups having various and peculiar reasons.

When reality is not acceptable, the government can fix it with political alchemy. Through the influence of pressure groups and lobbyists, state and federal governments decree that photovoltaic power generation must be implemented. To fix the inherently expensive PV power generation problem, governments provide tax credits, incentives and other forms of subsidy to cover up the excessive cost.

This does not reduce the actual cost; it just transfers it to the general taxpayer or ratepayer.

There are both state and federal incentives. PNM has a PRC approved plan that pays 13 cents a kilowatt-hour for grid tied PV power. Actually PNM doesn't pay it. It is charged to rates paid by their regular customers to help subsidize PV power. Even with this money shuffling, those who buy into PV power installations still pay considerably more for electricity and will never recoup their investment cost. The rest of us get stuck for the subsidized difference.

 

[mook]

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

I think that must have been said in the late 40s, not the late 60s.

Edit - oh, maybe I misunderstood. I was thinking of speculation that one day the world might have a use for 10 or 12 computers, max. Pretty sure someone said something like that somewhere along the line. But maybe you were referring to speculation on consolidation of existing computers into supercomputer sites?

barfo

Yeah, it was the first one. I didn't look up the quote--too lazy today.

 

[mook]

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

The trend is to putting all the processing power in few places and people accessing those systems via light-weight netbook like things.

That's what's getting hyped. Cloud computing and all that. Which is nice for communal activity (ie, Facebook, Gmail, Twitter, etc), but for actual processing power for the end user it's much more efficient to just use your own PC.

For example, after 5 or 6 years of implementation, Google Docs is now almost up to the standards of MS Office circa 1994. That's pretty pathetic for a company as smart and well-financed as Google. Meanwhile I'm able to do screaming-fast video editing on a PC I bought for $800 which would've cost $2000 a couple of years ago.

As cheap and efficient as processing power is locally, I'm skeptical that massively powerful processors on PC's will ever be replaced by centralized computing.

I don't know that energy product will behave similarly, but there are similar problems with centralized energy production that you get with centralized computing. Maintaining and building infrastructure. Disruptions when there are failures. Inflexibility.

 

[Denny Crane]

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

That's what's getting hyped. Cloud computing and all that. Which is nice for communal activity (ie, Facebook, Gmail, Twitter, etc), but for actual processing power for the end user it's much more efficient to just use your own PC.

For example, after 5 or 6 years of implementation, Google Docs is now almost up to the standards of MS Office circa 1994. That's pretty pathetic for a company as smart and well-financed as Google. Meanwhile I'm able to do screaming-fast video editing on a PC I bought for $800 which would've cost $2000 a couple of years ago.

As cheap and efficient as processing power is locally, I'm skeptical that massively powerful processors on PC's will ever be replaced by centralized computing.

I don't know that energy product will behave similarly, but there are similar problems with centralized energy production that you get with centralized computing. Maintaining and building infrastructure. Disruptions when there are failures. Inflexibility.

http://www.etforecasts.com/products/ES_pcww1203.htm#1.1

Looks to me like (US) 25% increase in server sales, 25% decrease in desktop sales, and over 70% increase in those cheap netbook like devices by 2013.

 

[Stevenson]

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

So if you guys this it is a hoax, or BS, or whatever, why do you think the polar ice caps are melting, why is the snow on Kilimanjaro almost gone, etc?

If you think it's natural, you must also know that nature does not normally work so fast - geologic time is very very slow...

 

[Denny Crane]

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

So if you guys this it is a hoax, or BS, or whatever, why do you think the polar ice caps are melting, why is the snow on Kilimanjaro almost gone, etc?

If you think it's natural, you must also know that nature does not normally work so fast - geologic time is very very slow...

10,000 years ago the great lakes were covered with glaciers. Where did they go? Seems to me the melting has been going on since the end of the ice age.

I would expect the glaciers to melt faster and faster over time if only from the earth's surface having less white surface to reflect sun/heat back to space. There's also the matter of the earth's precession which logically explains why over time glaciers would grow south of the equator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

The classic example of albedo effect is the snow-temperature feedback. If a snow-covered area warms and the snow melts, the albedo decreases, more sunlight is absorbed, and the temperature tends to increase.

BTW, glaciers are growing in lots of other places.

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/200...ffers-between-hemispheres/UPI-70561241550410/

NEW YORK, May 5 (UPI) -- U.S. scientists say that while the majority of the world's glaciers are retreating as the planet becomes warmer, glaciers south of the equator are growing.

Glacier Growth Caused by Climate Change?

India's Mystery Glacier Growth

 

[barfo]

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

Interesting article about Solar Energy costs in the Albuquerque newspaper by a guy who has several energy related patents:

That all seems a little shortsighted. Does that guy think we will never run out of oil? Won't oil get more and more expensive as there gets to be less and less of it? How many wars will we need to fight to maintain our supply of sunshine? Does he think we are paying the true cost of power when we pay our power bill? Conventional energy is tax-subsidized in many ways also.

I have no doubt that solar energy costs more today. But if you want to make the argument it will always cost more, you have to consider a few more factors than the charges on today's power bills.

barfo

 

[tlongII]

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

So if you guys this it is a hoax, or BS, or whatever, why do you think the polar ice caps are melting, why is the snow on Kilimanjaro almost gone, etc?

If you think it's natural, you must also know that nature does not normally work so fast - geologic time is very very slow...

It's due to changes in solar radiation. It has nothing to do with man-made carbon emissions.

 

[Denny Crane]

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

That all seems a little shortsighted. Does that guy think we will never run out of oil? Won't oil get more and more expensive as there gets to be less and less of it? How many wars will we need to fight to maintain our supply of sunshine? Does he think we are paying the true cost of power when we pay our power bill? Conventional energy is tax-subsidized in many ways also.

I have no doubt that solar energy costs more today. But if you want to make the argument it will always cost more, you have to consider a few more factors than the charges on today's power bills.

barfo

How about a solid argument that there's enough oil to last us for 300 years?

I'm not suggesting we don't invest in research for alternative energy sources, but rather that we don't go throwing $trillions at ones that make no sense.

If we cut our oil consumption by 50% by generating electricity with coal, that 300 years is even further out in the future. And that's one efficient and not costly alternative, though it's not at all my preference; nuclear power is.

 

[barfo]

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

How about a solid argument that there's enough oil to last us for 300 years?

Oil will last for some finite amount of time. I'm not sure one can entirely predict how long, since consumption patterns change over time. Maybe we all get more conservation minded and/or efficient, or maybe the chinese hog all the oil and burn it faster than we ever did.

I'm not suggesting we don't invest in research for alternative energy sources, but rather that we don't go throwing $trillions at ones that make no sense.

If we cut our oil consumption by 50% by generating electricity with coal, that 300 years is even further out in the future. And that's one efficient and not costly alternative, though it's not at all my preference; nuclear power is.

I'm not married to solar power myself, I was just commenting that that article wasn't making a very good case against it. It didn't stick to the wall.

barfo

 

[drexlersdad]

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

 

[Denny Crane]

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

Oil will last for some finite amount of time. I'm not sure one can entirely predict how long, since consumption patterns change over time. Maybe we all get more conservation minded and/or efficient, or maybe the chinese hog all the oil and burn it faster than we ever did.



I'm not married to solar power myself, I was just commenting that that article wasn't making a very good case against it. It didn't stick to the wall.

barfo

But it did make a good case against funding it with $billions or $trillions. The govt. wouldn't be so financially upside down if they'd saved all that money instead of blowing it on a losing proposition all these decades.

 

[barfo]

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

But it did make a good case against funding it with $billions or $trillions. The govt. wouldn't be so financially upside down if they'd saved all that money instead of blowing it on a losing proposition all these decades.

No, actually it did not make a good case for that at all. All it made a case for is that it isn't financially competitive with today's other energy choices. It tried but failed to make the case that it won't be competitive in the future.

As far as saving all that money, here's an amusing perspective:

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

Nice try. R&D is one thing and is a strawman, the govt. subsidies for deploying is another, and regulation requiring us all to pay higher energy bills to meet the mandated amounts of alternative energy sources is yet another.

Methinks you choose sources that lie or are deliberately deceptive.

The strawman:

I'm not suggesting we don't invest in research for alternative energy sources, but rather that we don't go throwing $trillions at ones that make no sense.

 

[Denny Crane]

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

A nice article in the NY Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/business/energy-environment/29renew.html

Cost Works Against Alternative and Renewable Energy Sources in Time of Recession

 

[barfo]

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

Nice try. R&D is one thing and is a strawman, the govt. subsidies for deploying is another, and regulation requiring us all to pay higher energy bills to meet the mandated amounts of alternative energy sources is yet another.

Ok, so you are in favor of spending R&D money on solar energy? Because really I didn't get that from your statement. It sounded to me like you were saying you were against spending R&D money on solar energy, but in favor of spending it on other types of energy sources.

I'm not suggesting we don't invest in research for alternative energy sources, but rather that we don't go throwing $trillions at ones that make no sense.

Maybe you should make your statement a little clearer next time. If you were trying to say
"I'm not suggesting we shouldn't invest in solar energy research, I just don't think we should spend money on subsides for deployment, regulations..." maybe you should have said that.

Methinks you choose sources that lie or are deliberately deceptive.

methinks you are throwing more shit at the wall hoping something sticks.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

Methinks you throw out deceptive material that is also a strawman.

It's really basic money management to realize that if it costs you $2 to make a widget and you can only sell it for $1, you can't make up the difference by selling in volume. And that's what throwing $trillions at deploying money losing technologies is exactly doing.

There is no manhattan style project for alternative energy. If they can make and deploy efficient alternative energy sources, there wouldn't be a need to subsidize it.

 

[barfo]

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

Methinks you throw out deceptive material that is also a strawman.

It was a strawman relative to the point you thought you had made, but hadn't actually articulated. It was not a strawman relative to my perfectly reasonable (if incorrect) interpretation of what you meant.

It's really basic money management to realize that if it costs you $2 to make a widget and you can only sell it for $1, you can't make up the difference by selling in volume. And that's what throwing $trillions at deploying money losing technologies is exactly doing.

Trillions? Really? Please show me evidence we've spent trillions on solar energy.

There is no manhattan style project for alternative energy.

Correct. Are you happy about that, or sad? Or is this just a random observation?

If they can make and deploy efficient alternative energy sources, there wouldn't be a need to subsidize it.

And if the moon was cheese, we could eat it.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Re: No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Fi

Another strawman.

I urge that we stop subsidizing money losing propositions and spend a reasonable amount of money on research.

As for $trillions, it's what your ilk proposed for much of the Bush years. Now your guys are in control, and the costs are certain to be there, be they in the form of carbon taxes, higher CAFE standards, or regulations requiring X% of energy to be "green" by (pick a year).

We don't have to spend $1 trillion in one year for the spending to add up to that kind of figure. $100B a year for 10 years does the trick, and is insanity.

As it stands right now, electricity and gas and oil account for well over $1T of our GDP. At 10% of that as mandated alternative energy, then we're foolishly spending $100B / year on a money losing proposition.