SBW

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

The article fixates on the portion of the atmosphere that is gasses.........CO2 makes up .38% (.0038) of the atmosphere. its a non sequiter.

Kngfish48

I'm suspicious because the article is in NPR

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

What does being conservative or communist or anthing else have to do with it? Facts are in the eyes of the beholder.. what were the facts of climate change in 200
BC? What were the facts of climate change in the time of Noah? or did the flood never happen? Maybe, the flood didn't cover the entire world but only the Middle East, after all that would have been the entire known world at the time of Noah.. There's not a lot of people left to ask and science has, so far been unconclusive as to the reaches of the great flood. Even Nova, a couple of nights ago had a 1 hour show on the Universe and "gobal warming" vs "global cooling" and stated that there were almost as many arguments in one direction as the other and the only thing that science can agree on is that the climate changes and it MAY be because of what we do and it may just be that climate is changing... Do you really think that industry is pumping more pollutants into the air now, in our industrialized society than the millions of vocanoes, great lava rifts etc of past ages were? Did we cause the dinosaurs to die off because we polluted the atmosphere with stuff? Heck, the Nova broadcast was talking about how pollution moved us from spore organisms in the pre dionosaur times to vegitation because a very serious pollutant was entered into the atmosphere called oxygen. Up until then, the atmosphere was mainly methane. Science is wonderful but, people have to understant that theories are just that. Remember, the greatist scientific minds were all sure that the earth was flat.. some were convinced that the earth was the center of the universe... others were killed because they suggested that the earth might only be just the center of the "solar system" not to mention what happened to certain scientist that decided that the earth revolved around the Sun and the moon orbited the earth. My point is that all sciences are theories until they actually happen. We don't have the abilitiy, even now, to see or understand things that may affect us 100 years from now. All we can do is look at what appears to be happening and make guesses. I put very little faith in to hottest recorded because, in reality, we haven't been recording all that long in the grand scheme of things. Heck, until the 1900's we couldn't even give accurate temperatures over parts of South America, North America, the poles, Africa, and many islands in the oceans. So, how accurate are our global averages. In the 1400's what were the temperature averages and where were the temperatures taken?

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

from John Cook:

"The 'airborne fraction' refers to the amount of human CO2 emissions remaining in the atmosphere. Approximately 43% of our CO2 emissions stay in the atmosphere with the rest being absorbed by carbon sinks. But is the airborne fraction increasing? A paper published in November 2009 found no statistically significant trend (Knorr 2009). Anthony Watts labeled this result the "Bombshell from Bristol" - A potentially devastating result for anthropogenic global warming. Was it such a shock? The 2007 IPCC verdict on the airborne fraction was "There is yet no statistically significant trend in the CO2 growth rate since 1958 .... This 'airborne fraction' has shown little variation over this period." (IPCC AR4) I'm not sure the move from "not much happening" "to "still not much happening" warrants the label "bombshell".

The airborne fraction is calculated from the rate of human CO2 emissions and changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration. The global increase in atmospheric CO2 has been directly measured since 1959 and can be calculated from ice cores for earlier periods. Primarily, CO2 emissions come from fossil fuel combustion with a lesser contribution from land use changes. Fossil fuel combustion is calculated from international energy statistics. CO2 emissions from land-use changes are more difficult to estimate and come with greater uncertainty. Land use emissions are estimated using deforestation and other land-use data, fire observations from space and carbon cycle modeling.

There have been several recent studies determining the airborne fraction. Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide (Le Quere 2009) examines the airborne fraction from 1959 to 2008. This period was chosen as we have directly measured atmospheric CO2 levels over this time. Fossil fuel emissions rose steadily in recent decades, contributing 8.7 ± 0.5 gigatonnes of carbon in 2008. This is 41% greater than fossil fuel emissions in 1990. CO2 emissions from land use was estimated at 1.2 ± 0.4 gigatonnes of carbon in 2008. Note the proportionally higher uncertainty compared to fossil fuel emissions.

Over this period, an average of 43% of each year's CO2 emissions remained in the atmosphere although there is much year-to-year variability. The noise in the airborne fraction was reduced by removing the variability associated with El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and volcanic activity. They found the airborne fraction increased by 3 ± 2% per decade. This is a slightly increasing trend although only barely statistically significant .

Knorr 2009 extends this analysis back to 1850 by combining direct CO2 measurements from Mauna Loa and the South Pole with CO2 data derived from Antarctic ice cores. This enabled Knorr to compare CO2 emissions to atmospheric CO2 levels for the past 150 years.


(See Figure one, below)


Figure 1: Observed increase atmospheric CO2 derived from direct measurements, taking the average of Mauna Loa (Hawaii) and the South Pole (thin solid line) and two ice cores: Law Dome (dashed thin line) and Siple (thin dotted line). This is compared to total anthropogenic emissions (thick solid line) and 46% of total emissions (thick dashed line). (Knorr 2009)

Knorr finds that since 1850, the airborne fraction has eemained relatively constant. When CO2emissions were low, the amount of CO2absorbed by natural carbon sinks was correspondingly low. As human CO2 emissions sharply increased in the 20th Century, the amount absorbed by nature increased correspondingly. The airborne fraction remained level at around 43%. The trend since 1850 is found to be 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade.

There are several differences in methodology between Knorr 2009 and Le Quere 2009. Knorr's result does not include the filtering for ENSO and volcanic activity employed by Le Quéré. However, when Knorr does include this filtering in his analysis, he finds a trend of 1.2 ± 0.9% per decade. This is smaller than Le Quere's result but is statistically significant.

Knorr also finds the 150 year trend while Le Quéré looks at the last 50 years. This may be significant. If the airborne fraction is increasing, it is possibly a recent phenomenon due to natural carbon sinks losing their absorption ability after becoming saturated. Several studies have found recent drops in the uptake of CO2 by oceans (Le Quere 2007, Schuster 2007, Park 2008). However, with such a noisy signal, this is one question that will require more data before being more fully resolved.

Lastly, some perspective. There are still areas of uncertainty associated with the carbon cycle. Because of this uncertainty, scientists are currently debating whether the airborne fraction is steady at 43% or slightly Increasing from 43%. Unfortunately, some skeptics use this uncertainty to hold the position that the airborne fraction is closer to 0%."

FRENCHY Loc: Stone Mountain , Ga

Al Gore 15 years ago, declare that the ocean will raise 3 to 4 meters , and 4 years ago , he "took the chance" of the life time and bought an ocean front property in California of all places

http://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/sea-level-rising-gore-buys-multi-million-dollar-oceanfront-mansion

WAL

NPR is firm in the warming camp. The PC crowd has made it clear any other opinion will be considered a danger to the country

ole sarg Loc: south florida

Why I'll bet you believe the earth is round and the moon shot was done in Hollywood!

We all know that science is just plain wrong. Common sense tells us that gravity doesn't exist and that the sun circles the earth.

Why just the other day I went to the doc and he said I needed an operation well I just kept going to doctors until I found one who said I didn't need one and so here I am on my death bed writing this missive.

blacks2 Loc: SF. Bay area

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

FRENCHY Loc: Stone Mountain , Ga

And be.....Racist !!

blacks2 Loc: SF. Bay area

I see you graduated from Fox news. As for the batteries, Tesla built their batteries in Reno Nevada, I had no idea Nevada does not belong to the US. :lol: :lol: :lol:

teesquare Loc: USA

<sigh.....> And still - everyone bitches about how "divided" we are as a country....

I wonder - COULD that have anything to do with the FACT that we have allowed POLITICS to HIJACK SCIENCE...and turn it into the political football you are all fumbling back and forth.

Seriously. Only the smallest minded among us are willing to buy in - whole souled - to EITHER scientific postulation as to WHY our weather is changing.

THE only known truth ( that is - EVIDENCED via ice core records and research over the last 50 plus years...) is that our planet's weather is ALWAYS in a state of "flux". We have had 5 KNOWN, PROVEN prior major cycles ( and many smaller - shorter ) in which the Earth has warmed - then cooled ( ice ages).

Yet - the media nor science as a body wants to acknowledge in the current discussion, that THEY have known, and taught this for decades.

WHY?

Because there is NO "funding" potential in it. It can't be politicized, so - there is no money to pay salaries, and provide grants by proclaiming what we have known to be true. And politicians can't cry to you - and get you to send money s they can "fight the bad guys"....

It only "pays off" if you can blame someone for farting, smoking, driving their diesel truck, or living indoors with benefit of air conditions and lights.

Foolish, foolish, foolish folks.....

EVEN the latest round of research shows that if we turned off EVERYTHING attributing to "global warming" "climate change" TODAY - we MIGHT prolong the projected warming trend by 20 years...20 YEARS??? Put the Earth into the Stone Ages, in order to get 20 years? Does that seem worthwhile to you?

NOW...we have even more current info all over the 'net - showing we should expect to enter a "mini-ice age" within 15 years.

So...who is more foolish here...? The science community for paying blindfolded darts?

OR US...for fighting with one another because WE have ALLOWED our politicians to twist us all into knot over WHO is at FAULT???

Really - this is perhaps the most low-brow bunch of arguing I have seen...DOn't you guys own a camera? Then why not take a deep breath, turn of the computer - and go murder some electrons, and make digital images????

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

Sorry, wiggy, but there ain't no 97%!

herb99m Loc: Georgia, USA

And Tesla is what percent of the electric/hybrid market?
And they burn a lot of coal to fuel them. I don't have it handy, but when I bought my last car I did a lot of research, and the hybrid had a bigger fiber footprint than the gas version.

Another point. Most of us are not smart enough to really know what is happening. But we have a right to be skeptical. One problem with the current peer review is the backlash on scientists that have spoken out against them. The grant money is heavily distributed to studies supporting climate change. So the argument that the 3% deniors are paid by the oil companies rings hollow. Because they can't get a grant. I know first hand several scientists who have told me they would be blacklisted if they spoke out against it.

In addition, the climate changers are looking at only a 200 year period, which is a statistically insignificant time period in our history. Especially when you consider that we were coming out of a mini ice age when the measurements began. Parts of the Hudson River was frozen over during the revolutionary war. Go back to Viking teams and it is clear it was much warmer then than now. Dairy Farms in Greenland.

100 years ago there was far more evidence supporting the Theory of Relativity, but counter points were not shunned. Scientific healthy debate was encouraged. Now they are finding that it may be flawed. One concern I have with many of the climate change supporters is the belief that there should be no more discussion and if you disagree you are an idiot. I am automatically suspicious of anyone that takes that stance. They are not competent enough to withstand a challenge so they shut it down. But instead resort to bullying.

xxredbeardxx Loc: San Clemente CA.

Yeah, that's one car.. your talking the Rolls Royce
of electric cars.. Check out the price.

How many average American's can buy one of those.

Not to mention the fact that it's impractical for most commuters.

You have such a weight difference in those cars
that you use double the tires. Double the brakes changes.
Shall I go on?

by the way, I've never seen FOX news in my life.