- #1
Wagmc
- 27
- 0
contrary to AGW theory. I have not yet read the actual study.
http://bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html" [Broken]
http://bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html" [Broken]
Last edited by a moderator:
Given the importance of the [the anthropogenic CO2 airborne fraction] for the degree of future climate change, the question is how to best predict its future course. One pre-requisite is that we gain a thorough understand of why it has stayed approximately constant in the past, another that we improve our ability to detect if and when it changes. The most urgent need seems to exist for more accurate estimates of land use emissions.
Another possible approach is to add more data through the combination of many detailed regional studies such as the ones by Schuster and Watson (2007) and Le Quéré et al. (2007), or using process based models combined with data assimilation approaches (Rayner et al., 2005). If process models are used, however, they need to be carefully constructed in order to answer the question of why the AF has remained constant and not shown more pronounced decadal-scale fluctuations or a stronger secular trend.
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.
Wagmc said:in the words of Knorr:
I think that's pretty clear, as is my understanding.
Another result of the study is that emissions from deforestation might
have been overestimated by between 18 and 75 per cent.
Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the
airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially
zero.
Wagmc said:At the current AF, it is not possible to support IPCC estimates of CO2 residence times on the order of ~100 years. It would be closer to 10-15 years, as other studies have found.
Thus, IPCC is overestimating how fast CO2 will accumulate and their warming scenarios are overstated.
Xnn said:Sounds like an outrageous claim.
Do you have anything of substance to support this?
... the data source used was the outcome of the injection of excess 14CO2 into the atmosphere during the A-bomb tests in the 1950s/1960s, which generated an initial increase of approximately 1000% above the normal value and which then declined substantially exponentially with time, with τ = 16 years,...
The upcoming GRL paper on CO2 fraction is significant because it presents new research findings on the relationship between CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentration. This information is crucial for understanding the impact of human activities on climate change.
The data for this paper was collected from various sources, including atmospheric measurements, satellite data, and computer simulations. These methods provide a comprehensive and accurate representation of CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
The constant CO2 fraction found in this paper suggests that the Earth's natural carbon sinks, such as forests and oceans, are currently absorbing about half of the CO2 emitted by human activities. This provides some hope for mitigating the effects of climate change, but it also highlights the need for continued efforts to reduce CO2 emissions.
This paper contributes to our understanding of climate change by providing new insights into the complex relationship between CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentration. It also highlights the importance of monitoring and reducing human-caused CO2 emissions to mitigate the effects of climate change.
The findings of this paper have potential implications for climate change policies and actions. It emphasizes the need for immediate and effective measures to reduce CO2 emissions to avoid further environmental damage. Additionally, it highlights the importance of preserving natural carbon sinks to help regulate CO2 levels in the atmosphere.