Earth absorbs more of our CO2 emissions: science

[ScienceRocks]

Earth absorbs more of our CO2 emissions: science
AFP: Earth absorbs more of our CO2 emissions: science


(AFP) – 10 hours ago

PARIS — Even as Man's output of Earth-warming CO2 has risen, so has the capacity of plants and the oceans to absorb it, scientists said Wednesday, but warned this may not last forever.

Carbon storage by land and sea, known as carbon sinks, has more than doubled in the past 50 years from about 2.4 billion tonnes in 1960 to some five billion tonnes in 2010, said a study in Nature.

At the same time, fossil-fuel CO2 emissions rose almost four-fold.

"The growth rate of atmospheric CO2 continues to rise because fossil fuel emissions are accelerating not because sinks are diminishing," researcher Ashley Ballantyne of the University of Colorado's geology department told AFP.

The finding was contrary to widespread expectations that carbon sinks were slowing their CO2 uptake.

"We were somewhat surprised by this result because several recent studies have been published showing that the land and oceans have been taking up less CO2," said Ballantyne.

"We discovered that the Earth continues to take up more CO2 every year and there is no indication that this uptake has weakened."

 

[Mr. H.]

I've lost track of how many trees I've planted over the years. I figure I'm better than carbon-footprint-neutral. Not counting farts.

 

[skookerasbil]

I've lost track of how many trees I've planted over the years. I figure I'm better than carbon-footprint-neutral. Not counting farts.

Indeed.........and if we hang around this place long enough, its a certainty we'll see a thread from the k00ks advocating use of butt plugs!!...........the title will be, "Do It For The Glaciers!!!"


The fucking k00ks..........I love 'em.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Earth is a Denier!

 

[RollingThunder]

Earth absorbs more of our CO2 emissions: science
AFP: Earth absorbs more of our CO2 emissions: science


(AFP) – 10 hours ago

PARIS — Even as Man's output of Earth-warming CO2 has risen, so has the capacity of plants and the oceans to absorb it, scientists said Wednesday, but warned this may not last forever.

Carbon storage by land and sea, known as carbon sinks, has more than doubled in the past 50 years from about 2.4 billion tonnes in 1960 to some five billion tonnes in 2010, said a study in Nature.

At the same time, fossil-fuel CO2 emissions rose almost four-fold.

"The growth rate of atmospheric CO2 continues to rise because fossil fuel emissions are accelerating not because sinks are diminishing," researcher Ashley Ballantyne of the University of Colorado's geology department told AFP.

The finding was contrary to widespread expectations that carbon sinks were slowing their CO2 uptake.

"We were somewhat surprised by this result because several recent studies have been published showing that the land and oceans have been taking up less CO2," said Ballantyne.

"We discovered that the Earth continues to take up more CO2 every year and there is no indication that this uptake has weakened."

So???? So what???? What do you imagine your point is here???? Mankind is still burning massive amounts of fossil carbon into the atmosphere every year, CO2 levels are still rising rapidly, the Earth is still warming up, climate patterns are still changing. The oceans are absorbing more CO2 for the time being but there are limits to how much CO2 they can take in so that process will eventually slow down and stop, but in the mean time this increased CO2 absorption is just making the very serious problem of ocean acidification even worse.

 

[flacaltenn]

Earth absorbs more of our CO2 emissions: science
AFP: Earth absorbs more of our CO2 emissions: science


(AFP) – 10 hours ago

PARIS — Even as Man's output of Earth-warming CO2 has risen, so has the capacity of plants and the oceans to absorb it, scientists said Wednesday, but warned this may not last forever.

Carbon storage by land and sea, known as carbon sinks, has more than doubled in the past 50 years from about 2.4 billion tonnes in 1960 to some five billion tonnes in 2010, said a study in Nature.

At the same time, fossil-fuel CO2 emissions rose almost four-fold.

"The growth rate of atmospheric CO2 continues to rise because fossil fuel emissions are accelerating not because sinks are diminishing," researcher Ashley Ballantyne of the University of Colorado's geology department told AFP.

The finding was contrary to widespread expectations that carbon sinks were slowing their CO2 uptake.

"We were somewhat surprised by this result because several recent studies have been published showing that the land and oceans have been taking up less CO2," said Ballantyne.

"We discovered that the Earth continues to take up more CO2 every year and there is no indication that this uptake has weakened."

So???? So what???? What do you imagine your point is here???? Mankind is still burning massive amounts of fossil carbon into the atmosphere every year, CO2 levels are still rising rapidly, the Earth is still warming up, climate patterns are still changing. The oceans are absorbing more CO2 for the time being but there are limits to how much CO2 they can take in so that process will eventually slow down and stop, but in the mean time this increased CO2 absorption is just making the very serious problem of ocean acidification even worse.

Well geez RT -- I thought you had COMPLETE and UTTER faith in the models that MAYBE just are using the wrong numbers.. And I should shut up and wait for instructions from Al Gore and UN as to how much money I owed to fix it..

Uncle FlaCalTenn has been trying to tell you that when the CO2 cycle from the land and ocean are more than 10 times what man is creating that you better have the balance figured out pretty damn accurately.. THIS is not a MINOR correction to our understanding is it TinkerBelle?

Actually -- you ARE AWARE that the heating effect from CO2 is not LINEAR and that with each doubling of CO2 there is a much less contribution to the greenhouse? Did ya know that? Think we should ponder what the heating REALLY is from CO2 at this point given that the sink rate may be a lot different than we assumed? Or is everything the same no matter WHAT new information we find?

So many questions for something on which the "science is completely settled"...

 

[RollingThunder]

Earth absorbs more of our CO2 emissions: science
AFP: Earth absorbs more of our CO2 emissions: science


(AFP) – 10 hours ago

So???? So what???? What do you imagine your point is here???? Mankind is still burning massive amounts of fossil carbon into the atmosphere every year, CO2 levels are still rising rapidly, the Earth is still warming up, climate patterns are still changing. The oceans are absorbing more CO2 for the time being but there are limits to how much CO2 they can take in so that process will eventually slow down and stop, but in the mean time this increased CO2 absorption is just making the very serious problem of ocean acidification even worse.

Well geez RT -- I thought you had COMPLETE and UTTER faith in the models that MAYBE just are using the wrong numbers.. And I should shut up and wait for instructions from Al Gore and UN as to how much money I owed to fix it..

Uncle FlaCalTenn has been trying to tell you that when the CO2 cycle from the land and ocean are more than 10 times what man is creating that you better have the balance figured out pretty damn accurately.. THIS is not a MINOR correction to our understanding is it TinkerBelle?

Actually -- you ARE AWARE that the heating effect from CO2 is not LINEAR and that with each doubling of CO2 there is a much less contribution to the greenhouse? Did ya know that? Think we should ponder what the heating REALLY is from CO2 at this point given that the sink rate may be a lot different than we assumed? Or is everything the same no matter WHAT new information we find?

So many questions for something on which the "science is completely settled"...

Once again you are just demonstrating to everyone that you are a clueless retard with no idea what any of this actually means. Nothing in that article changes anything significant in the scientific knowledge and understanding of anthropogenic global warming. Uncle FecalHead is an ignorant moron who is "AWARE" of a lot of crap that isn't actually true. Typical brainwashed denier cultist.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So???? So what???? What do you imagine your point is here???? Mankind is still burning massive amounts of fossil carbon into the atmosphere every year, CO2 levels are still rising rapidly, the Earth is still warming up, climate patterns are still changing. The oceans are absorbing more CO2 for the time being but there are limits to how much CO2 they can take in so that process will eventually slow down and stop, but in the mean time this increased CO2 absorption is just making the very serious problem of ocean acidification even worse.

Well geez RT -- I thought you had COMPLETE and UTTER faith in the models that MAYBE just are using the wrong numbers.. And I should shut up and wait for instructions from Al Gore and UN as to how much money I owed to fix it..

Uncle FlaCalTenn has been trying to tell you that when the CO2 cycle from the land and ocean are more than 10 times what man is creating that you better have the balance figured out pretty damn accurately.. THIS is not a MINOR correction to our understanding is it TinkerBelle?

Actually -- you ARE AWARE that the heating effect from CO2 is not LINEAR and that with each doubling of CO2 there is a much less contribution to the greenhouse? Did ya know that? Think we should ponder what the heating REALLY is from CO2 at this point given that the sink rate may be a lot different than we assumed? Or is everything the same no matter WHAT new information we find?

So many questions for something on which the "science is completely settled"...

Once again you are just demonstrating to everyone that you are a clueless retard with no idea what any of this actually means. Nothing in that article changes anything significant in the scientific knowledge and understanding of anthropogenic global warming. Uncle FecalHead is an ignorant moron who is "AWARE" of a lot of crap that isn't actually true. Typical brainwashed denier cultist.

Your model is off by 50% and that's AFTER your guys cooked the data to fit your foregone conclusion. Do the planet a huge favor and shut the fuck up

 

[flacaltenn]

So???? So what???? What do you imagine your point is here???? Mankind is still burning massive amounts of fossil carbon into the atmosphere every year, CO2 levels are still rising rapidly, the Earth is still warming up, climate patterns are still changing. The oceans are absorbing more CO2 for the time being but there are limits to how much CO2 they can take in so that process will eventually slow down and stop, but in the mean time this increased CO2 absorption is just making the very serious problem of ocean acidification even worse.

Well geez RT -- I thought you had COMPLETE and UTTER faith in the models that MAYBE just are using the wrong numbers.. And I should shut up and wait for instructions from Al Gore and UN as to how much money I owed to fix it..

Uncle FlaCalTenn has been trying to tell you that when the CO2 cycle from the land and ocean are more than 10 times what man is creating that you better have the balance figured out pretty damn accurately.. THIS is not a MINOR correction to our understanding is it TinkerBelle?

Actually -- you ARE AWARE that the heating effect from CO2 is not LINEAR and that with each doubling of CO2 there is a much less contribution to the greenhouse? Did ya know that? Think we should ponder what the heating REALLY is from CO2 at this point given that the sink rate may be a lot different than we assumed? Or is everything the same no matter WHAT new information we find?

So many questions for something on which the "science is completely settled"...

Once again you are just demonstrating to everyone that you are a clueless retard with no idea what any of this actually means. Nothing in that article changes anything significant in the scientific knowledge and understanding of anthropogenic global warming. Uncle FecalHead is an ignorant moron who is "AWARE" of a lot of crap that isn't actually true. Typical brainwashed denier cultist.

What the hell are you raving about Princess? How do you build an accurate climate model when you don't accurately know the CO2 sink rates?

Want to try and intimidate me??? Then answer the questions.. I kinda laugh off the personal insults from webterds who don't have the ability to intelligiently debate..

 

[RollingThunder]

Well geez RT -- I thought you had COMPLETE and UTTER faith in the models that MAYBE just are using the wrong numbers.. And I should shut up and wait for instructions from Al Gore and UN as to how much money I owed to fix it..

Uncle FlaCalTenn has been trying to tell you that when the CO2 cycle from the land and ocean are more than 10 times what man is creating that you better have the balance figured out pretty damn accurately.. THIS is not a MINOR correction to our understanding is it TinkerBelle?

Actually -- you ARE AWARE that the heating effect from CO2 is not LINEAR and that with each doubling of CO2 there is a much less contribution to the greenhouse? Did ya know that? Think we should ponder what the heating REALLY is from CO2 at this point given that the sink rate may be a lot different than we assumed? Or is everything the same no matter WHAT new information we find?

So many questions for something on which the "science is completely settled"...

Once again you are just demonstrating to everyone that you are a clueless retard with no idea what any of this actually means. Nothing in that article changes anything significant in the scientific knowledge and understanding of anthropogenic global warming. Uncle FecalHead is an ignorant moron who is "AWARE" of a lot of crap that isn't actually true. Typical brainwashed denier cultist.

What the hell are you raving about Princess? How do you build an accurate climate model when you don't accurately know the CO2 sink rates?

That's easy, little retard. Scientists can measure the monthly increases in CO2 levels in the atmosphere quite accurately. The fact that some of the natural carbon sinks are still able to absorb a little more carbon than some previous studies had indicated they might has very little significance to the global warming that is being driven by atmospheric levels of CO2, not "sink rates". You only latch onto nonsense like this because you're a gullible retard who swallows all of the braindead BS and spun-up misinterpretations that your denier cult handlers spoon into your little pea brain.

Want to try and intimidate me???

Why on Earth would I bother? You're a meaningless denier cult drone/troll and I don't care two farts in a hurricane about you. You're far too brainwashed to ever convince (or you're a paid agent of disinformation, getting a check from Exxon or the Koch brothers to spread denier cult misinformation and propaganda on the web). I'm just here debunking your pernicious nonsense and lies with the scientific facts about AGW.

Then answer the questions..

The only real questions your posts bring up concern your sanity.

I kinda laugh off the personal insults from webterds who don't have the ability to intelligiently(sic) debate..

Classic!!! A retard who can't even spell 'intelligently' is going to school me on debating.....LOLOLOLOLOLOL....

 

[flacaltenn]

Once again you are just demonstrating to everyone that you are a clueless retard with no idea what any of this actually means. Nothing in that article changes anything significant in the scientific knowledge and understanding of anthropogenic global warming. Uncle FecalHead is an ignorant moron who is "AWARE" of a lot of crap that isn't actually true. Typical brainwashed denier cultist.

What the hell are you raving about Princess? How do you build an accurate climate model when you don't accurately know the CO2 sink rates?

That's easy, little retard. Scientists can measure the monthly increases in CO2 levels in the atmosphere quite accurately. The fact that some of the natural carbon sinks are still able to absorb a little more carbon than some previous studies had indicated they might has very little significance to the global warming that is being driven by atmospheric levels of CO2, not "sink rates". You only latch onto nonsense like this because you're a gullible retard who swallows all of the braindead BS and spun-up misinterpretations that your denier cult handlers spoon into your little pea brain.





Why on Earth would I bother? You're a meaningless denier cult drone/troll and I don't care two farts in a hurricane about you. You're far too brainwashed to ever convince (or you're a paid agent of disinformation, getting a check from Exxon or the Koch brothers to spread denier cult misinformation and propaganda on the web). I'm just here debunking your pernicious nonsense and lies with the scientific facts about AGW.

Then answer the questions..

The only real questions your posts bring up concern your sanity.

I kinda laugh off the personal insults from webterds who don't have the ability to intelligiently(sic) debate..

Classic!!! A retard who can't even spell 'intelligently' is going to school me on debating.....LOLOLOLOLOLOL....

Wow -- what a useful Princess you really are.. Thanks for finding that extra "i" your highness. I'm sooooo not worthy...

Interesting that you don't understand the implications of how much CO2 is being sunk. Even in the absence of man there are over 700GTons/year cycling between the atmosphere, the sea and the land. There is no evidence that relationship is stable and was PERFECTLY balanced before MAN came on the scene, because LARGE variations in atmospheric CO2 were possible without any anthro contribution.

If you JUST MEASURE atmospheric CO2 -- well, that wouldn't be very scientific would it? Because you'd be ASSUMING all that addition was attributed to man. So darling -- the GROWN-UPS want to understand the ENTIRE CYCLE. Because changes in the rate and balance of ALL of those thingies -- just might make you smarter about exactly what is going on.. AND -- your models wouldn't be worth CRAP , if they didn't predict atmospheric contributions of CO2 from FEEDBACK mechanisms, (like melting ice eg) and how much of THAT was gonna be retained by the atmos..

You just keep up that wonderful Princess attitude now -- your Prince is out there somewhere.

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey RT -- Take it from a REAL grown-up that helped write the study..

"It makes a big difference whether the extra carbon emitted is stored in reservoirs such as the deep oceans, where it could stay for hundreds or thousands of years, or whether it is taken up by the growth of new forests where it would stay for only a few years or decades," German scientist Ingeborg Levin said in a comment that accompanied the paper.

See -- ALL those numbers make a diff... We don't like cutting corners or making shit up..
Too bad you spent so much time trying to find my extra "i" and not READING the news flash.. Tends to make potty-mouths out of a lot of people..

 

[RollingThunder]

What the hell are you raving about Princess? How do you build an accurate climate model when you don't accurately know the CO2 sink rates?

That's easy, little retard. Scientists can measure the monthly increases in CO2 levels in the atmosphere quite accurately. The fact that some of the natural carbon sinks are still able to absorb a little more carbon than some previous studies had indicated they might has very little significance to the global warming that is being driven by atmospheric levels of CO2, not "sink rates". You only latch onto nonsense like this because you're a gullible retard who swallows all of the braindead BS and spun-up misinterpretations that your denier cult handlers spoon into your little pea brain.





Why on Earth would I bother? You're a meaningless denier cult drone/troll and I don't care two farts in a hurricane about you. You're far too brainwashed to ever convince (or you're a paid agent of disinformation, getting a check from Exxon or the Koch brothers to spread denier cult misinformation and propaganda on the web). I'm just here debunking your pernicious nonsense and lies with the scientific facts about AGW.






The only real questions your posts bring up concern your sanity.

I kinda laugh off the personal insults from webterds who don't have the ability to intelligiently(sic) debate..

Classic!!! A retard who can't even spell 'intelligently' is going to school me on debating.....LOLOLOLOLOLOL....

Interesting that you don't understand the implications of how much CO2 is being sunk.

Actually I do. It is you who is confused and misinformed.

Even in the absence of man there are over 700GTons/year cycling between the atmosphere, the sea and the land. There is no evidence that relationship is stable and was PERFECTLY balanced before MAN came on the scene, because LARGE variations in atmospheric CO2 were possible without any anthro contribution.

See. You're once again demonstrating for all to see that you're an ignorant twerp with delusions of knowing something. In spite of your idiotically false claims, there was indeed a natural balance between natural carbon release and natural carbon sequestration that kept atmospheric levels of CO2 fairly stable in either a glaciation mode (180-210ppm) or an interglacial period mode (280-300ppm) for many hundreds of thousands of years or longer. It has been millions of years since CO2 levels have been as high as man has driven them by burning off the fossil carbon nature sequestered over millions of years.

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere has reached 395 ppm (parts per million) by volume as of June 2012[1][2] and rose by 2.0 ppm/yr during 2000–2009. [2][3] This current concentration is substantially higher than the 280 ppm concentration present in pre-industrial times, with the increase largely attributed to anthropogenic sources.[4] Carbon dioxide is used in photosynthesis (in plants and other photoautotrophs), and is also a prominent greenhouse gas. Despite its relatively small overall concentration in the atmosphere, CO2 is an important component of Earth's atmosphere because it absorbs and emits infrared radiation at wavelengths of 4.26 µm (asymmetric stretching vibrational mode) and 14.99 µm (bending vibrational mode), thereby playing a role in the greenhouse effect.[5] The present level is higher than at any time during the last 800 thousand years,[6] and likely higher than in the past 20 million years.[7]

Anthropogenic CO2 increase

While CO2 absorption and release is always happening as a result of natural processes, the recent drastic rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is known to be entirely due to human activity.[16] Researchers know this both by calculating the amount released based on various national statistics, and by examining the ratio of various carbon isotopes in the atmosphere,[16] as the burning of long-buried fossil fuels releases CO2 containing carbon of different isotopic ratios to those of living plants, enabling scientists to distinguish between natural and human-caused contributions to CO2 concentration.

Burning fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum is the leading cause of increased anthropogenic CO2; deforestation is the second major cause. In 2010, 9.14 gigatonnes of carbon (33.5 gigatonnes of CO2) were released from fossil fuels and cement production worldwide, compared to 6.15 gigatonnes in 1990.[17] In addition, land use change contributed 0.87 gigatonnes in 2010, compared to 1.45 gigatonnes in 1990.[17] In 1997, human-caused Indonesian peat fires were estimated to have released between 13% and 40% of the average carbon emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels around the world in a single year.[18][19][20] In the period 1751 to 1900 about 12 gigatonnes of carbon were released as carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels, whereas from 1901 to 2008 the figure was about 334 gigatonnes.[21]

This addition, about 3% of annual natural emissions as of 1997, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks.[22] As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, and as of 2009, its concentration is 39% above pre-industrial levels.[3]

Past variation

The most direct method for measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations for periods before direct sampling is to measure bubbles of air (fluid or gas inclusions) trapped in the Antarctic or Greenland ice sheets. The most widely accepted of such studies come from a variety of Antarctic cores and indicate that atmospheric CO2 levels were about 260–280 ppmv immediately before industrial emissions began and did not vary much from this level during the preceding 10,000 years (10 ka). In 1832 Antarctic ice core levels were 284 ppmv.[23]

The longest ice core record comes from East Antarctica, where ice has been sampled to an age of 800 ka.[6] During this time, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has varied by volume between 180–210 ppm during ice ages, increasing to 280–300 ppm during warmer interglacials.[31][32]

If you JUST MEASURE atmospheric CO2 -- well, that wouldn't be very scientific would it? Because you'd be ASSUMING all that addition was attributed to man. So darling -- the GROWN-UPS want to understand the ENTIRE CYCLE. Because changes in the rate and balance of ALL of those thingies -- just might make you smarter about exactly what is going on.. AND -- your models wouldn't be worth CRAP , if they didn't predict atmospheric contributions of CO2 from FEEDBACK mechanisms, (like melting ice eg) and how much of THAT was gonna be retained by the atmos..

You just keep up that wonderful Princess attitude now -- your Prince is out there somewhere.

Wow, fecalhead, you sure can spew some crazy nonsense, you poor ignorant retard. You make it so obvious that you don't understand squat about this topic. Even your insults are utterly lame. Are you still in the eighth grade, little retard?

 

[flacaltenn]

Face it... Quoting Wiki doesn't show a good command of the topic. And your lack of interest in WHY all those CO2 cycle measurements are VERY important isn't gonna be covered up by colorful larger characters..

You didn't even read the OP.. Cause if you had -- you would have SEEN QUOTES about WHY understanding all of these metrics are important to modeling and understanding. You're not arguing with me and calling me names, you're disparaging the AUTHORS of this published study who TOLD you why these findings are VERY significant. Keep it up Princess.

BTW: 800,000 years of a largely ICE-LOCKED globe is NOT the normal state of the climate. And the claim that CO2 levels have NEVER BEEN higher is not even debatable...

ScienceDirect.com - Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology - Extremely elevated CO2 concentrations at the Triassic/Jurassic boundary

Although progress has been made in recent years in reconstructing the environmental conditions at the Triassic/Jurassic Boundary (TJB), published records of atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been of low resolution and/or based on multi-taxon estimates. This is addressed here by reconstructing CO2 concentrations across the TJB using stomatal frequencies of four phylogenetically and ecologically distinct plant groups from two depositionally, geographically and taphonomically separate boundary sections in East Greenland and Northern Ireland, with stomatal proxy methods and regression analysis. The resulting CO2 records then are compared with an additional existing TJB record from a geological section in Sweden. The final results indicate that pre-TJB (Rhaetian), the CO2 concentration was approximately 1000 ppm, that it started to rise steeply pre-boundary and had doubled to around 2000–2500 ppm at the TJB. The CO2 concentration then remained elevated for some time post-boundary, before returning to pre-TJB levels in the Hettangian. These results are in very good accordance with published C-isotope, fire and leaf dissection records, and clearly indicate steeply rising and lingering CO2 concentration at the TJB.

How silly.. Tell me again what happens to the Earth when atmospheric CO2 reaches 2000ppm? Damn those SUV driving reptiles..

You're just shouting and trying to stomp out ANY evidence and ANY science that doesn't fit your worship of the theory..

Wikipedia -----

 

[RollingThunder]

Interesting that you don't understand the implications of how much CO2 is being sunk. Even in the absence of man there are over 700GTons/year cycling between the atmosphere, the sea and the land. There is no evidence that relationship is stable and was PERFECTLY balanced before MAN came on the scene, because LARGE variations in atmospheric CO2 were possible without any anthro contribution. If you JUST MEASURE atmospheric CO2 -- well, that wouldn't be very scientific would it? Because you'd be ASSUMING all that addition was attributed to man.

See. You're once again demonstrating for all to see that you're an ignorant twerp with delusions of knowing something. In spite of your idiotically false claims, there was indeed a natural balance between natural carbon release and natural carbon sequestration that kept atmospheric levels of CO2 fairly stable in either a glaciation mode (180-210ppm) or an interglacial period mode (280-300ppm) for many hundreds of thousands of years or longer. It has been millions of years since CO2 levels have been as high as man has driven them by burning off the fossil carbon nature sequestered over millions of years.

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere has reached 395 ppm (parts per million) by volume as of June 2012[1][2] and rose by 2.0 ppm/yr during 2000–2009. [2][3] This current concentration is substantially higher than the 280 ppm concentration present in pre-industrial times, with the increase largely attributed to anthropogenic sources.[4] Carbon dioxide is used in photosynthesis (in plants and other photoautotrophs), and is also a prominent greenhouse gas. Despite its relatively small overall concentration in the atmosphere, CO2 is an important component of Earth's atmosphere because it absorbs and emits infrared radiation at wavelengths of 4.26 µm (asymmetric stretching vibrational mode) and 14.99 µm (bending vibrational mode), thereby playing a role in the greenhouse effect.[5] The present level is higher than at any time during the last 800 thousand years,[6] and likely higher than in the past 20 million years.[7]

Anthropogenic CO2 increase

While CO2 absorption and release is always happening as a result of natural processes, the recent drastic rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is known to be entirely due to human activity.[16] Researchers know this both by calculating the amount released based on various national statistics, and by examining the ratio of various carbon isotopes in the atmosphere,[16] as the burning of long-buried fossil fuels releases CO2 containing carbon of different isotopic ratios to those of living plants, enabling scientists to distinguish between natural and human-caused contributions to CO2 concentration.

Burning fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum is the leading cause of increased anthropogenic CO2; deforestation is the second major cause. In 2010, 9.14 gigatonnes of carbon (33.5 gigatonnes of CO2) were released from fossil fuels and cement production worldwide, compared to 6.15 gigatonnes in 1990.[17] In addition, land use change contributed 0.87 gigatonnes in 2010, compared to 1.45 gigatonnes in 1990.[17] In 1997, human-caused Indonesian peat fires were estimated to have released between 13% and 40% of the average carbon emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels around the world in a single year.[18][19][20] In the period 1751 to 1900 about 12 gigatonnes of carbon were released as carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels, whereas from 1901 to 2008 the figure was about 334 gigatonnes.[21]

This addition, about 3% of annual natural emissions as of 1997, is sufficient to exceed the balancing effect of sinks.[22] As a result, carbon dioxide has gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, and as of 2009, its concentration is 39% above pre-industrial levels.[3]

Past variation

The most direct method for measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations for periods before direct sampling is to measure bubbles of air (fluid or gas inclusions) trapped in the Antarctic or Greenland ice sheets. The most widely accepted of such studies come from a variety of Antarctic cores and indicate that atmospheric CO2 levels were about 260–280 ppmv immediately before industrial emissions began and did not vary much from this level during the preceding 10,000 years (10 ka). In 1832 Antarctic ice core levels were 284 ppmv.[23]

The longest ice core record comes from East Antarctica, where ice has been sampled to an age of 800 ka.[6] During this time, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has varied by volume between 180–210 ppm during ice ages, increasing to 280–300 ppm during warmer interglacials.[31][32]

Face it... Quoting Wiki doesn't show a good command of the topic.

The information from Wikipedia that I quoted is accurate and well referenced with citations to the scientific research. Face it, little retard.....your rejection of all ordinary sources of information, like encyclopedias, that debunks your braindead denier cult myths is just another symptom of your brainwashed insanity. You made the false and idiotic claim that historically the natural cycles of carbon release and carbon sequestration were not in a pretty good balance but the scientific evidence shows that they were, as the info from Wikipedia demonstrates. It is so typical of you moronic denier cultists to sneer at valid scientific info that debunks your myths. Much like the way creationists try to sneer at all of the scientific info that supports the theory of evolution of the species. It just shows what a complete retard you are.

And your lack of interest in WHY all those CO2 cycle measurements are VERY important isn't gonna be covered up by colorful larger characters..

Repeating claims about the supposed super-importance of this research on CO2 "sink rates" that you can't back up with any reasonable arguments or data won't cover up the fact that you have no idea what you're talking about, little retard. Refining our knowledge of how much extra CO2 the carbon sinks can absorb is useful but the findings in the paper cited in the OP doesn't change the basic facts about AGW at all. It is the 40% increase in atmospheric levels of CO2, produced (mostly) by mankind's burning of hundreds of gigatons of fossil fuels, that is "VERY important", not the fact that the oceans are able to absorb a little bit more CO2 than earlier studies had indicated they might. And, of course, in true denier cult style, you completely ignore the issue of ocean acidification, which is just going to get even worse if the oceans are absorbing even more carbon dioxide.

You didn't even read the OP.. Cause if you had -- you would have SEEN QUOTES about WHY understanding all of these metrics are important to modeling and understanding. You're not arguing with me and calling me names, you're disparaging the AUTHORS of this published study who TOLD you why these findings are VERY significant. Keep it up Princess.

Oh, fecalhead, of course I read the OP, as did you. The difference is, I understood what I read and you are too retarded to understand anything, let alone the importance of the findings discussed in that article. Here's the important points: Carbon sinks, like the oceans and forests, are apparently still taking up an increased amount of CO2 but this increase is still only half of the excess CO2 that mankind is adding every year. This increase in carbon sink absorption rates will not last as rising temperatures due to AGW will cause some sinks to become carbon emitters. The only important unanswered question this research raises concerns whether the excess carbon dioxide is being absorbed by the oceans, which could keep it sequestered for centuries before releasing it back into the atmosphere, or whether it is being absorbed by the plant life, which could release the CO2 again in a matter of years or decades.

Earth absorbs more of our CO2 emissions: science
Google
(excerpts)

(AFP) PARIS — Even as Man's output of Earth-warming CO2 has risen, so has the capacity of plants and the oceans to absorb it, scientists said Wednesday, but warned this may not last forever. Carbon storage by land and sea, known as carbon sinks, has more than doubled in the past 50 years.....At the same time, fossil-fuel CO2 emissions rose almost four-fold.

Ballantyne and colleagues used reported annual changes in atmospheric CO2 levels, from which they subtracted annual total man-made emissions to quantify Earth's uptake. About half of man-made CO2 emissions caused by burning fossil fuels and land-use changes such as deforestation, are taken up by plants and the oceans.

CO2 can be stored away deep in the oceans for centuries. Plants and trees also use CO2 but later return it to the atmosphere through respiration or the burning of forests, for example. "We don't expect this uptake to continue to increase indefinitely because increased temperature as a result of rising CO2 may limit the net uptake of CO2 by land and oceans," said Ballantyne.

In fact, carbon sinks may become new sources of CO2 within the next century. "Obviously if the Earth suddenly stopped taking up as much CO2 this would have potentially catastrophic consequences for Earth's climate system." Better understanding of these processes is crucial for climate change planning. "It makes a big difference whether the extra carbon emitted is stored in reservoirs such as the deep oceans, where it could stay for hundreds or thousands of years, or whether it is taken up by the growth of new forests where it would stay for only a few years or decades," German scientist Ingeborg Levin said in a comment that accompanied the paper.

BTW: 800,000 years of a largely ICE-LOCKED globe is NOT the normal state of the climate.

Meaningless noise. You obviously don't even know the meaning of "normal", you poor deluded retard.

And the claim that CO2 levels have NEVER BEEN higher is not even debatable...

And since nobody made that claim, you are once again revealed to be a complete moron arguing with your own straw men.

 

[flacaltenn]

Pitiful... The sink rates weren't wrong "by a little bit" They were off by a factor of 2.

AND it negates the common wisdom of the Climate community that those rates had BEEN DECREASING..

Not to mention casting severe doubt on any ability to model or predict the future with data this important and this far off.

You cut off the Wiki Source describing CO2 during a series of ICe ages and IMPLIED that CO2 content had never been higher.. When in actuality we know it's been over 10 times as high and life did not perish from it.

It's all bluster and smoke with you.. And very Very little debate or content or demonstration of understanding.. Not interested in playing with you anymore on this Princess..

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What a total fucking joke this AGW is, their model is off in the trillions and they're still telling us "all we know for certain is manmade global warming!"

AGW = Cult

 

[flacaltenn]

What a total fucking joke this AGW is, their model is off in the trillions and they're still telling us "all we know for certain is manmade global warming!"

AGW = Cult

Gotta be.. Worse yet -- they beat up on us when things go ugly for them..

Religious people are generally humble. There's a bit of arrogance required to make the leaps of faith that they constantly make from their research.. Maybe they'll chill out over time.. Get it?? Warmers chill?

 

[RollingThunder]

Pitiful... The sink rates weren't wrong "by a little bit" They were off by a factor of 2.

Yes, you are pitiful....and really stupid.....there is nothing in that article that claims that previous estimations of the "sink rate" are "off by a factor of 2".....that's just your imbecilic misunderstanding of what was said.

AND it negates the common wisdom of the Climate community that those rates had BEEN DECREASING..

Sorry retard but you have no frigging idea what the climate scientists have predicted because you're way too full of misinformation, lies and propaganda to have room for the facts and you're far too stupid to find or understand the information anyway.

BTW, retard, one study does not actually "negate" anything. The researchers in the article cited in the OP were calculating how much CO2 the oceans and plant life are absorbing by taking the measured increases in atmospheric CO2 levels and subtracting that from the amount of CO2 released by the recorded amounts of fossil fuels that the world is burning. Other researchers have done direct measurements of the CO2 levels in the world's oceans and found that in some places the ocean waters are already saturated with CO2 and won't hold any more. Moreover, climate models DID NOT predict that CO2 absorption rates would be seriously decreasing already. Their predictions actually said that absorption rates would not decline for another four decades or so.

Anyway, one study does not "negate" all of the previous research, it just suggests that more study is needed to clarify these points. Whatever they may find, it does not affect the basic facts about AGW. Here's one the previous studies.

Global Warming - One Carbon Sink Is Filling Up
The Southern Ocean has grown saturated with CO2 and may lose its capacity to mitigate global warming, according to new research.
Der Speigel
05/18/2007
(excerpts)

Some of the world's seawater, thought to absorb a quarter of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, has grown saturated with the gas and leaves more of it sitting in the atmosphere. Researchers reporting in the journal Science say at least one large ocean area -- the Southern Ocean around Antarctica -- is so loaded with CO2 that it's losing its ability to soak it up. The Southern Ocean alone accounts for 15 percent of the global carbon sink.

Only half of all CO2 emitted in the world stays in the atmosphere. The rest goes into carbon sinks, normally vast collections of water or plant life which can bind or process the CO2 and keep it out of the global-warming equation. The decline of Antarctica's Southern Ocean as a carbon sink may raise future CO2 levels and speed up global warming. Climate scientists have predicted this would happen. The trouble is that the changes appear to be happening some 40 years ahead of schedule.

"We thought we would be able to detect these only in the second half of this century, say 2050 or so," lead researcher Corrine Le Quere told Reuters. Data from 1981 to 2004, however, show the waters have been saturated with carbon dioxide since at least the 1980s. "So, I find this really quite alarming," she said. Why is it happening now? Wind, says Le Quere. Increased winds over the past half-century churn the Southern Ocean, pulling naturally occurring carbon from deep in the ocean to its surface, where the human-caused carbon sits. The ocean surface becomes saturated with CO2 and stops absorbing it from the atmosphere. "Since the beginning of the industrial revolution the world's oceans have absorbed about a quarter of the 500 gigatons (500 billion tons) of carbon emitted into the atmosphere by humans," Chris Rapley of the British Antarctic Survey said. "The possibility that in a warmer world, the Southern Ocean -- the strongest ocean sink -- is weakening is a cause for concern."

Not to mention casting severe doubt on any ability to model or predict the future with data this important and this far off.

The new data isn't that important and the old studies aren't that far off or "negated", retard. That's just your idiotic denier cult spin on the actual facts. This study cited in the OP doesn't cast any doubts on climate science or models. It is your moronic posts about the study that cast severe doubts about your sanity.

You cut off the Wiki Source describing CO2 during a series of ICe ages and IMPLIED that CO2 content had never been higher.. When in actuality we know it's been over 10 times as high and life did not perish from it.

Sorry little retard, but you've made it quite clear that you don't "know" anything that is factual. You only "know" a jumble of misinformation, lies and spun-up nonsense but of course, in true retard style, everything you think you know is wrong.

I didn't imply any such thing. You're just too stupid to understand what is said to you. In the very distant past, CO2 levels have been many times higher but the sun's energy output was lower, something you're too ignorant and brainwashed to know or understand. In more recent times, like only 3 million years ago, during the Pliocene, CO2 levels were similar to current levels and stayed around 365 to 410 ppm for thousands of years. During that time Arctic temperatures were 11 to 16°C warmer according to Csank 2011 and global temperatures were about 3 to 4°C warmer than pre-industrial temperatures and sea levels were around 80 feet higher than current sea levels according to Dwyer 2008. The historical records are not in your favor, you poor duped and deluded denier cult nutjob.

It's all bluster and smoke with you..

You're 'projecting' again, little retard. I present the scientific facts of the matter and you parade your ignorance and stupidity and extreme gullibility. You are all about "bluster" and blowing smoke out your butthole.

And very Very little debate or content or demonstration of understanding..

Yeah, that does describe you quite well, mr. retardo.

Not interested in playing with you anymore on this Princess..

Why am I not surprised that you would run away when you're getting your butt kicked up to hat level by the facts. Typical denier cult retard.

 

[skookerasbil]