from the patriotpost:::
a new study out of England, where scientists are relying not on computer-generated models of the Earth, but the real thing.
Wolfgang Knorr of the University of Bristol's Department of Earth Sciences has found that in the past 160 years the Earth's absorption of carbon dioxide (CO2) has remained unchanged. In fact, Knorr's study found that only 45 percent of carbon emissions caused by man's progression (including industrialization) remains in the atmosphere as opposed to the 100 percent that the warmers are claiming.
Warming "science" is based largely on the supposition that the Earth can take only so much CO2, and that once its limit has been reached, we're cooked. But more and more dissenters, who had been silenced for several years by the media and ostracized by colleagues, are now stepping forward. Their position is that the Earth's ecosystems are much more complex and robust than we understand, and that computer systems used by scientists crying climate change are limited in their comprehension --
The article you quoted here is misleading.
Here's a press release on the study from the University of Bristol: http://bristol.ac.uk/news/2009/6649.html
and here's the paper:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2 … 0613.shtml
There are a certain number of natural carbon sinks. A certain fraction of the CO2 that we emit every year is absorbed by the ocean and various chemical reactions.
There have been predictions (and some observations) that the amount of CO2 that would be absorbed every year would decrease as these sinks reach a saturation point. When the saturation point was reached, more of our emissions would stay in the atmosphere, leading to an even faster rise in CO2.
Knorrs paper contradicts these predictions.
However, it doesn't contradict the basic premises of global warming. Atmospheric CO2 has increased because of human activities, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and the planet is warming.
Despite what your quoted article says, Knorr doesn't seem like a doubter. From Roger Pielke's blog, here's Knorr talking about the study results:
"Climate critics will always find something, no matter what the results are. It's not an indication not to do anything and you can always misinterpret results. But I think that kind of misinformation dies out quickly, I don't see a problem."
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/ … table.html
On Knorr's homepage, he states his research focus:
"My main areas of research are the global carbon cycle and the terrestrial biosphere, and how both interact and react to human activities. Human activities may alter them directly, by emitting CO2 from fossil fuel burning or deforestation or other forms of land-use change, or indirectly through man-made climate change. I am interested in understanding the causes of the current imbalances in the global carbon cycle, in forecasting its possible future, and in engaging in measures to mitigate climate change and the adverse effects of deforestation. As QUEST Deputy Leader, I am responsible for further development of CCDAS and have initiated a demonstrator study of sustainable forest management for climate protection. "
He doesn't seem like he has any doubt that CO2 is causing warming from what I can see.
sounds to me that he is trying to stay objective...as all scientists are suppose to do. remember science is all theory and is all about studying how things change, because things do always change. and my favorite viewpoint is that how a person looks at and sets up research and interprets therefrom are unique to each person, unless of course they don't have a mind of their own and prefer for various reasons to say what someone wants them to say
Its 8 degrees here and on it way down. I pray there is global warming and I hope it starts right here!
co2 is NOT toxic to the environment.
co2 does NOT heat the earth.
Pollution is real.
But the Global Warming agenda is not about pollution control it's about Taxes and Money.
If the United States Cared at all about Co2 or Pollution they would not be creating an environment where paper shuffles allow Corporate America to pollute all they want for a fee.
The United States would not be allowing new oil drilling leases in the Virgin Waters off the Alasaka Coast.
The United States would not be insisting the Biggest Polluter and creater of Co2 - The United States Military be entiely excluded from any treaties or talks about "Global Warming".
It doesn't matter what You believe in regards to Co2 because the FACT of the matter is the UN and the New World Order agenda are using this as a guise to implement control and taxes.
This has nothing to do with "Saving the Planet". There are plenty of things that can be done to reduce pollution. But none of this is being done.
If you want to educate yourself of Co2 - which you exhale with every breath and is REQUIRED for plants to grow... remember Photosynthesis from Grade School?
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carbo … imate.html
Time to wake up and expose the Global Warming Agenda for what it is - a complete and total fraud.
The United Nations intentionally Doctors data for their own EVIL purposes.
The Rockefellers and the Rothchilds are behind this fraud. The Rockefellers donated the land for the United Nations building in NY... why? They are not exactly philanthropists.
Al Gore is a Fraud and stands to become an instant billionaire if this fraud is consummated.
Maurice Strong is a total fraud. Go ahead and read about the dealings of the United Nations cheif proponent of the Global Warming Fraud.
The only people in DENIAL are those who are too stupid to see the Fraudulent people behind this FRAUDULENT scheme.
The New World Order wants to tell you what you can wear, drive, how big your house can be, how long you can turn your lights on, etc.
This is not Democracy or Freedom. This is communism where Police Force will be used to implement their EVIL agenda under the guise of Fraudulent Science.
Too bad the actual weather is not cooperating with their evil plans.
Mike, seems to me that nothing you said in your post supported the statement you made above.
CO2 doesn't cause the earth to heat up? Really?
Prove it. And don't go ranting about a new world order conspiracy. You are contradicting very basic science when you make that statement. You need to back up your claim, or stop talking about something that you don't seem to understand.
H2O doesn't cause the earth to heat up? Really?
If H2O does it, then why we are so concerned of CO2?
Because H2O is a feedback, and amplifier, while CO2 is a forcing. CO2 causes the atmosphere to get warmer, which can increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which will lead to more warming.
But H2O will not increase in the atmosphere of its own accord. Otherwise, we would have turned to Venus a long time ago, considering the amount of water on the planet.
There's a pretty detailed discussion of this in the comments thread on my hub "CO2 Causes Global Warming, Here's How We Know." It's toward the end of the comments thread.
You can put up all of the facts and science you want you will never make any progress because The Warmers are a religion. They will believe in their cause with faith not facts. They require no common sense and are not interested in proof or evidence. They are not concerned with science and falsify everything in order to convince themselves of their anti-capitalist truth.
It is all dead simple. Walk outside and breath the air. It is crud even down here in Australia. To be a climate change denyer may be debatable but air quality is not. Clean it up or we will suffocate!
Ok, then I say C2H5OH does it. Prove that it does not, if you wish
It might increase the methane emanating from your digestive tract the morning after..... and it can definitely contribute to hot air. ;-)
Nothing needs to be proved because nothing is wrong. There has been no rise in temperature. You are just stupid that is the only problem.
But you got my point, right? You can't prove a negative, it's logically impossible.
Hmm. Getting into semantics here.
He claims that CO2 does not act as a greenhouse gas. He should be able to back up his assertion, especially since it flies in the face of a few hundred years worth of scientific observation.
Misha - that is pathetic, you know? The tired old adage 'you can't prove a negative' is actually a corruption of the (legitimate) statement 'you can't prove non-existence' (usually meaning nonexistence of God). Your assertion that 'you can't prove a negative' is mere bilge.
Oh, and happy New Year, by the way!
The person who does not understand the impossibility of proving a negative looks utterly funny when he mentions the word "science". You opinions belong to irrational beliefs forums, William.
Starting to slip back into troll land Misha? Looks like a personal attack to me.
Hi Dave, did not see you in forums for a while
I did oversimplify it a bit, I am just a sinful man, ya know? Yet it does not change the meaning IMO.
Trying to disprove global warming existence is absolutely equivalent to trying to disprove christian god existence.
Do you like it better this way?
I've been 'relaxing' in snowy UK, away from the desert for a few weeks.
And no - instrumentation and method can inform the Global warming question. The same is not true of the Christian God
The Warmers have lost their cause. Trump and the rest of us now lead the world and we've decided we don't care about your Warmers religion any more.
do we always need to prove something first, why not just help to conserve and some kind of little bit sacrificing on our lifestyle
CLIMATE CHANGES ARE BEING CAUSED PRIMARILY BY HAARP A MILITARY WEAPON!
Learning about these things is half the battle, putting the pieces together now thats a WAR!
FEMA CONCENTRATION CAMPS
NEW WORLD ORDER
NORTH AMERICAN UNION
Whilst everyone is turning themselves inside out arguing about statistics, models and contradictory evidence about global warming, you are not seeing the big picture.
This whole charade has nothing to do with saving the planet, or mankind.
It is about BIG money profits, and political control. The goal of a world government is very real and the global warming scare is a perfect vehicle to help bring it about (along with the global swine flu pandemic).
If the climate change alarmists could put down their banners and megaphones long enough to take a hard look at what is going on, they would be able to see this.
by My Esoteric2 months ago
There are two major would shaping forces at risk with a Trump presidency; an economic meltdown brought on by a sharp decline in American productivity, and, a much more important one, the environment. I will leave the...
by Holle Abee3 months ago
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/0 … w-settled/
by Jack Lee4 days ago
The EPA has been regulating emissions for quite some times. It is mandated with protecting our environment like water and air...Lately, it had put much resources and emphasis on climate change. The question becomes is...
by emievil7 years ago
I came upon this news that a study showed majority of the Americans do not believe humans caused global warming / climate change. Any idea if this is true? What about the rest of the world, what do we believe?This is...
by Tumbletree5 years ago
As an American, perhaps as a person on the planet today, it's very difficult to stay informed. If one makes the mistake of turning on the TV to watch the News, one realizes they're wasting their time soon enough....
by ThunderKeys5 years ago
I'm confused. I've read and heard arguments that global warming is really just part of a natural temperature change process for the earth. I've also read that it's completely man-made? Is it one or both of these? Please...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.