http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...184221.htm

Quote: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

Abstract here:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009GL040613

i'm not gonna be so ignorant as to state that it's unequivocally impossible for humans to negatively impact the climate, but the truth of the matter is that there's so much we don't know about how our lives impact the planet. We may be doing a lot, we may be merely a blip, but one thing i do know is that certain conclusions cannot be drawn from the evidence we have. Going to all these lengths to try and fix things that might not be broken is stupid and wasteful.

The only good reason to go green is for cutting our dependence on terrorist countries. that's it.

It would suck if we all live heavily taxed lives, drive cars we don't want, no longer eat meat because cows pollute, etc. only to have an environment that's .0005% cleaner and then that improvement gets erased by a single volcano.

(12-31-2009 07:12 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  It would suck if we all live heavily taxed lives, drive cars we don't want, no longer eat meat because cows pollute, etc. only to have an environment that's .0005% cleaner and then that improvement gets erased by a single volcano.

It would suck if we all live in a highly polluted, much more violent(storms) world and all the other problems that occur because there are so many who are ignorant of science.

As for light-not-so-bright, I am sorry but either you must not be able to read or are just REALLY stupid. THe article DOES say that it is now increasing partially because there is less vegetation to store it and the oceans are letting out more(I believe it is because of warming but I would have to go back and check that to be sure). Basically, this is common sense: trees store it. We cut them down and/or burn them meaning there are fewer to store it so more is in the atmosphere. It is called ccience ladies and gentlemen of the right. You might want to study up on it.

(12-31-2009 10:44 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(12-31-2009 07:12 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  It would suck if we all live heavily taxed lives, drive cars we don't want, no longer eat meat because cows pollute, etc. only to have an environment that's .0005% cleaner and then that improvement gets erased by a single volcano.

It would suck if we all live in a highly polluted, much more violent(storms) world and all the other problems that occur because there are so many who are ignorant of science.

Global warming believers always make me think of Pascal's Wager. It's more of a religion than science. They say believe in it or bad things will happen. I find it odd that so many of them will believe something that has very little, if any proof of it's assertions, i.e. Global warming, but are vehemently against the belief in god which has the same characteristics.

I, on the other hand, believe that the proponent of a theory bears the burden of proving it. Just because the asserted harms may be high doesn't mean I should believe them or act on them until their is enough evidence to prove them. Climate science is far from settled. I'll take the Anti-Pascal Wager. I do the same for religion.

(01-01-2010 10:19 AM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(12-31-2009 10:44 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(12-31-2009 07:12 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  It would suck if we all live heavily taxed lives, drive cars we don't want, no longer eat meat because cows pollute, etc. only to have an environment that's .0005% cleaner and then that improvement gets erased by a single volcano.

It would suck if we all live in a highly polluted, much more violent(storms) world and all the other problems that occur because there are so many who are ignorant of science.

Global warming believers always make me think of Pascal's Wager. It's more of a religion than science. They say believe in it or bad things will happen. I find it odd that so many of them will believe something that has very little, if any proof of it's assertions, i.e. Global warming, but are vehemently against the belief in god which has the same characteristics.

I, on the other hand, believe that the proponent of a theory bears the burden of proving it. Just because the asserted harms may be high doesn't mean I should believe them or act on them until their is enough evidence to prove them. Climate science is far from settled. I'll take the Anti-Pascal Wager. I do the same for religion.

Gah jugnaut, you had to quote Robert's comment.

Ok Robert, you got one thru. Since I'm referencing the primary science literature, it would be you that's ignorant of science. It's always been that way. Must suck for you.

(01-01-2010 03:41 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Gah jugnaut, you had to quote Robert's comment.

Ok Robert, you got one thru. Since I'm referencing the primary science literature, it would be you that's ignorant of science. It's always been that way. Must suck for you.

Wish the ignore function filtered out who you choose to ignore when someone quotes them. You'll be going along having a nice read and then....BAM, you get reminded of the ignorance in the world.

Good thing that those 2 couldn't actually read my whole post. They would look like the idiots when realizing their inability to read and/or comprehend what is actually in the article. Of course, Jesus will save us so it doesn't matter what we do to the planet.

Quote:The contents of this message is hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.

Sweet words. Now if people would just quit quoting him. It's not like anything he says should be posted even once.

(01-01-2010 06:11 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

Quote:The contents of this message is hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.

Sweet words. Now if people would just quit quoting him. It's not like anything he says should be posted even once.

Good to know that you agree you are ignorant and/or can't read. Of course, you are from the south where edumacation is seriously lacking.

(01-01-2010 06:21 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:11 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

Quote:The contents of this message is hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.

Sweet words. Now if people would just quit quoting him. It's not like anything he says should be posted even once.

Good to know that you agree you are ignorant and/or can't read. Of course, you are from the south where edumacation is seriously lacking.

Cute coming from the moron who lives in government housing and collects welfare.

(01-01-2010 06:46 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:21 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:11 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

Quote:The contents of this message is hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.

Sweet words. Now if people would just quit quoting him. It's not like anything he says should be posted even once.

Good to know that you agree you are ignorant and/or can't read. Of course, you are from the south where edumacation is seriously lacking.

Cute coming from the moron who lives in government housing and collects welfare.

Are you referring to Obama's aunt?

(01-01-2010 06:46 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:21 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:11 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

Quote:The contents of this message is hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.

Sweet words. Now if people would just quit quoting him. It's not like anything he says should be posted even once.

Good to know that you agree you are ignorant and/or can't read. Of course, you are from the south where edumacation is seriously lacking.

Cute coming from the moron who lives in government housing and collects welfare.

Cute but I don't live in government housing and don't collect welfare. I make too much for either one. As for the article, did you happen to read it? Was the title of the thread actually what the article said? The answer is "no". All he would have to do is actually READ the article to learn something. It is obvious that he either can't read, is too stupid to comprehend what was written, was given the article with an explanation from someone(Rush, Beck?) or all of the above.

(01-01-2010 10:38 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:46 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:21 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:11 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

Quote:The contents of this message is hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.

Sweet words. Now if people would just quit quoting him. It's not like anything he says should be posted even once.

Good to know that you agree you are ignorant and/or can't read. Of course, you are from the south where edumacation is seriously lacking.

Cute coming from the moron who lives in government housing and collects welfare.

Cute but I don't live in government housing and don't collect welfare. I make too much for either one. As for the article, did you happen to read it? Was the title of the thread actually what the article said? The answer is "no". All he would have to do is actually READ the article to learn something. It is obvious that he either can't read, is too stupid to comprehend what was written, was given the article with an explanation from someone(Rush, Beck?) or all of the above.

do you really believe that every conservative listens to rush or beck?

(01-01-2010 10:38 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:46 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:21 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:11 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

Quote:The contents of this message is hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.

Sweet words. Now if people would just quit quoting him. It's not like anything he says should be posted even once.

Good to know that you agree you are ignorant and/or can't read. Of course, you are from the south where edumacation is seriously lacking.

Cute coming from the moron who lives in government housing and collects welfare.

Cute but I don't live in government housing and don't collect welfare. I make too much for either one. As for the article, did you happen to read it? Was the title of the thread actually what the article said? The answer is "no". All he would have to do is actually READ the article to learn something. It is obvious that he either can't read, is too stupid to comprehend what was written, was given the article with an explanation from someone(Rush, Beck?) or all of the above.

Not quite sure what you all are arguing about, but the study suggests a few things:

-The earth's ability to remove carbon dioxide from the air has not diminished;

-"About 45% (of CO2) remains in the atmosphere while the other 55% is taken up by various natural processes—and these percentages have not changed during the past 150 years;"

-The results run contrary to most climate models.

Carbon dioxide readings at Mauna Loa indicate that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased from 0.0320% of the atmosphere in the 1950s to approximately 0.0387% of the atmosphere today.

(01-01-2010 11:39 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 10:38 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:46 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:21 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:11 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

Quote:The contents of this message is hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.

Sweet words. Now if people would just quit quoting him. It's not like anything he says should be posted even once.

Good to know that you agree you are ignorant and/or can't read. Of course, you are from the south where edumacation is seriously lacking.

Cute coming from the moron who lives in government housing and collects welfare.

Cute but I don't live in government housing and don't collect welfare. I make too much for either one. As for the article, did you happen to read it? Was the title of the thread actually what the article said? The answer is "no". All he would have to do is actually READ the article to learn something. It is obvious that he either can't read, is too stupid to comprehend what was written, was given the article with an explanation from someone(Rush, Beck?) or all of the above.

do you really believe that every conservative listens to rush or beck?

No. Just most of them. It is easy to tell which ones do based on the spouting of Republican talking points(which includes most of this board).

(01-02-2010 09:45 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 11:39 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 10:38 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:46 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:21 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:11 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

Quote:The contents of this message is hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.

Sweet words. Now if people would just quit quoting him. It's not like anything he says should be posted even once.

Good to know that you agree you are ignorant and/or can't read. Of course, you are from the south where edumacation is seriously lacking.

Cute coming from the moron who lives in government housing and collects welfare.

Cute but I don't live in government housing and don't collect welfare. I make too much for either one. As for the article, did you happen to read it? Was the title of the thread actually what the article said? The answer is "no". All he would have to do is actually READ the article to learn something. It is obvious that he either can't read, is too stupid to comprehend what was written, was given the article with an explanation from someone(Rush, Beck?) or all of the above.

do you really believe that every conservative listens to rush or beck?

No. Just most of them. It is easy to tell which ones do based on the spouting of Republican talking points(which includes most of this boared).

How would you know what Limbaugh's saying if you didn't listen for yourself?

(01-02-2010 11:09 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-02-2010 09:45 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 11:39 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 10:38 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:46 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:21 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:11 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

Quote:The contents of this message is hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.

Sweet words. Now if people would just quit quoting him. It's not like anything he says should be posted even once.

Good to know that you agree you are ignorant and/or can't read. Of course, you are from the south where edumacation is seriously lacking.

Cute coming from the moron who lives in government housing and collects welfare.

Cute but I don't live in government housing and don't collect welfare. I make too much for either one. As for the article, did you happen to read it? Was the title of the thread actually what the article said? The answer is "no". All he would have to do is actually READ the article to learn something. It is obvious that he either can't read, is too stupid to comprehend what was written, was given the article with an explanation from someone(Rush, Beck?) or all of the above.

do you really believe that every conservative listens to rush or beck?

No. Just most of them. It is easy to tell which ones do based on the spouting of Republican talking points(which includes most of this boared).

How would you know what Limbaugh's saying if you didn't listen for yourself?

He makes the rights talking points so when I hear the rights commentators and politicians say the same thing, you know you are hearing what Limbaugh is saying. THen you guys repeat the same idiotic comments.

(01-02-2010 11:16 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-02-2010 11:09 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(01-02-2010 09:45 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 11:39 PM)flyingswoosh Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 10:38 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:46 PM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:21 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(01-01-2010 06:11 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

Quote:The contents of this message is hidden because RobertN is on your ignore list.

Sweet words. Now if people would just quit quoting him. It's not like anything he says should be posted even once.

Good to know that you agree you are ignorant and/or can't read. Of course, you are from the south where edumacation is seriously lacking.

Cute coming from the moron who lives in government housing and collects welfare.

Cute but I don't live in government housing and don't collect welfare. I make too much for either one. As for the article, did you happen to read it? Was the title of the thread actually what the article said? The answer is "no". All he would have to do is actually READ the article to learn something. It is obvious that he either can't read, is too stupid to comprehend what was written, was given the article with an explanation from someone(Rush, Beck?) or all of the above.

do you really believe that every conservative listens to rush or beck?

No. Just most of them. It is easy to tell which ones do based on the spouting of Republican talking points(which includes most of this boared).

How would you know what Limbaugh's saying if you didn't listen for yourself?

He makes the rights talking points so when I hear the rights commentators and politicians say the same thing, you know you are hearing what Limbaugh is saying. THen you guys repeat the same idiotic comments.

Who's telling you Rush makes the rights talking points? Where are you getting your info?