Read this paper with great caution, as the authors suggest:
"So is this good news for climate negotiations in Copenhagen? “Not necessarily”, says Knorr. “Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed”.
Remember, the paper discusses the proportion, not absolute values. The CO2 induced temperature rise just might not skyrocket -- that is all this is saying.

"The research, which is based on measurements and statistical data, not complex climate models"

What a far-our, radical concept. Actual observations and measurements determines a physical process. Who knows what might happen, if the entire scientific method was applied to all climate questions? If they keep this up, climatology might actually be accepted as a recognized discipline, instead of a bunch of naked men casting bones, on the ground, muttering "booga-booga". GK

The planet is stable.

I suppose that is why world leaders are backing a delay to a climate deal. And maybe economics has something to do with it as well?

Gee... what a surprise!

The planet can take care of its self afterall.

Now Where have we heard that before?

Do any of you alarmists actually get the relevence of this?
IE: CO2 does NOT stay in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.
Since the Climate Models depend on long hang time for CO2, they are clearly WRONG!

With the AGW Hypothysis so completely shot full of holes, when with the AGW Industry finally admit it is wrong and move along to the next fake crisis?

And geez.... is this any kind of science when ....

"emissions from deforestation might have been overestimated by between 18 and 75 per cent."

18 to 75%????
This is wild guess work.

So as CO2 levels in the atmosphere reach levels higher than they have been for hundreds of thousands of years, maybe millions, observing activity over the past century and a half means that this behavior will continue as the atmosphere continues to move farther into these uncharted waters?

Bathtubs do fill up when you fill then at faster and faster rates.

Isn't this getting just a little bit silly?

Another 10 Tipping Point Warning!!!

Isn't that like the 8th 10 tipping point warning in 25 years?

http://climatedepot.com/a/3826/Not-again-Another-10year-climate-tipping-point-warning-issued--Despite-fact-that-UN-began-10Year-Climate-Tipping-Point-in-1989

"Popular, scientific opinion has been stating that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase..."

This is true, but it's not expected to happen yet. Thus, recent studies that reveal a weakening of carbon sinks would be an indication it's happening faster than expected, and that most carbon cycle models have been too conservative is this respect. The study noted above indicates that these models are mostly correct, in that there's been little change yet. See this discussion for a more broad view, also, for balance, covering recent studies that show observed carbon sink weakening. Your post would be enhanced if it included this context.

"Carbon cycle models (13 of them, from the SRES A2 scenario) also predict that the atmospheric fraction should increase, but not yet. For the time period from 1960 to 2000, the models predict that we would find the opposite of what is observed: a slight decrease in the atmospheric fraction, driven by increasing carbon uptake into the natural world. Positive feedbacks in the real-world carbon cycle seem to be kicking in faster than anticipated, Canadell et al conclude."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/is-the-ocean-carbon-sink-sinking/

So the press release is misleading when it states "The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects...", but I suspect the global warming denial spin is quite a bit worse.

Did someone mention ocean acidification?
Er, this alone will bring us to our knees.

Dean | November 16, 2009 11:54 AM

"Bathtubs do fill up when you fill then at faster and faster rates."

Not if your drain rate gets faster and faster. After all this is a feed and bleed system, as is most climate forces. MarkB is only distracting with his attempt to introduce model results as data. GK

Yawn. This report doesn't do any more than confirm want simple high school chemistry will show one. What will happen,

in the fairly near future, mind you,

is that the ocean's takeup will become a smaller fraction of the total.

But maybe that is too complex, being college freshman chmistry...

"and does not rely on computations with complex climate models."

Which keeps going back to the same thing.

How can you build a computer model, when you don't even know what info to feed it?

and of course Mark backs up what he's saying
with computer models.

I agree with some of the statement earlier - the wording in the press release rather unfortunate as I'm sure many will not read the full paper and therefore misinterpret what the scientists actually are talking about here.

Before you start using this as a proof that we're not causing damage to the planet with our industrialization please read the full paper: http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0921/2009GL040613/

I'll bring one quote out from the introduction:
"According to Etheridge et al. [1996], between 1850 and 1960 atmospheric CO2 increased by 66 GtC (from 285 to 316 ppm, with 2.13 GtC per ppm [Trenberth, 1981]), which is 41% of the total emissions of 162 GtC during the same period [Boden et al., 2009; Houghton, 2008]."

I.e. whether the proportion of CO2 absorbed by the ocean and land has remained constant over the past 150 years is somewhat besides the point (although we should be thankful that it hasn't increase as we would have been much worse off now then).

The fact is that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is increasing, which leads to lower release of heat from the atmosphere thus increasing the temperature of the planets surface. If we don't stop that trend the climate will change rapidly and considerably, and we'll have a hard time fighting the damage this will bring.

Our best chance is to realize that this is in fact a problem and act on it before its too late.

UNN

Global warming sceince is a lie to justify a world tax system. Which, like ours will start very low and increase over time. This is how liberals think they can become "World Leaders" to further their overblown egos.

"despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now."

Does anyone know how factual this statement is? I guess I'm surprised "natural" releases of carbon dioxide, such as from forests; natural fires; volcanoes; leaves leaves and more leaves; etc. , were not more than 2 billion tons in 1850. I can see a little more room for concern if human related co2 emissions are nearly 20 times the natural.

Brett:
Seems up to 75% of TV meteorologists don't buy AGW.
You are in the small minority on this one.

http://www.alabamawx.com/?p=24574

Excerpt:
�Respond to one TV weathercaster�s Quote saying �Global warming is a scam.� Responses were mixed. The largest percentage was neutral, at 26%. A total of 45% disagreed (23%) or strongly disagreed (22%). 19% of the respondents agreed with this statement and 10% strongly agreed.

Reply: OK, but how many of those "TV meteorologists" actually have actual 4-year degrees in meteorology (atmospheric science)? I would say less than half.

G. Karst-

"Booga-Booga"....very scientific indeed. Enough with the theatrics. Your terminology dilutes any impact that your comments may have. id

bill | November 16, 2009 10:58 PM --- Try the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center @ ORNL for definitive imforation about CO2 emissions.

saly | November 16, 2009 6:44 PM --- One feeds in basic physics and definitive measurements. Out pops successful predictions:

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ModelsReliable.html
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/climate_models_accuracy.html

G. Karst writes:

"MarkB is only distracting with his attempt to introduce model results as data. "

Deniers seem to run their own strawman factories. My post indicates that results from this study match up with theoretical expecations, captured in carbon cycle models to date. This is contrary to other recent data indicating that carbon sinks are weakening faster than expected.

Brett:
94% of the respondents had at least one of the three major seals.

I really don't know what seals are. But they sound important.
LOL.....

I meant no disrespect. Just poking fun.

and to be clear. I don't believe any of the regluars ever intend any offence when they (we) speak about your posts.
I think we all get that you are posting topics to stimulate discussion, not simply posting your views and opinions.
We all appreciate what you (AW) provide.

GKarst:
"Booga-Booga"....

When one has listened to enough silly nonsence about this absurd Hoax, the term "Booga-Booga" actually does sum it up very sucinctly.

One could write endlessly on the absurdity of AGW but sometimes a simple phrase speaks far more clearly.

Bravo.

To build on Brett's response to the Gary's comment, the survey in question offers zero insight into the scientific training of the poll respondents.

The poll asks weathercasters whether they are "comfortable serving in the role as my station's scientist" and similar questions. That offers data about the feelings of the respondents. It is irrelevant to the question of whether they are actually qualified to do so.

Brett refers to four-year degrees in meteorology. The term "scientist" is generally associated with a Ph.D.

Brett, in your reply to Gary you "bet" that less than half of TV meteorologists have 4 year meteorology degrees. I will defer to your greater knowledge of that subject for now, but the problem I have is that it doesn't take a 4 year meteorology degree to see that the "A" in AGW is a joke. Shall we start with simple mathematical modeling and statistical analysis? Guess what, you don't even need a degree with that. How about software engineering? AGW = GIGO.

You've seen enough on this blog, especially if you were following it before you took over. It has been proven repeatedly that the input data is bad for one reason or another. It has been proven repeatedly that contradictory data gets suppressed.

Heck, if you want to see what happens as CO2 concentrations go up, go read hydroponics research papers....Works real well, the higher the CO2 concentration gets, plants grow bigger and faster, which acts as a carbon sink......

Amazing.

Of course, you can trust models, but never confuse math with reality, the map is not the territory. Especially when the map is distorted and doesn't match the territory at all points in the past.

BT:

That was perhaps the Most Eletist comment you have ever made.

A Scientist is a person that advances state of knowledge or understanding of one of the sciences.

PHDs have Nothing to do with it.

NOTHING.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:scientist&ei=R54ES4DTMMfZnAfj-LVt&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title&ved=0CAkQkAE

Hydroponics is not the same as the whole climate of the planet. Hydroponics is a controlled environment. Moisture, temperature, CO2 are all controlled. The Earth system is not. The comparison is moot.

The CO2 that exists in the atmosphere and in the many carbon sinks does not vanish into space. It remains and is recycled by the planets processes. Volcanoes and other natural events do release CO2 to the atmosphere and the cycle continues, but the fact still remains that humans are releasing CO2 that was stored for millions of years, by burning coal, gas and oil.

If no humans were on the planet, that cycle would probably stay the same for eons. Add 6 billion humans and counting to that cycle and guess what? More CO2 is added to the cycle because every year humans burn more and more hydrocarbons as fuel for travel, heating and power generation.

That burning as well as massive deforestation (removing a major carbon sink) is why scientists are saying that man is contributing to there being more CO2 in the atmosphere. 200 years ago, the majority of the United States was a giant ancient forest. A huge carbon sink, that was cut down as the country expanded. Common sense would reveal that that carbon sink is gone.

More people + less trees = more CO2 in the atmosphere.

The use of hydrocarbons as fuel increases every year as more humans drive more cars and more and more electricity is required to keep more and more people alive and happy. The facts are there.

An increasing human population that demands more and more power every year equals more CO2 being released into the atmosphere every year. The population is increasing.

There are 6 billion people. In 40 years there will most likely be 10 billion people or more. Double the earth's population and what do you get? More CO2 in the atmosphere because double the people means double the energy used which means burning more coal, oil and gas.

Simple common sense says that increasing population and increased hydrocarbon use on a year over year basis will generate more human produced CO2 into the atmosphere. Those statisics don't lie. It is a no brainer.

Oil, coal and gas will be in our future for a long time until someone comes up with a better way to generate power and move people around the planet. That means increased release of CO2 because an increasing population will most definitely demand more power.

It is common sense and those that deny that man has anything to do with higher CO2 levels are the one's with their heads in the sand.

GaryB;
Of course 6 billion humans are adding to the CO2 level.

So what?

CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere.

What's your point?

Gary writes:
PHDs have Nothing to do with it.

I wonder if you feel the same way about the "scientist" that pronounces a medication for your children safe and effective. Perhaps you are comfortable placing your children in the care of someone who "feels comfortable serving in the role" of the scientist designing -- for example -- clinical trials. I far prefer a man or woman with "Ph.D." after their name.

Your attitudes towards PhDs and knowledge of science are reasonably apparent from your many comments here.

Elitist? Perhaps. Life is elitist.

The fact remains that there is no evidence that the respondents in the survey actually know anything.

I don't know if Gary B is trying to respond to my question regarding the proportion of C02 being released "naturally" and the proportion released prematurely by human activity but if so he sure makes a mess of it. Who says man has nothing to do with co2 levels? A straw man argument if I've ever heard one. The question I asked is how significant is the release of co2 via human coal burning relative to that of the natural cycle of trees dying, etc. Yes, even 200 years ago trees died. If its true there are a lot more rotted trees around, maybe that is one cause for the rise in co2; but I think the number of trees world-wide is probably pretty steady. (a lot fewer are being burned for firewood these days, especially in Asia). As I said, (given all those trees dying)I'm surprised the article puts the release of c02 200 years ago so low compared to now.

Gary B | November 19, 2009 9:16 AM

Think of a plant 2" high in good soil and location. Everything it requires is present in abundance. However, after a week, we check back and the plant is still 2" tall. Checking moisture, soil nutrients and air CO2 levels as optimum... What can be the problem?

The thermometer on the wall reads 35 F and our answer is found. At this temperature, plant chemistry is very difficult and very slow (paint won't dry). There is NO demand for CO2, NOR nutrients.

Bump the temperature up to 85 F and watch out. Chemical reactions and organic chemistry explodes. Suddenly, there is an urgent and immediate need for CO2. At this stage (vigor), all energy is devoted to sequestering carbon as carbohydrates. The higher the CO2 ppm... the better.

As long as we are warming plants, algae, and phytoplankton will thrive and consume ever increasing amounts of O2. They thrive... We thrive.

Don't make me talk about the cold, dark side. It is not near as cheery or pleasant. GK

MarkB | November 17, 2009 7:20 PM

"My post indicates that results from this study match up with theoretical expecations, captured in carbon cycle models to date. This is contrary to other recent data indicating that carbon sinks are weakening faster than expected."

So far, were in agreement... then again, you have dropped the repeated "yet". GK

Correction:

'As long as we are warming plants, algae, and phytoplankton will thrive and consume ever increasing amounts of O2. They thrive... We thrive.'

O2 was supposed to read CO2. Some hacker may have stole the "C". GK