You are hopeless. You have bubbles on the brain. Do you work for the Koch Bros? Maybe a conservative think-tank out-reach program ? I don't know how else to explain your stupidity. Of course CO2 is trending up. Multiple worldwide stations confirm it. All the study is saying is that carbon sinks are not saturating. That the rate of uptake has not decreased. And check the last paragraph. "Exactly where the sinks are isnât clear. One possibility is that forests are regrowing in parts of the world more than scientists had thought, sucking up carbon in the process. Or the oceans may be taking up significantly more carbon than researchers had estimated. Ralph Keeling, an atmospheric scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, agrees that both land and the oceans arenât yet done absorbing all the carbon they can. âThe land is responding in a big wayâ to increasing fossil fuel emissions, he says. Both Keeling and Tans warn that society shouldnât get complacent just because carbon is still being absorbed. Rising levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases are triggering other planet-wide changes, such as alterations to the oceansâ chemistry. âThe situation is bad enough,â Keeling says, âeven with the sinks hanging in there.â" Oh BTW. CO2 is up 35% in the last hundred years and guess what CO2 is? Yup, a greenhouse gas.
CO2 levels are measured by hundreds of stations scattered across 66 countries which all report the same rising trend. The following graph shows atmospheric CO2 levels over the last 10,000 years. It includes ice core data for CO2 levels before 1950. For values after 1950, direct measurements from Mauna Loa, Hawaii were used.
"Global climate change has already had observable effects on the environment. Glaciers have shrunk, ice on rivers and lakes is breaking up earlier, plant and animal ranges have shifted and trees are flowering sooner. Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occuring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves. Below are some of the regional impacts of global change forecast by the IPCC: North America: Decreasing snowpack in the western mountains; 5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions; increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them.2 Latin America: Gradual replacement of tropical forest by savannah in eastern Amazonia; risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas; significant changes in water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation.3 Europe: Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion from storms and sea level rise; glacial retreat in mountainous areas; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; extensive species losses; reductions of crop productivity in southern Europe.4 Africa: By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions by 2020; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised.5 Asia: Freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions.6 http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
All these facts are great and I used to read them in isolation and think, "seems there is something big going on here." But now that I've started receiving a farming journal (the farmer before me used to get it), and have been reading about the practical methods farmers are using around the world to adapt to "climate change" (hint, it aint cooling), I'm far more persuaded. These are practical people trying to make a living from the land, they're not wasting money on theories or "what ifs", but adapting to what is.
was the "no CO2" trend modifying the ratio... or was it an absolute statement. That is why we need to see the data.. At least you get it. Dopey FC does not seem to even comprehend the basics of the counter argument. He has CO2 on the brain. --- note Ricter I am not arguing we are not getting warmer. I suspect we are.
Lets prove its up... in areas not on top of a volcano. Lets start with those marine sites in the article. And watch out the article mentioned previous work relied on "inventories" we want actual measurements like the scientists took.
Yes there is no measurable trend..... in the rates of CO2 uptake relative to the CO2 levels. Numb-skull. To call what you are doing as grasping at straws doesn't quite cover the desperation of your line of argument here. Now you're questioning the measurement of CO2 at hundreds of sites around the world? Really?
Y'all know my pet peeve on this subject from before, so I'll simply quote the end of that article with no further comment: