http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm 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.
"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." -- Dr. Knorr, about his results Just an FYI, his results don't disprove or overrule the Keeling curve as you guys have misunderstood. It has to do with whether or not the percentage of anthropogenic emissions held in the atmosphere is increasing versus the percentage of anthropogenic emissions sequestered in the land/ocean. The real issue isn't that his paper is, unsurprisingly, being misunderstood, it's that large portions of society are unable to understand and just make up their own explanations of what papers say without reading even the abstracts.
Allow me to help you. Here's the abstract of the article in question: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009GL040613.shtml
Most casual reader are not able to read past the headlines or understand the content. The headline does not say there is no rise in CO2 levels. It only says that the fraction of the CO2 increase remains the same in the atmosphere, according to the study. This implies that the ocean is still capable of absorbing CO2 at the same rate as it did in the past
Indeed so. You hit the nail right on the head. "The DunningâKruger effect is a cognitive bias in which "people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it".[1] The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average, much higher than actuality; by contrast the highly skilled underrate their abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect Or in more folksy lingo. "Empty vessels make the most noise".
I linked you directly to the abstract. You have no excuse for not reading it. If you don't understand it someone can be assigned to explain it to you by our NWO climate division.