Nov 11 2009

No Man-Made Global Warming, Because There Has Been No Increase In Airborne CO2

Published by at 3:00 pm under All General Discussions,Global Warming

There has been a ground breaking discovery in the global warming debate – there has been no net increase in CO2 since 1850:

New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.

Oops! Not sure how we all missed that one. What this means is our wonderful blue planet has been able to absorb the increased CO2 production without skipping a beat. Therefore, while we produce more CO2 our portion of CO2 in the air is not increasing.

This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.

Emphasis mine. My biggest challenge to the alarmists data is they cannot prove they can produce a global index to a  0.5°C of a degree accuracy for one day or month, let alone map it back over 100 years with .15°C accuracy (no one could produce that precision in the late 1800’s because they can’t produce that today even for a small region).  With real error bars applied there has been no measurable warming.

This block buster news goes hand in hand with another scientific result that proves the alarmists are nothing more than Chicken Littles running around with unvalidated models which have yet to reflect reality. The green house gas hypothesis claims that CO2 traps heat, which cannot be emitted out into space. The model claims that rising CO2 will result in flat or reduced thermal emission into space as the CO2 acts as a blanket.

However, decades of satellite data show just the opposite. They show the opposite trend as predicted by the alarmists models (click to enlarge)

The upper right figure shows reality. It shows as temperature has risen the amount of heat flowing into space has risen. All the other graphs are various IPCC models which predict just the opposite trend. Higher temps would result in flat or lowered thermal radiation into space. You can find a complete briefing on these results here.

This also trends well with the fact today’s climate is not the hottest man has experienced. In the last 5,000 years today’s temps are pretty much the norm, and not the hottest.

Yes, we are coming out of a mini-ice age, which is why the temps are warming. But it is not an uncommon range of temps and CO2 levels we are experiencing today. Don’t let the media puppets fill your head with propaganda – there is no scientific consensus and the alarmists’ theories are crashing and burning against reality. Even UN scientists are challenging the UN.

One thing has been proven, the alarmists’ answer to all this natural variation is a budget and job killer. Example 1:

Minnesota Power is seeking an almost 20 percent increase in rates for its residential customers to cover investments made in cleaner, greener energy.

News of the sought rate hike caused some shoppers at Miller Hill Mall on Monday to lament they’ve been hit by one increase and fee after another in a bad economy, from real estate taxes to new fees for street lighting and sewers.

“The average citizen in Duluth is not going to be able to afford an increase like that,” said Sue Siverson of Duluth. “To me it’s bad news. People can absorb a 2 or 3 percent increase, but 20 percent is substantial.”

We all know this is going to make everything we require to live more expensive. Example 2:

State officials deliberately underestimated the cost of Gov. Ted Kulongoski’s plan to lure green energy companies to Oregon with big taxpayer subsidies, resulting in a program that cost 40 times more than unsuspecting lawmakers were told, an investigation by The Oregonian shows. 

Records also show that the program, a favorite of Kulongoski’s known as the Business Energy Tax Credit, has given millions of dollars to failed companies while voters are being asked to raise income taxes because the state budget doesn’t have enough to pay for schools and other programs.

Liberal follies trying to chase a liberal fantasy. And it is We The People paying the price.

7 responses so far

7 Responses to “No Man-Made Global Warming, Because There Has Been No Increase In Airborne CO2”

  1. movearock says:

    Sorry, the link doesn’t say that the fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere hasn’t increased. They have–direct measurement says as much and after thousands of those done in the last few decades that’s not likely to be an observation that’s overturned. Were it not so.

    The article says that the balance between ocean-absorbed and atmospheric increase has continued.

    In other words, as the concentration of CO2 in the air has increased the concentration of CO2 in the oceans has increased in tandem. The concern had been that the oceans would slow down CO2 absorption.

    Quoting from a quote embedded in your link:

    “Note: It is not that the total atmospheric burden of CO2 has not been increasing over time, but that of the total CO2 released into the atmosphere each year by human activities, about 45% 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).”

    (Don’t read so quickly!)

  2. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Stephen Halsey, AJ Strata. AJ Strata said: new: No Man-Made Global Warming, Because There Has Been No Increase In Airborne CO2 […]

  3. […] link: The Strata-Sphere » No Man-Made Global Warming, Because There Has Been No Increase In Airborne CO2 […]

  4. George says:


    There are serious questions about about how Lindzen and Choi used the satellite measurements.

    See Chip Knappenberger’s discussion at

    And more importantly see Roy Spencer at

    I await Roy’s verdict. He’s an expert on satellite measurements having been bitten by orbital decay early in his career.

    He is questioning the use of the data, not the conclusion that CO2 is causing a lot less heating than the modellers assume which is what his research is finding.


  5. AJStrata says:


    Fraction = a percent of the whole. Man-made CO2 is still represents the same fraction of the whole CO2 – according to the article.

  6. AJStrata says:


    With all due respect, you need to do better than worry about orbit precision. Do you know how long it takes our knowledge of an orbit to decay to the point we require new measurements to refine the multi-dimensional statistical models in the Kahlman filter?

    Less than a week. That’s right, we need to recheck each satellite’s position using ground based RF antennas or ground based radars to re-align any on-board measurements (unless the bird is flying GPS receivers like Topex and Jason).

    Every time you get data from the satellite you measure it’s orbit.

    BTW, the Air Force tracks every object everyday, and NASA has access to the data as well.

    If Spencer got bit he did not know what he was doing. A good scientists gets his payload data AND the s/c orbital data as a complete set.

    What bit Spencer – if I recall correctly, is no one had once verified that the adjustments made to adjust for orbital precession (which moves the measurement time a bit each day) and when they put up Aqua they realized those were wrong.

    The ERBE data is not downward looking but measuring the outbound radiation. And if you look at the direction of the line, a small change in orbit knowledge is not going to spin that sucker 180 degrees around and point it flat or down.

    You can wait, I don’t need to. It’s a rocket scientist thing.

  7. […] UK. The report is well beyond my science abilities, but that is why we link to the smart folks like AJ and those at What’s Up With That? to interpret the data and […]