A new study has shown that there has not been an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide fraction in the past 160 years. Professor Wolfgang Knorr from the Department of Earth Sciences tells us more in his recently published Geophysical Research letters at agu.org

Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. 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.

Watts Up With That tells us more about the professor's new research:

The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.

This work is extremely important for climate change policy, because emission targets to be negotiated at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen early next month have been based on projections that have a carbon free sink of already factored in. Some researchers have cautioned against this approach, pointing at evidence that suggests the sink has already started to decrease.

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”.

Another result of the study is that emissions from deforestation might have been overestimated by between 18 and 75 per cent. This would agree with results published last week in Nature Geoscience by a team led by Guido van der Werf from VU University Amsterdam. They re-visited deforestation data and concluded that emissions have been overestimated by at least a factor of two.
 

This new data contrary to recent studies and is yet another piece of information that has shaken the validity of Global Warming.  The crew at dakotavoice.com tell all:

No wonder global warming enthusiasts are having a hard time finding global warming.

From the data which points to solar activity to historical temperature information going back hundreds and thousands of years which shows climate change on our planet is a natural, cyclic phenomenon that goes up and down, to the tens of thousands of scientists who aren’t baffled about this, to ClimateGate and more, this boat just don’t float.

The evidence just continues to pile up pointing to what many of us have known for years: the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming is just a load of hot air.

Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog has an interview with Professor Knorr which sheds some light on the climate change debate:

On radio 106.5 in Bristol Knoor was interviewed by Marin Jones who repeatedly asked about whether Knorr was concerned that his research would help the cause of the "deniers." Here is Jones' second effort to elicit a response, which I transcribed from the audio stream:

Is there any sense of trepidation at putting out research like this? People who do want to deny the reality of climate change and the reality that it is caused by human beings can jump on this as an excuse and use it to suggest doing nothing or very little.
Knorr's response is responsible and measured:

We have had a lot of research that could be interpreted that way. I believe science has to be open and fair and we should not hide any of the results. 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.