CO2 Emissions tied directly to Land Surface Warming
This is a new research result out of the journal Nature. Certain areas of Oklahoma and Alaska were monitored for eight years. Consistent increased CO2 emissions led to consistent increased land surface temperatures
Fair warning. We have only one spaceship earth. Better play it safe than be sorry in the future.
Harry M
Fair warning. We have only one spaceship earth. Better play it safe than be sorry in the future.
Harry M
No cause and effect relationship has been established.
The pie chart omits all other so called greenhouse gasses, and those omitted make up 99% of so called greenhouse gasses.
Just another biased bullshit study imo.
Harry M
Repeatedly calling this unsupported speculation 'science' is truly insulting and your poisoning the well is typical of those attempting to argue for conclusions lacking rational basis.
It's obvious from your history of posting that you have a strong belief in anthropomorphic global warming. Based on the scientific studies done, I don't agree.
I understand the vested interest.
I have no vested interest and I have a good understanding of how "science" works in this case. Cui bono.
Since I've completed several Science University degrees, I still stand by peer reviewed research journal results.
Harry M
How 'Science' works-
Money is taken by governments via taxation, by far the biggest supporter of science is government. Government institutions, universities and individuals go for the grants, these go to activities that may not be actual research so long as they support the scare. The scare gives politicians the excuse to raise more taxes. Politicians gain by claiming they are saving the planet, and by having more of other people's money to give away.
Many groups, who benefit from government money and tax breaks, who will support any sacrifice especially by others, thus will support any nonsense while it gives them the warm fuzzy feeling of saving the planet.
True, there is money spent on opposing arguments, the ratio is several thousand times smaller than the amount that alarmists spend. Scientists opposed to the scam have their character slimed and careers terminated - or they stay mum.
Your tax money at work.
It also says methane released unburned is about 25% of fossil fuel CO2 released? They probably mean methane from cattle which again has little effect on climate change. Only fossil methane (nat gas) effects climate, but that would be included in the 57% CO2.
The authors of this can't be trusted.
The amount retained in the atmosphere each year is only about 40% of what we produce burning fossil fuels. The 60% gets dissolved in rain/oceans, or chemical rock erosion. Surely you would agree that without any humans on the planet the CO2 levels would be stable or decreasing instead.
Carbon dioxide has a half life in the atmosphere of some ten years, the figure used by the UN IPCC is one hundred years which comes from the usual hot air sources. I have posted about this earlier I think. The real science is sparse but studies center on around the ten year mark.
The real question is- does it affect climate in any measurable way? There is no evidence that it does, there is no theory outside of the political arena that supports the proposition. The so-called 'climate scientists' have demonstrated considerable ingenuity in trying to explain steady global temperatures (on their own data bases) for the past 15 to 20 years, they call it a pause, wrong, it is a plateau.
Since measurement started at Mauna Loa 55 years ago, over 20% of todays CO2 is result of the accumulation (of our annual 40% mentioned earlier)
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends...
I'm not sure where your 3% number comes from, unless you mean "per year", then 3% is way too high.
Also, CO2 does not have a half-life in the same sense as an oxidation reactant (like methane) does. Instead CO2 is the final product of oxidation.
"Plateau"? why plateau at this particular temperature? It has reached high enough in the past to melt both ice caps. Exactly what feedback effect will ensure it cannot increase in the future? Sounds like wishful thinking. Measuring annual changes in some arbitrary temperature cannot identify a multi-century trend, or lack of trend.
CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing. Over the last century one increased source has been release from oceans by the well known solubility in water decline with temperature. CO2 in the atmosphere comes from a number of sources, that from human activity is about 3% of the total -
the EPA circle chart in the article is meaningless, mislabeled probably deliberately- maybe it could say 'sources of greenhouse gases excluding water vapor released by human activity per year'- except that there is no greenhouse effect. Water vapor would be the greatest contributor to greenhouse - but there is no greenhouse.
CO2 in the atmosphere departs due to well understood mechanisms, if there was a survey of molecules it would find a half life of ten years using the term as a statistical measure of stay in the atmosphere not a suggestion that they decay into something else.
I have given references here a few months go. The term half-life is often used in this context tho' it came originally from radio-active decay.
Plateau- in the sense that there are models that predict declining global temperatures after a period of increase, such models have a better match with data than the carbon models which are grotesque failures. No explanations I have seen rely on any feedback effect but on cyclical changes in the type of radiation released by the sun. Sun spots cycles are well documented,
Wishful thinking- warming and more CO2 are wishful thinking as both are beneficial to humans. CO2 is innocent! We need more of it.
Feedback- Gaia's daisy world corrective feedback mechanism, beautiful even if not true. It should belong in fairy stories but not, unfortunately, to science. (see James Lovelock).
Pause- used by alarmists to convey the idea of inevitable even tho' punctuated increase.
(all the heat which for the past 18 years has gone to hide in the deep oceans will jump out and say boo..). As an example of alarmist thinking, when I gave that Monckton quote here about 2 years ago I was told Lord Monckton was not allowed in Britain's House of Lords.
!?! cheers.
"It’s highly likely that the side of the government in favor of actions against rising carbon emissions will use this data as the government will try to reach a consensus, and address the climate change, wether short-term, or in a much-longer run".
I would like to see some independent researchers look at this.
And I joined this listserv because I thought I'd get some intelligent discourse. Unfortunately few and far between.
LUCKY--the research spending by private companies pharma/chem outpaces gov't spending by multiple factors. Figures traditionally available from journal, Chem Eng & News annually. Figures courtesy of company tax returns. One growing research effort, private and university, salt water desalination.
There's a reason for this. One big example, big desalne plant in SoCal. LUCKY, support your so-called facts with the research results, please.
CircuitGuy, thanks for your efforts.
Lastly, again, we have only one spaceship earth
I ask for your REASONED consideration of the issue
Harry M
Harry M
A scientist who attempts such sacrifice will be hounded down then out by a mass Greenpeace campaign, be accused of receiving money from big oil, tobacco, if not wife beating.
The world needs more of it, it may have a negligible affect on global temperature of about minus 0.1 degree per doubling (yes, negative). It is beneficial for plant growth. There is much evidence of this in agricultural food production from just about everywhere. No specific level of carbon dioxide has ever been established as dangerous, it would be many times the current level of 0.04%.
So, these emissions are not a problem but a blessing.
We should find some process for generating carbon dioxide in massive amounts in both the interests of humans and Gaia.