A Climate Science Headline You Won't See, Part 7

[LowDown]

Biggest sources of CO2 are not industrialized countries, according to satellite data from the International Journal of Geosciences.

Satellite data was used to determine CO2 flux between the atmosphere and the ecosystem. The purpose of this study was to detect changes in flux due to changes in land use.

Large, consistent sources of CO2 between 2000 and 2009 were seen in the Amazon river basin, central Africa, and Indonesia. Industrialized countries were weaker sources of CO2 that acted as sinks in some years. (Figure 5)

During this period of observation, higher temperatures were associated with increased flux of CO2 into the atmosphere (see Discussion).

My own interpretation of these results is that they support the idea that the main source of net gains of CO2 in the atmosphere are natural, not due to burning fossile fuels, and that they are following the gradual increase in global temperature.

 

[Threegoofs]

Biggest sources of CO2 are not industrialized countries, according to satellite data from the International Journal of Geosciences.

Satellite data was used to determine CO2 flux between the atmosphere and the ecosystem. The purpose of this study was to detect changes in flux due to changes in land use.



My own interpretation of these results is that they support the idea that the main source of net gains of CO2 in the atmosphere are natural, not due to burning fossile fuels, and that they are following the gradual increase in global temperature.

LOL! Thats why no one pays you to interpret scientific results!

So what you are saying is that the measurable, quantifiable CO2 that is produced in burning fossil fuels (easily measurable, simple chemistry) is somehow not really released into the air? And somehow the calculations they have done looking at the number of gigatons of CO2 released based upon quantity of fossil fuels burned, which are spot on in terms of measuring the actual rise of CO2 in the atmosphere are somehow wrong?


The flux in CO2 is well known - its from plants absorbing and releasing it during their growing cycle. But thats just the interpretations of scientists, not the bloggers you follow.

 

[Carjosse]

The reason it is higher in those countries is because they burn much more fossil fuel for example China is powered almost entirely by coal. Then in developing countries like Africa due to the fuel they sue for cooking it has significantly more CO2 than when we cook.

 

[LowDown]

LOL! Thats why no one pays you to interpret scientific results!

So what you are saying is that the measurable, quantifiable CO2 that is produced in burning fossil fuels (easily measurable, simple chemistry) is somehow not really released into the air? And somehow the calculations they have done looking at the number of gigatons of CO2 released based upon quantity of fossil fuels burned, which are spot on in terms of measuring the actual rise of CO2 in the atmosphere are somehow wrong?




The flux in CO2 is well known - its from plants absorbing and releasing it during their growing cycle. But thats just the interpretations of scientists, not the bloggers you follow.

Human sources of CO2 are dwarfed by natural sources. The evidence is there in the fluxes, which are also measured and quantified in the paper cited, which is peer reviewed article in a scientific journal.

You are wrong. It's only recently that much of anything was known about natural fluxes of CO2. Climate scientists were too busy fiddling with models to go out and actually collect data.

 

[Threegoofs]

Human sources of CO2 are dwarfed by natural sources. The evidence is there in the fluxes, which are also measured and quantified in the paper cited, which is peer reviewed article in a scientific journal.

You are wrong. It's only recently that much of anything was known about natural fluxes of CO2. Climate scientists were too busy fiddling with models to go out and actually collect data.

Funny. Seasonal CO2 flux has been measured and described since the 50s.

But that's stuff published in scientific journals, so you wouldn't know.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Funny. Seasonal CO2 flux has been measured and described since the 50s.

But that's stuff published in scientific journals, so you wouldn't know.

You poo poo this, but did you even read it?

It is peer reviewed material in the International Journal of Geosciences.

 

[LowDown]

Funny. Seasonal CO2 flux has been measured and described since the 50s.

But that's stuff published in scientific journals, so you wouldn't know.

My understanding is that it has not been studied comprehensively, satellite style, until recently. Previous to that flask sampling of CO2 was done sporadically. If you know of studies in which global, systematic sampling was done so that comparisons could be made over time and between all the different regions prior to the last 10 years or so then I'd love to see them.

 

[Threegoofs]

My understanding is that it has not been studied comprehensively, satellite style, until recently. Previous to that flask sampling of CO2 was done sporadically. If you know of studies in which global, systematic sampling was done so that comparisons could be made over time and between all the different regions prior to the last 10 years or so then I'd love to see them.

Yes. Because you're SO interested in the science...

 

[LowDown]

Yes. Because you're SO interested in the science...

Seriously, if those studies exist then I want to see a reference.

 

[Manc Skipper]

No references needed. If their claim that the oceans are a net source of CO2, then what mechanism is causing the acidification of those very oceans?

If neither the atmosphere nor the ocean is a CO2 sink, where is it held?

 

[Lord of Planar]

No references needed. If their claim that the oceans are a net source of CO2, then what mechanism is causing the acidification of those very oceans?

If neither the atmosphere nor the ocean is a CO2 sink, where is it held?

Did i mess something?

I don't think their claim was that the ocean is a net source.

How it works is by temperature. The warmer waters, like the equatorial regions, emit CO2. The cooler waters towards the poles, absorb CO2. The Amazone basin will be a net source of CO2, they didn't say the world waters as a whole, did they?

Again, did I miss something?

As for ocean acidification, what you really need to look at is ocean alkaline factors, which there are more than just HCO3 and CO3.

 

[Threegoofs]

Human sources of CO2 are dwarfed by natural sources. The evidence is there in the fluxes, which are also measured and quantified in the paper cited, which is peer reviewed article in a scientific journal.

You are wrong. It's only recently that much of anything was known about natural fluxes of CO2. Climate scientists were too busy fiddling with models to go out and actually collect data.

I suggest you brief yourself about CO2, and then think about the equilibrium of carbon in the atmosphere, biomass, and oceans and what may happen when that equilibrium is disrupted by dozens of gigatons of CO2 dug out of the ground and released.

It's a trip to the Pennsylvanian Era, within a few hundred years vs. a few million years.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Did i mess something?

I don't think their claim was that the ocean is a net source.

How it works is by temperature. The warmer waters, like the equatorial regions, emit CO2. The cooler waters towards the poles, absorb CO2. The Amazone basin will be a net source of CO2, they didn't say the world waters as a whole, did they?

Again, did I miss something?

As for ocean acidification, what you really need to look at is ocean alkaline factors, which there are more than just HCO3 and CO3.

Yes, you missed something.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes, you missed something.

LOL...

Please elaborate.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Yes, you missed something.

Why did you stop posting?

Once again, what did I mess?

Elaborate please.