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.
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.
You poo poo this, but did you even read it?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.
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.
Yes. Because you're SO interested in the science...
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?
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?