FReepmail me to get on or off
Ping me if you find one I've missed.
Plant food alert!
Posted on 11/24/2009 7:50:53 AM PST by Reaganesque
New evidence suggests that the correlation between atmospheric carbon and warming may not be as clear as previously believed
Global warming is an extremely sensitive topic. Some ardently believe that man is pushing our planet towards global ruin, while others believe that proponents of anthropogenic warming theory are pushing the global economy towards financial ruin. Surprisingly, though, the evidence is not as black or white as either group would like you to believe.
A recent study looking at atmospheric carbon when combined with a recent summary of global atmospheric temperatures over the past 30 years sharply illustrates this uncertainty.
Looking first at the temperature map, which was compiled by the University of Alabama in Huntsville using satellite data of atmospheric temperatures over the last three decades, several interesting things pop out. First, one quickly notices the relative highs that were reached between 2002 and 2007, which believers in the theory of anthropogenic (manmade) global warming (AGW) tend to fixate on. And likewise it's equally easy to notice the sharp drop and relative lows experienced in 2008, something that AGW disbelievers elect to focus on.
With the new year, the temperature is on the rise again, but as can be seen in the graph it's unclear whether this increase will truly mark a warming rise, or simply another cyclic variation. There have been approximately 7 cyclic variations over the past three decades, highlighted by the peaks.
Meanwhile, turning to a new study in Nature Geoscience, in 2008 global carbon levels soared 2 percent to record highs of 1.3 tons of carbon per capita per year. The paper cites increased use of coal in developing nations as the biggest factor, with emissions from oil and deforestation as minor factors.
One of the paper’s lead authors, CSIRO’s Dr Mike Raupach comments, "The current growth in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is closely linked to growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP). CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion are estimated to have increased 41 per cent above 1990 levels with emissions continuing to track close to the worst-case scenario of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). There will be a small downturn in emissions because of the GFC, but anthropogenic emissions growth will resume when the economy recovers unless the global effort to reduce emissions from human activity is accelerated."
The accelerated rate of carbon emissions raised atmospheric levels to 385 parts per million, 38 percent above pre-industrial levels. Four billion metric tons of carbon were emitted in 2008.
The combination of soaring emissions and the lack of soaring temperatures paints an intriguing puzzle for those in the climatology research community with open minds. On the one hand, warming may be occurring, albeit more subtly than many AGW advocates claim. Under this scenario, a gradual upwards climb over many cycles may be noticed, as global carbon increases. On the other hand, another possibility is that almost no net warming will occur as carbon may need to reach much higher levels before its effects truly kick in. And a final possibility is that dramatic warming may indeed kick in at sometime in the near future -- despite the fact that it hasn't yet.
Either way, the overall picture leads suggests, for the time being, that scientists question the IPCC's alarming estimates of global temperature increases. While such increases can not be ruled out, they do not seem to fit the current data, at least from a macro (global) perspective.
With the international community puzzling over expensive climate change legislation, it is important to consider carefully what landmarks by which to gauge "success" amid the uncertainty of cyclic variation. Furthermore, critics and proponents aside, the wisest approach seems to be to avoid schemes that throw money into the wind, such as carbon trading or carbon sequestration. Instead, if money from global taxpayers must be spent, it seems much wiser to put it towards projects that could eventually show financial returns and cut emissions, such as fuel efficient cars, clean fission power, improved solar cells, and viable fusion power.
Atmospheric carbon is GOOD for growing things!
“Surprisingly, though, the evidence is not as black or white as either group would like you to believe.”
Seems pretty black and white to me - name a spot on earth that is hotter today then 10 years ago.
The Environmental wackos have never cared about faces, this is a religious, political, zealot movement.
Well, there ya go. We don't have to do this. There is no crisis. It's all a hoax. Abandon the whole perfidious notion of "global taxpayer". Please!
"The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.
This single statement proves that even the pro-AGW scientists know that the data does not support their theory.
Not a bad summation, but there is no need to spend any taxpayer money on these things.
They are all desirable items that the market place will move towards as the cost of fossil fuels rise.
Let people keep more of their money and they will drive the market better than any government hacks and frauds ever could.
Rush made an EXCELLENT point yesterday about how volcanic ash is way more harmful to the environment and we can’t do anything to prevent those from happening. IN fact, they’ve been going off since the beginning of creation and yet amazingly enough, here we still are!
Jason Mick is a leftist political hack and he truly takes away from the value of the DailyTech which usually has good coverage except his communist political spew.
I like to ask my global warming believing acquaintances that if they really
believe that politicians can pass legislation that will control the climate
then to just what temperature do they want them to set the thermostat.
So, if even he is saying that the IPCC report’s conclusions are suspect, then we know that the message is getting through to some of the blockheads on the Left.
Reject the AlGorian religion and join the Carboniers. The Carboniers believe that carbon is not pollution, it is essential for life’s existence. The Carboniers’ beliefs are based on real science, not superstition or political correctness. Fire is one the the key things that distinguish humans from all other living things. The Carboniers reject the AlGorian attempts to take away our life-giving fire. The Carboniers reject the politicizing of science and government attempts to regulate or outlaw our sacred rites of combustion, which unites carbon and oxygen to produce life-giving CO2 gas. Promote religious freedom - join the Carboniers.
Chinese pollution!
http://news.mongabay.com/news-index/air_pollution1.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2009/11/02/bloggers-put-china%E2%80%99s-pollution-on-the-map/
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/24445/
Chinese air pollution hits Alaksa http://www.peninsulaclarion.com/stories/080808/new_261913816.shtml
http://www.einnews.com/china/newsfeed-china-air-pollution
Well at some point even the dishonest on the left have to look themselves in the mirror..
Does anyone know ...
Some time ago I read a report proving atmospheric CO2 increases as a result of warming, not the converse. Based on the Vostock ice cores, it also stated that the CO2 reaction to temperature was 50-100 years out of phase.
I’ve tried to find this report again - no luck. Does anyone recall where it was, or who published it?
Thanks
I wouldn't call it proof of causation, but the Vostok data shows that changes in temperature preceded changes in CO2 level. This would basically disprove that changes in CO2 caused changes in temperature, but it does not prove that changes in temperature caused changes in CO2 levels. It is just as much a post hoc argument as was that of the opposition.
Incidentally, the biggest flaw in the Vostok data is that they never published current atmospheric CO2 levels at the site. I would surmise that CO2 concentrations in Antarctica at an elevation in excess of 3,000 ft would have much lower atmospheric CO2 concentrations than those taken elsewhere. Thus the historical ice core sampling may actually be in line with current atmospheric levels at that site.
It amazes me how many of these celebrity global warming proponents own beachfront property in Florida. If they really believed that ocean levels were rising, they wouldn’t have wasted their money on property that will soon be underwater.
they are like communist - they all believe they will be the duma or protected class and not the worker which is why they push the evil ideology.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
