Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 11/28/2011 10:48:24 AM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Industrialized nations emit far less carbon dioxide than the Third World, according to latest evidence from Japan’s Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA).
Global warming alarmism is turned on its head and the supposed role of carbon dioxide in climate change may be wrong, if the latest evidence from Japan’s scientists is to be believed.
Japanese national broadcaster, NHK World broke the astonishing story on their main Sunday evening news bulletin (October 30, 2011). Television viewers learned that the country’s groundbreaking IBUKU satellite, launched in June 2009, appears to have scorched an indelible hole in conventional global warming theory.
Standing in front of a telling array of colorful graphs, sober-suited Yasuhiro Sasano, Director of Japan’s National Institute for Environmental Studies told viewers, “The [IBUKU satellite] map is to help us discover how much each region needs to reduce CO2 [carbon dioxide] emissions.”
Industrialized Nations World’s Lowest CO2 ‘Polluters’
Indeed, the map at which JAXA spokesman Sasano was pointing been expected by most experts to show that western nations are to blame for substantial increases in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, causing global warming. But to an officious looking TV interviewer Sasano turned greenhouse gas theory on it’s head.
According to UN science the greenhouse gas theory says more CO2 entering the atmosphere will warm the planet, while less CO2 is associated with cooling.
Gesturing to an indelible deep green hue streaked across the United States and Europe viewers were told, “in the high latitudes of the Northern hemisphere emissions were less than absorption levels.”
Sasano proceeded to explain the color-coding system of the iconic maps showing where regions were either absorbing or emitting the trace atmospheric gas. Regions were alternately colored red (for high CO2 emission), white (low or neutral CO2 emissions) and green (no emissions: CO2 absorbers).
Bizarrely, the IBUKU maps prove exactly the opposite of all conventional expectations revealing that the least industrialized regions are the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases on the planet.
Yes, you read that correctly: the U.S. and western European nations are areas where CO2 levels are lowest. This new evidence defies the consensus view promoted by mainstream newspapers, such as the New York Times.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had long claimed that, “there is a consensus among scientists that manmade emissions of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide (CO2), are harming global climate.”
The Japanese satellite map shows regions colored the deepest leaf green (net absorbers of CO2) being predominantly those developed nations of Europe and North America; thus indicating built up environments absorbed more CO2 than they emitted into the atmosphere.
By contrast the bulk of the regions colored red (so-called ‘carbon polluters’) were in undeveloped, densely forested equatorial regions of Africa and South America.
Huge Headache for Climate Policymakers
JAXA boasts that, “we can reduce the error of the estimated values when we introduce IBUKI’s observation data compared to that of the values calculated in a conventional way based on ground observation data.”
To all policymakers who study the Japanese maps it is apparent that the areas of greatest CO2 emissions are those regions with least human development and most natural vegetation: Equatorial Third World nations.
The Japanese evidence also disproves the often-cited hypothesis that Siberia and other areas of northern Russia were natural vents for large scale CO2 outgassing, exacerbating global warming fears.
In effect, this compelling new data appears to show that the asphalt and concreted industrial nations are ‘mopping up’ carbon dioxide faster than their manufacturers and consumers can emit it. If this is confirmed, it means a cornerstone of man-made global warming may be in serious doubt.
Can Western Nations Still Proceed with Carbon Taxes?
But now that these so-called “global warming gases” have been precisely measured across the planet the quandary for international policymakers is what to do about plans to further implement international targets for CO2 reduction.
World leaders are getting set to face the latest round of UN climate change talks in Durban next month and must discuss a replacement for the soon to expire Kyoto Protocol, which binds nations to limited CO2 emissions.
The dilemma is whether the established UN global warming policy of the ‘polluter pays’ can any longer be sensibly upheld. Conventional political thinking at previous UN climate conferences was to ‘offset’ carbon emissions by making the worst polluters pay higher ‘carbon taxes.’
But that theory now appears to be rendered redundant being that western economies, believed to be the worst offenders, are in fact, contributing either negligible or no measurable CO2 emissions whatsoever.
Indeed, the IBUKU data indicates that the areas of highest CO2 emissions are precisely those regions with most vegetation and least industry and thus less able to pay.
Thus, the unthinkable could be made real: the greenhouse gas theory of climate change may collapse in the face of empirical evidence that industrialization is shown to have no link to global warming.
For more information the IBUKU achievement is published in the Scientific Online Letters on the Atmosphere (an online thesis magazine) issued by the Meteorological Society of Japan.
JAXA, Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency, Greenhouse Gas Observation Satellite ‘IBUKI’ (GOSAT), accessed online: October 30, 2011.
Gillis, J.,’Study Affirms Consensus on Climate Change,’ New York Times, (nytimes.com: accessed online: October 30, 2011)
Copyright. Contact the author to obtain permission for republication.
The ‘cure’ for higher CO2 emissions is PLANTS.
The whole ‘global warming’ thing was a fabrication (IMHO) in the first place in order to plunder the people for money and greater power. It wouldn’t be the first time that governments altered real results to acquire a means of control. A whole bunch of ‘law’ was passed based on those phoney results. Now that the laws exist, and they acquired the resources they wanted to acquire, the laws will stay until they need them again, and they will already be in place.
The purpose was acquisition and control of the world’s natural resources, and then to hoard them for the use of the elite at some later date for profit and power.
Well, that’s it. The data are in. Like it or not, the results are clear. Industrialized nations should colonize third world nation.
As our AGW friends like to say, the science is settled. Pith helmets on, and Tally Ho.
That would be “nations”.
You are aware this line of reasoning kind of contradicts the other line popular among “climate change deniers” that the climate isn’t really changing?
Thanks for your stuff...
Show me one person that says climate isn’t changing.
And make sure you don’t confuse it with people who are saying that the climate isn’t changing due to human influence. Apples and oranges.
And please don’t use the term climate change “deniers” (a term most commonly associated with deniers of the hollocaust). It is an Alinsky-type tactic to appear to win an argument by shaming an opponent rather than dealing with the inconvenience of addressing actual facts. It betrays a lack of confidence in your position and it doesn’t work on Freepers. Frankly, I’m a bit surprised to see a Freeper use the term at all.
Suggest you Google Medieval Warming period that occurred Circa 1,000-1300 A.D. or 650 Years before 1850.
“Climate change denier” was used ironically. Which is why it had scare quotes.
A great many articles have been posted recently about how warming has stopped and/or reversed.
I take no position on these issues, I’m merely pointing out that if the CO2 increase is a result of the warming, then the stopping of the warming should result in a slowdown or reversal of the CO2 increase.
I am agnostic on “anthropogenic global warming.” We do not begin to understand the climate mechanisms thoroughly enough to predict climate out 50 to 500 years.
While it seems intuitively unlikely that large increases of CO2 will have zero effect, I suspect there are negative feedback mechanisms we haven’t found yet.
The more critical question is, “So what?”
Let us stipulate AGW is as critical an issue as the alarmists claim. Few of their “solutions” will do much of anything to solve the problem anyway. And none of those that might work have a hope of doing so without a worldwide government of unprecedented totalitarian authority.
Which “solution” I consider a great deal worse than the problem, even if it is as bad as claimed. Which I doubt.
My uneducated guess:
Farming in industrialized nations is, well, industrialized....and the crops consume alot of CO2.
Farming in the third world - not so much. Compounded with burning dung for cooking, and clear cutting to grow soybeans for the Chinese, I am not surprised at this study.
Who knew, industrialization is ‘cleaner’ than ox carts and thunderpot toilets.
Why? It's not critical at all. The sky is not falling and to stipulate it is, is simply ludicrous.
Anyway, warming is far better than cooling for all life on this rock, IF we could control it.
Aztecs cut people hearts out, it didn't work then and it won't work now.
Well as one of your other posts today indicate. Canada is waking up to the reality. Looks like they are not going to sign into the Koyoto agreements in the near future. I suspect we shall see other nations follow suit in due time.
I don’t know what percent of atmospheric CO2 comes from human activity (or other processes), and I doubt if anyone does. When I see pictures of the White Cliffs of Dover or the eroding chalk cliffs of Rügen (as painted by Caspar David Friedrich in the first half of the 19th Century), it occurs to me that all that carbon was once in the atmosphere as CO2. As these cliffs and all the limestone mountains of the world erode (by decaying plant acids, acid rains, and other processes), huge quantities of CO2 are constantly released. Warming temperature probably increases the production of natural acids, and CO2 from other sources increases atmospheric sulfuric acid. Humans may have contributed to this by adding sulfuric acid to the atmosphere, but the CO2 exchange with warming oceans probably contributes more than anything else, human activities included. The AGW folks have the cart before the horse.
Blondes.
If not blondes, What?
Silly way to argue anything.
NO! NO! I’m melting.
Thanks Earnest. Latest post on nationalforestlawblog.com is the latest Newsweek. Is man made GW a hoax? Duh!
I have been in night school a lot to see if I want a science and a math degree. I learned I can teach my self a lot. Kinda of discovered I am a head of my IPCC peer group. I have enough here at the house and Amazon.com at my fingertips. I bought about a $1000+ in TEACHING Co. Courses to last a few years.
Keep me posted.
Thank you.
NO! NO! I’m melting.
Thanks Earnest. Latest post on nationalforestlawblog.com is the latest Newsweek. Is man made GW a hoax? Duh!
I have been in night school a lot to see if I want a science and a math degree. I learned I can teach my self a lot. Kinda of discovered I am a head of my IPCC peer group. I have enough here at the house and Amazon.com at my fingertips. I bought about a $1000+ in TEACHING Co. Courses to last a few years.
Keep me posted.
Thank you.
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.