Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scientists Close In On Missing Carbon Sink
Science Daily ^ | June 22, 2007 | National Center for Atmospheric Research

Posted on 06/22/2007 5:00:23 AM PDT by Brilliant

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last
Personally, I suspect that the missing carbon sink is Michael Moore.
1 posted on 06/22/2007 5:00:27 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
I found it.


2 posted on 06/22/2007 5:03:50 AM PDT by ovrtaxt (THOMPSON NEEDS TO CLARIFY HIS POSITION ON THE SPP BEFORE I SUPPORT HIM.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

“To figure out exactly what is happening, we need improved models and more atmospheric observations.”

But Al Gore says we already know what is happening and we’re all doomed.


3 posted on 06/22/2007 5:17:00 AM PDT by revtown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Carbon dioxide is the result of the Sun's warming the Earth, not the cause of global warming.

Winston Churchill, if alive today, would have issued this quote: "Never have so many been wrong about so much..."

4 posted on 06/22/2007 5:22:43 AM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
The aircraft samples show that northern forests absorb only 1.5 billion tons of carbon a year, which is almost 1 billion tons less than the estimate produced by the computer models.

Maybe the models are wrong in their many assumptions.

5 posted on 06/22/2007 5:22:43 AM PDT by Nomorjer Kinov (If the opposite of "pro" is "con" , what is the opposite of progress?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

That’s an interesting article. But the many references to “computer models” as though they were living oracles bother me. Computer models are merely tools. If someone using a computer model finds that it gives results that differ from measured results, then the computer model is simply wrong in one or many aspects. Computer models don’t tell you anything. People who use computer models may have opinions based on those models.


6 posted on 06/22/2007 5:37:02 AM PDT by ChessExpert (MSM: Always ready to take side)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited

Say what? Did you mean “Global Warming is the result of the Sun warming the Earth, not the result of carbon dioxide”?


7 posted on 06/22/2007 5:38:53 AM PDT by Little Pig (Is it time for "Cowboys and Muslims" yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Growing more forests in United States could contribute to global warming (Save Earth! Cut trees!)
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ^ | December 5, 2005 | Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1534904/posts


8 posted on 06/22/2007 5:43:55 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (A better name for the goracle is "MALgore" - as in MALpractice, MALevolent, MALfeasance, MALodorous,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Whooops. So are the carbon credit companies going to have to find some other way than (supposedly) planting a tree when you (or the US House of Representatives) buy an offset?


9 posted on 06/22/2007 5:45:44 AM PDT by craig_eddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

Just noting this study is quoting NET absorption.

Vegetation takes in about 62 billion tons of carbon each year and releases 60 billion tons back. Oceans have similar numbers with 92 billion going in and 90 billion being released.

Those figures can be compared to human emissions which are about 7.5 billion tons a year right now. So trees and oceans are absorbing on a net basis about 4.0 billion of the 7.5 billion tons of carbon we are releasing each year but the totals involved in the carbon cycle dwarf human figures. It is just that we are adding more to a system which was more-or-less in balance. That could change however.

If anyone has a link to the study, or access to Science magazine, I’d be interested in the actual CO2 concentration figures they measured in this study.


10 posted on 06/22/2007 5:45:57 AM PDT by JustDoItAlways
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
The missing carbon

For years, one of the biggest mysteries in climate science has been the question of what ultimately happens to the carbon emitted by motor vehicles, factories, deforestation, and other sources. Of the approximately 8 billion tons of carbon emitted each year, about 40 percent accumulates in the atmosphere and about 30 percent is absorbed by the oceans. Scientists believe that terrestrial ecosystems, especially trees, take up the remainder.

Missing Carbon?!? Small potatoes.

90% of the Universe is missing. Ponder that you 'climate science' guys (Oh, and get a real job).

11 posted on 06/22/2007 5:46:47 AM PDT by Condor51 (Rudy makes John Kerry look like a Right Wing 'Gun Nut' Extremist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
Personally, I suspect that the missing carbon sink is Michael Moore.

Actually he is just an oxygen load. Nothing moore.

12 posted on 06/22/2007 5:47:22 AM PDT by P8riot (I carry a gun because I can't carry a cop.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ChessExpert; xcamel
Computer models don’t tell you anything. People who use computer models may have opinions based on those models.

It’s even worse than that..

People who WRITE computer models HAVE opinions based on those models that they write, and get MORE money FROM those computer models when they write computer models that make results that the get those funds.

I’m being cynical of course: but re-read the baseline article to see HOW MANY assumptions proved wrong by how many hundreds of times: 1.8 BILLION assumed tons becomes merely one million tons... Vertical paths were ignored.

30% of the carbon emitted by man (in TODAY’S emissions!) is “lost” yet the enviro’s are demanding that we crash the economy to reduce emissions by 2% ?

13 posted on 06/22/2007 5:48:33 AM PDT by Robert A Cook PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JustDoItAlways

“human emissions...”

I would think that as long as the world’s population is growing (and not getting skinnier), the net human emissions are negative. Maybe that’s where the sink is.


14 posted on 06/22/2007 5:50:51 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AmericaUnited
You know I was thinking the same thing. Every winter, when the Midwest is farther from the sun, is seems to get colder.

During the day when the Sun is overhead, it seems to get warmer; when the Sun is gone it gets cooler.

I think you may have come up the smoking gun; the Sun is the cause of Global Climate change.

15 posted on 06/22/2007 5:52:10 AM PDT by MattMa ("Void of ideas, driven by hate, vote the Democratic Party in 2008")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE

Bingo!! We have a winner!!


16 posted on 06/22/2007 5:55:25 AM PDT by xcamel ("It's Thompson Time!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant

“Net Human emissions” =

- 1/100th of the total population dies each year, 70 million people, at 150 pounds (.07 tons), with 20% of that Carbon by weight, equals net human absorption of carbon buried each year in graves...

= Only 1 million tons. LOL.


17 posted on 06/22/2007 6:04:48 AM PDT by JustDoItAlways
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MattMa
Every winter, when the Midwest is farther from the sun, is seems to get colder.

Actually, when it's winter in the northern hemisphere, the earth is closer to the sun than it is in the summer. It's just that because of the tilt of the earth, the sun's rays hit more directly in the northern hemisphere during the summer. Southern hemisphere seems to have more extreme temperatures -- when the earth is closer to the sun, they're getting the direct summer rays, and vice versa.

Of course, most of what I know about southern hemisphere temperatures is from reading The Thorn Birds years ago! ;-)

18 posted on 06/22/2007 6:08:46 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: P8riot

Methane.

He’s a methane load.


19 posted on 06/22/2007 6:13:52 AM PDT by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: JustDoItAlways

They don’t have to die, though. As long as the aggregate weight of the carbon incorporated into human beings is increasing, that’s carbon that won’t be in the atmosphere.


20 posted on 06/22/2007 6:20:44 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-39 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson