 | saighdear on Suggestions-50 |
| saighdear on Suggestions-50 |
| saighdear on Suggestions-50 |
 | oldbrew on Suggestions-50 |
| oldbrew on Blow for climate worriers as b… |
 | Phoenix44 on Blow for climate worriers as b… |
 | stpaulchuck on Battle of the skies as airline… |
| oldbrew on Blow for climate worriers as b… |
 | coecharlesdavid on Suggestions-50 |
| oldbrew on Suggestions-50 |
| oldbrew on Battle of the skies as airline… |
 | Jaime Jessop on Battle of the skies as airline… |
 | energywise on Battle of the skies as airline… |
| saighdear on UK wind power constraint payme… |
 | liardetg on UK wind power constraint payme… |
Recntly, NASA released data from the OCO satellite borne instument measuring CO2 emissions across the globe. The December data with a map of the Earth’s rainforests in the image below clearly shows where most CO2 is being emitted.
But looking at NASA’s ‘Earth Now’ page for CO2, you wouldn’t recognise the true situation.
See the original Talkshop discussion of the new OCO satellite data here:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/12/18/first-images-from-nasa-oco-2-satelite/
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Reblogged this on Petrossa's Blog and commented:
Luckily CO2 has no significant warming effect outside the laboratory else ecowarriors start cutting the rain-forests down to save humanity.
I’m always bemused by comments on blogs where people state that it is human action that is increasing the biosphere’s CO2 level. Why, I wonder, have they on curiosity about the carbon cycle, and how nature deals with this life essential compound. Often I point people at this little snippet I found in a comment on page 149 in Recent Changes of Arctic Multiyear Sea Ice Coverage and the Likely Causes by Igor v. Polyakov, John E. Walsh, and Ronald Kwok
AMS2012 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00070.1 )
Where he says
And is refering to Significant efflux of carbon dioxide from streams and rivers in the United States David Butman & Peter A. Raymond —
NATURE GEOSCIENCE | LETTER
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n12/full/ngeo1294.html
The evasion of carbon dioxide from inland waters was only recently included in assessments of the global carbon budget1, 2, 3. Present estimates of carbon dioxide release from global freshwater systems, including lakes and wetlands, range from 0.7 to 3.3 Pg C yr−1 (refs 1, 4, 5, 6, 7). However, these estimates are based on incomplete spatial coverage of carbon dioxide evasion, and an inadequate understanding of the factors controlling the efflux of carbon dioxide across large drainage networks6. Here, we estimate the amount of carbon degassed from streams and rivers in the United States using measurements of temperature, alkalinity and pH, together with high-resolution data on the morphology and surface area of these waterways. We show that streams and rivers in the US are supersaturated with carbon dioxide when compared with the atmosphere, emitting 97±32 Tg carbon each year. We further show that regionally, carbon dioxide evasion from streams and rivers is positively correlated with annual precipitation, which we attribute to climatic regulation of stream surface area, and the flushing of carbon dioxide from soils. Scaling our analysis from the US to temperate rivers between 25° N and 50° N, we estimate a release of around 0.5 Pg carbon to the atmosphere each year.
Nature Geoscience 4, 839–842 (2011) doi:10.1038/ngeo1294
Received 24 May 2011 Accepted 14 September 2011 Published online 16 October 2011
Reblogged this on ForThoseILove.
It could get interesting at Paris when ‘the west’ demands huge sums of money from Brazil and the forested African and Asian nations for their countries’ huge net CO2 emissions, no?
Reblogged this on Catholic Glasses.
Original talkshop discussion of new OCO data here:
Thanks for the link. I have had lots of head injuries and am emotional occasionally but I rally and use faith & reason to decipher whose telling the Truth in All Categories of News. Thanks for the follow back. 😊
Bit confused by all this. I can’t find this global CO2 image on NASA ‘Earth right now’. But more to the point, have NASA actually released an updated map for O-CO2 in the same form as they did for the period Oct1-Nov11? Like Nov12-Dec31? Quite a lot hinges on this updated data; whether it confirms or not the modeled NASA CO2 NH winter distribution. The late autumn period was passingly similar to the modeled data but looked to be diverging from it as November progressed.
As far as I understand it, there are people employed in infrared astronomy, trying to observe space from earth within the infrared bands. Are all these people charatans? Or is there still something visible through all the fog of CO2 back radiation?
/sarc off.
tom0mason says:
January 31, 2015 at 7:31 pm
A recent discussion among these people concluded that the problem on earth of seeing infra-red images from space was …….. H²O
That rotting trees in rainforests are able to emit more CO2 than the healthy live trees absorb has actually long been known:
http://umaine.edu/maineclimatenews/blog/2011/08/28/tropical-rainforests-from-carbon-sink-to-source/
Of course this is reflexively blamed on anthropogenic global warming (from anthropogenic CO2 emissions)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rain-forests-release-carb/
See also
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/nasa-oco2-satellite-data-17893
Gerry, thanks for the links. So is it like that year round with rainforests being net emitters?
“is it like that year round with rainforests being net emitters?”
Judging by the rates of growth/decay in the rainforest near me in NE Oz, I would say “probably”.
Another significant source could be mangrove swamps. Their saline coastal sediment habitats are more or less coincident with rainforest. Fairly smelly, given the amount of biodegrading taking place. After sunset, the mangroves 200 metres upwind of my place push the CO2 level up to 425 + ppm. (No roads, power stations in that direction. Just mangroves and the Pacific Ocean.)
Thanks Martin. It would seem that pretty much everything emits CO2 and doesn’t absorb it then.
‘Warming’ oceans are net emitters
Rainforests are net emitters
Eeeeevil western lifestyles are net emitters
Volcanos and volcagenic soils are emitters
Where are the sinks then?
“Where are the sinks then?”
In the kitchen and bathrooms. Where do you live anyhow?? (snicker)
Cameron threw the kitchen sink at the Rocheter & Strood by-election. It missed and sank in the estuary. 🙂
No wonder CO2 is increasing if you lost your main sink!!
Looks like Dr. Salby is going to be proven right when they can’t lie anymore.
Until people come out and deny the greenhouse effect as is understood by the general public and politicians and wankers in the media, the climate fight is lost. The current, safe line from pundits who end up on discussion shows and phone-ins when talking about this subject is to say that there is some small effect from man-made emissions.
This has to stop. Until there is a consensus among climate realists to totally deny (correctly) a measurable difference in temperature due to supposed greenhouse gases the scam will simply carry on and on and on.
So from now on I’d say that Bishop Hill, Nigel Lawson, Matt Ridley and other lukewarmists keep a low profile because all they are doing is playing the game under the rules of the assholes who keep the myth alive.
Nobody is listening to the sceptical side. Unless they come out and make a stand against the fascists things will just carry on and more windfarms will be built, more solar farms will blight the landscape and rentseekers everywhere will profit.
When some BBC oik talking head asks whether or not there is an anthropomorphic element to the climate it is crucial that the answer is a resounding NO.
To do otherwise wastes everyone’s time especially when you consider that there really is no anthropomorphic element.
NASA needs to fulfil its WMO directive TB.
Best regards, Ray.
The ocean is the sink Rog.
I’m a bit reluctant to say much because my views were unwelcome the last time I pointed out this stuff.
NASA are showing us nothing.
All part of the carbon cycle.
The effect fits with the bomb spike stuff and more towards Henry’s law.
Then we have the Mauna Loa matter. 🙂
Paul, that is exactly my POV that has never changed. I wish Christopher Monckton would be one of those people, as he was there at the beginning with Thatcher as her science advisor as she promoted the warmist’ agenda, and he continues to bray on about some CO2 effect when there is none. Did you hear that Christopher!?
tchannon says: February 1, 2015 at 1:18 am
I empathise with your subject TC and reiterate that NASA ‘obfuscates’ data in ‘liaison’ with ‘UN policy’ via a directive implemented to improve the living standard of 3rd world lifestyles.
The ‘policy’ is well founded, but the ‘means to its end’ is unconscionable!
Best regards, Ray.
February 1, 2015 at 12:26 am | Paul says
Quite so, Paul. First rule of negotiating is not to negotiate to the rules set by your opposition. Make them negotiate to your rules.
Alarmism is so naive it doesn’t need to be taken seriously.
Lukewarmism I regard as a force of political evil.
Lukewarmism is an irrational interpolation between (a) dreamy ideas about CO2 that are not supported by observation and (b) criminally dark, maliciously hateful, straight-up deliberate denial of sun-climate 1+1=2.
(a) is goofy. (b) is unforgivable.
Irrational interpolation between (a) wrong & (b) wrong isn’t right. At best it’s left.
Paul Vaughan says: February 1, 2015 at 3:47 am
I concur Paul.
Best regards, Ray.
That first map is just for Oct. 1 through Nov. 11. But CO2 fluxes, because they’re heavily affected by the growth and decay cycles of living things, are seasonal. So to draw any meaningful conclusions about overall CO2 sources and sinks, you need to average a full year’s data (or, better a multiple of a full year).
I wonder when we can expect the next month of data.
DB: Most rainforests are pretty near the equator, where weather is less seasonal, but more affected by ENSO events. So I agree we want a longer span of data.
tchannon says:
February 1, 2015 at 1:18 am
The ocean is the sink Rog. I’m a bit reluctant to say much because my views were unwelcome
the last time I pointed out this stuff.
Please give a reference. I am surprised you feel reluctant to express scientific views on this blog.
Roger with respect, I think rain forest occur where there is a lot of rain, sub-tropical rain forest according to your map goes a fair way south on the east coast of Australia and north on the east coast of China. Where i live at the bottom end of of the sub-tropical rain forest the average rainfall is just over 1.8m/yr of which about 43% falls in the first three months of the year (summer). You can just about watch the trees growing -15m in ten years, a box hedge growing a foot between pruning every three weeks ( in the warm months)
However, there are also a temperate rain forests in South-west of Tasmania and the west coast of the south Island of New Zealand where they get over 2m of rain/yr (it rains all the year around but mostly in winter- they say Strahan Tas. has one fine day in three at the best time of the year). Maybe the roaring forties winds blow the CO2 generated away. I imagine that there are some temperate rain forest in the northern hemisphere. The NASA map shows high CO2 over Iceland -maybe due to volcanoes but why the high CO2 over the northern part of Siberia? Mentioning volcanoes -it is possible that the blob in the pacific ocean to the east of Australia is due to the active volcano on the Island of Tanna in Vanuatu (formerly New Hebrides)
Roger Clague,
My mistake, wrong Rog. It’s possible to write things, wisdom is a different matter including mentioning reluctance.
Vegetation is munched by critters, broken down by all manner of things, death everywhere. This all ends up in spoil, some proportion reused. Waste flows away into the ocean, in lofted water, as gas, some then broken down.
Plumes are noticed.
The questions are in the details of what is going on. I suspect there is a concentrating effect from the above since the origin of the carbon going into these areas has to be from the air unless the ground already contains ancient carbon.
References, not offered..
tchannon says:
February 1, 2015 at 3:53 pm
Roger Clague, My mistake, wrong Rog.
No mistake. I know Rog is RogT, Roger Tattersall, TB.
I am RogC
I want you to refer me to the last time I pointed out this stuff
By which I understand you to mean a post by you on this blog about the carbon cycle. that you thought was unwelcome.
Here’s an animation of Earth in the infrared from the GOES satellites.
http://spaceref.com/earth/video-planet-earth-in-infrared-light.html
The daily pulsation in the centre right of the right hand image is interesting. Would that be over Africa?
Tim C and Roger C
I agree with Tim C that the oceans are the sink. I’m not sure who Tim is referring to when he says his views were made unwelcome.
It fits with my idea that changes in LOD cause the oceans to pile up against continental coasts, causing cold water upwelling which spreads across the surface as gravity flattens the ocean again. That cold water will absorb atmospheric co2.
You can see the lower co2 level over the cold high latitude southern ocean in the top plot too.
Paul says:
February 1, 2015 at 12:26 am
Bob Weber says:
February 1, 2015 at 1:30 am
Streetcred says:
February 1, 2015 at 2:44 am
I have to agree, those adopting the Lukewarmer position are simply making this an endless battle. The debate is winnable, but only when the hard sceptic position is adopted by far more sceptics.
I believe the reason so many sceptics hold the lukewarmer position is fear. Fear of looking foolish. “warming, but less than we thought” seems “safe” for those who fear they don’t fully understand the physics. At WUWT, this fear drives many lukewarmers to attack hard sceptics in what they believe is an effort to keep sceptics looking reasonable.
But to be a lukewarmer you have to believe unreasonable things –
– believing you can use the two stream approximation of radiative physics within the Hohlrumn of the atmosphere.
– believing that the oceans are a near blackbody not a SW selective surface.
– believing the oceans would freeze without DWLWIR.
– believing incident LWIR can slow the cooling rate of water free to evaporatively cool.
– believing adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will reduce the atmosphere’s radiative cooling ability.
The lukewarmer position is not a position of reason, it is a position of fear.
tallbloke says:
February 1, 2015 at 7:52 am
“I wonder when we can expect the next month of data.”
Have you asked the OCO folk “know” the measurements indicate CO2 rather than WV?
The emission bands At 1.61 microns and 2.06 microns overlap! Not the first time remote sensing produced “garbadge”!
Roger T, pity the video does not have an over laid map. The text says that it measures IR at 6.5-7 micron wavelength which puts it clearly in the wavelength of water vapor and no other radiation absorbing gas. It seems that the satellites are tilted towards the southern hemisphere as the equator line appears in the top half of the video. I suggest the line further to the south at an angle is part of the roaring forties wind which is known to be moisture laden, I would suggest the the dark patch at the right just under the equator line is around the Coral sea which gets warm in summer, causing much evaporation and is the source of cyclones affecting the pacific islands and north east Australia. I recall there was a cyclone in the Solomons around 15th Jan and there is presently a warning about cyclone Ola near New Caledonia.
“I wonder when we can expect the next month of data.”
Looks like it’s on a monthly basis. The map for December is out now at the beginning of March. See Figure 5:
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=11788
Central Africa remains high, as does China. However, winter makes Canada and Siberia the highest CO2 areas.
There is something very strange about the OCO2 maps(2?) released by NASA so far. Although the map of coverage area for this satellite shows it extending to 85 deg N/S latitude,
http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/galleryusefulgraphics/
the first data released last year cut off well below this, while showing the edges of high and low concentrations just beyond the margins.
The map linked above by DB,
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/details.cgi?aid=11788
is even more puzzling with convoluted masking of data in the northern latitudes.
Given this is, I believe, the first global direct measurement of the demon gas destroying the planet, the almost year long delay in releasing information (there seems to be a lot of activity in “data refinement” going on. http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/science/ProductInfo/#
Presentation for Paris?