Carbon Dioxide Climate Theory Contradicted

[Karlis]

The never-ending controversy concerning Mankind's role in Global Warming continues.

Karlis

-=-=-=-

... 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.

Industrialized Nations World's Lowest CO2 'Polluters'

... 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.

... the U.S. and western European nations are areas where CO2 levels are lowest. This new evidence defies the consensus view ...

... 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 ashphalt 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.

Source

[Guest]

If that is there finding, its a little surprising that there is no mention of it on their website dated 28/10/2011;

IBUKI observations help reduce estimation error of ground observations

The Ministry of the Environment, the National Institute for Environmental Studies, and JAXA calculated the error or uncertainty of the estimation results for monthly global and regional CO2 absorptions and emissions using data acquired by the Global Gasses Observing Satellite "IBUKI." As a result, 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.

This achievement will be published in the Scientific Online Letters on the Atmosphere (an online thesis magazine) issued by the Meteorological Society of Japan on Oct. 29. We will offer our estimate result data to researchers who are working on related fields that were selected through public solicitation. After being evaluated, compared and verified by researchers, we will further revise the data, if necessary, then publish the finalized data to the public.

http://www.jaxa.jp/projects/sat/gosat/index_e.html

I will reserve judgement until their paper is available.

How can this report come to such an entirely different conclusion, with an entirely different map ?

A Japanese research group has created a world map which shows estimated carbon dioxide emissions in each region using for the first time data acquired by a satellite.

The group at the National Institute for Environmental Studies estimated regional CO2 emissions by combining data from Japan’s Global Gases Observing Satellite, Ibuki, and ground observation data collected for a year from June 2009.

Of 64 regions on the map, those where CO2 emissions exceeded CO2 absorption are shown in red and regions where emissions were less than absorption are marked in green.

The researchers found that CO2 absorption in high latitude regions in the northern hemisphere, including Russia’s Siberia, was higher than earlier estimated. They add that greater CO2 emissions were observed in regions near the equator.

The researchers say satellite data allowed them to reduce errors in estimated emissions. Ground data are collected at 139 locations which are distributed unevenly throughout the world.

The head of the research institute, Yasuhiro Sasano, says he hopes the map will help display how much each region needs to reduce its CO2 emissions in the future.

NHK.

I am puzzled

Br Cornelius

Edited October 31, 2011 by Guest

[Von Bismarck]

This is really interesting. THANKS KARLIS!

But can it really be true? If so, then the AGW theory just got a very deadly wound.

I am working my ass of to find that paper or just more information.

[Guest]

This is really interesting. THANKS KARLIS!

But can it really be true? If so, then the AGW theory just got a very deadly wound.

I am working my ass of to find that paper or just more information.

No paper available. Until there is its just more sensationalism.

What do you think of the report I posted with the map that completely contradicts the first report.

Br Cornelius

Edited October 31, 2011 by Guest

[Von Bismarck]

No paper available. Until there is its just more sensationalism.

What do you think of the report I posted with the map that completely contradicts the first report.

Br Cornelius

I'm really as puzzled as you are.

But wouldn't a story like this be in any scientific news magazine or all over the media?

The latest paper i could find about the GOSAT measurements is this.

Release Date: October 29, 2011

http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/7/0/161/_pdf

Still it's very interresting, despite having speculations that it's made up?

Edited October 31, 2011 by BFB

[Guest]

I'm really as puzzled as you are.

But wouldn't a story like this be in any scientific news magazine or all over the media?

The latest paper i could find about the GOSAT measurements is this.

Release Date: October 29, 2011

http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/7/0/161/_pdf

Still it's very interresting, despite having speculations that it's made up?

I suspect they have misused an atmospheric drift map.

Br Cornelius

[Von Bismarck]

I suspect they have misused an atmospheric drift map.

Br Cornelius

and cherry picked quotes from JAXA.

Actually until a paper is provided I think we can safely say this is bulls***.

[Taita]

The never-ending controversy concerning Mankind's role in Global Warming continues.

Karlis

-=-=-=-

... 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.

Industrialized Nations World's Lowest CO2 'Polluters'

... 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.

... the U.S. and western European nations are areas where CO2 levels are lowest. This new evidence defies the consensus view ...

... 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 ashphalt 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.

Source

I am reading the latest on their site and critical papers and it appears the opposite is the case. Perhaps someone quoted them inaccurately and that is the cause for the supposed reversal on their part. Simple hijinx or intended inaccuracies to fool people and add confusion to an already heated debate.

Mark

[questionmark]

I suspect that this is another reaction to Muller et al.

[Von Bismarck]

I suspect that this is another reaction to Muller et al.

A better reaction would be, explain the dim in temperatures from 45-70. Muller pretty much disproved the best explanation regarding the dim.

Edited October 31, 2011 by BFB

[questionmark]

A better reation would be, explain the dim in temperatures from 45-70. Muller disproved the best explanation regarding the dim.

Try checking for dust... you know, mini-atomic ice age after Hiroshima?

[Von Bismarck]

Try checking for dust... you know, mini-atomic ice age after Hiroshima?

Try checking for green pigs..... You know green flying pigs which are known to have a cooling impact.

Edited October 31, 2011 by BFB

[questionmark]

Try checking for green pigs..... You know green flying pigs that have a cooling impact.

How about all the atmospheric nuclear tests until '63?

Or do the nuke debris just block out the sun in case of war (see nuclear winter).

BTW, you still have to practice being funny.

[Von Bismarck]

How about all the atmospheric nuclear tests until '63?

Or do the nuke debris just block out the sun in case of war (see nuclear winter).

BTW, you still have to practice being funny.

Oh....my....god

Please explain your theory.

[questionmark]

Oh....my....god

Please explain your theory.

Please don't call that a theory, at best it is a postulate, and here you have the reason:

Aerosols

The burning of fossil fuels and biomass (living matter such as vegetation) has resulted in aerosol emissions into the atmosphere. Aerosols absorb and emit heat, reflect light and, depending on their properties, can either cool or warm the atmosphere. NASA's Earth Observatory describes how aerosols can also affect how clouds form.

• Sulfate aerosols are emitted when fuel containing sulfur, such as coal and oil, is burned. Sulfate aerosols reflect solar radiation back to space and have a cooling effect. These aerosols have decreased in concentration in the past two decades resulting from efforts to reduce the coal-fired power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide in the United States and other countries.
• Black carbon (or soot) results from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and biomass burning (forest fires and land clearing) and is believed to contribute to global warming (IPCC, 2007). Though global concentrations are likely increasing, there are significant regional differences. In the United States and many other countries, efforts to reduce particulate matter (of which black carbon is a part) are lowering black carbon concentrations.
• Other aerosols emitted in small quantities from human activities include organic carbon and associated aerosols from biomass burning. Mineral dust aerosols (e.g., from deserts and lake beds) largely originate from natural sources, but their distribution can be affected by human activities.

Source

Mineral aerosols, such as emitted by volcanoes or lets say an atomic blast cool the atmosphere.

But it surprises me that somebody trying to lecture us on non-climate change does not even know the basics.

Edited October 31, 2011 by questionmark

[Little Fish]

the paper is here

http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/7/0/161/_pdf

[questionmark]

the paper is here

http://www.jstage.js...la/7/0/161/_pdf

Wow, and from that paper that in its abstract seez

We assessed the utility of global CO2 distributions brought by the Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) in the estimation of regional CO2 fluxes. We did so by estimating monthly fluxes and their uncertainty over a one-year period between June 2009 and May 2010

and in the introduction:

1. Introduction

The rapid atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide (CO2) observed over the past several decades (e.g., Keeling et al. 1976)

raised a broad array of concerns about future climatic changes because of the role CO2 plays in determining the Earth’s heat

budget (Ramanathan et al. 1987). For better understanding contemporary global carbon cycle dynamics and improving the

accuracy of future climate forecasts, it is essential to quantify the surface CO2 sources and sinks (or fluxes) and their inter-annual

variability (Field and Raupach 2004)

somebody deduced that they contradicted the carbon theory? Good imagination... or is there a dementi just with the Daily Mail story to follow?

[Von Bismarck]

Please don't call that a theory, at best it is a poistulate, and here you have the reason:

Aerosols

The burning of fossil fuels and biomass (living matter such as vegetation) has resulted in aerosol emissions into the atmosphere. Aerosols absorb and emit heat, reflect light and, depending on their properties, can either cool or warm the atmosphere. NASA’s Earth Observatory describes how aerosols can also affect how clouds form.

• Sulfate aerosols are emitted when fuel containing sulfur, such as coal and oil, is burned. Sulfate aerosols reflect solar radiation back to space and have a cooling effect. These aerosols have decreased in concentration in the past two decades resulting from efforts to reduce the coal-fired power plant emissions of sulfur dioxide in the United States and other countries.
• Black carbon (or soot) results from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and biomass burning (forest fires and land clearing) and is believed to contribute to global warming (IPCC, 2007). Though global concentrations are likely increasing, there are significant regional differences. In the United States and many other countries, efforts to reduce particulate matter (of which black carbon is a part) are lowering black carbon concentrations.
• Other aerosols emitted in small quantities from human activities include organic carbon and associated aerosols from biomass burning. Mineral dust aerosols (e.g., from deserts and lake beds) largely originate from natural sources, but their distribution can be affected by human activities.

Source

Mineral aerosols, such as emitted by volcanoes or lets say an atomic blast cool the atmosphere.

But it surprises me that somebody trying to lecture us on non-climate change does not even know the basics.

You wanna teach me about aerosols? That's nice

Do you really wanna do this?

Before i'll teach you about aerosols and the stratospheric sulfate layer please explain the processes responsible for the stratospheric sulfate layer.

and BTW how long do you think sulfate aerosols stays in the stratosphere?

[questionmark]

You wanna teach me about aerosols? That's nice

Do you really wanna do this?

Before i'll teach you about aerosols and the stratospheric sulfate layer please explain the processes responsible for the stratospheric sulfate layer.

and BTW how long do you think sulfate aerosols stays in the stratosphere?

Evidently I had to else you would have known right away what I was talking about, and sulfate aerosols stay mostly until dissolved by water after a few weeks or month generally come back to Earth as sulfurous acid known to destroy vegetation (see acid rain). But I don't see why you would want to change theme here because evidently, as with your broad knowledge of aerosols you must have deduced, we are talking mostly about silicone and silicate aerosols.

[Guest]

the paper is here

http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/7/0/161/_pdf

That paper is not a paper about their results, its a description of how they will obtain the results and how it will narrow the current error bars.

Br Cornelius

[Von Bismarck]

Evidently I had to else you would have known right away what I was talking about, and sulfate aerosols stay mostly until dissolved by water after a few weeks or month generally come back to Earth as sulfurous acid known to destroy vegetation (see acid rain). But I don't see why you would want to change theme here because evidently, as with your broad knowledge of aerosols you must have deduced, we are talking mostly about silicone and silicate aerosols.

Lost my internet connection again so i'll try agian.

Change theme? this just shows that you know nothing about aerosols.

The conversion of the H2SO4 vapor to liquid H2SO4 can occur by two main mechanisms.

The combination of molecules of H2SO4 and H2O andor the combination of H2SO4, H2O, and HNO3 to form new (primarily sulfuric acid) droplets.

Or

Vapor condensation of H2SO4, H2O, and HNO3 onto the surfaces of preexisting particles with radius greater than 0.15 um.

Just to correct your posts a bit. But let's go on. Stratospheric sulfate aerosols are produced primarily by the oxidation of SO2 to SO3 in the stratosphere, right?

Edited October 31, 2011 by BFB

[Karlis]

Lost my internet connection again so i'll try agian.

Change theme? this just shows that you know nothing about aerosols.

The conversion of the H2SO4 vapor to liquid H2SO4 can occur by two main mechanisms.

The combination of molecules of H2SO4 and H2O andor the combination of H2SO4, H2O, and HNO3 to form new (primarily sulfuric acid) droplets.

Or

Vapor condensation of H2SO4, H2O, and HNO3 onto the surfaces of preexisting particles with radius 0.15 um.

Just to correct your posts a bit. But let's go on. Stratospheric sulfate aerosols are produced primarily by the oxidation of SO2 to SO3 in the stratosphere, right?

BFB and questionmark, is your present discussion adding context to this topic? If it is, please pardon my ignorance and continue; otherwise, why not start a new topic on this question?

Cheers,

Karlis -- moderator team member

Edited October 31, 2011 by Karlis

[Von Bismarck]

BFB and questionmark, is your present discussion adding context to this topic? If it is, please pardon my ignorance and continue; otherwise, why not start a new topic on this question?

Cheers,

Karlis -- moderator team member

No not really.

Claiming that nuclear explosions caused the dim in temperatures between 1945-1970 is bull.

But since its not topic related i'll never get the chance to explain why. Unless questionmark you make a new topic.

Edited October 31, 2011 by Karlis

[questionmark]

No not really.

Claiming that nuclear explosions caused the dim in temperatures between 1945-1970 is bull.

But since its not topic related i'll never get the chance to explain why. Unless questionmark you make a new topic.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/16/mid-20th-century-global-warming-part-ii/

Just read what your own camp writes about it, no need for another thread.

[Von Bismarck]

http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/16/mid-20th-century-global-warming-part-ii/

Just read what your own camp writes about it, no need for another thread.

Haven't read your link. No need to. I know what i am talking about when the subject involves atmospheric science, and especially atmospheric chemistry & radiative transfer. Make a new topic or stop this nonsense. A-bombs did not cause the temperature down fall from 1945 to 1970.

My camp? What are you talking about? Let me put it this way. I AM NOT A MEMBER OF ANY CAMP!!

I look at science objectively. You should never attach yourself to a hypothesis or theory. When you do that, you become blind.

I believe in AGW at the moment. But that could change as we learn more about the subject. New evidence emerges all the time. Just remember that in the 50-60-70 the majority thought that the earth was cooling.

Its you there's really in denial.

Last post regarding this.

Edited October 31, 2011 by BFB