A new NASA map is showing that most of what we know about CO2 emissions and how to cut down on them is wrong. Or in the words of the researchers:
“Before now the only thing policy-makers could do was take a big blunt tool and bang the U.S. economy with it“
This, I think begs the question of what the hell we think we are doing tearing apart the economy to stop CO2 when we don’t even know where CO2 comes from:
A new, high- resolution, interactive map of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels has found that the emissions aren’t all where we thought.
“For example, we’ve been attributing too many emissions to the northeastern United States, and it’s looking like the southeastern U.S. is a much larger source than we had estimated previously,” says Kevin Gurney, an assistant professor of earth and atmospheric science at Purdue University and leader of the project.
Researchers say the maps also are more accurate than previous data because they are based on greenhouse gas emissions instead of estimates based on population in areas of the United States.
Yeah, so allot of the emissions come from the South East. But that is still only comparative, when you look at other more green countries, you hardly see red at all, thats what we want to be like, not grumbling ’bout c02 emissions, and how we got it all wrong, but how we can use the information and the mistakes to change our nation.
On that note, Can you visit my blog? It is also about the environment, except more focused on NYC, but meant for the world.
Sincerely,
ME
Again, science doesn’t have the answers. Before imposing taxes and lifestyle changes on people around the world, try turning scientific theories into facts. This scaremongering and politicizing is getting old.
Skeptics Global Warming
At projectc510:
I think you misunderstand what the image represents. Go check out the original article: http://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2008a/080407GurneyVulcan.html
The caption reads:
“New analysis by Purdue researchers of greenhouse gases shows that the emissions are greater in the southeastern United States than was previously thought. In this image, the amount of red represents the increased amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from previous estimates, and the blue represents a reduction in atmospheric CO2. Purdue assistant professor Kevin Gurney says the difference appears greatest in winter months when there are more emissions and less vertical air movement. (Purdue University image/Kevin Gurney)”
So, it has nothing to do with absolute values - it’s only a comparison to a previous study. There is another image (http://news.uns.purdue.edu/images/+2008/gurneyvulcan1.jpg) in the original article that deals more with absolutes. As you can see, the NW U.S. contributes a lot too…it’s just that previous estimates had the SE U.S. at a lower contribution.
I disagree a little here - I think science does have the answers. The problem is that politicians are jumping the gun and making policy without getting all the scientific facts first.
I agree - science does hold many answers…and if not all, it will go and find them. The problem comes in when politicians subvert science to suit their agenda, pick a bit here, a bit there, don’t realize that they are taking them out of context - which renders them meaningless, and then present it as a ’scientific fact’!
Have you asked yourself, why is it that so many of the scientists who partook in the IPCC report asked to have their names taken off it? And why only those who dared to sue actually succeeded? And why there were more policy-makers than scientists in the process itself?
But, aside from all that - there is ABSOLUTELY NO SCIENCE that says that a moderate increase in CO^2 (and our current levels could perhaps double and still be considered ‘moderate’) is bad!!! To the contrary - that is where the name comes from! ‘Greenhouse Effect’ is so called because CO^2 is PUMPED in to HELP plants grow, produce higher yeilds of crops.
Higher CO^2 levels mean we will be able to feed more people - and is that not a good thing?
The NASA map agrees with what I have been told. The CO2 in the oceans is two orders of magnitude greater then the atmosphere. When additional heat from the sun warms the Earth and the oceans, it forces CO2 out of the oceans as can be seen in this NASA map.
However, now that we have entered a cooling cycle because solar output has decreased, some of the CO2 emitted by the oceans will be reabsorbed by the ocean after the oceans cool back down.
Go to http://NCSDCA.home.ATT.net/opinion/ and click on ‘Global Warming’.
—Russ
say, doesn’t co2 kill plants??????
No. CO^2 does NOT kill plants. It is plant food.
There are 2 basic ‘gas exchange’ processes that occur in plants. One is respiration (like humans), where plants breathe IN oxygen, and breathe OUT CO^2. This process goes on 24 hours a day. This is the ‘respiratory’ system of a plant.
Just like we eat (the digestive system), so do plants. We dring food and drink liquids - through the same ‘mouth-stomach-intestines’ system. Plants have 2 systems: one which ‘drinks’ - the root system which brings water (with dissolved trace minerals) to the plant. The plant also has a second system - chloroplasts.
These are specialized organelles in the plant cells which contain chlorophyl. Their function is to take IN carbon dioxide (CO^2), and combine it with hydrous oxyde (H2O - water). It takes the C (carbon) from the CO^2 and combines it with the OH group from H2O - and builds long chains of these carbons with OH groups attached.
This process is called PHOTOSYNTHESIS, because it uses the enegy from light (photo) to build (synthesise) these long carbon-OH chains from CO^2 and H2O. The end product, the carbon chain, is called STARCH - without it, non-plants could not live. The byproduct is O2 - the oxygen we breathe. Photosynthesis only occurs while the plant has sufficient light, water and CO^2 to drive it.
The more complex the plant, the more CO^2 it requires. For example, the ‘Great Plains’ in the US used to be mostly covered by trees - until the carbon dioxide levels became too low to support them. Then, they reverted to grassplains, because grass is a less complex plant and requires less CO^2 (and takes less of it from the air).
If you love trees, as I do, you cannot but object to anything that will reduce the CO^2 levels available for them to grow. I am a self-admitted tree hugger - and a scientist. And though at first, I thought the ‘global warming’ thing sounded good to me when it was first proposed, I have ‘looked into’ it (extensively - though this is NOT my field of expertise!!! I do not wish to mislead.). The evidence I have read has convinced me that this is not any danger. To the contrary. Incerases in CO^2 levels are higly advantageous to lifeforms on Earth because historically, they raise food availability and are accompanied by greater species differentiation and increase in overall lifeforms supported.
However, SOME industrial concerns do not wish for the world food supply to increase, because this will decrease their control over the polulations in areas of the world dependant on food donations….and these areas are rich in mineral resources…. So, if these people can grow their own food, they’ll get rid of the multinational organizations which give them food and rob them of their natural resources. I think that is not nice.
Follow the money!
No, I mean won’t that sudden increase of temperture caused be CO2 kill the plants?
and i know that :-D
Rise in temp PRECEEDS the co2 by about 800 years (plus or minus a century or two).
However, the key here is not average temperatures, but ‘irradiance’. This is VERY similar, but not exactly the same. ‘The Reference Frame’ - a blog by Lubos Motl, one of the world’s most respected physicists (who was a child prodigy, at that) has a post from a few days ago that explains the difference really, really well.
The ’summary’ of it is: using well established physics laws, he demonstrates that comparing the temp. changes in areas of more direct light (near equators) versus the temp differences near the poles are more accurate measures of the ‘heat energy’ trapped in the atmosphere.
It also explains really well the relationship between overall Earth-system ‘energy levels’ (including heat trapped by co2) if the AVERAGE temps go up, but the DIFFERENCE between the near-equitorial highs and near-polar lows is SMALLER: the overall system’s enegy is unchanged.
And the IPCC’s OWN DATA shows this to be the case…
So, we may see an AVERAGE temp increase, but because there is LESS DIFFERENCE in temp. between hot and cold areas of the Earth, it shows that no more heat has been trapped.
You’ll have to brush off you high school physics (or, depending on your school, learn some extra) to understand the implications of this, but the physics used to support this is well established and undisputed. Also, the comment section has several other physicists giving supplementary explanations - if you are interested in the science of this, then I think you will find the read worthwhile.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/05/average-temperature-vs-average.html