According to a study by University of Colorado and NOAA scientists Earth’s oceans, forests and other ecosystems continue to soak up about half the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by human activities, despite those emissions having increased.
The 50 year study into global CO2 absorption really has thrown up a number of problematic questions. Not least for scare mongers is the idea that, despite rhetoric to the contrary, the amount of carbon sink available has yet to be reached. In fact, according to the study.
“Globally, these carbon dioxide ‘sinks’ have roughly kept pace with emissions from human activities, continuing to draw about half of the emitted CO2 back out of the atmosphere.”
Obviously this cannot continue for ever, but it’s a real humdinger. Given how subjectively dodgy this paper is written, you do have to wonder just how much of an issue this really is for the authors.
Carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere mainly by fossil fuel combustion but also by forest fires and some natural processes.
“Some” natural processes?
Source of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide per year
Natural decay of organic material and the action of forest fires – 439 GIGAtonnes
Human activity – 29,000 megatonnes
But here’s a question that nobody wanted to ask, it’s more of an observation really.
If we are increasing the CO2 over the last 50 years, doubling it in fact AND we are deforesting the land AND the Ocean isn’t getting any bigger… WHERE IS THE CO2 going?
You MUST read this
I’m being funny, because the dirty little secret of climate research is that WE DON’T KNOW. Or as the report states.
This new global analysis makes it clear that scientists do not yet understand well enough the processes by which ecosystems of the world are removing CO2 from the atmosphere, or the relative importance of possible sinks: regrowing forests on different continents, for example, or changing absorption of carbon dioxide by various ocean regions.
“Since we don’t know why or where this process is happening, we cannot count on it,” Tans said. “We need to identify what’s going on here, so that we can improve our projections of future CO2 levels and how climate change will progress in the future.”
Which is the real problem. Because the whole of climate science’s reputation is anchored the idea that increasing CO2 causes global warming. And if you don’t even understand how CO2 is absorbed, then your credibility on the subject is more than a little suspect, don’t you think.
Imagine I say that ownership of red hats causes cancer, and create a model to demonstrate it. Red hat purchases continue and in some places increase, but the effects are not understood and the relationship between red hats, people and cancer aren’t known. How much of a crackpot do I sound? I guess if I had a whole bunch of politicians seeking power, scientists looking for financial sponsorship and companies looking to exploit new markets (and free money) I’d have a bigger “Anti red-hat following.”