Recent CO2 increase comes from tropical jungles, not human activity


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right or below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

The uncertainty of science: Scientists using the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO-2) have found that the bulk of carbon dioxide increase in recent years came from tropical jungles at the equator, not human activity located mostly in the northern hemisphere.

I guarantee the climate science community, dependent of government funds given based on the crisis mode of human-caused global warming, will spin this somehow to link it with human activity, but if they do they are either fooling themselves, or lying to everyone else. The models all assumed that OCO-2 would find the increase coming from the industrial regions where fossil fuels burn. That is not what they found, which means once again that the models are crap. We do not yet understand the climate.

Share

6 comments

  • Edward

    From the article: “Data collected by NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) satellite, launched in 2014 to measure changing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) worldwide, indicates that Earth’s tropics have been the largest sources of recent CO2 emissions.

    It is clear to me that, just as with the temperature data, the CO2 sensors need to be recalibrated in order to confirm the bias that industrial areas are the big sources of CO2. After all, only if nature has previously increased the CO2 levels could we ever accept that nature is doing so now.

    Oh, wait: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

    Fortunately, however, the article was able to reassert that man is the cause of CO2 increases, despite the scientific evidence, by using correlation as causation:
    Global average CO2 emissions have been increasing annually since the start of the Industrial Revolution in the early 1800s. Earth’s atmosphere today contains approximately 850 gigatons of CO2 in contrast to approximately 595 gigatons before the start of the industrial age.

    Never mind that the Earth was already increasing in temperature for a couple of centuries before the industrial age started, because the Earth had been — and still is — coming out of the Little Ice Age. Maybe the Little Ice Age happened because mankind cut back on camp fires, or something.

  • David

    Mr. Zimmerman – I’m not sure what the big surprise is with the report. I also can’t help but wonder which specific models are you speaking of with your “crap” term? What is the break point between “crap” and “acceptable” model outputs?

    I am also impressed with your ability to predict what the entire climatology field studying what man’s impact to the atmosphere is and which receives some/all of its funding from gov’t will say. I think some of these folks will be quite surprised to hear this!

  • David: See these links, listed in chronological order:

    That’s only a small sampling. The links discuss all the climate models that are based on the theory that increased carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere by human activity is going to cause the climate to warm. All of those models however have failed completely to predict the actual climate trends for the past two decades.

    As to the question of funding, I have watched the climate field become increasingly corrupted by politics in the past two decades, to a point that facts no longer matter to some of the most powerful and influential members of the field. What matters is funding, and the agencies in the federal government that fund this research have wanted them to find proof of human-caused global warming, and many have gone out of their way to do so, sometimes adjusting data in ways this even suggest outright tampering and fraud. (Do a search on BtB using the words “NOAA tampering” and you see a small selection of stories and data showing this very disturbing possibility.)

    None of these links are mere opinion pieces by me. They all link to independent studies that must be refuted, and have not been in any way. If anything, the data from the climate field keeps confirming what they suggest.

    Note too that I do not come to this field in ignorance. Note the “Climate and Sun Science bibliography” link at the top of my page. It includes the full bibliography of the research I did from 2004 until 2010 when I was trying to gain an understanding of this whole field. Along the way I learned that the science remains decidedly uncertain and unsettled, and that there are too many climate scientists using their positions of power to hide this fact.

  • Marc Rankin

    Interesting. Out of my wheelhouse, but perhaps it’s more indicative of where the consumption of gases go as opposed to production. Humans breath oxygen and plants require Carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, so perhaps the chemical elements are concentrated over where they are consumed, not produced. I imagine to get to the question of increased production would be more a measure of the concentration of carbon dioxide over the tropics today as compared to 30 years ago.

  • LocalFluff

    @David
    “which specific models”
    Pick your favorites!
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/14/90-climate-model-projectons-versus-reality/

    The climate doomsday didn’t happen. The climate is waaay too complex to use forecasts about it for economic decision making. The increase of CO2 is however extremely good for wild life, the entire Earth is greening thanks to it.

  • So the deforestation of the Amazon Basin is . . . a good thing? Well, *that* doesn’t fit the Narrative. Back to the drawing board, Progressives!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *