Your 1998 Columbia article goes on to say: "The researchers also caution that the size and location of the sink is variable. Other studies of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere show that global sinks vary by almost a factor of five from year to year and may also vary in location. The results in this paper may not be representative of periods outside 1988 to 1992, they added."
Data for the East coast now shows increases in SF6 CO2, and CO.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conferen...
C + O2 -> CO2
Because fossil fuels are taxed, we know how much fossil fuel has been burned. We also know how much CO2 is released from that burning. We also know that at the beginning of the Industrial Age starting in first 1/3 of the 19th century the level of CO2 in the atmosphere was 289ppm plus or minus. Today the CO2 level is close to 400ppm plus or minus. The increase in CO2 is fairly close to what would be expected given the mass of fossil fuel burned in the last almost 200 years.
We also know that for every part per million of CO2 over 350ppm some degree of solar heat will be retained... that is it won't be radiated into space at the same rate as it's received. This 'extra' heat will rapidly migrate from the atmosphere to the coldest place it can find...that being sea water and ice. That's why the atmosphere is warming only slowly if at all in some years and seawater is warming at the rate expected given the physics of heat transfer. The same applies to ice formations. Seawater warms and ice melts.... all of the data confirms this.
As for 'natural warming', burning massive amounts of fossil fuels does create a much more robust 'greenhouse effect'.... there's nothing 'un-natural' about that.
CO2 is higher on the East coast during the winter. Indeed it is proof that humans add CO2. So which will you claim now, that it is proved or that your own argument is worthless?
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/co2conferen...
During the Spring and Summer, the deciduous forests on the east take-up more CO2.
Sagebrush should probably refrain from scientific argument because he refuses to accept what the science shows.
Hi Sagey, another cracker. I wonder if all that ocean out in front of the west coast has any bearing on the CO2 level?
You've got to be kidding, right? I'm interested to hear what denier blog you got this from.
Whoever is putting this argument forward clearly has no scruples at all.
It does'nt matter how much co2 is created since when it rises nature's chemicals separate it all into nothingness to keep all clear. Oh Global Warming ended 2012. Mike
If you exhale you emit CO2, nuff said.
Nope, not exactly.
When it comes to (big money)...
A scientist, or a team of scientist will conclude what-ever you want the scientist to conclude.
If the price is right.
Al Gore made over 750 million dollars preaching (man-made)global warming.
Note the difference...
Man made global warming. (is pure B/S)
Natural global warming. (is real) .
Al Gore paid a team of scientist, to conclude what he wanted.
YOU -yourself can buy a scientist - with the findings you want, if you had the money.
Here is scientific proof to the opposite.
In an October 15 1998 issue of the Columbia University News, author Taro Takahashi, a senior research scientist wrote:
“We know that we who reside in the United States emit about 6.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. As an air mass travels from west to east, it should receive carbon dioxide and the East Coast concentration of CO2 should be higher than on the West Coast. But observervations tell us otherwise.
“The mean atmospheric CO2 concentration on the East Coast has been observed to be lower than that over the Pacific coast. This means that more CO2 is taken up by land ecosystems over the United States than is released by industrial activities.”
They have these peer reviewed papers but no science experments to back them up .
