It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA Pinpoints Cause of Earth’s Recent Record Carbon Dioxide Spike

page: 1
35
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+14 more 
posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 10:44 AM
link   

A new NASA study provides space-based evidence that Earth’s tropical regions were the cause of the largest annual increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration seen in at least 2,000 years. Scientists suspected the 2015-16 El Nino -- one of the largest on record -- was responsible, but exactly how has been a subject of ongoing research. Analyzing the first 28 months of data from NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) satellite, researchers conclude impacts of El Nino-related heat and drought occurring in tropical regions of South America, Africa and Indonesia were responsible for the record spike in global carbon dioxide. The findings are published in the journal Science Friday as part of a collection of five research papers based on OCO-2 data.

www.nasa.gov...

It's things like that that make me pause a bit when I'm told things like "the science is settled". here we are in the year 2017, with fears of looming death of the planet due to man's destructive habits, and natural causes have been laughed out of the equation by most, then this pops up. Where it seems a very natural occurrence "El Ninio" had made a very large contribution to the C02 emissions.

I realize this does nothing to disprove AGW, it's just a small tidbit of information, but the question now becomes, was this factored into the models, and if not, why? (yes the answer is kind of a trick)
edit on 13-10-2017 by network dude because: added link



+17 more 
posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Don't fight the narrative!
Tax everyone! That's the solution!
People caused it all!
Tax!
AGW!


/s






edit on 13-10-2017 by havok because:



+5 more 
posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

c'mon.....if you cut down or burn down vast swaths of green foliage, there is less plant life to absorb the carbon-dioxide, did you ever have a science class?......also, there are limits to the amount of carbon-dioxide that can be absorbed by plant life, once they reach that amount, they can no longer absorb more....but, you would know that too, if you took a science class, or bothered to do some research



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude



"the science is settled"


Science is never set in stone and only continues to evolve as we evolve with it.

Science is mostly theories, and theories are only good until a better one comes out.


+17 more 
posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

That literally has nothing to do with the OP or article discussed...


+1 more 
posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude


I find it disingenuous that this 'record' is limited to 2,000 years.

IIRC, glacial evidence points to four times more CO2 further back. 2,000 years is nothing, history-wise, and when we look at maps as recent as 80,000 years ago there was an ocean right in the middle of the U.S. continent-that's why we have a 'salt lake' in Utah- and the warming trend has been going on for a LOT longer than the 'blink' of 2,000 years.


+5 more 
posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 11:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: network dude

c'mon.....if you cut down or burn down vast swaths of green foliage, there is less plant life to absorb the carbon-dioxide, did you ever have a science class?......also, there are limits to the amount of carbon-dioxide that can be absorbed by plant life, once they reach that amount, they can no longer absorb more....but, you would know that too, if you took a science class, or bothered to do some research



Can you please quote me the parts relevant to your post in the article linked. thanks for setting me straight.



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

yes. cause and effect is a myth... because scientists dont do simulations of our waste outputs on 1/100th scales to see results.

there's not a single scientist or scientific paper that has attributed the withering O layer to solely a single culprit.
.
el Nino didnt mysteriously materialize, it took an imbalance to cause an unbalanced weather system in the first place.

we farm, destroy forests, produce 500 times per tonne more plastics than 50 years after its inception into mass markets, use fossil fuels like our lives depended on it, we are the most abundant species today, and the most of any single species by population... and we think we are all that matters or we're the absolute.

yea, i think we do contribute, albeit not all, to the decrepit atmosphere and polar caps. extreme changes from the norm aren't observed on any other planetary bodies in our solar system at this pace..

beyond all of this, taxes are the inconvenience. at least ill be long gone in 1000 years when massive tsunamis become a 'season'

... you may not have explicitly denied man's hands in the changes our atmosphere, but it's more than obvious what you're insinuating. so, no fallacies please...
edit on 13-10-2017 by odzeandennz because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Wrong it is my fault.
Now I need a brow beating to make me conform, while those who tell me to conform do as they please. /Sarc

The simple climate change or global warming theory is not solved science. It is a nothing more than a money making scheme.



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Climate change scientist don't disagree with natural causes for sudden changes, they know this, and predict it. But they also do not ignore that on top of all these naturally occurring events humans don't make it any better.

Denying climate change, is one thing, but denying humans make it worse is another.
it's like someone who drinks to much alcohol, they know the older they get the more prone they are to diseases, but they ignore that alcohol is making it worse and blame it on age.



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: network dude

c'mon.....if you cut down or burn down vast swaths of green foliage, there is less plant life to absorb the carbon-dioxide, did you ever have a science class?......also, there are limits to the amount of carbon-dioxide that can be absorbed by plant life, once they reach that amount, they can no longer absorb more....but, you would know that too, if you took a science class, or bothered to do some research




Hey bud, the line for martyrs is over....... there.



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 11:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: network dude

Climate change scientist don't disagree with natural causes for sudden changes, they know this, and predict it. But they also do not ignore that on top of all these naturally occurring events humans don't make it any better.

Denying climate change, is one thing, but denying humans make it worse is another.
it's like someone who drinks to much alcohol, they know the older they get the more prone they are to diseases, but they ignore that alcohol is making it worse and blame it on age.



Tell me another joke, grampa



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Denying the CO2 spike we have been observing is not mostly from burning fossil fuels is embracing ignorance.

El Nino may cause a small rise while human activity has caused the historical spike. (Never has there been a 100++ppm rise in such a short time). Humans are the cause the consequnces are debatable but certainly not negligible.

The El Nino CO2 spike is not noticeable compared to the antropogenic spike.
www.esrl.noaa.gov...
edit on 13-10-2017 by jrod because: Add



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: FHomerK

Have anything constructive to add to the thread?



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 11:53 AM
link   
My take on reading this article, is that some natural factors contribute a good bit to the increase in C02, and this isn't the kind of news you normally see advertised on the MSM. It's against the narrative. And this is the kind of thing that when factored into the models, should help put some sort of percentage man is responsible for adding to the problems. (which is a very valid question in my uninformed opinion)

So to recap, I'm not deying anything, I'm not claiming man has no influence in nature, and I'm not ragging on Al Gore, I'm simply bringing this article to the forum, and offering my opinion that since this is against the "it's all mans fault" narrative, this isn't the kind of article you will find in the MSM.

And while I'm not anywhere near as intelligent as a liberal would be, I do comprehend photosynthesis.



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 11:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
Denying the CO2 spike we have been observing is not mostly from burning fossil fuels is embracing ignorance.

El Nino may cause a small rise while human activity has caused the historical spike. (Never has there been a 100++ppm rise in such a short time). Humans are the cause the consequnces are debatable but certainly not negligible.

The El Nino CO2 spike is not noticeable compared to the antropogenic spike.
www.esrl.noaa.gov...


Complain to NASA, not me. I just posted the article.



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 12:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: jimmyx
a reply to: network dude

c'mon.....if you cut down or burn down vast swaths of green foliage, there is less plant life to absorb the carbon-dioxide, did you ever have a science class?......also, there are limits to the amount of carbon-dioxide that can be absorbed by plant life, once they reach that amount, they can no longer absorb more....but, you would know that too, if you took a science class, or bothered to do some research



Can you please quote me the parts relevant to your post in the article linked. thanks for setting me straight.


the article refers to 3 general regions studied, one was Malaysia which the article said has had vast deforestation, I should have narrowed my reference to that



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

So, is your claim that NASA is too ignorant to consider this as well? I mean, you're attacking the messenger and not the source, which is NASA.

Something interesting to consider, and something that is attested to time and again from ice core samples and other data, is that the temperature was the CAUSE of the CO2 increase, and not an effect from it. From the OP's source (which, again, is NASA):

In eastern and southeastern tropical South America, including the Amazon rainforest, severe drought spurred by El Nino made 2015 the driest year in the past 30 years. Temperatures also were higher than normal. These drier and hotter conditions stressed vegetation and reduced photosynthesis, meaning trees and plants absorbed less carbon from the atmosphere. The effect was to increase the net amount of carbon released into the atmosphere.

In contrast, rainfall in tropical Africa was at normal levels, based on precipitation analysis that combined satellite measurements and rain gauge data, but ecosystems endured hotter-than-normal temperatures. Dead trees and plants decomposed more, resulting in more carbon being released into the atmosphere. Meanwhile, tropical Asia had the second-driest year in the past 30 years. Its increased carbon release, primarily from Indonesia, was mainly due to increased peat and forest fires -- also measured by satellite instruments.


So, sure, the decomposition and loss of sequestered CO2 due to deforestation is a concern, but obviously, it's not the only thing to consider, and it's certainly not the OP's fault that NASA comes to these conclusions.



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 12:15 PM
link   
The earth has been around for billions of years and has undergone many periods of warming and cooling, most of them before humans ever existed.

Man comes along and thinks the solution is more tax.


It's beyond ridiculous.

NASA are obviously starting to learn more about nature and have probably reached the equivalent of a 4yr old learning about maths.



posted on Oct, 13 2017 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Seems NASA disagrees with you...hmmm...who do I think is more qualified on the subject...NASA...or...Jrod? Yea I think I'll weight what NASA has to say a little more than what Jrod has to say considering NASA has scientists, satellites, computer models, and data from way back.







 
35
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join