The Revenge of the Climate Reparations

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach Much of the current angst at the UN regarding climate has to do with the idea of “climate reparations”. These are an imaginary debt supposedly owed by the major CO2 emitting nations to the countries of the developing world. As the story goes, we in the industrialized world have been “polluting” the atmosphere with the well-known plant food CO2, and despite the lack of any evidence of any damage caused, we’re supposed to pony up and pay the developing countries megabucks to ease their pain. net co2 flux 2010 IBUKU data

In that regard, I’ve spent the morning laughing at the results I’ve gotten from the Japanese IBUKI satellite CO2 data. It shows the net CO2 flow (emission less sequestration) on a 1°x1° grid for the planet. Their website describes the project thusly:

The Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite “IBUKI” (GOSAT), developed jointly by the Ministry of the Environment Japan, the National Institute for Environmental Studies, and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (hereinafter the Three Parties), is the world’s first satellite designed specifically for monitoring atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) from space.

The satellite has been in operation since its launch on January 23, 2009. The Three Parties will now publicly distribute the data of global CO2 fluxes on a monthly and regional basis for the one-year period between June 2009 and May 2010. These flux values were estimated from ground-based CO2 monitoring data and improved GOSAT-based CO2 concentration data.

It has been confirmed that uncertainties in CO2 flux estimates can be reduced by the addition of GOSAT data to the ground-based observations. This is the first concrete demonstration of the utility of satellite-based concentration data in the estimation of global CO2 fluxes.

It is expected that this progress in the field of global carbon cycle research will lead to more reliable climate change prediction and to the development of effective environmental policies for mitigating global warming in the future.

So why was I laughing? Well, let me unfold the story. First, here is the map showing the net emissions for 2010, the only full calendar year of data in the dataset:

net co2 flux 2010 IBUKU dataFigure 1. Net emissions by gridcell, IBUKI satellite CO2 data. Click to embiggen.

Now, there are some interesting things about this map.

First, it appears to be pretty accurate. For example, if you look at the lower right part of Australia, you can see the two big cities of Sydney and Melbourne as red dots in the sea of blue.

Next, you can see that while the central Pacific is a net emitter of CO2 (yellow band from above Australia to South America), the intertropical convergence zone immediately north of that is a net absorber. I speculate that this is because of the large amount of rainfall in the area. Atmospheric CO2 dissolves in rain, which is why all rain is very slightly acid. This absorbs more CO2 than in the drier area to the south.

In addition you can see that the tropics emits about twice as much as the temperate zones per square metre … not what I expected.

Next, by and large where there are lots of humans there is a lot of CO2 emitted. Yes, there are also some areas where CO2 is being emitted without much human habitation … but generally, humans = CO2.

So … I figured I’d take the data and divide it up by country, to see how much CO2 each country either emits or absorbs. The answers were pretty surprising … Figure 2 shows the top 20 biggest net emitters of CO2.

top 20 carbon emitting nationsFigure 2. Net emissions by country.

That’s where I started laughing … I can just see France demanding climate reparations from India, or the UK demanding reparations from the “Democratic” Republic of the Congo … It gets better. Figure 3 shows the top twenty sequestering nations …

top 20 carbon sequestering nationsFigure 3. Net sequestration by country.

Funnier and funnier … Sweden and Norway get to demand reparations from Russia, Finland can send a bill to the USA, while Australia can dun China for eco-megabucks.

Now … how can we understand some of these results? I will speculate, as I have no direct data … although it is claimed to be in the IBUKI datasets, I haven’t got there yet.

First, there are two big missing items in the previous standard CO2 accounting, sequestration and biomass burning. In most of the poor countries of the world, they are so ecologically conscious that they mainly use renewable energy for cooking and heating. And despite being all eco-sensitive and all these uncounted millions of open fires burning wood, twigs, and trash add up to a lot of CO2. Plus a bunch of pollution making up the “brown haze” over Asia, but that’s another question …

In addition, both India and China have huge permanent underground wildfires in their coal seams, spewing CO2 (plus really ugly pollution) 24/7. The other wild card is sequestration. In Australia, I speculate that it is due to the huge amount of exposed rock and sand. The mild acids in the rain and the dew dissolves the rocks and sand, sequestering the CO2.

In Canada, Norway, Sweden and Finland, I’ve got to assume that it has something to do with being far north and having lots of forests … but there are still lots of unanswered questions.

Anyhow, that was my fun for the morning … someone should write all of this up for the journals, I suppose, but I always feel like I have to give myself a lobotomy to write standard scientific prose.

Anyone want to go co-authors with me and handle the writing and the submission?

And my congratulations to my Argentinian, Brazilian, and Australian friends for winning the carbon lottery, they can demand climate reparations from every other country on the planet.

My best to everyone,

w.

BONUS GRAPHICS: Someone requested white color at the zero level:

net co2 flux 2010 IBUKU data white

And here are the breakdowns by region …

IBUKU carbon sequestration by region

THE USUAL REQUEST: If you think that someone is wrong about something, please QUOTE THEIR EXACT WORDS. I SHOUT BECAUSE THIS IS IMPORTANT. QUOTE THEIR WORDS so that we can all understand exactly what you are objecting to. If you object to a long comment and all you link to is the comment, that’s not useful. We need to know exactly what you think is incorrect, the exact words that you find to be in error.

CODE: It’s ugly, but it’s here. It’s an 18 Mb zip file including code, functions, data (NCDF files), and product sheet. I think all parts are there, ask if you have questions.

SPREADSHEET DATA: I’ve collated the country-level data into a CSV file here.

DATA: It took a while to find it, because it’s at another website. You have to register first. Afterwards, log in, click on “Product Search and Order”, and select L4A global CO2 flux.

PRODUCT SHEET: The details of the various CO2 products are here, from the same website, not sure if you have to log in first. It’s also in my zipped file above.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

with the well-known plant food CO2, and despite [the lack of] any evidence of any damage caused,

Ashby

This is exactly what I’ve been thinking about today, given that new satellite that just went up. It’ll be interesting to see what it shows.
Anyone care to wager odds on the raw data being available? Or do you think it’ll get corrected with no access to original data? Some of the things I read about the GOSAT indicated it might have a problem with dust fooling the CO2 detection. It’ll be interesting to see if they’ve resolved that. In any event, more data is better!

Willis Eschenbach

Thanks, Charles, fixed. Also, the dang WordPress ate all my carriage returns … fixed also.
w.

Richard

That is a cracker of an article Willis! Great find.
I am soooo proud to be an Aussie, hence ‘doing’ my bit to save Gaia from the invasion of the Carbon monster.

William Sears

Thanks for the smile Willis. For both the data analysis and the thought that you need someone else’s help in writing. I find that papers have to be constructed in a slow laborious fashion, sort of like building a house, but then my writing skills are minimal.

nigelf

My country of Canada is doing so well at sequestration that we can go full bore at the oil sands. Yipee!

Thanks, Willis, excellent article. I’m pleased with New Zealand’s result – the seventh largest CO2 sequestering nation on the earth. Not bad for a little short of 4.5 million people! I’ll let our Ministry for the Environment know and perhaps they’ll take the ETS tax off petrol, diesel, electricity, gas, etc. But don’t hold your breath.

“It is expected that this progress in the field of global carbon cycle research will lead to more reliable climate change prediction”
Ha ha ha. That’s a good one. Since climate change has nothing to do with CO2 concentrations or emissions, it’s a given that ANY predictions based on this data had better be ZERO HAPPENS or they will be TOTALLY WRONG.
As there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas and no gas at any concentration in the atmosphere can drive the climate, this is just part of the political agenda to decide who gets to pay for being humans not starving to death, per the UN’s Agenda 21.
Global warming “science” requires that the upper tropical troposphere must be warming faster than the surface. Not only is this region of the atmosphere not warmer, it has been cooling over the last few decades. [And the surface has not significantly warmed since 1992.] There is NO HOTSPOT in the upper tropical troposphere.
And, as that region is -17 deg C and the surface is 15 deg C, it is impossible for this atmosphere to warm the surface—completely against the laws of thermodynamics. Sure, pure CO2 in a bottle irradiated with IR radiation can get warmer, but that is a greenhouse effect in a bottle. The bottle prevents convection but our atmosphere has convection in the form of the water cycle, a huge global heat engine that ramps up with any warming and exerts a negative feedback effect. It is responsible for about 85% of the energy transport from the surface and is totally ignored by global warming “science.”

From the article above:

Next, you can see that while the central Pacific is a net emitter of CO2 (yellow band from above Australia to South America), the intertropical convergence zone immediately north of that is a net absorber. I speculate that this is because of the large amount of rainfall in the area. Atmospheric CO2 dissolves in rain, which is why all rain is very slightly acid. This absorbs more CO2 than in the drier area to the south.
In addition you can see that the tropics emits about twice as much as the temperate zones per square metre … not what I expected.

Odd. I cannot justify any reason for Antarctica to be a light green color.
The 14 Mkm^2 continental land areas and 3.5 Mkm^2 shelf ice are permanently ice-covered with very, very little precipitation. Ice will absorb little CO2 from the air compared to forests and tundra, but emit little either compared to deserts or burning fuels.
The seas are a near circular ice-covered band outside of the continental rock area extending 100 – 1600 km out from the land depending on day of the year, but that band will reduce significantly between October and February as the ice melts and exposes cold open ocean. So a yearly plot may be disguising significant CO2 absorption into the exposed and covered seas during part of the year.
In the Arctic, as the sea ice melts, more CO2 can dissolve into the newly-exposed waters that were formerly ice-covered. A benefit of melting Arctic ice? 8<)

dp

Interesting that there is no European Union data – just a bunch of independent states. What a convenient union they have.

Ashby

Check out the red in Indonesia!
They may have to institute volcano credits.

What then is this “Carbon Pollution”?
A sinister, evil collusion?
CO2, it is clean,
Makes for growth, makes it green,
A transfer of wealth, a solution.
Yes the transfer of wealth is already taking place in increased plant growth from CO2 producers to CO2 consumers.
http://lenbilen.com/2014/02/22/co2-the-life-giving-gas-not-carbon-pollution-a-limerick-and-explanation/

Tom J

Is there any chance that climate reparations can be sought within a country itself from one party to another? If so, is IBUKI sensitive enough to detect this? Because I have a nagging suspicion, if it is, that Washington and its immediate suburbs would likely owe the rest of us in the US significant climate reparations. Of course they’d use our tax money to pay it.

The time period of this data is taken right during the 2009/10 El Nino. The mainly neutral ocean agrees with what F. Engelbeen was saying that the vegetation cycle is a large part of atmospheric co2 changes. It will be interesting to see the next year after this one as mid 2010 drops quickly to a -2 La Nina.
It would be nice to see the map with white as the neutral color, maybe 0.1 to -0.1, to better display the variation.

Willis Eschenbach

RACookPE1978 says:
July 5, 2014 at 6:42 pm

From the article above:
Next, you can see that while the central Pacific is a net emitter of CO2 (yellow band from above Australia to South America), the intertropical convergence zone immediately north of that is a net absorber. I speculate that this is because of the large amount of rainfall in the area. Atmospheric CO2 dissolves in rain, which is why all rain is very slightly acid. This absorbs more CO2 than in the drier area to the south.
In addition you can see that the tropics emits about twice as much as the temperate zones per square metre … not what I expected.
Odd. I cannot justify any reason for Antarctica to be a light green color.
The 14 Mkm^2 continental land areas and 3.5 Mkm^2 shelf ice are permanently ice-covered with very, very little precipitation. Ice will absorb little CO2 from the air compared to forests and tundra, but emit little either compared to deserts or burning fuels.

Thank, RA. If you look at the header in Figure 1, it gives the average value for the Antarctic (south of the dotted line at 66.5° south) as 0.001 … about as near to zero as one can get. As you point out, very little emission, very little absorption.
All the best,
w.

Gary Pearse

Hmm… this fits a theory of mine, although some readers will be tired of my thoughts on this. All atmospheric gases except diatomic oxygen are diamagnetic – repelled by a magnetic field in proportion to the strength of the field. Meanwhile, oxygen (O2) is surprisingly fairly paramagnetic – attracted to a magnetic field.
Originally, my thoughts on this related to the ozone hole, since ozone would, to some degree, be pushed away from the poles and, of course, most are aware of the low ozone over the poles except when it is being created by UV at maximum sun from abundant O2. The effect would be strengthened by the positive attraction of O2 to the polar areas which would tend to assist repelling of the other gases. It was then that I had the thought that this would also mean a coincident CO2, methane, N2, noble gases hole at the poles and a tendency to push the diamagnetic gases toward the low magnetic equator (confounded by weather and bio activity but possibly a measurable effect – most notably the inert noble gases).
Well the data of UBUKU is not conclusive but it doesn’t torpedo my idea. Here is a look at the Ozone hole. Note the thickening of the ozone in the temperate to equatorial zone, I like to say like the roll of a turtleneck sweater.
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Now if they would just do the other natural atmospheric gases, it might have something.

thegriss

At about the start of 2010, Australia had really good rains over most of the country.
Massive greening of the deserts occurred.
The new plant growth would have been sucking up CO2 like nobody’s business. !

Willis Eschenbach

goldminor says:
July 5, 2014 at 7:13 pm

The time period of this data is taken right during the 2009/10 El Nino. The mainly neutral ocean agrees with what F. Engelbeen was saying that the vegetation cycle is a large part of atmospheric co2 changes. It will be interesting to see the next year after this one as mid 2010 drops quickly to a -2 La Nina.

First, the ocean is not “mainly neutral”. It is slightly negative, which conceals the fact that it has areas of emission and areas of absorption of CO2.
Next, because it’s so big, despite being only mildly negative, the total sequestration is about -1.5 gigatonnes/year, about five times that of Argentina (see Figure 3) …

It would be nice to see the map with white as the neutral color, maybe 0.1 to -0.1, to better display the variation.

Here ya go … the problem is that it kind of occludes the variations on the land.

w.

Ashby

Any animating gifs of this data? Will be very interesting to see full cycles complete with El Niños and volcanic eruptions.

Pat Frank

Chiefio posted about the IBUKU results, back in October 2011. He showed the real kicker, which is the amount of CO2 taken up by various areas as compared with the amount emitted.
It turned out that the US, Europe and Russia absorbed approximately all the CO2 they emitted, mostly because of intense agriculture, and in the US also the re-growth of forests. Most of the net CO2 emissions came from sub-Saharan Africa, South America, and central China.
As Chiefio quoted, “Gesturing to an indelible deep green hue streaked across the United States and Europe [JAXA spokesman Sasano told TV viewers], “in the high latitudes of the Northern hemisphere emissions were less than absorption levels.””
So, as Chiefio noted, it appears that countries of the southern hemisphere and China owe CO2 reparations to Europe, Russia, and North America.

Andyj

I would love to see this blogged against population size/CO2. Then the whole list would show per-capita.
Bets on, it will be surprising.

jim2

This IS funny.

Willis Eschenbach

Pat Frank says:
July 5, 2014 at 7:50 pm

Chiefio posted about the IBUKU results, back in October 2011. He showed the real kicker, which is the amount of CO2 taken up by various areas as compared with the amount emitted.
It turned out that the US, Europe and Russia absorbed approximately all the CO2 they emitted, mostly because of intense agriculture, and in the US also the re-growth of forests. Most of the net CO2 emissions came from sub-Saharan Africa, South America, and central China.

Thanks, Pat. I’ll have to take a look at that, Chiefio does good work.
However, it’s not true at all that “the US, Europe and Russia absorbed approximately all the CO2 they emitted”. The US and Russia are shown in Figure 2, they definitely emit more than they absorb. Here’s the breakdown by region:

w.

eyesonu

Looks like a lot of emissions in central regions of Africa. Will they be sending a check soon?

Marcos

How much impact does population density have? Surely millions of people in dense urban areas exhaling CO2 24/7 must have some noticeable effect?

Pat Frank said: “So, as Chiefio noted, it appears that countries of the southern hemisphere and China owe CO2 reparations to Europe, Russia, and North America”
Why not make the reparations process even more granular? Within the U.S. why not let the industrialized northeast and upper midwest buy carbon credits from the carbon absorbing states? Instead the administration has proposed future C02 guidelines which are punitive to states that are not contributing net C02 emissions. What’s up with that?
All that “policy makers” should care about is that the money and power shall filter through them. Let the flow of taxes/reparations/carbon credits/stimulus funds begin!

HK

A small point, but it seems odd to show the scale dark blue, green, light blue, yellow. People generally understand that green lies between blue and yellow – and indeed that green is neutral. When you look at that mass of green, you don’t get the feeling that this is the equivalent of orange on your scale. I’d suggest the graphic would be much clearer if you eliminated green and stuck to blues/purples for absorption.

FrankK

In Australia, I speculate that it is due to the huge amount of exposed rock and sand. The mild acids in the rain and the dew dissolves the rocks and sand, sequestering the CO2.
————————————————————————————————————–
Not so. its where the there is a high concentration of trees. Eastern Aus isn’t all desert!
Mild acid rain? Nonsense. Are there red dots in Sydney/Melbourne looks more like yellow or orange?

Retired Engineer John

Looking at figure 1, it is strange that Tibet would be such a strong absorber of CO2.

@ Willis…Thanks for the alternate ‘white’ graph. I thought there was more neutral to the oceans. The colors used, blue to green, for negative are not so easy to take in. I did color matching of paints and stains for almost 3 years. The hardest color to match was the greens.

norah4you

If the so called CO2-experts had realised that they don’t have a case, that be the day….
What they got is figures from stations on land and in sea not placed there for CO2-alarmists needs but for vulcanoexperts to be able to find a pattern in order to be able to warn for next exuption and/or earthquake.
As if that not all, the satellites never ever measure anything but reflexion when it comes to temperatures – not the same as actual temperatur on surface; and CO2-figures from what best could be said to be alike “photos” – changes in colors by using certain filters. Now the later never is the same for a certain area in time, over time and above all never ever after “corrections” As you all know land that seen a heavy rain aren’t looking the same neither on land or from “air” before and after – depending on ground circumstances a heavy rain can cause problem in part of your land (ask any farmer if you don’t believe me) but 200 meters from the problem area the situation can be a complete different situation. Thus the satellites using data which in it’s raw-fact situation is based on what best can be described as colors can seem alike for a large area but on ground the situation can be from water drained to overflooded within short distance on land but a small seen from satellites….
All so called CO2-analyses also have one other big problem: When ever you have readings which best can be described as apples and peaches – they all could fall under same label “fruit” but they never are exactly the same nor taste the same with or without “correction”…..

FrankK

In addition you can see that the tropics emits about twice as much as the temperate zones per square metre … not what I expected.
Next, by and large where there are lots of humans there is a lot of CO2 emitted. Yes, there are also some areas where CO2 is being emitted without much human habitation … but generally, humans = CO2.
————————————————————————————————————-
Yes in tropics for other reasons.
Not necessarily so re humans. The thing missing in this “analysis” is that there are huge quantities of soil organic matter that are released to the atmosphere not just human emissions.
http://globalecology.stanford.edu/SCOPE/SCOPE_23/SCOPE_23_3.2_chapter4_111-127.pdf
Perhaps you should have researched this a bit more thoroughly.!

richard verney

Willis
That was quick, Very interesting. of course it is unfortunate that there is only 1 full year of data. As I mentioned in the other article, if you have time to add DLR and OLR as overlays, it would be interesting to see whether there is any correlation with CO2.
Given the sinks, is CO2 well mixed?
Some of the results are surprising. For example, I have lived in both Norway and Sweden and whilst I am not surpirsed that both are net sinks, since they are both well forested with small populations, it surpirses me that Sweden is more of a sink than Norway; Sweden has a larger population and is more industrialised (Norway’s main industries are off-shore such as oil, gas, shipping and fishing). It may be something to do with the high northern latitude.
I share your view about ‘false’ accounting involved in burning biomass. The inescapable fact is that bio mass has a low calorific value and hence per unit of energy required more mass has to be burnt and more CO2 is produced. That is why it is madness to replace coal generators with biomass generators.
The lie rests within the claim that the bio mass absorbs during its own lifetime as much CO2 as it emits when burnt, such that it is CO2 neutral. That may apply to the planting of a new forest (ie., to forest land which before was simply barren land), but it is not applicable when you cut down a forest and replace an existing forest with a new forest. The old forest was already absorbing CO2 and would have continued to do so, if it had not been cut down. Accordingly, cutting down the old forest and replanting it so it grows back does not change the CO2 budget at all. Nature has, of course, already solved so many ‘problems’. If the government is truly concenrned about CO2 emissions and will not sanction new coal or gas powered generators without CCS, the simplest solution is to build a conventionally fueled generator (or keep an existing conventional fueld generator in service) and plant a new forest, ie., plant a forest on what is presently simply scrub land.
I believe that this ‘falsehood’ was based upon the assumption that young trees grow faster and therefore absorb more CO2. That assumption has always surprised me given the volume of a cylinder (such that a small increase in girth of an established tree involves more mass than a large increase in girth of a young sappling) and the canopy area of an established tree is far larger.(with presumably correspondingly more leaves). Recently, I saw a paper (unfortunately I have not got the reference) in which the CO2 absorption of young and old trees was compared and the conclusion of that paper was that old trees absorb just as much if not more CO2 than young trees.
The upshot of this is the point you make with India. It would reduce emissions in India, if they were to electrify and build conventional power generators such that wood burning stoves for cooking and heating were no longer necessary or used. It is ironic that providing poorer countries with conventionally powered generation would in fact be ‘green’ in the sense that there would be less CO2 and modern designed generators are far cleaner pollutionwise to open burning of wood.
I bet Australians would have liked to have seen the data and your analysis before the implication of their much hated carbon tax. The government would have had a hard time selling it to the public if that data had been widespread news in their MSM. It does show how ‘dishonest’ government are since I suspect that the government new that Australia was not a net emitter of CO2, even if they dod not know how big a sink it is. .

Dr Burns

“First, it appears to be pretty accurate. For example, if you look at the lower right part of Australia, you can see the two big cities of Sydney and Melbourne as red dots in the sea of blue.”
I don’t think so. Sydney is more than a dot now. Compare Darwin to the East coast of Australia.
http://www.mapsofworld.com/australia/population.html

Raving

Etna in Italy emits a lot of volcanic CO2. Are volcanic emissions filtered out of the reported results?
The ref to M. Burton (INIGV?) in the livescience article doesnt seem to be available. Not sure if that is significant
http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Livesciencecom+%28LiveScience.com+Science+Headline+Feed%29

cynical scientst

You would think New Zealand would be able to congratulate itself on being a net Carbon sequesterer. But no. Apparently our cows belch and fart so much that the inclusion of methane puts us back among the ranks of the sinful. I woud have thought all those drained swamps and wetlands converted to productive farmland would have counted as positive in terms of cutting methane emissions. But apparently no. Of coyurse that doesn’t stop the Greens from also blaming us for destruction of wetlands.

Steve from Wingham

Is the red path in the Northern territory of Australia related to scrub fires?

bobl

I’ve been pointing out for a couple of years that Australia absorbs about 20 x what it emits, and that the increase in bioproductivty due to the change in CO2 concentration from 360 PPM to 400 PPM has already completely offset Australias anthropogenic emission. Australia’s Nett emission is already below that of 1995. We’ve done our duty now and all the green schemes can be cancelled.

bobl

PS, I want to be the one to send Australia’s reparation bill to India, I think Rajenda Pachurri in particular should pay up…

littlepeaks

What is the cause of all the CO2 coming out of the southern portion of central Africa?

Richard T,you should do a write up on this and try and get it in “Stuff” news. They are having a run on global warming now.

eo

The developed countries may not be guilty as stated but their politicians have pleaded guilty, and even working hard to pay reparations for their guilt. Principle 7 of the Rio Declaration as signed by almost 192 countries is ” States shall cooperate in a spirit of global partnership to conserve, protect and restore the health and integrity of the Earth’s ecosystem. In view of the different contributions to global environmental degradation, States have common but differentiated responsibilities. The developed countries acknowledge the responsibility that they bear in the international pursuit of sustainable development in view of the pressures their societies place on the global environment and of the technologies and financial resources they command. ”
Then Principle 27 of the same declaration -“States and people shall cooperate in good faith and in a spirit of partnership in the fulfillment of the principles embodied in this Declaration and in the further development of international law in the field of sustainable development.” You could have the best lawyer and the best detective presenting evidence on the contrary but if the defendant pleads guilty and offered reparations, what could the judge do?

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia

Hello. We Chinese have bought out the country you call Australia. We demand you merge the data sets together to give true Chinese position.

joelobryan

These results should be partitioned into Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere. Of course the SH would win hands-down, as that is where all the oceans’ water vs. land mass is. Accelerating Antarctic sea ice accumulation anyone?

joelobryan

Question? Is there a Keeling plot of CO2 for Antarctica?
One thing I always wondered about the Keeling Curve is, why it doesn’t seem to show economic slowdowns, like the 2009-2010 worldwide recession? Man-made CO2 output must have slowed but did a 2nd derivative of the Keeling Curve show this?

Willis,is it o.k. To use some of these figures on comments in our “Stuff” news in New Zealand?

En Passant

MR. Willis, Thank you for taking the time to write this, but since reading your uncalled for tirade on Jo Nova’s blog I reached this point without reading it as you are no longer on my reading list and have gone from interesting to being a mere Mann in one easy move. It takes years to build a rapport, it only takes one ego-fuelled rant to end it. Along the way you have done WUWT no favours, but that is Anthony’s problem
I will move to reading the work of others, so Goodbye.

John M

Thanks Willis, as usual an interesting read…
What is surprising thought are some of the blue areas, especially around Tibet. Pehaps as you suggested for Australia, the rocks are being disolved by acid rain?. However, in Australia the areas shown in blue are areas of thick forest and pastures running along the great dividing range of NSW.

Willis Eschenbach

Joel O’Bryan says:
July 5, 2014 at 10:20 pm

These results should be partitioned into Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere. Of course the SH would win hands-down, as that is where all the oceans’ water vs. land mass is. Accelerating Antarctic sea ice accumulation anyone?

They are partitioned into NH and SH. Look at the header in Figure 1.

Willis Eschenbach

Billy NZ says:
July 5, 2014 at 10:40 pm (Edit)

Willis,is it o.k. To use some of these figures on comments in our “Stuff” news in New Zealand?

Of course. Put in a credit to me and a live link to this post, so folks can come see the full extent of the humor …
w.