This is my answer to project vulcan:

Compo,G.P., and P.D. Sardeshmukh, 2008: Oceanic influences on recent continental warming. Climate Dynamics, in press.

The abstract reads

�Evidence is presented that the recent worldwide land warming has occurred largely in response to a worldwide warming of the oceans rather than as a direct response to increasing greenhouse gases (GHGs) over land. Atmospheric model simulations of the last half-century with prescribed observed ocean temperature changes, but without prescribed GHG changes, account for most of the land warming. The oceanic influence has occurred through hydrodynamic-radiative teleconnections, primarily by moistening and warming the air over land and increasing the downward longwave radiation at the surface. The oceans may themselves have warmed from a combination of natural and anthropogenic influences.�

I think this extremely relevant article with all the recent comments by APS,
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/
mainstream media news, Long proponents now going anti-AGW aka David Evans.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html The days of this "theory "(AGW)are numbered

I have a stupid question. How do they convert measurement of carbon dioxide to weitght? Is there a specific volume and pressuer that is used?

Interesting but not really meaningful. CO2 is still a trace gas with no scientifically established relationship to climate. Why do these studies ignore the most important greenhouse gas, water vapor, and devote so much effort and energy to monitoring CO2?

If the purpose is to gain a better understanding of the relationship between atmospheric gases and the influence they may or may not have on climate then why study such a minor player? The theory that greenhouse gases trap heat and cause warming would be better investigated by tackling the dominant greenhouse gas, not one which is a residual in the chemistry of earth's atmosphere.

If these are actual measurements which are recorded, why doesn't the map show a clear and distinct drift caused by atmospheric movements?

I'm afraid that reality is not part of the agenda here ..........Pollution is always worse downwind!!!! Duh ........Oh yeah ....pollution is not as important/politically correct as that dreaded CO2!

Rick:

The short answer to your question is "Because they can't tax and regulate water vapor and use its taxation and regulation to establish more government control over your life."

The AGW agenda is basically the "watermelon green" (i.e., green on the outside, red on the inside) agenda (essentially, globalized socialism). The people who support this agenda are anti-capitalist, anti-industry, anti-development, and, in the end, anti-human. They understand the truth about "carbon footprint" reduction (i.e., that there is no way we could possibly replace the energy currently derived from fossil fuels with so-called "renewable" or "alternative" sources like solar and wind, and that the only real way to do so is ECONOMIC CONTRACTION), but they persist in spreading lies and fantasies about doing so. Think about why they are so dead set against nuclear power - they don't WANT human beings to have access to cheap abundant energy, because they are in essence anti-human.

To think of it another way: Carbon taxes/carbon caps are but a baby step away from "taxing the air that you breathe." Literally.

How about it peaks in the summer because of warmer weather, faster metabolism of bacteria, and photosynthesis? If nothing else, plants are actively growing in the warmer weather, and there's a lot more stuff on the ground to rot. It's rots less in the winter.

Sorry, I know that doesn't fit into the people did it mentality.

Why is this a chart about the US?

What about the rest of the world? I thought it was global warming.

India, China, and Russia don't count, huh?

Dirty ice in the Arctic. Look at the yellow-brown ice in the upper left quadrant of the image, to see why the Northwest Passage is now prone to warming and melting. Compare the color vs. the melted area on the center-right side of the iimage.

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?T082040720

Odd that NSIDC doesn't talk about this? It stands out like a sore thumb.

Oh, and Brett, you mean "Carbon County" didn't come in first?! LOL They should be ashamed of themselves for not living up to their name!

Can I just say "ditto" to Rick Ressler? Nobody has shown any climate change from CO2. It's entirely theoretical and based on models which have not been shown to be accurate.

Yes, we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas and all other things being equal, adding more greenhouse gases to a closed system traps more heat. But the earth's climate is not that simple. Many things work in the lab but don't work outside. The theory needs supporting evidence and computer models aren't evidence.

Simple put, our computer models work on the premise that increased CO2 in the atmosphere increase the greenhouse effect. Is it any wonder those models show increased warming?

Doug:

That's not a stupid question, that is a great question. Frankly, I don't have the answer. I wish I did.

I have always thought that the number was based upon how best to freak out the general public. Last I checked, no one ever figured how much fuel I use. Sure I buy it at the gas station and they can probably guess the amount of CO2 released from that, but it does get into pressures and the like. And whose to say I haven't stockpiled fuel and haven't burned it yet. And, more importantly, how about other sources of fuel? Wood and the like. It creates CO2, how is that taken into account?

Really, I think it is, at best, an educated guess intended to suit the needs of whoever is making the guess.

Remember, CO2 is heavier than air. So, it's concentration should be quite low in altitude. If you look at the stated amount of "tons" of CO2, it works out to something like 8 PSF. Seems like a lot to me.

The CO2 levels go up in the summer since it is the "hay making" time for the AGW crowd. Much easier to prove your "hot" point when the outside temp is warmer. Otherwise, my summer cooling bill is about 1/3 of my winter warming bill. So, my energy usage is way less in summer than winter. So, the result is that my CO2 output is much less now than it will be in winter. I suspect that most other areas are similar. Sure the southwest might be more, but the area is small compared tot he rest of the country.

The data on the map would indicate a that more populated areas produce more CO2. Since more people= more CO2, wouldn't less people=less CO2?

If that's the case, why don't we push for population reduction (worldwide) in order to curb emissions. If the IPCC really wanted to do something about this issue, they would be mandating lower birth rates. To politically incorrect?

I live immediately south of Carbon County, PA which is listed #12 of carbon emmitters in the US. This designation defies belief, and certainly would call into question the entire methodology used by the study. Carbon County,PA has a population of 61,000. It has very little industry and is primarily a wooded mountainous terrain. It was formerly part of the anthracite coal mining region in NE PA, but that has dwindled in recent decades to almost no activity. There are a couple electic generating plants in the county, and it it crossed by 2 moderately traveled interstates. Unless there is more than meets the eye, these results are totally inconceivable. (Not that carbon emissions mean anything anyway.)

We wouldn't need a project vulcan if we were to build my "Tunnels". This is an example of how effective the "Tunnels" are in eliminating carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

This all about your tax dollars being used and keeping many PhD’s with dubious degrees employed. Again this is not a science but a field of study in which the participants use very expensive scientific instruments and then construct their vision based on what they want to prove.
Overlay pictures of the interstate system, cities over 30,000, electric generating plants, heavy industry and refineries and you get the same picture as this vaunted project accomplished. Using public information found on the internet that incredible discovery and ensuing map should have cost about fifty bucks American in time and crayons. In reality however, I fear it cost a whole lot more……..
…..and you wonder why they need a carbon tax? LOL
What are we laughing about? The jokes and cost is on us.

This is a very interesting take on the CO2 concentration issue:
http://co2science.org/articles/V11/N30/EDIT.php

Patrick H.

Am I looking at penguin guano in that satellite photo?

cs1992. Will you be the first to take it upon yourself to reduce population via hari-kari?

Mr. Spencer Tesitifies in front of Senator Barbara Boxer

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=e12b56cb-4c7b-4c21-bd4a-7afbc4ee72f3

Say Goodbye to Global Hysteria

"Interesting but not really meaningful. CO2 is still a trace gas with no scientifically established relationship to climate. Why do these studies ignore the most important greenhouse gas, water vapor, and devote so much effort and energy to monitoring CO2?"

I have asked myself this question hundreds of times, and can only deduce that it is about control. It might be interesting to know about water vapor by studying it a lot more, but in the end most of us realize there will be little that can be done to alter this greenhouse gas no matter how much we know even realizing that vapor is a much more potent gas.

Alarmists focus on carbon because they can link it to the car and energy sources that many never liked to begin with. I am saying it is possible to at least on paper maybe make a dent in the C02 levels that supposedly are increasing.

It is an easier fix - maybe, and one that can galvanize many to change their way of living to suit those that dislike the capitalistic structure here in the US.

I would agree with AGW is not Science.

The green movement is similar to any religion. It is like when somebody insist they know the word of God. They know God exists even though there is no proof and the discussion ends there. It is simple. THEY KNOW. The relation between CO2 and any climate change is sketchy at best. There is no concrete proof and so to prove it is real they are going to carve out CO2, label it as very bad for the environment, and do their best to eliminate it to prove that C02 is in fact the reason the climate changes. In doing so, green supporters, will have killed two birds with one stone. They can target their enemy, C02, and while doing so mold this country and hopefully the world into a place that supports income redistribution and a much less aggressive capitalistic system. The only caveat is that many, including Gore, our leader, only subscribe to this economic change when it comes to others.

BTW, I believe in God but then what do I know.

Another NASA scientist testifies before the Senate about having his global warming research suppressed - by the Clinton/Gore administration - and not a peep out of the press. No front page headlines, not even any back page coverage.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=e12b56cb-4c7b-4c21-bd4a-7afbc4ee72f3

The agenda of the liberal press has nothing to do with honesty, integrity or democracy. It is about taking control of Washington.

Darren

Remember, CO2 is heavier than air. So, it's concentration should be quite low in altitude. If you look at the stated amount of "tons" of CO2, it works out to something like 8 PSF. Seems like a lot to me.

I'm pretty sure that CO2 is fairly well-mixed throughout the atmosphere, much more so than H2O vapor.

I just heard on a show on the history channel the earth has not had co2 levels this high in 45 million years, unfortunately I left and didn't see the show but as I left I'm wondering why were co2 levels that high then, actually how high were they, today it is said that we can't completely recover from the damage that is done, well it recovered then, anyhow need to research that if anyone has more info I would love to hear it. Back to the map I live to the south east of some red areas so I guess I'd be getting the downwing effect as now I'll have to quit eating snow,lol. Wouldn't the entire appalachian chain be a catcher for alot of this? As down through west virginias' mts are light colored would they be affected more than east of the mountains, bearing there is usually a west wind. Perhaps co2 is a pollutant in some form but still there is no evidence of it causing warming. One more ? about the map, the affects for what they are, would depend on terrain, land type all be it open, forested, city correct? It looks like they dotted a map of cities and power plants, kinda like one of my old homework assignments it looks like they done my homework but who would know. Whatever it is I'm sure it is all Bushs' fault,lol.

Patrick,

Dirty ice in the Arctic. Look at the yellow-brown ice in the upper left quadrant of the image, to see why the Northwest Passage is now prone to warming and melting. Compare the color vs. the melted area on the center-right side of the iimage.

If that were really dirty ice, it would also show up in this image that is centered more on the area you referenced in your photo. Since it does not, it would seem your hypothesis is incorrect. I think the "yellow-brown ice" in the photo you linked was more an artifact of the angle of the sunlight on broken ice and the distortion in that part of the satellite photo.

Gases mix at a molecular level. In spite of the different mass of O2 and N2 molecules, they mix fairly evenly through the atmosphere.

H20 makes up 0-4% of the atmosphere, but varies in concentration because atmospheric temperatures are well below the boiling point of H20, and because there are large irregular bodies of liquid water on the surface.

CO2 only makes up 0.00038 of the atmosphere, and is relatively uniform.

I wonder if they could come out with a nice map showing the oxygen concentrations, how many tons of it are emmitted annually, and which area is the "oxygen capital".

That's the gas that keeps us alive, remember?

This does not include natural emissions. They are not measuring anything. They are estimating from other data. They may not be too bad, and are probably good enough for the magic models.

If you added in the natural emissions from trees and such, I wonder if Texas would be so red?

Lets say that even with natural emissions added on, that there was still an uneven distribution. Don't the magic models all assume well mixed CO2 throughout the atmosphere? Would that mean they need to do some more model tweaking?

vincent guerrini Jr | July 22, 2008 12:57 AM:

I skimmed that article to. Doesn't it accuse the mother of all greenhouse gases?

And who could the mother be? Can we say HOH?