Researchers Measure Global Carbon Dioxide Levels
Using data generated by planes that traveled between the North and South Poles, Harvard researchers generated the first set of highly detailed measurements of greenhouse gas levels across the globe.
Join the discussion below, or Read more at Harvard Crimson.
#1 Feb 21, 2013
The title is misleading. Another US "team obtained 785 vertical profiles and 400 flask samples from the atmosphere in under 600 hours of flight."
However, they don't mention how much greenhouse gas production they caused in their pursuit of more measurements.
#2 Feb 21, 2013
Using RJ's or Canadian regional jets, they might burn an average 3000 pounds per hour of fuel with take-offs. I suspect they were probably flying higher than average to get a full range of elevation measurements.
Rough guess may be 16,000 tons of CO2 produced. Including fuel burned to transport fuel to airport.... roughly 24,000 tons.......~1.5 million times less than global industry, transportation & wasteful commuter produced CO2.
With the data collected & even more surprising findings, it was an excellent project. Of course, it was NOT as energy & CO2-produced efficient as the U.S. Coast Guard & University of Washington Arctic data project. But it was wide ranging & sweet.
#3 Feb 21, 2013
Our future is melting before our very eyes.
Fiddling With The Data While The World Burns
Today, there is simply no excuse for the denial of climate science, often exemplified at its most egregious in the UK by the Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday, influential newspapers with large circulations of around two million each. Columnist James Delingpole and reporter David Rose can lay claim to being the worst and most persistent offenders. Delingpole wrongly asserted last October that the UK Met Office has finally conceded what other scientists have known for ages: there is no evidence that global warming is happening. Rose pushed the same anti-science line that global warming stopped 16 years ago. Despite the Met Office explaining the science personally to Rose, last month he continued to publish the same discredited nonsense, even warning that the Thames will be freezing over again. The Met Office has repeatedly rebutted error-strewn articles by these propagandists in the Mail and Mail on Sunday, pointing to a series of factual inaccuraces,misleading information and journalism that is entirely misleading.
Only one conclusion is possible: within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public.
Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause.
The notable US science writer Phil Plait marveled at Powells persistence in unearthing the facts and figures, saying:
His premise was simple: if global warming isnt real and theres an actual scientific debate about it, that should be reflected in the scientific journals.
But Powells findings were clear, says Plait:
There is no scientific controversy over this. Climate change denial is purely, 100 per cent made-up political and corporate-sponsored crap.
When the loudest voices are fossil-fuel funded think tanks, when they dont publish in journals but instead write error-laden op-eds in partisan venues, when they have to manipulate the data to support their point, then what theyre doing isnt science. Its nonsense. And worse, its dangerous nonsense. Because theyre fiddling with the data while the world burns.
#5 Mar 9, 2013
From the article below..
What would serious steps entail?
According to the Meinshausen paper, up to 80 per cent of our known reserve of fossil fuels will have to stay in the ground.
The carbon budget implied by the 2 C limit, Jaccard wrote,means that we cannot be making new investments that expand the carbon polluting infrastructure.
This means no expansion of oilsands, no new pipelines (like Keystone and Northern Gateway) and no expansion of coal mines and coal ports.
This does not mean shutting down the oilsands. It does not mean shutting coal mines. These will continue to operate for decades. But you cannot be expanding carbon polluting production and also prevent 2 C or even 4 C temperature increase. The industry knows this, but prefers its ads telling us about the jobs and revenue from expanding the polluting infrastructure.
But the remedies needed, Rees suggested, might have to be even more draconian than that.
Even the International Energy Agency and the World Bank have recently conceded that even if present agreed-upon policies were implemented, the world is likely headed to four Celsius degrees warming by the end of the century. This would render much of the most heavily populated parts of the earth uninhabitable ...
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Pete+M ...
Add your comments below
|Weird science: 3 win Nobel physics prize for un...||Oct 5||Cromagnon Man||5|
|Stiff and oxygen-deprived tumors promote spread...||Sep '16||Stephany McDowell||1|
|Princeton honors memory of 'Mind' mathematician...||Aug '16||Actual Science||1|
|Words you can't use at Princeton: Mankind, manp...||Aug '16||JCK||1|
|Happy Birthday, Sonia Sotomayor, First Hispanic... (Feb '13)||Jul '16||swedenforever||5|
|Astronomy: Columbus native helped verify NASA's...||Jun '16||Contrarian||4|
|Panel describes scourge of modern slavery (Feb '16)||Feb '16||JANICE||3|
Find what you want!
Search Princeton University Forum Now
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC