text:
#AGU16 – Results from OCO2 carbon tracking satellite in 3D
Anthony Watts / December 13, 2016
Following Carbon Dioxide Through the Atmosphere
Carbon dioxide plays a significant role in trapping heat in Earth's atmosphere. The gas is released from human activities like burning fossil fuels, and the concentration of carbon dioxide moves and changes through the seasons.
Using observations from NASA's Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO-2) satellite, scientists developed a model of the behavior of carbon in the atmosphere from September 1, 2014 to August 31, 2015.
Scientists can use models like this one to better understand and predict where concentrations of carbon dioxide could be especially high or low, based on activity on the ground.
December 13, 2016 in Climate News.
While NOAA/NASA claims 2019 as the "second warmest year ever", other data shows 2019 cooler than 2005 for USA.
Merchants of Thirst
← #AGU16 Earth's Magnetic Fields Could Track Ocean Heat, NASA Study Proposes
British Energy Crisis: OFGEN Official Warns Renewables Will Leave Poor Britons "Sitting in the Dark" →
177 thoughts on "#AGU16 – Results from OCO2 carbon tracking satellite in 3D"
Timo Soren says:
Wow, I guess the term 'well-mixed' may be wrong.
But still a cool video.
Thomas Homer says:
If CO2 is not well mixed within the Earth's atmosphere, then bubbles trapped in ice cores cannot be considered representative of the Earth's global atmosphere.
george e. smith says:
The "annual cycle" of atmospheric CO2 abundance has an amplitude at the south pole of -1 ppm p-p while at the north pole it is + 18-19 ppm p-p, and about 6 ppm at Mauna Loa.
The -1 at SP indicates it is 6months out of phase with the NP.
But still we have an 18-20 to 1 ratio of CO2 anomalies from pole to pole.
You want to 'splain me again how CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere, with only a 20:1 ratio over the earth surface ! moreover at the north pole where grows no trees, it only takes 5 months to get rid of that 20 ppm excess; not 200 years.
ozonebust says:
george e
It becomes increasingly "mixed – diluted" within the atmosphere the further away from the point of source it travels.
The animation in the video from is very selective in a number of ways
1. The use of data from 1st Dec 2014 through to August 2015 does not cover the mass transfer from the NH to the SH during late August to November.
2. The angle of view on the during the year is carefully selected or designed in the model, so that the mass transfer of atmosphere bearing most of the CO2 emitted in the NH is not shown transfering into the SH.and the Antarctic vortex.
3. Look at the Antarctic vortex region in the video from June onward and the traces of CO2 are evident entering the Antarctic vortex.
3. The model is not representative of the 30 images released in April of this year.
Your comment about the 6 month delay for the CO2 cycle, are you infering that it takes that long to reach the SP ?.
20:1 is your comparison of the magnitude of variation. Well mixed is talking about concentration. From the same figures the concentration difference will be (400+/-10 )/ 400 . This is aboutr +/-2% : well mixex.
Samuel C Cogar says:
So sayith: george e. smith – December 13, 2016 at 10:59 am
So what, George E., …….. there is 13,670 feet difference in elevation between the Barrow, Alaska Observatory and the Mauna Loa, Hawaii Observatory.
And Barrow, Alaska, the same as Mauna Loa, Hawaii, is showing an average yearly (May to May) 2 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2.
And the bi-yearly cycling of atmospheric CO2 at both Barrow and Mauna Loa is still "steady n' consistent" with the changing of the Equinoxes.
NOAA monthly average CO2 ppm @ Barrow, Alaska, …… elevation – 9.8 feet
……. year mth CO2 ppm
BRW 2012 1 398.96
BRW 2012 10 393.70
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/data/trace_gases/co2/flask/surface/co2_brw_surface-flask_1_ccgg_month.txt
NOAA monthly average CO2 ppm @ Mauna Loa, Hawaii, …… elevation – 13,678 feet
year mth ————– CO2 ppm
2012 1 2012.042 393.12 393.12 392.91 30
2012 10 2012.792 391.01 391.01 394.38 30
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
Please read and comprehend my writing, to wit:
It matters not a twit iffen you are measuring atmospheric CO2 at the Barrow Alaska Observatory or at the Mauna Loa Hawaii Observatory, …… you get the same graphic profiles, to wit:
Barrow Alaska monthly mean CO2 ppm profile – annual bi-yearly cycle
https://plot.ly/~vball3ams/174/monthly-mean-co2-concentration-ppm-point-barrow-alaska.png
Barrow Alaska monthly average CO2 ppm concentrations
https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2013/08/08/barrow_co2_enl-7a5b5ef32772e7b2dfbb9dc76e30d37806e35497.jpg?s=6
Mauna Loa Hawaii monthly mean CO2 ppm profile & monthly average CO2 ppm concentrations
http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/keelingcurve.gif
And "YES", there is a greater bi-yearly decrease/increase in CO2 ppm at Barrow, Alaska, than there is at Mauna Loa Hawaii …… simply because of the differences in three (3) critical factors, which are, to wit:
Barrow AK ——- elevation above SL – 9.8 ft– 1-2% H2O vapor – latitude 71.29° N
Mauna Loa HI – elevation above SL – 13,678 ft – 0% H2O vapor – latitude 19.47° N
In Barrow, Alaska, springtime air temperatures begin to increase in the month of May and when the air temperatures begin to increase, so does the humidity (H2O vapor).
And when the humidity (H2O vapor) increases …… those large H2O molecules kinda "push n' shove" the heavier air molecules out of that locale, thus causing a DECREASE in air pressure.
And given the fact that CO2 molecules are part of those "heavier air molecules" that get pushed out of the locale, …… then there is little wonder why the atmospheric CO2 ppm at Barrow, Alaska, DECREASES as much as 18-19 ppm (as George e stated) during the summer months of May to August.
Ps: the reason Keeling moved his Observatory to the top of Mauna Loa is because there is no H2O vapor in the air up there.
Well Samuel C, I don't know what precipitated your sudden data gush.
NASA-OCO-2 sends us a fancy 3-D video of the entire planet over a period of time, showing clearly the full range of CO2 random variability from 0 to about 20 ppm from blue to red.
That matches in range a NASA-NOAA now disappeared three dimensional graph of CO2 amounts from pole to pole, over a number of years; I think it was about ten years.
And that graph shows a monotonic change in annual p-p CO2 cycle dropping from about 18-20 ppm at the north pole to about -1 ppm at the south pole, with Mona Loa falling into place at about 6 ppm, and the 0 ppm location being somewhat fuzzy.
That NASANOAA plot shows no observable altitudinal differences whatsoever.
Now the fancy video shows NZ permanently in the black, indicating no blue to red variations at all, which led me to facetiously say zero CO2 for NZ.
Certainly zero mixing variability shown by NASA-OCO-2 for New Zealand.
Now we are told that CO2 is "well mixed" in the atmosphere, and as I said, that to me means that any atmosphere sample obtained from any global location, would assay the same as any other location.
NOW ! Apparently that may not be true.
In which case, where a sample from anywhere is NOT the same as a sample form anywhere else we are immediately thrown into the area of "Sampled Data Systems"
So now it becomes mandatory to use a sampling process that conforms to the Nyquist criterion for sample data systems.
So please don't insult me, by suggesting that Mauna Loa, and Barrow Alaska are valid global measures of atmospheric CO2 abundance. I'm quite happy to accept both of them as valid measures of atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa, and Barrow Alaska, but those are clearly worthless as global information and must be corrupted by an avalanche of aliasing noise. And NO statistical machinations made on the data from those two points can be shoe-horned into any valid global average CO2 measure.
And the 6 month phase lag from NP to SP is a consequence of the Seasons inverting in the Southern Hemisphere.
Here in late Autumn in Sunnyvale California, it is late spring in Auckland NZ or the SP. Soon we will have winter in Sunnyvale but it will be summer in Auckland, and as we move on to spring next March the Southern hemisphere will be going into winter instead, and finally they will have their Autumn as we are having Summer next July-4.
The six month phase shift is NOT a time delay, but a consequence of the earth's axis tilt.
I thought the seasons was simple 4-H club science.
The OCO-2 video has embarrassingly shown that the global models assuming a uniform CO2 all over the globe are total rubbish.
Clyde Spencer says:
I think that that argument revolves around the definition of "well-mixed." However, I suspect that CO2 is not as well-mixed as nitrogen or argon.
Well now, Georgie boy, the fact is that it was precipitated due to your utter ignorance of the biological and physical science facts about the natural world that you currently exist in/on.
George E., it is about time that you started paying attention to what I have been telling you …… instead of you assuming that you know far more than I do, that you are far more intelligent than I am, that you are far better educated in biological and physical sciences than I ever will be and that you have a vastly amount more years of experiences in/of the functioning of the natural world known as earth's biosphere.
George E., do you actually believe that those NASA/NOAA satellites can see, detect or photograph an atmospheric residing CO2 molecule? ……. BOY, ….. are you gullible.
Also sayith: george e. smith
So please don't insult me, by suggesting that Mauna Loa, and Barrow Alaska are valid global measures of atmospheric CO2 abundance.
George, you have given me plenty of opportunity in your postings to INSULT your weird beliefs and lack of factual knowledge …… and what you stated above is one of them.
So don't be talking stupid, its unbecoming of you. CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa, and Barrow are VALID measurements INCLUSIVELY to those locations ONLY.
Well of course you think that, George, iffen your 4-H Club was the last place you ever learned anything about the seasons.
So New Zealand has NO CO2 in its atmosphere. That's where we all should go to escape catastrophicglobalwarmingclimatechange.
very rarified air down here George. Less BS in the air also, but not by much. Like CO2 it flows down from the nH. However that flow is not seasonal.
Go here to see Co2 in NZ no difference to anywhere else generally speaking
https://www.niwa.co.nz/atmosphere/our-data/trace-gas-plots/carbon-dioxide
bill johnston says:
May I take my SUV along???
@ ttt – December 13, 2016 at 8:37 pm
Go here to see Co2 in NZ
ttt, to see New Zealand's measured CO2 ppm quantities ….. your cited site is probably factual.
But the rest of the content of your cited site is laced full of "junk science" claims about atmospheric CO2.
Kasuha says:
The whole color scale is 20 ppm, about 5% of total. That's sufficiently well mixed in my opinion.
Kaiser Derden says:
you would be wrong … that's not well mixed … just mixed
"well mixed" is relative to other GHG like water vapour which varies hugely between tropics and Antarctica.
Well mixed to me means no matter where I collect my sample,(in the atmosphere), the isotopic and elemental abundances remain the same. Always.
Well just be sure you abide by the same criterion, and never talk about global warming anomalies, instead of using the SI scale of Temperature to refer to the amount of global warming.
"So New Zealand has NO CO2 in its atmosphere. "
NASA, in order to CTA, will claim it's simply an "illusion" as to why their satellite can't "see" any CO2 in NZ's atmosphere.
An "illusion" that they will claim is the direct fault of New Zealand's extremely HIGH atmospheric humidity (H2O vapor) …… which has absorbed all of the upper atmospheric CO2 ….. which now exists as carbonic acid molecules …… and are awaiting to be deposited on the surface during the next rainfall event.
Yours Truly, …… Eritas Fubar
Phil. says:
george e. smith December 13, 2016 at 3:39 pm
No George, that would be perfectly mixed, +/-2% certainly qualifies as 'well mixed'. A similar notation is used in Chemical Engineering, the ideal reactor is a 'perfectly stirred flow reactor' where the entering reagents instantly mix throughout the reactor, the real ones which don't quite make that standard are called 'well stirred flow reactors'.
There is NO logarithmic relationship between concentration and forcing; neither experimentally or even theoretically.
The theoretical relationship between concentration and forcing arises because of spectral broadening and at our current concentration is expected to be a log dependence which has been verified experimentally.
jorgekafkazar says:
The entire concentration scale ranges from about 388 ppm to 408 ppm, a variation of only +/- 2.5%, as greg states below. The scale meets the data requirements. Or does it? On the low end, the concentration drops off quickly to about 388 ppm. On the high end, it appear the color range may not cover the entire concentration range. One problem is that the emissions at their source is more like 10% (by volume), which would be impossible to show. So let's ignore the high end, since it exists for only a few hundred yards downwind of the sources, at most.
Thus the CO2 is essentially well mixed, particularly if you take into account the logarithmic relationship between concentration and forcing, in which case the forcing variation is more like +/- 0.5%, or negligible.
The logarithm function is a precisely defined function of mathematics. It isn't found anywhere in the physical universe.
Use "non-linear" if you want to refer to an apparent data set, that doesn't fit a linear equation. people throw around logarithmic and exponential as if they actually knew what those terms mean. They clearly don't.
george e,
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logarithmic_spiral
RockyRoad says:
Yes, but rather than model where CO2 is going to be concentrated, why don't they just measure it? Isn't that the purpose of this satellite? (You'd think from the name of the satellite that such measurements would be its mission statement.)
Alex Mason says:
This was my concern… its CO2 values mapped out over where a model says the atmosphere takes it. First question to ask is, has this model been validated? If it hasn't then its time to reach for the salt.
Michael Kelly says:
Excellent! I'm glad to see other people asking the same thing. I'd rather see a straight animation of the data than a "modeled" piece of junk. Unless by "model" they mean animation of data. If this was just a visual rendering of the measured data, then it's fine. But there's no why to tell.
It was more than just an animation. Color scales were chosen to emphasize the extreme values and suppressing intermediate values that carried information. The choice of rotation also suppressed information about what was happening in the southern hemisphere. Overall, it leads one to a different perception than what is obtained from the earlier published maps. The only thing new here was the impression that the CO2-deficient areas were at higher elevations than the high CO2 levels. However, I'm not sure that can be trusted because it seemed to be obvious from the earlier maps that CO2 dropped in the early-Summer when the trees leafed out. One would expect that to happen at tree-crown level. My personal feeling is that this 'animation' was purposely constructed to convey the consensus meme. Several people have commented that it doesn't look like the earlier maps. Whether the lack of resemblance is because of the reasons I cite above, or if changes have been made to the data, only the producers know for sure. But, it seems to come very close to an example of "How to Lie with Maps."
It's like all the modern movies. They are just made up out of ones and zeros, and no real objects or actors are necessary.
OCO-2 My Foot !
Bloke down the pub says:
Not so well mixed then?
commieBob says:
The scale goes from 390 (blue) to 408 (red). That's about a five percent variation. I guess it depends on what you call well mixed.
It looks like the video overstates the annual variation at sea level or the Mauna Loa observatory understates it a bit. I suspect that it's not very important.
Alan Robertson says:
"I suspect that it's not very important."
Oh, but think of the children.
AndyG55 says:
I agree, commieBob, a range of 390 – 408 is remarkably well mixed.
Variability is very minor, at most.
MarkW says:
Look at the scale. Almost half of it is colored neutral, and the high side has twice the range that the low side does.
Nothing like trying to color the results.
That's a total extreme range of 18 ppm p-p, which is exacticly what happens at the North Pole every year. It only takes five months to go from red to blue. And that range is TWENTY TIMES what it is at the South Pole.
Jeff in Calgary says:
I also noted the 390-408 range. Not sure what the intention was of using that range, but the end result is that it looks like the North (i.e. Canada/US/Europe) are evil destroying the world, meanwhile the South (Australia etc.) is dangerously low on CO2 (maybe that is why nothing grows down there).
krischel says:
Gah. Give me the data *without* the model, thank you very much.
That being said, it seems that the presentation shows that CO2 is not a well mixed gas, and if that's true, then the vagaries of its distribution need to be accounted for when building models – that is to say, CO2 concentrations are location dependent.
That takes it from a wicked problem to an impossible one, IMHO.
You're too generous. It was already and impossible problem. This just makes it more impossible.
rocketscientist says:
By the time we'll have figured out how to model it correctly the problem will have been recognized for some time as a non-issue. Sort of like a well performing model of horse traffic in medieval cities.
stan robertson says:
It would be good to see the worldwide distribution of CO2 integrated over altitude and mapped onto the surface. If I correctly recall the earliest data released showed some surprisingly large concentrations over rain forests.
dikranmarsupial says:
Without the model, you only know where the CO2 is, not where it came from (and hence would give a misleading impression of where CO2 is emitted and absorbed).
urederra says:
Gasses only diffuse from regions of high concentration to regions of low concentration. Fick is not that difficult to understand. CO2 is produced in places with local maximum concentration.
gymnosperm says:
Carbon dioxide appears to migrate to the North Pole the same way CFC's supposedly migrate to the South Pole. Both are produced by humans at the surface predominantly in the Northern Hemisphere middle latitudes.
In both hemispheres CO2 appears to pile up against the "ring" of the limits of observation at high latitudes. One might wonder why it so loves the poles when it is a "non-polar" molecule.
Picky criticism that the color key and date stamp are difficult to access, and what is the "black" CO2 at low levels in the SH winter not apparently on the key?
Partly just annoyance that by far my greatest criticism is that the 3d version does not match the 2d version and I was going to overlay them to show you how bad the discrepancy is…with all this [deliberate] obfuscation it will have to wait until tomorrow.
gymnosperm
Carbon dioxide appears to migrate to the North Pole the same way CFC's supposedly migrate to the South Pole.
Actually, CFCs accumulate above the equator, since they are liquids at around 0º C and distribution follows Raoult´s law. (higher partial pressure in higher temperature regions, such in the equator) Just like water vapour in the atmosphere, high in the equator, low at the poles. http://chukin.ru/diploma/kononova.pdf
This is the distribution of CFC-11 in the atmosphere according to Hoffmann et al. (RAW satellite measurements) http://www.ace.uwaterloo.ca/publications/2014/Hoffmann-CFC-11-12-lifetimes-acp-14-12479-2014.pdf
http://oi65.tinypic.com/28cn7f7.jpg
(I hope it is shown as a picture)
That is why human cause ozone deplection theory does not make any sense. CFCs are accumulated above the equator.
BTW, CFCs are liquids at around 0º C, CO2 is a gas on the whole earth temperature-pressure range. Not the same thing. One follows Raoult, the other follows Fick.
sorry, I did not close the quote.
urederra, yes and to determine the rates of diffusion etc. you need a model. Of course diffusion is not the only factor on a rotating Earth with distinct atmospheric circulation patterns (e.g. the jetstream), which means to do a good job, you need to model more than just diffusion.
Hi Krischel,
the raw data is all available on NASA's website. Feel free to download it and do something meaningful
with it. And I look forward to seeing it published in due course.
In this case the "model" is just how they display the data.
combined the OCO-2 data with a model eh?
mountainape5 says:
All that waste of money for nothing.
Johannes Herbst says:
It good to examine and to survey everything. Not so good is to interpret the result trough politically influenced channels.
Adrian Roman says:
In the new Nasa view of the Earth, the Earth is flat? 🙂
Their models run on a flat earth too.
If there would be only flat, it would be a better model than their models. Their models are composed of points very far apart.
Bob Armstrong says:
I thought that's kind of neat — using a map projection to free the 3rd to show altitude . But I'd like to see it on the spherical "screen" NOAA developed and are now available in museums like our Colorado Springs Space center , https://www.discoverspace.org/discover/northrop-grumman-science-center — something I'd like to program displays for .
fernandoleanme says:
This data could be visualized with an outgoing long wave radiation data set (also available from NASA) I believe there's a discrepancy in OLR due to albedo and clouds, so maybe it's a meaningless visualization, or maybe it will correlate a little bit?
"The gas is released from human activities like burning fossil fuels"
I didn't know that we humans invented this Carbon dioxide gas.
Janice Moore says:
That was a VERY inaccurate sentence, indeed, mountain-a5.
Edited for Accuracy Version:
"The gas is released is LARGELY (over 95%) FROM NATURAL PROCESSES such as ocean CO2 outgassing. Further, that small % may be entirely taken up by the natural sinks which are TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE GREATER than all human emissions."
More propaganda for AGW. Whatever.
Earth (as in all warming is well within limits of natural variation) to Climate Hu$tler$:
AGW (and "climate change" and any other lame label you want to give it) is OLD NEWS. Old and boring and worthless junk news.
Janice Moore December 13, 2016 at 10:23 am
""The gas is released is LARGELY (over 95%) FROM NATURAL PROCESSES such as ocean CO2 outgassing. Further, that small % may be entirely taken up by the natural sinks …°
You missed the important part of that issue.
Even if over 95% is released from natural processes, the same amount (even more) is collected as well from natural processes.
Just an example: 96% is released from natural processes, and 4% from human activities.
But even if 98% is collected by natural processes, 2% is not. And theese 2% are added year by year to the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. and that's the reason why the concentration of CO2 is rising year by year – within about 100years from about 300ppm to about 400ppm – which is about one third more.
This doesn't say what this one third more of CO2 is causing – just that we add year by year a bit.
The natural sinks are greater even than the natural sources, which means the natural environment is a net carbon sink, not a source. If you are going to talk about natural sinks, then you need to apply them to the natural sources as well.
Whether atmospheric CO2 rises or falls depends on the difference between total uptake and total emissions, and anthropogenic emissions are currently about twice that (which is why the increase in atmospheric CO2 is about half our cumulative emissions).
aveollila says:
Janice. Pretty much so. This simulation does not show at all the real CO2 fluxes each year: 120 GtC in and out the ocean, 100 GtC in and out the biosphere and, and…. 10 GtC from human emissions from which amount 5.5 GtC stays in the atmosphere and 4.5 GtC is absorbed by the ocean. These variations of few ppm of CO2 have no role in the variations of GH effect. There are not many climate change researchers who know that the contribution of CO2 in the GH effect is ready after 1 km altitude. No matter how much variations and changes there are above the 1 km altitude. No influence.
Dear Mr. Herbst,
The natural sinks are dynamic. They could be taking up 100% of the natural CO2 AND 100% of the human (or any combination, e.g., 100% of the human emissions + 97% of the natural emissions — they just "sink" CO2; they do not discriminate between natural and human emissions).
Which means: we add is not a statement that you can make. There is no evidence proving:
human CO2 is the cause of net rise in global atmospheric CO2 levels (it could be 100% natural CO2 causing the net gain).
You can GUESS at it (as you have), but not state it as a certainty.
Thanks for taking the time to give me your guess about the CO2 situation in earth's atmosphere. You may be right! And I may inherit a million dollars tomorrow from a stranger who picked my name at random from the phone book. You just never know! 🙂
@ dikran "The natural sinks are greater even than the natural sources,"
We are talking about the atmosphere and the total number of input and outputs from the atmosphere, not the total planetary sinks. The atmosphere is a sink as well. It is true that on this currently Carbon Starved Planet, there is an unfortunate net sequestration, but that is the planet, not the atmosphere.
The atmosphere is a net sink, otherwise CO2 concentration would not be growing. The question is where the atmospheric increase is coming from. The drivel from your buddies at SKS is that since the atmospheric 12C is increasing, and fossil fuels are heavy in 12C (-24 PDB) to the tune of 9 GtC per year; the gun is smoking. Actually, they are smoking, for soils produce 60 GtC annually at -21 PDB.
Gymnosperm,
Your characterization of the atmosphere as being a sink is not the way it is defined. Indeed, a sink is something the removes CO2 from the atmosphere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sink
Sorry, an incorrect definition if we are talking about the planet. A sink is wherever the stuff goes.
You said, "Sorry, an incorrect definition if we are talking about the planet. A sink is wherever the stuff goes."
You are using an unconventional definition of "sink." Being a gas, the natural place of residency is in the atmosphere. However, it can be extracted by solution in water, incorporation into carbohydrates by photosynthesis, and removed from the seawater by shell building and chemical precipitation. Those provide alternative locations that temporarily remove the CO2 from the atmosphere, which is an important distinction because there is no possibility of the CO2 affecting the temperature when it resides as limestone or buried biomass. So, strictly speaking, the atmosphere is a sink, but for purposes of the argument about its role in heating, the atmosphere has to be treated as a special case from all other sinks.
Sure, but to establish the extent of human responsibility for the atmospheric increase (regardless the consequences), we have to understand the planetary Carbon cycle. We have to understand where the atmospheric increase comes from. The Carbon cycle does not revolve around the atmosphere. The atmosphere has a bit more than 300 GtC of inputs and a bit less in outputs. The total planetary flux is over 1000 GtC per year.
The equivalent of 1000 cubic kilometers of water in constant motion. We dribble in our 9 and puff all up like we are the bomb…
PiperPaul says:
Yeah, they of course kinda left out an Inconvenient Truth. No doubt considered 'unimportant' for their agenda.
P.S. Mr. Herbst — Dr. Murry Salby ably addresses the human versus natural CO2 issue in this lecture:
Dr. Murry Salby — Hamburg, 2013
(youtube)
You will need to watch the entire lecture to avoid misunderstanding Dr. Salby (or taking him out of context or mischaracterizing his arguments as many do).
But, here is his main point (supported amply by the slides and lecture) from my notes:
52:25 IPCC Claimed in 2007: All of the increases [in CO2 concentration since pre-industrial times] are caused by human activity. Given the observed sensitivity of native emission of CO2 and C13, the IPCC's claim is IMPOSSIBLE.
Allen M. R. MacRae, frequent WUWT commenter, has also very nicely summarized and repeatedly posted a tight argument that substantiates what Dr. Salby. Look for his WUWT comments on this topic (some are in the WUWT 10th Anniversary anthology, if that would be helpful to you).
If you care to read, there are MANY great threads on WUWT over the past years which address the C12 v. C13 issue. Bart/Bartemis prevails, in my opinion (perhaps, not in yours).
Janice wrote: " There is no evidence proving:
This is not correct. Assuming conservation of mass (i.e. carbon is not spontaneously created or destroyed in significant amounts), then the fact that atmospheric CO2 is rising more slowly than the rate of anthropogenic emissions establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the natural environment (i.e. everything else) is a net carbon sink, i.e. uptake by natural sinks exceeds emissions from natural sources. This means the natural carbon cycle is opposing the rise, not causing it. This can be demonstrated (and indeed has been demonstrated repeatedly on WUWT by myself and others) and uses one equation (given in Prof. Salby's lecture) and using two sources of data (both of which Prof. Salby says are reliable).
I am fed up explaining this again and again, so I'll just leave a link to the article on SkS that I wrote about this: https://skepticalscience.com/salby_correlation_conundrum.html . I'd be happy to discuss any flaws you find in the argument there.
dikran…,
You said, "… i.e. uptake by natural sinks exceeds emissions from natural sources." I'm troubled by this. I think that the logical conclusion is that before the arrival of Man, the natural sinks would have sucked all the CO2 out of the atmosphere. Yet, that didn't happen. Further, it is generally accepted that the CO2 level was relatively constant immediately prior to the Industrial Revolution. Thus, it seems to me that the uptake by natural sinks has to be approximately equal to natural sources. (Actually, not too surprising.) Further, sinks have to have some elasticity because only about half of the anthropogenic sources are showing up in the atmosphere. Therefore, there is some interplay between what the sinks take in and what the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere is. So, I think that you need to go back and make some changes in the article that you link to.
Clyde wrote: "think that the logical conclusion is that before the arrival of Man, the natural sinks would have sucked all the CO2 out of the atmosphere."
No, natural uptake exceeds natural emissions at the moment because atmospheric CO2 levels have been pushed away from its equilibrium value by land use change and fossil fuel emissions. Before the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 levels were close to the equilibrium value and so natural emissions and natural uptake were approximately in balance. This is Le Chatellier's principle, if you have a system of positive and negative feedbacks (such as the carbon cycle) that is in equilibrium, and you disturb the equilibrium, then the positive and negative feedbacks change to oppose the disturbance. It is precisely that which gives rise to an equilibrium in the first place.
You said, "…,natural uptake exceeds natural emissions at the moment because atmospheric CO2 levels have been pushed away from its equilibrium value by land use change and fossil fuel emissions."
This may be a definitional issue, but if the abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, that would seem to imply that the uptake isn't sufficient to keep pace with the increasing emissions. Ergo, your statement is backwards.
Clyde, no, anthropogenic emissions have pushed atmospheric CO2 above its equilibrium, the natural carbon cycle is attempting to oppose that rise by increasing natural uptake above the level of natural emissions. As I said, this is just Le Chatellier's principle, and merely what you would expect from perturbing a dynamical system from its equilibrium state.
Gerald Machnee says:
So how do they explain the readings in Hawaii (which we do not see)?
Yes, the original reason for the CO2 concentration increase in the atmosphere is in the human generated emissions. That is why the CO2 amount increase from 600 GtC in 1750 to 840 in 2013 is caused by the mankind. IPCC says very directly and openly that this increase of 240 GtC is all anthropogenic corresponding to the 28 % portion. This is not true. It can be measured, because the fossil fuels have a different 13C concentration. According to these measurements the anthropogenic CO2 amount in the atmosphere in 2013 was only 67 GtC (8 % portion). How this is possible? Simply therefore that each year about 25 % of the CO2 amount in the atmosphere is recycling between the atmosphere, the ocean and the biosphere. IPCC's claim would be true only if there were no recycling.
Why IPCC makes this lie? The reason is that it serves even a greater goal. It means that even though the anthropogenic emissions were stopped one day, the anthropogenic CO2 woud not decrease in the atmosphere according to IPCC but it would stay there hundred of years.
I was laboring under the possible misapprehension that we were interested in the sources and sinks, Although quite pretty – this animation lost me as the map projection transformed to "flat" and the northern hemisphere went scarlet – when as I understand it the high northern latitudes are problematic for OCO-2's spectrometer instrument.
This mission threw a spanner into Gavin's models and I feel this is an attempt *not* to compare like with like
H.R. says:
Carbon dioxide plays a significant role in trapping heat in Earth's atmosphere.
(Bold mine) Significant compared to what; water vapor?
It's precisely that wording that showcases how little science there is in defending the claim that CO2 traps heat in the Earth's atmosphere.
The vagueness of the term "significant role" reminds of a previous article where Anthony stated that water vapor is a "more important" greenhouse gas than CO2. Clearly, these are not scientifically quantifiable terms. Since Anthony has been studying this topic for years, and he doesn't have any actual science at his disposal to bolster his claim of the purported greenhouse gas property, I accept this to mean that there is no actual science to bolster this claim.
This is why I have been asking for contributors here on this site, to defend their claim that CO2 is currently trapping heat on Mars. When, where and how much? If there is no science to support this claim, then … there is no science to support this claim.
Thomas Homer. Yes , I agree that the amount of scientific publications of the role of CO2 is very few. IPCC has to use the formula of Myhre et al. from the year 1998 for the radiative forcing of CO2. I just commented this issue in another essay and I let it be. My studies show that IPCC uses the positive waster feedback twice, and therefore climate sensitivity is not 1.85 C degrees but 0.6 degrees. IPCC does not even know what is the contribution of CO2 in the GH effect. But they do know what is its effect in 2100.
Hugs says:
Significant, has significance. Its opposite is 'has no significance'.
CO2 has significance does not mean apocalypse now. If only people remembered this.
ristvan says:
That big red blotch over China shows how badly Obama got snookered in his bilateral AGW deal.
Elmer says:
Why does this animation look completely different then the actual OCO-2 image?
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/mainco2mappia18934.jpg
Elmer,
Basically, I just asked the same question!
It takes time to develop proper adjustments.
Note the small range of values here corresponds only to seasonal changes associated with plant and plankton growth.
The animation has most of the CO2 coming from the industrialized areas when the actual data shows most of the earth's CO2 actually coming from the rainforests.
No doubt they just didn't consider that pesky non-human-sourced CO2. Out of scope. Above their pay grade. Not relevant. Criteria not in mandate. Look over there! Squirrel!
http://s28.postimg.org/eczk9obpp/squirrel_catching_peanut.png
Bill Illis says:
In the above video, they obviously cut out the period from August to early November where the concentrations are highest in the southern hemisphere. They only showed the high concentration period of the northern hemisphere – not quite the description provided on the Nasa Goddard webpage.
Perhaps they don't want to "confuse" anybody about the large releases from vegetation in the southern hemisphere.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/eye-popping-view-of-co2-critical-step-for-carbon-cycle-science
ptolemy2 says:
That's what I suspected. That means it's more fraudulent fake climate news.
Mike Maguire says:
I was wondering the same thing.
Steve Fraser says:
Different modeling.
Bryan A says:
The data used to make the new 3D model was sufficiently Karlized to train out the much needed CO2 increase that would then match the already Karlized warming signal. Though instead of increasing the warming signal through using Ship engine intake temperature measurements, He obviously used the Jet Engine CO2 output measurement data to Karlize the increase in CO2 signal
See how similar Air Traffic patterns match the CO2 data.
Obviously Airliner Engine output monitering is the source for the Karilzed data
Steve Fraser
Almost, but not quite. right.
One is adjusted, or modeled, the other is raw data.
Good catch. It's difficult to compare directly because the scales are different. It's also tricky because much of the time the video obscures the southern hemisphere behind a wall of red above the northern hemisphere. On the other hand, I was struck that there seemed to be no high concentrations of CO2 in the southern hemisphere in any season in the video. The other thing is that the actual image (October-November) does not show CO2 north of 60 deg. N or south of 60 deg. S.
I would say there are important differences between the video and the actual satellite images.
KRM says:
They've cherry picked the time period. The animation runs from Nov 20 2014 – 21 August 2015, thus neatly avoiding the period shown in the image, which gives the average CO2 concentration between Oct 1 and Nov 11 2014.
Paul Jackson says:
Well for one, the image you posted was preliminary data from 2014, the new animation was for data gathered during 2015; secondly the new animation is 3D to show CO2 concentrations over the global with altitude as well as longitude and latitude, so naturally they are going to be very different.
I was wondering why every time my eye started to catch something unusual in the animation, NASA seemed to throw a text window over it; almost makes you think they are up to something!
Squirrel.
Look at the thirty sequential OCO-2 images here
http://www.blozonehole.com/blozone-hole-theory/blozone-hole-theory/carbon-cycle-using-nasa-oco-2-satellite-images
I see seasonal variations in CO2 that are explained easily by photosynthesis and aerobic bacterial decomposition of plant detritus. However, what I don't see is a continuous trail of CO2 from North to South. I'm also troubled by the fact that heating in the tropics causes rising air masses to move polewards, not just towards the Southern Hemisphere. One sees evidence of that in the ozone maps that frequently show anomalously high ozone levels outside the Polar Vortex prior to the Spring breakup of the 'ozone hole.'
InMD says:
One thing they did which is sort of annoying is that they put the flat earth on a spinning platter. Which conveniently spins around and looks from the North, during the peak Northern co2 outgassing.
You cannot make any judgment about the source of the co2 when the whole screen is RED, obscuring the rest of the globe.
Its another form if deceit.
Lastly, the article says "scientists developed a model of the behavior". Why do you need a model, when you have the data? more accurately, they should have created a visualization of the data, not a model.
The raw data is out there, I wish someone would do a proper visualization, more inline with the original image.
Tom O says:
I must be missing out on something here. I see what is considered the massive concentrations appearing and sort of staying of areas of the globe that are suffering from the lack of warming. The area associated with what appears to be Antarctica is constantly showing a death spiral level of carbon dioxide, closer to the levels that they thing we should be at, and I am supposed to want to push for decreasing emissions? The circling video doesn't help, nor does the musicbox soundtrack, but I don't think I am impressed with the money that was spent creating this.
You're not supposed to ask those kinds of questions.
Wasn't there another video showing CO2 coming from South America and other areas that are not as industrialized as the US/
Allen63 says:
Australia seems to have no significant emissions. So, they don't need to do anything "green".
Richard A. O'Keefe says:
I was extremely puzzled by red puffs popping up in parts of Australia that are a long way from any cities or, I would have thought, any industry. Anyone have any ideas? (See near the 1 minute mark, for example.) The presentation was more than a little annoying.
john4150 says:
This is all smoke and mirrors! Why give us a cute animation with silly music? A while back Willis posted an analysis from the Japanese Ibuku satellite, with some astonishing revelations, like the Democratic Republic of Congo being a major carbo-gasbag, not unexpected given the rate of deforestation there. I suspect OCO2 results are going to be a game-changer, and that NASA is dreading the day the truth comes out and biomass burning emerges to challenge fossil fuel as a major sources of the ghastly gas. A re-post of the Willis item would be very much appreciated, and might be useful to send to the mandarins in the new regime.
John Ledger
rovingbroker says:
The Revenge of the Climate Reparations
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/05/the-revenge-of-the-climate-reparations/
That was easy.
These results appear quite different from what has been published previously. Notably, the high CO2 values in the Amazon, and over the tropical oceans, are missing. What had been modestly high CO2 values over the Northern Hemisphere land are now shown as very high levels.
Has anyone other than me experienced problems playing the animation?
The map displayed above at 10:16 by Elmer is one of the maps I was referring to.
What about carbon dioxide from living organisms? What about a water vapour tracking?
Freedom Monger says:
Calling all Scientists!
I know this is off topic but I am NOT a scientist and I need your help.
I want to know the answer to three simple questions in a language I can understand and relate to.
I know this is a Science Blog, and the contributors here are mostly scientists, but there are thousands of people who view this blog everyday that are not scientists. I am one of them. To me, most of you are like Sheldon Cooper. I am not like Penny, however, I'm more like Stewart. I'm nerdy and geeky and stuff like that – but I'm not an official scientist.
I could probably Google the answers to my questions – the problem is that I DON'T TRUST Google. I know the people who run Google are simply Democrat Propagandists – they facilitate the Socialist Agenda.
I don't trust certain WUWT contributors like Nick Stokes, Tony Mc, Toneb, and Griff either. I don't trust them at all. When they write about the about perils of the current Climate I see Robert Preston in the Music Man exaggerating the perils of Pool.
The first 20 seconds of that video encapsulates their entire message. In fact, it NAILS IT!
They are here to do only one thing – to create a need for a Worldwide Socialist Government.
You cannot fathom how many people in the World and the United States believe that 2015 was the HOTTEST YEAR EVER in the 4 billion year existence of the Earth. It's not that they're stupid, it's just what they been led to think by the Media and people like Al Gore.
I bet Nick Stokes has never qualified the claim that 2015 was THE HOTTEST YEAR EVER to a layman. I bet Griff never said to them, "You know, it's only the hottest year in the Thermometer Era – that goes back only a couple of centuries. The Earth has been much, much, warmer in its prehistoric past." Toneb would never tell a layman this fact because he'd be too afraid the layman wouldn't be worried. All of them, like Robert Preston, need a "problem" to solve. They're all the same; agents of Oppression.
Anyway, I digress. Back to my questions.
Can someone tell me what the Average Temperature (F) of the Earth was thought to be during the warmest Hot Houses (like the Cretaceous, for example)?
Can someone tell me what the Average Temperature (F) of the Earth was thought to be during the coldest Ice Ages?
I guess I'll just Google the Earth's average Temperature. Google says it's 14 degrees Celsius, which means it's 57.2 degrees Fahrenheit. Is that what the Earth's current average Temperature is? I have to accept that number by Faith.
This is what I'm looking for:
Hot Houses average around 72 degrees F.
Ice Ages average around 38 degrees F.
Today's Earth is about 57 – 58 degrees F.
Please don't direct me to any more charts and graphs, I can't read most of them because they contain scientific notations, jargon, and acronyms. I simply don't speak your language.
Remember, you scientists are as priests and prophets to the rest of us. You may have empirical knowledge but we generally have to accept what you say by Faith.
I thank you for your time and patience in advance.
Do a search for Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. The Wikipedia article seems reasonable and it gives some actual numbers.
Thanks, Clyde.
I looked it up. It says the world was about 8 degrees C warmer than it is now. In other words, about 71.6 degrees F. Still, the article itself was full of FEAR global warming BS.
Richard G. says:
The first thing you need to do is discard the notion that there is such a thing as an average world temperature or climate. It is an artifact of statistics that has no real meaning in the real world. It is not data, it is derived from data. Climate is a very localized phenomenon with many more variables than just temperature. It is not even singular, it is plural as in Climates. CO2 is a complete red herring.
I suggest you investigate what is known as the :
Köppen Climate Classification System
http://www.thesustainabilitycouncil.org/resources/the-koppen-climate-classification-system/
The Köppen Climate Classification System is the most widely used for classifying the world's climates. Most classification systems used today are based on the one introduced in 1900 by the Russian-German climatologist Wladimir Köppen. Köppen divided the Earth's surface into climatic regions that generally coincided with world patterns of vegetation and soils.
The Köppen system recognizes five major climate types based on the annual and monthly averages of temperature and precipitation. Each type is designated by a capital letter.
A – Moist Tropical Climates are known for their high temperatures year round and for their large amount of year round rain.
B – Dry Climates are characterized by little rain and a huge daily temperature range. Two subgroups, S – semiarid or steppe, and W – arid or desert, are used with the B climates.
C – In Humid Middle Latitude Climates land/water differences play a large part. These climates have warm,dry summers and cool, wet winters.
D – Continental Climates can be found in the interior regions of large land masses. Total precipitation is not very high and seasonal temperatures vary widely.
E – Cold Climates describe this climate type perfectly. These climates are part of areas where permanent ice and tundra are always present. Only about four months of the year have above freezing temperatures.
I will add that ALL these climates exist simultaneously all over the world. Just as all politics is local, all climate is local.
Thanks for your response Richard, I'm not getting many.
I understand what you're saying, that the notion of an average world climate is dysfunctional at best, but that's not how we look at it the Political Arena. Global Warming means Global Warming.
I want to be able to state, with scientific veracity, that the Earth's Existential (rather than Natural) Climate Variation includes vast periods where the globe's average temperature was "x".
I have been able, through my own stumbling research, to narrow it down to this:
I believe I can safely say that the Earth has endured long periods where the Average Global Temperature was upwards to about 71 degrees F. It might have been even higher, but I want to be conservative.
I believe I can safely say that the Earth has endured long periods where the Average Global Temperature was downwards to about 45 degrees F. It might have been even lower, but again, I want to be conservative.
Is that correct?
Note the scale in the animation. 390 ppm to 408 (I think). The red is 400 to 408.
This seems to be a hell of a lot of money spent with the point being to obfuscate.
jvcstone says:
also to justify a budget increase.
Note that the scale runs from 390 to 408 (ppm — although it's hard to read), a range of 4.6% The numbers are less scary than the red, yellow, blue and green swirls.
Note also "Vertical Exaggeration 40x."
davidmhoffer says:
What a deceptive piece of drekk.
My first reaction was wow, CO2 not as well mixed as I thought. Then I saw the scale. It only goes from 393 to 408! So, pretty well mixed after all.
Then they've presented by altitude also. By picking the angle of observation, this tends to make large blue swaths appear over certain areas, and large red swaths over others. But you are actually looking "through" the atmosphere, and these things seem to vary by altitude. Well they should. CO2 is produced at the bottom of the atmosphere, and then mixes in to the rest. But the representation makes reds and blues look like they come from specific geographies when they are actually the result of mixing at altitude.
Maybe someone brighter than I can glean useful information out of this, but I cannot.
My first reaction was wow, CO2 not as well mixed as I thought. Then I saw the scale. It only goes from 393 to 408! So, pretty well mixed after all. @ davidmhoffer
Can't tell no data presented below about 390, so it could be anything from 150-390.
Pop Piasa says:
The trademark at the end says
"Your planet is changing – We're on it"
At least they get productivity out of their "sloganeering" dept.
Should read "Your Government is changing – We're on notice."
Latitude says:
Their cartoon says what they released before was wrong….but then they say their cartoon was modeled based on what they released before
Any chance we could just defund them and start over?
Michael Burns says:
It is all a matter of parameters…18 ppmv in differentiation, does not seem to amount to anything greater than the amount of CO2 expelled in the breath typing this word…hm. But it does seem to cloud the waters…speaking of waters…what about…aw forget about it.
Interesting little vidware. I would like to see them dial down the values to 350–393, so we can see all the places with the lower concentrations. Sometimes on nullschool, I see values -30 or -40 ppm lower than the Keeling curve values.
I am also,very interested in the humidity measurements that go along with this. There has to be some logic in the algorithm structure that removes the water vapor from the calc.
I'd also like to see it with 3 visualizations simultaneously…from above the equator, and the two poles, so we can see the CO2 slosh as the troposphere depth changes, and the gas moves to the stratosphere.
I can dream, eh?
G. Karst says:
Wanna bet this was cooked up special for AlGore movie & tour GK
Yes, I get the drift that they were planning to double down on this after the election anyway, but now there's some desperation showing.
So is the next Dicaprio production by NASA going to attempt to model the direct effects of these CO2 concentrations on the local atmospheric temps at the various altitudes?
Tomer D. Tamarkin says:
Let's see the same model for water vapor.
Ron Voisin says:
Funny, they obviously have the capacity to show us geographically just where is CO2 being sourced and sinked but instead hide those bits behind "amazing" graphics.
I think it's pretty clear that delineating the sources and sinks would disconnect from their agenda.
"PAY NO ATTENTION TO THAT LAND BEHIND THE CURTAIN!"
Kiwibok says:
Shouldn't over say 400PPM be colour green for all the good it will do for the planet ?
Red seems to indicate angry or hot .
Peta in Cumbria (now moved to Notts) says:
Maybe I'm jumping to a huge and unjustified conclusion here, when I repeat Donald's words-
Its a complete and utter farce. A very bad joke. Total garbage. Junk.
They have spent ?? much $$$ on this satellite and after all the time its been flying, they come up with that.
Pretty pictures out of a computer model. And gullible stupid people are swallowing that.
Who are the bigger clowns here, us or them?
Star Trek technology does not yet exist and yet they think many people believe it does and produce this cr4p – eye candy straight out of an Avatar movie.
If the greenhouse Effect is so pronounced, so easily detected by everybody, why not measure it from the ground? Just as me or you might measure albedo with 2 back-to-back solar cells, why not construct a Down Welling Radiation Meter (tuned to the wavelength of CO2 (15 micron?)) and actually measure the Down Welling Radiation? Compare the upwelling with the downwelling. Easy
Would that not tell you the amount of CO2 above your head?
Why not just get onto ebay, buy a CO2 meter and put in your garden, airport, town, city, farm, forest wherever.
Why not build them into weather stations like all the personal weather stations linked together by Wunderground? They come in a $4000 so an extra $100 for a CO2 meter is nothing
Why not fly meters on weather balloons, or even book a bit of space on the 10s of 1000s of aircraft that take off and land every day?
Why not any of those things? Coz they will demonstrate that the Emperor is stark bollock naked.
Say it again Donald, louder this time – some folks seem a bit deaf.
How many times does it have to be said that you can't trap heat?
Your question is upside down. There is no need to say that.
What is weird in engineers is the consistent need to try to use exact language where it is not applicable; like pointing out strawberry is not a berry by a given definition. Most of us try to understand what is meant by trapping heat. Some nerds do it other way around, they try to find a definition of trapping and heat which don't work for the purpose.
Additional CO2 ceteris paribus add to surface temperature. How much, don't know. We call that 'trapping heat' but making air mean temp warmer would be as good.
tony mcleod says:
Blankets do. Also pullovers too, and sock. Yeah socks.
Smart Rock says:
If you keep your eyes on the dates on the bottom left corner, you see the northern hemisphere turn from a scary, ominous, doom-threatening red in the winter to a nice soothing, swimming-pool blue by July-August.
In other words, those forests are doing their job, photosynthesizing away like mad in the growing season. I suppose they will keep on doing their job as long as they don't get cut down to feed "biomass" generating stations.
As other commenters have noted, the range of CO2 concentrations from scary, ominous, doom-threatening red to nice soothing blue is only from 390 to 408 ppm
Also, if you pause it to look at the underlying map, the biggest mass of scary red is in the Arctic. This is a bit contrary to the implied message that it's all our fault, because most fossil fuel burning is in what we used to call the temperate zone (in Newspeak that's the "temporarily-temperate-but-soon-to-be-an-uninhabitable-wasteland zone", but I like the old name better). How does the CO2 get to the Arctic so fast? And how does it get cleaned up by forests that are mostly thousands of kilometres away, so fast?
One wonders if there's been some "adjustment" to the raw data. Gosh, they wouldn't do that, would they? How could I have the audacity to even hint at such a thing about fellow scientists?
Smart Rock
The NH forrests are not taking up the CO2, the data showing the transport of most of the NH CO2 buildup down into the SH has not been used.
The carbon cycle as you are expecting to see is not real. It is an illusion, a fantasy. Forget what you were educated to believe.
The CO2 gets into the Arctic as part of the atmospheric mix that is transported into that region on a near continuous basis, sometimes in great volume. It is the same atmospheric transport that breaks up the ice and transports in heat.
Man Bearpig says:
Seems that antartica is considerably lower than NH so how does this fit with vostok co2 proxies ?
Perfectly. It records the historical CO2 variation in the NH during the glacial / interglacial periods.
tabnumlock says:
The website climatecentral.org makes the claim that "2016 will be the year that carbon dioxide officially passed the symbolic 400 ppm mark, never to return below it in our lifetimes, according to scientists."
Then, a few paragraphs later, they say that "Tropical Storm Madeline blew by Hawaii and knocked carbon dioxide below 400 ppm for a day. But otherwise, we're living in a 400 ppm world."
Why would a storm reduce CO2 levels? A storm just moves air around. If CO2 is well mixed, moving air around should not do much to change CO2 levels. Or are they admitting that the CO2 levels are higher than average in Hawaii and don't really represent a world-wide average?
Rafal Bartula says:
If Jean Michel Jarre sow this while composing Oxygen he would have called it CO2. This planet lives and breaths CO2. Play it.
http://www.m4gw.com/images/GIFS/OCO-Animated.gif
https://youtu.be/P_I2ch8_TXc
Make one of your moving images using the 30 images in the link below.
Rafal,
That's very nice. I am more familiar with the works of his father, however, Maurice Jarre. I love those biblical epics, Dr. Zhivago, and especially Lawrence of Arabia.
Contrast and compare NASA's promo with the visualisation and
The NASA OCO-2 science leader pre-launch lecture
Why do they call it a model, when it actually is an adjustment?
Geoff Pohanka says:
This video presentation appears to be biased, CO2 emissions are greatest in the northern hemisphere in winter, because of the lack of foliage, but as the summer returns the added greenery makes the northern hemisphere a net absorber of CO2. The focus is on the northern hemisphere in winter, and then moves to the southern hemisphere in summer, so one does not notice the blue uptake of CO2 during that period. Incredible.
This is fake news. Why mix in computer models to add the angry red in the northern latitudes that are entirely absent from the actual observations. All that is needed is the mere truth – just the observations please, no modelling!
Here's the observation (not the model):
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/clip_image0021.jpg
MRW says:
Why can't they publish a series of these images and remove the grey areas which are hiding a lot? This is a lot clearer.
richard verney says:
Is there any observational data that, for example, suggests that there is an increased GHE over the red areas of Africa compared to that over the light blue areas of Africs?
How does measured DWLWIR change as airborn concentration of CO2 varies each month?
There appears to be seasonal variations of CO2 in the region of 20ppm so can the effect of this variation actually be measured on the ground?
The video is confusing to me, and strikes as purposefully obfuscating.
My critical thought prof in '75 would call it pseudoscientific razmataz.
Robert Kernodle says:
So, NASA has emerged full-force as an abstract-art video producer. Way to go, using your funding over there!
I think they missed the mark with the musical background, however — should have been something more scary. As is, it's like one of those drug commercials where the narrator speaks of all the contraindications in soft, pleasant tones, against a backdrop of happy people doing happy things.
Put some flying dragons in there, … sculls and cross bones, … and, of course, billowing smoke stacks fading in and out of transparency floating across the scene. Come on, guys, cut loose, get those creative producer juices going! You're getting a lot of money for this stuff, and you call THIS entertainment (Oh, it's science – I was under the wrong impression, sorrrry).
I'm such an ungrateful dolt. Seriously, I DO love NASA's visuals, especially the Hubble images. But the CO2 thing just lends itself to such humor, because of the absurd contradictions that are becoming more obvious these days to a few people, at least.
This is the visual equivalent of an artistic representation of the difference between 0.0 degrees and 0.5 degrees.
… 20 parts per million spread.
Dan Pangburn says:
Hundreds of millions of $$$ wasted on a project providing no new information, an end result being a misleading visualization useful for little more than entertainment.
The brief period 1975-2005 when both CO2 and average global temperature both increased, misled a lot of folks into thinking there is a connection between CO2 and climate.
Thermalization and the complete dominance of water vapor in reverse-thermalization explain why CO2 has no significant effect on climate. Terrestrial EMR absorbed by CO2 is effectively rerouted to space via water vapor.
there is new information – it shows Gavin's crew simulations / modelling to be just flat out wrong.
If you compare the observations that these swines have been aware of from the first whole earth scan to what they have been spouting there is a considerable credibility gap.
They have tried to paper over the chasm by fiddling with the data presentation so you can't conveniently compare it to the model.
This is fraud.
Betapug says:
"OCO-2 is an exploratory science mission designed to collect space-based global measurements of atmospheric CO2 with the precision, resolution, and coverage needed to characterize sources and sinks (fluxes) on regional scales (≥1000km). OCO-2 will also be able to quantify CO2 variability over the seasonal cycles year after year." From the mission statement. http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/
Unfortunately, it succeeded in pinpointing sources and sinks which is why you are not allowed to view them.
Betapug +1
"… OCO-2 will also be able to quantify CO2 variability over the seasonal cycles year after year."
So where are the ground based seasonal measurements of DWLWIR corresponding to the atmospheric seasonal variations in CO2?
Is any of this being measured? What correlation is there on seasonal basis?
lower case fred says:
The presentation focuses on North America during winter with the map positioned to obscure the fact that so much of the emissions are coming from Asia and then the view shifts to Asia when summer comes and CO2 concentrations drop.
If someone didn't know better they would think North America is the major source of emissions.
Purely accidental I'm sure.
Nicholas Schroeder says:
Trenberth et al 2011jcli24 Figure 10
This popular balance graphic and assorted variations are based on a power flux, W/m^2. A W is not energy, but energy over time, i.e. 3.4 Btu/eng h or 3.6 kJ/SI h. The 342 W/m^2 ISR is determined by spreading the average 1,368 W/m^2 solar irradiance/constant over the spherical ToA surface area. (1,368/4 =342) There is no consideration of the elliptical orbit (perihelion = 1,416 W/m^2 to aphelion = 1,323 W/m^2) or day or night or seasons or tropospheric thickness or energy diffusion due to oblique incidence, etc. This popular balance models the earth as a ball suspended in a hot fluid with heat/energy/power entering evenly over the entire ToA spherical surface. This is not even close to how the real earth energy balance works. Everybody uses it. Everybody should know better.
An example of a real heat balance based on Btu/h is attached. Basically (Incoming Solar Radiation spread over the cross sectional area) = (U*A*dT et. al. leaving the lit side perpendicular to the spherical surface ToA) + (U*A*dT et. al. leaving the dark side perpendicular to spherical surface area ToA) The atmosphere is just a simple HVAC heat balance problem.
"Technically, there is no absolute dividing line between the Earth's atmosphere and space, but for scientists studying the balance of incoming and outgoing energy on the Earth, it is conceptually useful to think of the altitude at about 100 kilometers above the Earth as the "top of the atmosphere." The top of the atmosphere is the bottom line of Earth's energy budget, the Grand Central Station of radiation. It is the place where solar energy (mostly visible light) enters the Earth system and where both reflected light and invisible, thermal radiation from the Sun-warmed Earth exit. The balance between incoming and outgoing energy at the top of the atmosphere determines the Earth's average temperature. The ability of greenhouses gases to change the balance by reducing how much thermal energy exits is what global warming is all about."
ToA is 100 km or 62 miles. It is 68 miles between Denver and Colorado Springs. That's not just thin, that's ludicrous thin.
The GHE/GHG loop as shown on Trenberth Figure 10 is made up of three main components: upwelling of 396 W/m^2 which has two parts: 63 W/m^2 and 333 W/m^2 and downwelling of 333 W/m^2.
The 396 W/m^2 is determined by inserting 16 C or 279K in the S-B BB equation. This result produces 55 W/m^2 of power flux more than ISR entering ToA, an obvious violation of conservation of energy created out of nothing. That should have been a warning.
ISR of 341 W/m^2 enter ToA, 102 W/m^2 are reflected by the albedo, leaving a net 239 W/m^2 entering ToA. 78 W/m^2 are absorbed by the atmosphere leaving 161 W/m^2 for the surface. To maintain the energy balance and steady temperature 160 W/m^2 rises from the surface (0.9 residual in ground) as 17 W/m^2 convection, 80 W/m^2 latent and 63 W/m^2 LWIR (S-B BB 183 K, -90 C or emissivity = .16) = 160 W/m^2. All of the graphic's power fluxes are now present and accounted for. The remaining 333 W/m^2 are the spontaneous creation of an inappropriate application of the S-B BB equation violating conservation of energy.
But let's press on.
The 333 W/m^2 upwelling/downwelling constitutes a 100% efficient perpetual energy loop violating thermodynamics. There is no net energy left at the surface to warm the earth and there is no net energy left in the troposphere to impact radiative balance at ToA.
The 333 W/m^2, 97% of ISR, upwells into the troposphere where it is allegedly absorbed/trapped/blocked by a miniscule 0.04% of the atmosphere. That's a significant heat load for such a tiny share of atmospheric molecules and they should all be hotter than two dollar pistols.
Except they aren't.
The troposphere is cold, -40 C at 30,000 ft, 9 km, < -60 C at ToA. Depending on how one models the troposphere, average or layered from surface to ToA, the S-B BB equation for the tropospheric temperatures ranges from 150 to 250 W/m^2, a considerable shortfall from 333.
(99% of the atmosphere is below 32 km where energy moves by convection/conduction/latent/radiation & where ideal S-B does not apply. Above 32 km the low molecular density does not allow for convection/conduction/latent and energy moves by S-B ideal radiation et. al.)
The GHGs reradiate in all directions not just back to the surface. Say a statistical 33% makes it back to the surface that means 50 to 80 W/m^2. A longer way away from 333.
Because the troposphere is not ideal the S-B equation must consider emissivity. Nasif Nahle suggests CO2 emissivity could be around 0.1 or 5 to 8 W/m^2 re-radiated back to the surface. Light years from 333.
All of the above really doesn't even matter since there is no net connection or influence between the 333 W/m^2 thermodynamically impossible loop and the radiative balance at ToA. Just erase this loop from the graphic and nothing else about the balance changes.
BTW 7 of the 8 reanalyzed (i.e. water board the data till it gives up the right answer) data sets/models show more power flux leaving OLR than entering ASR ToA or atmospheric cooling. Trenberth was not happy. Obviously, those seven data sets/models have it completely wrong because there can't possibly be any flaw in the GHE theory.
The GHE greenhouse analogy not only doesn't apply to the atmosphere, it doesn't even apply to warming a real greenhouse. ("How Global Warming was Discovered" Spencer Weart) It's the physical barrier of walls, glass, plastic that traps convective heat, not some kind of handwavium glassy transparent radiative thermal diode.
The surface of the earth is warm for the same reason a heated house is warm in the winter: Q = U * A * dT, the energy flow/heat resisting blanket of the insulated walls. The composite thermal conductivity of that paper thin atmosphere, conduction, convection, latent, LWIR, resists the flow of energy, i.e. heat, from surface to ToA and that requires a temperature differential, 213 K ToA and 288 K surface = 75 C.
The flow through a fluid heat exchanger requires a pressure drop. A voltage differential is needed to push current through a resistor. Same for the atmospheric blanket. A blanket works by Q = U * A * dT, not S-B BB. The atmosphere is just a basic HVAC system boundary analysis.
Open for rebuttal. If you can explain how this upwelling/downwelling/"back" radiation actually works be certain to copy Jennifer Marohasy as she has posted a challenge for such an explanation.
Nicholas,
You said, "Say a statistical 33% makes it back to the surface that means 50 to 80 W/m^2. A longer [sic] way away from 333."
How did you arrive at the estimate of 33%? I can see that because of the curvature of the Earth, less than 50% of the downwelling radiation might make it to the surface. However, 33% seems low to me.
Resourceguy says:
Weather patterns come in many pretty colors.
Keith J says:
Yes, carbon dioxide is also known as carbonic acid anhydride. It ionizes when dissolved in water and its dissolution is highly dependent on temperature and pressure. Plus there are mineral/biologic buffers so tracking via pH is complex.
Jurgen says:
Nice visualization of the dynamics of political CO2 flatulence.
I don't get how high altitudes, such as above Antarctica, can appear to be a "sink" when the surrounding air, and air below, appears to be at a constantly higher concentration. The reason why CO2 monitoring was selected at Mauna Loa was partly because altitude was supposed to eliminate low level inhomogeneities.
Pretty graphics, but something doesn't add up.
Chuck Bradley says:
Perhaps someone can check my vague recollection. I thought the well-mixed claim was introduced to prop up the the idea of a global average temperature.
Adrian O says:
Keep the OCO2 satellite.
Fire the propagandist modelers.
Johann Wundersamer says:


text:
Q: Capture Paste Event in NSTextfield I have a application, where I have to capture the paste event for the NSTextField.
Two scenario is required:
If text is typed, call goes to controlTextDidChange
If paste action is done in text field, again this controlTextDidChange delegate is called.
I need to differentiate between Paste action and type action NSTextField. It is required as I need to call separate function.
Please suggest, how to capture Paste Action for the NSTextField.
Thanks in Advance.
Raghunath

A: Welcome to Stack Overflow.
You can intercept the paste command by using a custom field editor and overriding paste. Documentation:Text Fields, Text Views, and the Field Editor and Using a Custom Field Editor.
This answer might be helpful: NSTextField: exposing its Copy and Paste methods. You don't have to use a subclass of NSTextFieldCell, you can also use the method windowWillReturnFieldEditor of NSWindowDelegate.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


TTTT recommend the products displayed below for swimming lessons.A good pair of swimming goggles can make a big difference in learning to swim and we believe the quick-adjust Speedo goggles: Junior Futura Biofuse and the Sea Squad goggles for the younger kids are 2 of the best products available.
A kickboard is a useful tool for any stage of swimming, whilst the other products on offer can be beneficial at other stages of the learning process.
We have recently added the ToasTees wetsuits to our range. These are a great lightweight product which can help keep kids warm in the water.
To order any products simply click here to send an email or ask your instructor if you'd like to test any products.
Sea Squad is designed to fit kids and adolescents with smaller faces.
A back bubble is a great tool for beginners to gain confidence in the water.
The Toastee is a wetsuit top that is almost as light as a rash vest but keeps you warm like a regular wetsuit. Thin, lightweight and coated with Super Stretch Aquaskin TM to give it increased durability.
For sizing information please visit www.toasteeswetsuits.com.au.


text:
Q: calling class and function name from database in Python I have some 20 class with functions in python:
class class_1:
    def display():
        return('This is 1st Class')

class class_2:
    def display():
        return('This is 2nd Class and some more lines')

#Like this 20 class I have

Now when to call which class, its stored in database:

tag
class
status

ab
2
0

cd
3
1

ef
1
0

gh
1
1

Now I when I run the below code:
data = db_fetchquery("SELECT class FROM table WHERE status = '0'")

for row in data:
    display = class_{row[0]}.display()
    print(display)

The result I am expecting is:
This is 2nd Class and some more lines
This is 1st Class
But I am getting SyntaxError: invalid syntax
I also tried dictionary:
data = db_fetchquery("SELECT class FROM table WHERE status = '0'")

for row in data:
   id = {'x' : 'class_'+row[0]}
   display = id['x'].display()

This gave me AttributeError: 'str' object has no attribute 'display'

A: The code below is the direction you need to take. The code takes input from the user (your code will replace it with DB call) and execute the proper function.
import inspect

import sys

def display_1():
    print('display_1')

def display_2():
    print('display_2')

funcs = {name: obj for name, obj in inspect.getmembers(sys.modules[__name__]) if inspect.isfunction(obj)}
func_id = input('Type func id:')
final_name = 'display_{}'.format(func_id)
func = funcs.get(final_name)
if not func:
    print('cant find the func ' + final_name)
else:
    func()


text:
BREAKING NEWSWife speaks after husband dies in avalanche at Tahoe ski resort
BREAKING NEWSWatch Action News LIVE
Subtle Signs of Bladder Cancer
BALTIMORE. (KFSN) -- Seventy-four thousand men and women are diagnosed with bladder cancer every year in the United States. It remains the sixth most common cancer overall and in men, it's even more common. That's why experts say it's crucial to know the signs and symptoms, some of which can be subtle.
Richard Clendaniel is a retired Maryland school teacher. Until recently, he still worked with students running the light and sound systems for high school graduations.
Clendaniel told Ivanhoe, "To have them realize that they were going into the next phase of their life and it was really, really special."
During graduation season three years ago, Richard had a sudden change in his health; blood in his urine.
"If it was one day, it was one thing, but then it lasted all week," Clendaniel explained.
Richard was diagnosed with bladder cancer and treated with biotherapy, boosting his body's ability to fight.
William Isaacs, PhD, Professor of Urology at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine told Ivanhoe, "For a cancer that is in the top five in men, we really don't hear very much about it."
When caught early, doctors say bladder cancer can be cured. Blood in the urine is the most obvious sign. Other symptoms include changes in urinary habits and pain in the back and pelvic area.
Men are three times more likely than women to get bladder cancer. Exposure to cigarette smoke and working in chemical, leather or rubber industries also increases the risk.
Professor Isaacs says high-risk individuals may benefit from drinking a lot of water since carcinogens are concentrated in urine. "If they're sitting there in the bladder, you can minimize that time by sort of flushing the system out," he said.
Richard fought the cancer and is in remission, he told Ivanhoe, "Be aware of what's happening to your body." He's hoping others will educate themselves so they recognize the sometimes subtle signs.
Patients with early stage bladder tumors often undergo surgery to remove them, but this type of cancer can often recur. Sometimes surgeons remove the entire bladder to avoid recurrence, but this type of surgery can have major side effects. Experts say it's important to monitor bladder cancer patients for the development of new tumors.
William B Isaacs, PhD
Professor of Urology and Oncology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine
wisaacs@jhmi.edu
health & fitnesshealth watchcancer

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Sheepdog Church Security serves the Church near Providence by providing training materials to part-time Church Safety Officers and Security Directors. We give them the tools they need to provide reputable and realistic training to their Church Safety Team members without spending hours researching and developing courses from scratch.
Sheepdog Church Security serves small-to-medium size churches across the Providence area. Our training bundles are downloadable and customizable to fit your needs. Every facet of our training is vetted by experience security professionals, like our founder, Kris. P. Moloney.
Protect your Providence church with our useful safety ministry training.
The Providence city limits enclose a small geographical region with a total area of 20.5 square miles; 18.5 square miles of it is land and the remaining 2.1 square miles is water . Providence is located at the head of Narragansett Bay, with the Providence River running into the bay through the center of the city, formed by the confluence of the Moshassuck and Woonasquatucket Rivers. The Waterplace Park amphitheater and riverwalks line the river's banks through downtown.
As of the census of 2000, the population consisted of 173,618 people, 162,389 households, and 35,859 families. The population density was 9,401.7 inhabitants per square mile , characteristic of comparatively older cities in New England such as New Haven, Connecticut, Springfield, Massachusetts, and Hartford, Connecticut. Its population peaked in the 1940s, just prior to the nationwide period of rapid suburbanization.


Japan's recent approval to permit government workers to hack into peoples' Internet of Things (IoT) devices will give state employees access to password dictionaries to log into Japanese consumers' devices. In the connected world, realities and challenges are likely to get tougher and stranger as artificial intelligence and machine learning become a part of daily lives. What once might have been considered science fiction is not far from becoming a reality.
Today, CIOs, once expected to mainly provision technology, are now being called upon to articulate the technology strategy for specific business outcomes. They aren't only passively supplying tech, but have a lot more skin in the game, partnering business leaders in owning the delivery of critical business outcomes.
The first edition of Forbes India Innovation Dialogues: From sci-fi to reality, will be a closed-door discussion for some of India's topmost CIOs and CTOs engage on issues concerning the implications of latest advances in technology on industry.


PALM SPRINGS, FLA – JULY 20, 2018 – Stand Down, an initiative of Faith Hope Love Charity, Inc. is a non-profit organization that services veterans throughout Palm Beach County.
Foster found it difficult to get the help he needed to get off the streets and clean. He decided he would need to do it himself if he wanted a different life. And that's exactly what he did. Once he was back on track, he was committed to helping others do the same.
Currently, Stand Down has four distinct service areas including First Stop Veterans' Resource Center, a hub for veterans' services in Palm Beach County, providing prevention and early intervention for veterans and their families. Stand Down House provides emergency and transitional housing and supportive services for male veterans struggling with addictions, mental illness, PTSD, traumatic brain injuries and physical limitations. At Ease offers veterans and their families a variety of needs from housing and childcare to financial assistance. Forward March reintegrates the veterans into the workforce at a livable wage through job training and placement.
Village of Valor has been an initiative Foster and his team have been working on since 2014. This community of residences, ranging from 1-bedroom apartments to 3-bedroom townhouses with garages will be built in Lake Worth. The vision for Village of Valor will be to provide a safe, affordable housing community for military heroes and their families in an environment that restores hope and provides veteran support services.


text:
Why nanomaterials are used?
A wave of layoffs that has swept the entire Internet industry has intensified. China's Internet industry has experienced several crises and major changes in the past development process. There is also a "brief history of layoffs by major Internet companies". Hot search, JD.com has a wide range of layoffs in this round of layoffs, and all its subsidiaries are involved. Most of the layoffs are between 10% and 20%. Among them, Jingxi Guangdong and other theaters have all laid off staff. Tencent also reported the news of downsizing and layoffs. Among them, Tencent PCG (Platform User Content Business Group) laid off 30% of its staff, iQiyi laid off 12% of its staff, Kuaishou was reported to have laid off 30% of its staff, and the e-sports department of Station B laid off 90% of its staff.
Mass layoffs on the internet have created a host of socioeconomic issues, including nano materials.
What are Nanomaterials?
Nanomaterials can be defined as materials with at least one external size of 1-100nm. The definition given by the European Commission stipulates that at least half of the particles in the quantitative size distribution must have a particle size of 100nm or less.
Because of the ability to generate materials in specific ways to play a specific role, nanomaterials are used across industries, from health care and cosmetics to environmental protection and air purification.
Compared with bulk materials, nanomaterials have the following properties:
Small size effect. The periodic boundary conditions of the crystal are destroyed, and the atomic density near the surface layer of amorphous nanoparticles decreases, which leads to changes in acoustic, optical, electrical, magnetic, thermal and other properties, such as magnetic ordered state to magnetic disordered state, C-conducting phase to normal and so on.
Surface effect. The size of nanoparticles is small, the number of atoms on the surface increases, the surface area and surface tension become larger, and the coordination of atoms is insufficient, so that nanoparticles have high chemical activity and are easy to combine with other atoms.
Quantum size effect. When the particle size decreases to a certain value, the electron energy level near the Fermi level changes from quasi-continuous to discrete energy level. The splitting of energy level spacing will lead to significant differences in magnetic, optical, acoustic, thermal, electrical and C conductivity and macroscopic properties of nanoparticles.
Quantum tunneling effect. Microscopic particles have the ability to penetrate the potential barrier, which is called tunneling effect. It is found that the macroscopic physical quantities such as the magnetization of microparticles and the magnetic flux in quantum coherent devices also have tunneling effect. Moreover, nanomaterials have synergistic effect and quantum coupling effect caused by combination, and many strange properties of nanomaterials can be regulated by external field.
Nano materials Price
The price is influenced by many factors including the supply and demand in the market, industry trends, economic activity, market sentiment, and unexpected events.
If you are looking for the latest nanomaterials price, you can send us your inquiry for a quote. (sales3@nanotrun.com)
Nano materials Supplier
Luoyang Tongrun Nano Technology Co. Ltd. (TRUNNANO) is a trusted nanomaterials manufacturer and supplier with over 12-year-experience. We ship our goods all over the world.
If you are looking for high-quality nanomaterials, please feel free to contact us and send an inquiry. (sales3@nanotrun.com)
The Free Trade Agreement between India and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has come into force on.
The UAE is the gateway to the Middle East, North Africa, Central Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa, said Subramaniam, a senior official at India's Ministry of Commerce and Industry. The agreement will help boost bilateral trade in goods from $60 billion a year now to $100 billion a year within five years.
On 18 February 2022, India and the United Arab Emirates signed the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement. With the entry into force of the agreement, 90 percent of Indian goods and 65 percent of UAE goods will enjoy tariff-free market access.
Apart from its FTA with the UAE, India is also pursuing FTAs with Australia, the UK, Canada, Israel, the European Union, and the Gulf Cooperation Council.
Influenced by international situations, the supply and prices of many nano materials are still very uncertain.
Effect of cement temperature on the performance of pce powder
How to produce titanium nitride?
What is Nano Silver Good For?
Where are concrete admixtures used?
What is WS2 coating?
3D Printing Alloy Spherical Nickel Coated Tungsten Carbide WC Powder…
What is Protein Foaming Agent?…
What is Artificial graphite ?…
Shanghai port container throughput recovery has a positive impact on the freight forwarder fees market…
What is Fumed Silica?…
What are CLC Concrete Advantages?…
Products July 26,2022
High Purity Aluminum Nitride AlN Powder CAS 24304-00-5, 99.5%…
Foam concrete used as sound-absorbing and energy-absorbing material…
boron nitride graphene Inconel 718 Alloy Ti3AlC2 powder Water Reducing Agent Naphthalene Sulfonate concrete additives vanadium nitride powder colloidal gold graphite silicon nitride
A wave of layoffs that has swept the entire Internet industry has intensified. China's Internet industry has experienced several crises and major changes in the past development process. There is also a "brief history of layoffs by major Internet com…
If the compatibility of polycarboxylate superplasticizer and cement is not good, the concrete mixture is prone to some problems, such as segregation, bleeding, greater slump loss, shorter setting time and so on, so that the concrete mixture can not b…
The first method is direct nitridation of titanium powder or TiH2.…
Inconel 718 Alloy
vanadium nitride powder
silver colloids
Magnesium Diboride


By use of dianabol to increase your strength and mass, your muscle cells get to enlarge and retain more water for longer periods that help you stay healthier. The enhanced water retention capacity of your body muscle cells will help your growing muscles to become smooth and flabby. Good dosage of dianabol and dbol alternatives will help you build your body muscles and increase water retention hence keep you healthy.


text:
Senator's Collaboration Site (USU Only)
Senate Calendar of Events
About the Faculty Senate
The Faculty Senate is a representative body that provides the faculty a mechanism to participate in the governance of the university. The senate itself is governed by the Constitution of Faculty Organizations. The senate formulates issues of concern to the faculty and conveys these to the university administration. The senate is advisory to the president of the university and may pass resolutions and recommendations on issues concerning, but not limited to, education, research, and faculty welfare. The senate gathers monthly in a meeting that is open to all faculty, and reports, at least three times each year, to the Faculty Assembly.
The University Faculty Assembly consists of all individuals with current university faculty appointments at the level of Instructor or above in any School or Institute of the University, excluding adjunct appointments. The Faculty Assembly elects the officers and members of the Faculty Senate. A Faculty Assembly meeting is the forum through which information is disseminated and exchanged between the members of the senate and all faculty. It is where university and school policies may be discussed and deliberated and priorities set for senate action.
The Packard Lecture, Education Day, and Research Day are events sponsored by the senate to enrich the climate of scholarship and education at the university. The senate also honors faculty achievements through the Carol J. Johns, Henry C. Wu, James J. Leonard, and Innovation in Education awards.
Senators may be military or civilian and are drawn from faculty in basic and clinical departments of the School of Medicine, from the Graduate School of Nursing, from the Postgraduate Dental College, from the College of Allied Health Sciences,and from SOM faculty not billeted to USU.
Senators are expected to represent the voice of the faculty. Each senator is designated to represent at least one department at USU, and is responsible for seeking the opinions of those faculty members on matters concerning them, as well as communicating information on senate activities.
The senate functions through seven standing committees: Education, Research Policy, Comparability & Faculty Welfare, Constitution & Bylaws, Nomination & Election, Communications, and 1100 (Appointment, Promotion, and Tenure Policy). The chair of each committee must be a senator, but committee membership is open to all USU faculty, and vigorous faculty participation is key to committee effectiveness. Each senator must serve on at least one senate committee; most serve on two.
Ad hoc committees and specific task forces may be appointed by standing committees, by the senate, or at the request of the administration. Serving in the senate or on any of its committees offers the faculty the opportunity to shape the future of USU.
********************************ELECTION RESULTS**********************************
New Officers and Senators begin terms on 1 July 2019
President Elect: Bernard Dardzinski Secretary-Treasurer: Jerry Crouch
SOM Basic Science Senators: James Dunford Kirk Nguyen Luke Michaelson
SOM Clinical Science Senators: Beth Aaronson Marzena Pazgier Maria Torres
SOM Non-Billeted Senator: J Kent Werner
GSN Senator: Jill Schramm
PDC Senators: Lisa Yarbrough James Hawkins Nathan Krivitzsky
CAHS Senators: Branden Clayton Hamidah Brown
Amendment: Passed


Mariya Chernykh, facing federal charges in a marriage-sham case, was transferred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody on April 28, 2016.
Attorney Ronald M. Cordova, left comforts client Syed Raheel Farook and wife Tatiana Farook as they walk outside the Federal District Courthouse after making bail in Riverside Thurs., April 28, 2016.
Syed Raheel Farook collects his mail Friday, April 29, 2016 in front of his Corona home. Farook declined to comment Friday after pleading not guilty to charges Thursday that he helped arrange a sham marriage of his sister-in-law, Mariya Chernykh, to his brother's friend Enrique Marquez Jr. Farook's brother, Syed Rizwan Farook, and Rizwan's wife, Tashfeen Malik, killed 14 people and wounded 22 others Dec. 2, 2015, at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino.
Russian national Mariya Chernykh, the central figure in the marriage-fraud case involving the brother of one of the San Bernardino terrorist attackers, is in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody and facing deportation after being freed on bail in her federal case.
Chernykh, 26, of Ontario, was served with a notice to appear – officially known as a charging document – on Friday, April 29, ICE spokeswoman Virginia C. Kice said. The U.S. Marshal's Service transferred her to ICE custody Thursday after she posted $50,000 bail.
Chernykh is being held without bail at Adelanto Detention Facility, according to the ICE online inmate locator. ICE typically requests that a person be held without bail if authorities believe the detainee is a risk to fail to appear in court or poses a threat to public safety. Chernykh could request a bail hearing at which a judge would determine whether she remained in custody.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Jay Robinson, at her arraignment Thursday in U.S. District Court in Riverside, said the government believes that Chernykh is a flight risk but not a danger to the public.
Even if she remained in custody, Chernykh would still be available for hearings in her marriage-fraud case, Kice said.
The criminal and immigration cases are separate, Kice said. Federal officials acknowledge that in the past detainees have been deported before their criminal cases conclude. Kice said ICE officials and federal authorities will be in discussions as both cases progress.
Regardless of the outcome of the criminal case, Chernykh will have to face a deportation hearing at some point.
Potentially complicating the immigration case is that, according to Chernykh's attorney, at some time since arriving in the U.S. she applied for asylum. That application could be used to prevent Chernykh from being deported.
Chernykh entered the country in July 2009 as an exchange visitor and failed to depart by Oct. 30 of that year as required by her three-month visa, Kice said, citing the Department of Homeland Security database.
Federal rules require asylum applications to be filed within a year of arriving in the United States, according to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website. Claire K. Nicholson, a spokeswoman for that agency, said she could not comment on individual applications because of privacy rules.
Nicholson said that it is possible that it could take six years for an asylum application to be ruled on.
An indictment alleges that Syed Raheel Farook and Tatiana Farook took part in the sham by witnessing the Marquez-Chernykh wedding in November 2014, then helping maintain the "illusion" that the two were living as a married couple – up to the day before the Dec. 2 shooting at the Inland Regional Center that killed 14 people and wounded 22 others.
Court documents say Marquez admitted he was paid $200 a month to marry Chernykh.
Chernykh was actually living with a man in Ontario, and they have a 3-year-old child.
The Farooks and Chernykh pleaded not guilty to all charges Thursday. None of them have been implicated in the shooting plot.
Raheel Farook's brother, Syed Rizwan Farook, and Rizwan Farook's wife, Tashfeen Malik, gunned down Rizwan Farook's San Bernardino County Division of Environment Health co-workers during a holiday party in a conference room at the IRC. The couple were killed in a shootout with police hours after the attack.
Raheel and Tatiana Farook posted bail Thursday and walked out of the courthouse. Friday, Raheel was at their Forum Way home in Corona. As he collected his mail from the corner mailbox, he shook his head from side to side when asked if he'd like to tell his side of the case.
Neighbor Ruben Duran, 33, said he hadn't had an opinion on whether Raheel Farook might have been involved in the Dec. 2 plot, so he said it was only a small measure of comfort that the government said Thursday that Farook was not a danger to the public.
"If we were all held responsible for what our family members did, we'd all be in trouble," Duran said.
Other neighbors declined to comment or attach their names to their comments Friday. Generally, they didn't seem concerned about Farook's potential involvement in the terrorist attack and were happy for the buzz to die down in their neighborhood.


Personal Environment stuck in "Waking Up"
Any reason as to why this is happening and how to fix it?
Thank you for contacting us regarding this situation.
We were looking at this, and we are glad to let you know that we were able to fix the situation that was causing the provisioning process to take longer.
Could you please let us know if you are now able to access your personal environment?
it happens when you don't use the environment frequently , logout and login should work.


text:
by Jan Gangsei
Eight years ago, Addie Webster was the victim of the most notorious kidnapping of the decade. Addie vanished--and her high-profile parents were forced to move on.
Mark Webster is now president of the United States, fighting to keep the Oval Office after a tumultuous first term. Then the unthinkable happens: the president's daughter resurfaces. Addie is brought back into her family's fold... but who is this sixteen-year-old girl with a quiet, burning intelligence now living in the White House? There are those in the administration who find her timely return suspicious.
When a national security advisor approaches Darrow Fergusson, Addie's childhood best friend and the son of the president's chief of staff, he doesn''t know what to think. How could the girl he''s missed for all these years be a threat to the United States? Still, at the risk of having his own secrets exposed, Darrow agrees to spy on Addie.
He soon realizes that his old friend is much more than the traumatized victim of a sick political fringe group. Addie has come home with a mission...but will she choose to complete it?
New & Used Marketplace 31 copies from $2.99
Zero Day (Audio MP3 CD - Unabridged)
Publisher: Blackstone Audiobooks $29.95
More About Zero Day by Jan Gangsei


Over the last decade, we've witnessed the rise of skateboarding as more than just another version of anarchy and disobedience.
The brand was established as a creative outlet for Rousseau Loubser, engineer and avid skate boarder. One day he decided to come up with a brand to represent skateboarding and the environment where he skates. Woodstock is deeply intrenched within the brand. It's not the easiest location to skate but has a certain character about it, that you wouldn't experience anywhere else. Rousseau started out by making T-shirts and killer 5 panel caps. This spurred Rousseau and his skate crew to really make something of it, since then numerous skate videos and edits have been created too.