Warmists and their media allies are averting their eyes from new scientific data from Japan that demonstrates some of the flaws in global warming theory (called "settled science" by those who refuse to look at all the evidence). Dr. Tim Ball, a climatologist unafraid to take on the warmist machine, explains why CO2 cannot possibly be the cause of global warming, in terms readily comprehensible by nonscientists. In essence, the assumptions about how man-made CO2 drives global warming do not stand up to the data. This is known as "disproving" a scientific hypothesis.
The map below shows the production and absorption of CO2 globally as measured by satellite:
The information in the article is not surprising if you know anything about CO2 and don't buy the 'official' nonsense. The oceans are the main control of atmospheric CO2 as one of the atmospheric gases in constant flux between the water and the atmosphere. The ocean's ability to absorb CO2 is a function of its temperature - cold water absorbs more CO2 than warm water. The boundary between the warm polar water and warm tropical water is very clearly defined in most parts of the world and the map generally reflects this pattern. The map is only surprising if you believe that humans are the primary source of CO2. (snip)
There are several misconceptions about CO2, most created because proponents tried to prove the hypothesis rather than the normal scientific practice of disproof. It helped them if the misinformation created unfounded fears. An early IPCC claim said atmospheric residency time of CO2 was at least 100 years. Done, ostensibly, for the political point that even if we stopped production immediately the damage was done. We now know the actual time is at most 5 to 6 years.
The major assumption of the hypothesis says a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase. After publication in 1999 of Petit et al., Antarctic ice core records were presented as evidence. Just four years later proof that the major assumption of the hypothesis was wrong appeared. Somehow it was shuffled aside, probably because of the diversionary claim that the lag was between 80 and 800 years. It doesn't matter, it still contradicts the basic assumption. Temperature change before CO2 change is the case in every record for any period or duration is studiously ignored by proponent and skeptic.
There's more. When a hypothesis is disproven, it's time to move on.
Hat tip: Randall Hoven