Slashdot Mirror


Unexplained Leap In CO2 Levels

Cally writes "The Guardian is reporting that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have leapt by 4.5 ppm in the last two years. This raises the ugly possibility that the capacity of a large carbon sink (possibly the oceans) has been exceeded, and the worst-case scenario is that a tipping point has been reached and a runaway warming scenario is in progress. Quote from Dr. Piers Foster of Reading University: 'If this is a rate change, of course it will be very significant. It will be of enormous concern, because it will imply that all our global warming predictions for the next hundred years or so will have to be redone.'"

7 of 1,215 comments (clear)

  1. More on sinks by erick99 · · Score: 5, Informative
    Carbon Sinks are an important component of this discussion. From the article referenced in the first sentence:

    Buildup of atmospheric C02 is moderated by "sinks" on the earth's surface that use some C02 and store much of the carbon in living organisms, organic matter and carbonate minerals, says soil scientist H.H. Cheng. These carbon sinks include the oceans that cover more than 70 percent of the earth surface, forests and other vegetation covering the land, and organic matter in the soil.

    Interestingly, this article talks about soil as a possible source of CO2 buildup in the atmosphere, making the El Nino effect not always a good indicator of how much a rise or fall in atmospheric CO2 should be. Finally, here is article that that argues that rises in atmospheric CO2 are not a cause for alarm: PortlandTribune.com | Rise in CO2 levels is no cause for alarm

    --
    http://www.busyweather.com/
    1. Re:More on sinks by bobetov · · Score: 5, Informative

      Um. Factually incorrect. Not sure why you think we don't know what historic CO2 levels are, but you might want to check out:

      http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_P la nning/New_Data/index.html

      which is has a graph of findings from Antarctic ice cores, whose trapped bubbles of gas nicely record CO2 levels back some 500k years. Note the big red spike at the end of the graph, way above previous highs. On a following page:

      http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_P la nning/Closer_Look/

      You can see that in the last 200 years, CO2 levels have shot up 25%.

      Just because this issue gets mainstream press (read: hysteric and unreliable) coverage, doesn't make the issue go away.

      --
      Looking for a Rails developer in Chapel Hill?
  2. Re:runaway warming trend? by herrison · · Score: 5, Informative

    General global warming need not mean that all places get warmer. Here in northern Europe, global warming could lead to a disruption of the north Atlantic drift/Gulf stream - which could lead to a much colder local environment.

    --
    You know what I miss? Leeches.
  3. Re:The sky is falling by Graham+Clark · · Score: 5, Informative

    Some atmospheric measurements don't show warming, or even show cooling.

    However (see this Nasa page) Earth-surface and near-surface measurements do show warming. As we live on or very near the earth's surface, this is the imporant point to notice.

    The graphs you point at is somewhat selective in its choice of data.

  4. the junk in junkscience.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Steven J. Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and a commentator on Fox News.

    He has spent his life as a lobbyist for major corporations and trade organisations which have poisioning or polluting problems. He originally ran NEPI (National Environmental Policy Institute) which was founded by Republican Rep Don Ritter (who tried to get tobacco industry funding) using oil and gas industry funding. NEPI was dedicated to transforming both the EPA and the FDA, and challenging the cost of Superfund toxic cleanups by these large corporations.

    NEPI was also associated with the AQSC (Air Quality Standards Coalition) which was devoted to emasculating Clean Air laws. This organisation took up the cry of "we need sound science" from the chemical industry as a way to counter claims of pollution -- and Milloy became involved in what became known as the "sound-science" movement. Its most effective ploy was to label science not beneficial to the large funding corporations as "junk" -- and Milloy was one of its most effective lobbyists because he wrote well, and used humour (PJ O'Rourke was another -- but better!)

    He joined Philip Morris's specialist-science/PR company APCO & Associates in 1992, working behind the scenes on a business venture known as "Issues Watch". By this time, APCO had been taken over and become a part of the world-wide Grey Marketing organisation, and so Milloy was able to use the international organisation as a feed source for services to corporations who had international problems.

    Issues Watch bulletins were only given out to paying customers, so Milloy started for APCO the "Junkscience.com" web site, which gave him an outlet to attack health and environmental activists, and scientists who published findings not supportive of his client's businesses. Like most good PR it mixes some good, general criticism of science and science-reporting, with some outright distorted and manipulative pieces.

    The Junkscience web site was supposedly run by a pseudo-grassroots organisation called TASSC (The Advancement for Sound Science Coalition), which initially paid ex-Governor Curruthers of New Mexico as a front. Milloy actually ran it from the back-room, and issued the press releases. Then when Curruthers resigned, Milloy started to call himself "Director" (Bonner Cohen - another of the same ilk also working for APCO - became "President")

    Initially all of this was funded by Philip Morris, as part of their contributions to the distortion of tobacco science, but later they widened out the focus and introduced even more funding by establishing a coalition -- with energy, pharmaceutical, chemical companies. TASSC's funders include 3M, Amoco, Chevron, Dow Chemical, Exxon, General Motors, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Lorillard Tobacco, Louisiana Chemical Association,National Pest Control Association, Occidental Petroleum, Philip Morris Companies, Procter & Gamble, Santa Fe Pacific Gold, and W.R. Grace, the asbestos and pesticide manufacturers.

    TASSC was then exposed publicly as a fraud. And so Milloy established the "Citizens for the Integrity of Science" to take over the running of the Junkscience.com web site.

    http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Steve n_J._Milloy

    amazing what you find on the internets

  5. Re:runaway warming trend? by mik · · Score: 5, Informative
    Let's be clear on this point: "global warming", if happening, does not say anything at all about the temperature at any given point on the globe. It says that there is an increase in the global average temperature. This sort of change would imply an increase (perhaps dramatic) in the chaos of the weather system: e.g. more and larger hurricanes and tornados, larger swings in temperature from historical data, chaotic deviation from trend lines, etc. Global rise in temperature might also be expected to increase ice cap melting rates, leading to higher water levels and proportionally lower salt content.

    The typical example is that you've got a water wheel where each bucket has a hole that leaks water at a fixed rate. Now you allow water to flow into the system - the more water, the faster the wheel goes... up to a point. when the "tipping point" is reached, the system goes haywire, speeding up, slowing down, even reversing direction. Here's a little demo

    I'm not saying that this is what is happening here, just that "but we had a mild summer this year" is missing the point.

  6. Satellite temperature measurements by Phronesis · · Score: 5, Informative
    The author is thinking of the discrepancy between surface measurements and satellite measurements of the troposphere. Satellites show only half the warming trend that surface measurements do. It's not true that satellites show no warming, but they show a warming of between 0.0 and 0.2 Kelvin between 1980 and 2000, where surface measurements showed a warming of 0.25 to 0.4 K during the same period. Details may be found here.

    There have been attempts to reconcile the two sets of data, mostly having to do with the difficulty of maintaining calibration of the satellites. These tend to produce corrected satellite records that agree with the larger warming measured on the surface, but the jury is still out.