Slashdot Mirror
Observed Atmospheric CO2 Hits 400 Parts Per Million
symbolset writes "Over the past month a number of individual observations of CO2 at the Mauna Loa Observatory have exceeded 400 parts per million. The daily average observation has crept above 399 ppm, and as annually the peak is typically in mid-May it seems likely the daily observation will break the 400 ppm milestone within a few days. This measure of potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere should spark renewed discussion about the use of fossil fuels. For the past few decades the annual peak becomes the annual average two or three years later, and the annual minimum after two or three years more."
No it won't. It's not like politicians and the public have been just sitting on the sidelines, waiting util a value about 400 PPM was observed. I don't believe the public really doubts that atmospheric CO2 is increasing, and so a wonky measure of it is pretty irrelevant to public sentiment.
There are groups (misguided in my opinion, but that's not relevant to the question) such as 350.org that want to restrict CO2 levels to 350ppm, feeling that that level is the "trigger" for global warming.
It's not clear to me exactly how much time they propose it will take to get there though. On their web site are some generic words about installing solar panels and stopping fossil fuel subsidies, which I think anybody is generally for. But I don't see anything about how much time they expect this to take even if the world moved to their agenda.
Anybody know?
Ferret From the High, Snowy Mountains of Colorado
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Why would you take this measurement in such close proximity to one of the most active volcanoes on the planet?
The lastest IPCC AR5 data confirms there has been no measurable global warming in the last 16 years, something that the IPCC's computer models completely failed to predict:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/
Just one of many articles that a Google search turns up. See http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0012821X9500213V
> Atmospheric PCO2 as determined from the goethites in these four âoewell-behavedâ
> cases ranged from values indistinguishable from modern (within analytical
> uncertainty) to values up to approximately 16 time modern (modern
> atmospheric PCO2 was taken to be 10â'3.5 atm). One interpretation
> of the fifth, âoeanomalousâ, comparison is that atmospheric CO2 levels
> increased from about 3 times modern to about 18 times modern from the
> Triassic into the Early Jurassic. This inferred value for the PCO2 of the
> Early Jurassic atmosphere is not uniquely constrained by the existing data
> and needs to be substantiated. However, even considerably lower Early
> Jurassic atmospheric PCO2 values of 6 to 9 times modern (i.e., 1/3 to 1/2
> of the estimated value of 18 times modern) would still indicate significant
> differences between the global carbon cycles then and now. These
> results highlight the need for more research on the behavior of the
> atmosphere during and after the Triassic-Jurassic transition.
Guess what...
* planet earth didn't blow up
* it didn't turn into a Venusian hell
* planet earth had some of the lushest growth of flora and fauna in its entire history
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
article
Sounds exactly like the data between 1960 and 1978! And nothing has changed since then! The temperature has stayed exactly the same! Oh, wait.
"False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
It isn't the heat from atmospheric greenhouse gasses that will kill us, but the ocean stratification and subsequent hydrogen sulfide production this stratification is causing. Hydrogen sulfide is a deadly poison.
There is a new novel just published a month or so ago that describes this process in detail with real references. Most of what you need to know is in the first two chapters, which are conveniently in the "look inside" blurb on Amazon. The book is called "Hubris Ark" and was written by William Bradford Cushman. The back cover has this on it:
"In the history of our planet there have been several mass extinctions. The worst of these was the end-Permian. It is estimated that this event killed between 80 and 96% of all animals and plants on land and in the sea. The end-Permian extinction was initiated by an increase in global temperatures that was caused by greenhouse gases from widespread volcanism. This modest temperature rise started a cascade of events that culminated in the release of massive amounts of poisonous gas into the air and sea. We are seeing the first elements of the same cascade unfolding today. For most there will be no escape from this gas, only a quick death. A handful of individuals with sufficient foresight will, however, have a small chance to survive. This is their story."
Has anyone reached their "threshold" yet? You know, the threshold where they will actually get off the couch and out of their Mom's basement and join with others to fight this "cascade of events?"
I know I have.
That's when alarmists proclaim that the science is settled and everybody but them should just shut up, right?
Why does rate of increase seem constant. I mean, if it's influenced by human activity (of which I have no doubt), then shouldn't it track closely to the fluctuations in the global economy. Specifically, shouldn't there be a dip or flat corresponding to the Great Recession periods of '08/'09?
A Testable Theory?
A way to falsify your assertions?
No way. That's not how science is done.
You pick your part of the global temperature chart and we'll pick ours.
Really you people whine about looking at only part of the record yet you yourselves ignore the larger record.
Hypocrites
Just sayin.'
Exactly my thought... it's like saying "This town stinks" when you visit the evening after their Baked Bean Eating Contest.
"If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm."
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
That seems a fair, though perhaps somewhat generous, estimate for the ratio of signal to noise here. "News for nerds" has become just another giant Red vs. Blue flamefest. Might as well just turn my attention to my wife's cat pictures on FB.
Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
Bringing the numbers closer to human-scale, a 300 parts per million is the same as 3 parts per 10,000. Similarly 400 is 4 parts per 10,000. So basically, we've gone from 3 molecules per 10,000 to 4 molecules of CO2 per 10,000 molecules of air.
In the same period, plankton levels have declined over 1% per year since the late 1970's. John Martin at MBARI postulated that the decline was due to a decline of dissolved iron in the oceans. He's quoted as saying "Give me a tanker full of iron and I'll give you an ice age." A series of experiments, IRONEX and SOFEX demonstrated that he was right - adding iron caused the plankton to bloom. The SOFEX bloom lasted longer than the 45 days allotted to collect plankton samples. IRONEX demonstrated that the predators could find the bloom and feed on it.
You want to reduce CO2 levels? Stop hunter-gatherer style fishing and start farming the oceans. Of course, then the problems will be keeping the earth warm enough to avoid another ice age and preventing fish rustlers from making off with your harvest.
Are going to be Very Happy.
This measure of potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere should spark renewed discussion about the use of fossil fuels.
Uh, isn't burning other fuels just as bad -- I mean, separating C, H, and O chains is separating C,H, & O chains no matter if it came from long dead or recent dead stuff. Just call it "the Burning of Resources", because that's what it is. Oil is so useful we'll be pumping it out of the Earth until every last drop is gone to make stuff out of even if we never burned fossil fuels for energy ever again.
Oh wow, good thing you notice! Those scientists are going to be so embarrassed when we tell them they missed that!
After the UK and Alaska has seen a 2 - 5 degree temperature drop since 2000, and cooling global wide many observations are counteracting the global warming models.
As a former Alaskan I can tell you that glacialization has come back the last 3 years and summer temperatures are rapidly falling year after year. So climate != weather but 13 years of data is starting to make a case for a cooler climate regardless of increased CO2.
http://saveie6.com/
Earth's climate was cooler in the late Ordovician period with atmospheric CO2 ~4400ppm. How did that happen if 350ppm is the trigger for global warming?
One cold year says nothing about the trend in the Earth's climate.
Palm trees and 8
The article says, "This measure of potent greenhouse gas". I would point out that CO2 is neither particularly "potent", nor is it common when compared to far more common and potent green house gases, like water vapor.
How's methane levels doin'? Supposedly it's up 3x since the '80s.
Thanks to the good work of CxIxA, we have the Green Party (Green as In the Green Of The Saudi-Arabian Flag) here destroying a marvellous energy generation system in Germany. Namely, our nuclear reactors. In our neighbouring country, where they still have their own useful intelligence service, they can Heat Their Houses with electricity from their reactors. When CxIxA sends their saboteurs under guise of "Greenpeace", they will blow up their boats. Vive La France !
CxIxA kills two birds with one stone: First they make Germany dependent on oil sold by British and American companies, controlled by the US military in the Persian Gulf. Secondly, they shit bricks about German potentially acquiring her own nuclear weapons in the future and want to kill that at all cost. Germany must be an obedient vasall of the Anglosaxon empire forever.
The side effect of massive CO2 emissions in a little timeframe and the financing of Wahabist Terror by the sheiks of Saudi-Arabia are just "collateral damage". From time to time, this will "hit home" and blow a few shrapnels into Americans or burn them entirely. Yes, the Saudis financed Islamic terror in Bosnia, the Caucasus (Chechnya and related places9 and many other places. You get what you pay for, Americans and sometimes there is a modicum of justice in this world.
100 years of data is high frequency noise on a signal that has a geologic time scale.
Also, it should be noted that the current annual increase in CO2 is about 2 ppm, which this graph shows. And, as can be read here(in danish), the largest fluctuations in the period from A.D. 1000 - 1800 was 7 ppm. So at present we are increasing CO2 levels every four years by more than the biggest fluctuations in said time period; I'm guessing it really is man-made.
"climate change" is proper
and while you get abnromally cold weather someone gets a real HEAVY HOT SPELL and the avg of the two , is above what it previously was for a avg thus "global warming"
its easy to understand
look at how many 44 C days we used ot have and look to how many we now get.
You're right of course, it is unlikely that scientists would not notice that fairly huge detail.
On the other hand, it is not completely unknown for scientists to make large errors in measurement.
The quality of scientists and, more to the point, the processes that even good scientists use, is not of a uniform high quality. The fact that you italicised "scientists" as if that was enough to prove the point means that you, yourself, would make a pretty poor scientist.
The real thing to watch for is the rise in ocean temperature. CO2, air temperature, ocean rise are all minor inconveniences compared to when the ocean becomes warm enough to release all the methane locked up as frozen hydrates. That increase in methane will make the effects of any increase in CO2 pale to insignificance.
Potent greenhouse gases are those that are much stronger than CO2, i.e., not CO2. And reaching 400ppm was predictable, so whatever discussions we were going to have about this we have already had.
So?
Recent dead stuff got their C out of the carbon cycle recently, fossil dead stuff got it out of the carbon cycle a long time ago.
I thought cars and other things that burn fossil fuels output carbon monoxide, not carbon dioxide? Wouldn't the easiest solution to be to build up rather than out, and then plant more trees all over the world to turn the CO2 into oxygen?
I'm not sure, but might some of the geoengineering approaches to removing carbon from the atmosphere considerably accelerate your estimate? Like for example, iron-fertilizing the oceans to create massive plankton blooms that, hopefully, remove carbon faster?
Not that I'm sure that the proposed geogengineering approaches are GOOD IDEAS, I'm just wondering if reducing CO2 could be done quicker.
--PM
If you liberals and Europeans REALLY want to make a difference, then you will change tactics.
First and foremost is to get rid of this idea that emissions is tied to ppl. It is not. It is tied to rapid expansion of GDP. As such, you want to tackle the CO2/GDP. From another posting elsewhere:
BTW, There is a much better solution for all of this.
We should simply require a tax on all goods, local and imported (save maybe unprocessed food) that slowly raises over time. It should be tied to the components in the goods and the CO2 from where they come from. This needs to be normalized, but not on CO2 per capita, but on CO2 per GDP.
The best argument for this is China. They have had a large population, but their Co2 emissions have gone up with their GDP. The same is true all over.
In addition, it needs to be GDP, not GDP PPP, which rewards nations cheating.
Right now, our CO2 / nation is based on measurements in the west, and lots of guess work elsewhere, esp. China. That is the WRONG way to do things.
Instead, we have the OCO2 going up next year. It will measure the CO2 directly. It will not know that source, which is great. All that matters is that CO2 increases as it leaves your borders from what it was coming in.
If we do this, then EVERY nation/state has to make decisions on how best to drop their CO2. For some, it might be increasing their ag and forests. For others such as China and America, it would be solving our Coal/Cement issue.
Regardless, this is about the only way to solve this issue
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I farted in my Escalade. That put it over the line.
All that new CO2 must be falling out of the sky as snow in the first snow in Arkansas in May in measured history.....
"This measure of potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere should spark renewed discussion about the use of fossil fuels."
Why should it? The trend in global temperatures indicates that CO2 is not as closely correlated to temps as once previously thought. No one will care what climate scientists have to say until they redeem their credibility. No, I'm not talking about UEA, but rather to the 30+ years of failed predictions.
A million Tutsis can't be wrong.
As a former Alaskan I can tell you that glacialization has come back the last 3 years and summer temperatures are rapidly falling year after year. So climate != weather but 13 years of data is starting to make a case for a cooler climate regardless of increased CO2.
"global warming" doesn't meant that every point on the globe will warm up by the same amount. It could be that Alaska gets colder, but Brazil gets hotter by a larger amount, for example.
The world is overpopulated and cannot support the current population of humans, so waste products are accumulating faster than the natural mechanisms designed to deal with them can do it.
There are reliable studies that show the Earth can support, at most, 1.5 Billion people on the presumption that those people only eat plant matter. Animalian agriculture supporting a meat diet (that humans are not even supposed to eat) halves that number.
The real solution to global warming, which really does equate to the ultimate extinction of all life on Earth, is one that nobody wants to talk about. We have to cull the herd. We have to establish a selection process to identify the people who are worth keeping and dispose of the rest, for Earth's sake, and for the survival of our species.
In the post-culling world, we have to give up meat. We have to give up fossil fuels. We have to give up technology, and manufacturing, and all of the other activities that destroy our ecosystem. Humans were intended at most to live off of the Earth and what he could grow and harvest with his bare hands, without tools, each being responsible for working enough land to support himself.
Until we start making the difficult decision to cull our herd, to eliminate those who produce excess waste without producing any additional specie or societal value, to voluntarily eliminate 5/6 of our numbers, we will continue to careen toward the ultimate, unaviodable, and irreversible extinction of all life on Earth.
That's the truth. If you don't like it, you're in denial.
As a person who hates vegitation of all types, I am horrified at the prospect of a teeny-tiny-itsy-bitsy boost in atmospheric CO2 and the resulting potential for happier plants and, even worse, (gasp!) more plants. Why can't we all just agree that the basis of all life on Earth (carbon), is evil and begin and immediate project to eliminate the substance once and for all!!! We should spend as much money as it takes and mobilize all the world's non-carbon resources to locate enything on the Earth that contains carbon and launch it on a giant rocket into the sun! Earth will then be a (lifeless) paradise!!!!
If you say we must all stop a thing before point-of-no-return-X, and then fail to stop it before point X, then there's no point in even talking about the subject after point X is crossed. If you continue to scream and yell about it and demand corrective actions, then you have proven the your "point of no return" was NOT a "point of no return" at all ... so nobody should listen to any further alarm bells you ring.
The biggest joke about all the climate alarmism is that it ramps-up in every election cycle... with proclamations that action MUST be taken during the political term that follows the election or something dreadful and irreversible will happen; the implication being: Vote for the leftist! (it's your last chance to save the planet!)
WOLF! WOLF, I say!.... WOOOOOLLLLLLFFFFF!
That's not true, the observations are wrong. And anyway it's not important. And even if was, we're not responsible. Peddling these myths is exactly what I'd expect from leftist, reality-based terrorists
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
And breath that breath of fresh air and CO2 you have been long for!
-- Many men would appreciate a woman's mind more if they could fondle it
Here's one good reason for discounting anything associated with Roy Spencer: Look up "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming" and note who signed it. He's welcome to believe what he likes but he's no scientist. As for the chart itself, that appears to be from the uncorrected version of Loehle's paper, which in any case was published in the Mickey Mouse journal Energy & Environment. What other information do you have that backs up why to trust this single chart rather than other temperature reconstructions?
Largest eruption of 20th cenutry 20 years ago. We may not want too many of these eruptions closely spacing in a row. It could greatly reduce agricultural for several years. And maybe trgiger a mini-cie age.
Since the peak in 2005. The US should reach the Kyoto treaty goal of 1988 CO2 emission levels in 2014. It is almost there now.
Most of the US reduction was accidental due huge discoveries of cheap natural gas. That has replaces a quarter of more dirty coal production, with much more to come. As Obama vehicle emission laws take effect, CO2 will fall even more.
The hope is that China imitates the US and switches to methane energy production too. China has TWICE the methane resources of the US, but has barely started producing it.
Yes CO2 goes up as it has for the past 15+ years (about 8-10%) and the temperatures haven't. So much for the theory that CO2 is the control knob on the climate. It is a trace element in the atmosphere that follows temperature (it doesn't lead it).
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958
So the plants have more plant food and are doing fine. If I were concerned about CO2 it would be in the other direction. If it gets down to 150 PPM then all plant life above the oceans will cease. During the last ice age it got perilously close (170 or so). We were within 10% of not being here.
Definitely.. get 'em all talking about CO2.. That way nobody'll notice all the methane hydrates all bubbling out.. Controlling CO2 emissions is something we can pat our selves on the ole back about, while feeling good an' cozy that we're "helping out".. Since all the methane coming out of the GOM, and the N. & S. poles, is something we *can't* control (well, we *could* ban dairy farmers and their farting cows ;-).. besides, all that global "warming" is gonna push us into another ice age, so just think of all that good ole heating fuel we get to burn.. and the sheep famers who get to sell all that wool
More like "the evening after the advertised start of the one-day baked bean eating contest, as people are accelerating eating their beans (and their neighbour's beans) and the atmosphere is starting to get rank". Meanwhile people are ignoring the bones of people laying in the dirt, in poses of contorted agony, amid fossilized signs advertising past baked bean eating contests.
It's not the most wonderful of analogies, but there are important points of comparison left out.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Burning non-fossil fuels means releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere which has been removed from the atmosphere in the recent past. And unless you're involved in active de-forestation (not many people are), then most of the time you're also planting replacement trees, which themselves will absorb carbon dioxide in significant quantities in the coming years.
Burning fossil fuels is much worse than burning "biomass"
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
As long as the article's a dupe, I'll dupe my reply:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/08_Beck-2.pdf (from 2008)
"The record clearly demonstrates that [CO2 levels were] significantly higher than usually reported for the Last [Glacial] Termination, with levels of up to ~425 ppm about 12,750 years ago, which exceeds the present CO2 concentration of 395 ppm."
This explains thoroughly that
a) it's fundamentally a fallacy to compare Vostok data with Mauna Loa CO2 results (from 3000+ m altitude), and
b) that CO2 values frequently exceeded 400 in both this and the last centuries (as high as 480 depending on how you look at it).
-Styopa
As I'd posted Beck's link to a number of threads on AGW, I wanted to post my response to some other links as well:
I just want to say thanks to some /. posters, in particular for the realclimate links (Rabett is a little too snarky for me) - specifically http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/650000-years-of-greenhouse-gas-concentrations/ [realclimate.org] .
The article is interesting, as is especially the commentary, in which people raise a number of well-informed questions and get well-informed answers.
I'm trying to honestly evaluate the claims of AGW as best I can as a layman. I'm not a climate scientist, and I'll admit, I have been made suspicious by the quasi-religious tone of the exercise (starting with Mr Gore) and the unquestioning adulatory tenor of its supporters (a Nobel and Academy Award for him, really?).
Anyway, I sincerely appreciate anything that increases my understanding of the science and details.
As a layman, it seems irrefutable that there is warming taking place. It seems that CO2 has recently spiked, and that makes anecdotal sense given the intense and constant consumption of hydrocarbons since industrialization.
However...the point of the AGW creed is not merely to prove warming or CO2. It is, in fact, to assert:
1) that the sole (or at least dominant cause) for global warming (later amended to 'changing climate' - hah) is human activity, AND
2) that this is an unmitigated catastrophe, AND
3) the only solution is expanding government control of the activities of individuals "for their own good".
#1 seems true.
#2 may certainly be true in the short run for people in coastal cities, but let's be honest, these very-human things were never established in their current locations based on their durability/safety, and in long enough timescales the survivability of anything approaches zero. Nothing is permanent, not even stuff that we deem "really important or inconvenient to change".
#3 certainly doesn't logically follow either of the others, particularly considering some of the people volunteering (out of their own good nature) to be the ones making the decisions.
-Styopa
I think your link is wrong, can you repost it?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."