Slashdot Mirror
UN Study Shows Record-High Increases For Atmospheric CO2 In 2013
Figures released Tuesday by a United Nations advisory body reveal that 2013 saw new recorded highs for both carbon dioxide and methane, as well as the largest year-over-year rise in carbon dioxide since 1984, reflecting continuing worldwide emissions from human sources but also the possibility that natural sinks (oceans and vegetation) are near their capacity for absorbing the excess. From the Washington Post's account:
The latest figures from the World Meteorological Organization’s monitoring network are considered particularly significant because they reflect not only the amount of carbon pumped into the air by humans, but also the complex interaction between man-made gases and the natural world. Historically, about half of the pollution from human sources has been absorbed by the oceans and by terrestrial plants, preventing temperatures from rising as quickly as they otherwise would, scientists say.
“If the oceans and the biosphere cannot absorb as much carbon, the effect on the atmosphere could be much worse,” said Oksana Tarasova, a scientist and chief of the WMO’s Global Atmospheric Watch program, which collects data from 125 monitoring stations worldwide. The monitoring network is regarded as the most reliable window on the health of Earth’s atmosphere, drawing on air samples collected near the poles, over the oceans, and in other locations far from cities and other major sources of pollution.
The new figures for carbon dioxide were particularly surprising, showing the biggest year-over-year increase since detailed records were first compiled in the 1980s, Tarasova said in an interview. The jump of nearly three parts per million over 2012 levels was twice as large as the average increase in carbon levels in recent decades, she said.
The diplomacy is already complete for imposing carbon tariffs on China. We should proceed now. http://news.slashdot.org/story...
Turns out that this is a misleading talking point. http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
Some "hiatus" with 2013 and 2012 and 2010 and 2009 and 2008 and 2007 and 2006 and 2005 and 2004 and 2003 all making the list of top 10 hottest years since we started measuring.
Not that it matters, because you repetitive dolts have exactly zero null hypotheses that you've got any hope of establishing.
You need a global array. Last December-January-February together were the seventh warmest on record globally. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...
If natural systems can sink all supposed manmade change, why could natural systems cause all the change too? If the natural sink capability massively underrated too, what's to say there's really a cause to worry at all?
If we really will be screwed by society being forced to change due to climate, what's to say we won't be equally or greater screwed if we're forced to change due to policy? If natural variability is underrated as suggested by the previous paragraph, what's to say we can't be fucked over twice; first by policy and then by natural climate drift? Unless you're denying ice ages we already know that natural drift have a very wide range.
What about the people with stake in large multinational wind and solar producers claiming we can save ourself with all-renewable society? Are they saints incapable of lying, or could it be that any alarmism and climate hype serves their cause and fills their pockets?
Why should we listen to people like you who claim that we're bound for disaster with certainity, while at the same time IPCC is revising their predictions downwards for every new report released. Why should we suppress the debate by claiming it's all settled when it obviously isn't?
Why is polarizing hardline rethoric constantly used by environmentalists? Why is the pro-agw side always the good side and everything else is universally bad? Could it be that you're not actually seeking facts to improve earth science, but just want to advance your activist agenda and shallow ideological belief?
There will be a march for the climate to put pressure on the UN to take action on September 21 in NYC. http://peoplesclimate.org/marc...
This the change you're referring to. It is explained quite well, and the total change in the data is onl\y 0.2%.
As in, basically nothing. Not that that has stopped deniers from saying 'NOAA IS PART OF THE CONSPIRACY!!"
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/G...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Your quote is reference the Annual Average...which it is set to do, and shows absolutely NO SIGNS of not crossing that milestone.
Your post is one born of ignorance and an attempt to spread confusion.
Technically it was passed by in 2013...several times. But the monthly averages still came out slightly below 400ppm. April 2014 however was the first time the Monthly Average PPM level crossed 400ppm. And it's been theres since.
In fact I really dont see the point of your post. The trendline is quite clear, and is continually up. It has yet to FAIL to increase.
It couldnt be more irrelegent of ignorant if you had said "oh good, they have a testable predictiona bout gravity. but will they still claim gravity is real if hte apple fails to fall to the ground?"
http://www.climatecentral.org/...
http://www.climatecentral.org/...
https://www.climate.gov/news-f...
http://www.scientificamerican....
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
The reefs in the Caribbean have been dying for decades, but not from acidification.
About a quarter of the way down on this page, http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/201... , you can see what happens as the stony corals die off. The branches of the corals break off and no longer supply refuge to small fish from predators. And there's less ... well ... hard stuff in the way to slow down waves. It's kind of depressing to snorkel or dive in Florida since you can see all the old coral skeletons lying on the ocean floor, slowly being covered with silt. While, of the three images, the one on the right looks the most vibrant, most of what you're seeing is soft coral (no calcium carbonate skeleton) and sponges that are, you know, spongy. Soft corals provide little or no protection to juvenile or feeder fish.
There's a thriving skeptic group actively doing just that, so you can still feel you're among your own kind when you look into it.
A "skeptic" group already did this. The other "skeptics" didn't like the outcome:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Envir...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Here's how it's measured at the Mauna Kea site. Accuracy is to within 0.2ppm, 1 standard deviation is 0.26ppm.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
So yeah, we know it's accurate because it's using the same techniques and technology used all over the world to measure gas fractions per mole of various gasses in many different applications. If the CO2 measurements for climate were wrong as you suspect - "rounding errors" or the like - then people would be dying left and right due to anesthesiology mismeasurements; chemical manufacturing would have far higher error rates; and other very visible and common manufacturing processes would be far less reliable than they are today. This is solid measurement technology.
Human civilization developed at about 275ppm of CO2. It took us from the dawn of civilization (first use of fire, you could argue, so over 400,000 years) to the early 19th century to budge the needle beyond small natural variations from 275ppm. From the 1820's to 1910, just under a century, we gained 25ppm. From 1910 to 1950 - 40 years - we gained 40ppm more. From 1950 to today, we've gained another 50ppm and are currently increasing at about 2ppm per year. 400,000 years - tiny amounts of change. 190 years - 33% increase; that's got to register, since CO2 drives the atmospheric temperature as the greenhouse gas with the most effect.
The problem is that we are now entering a climate regime which humanity has never been in before. Our entire civilization has been built on stable climates, and that's true of the past, too. We have many, many records of civilization which did poorly and even failed when their climate changed by an amount that is a small fraction of what we're doing now. Civilization will not collapse tomorrow, or in a decade, or in a century. It will simply become more expensive, dangerous, uncomfortable, impoverished and unstable than it is today. If you're comfortable with that as the future to leave to your grandchildren, well, more power to you. I hope you build your bunker deep.
Ignoring a problem that will lead to massive changes in the world is perhaps the least conservative action possible. The fact that we are uncertain as to the total effects of these changes down the line, but we know we're messing with the entire planet, means that inaction is even *more* dangerous, because of the possible consequences. So the claim that we need to wait before doing anything is a radical, not conservative, approach.
French - The lingua franca of Europe!