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.

Comments

Re:Meanwhile in the real world...

[i kan reed]

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.

One themometer won't do

[mdsolar]

You need a global array. Last December-January-February together were the seventh warmest on record globally. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist...

Re:Meanwhile in the real world...

[dywolf]

it was cold. once. where i live.
therefore prolonged global warming is a myth.

because we all know anecdotal local data completely disproves long term multidecade global averages and trends.

Re:Meanwhile in the real world...

[dywolf]

because.....why?
what exactly do they get out of doing such a thing?

There are millions of scientists involved in this worldwide.
What do they get out of it? Public funding? Research grants? Cause Lord knows we just lavish scientists with tons of public money in this country.....no wait, thats the exact opposite of what we do. and further, they dont get to pocket what little money they do get. that's illegal.

the ONLY climate "scientists" who get rich from their research and live high on the hog are those in the employ of the fossil fuel industries.
Speaking of motivations...lets look at the fossil fuel industries. unlike those "lying AGW scientists", they actually do recieve tons of money from the government. hundreds of billions a year. and they make even more in profits selling their product. and they spend billions in lobbying every year.

so yes, let's talk motivations and stakes you AC idiot.
the phrase "global million scientist conspiracy exposed by plucky group of oil billionaires" is not reflective of reality.
rather reality illustrates just how mentally deficient your post is.

Re:Time for GATT Article XX tariffs

[MrL0G1C]

Indeed, in a few years, they'll be emitting as much per capita as Germany 9.5t, the UK 7.7t and the US 17.5t

t=tonnes of CO2 per annum per capita..

I'm no fan of China's pollution 7t record but it seems odd to single them out.

I love this debate

[chubs]

I love the global warming debate. You are either an environmentalist nut-job or an anti-science global warming denier. We spend almost no time analyzing reports, comparing data and questioning our preconceived notions (a.k.a. rational thought), and instead dig around the internet for articles supporting our side of the argument and name-calling anyone who has any doubts about the methods or conclusions from our pet article.
In any other scientific debate, you never hear about "Higgs Boson Deniers" or "String Theory Fanatics" or "Standard Model dinosaurs". As a matter of fact, this is pretty much the only scientific area where EVERY commentator acts as though they are experts. Whenever I see a /. article where global warming is the subject, I can rest assured that at least 95% of the comments will either be by or in response to trolls. It's like I'm on reddit or something.

Re:I love this debate

[swillden]

I think a bit part of the problem is the "A" in "AGW". Does it really matter whether the warming is anthropogenic or not? Won't the effects of warming be the same, regardless of the cause? I mean, it's not like we don't have ample historical data showing large swings in global temperatures over the course of just a few years, including to averages much, much higher than what we have now. Indeed, the geological record offers ample evidence that the most common (not "normal", because there really isn't a "normal") state of the planet's climate is quite a LOT hotter than what it's been in recorded history -- the human time period has been during a short warm period in an era of ice ages. Sure, the current warming is most likely caused by our actions, but regardless of that it could also be entirely "natural" and happen just the same, with the same effects.

I think people focus on the question of anthropogenesis because there's an implicit assumption that if it's not anthropogenic, then there's nothing we can/should be doing about it. The "can" alternative is at least possibly-logical, though it assumes powerlessness that I refuse to accept. The "should" alternative is just ridiculous.

The fact is that even if we manage to reduce our CO2 emissions to zero, we will face serious climate change eventually, and we have little idea when that might be. Perhaps even right now. Therefore, what we should be doing is learning to understand and modify the Earth's climate. The only way we can have "sustainability" is if we take control.

An obvious corollary of this view is that we should not be looking merely to emissions reduction as a way to fix the problem. First, it may not fix the problem, either because it's already too late, or because our emissions aren't the cause, or aren't the major part of the cause (note that I don't believe that, but it's possible). Second, even if it does fix this problem, at some point we'll face warming which we can't stop that way. So, in addition to trying to limit emissions, we should also be seriously researching other approaches to cooling the planet, perhaps by raising the albedo, or reducing incoming solar radiation (which we may have done a few decades ago by pumping a lot of particulates into the atmosphere, along with the CO2). For that matter, we should also be looking into methods of warming the planet. Should the local warm period end and return us to the ice ages, we may well appreciate the outcome of our recent accidental experiment in global warming via CO2 production.

Knowledge is the key. We need to understand how the system works, and how to manipulate it, because we DO need to be able to manipulate it. Or adapt to it, but manipulation will be more cost-effective in many cases, I think.

Well?

[fredrated]

The story below says "US Rust Belt Manufacturing Rebounds Via Fracking Boom" and asks 'do the associated environmental risks of new "tight oil" extraction techniques outweigh the benefits to these depressed economic regions?'

Well, do they?

Re:Meanwhile in the real world...

[dywolf]

I'm going to wager that you didnt watch Cosmos did you? He presented probably the simplest most accessbile explanation posssible.
Here's a good link to the clip: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/nei...
That or you still dont understand the concept of averages.

It's not that "climate != weather"
It's that climate = sum(weather) / (time*area)
IE, climate is the average of weather over time or a region or both.

hurricane, tornado, drought, and heat wave to global warming?

Do those thing represent one day of local weather, or large events on large scales that last a long time?
I'll break it down for you again, and ignore your attempt to put words in my mouth, and then tell me how I'm wrong.

-Weather is what's ouside your window. It's what's happening right now. In a very small time scale, in a very small regional-scale. Local, short term observations.
-Climate is a whole bunch of those local observations strung together. It's a very large time scale, on a very large regional-scale.

Hurricanes are a climatological event that produce extreme weather (wind, rain). They are spawned by climatological factors, but grow and self-reinforce on a large scale and themselves grow to affect climate (in a way they give vent to rather large pent up energies). Tornadoes are a weather event, but the supercells that form them are themselves driven by climate trends. A heat wave is a string of related weather events. It may be localized or cover a large area, but being a string of related weather events again points more to the climate side of the scale. Droughts again: large scale, long term, climate.

In the case of AGW those scales are a) global, and b) range from a couple centuries, to several My depending on which line of evidence you're looking at.
It was unusually cold in New England this winter. That's weather. But overall, this winter was still one of the 5 warmest on record. That's climate.

All these things are interwoven together. Ocean currents, the jet stream, warm/cold water layer mixing, warm/cold air mixing, humidity, water/air temperature gradients...all these things combine and interact to create the global climate which you see on a daily basic as weather. If an ocean current shifts it can reduce cloud formation lowering the water content of an air mass and increasing the radiative heating of the land surface immediately inland. these combined factors can lead to a lack of rainfall and/or increase in temperates. IE, drought and/or heat wave. In Cali's case, the Sierra range normally causes some preciptation as the air mass moves eastward, trapping it as snowpack, which then feeds water over the year into the arid region we know as the Central Valley. its what allows an arid region to also be good farmland inspite of its aridity. this year, there wasnt even enough moisture in the air for the mountains to squeeze any out.

The polar vortex happened because something pushed the normal wind pattern out of shape. it allowed a large mass of unusually cool air to penetrate south a long ways. The reverse also happened: a large mass of warm moist air pushed much north than normal, leading to increased temperatures in the North Pacific and Alaska, and parts of western Canada. Some climatalogical event altered the normal roughly stable route of the vortex. The vortex itself then affects large scale climate effects and drives local extreme weather.

See, the mistake here that denier consistently make is in thinking that this is a basic input output machine. It's not. It's a web of interconnected loops. Every output is the input to another stage in the machine, and every stage of the machine is linked to every other stage. Everything is in a feedback loop to something else.

Re:Talking Point

[GameboyRMH]

You haven't reviewed the data, you can't, its not public, so stop acting like you know any better than I do what the truth is.

This data?

http://www.realclimate.org/ind...

Looks public to me.

Ocean acidification is scary

[MyNicknameSucks]

Higher acidity [CO2 dissolved in water forms an acid] in seawater is known to disrupt the life cycles of many marine species — from reef-building corals to shellfish beloved by humans — by interfering with the creatures’ ability to use sea-borne calcium to build their shells.

This bit should be scaring the pants off us. Not because we'll suddenly not be feasting on oysters, but because of zooplankton that form delicate calcium-based shells. If those critters go bye-bye, we will likely see the collapse of more ocean fisheries as food sources dry up.

And, in something of a double-whammy, coastal regions in the tropics are often protected by reefs from the ravages of some tropical storms. If those reefs slow down their growth (that replaces damaged reefs structures), or start dissolving, we're going to be have a tidal wave (bad pun!) of starving refugees.

You don't need to believe in global warming to see those two issues becoming problems. You need enough empathy to see this as being a problem, even if it's not in your own backyard.

If you do believe in global warming, it's a crapshoot as to whether or not the oceans will rise high enough to wipe out their homes before acidification lays a licking on marine ecosystems.

Re:Talking Point

[Richard Dick Head]

Honest answer from a denier. I've found myself jumping on the climate change skeptic bandwagon, and there are a bunch of different reasons for that, none of them having to do with the actual hard data or the models, or any of the details of the science, except for some specific tidbits that enable my skepticism. (For example, most of the models I've looked at predict milder summers and warmer winters in my particular area, and flooding in areas, not nearby, where people I don't like currently habitate)

People (myself included) don't want to hear it for the same reason that people get huffy when you mention that whole food veganism is bar none the best diet to avoid cancer and heart disease. They'll just point out the few that stil get cancer, and still get heart disease. Or smokers when you point out the cancer risks...plenty of smokers don't have a problem and live to healthy old age.

But, you CAN find a positive. If you point out that the hottie jogging down the street is always a non-smoker, and always either a vegan or a Paleo with higher than average vegetable intake, no one can really argue with that one, and if you ask one of them they'll confirm that observation every time.

When the climate change topic comes up, my brain automatically translates that the punitive corrective measures bandied about over the years...Carbon Tax, Environmental Regulation, and all the other proposed measures that wind up trading modest pollution levels for wideband economic austerity.

I know it is frustrating when you're trying to get people to stop polluting and people want to turn a blind eye to it and keep going about their business. Yet, basing your argument on science models that can predict the climate 10 years into the future yet somehow can't predict the climate tomorrow...yeah, if there are ANY holes whatsoever in your argument when you're preaching austerity, everyone is going to focus on the holes in the argument, no matter how small or short-sighted.

I think you'll find less resistance from me or anybody else if you focus on things that elicit a positive image...like pushing increased research funds for cleaner burning engines, real fuel production alternatives like algae. Things that benefit everyone, AND reduce environmental impact. But by default I'm going to automatically assume your motive is to argue for higher taxes and economic austerity, and of course I'll get turned off pretty quick.

Re:Nearly 3 parts in a million

[Robear]

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.

Re:Talking Point

[dywolf]

You haven't reviewed the data, you can't, its not public, so stop acting like you know any better than I do what the truth is.

All of the data. ALL OF IT. Is public. You are an idiot.

http://www.noaa.gov/climate.ht...
http://www.skepticalscience.co...

Or even just google of wikipedia for it. It's all out there.