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: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: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.