Slashdot Mirror
Global Carbon Dioxide Levels Reach New Monthly Record
mrflash818 writes: For the first time since we began tracking carbon dioxide in the global atmosphere, the monthly global average concentration of carbon dioxide gas surpassed 400 parts per million in March 2015, according to NOAA's latest results. “It was only a matter of time that we would average 400 parts per million globally,” said Pieter Tans, lead scientist of NOAA’s Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network. “We first reported 400 ppm when all of our Arctic sites reached that value in the spring of 2012. In 2013 the record at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory first crossed the 400 ppm threshold. Reaching 400 parts per million as a global average is a significant milestone."
Refuted: https://www.skepticalscience.c...
No correlation as in this picture? Denial gets more desperate by the day.
This was predictable based upon the Keeling curve, which has a seasonal oscillation based upon northern hemisphere plant growth. http://www.climatecentral.org/... About two years ago, the peaks of the CO2 concentration measured at Mauna Kea exceeded 400 ppm. Now the average is 400ppm, and in about two years, the trough of the CO2 concentration will exceed 400ppm.
The way things are going that'll be the last point we see 400ppm until the next extinction event.
It doesn't absorb more from the Sun, it just traps more of the long wave IR that would radiate back to space. And ... "adsorb"?
Don't be so damn deceitful. His quote in Context:
"In a 2014 interview, he said that "What I’m convinced of is that we don’t understand climate ... It will take a lot of very hard work before that question is settled.""
Hard work involves more studies, and more money.
Dyson, like Muller, believes that the Science isn't settled; it very rarely is. Also, like Muller, Dyson believes that there is Global Warming going on, and (that)
""global warming" (is/)as synonymous with global anthropogenic climate change..."
It's Real, and we Dunnit.
His somewhat pessimistic view is that there is no longer anything that we can do about it, except study it, and prepare for the worst, and put more effort into things that we can do something about.
Now before I get crucified, I should like to point out that if you liquified the Atmosphere, it would only be some 30 meters thick, and you could see through it.
The biggest, and least understood, part of modeling Climate Change is the World's Oceans; which are somewhat deeper than 30 meters, and if I remember correctly, is some 40000 times more massive than the Atmosphere.
The Oceans _are_ getting warmer, and because of dissolved CO2, are more acidic. (This may actually be a form of long-term Climate regulating cycles, but it is happening too damn quick.)
I think you are confusion sensationalist media reports with the actual science. As far as the science is concerned, we're on the same track we've been on for 20 years..
The Sun is a stable G2 dwarf, and over the short term (millenia/eons) its power output is stable to parts per ten thousand.
Over hundreds of millions of years, the accumulation of helium "ash" in the core increases pressure and density and therefore power output; The sun's power output has risen roughly 25% since its formation, so changes on the order of a few percent since the formation of complex life are expected.
It's a shame neither of these facts is researchable...
Wow, so /. is going to post monthly updates to CO2 but not monthly updates on the 18 years and 5 months of flat temperatures? The latter is news worthy, CO2 concentrations if you've been watching it, are jumping up and down as if life is consuming it. Like it was food for something which isnt human...
Meanwhile someone discovers a link between Sun pollution, magnatism, heat transfer between planets and the 'void' which may explain away "Dark Energy" as simply being sun pollution. Unspent electrons. Energy for star ships.
Yet /. is more focused on cutting off it's nose to spite its face?
What kind of future does /. want to see? One where we're all accountable for creating food to feed plants and be chastised for it based upon "green" ideology? "Green" ideology which says food for plants is making the planet hotter because CO2 is a "greenhouse gas"? *ALL GASES IN THE ATMOSPHERE ARE GREENHOUSE GASES * because they all absorb some energy vs not having an atmosphere at all!
Oh gosh, where does on start.
I guess I'll take a simple approach.
Svante Arrhenius showed in 1896 that CO2 absorbs much more infrared radiation than Nitrogen or Oxygen, which is nice because it keeps our planet from being an ice ball. CO2 levels then were around 300 ppm.
CO2 levels today are about 400ppm, that is the highest they have been in 800,000 years. And no, CO2 levels weren't this high 800,000 years ago. That is just how far back we can go with ice cores.
Human activity, mostly burning fossil fuels, is pumping 36 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.
If you don't buy human-caused climate change, explain to me which one of those facts you disagree with. Or explain to me how you interpret them.
Reference: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/c...
Who moderated this fucking idiot up? Other idiots?
Ozone is still here, because of Montreal Protocol. Read up about it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
You know why we no longer have Acid Rain? Cap and trade. Read up about it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
It does not take a few years to cause noticeable change in Global Warming. It takes centuries. Maybe your great-great-great-grandkids will intent a timemachine and shoot you for your own stupidity, because it will be them that will be affected. It will also be them that will not be able to do anything about it, except to invent a time machine.
Nothing resolved itself. People took action, and you fucking idiot don't even bother to figure out that someone else saved your sorry ass.
CO2 levels below 400 ppm is relatively close to the level at which plants can not survive.
CO2 has been in the 200-275 ppm range for the last million years, and plants did fine.
The current warming period hasn't been going on long enough for the abyssal ocean to notice the warming much yet. But the top 3 meters (10 feet) of the oceans holds as much heat at the whole atmosphere and the average depth of the oceans is around 3,700 meters. The Argo floats have been measuring ocean temperatures down to 2,000 meters since the early 2000s. This chart of ocean heat content shows the oceans down to 2,000 meters have accumulated nearly 10 x 10^22 joules of energy since about 2003. It takes about 5.95 x 10^21 joules to raise the temperature of the atmosphere 1 degree Celsius. 10 x 10^22/5.95 x 10^21 = 16.81. So if the heat that's accumulated in the top 2,000 meters of the oceans since the early 2000's was all in the atmosphere instead the temperature of the atmosphere would have risen about 16.81 degrees Celsius.
Who in their right mind situates an atmospheric sampling site in the middle of a chain of active volcanoes ?
The Mauna Loa CO2 series is often cited because it is the longest continuous record of CO2 in the atmosphere (since 1958). The occasional times that local CO2 from the volcano affects the measurement is obvious and they exclude those measurements from the record. But since then CO2 is also being measured at dozens of other locations around the globe and they all show relatively the same thing as Mauna Loa.
The funny thing about peak oil, is that the concept is still correct even if the timing is wrong. We've heard the rebuttals "oh they said that 20 years ago". Sure peak oil might not be this year or next, or even int he next decade or two. But conceptually it has to happen at some point, so the sooner we deal with it the better (and cheaper and easier) it will be.
So when will all of this destruction and devastation actually happen?
The next prediction was that the ozone layer would be almost completely depleted by 2002. It didn't happen.
Then we were told global warming would spiral out of control by 2011. It didn't happen.
Apart from the fact that you "distinct memory" seem to be highly selective and not quite reliable, this seems to be a very weird example. Yes, we were destroying the Ozone layer with (primarily) CFCs. Scientists were warning that things would get worse if nothing was done about it. But for once, the world did something. In 1987, the Montreal Protocol banned most releases of CFCs worldwide. And about now we can see the Ozone hole slowly recovering. This is not a failed prediction, it's an example of regulation working and predictions coming true.
Stephan
www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com
"Ice Age At 2000+ PPM CO2: ‘Earth experienced an ice age 450 million years ago, with CO2 somewhere between 2000 and 8000 ppm’ "
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/ice-age-at-2000-ppm-co2/
Is that good enough for you? Why are you spreading what are obviously lies?
According to ice core samples going back 400 thousand years, the historical maximum was 300ppm until 1950.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
And here's the explanation:
Isolated in the middle of the Pacific Ocean and at over 11,000 feet above sea level, the upper north face of Mauna Loa volcano is an ideal location to make measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide that reflect global trends, not local influences such as factories or forests that might boost or drop carbon dioxide within their vicinity. The CO2 sensors at Mauna Loa are positioned such that they sample an incoming breeze direct from the ocean, unaffected by human activities, vegetation or other factors on the island. (The Mauna Loa Observatory is high enough that the incoming breeze rides above the thermal inversion layer.)
Volcanoes are considerable sources of carbon dioxide themselves. However, the sampling location was chosen to be normally upwind of Mauna Loa's vent, and Keeling perfected methods for detecting and correcting intervals when the wind blew the wrong way.
Measurements at about 100 other sites have confirmed the long-term trend shown by the Keeling Curve, although no sites have a record as long as Mauna Loa.
Source: http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/keeling_curve
Congrats to Svante, and obviously smart man for his discoveries, now, that about 125 years ago.
I think science has progressed since then, or it did until climate science came along and it started regressing.. but I digress.
We put 36 gigatons of CO2... ok, so? Half of that is scrubed. The half life of the rest is MUCH shorter than 1980s and 90s chicken littles where predicting with their crystal balls. And the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere are logarithmic, most of the IR rays being trapped are already being trapped... the extra does have an effect, but its almost nothing compared to the first 30-50ppms.
Latest sensitivity for doubling of CO2 is in the range of 1 to 1.2c. The fact that many alarmists still cling to their untenable bullshit claims of 3-4 or even 5C is irrelevant. Real science adjusts itself. Climate science desperately tries to make models, data and fake research fit with their pre-determined notion of WHAT climate should be doing.
None of the facts that you stated above mean CO2 is the main driver of the increase in temperatures we have observed, the palsy .85c over the last 100-125 years.
None of the facts above demonstrated that 1-2c average increase would be bad.
None of those demonstrate that there currenly is observed catastrophe happening.
I could go on. But as usual you will find a way to try to destroy my character, point to propaganda at SKS.
Tell me I'm an idiot because I state stuff that are in blogs.
Go ahead. The blogs report what scientists are researching. Not what the IPCC and their handlers cherry pick to show.
Your post has some basis in scientific facts, but misrepresents their implications.
The CO2 peak is a fairly narrow range of infrared, but it's right at the wavelength that the Earth emits most strongly. To say that it's unimportant is like a traffic reporter saying that 99% of the roads in a city are wide open, only the main freeway is gridlocked, so no big deal. What matters is the fraction of total outgoing energy that CO2 prevents from escaping, which is roughly 20%. Keeping in mind that zero blockage would correspond to a global temperature of -18 C / 0 F, and 50% restriction would give a temperature of +30 C / 86 F -- 20% is a big deal. Just going from 20% to 25%, which is what we're looking at, is also a pretty big temperature shift.
Water vapor is a major greenhouse gas, but human emissions of it do not change the amount of it in the atmosphere for three reasons. First, the tight feedback you mentioned (the Clausius-Claperyon relation) means that any extra water added immediately falls out as extra rainfall. Second, human emissions of water vapor via combustion amount to 2 gigatons per year, or a global layer or liquid water 4 microns thick -- utterly insignificant next to the natural evaporation and rainfall of about 1 meter per year. Third, you mentioned increase in paved surfaces that would "catch rainwater", but precisely the opposite happens: water drains quickly off pavement and into rivers and sewers, while natural soils remain moist for longer.
That's not to say that water vapor's role as a greenhouse gas is unimportant: if temperature rises for any reason (including from CO2 greenhouse effect), the Clausius-Claperyon relation allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere, amplifying the warming.
The upshot: water vapor is a major greenhouse gas, but that doesn't call the role of CO2 into question: instead it amplifies the importance of CO2.
http://climatemodels.uchicago....
http://www.skepticalscience.co...