Slashdot Mirror
Carbon Pollution Touched 800,000 Year Record in 2016, WMO Says (bloomberg.com)
Carbon dioxide levels surged to their highest level in at least 800,000 years because of pollution caused by humans and a strong El Nino event, according to the World Meteorological Organization. From a report: Concentrations of the greenhouse gas increased at a record speed in 2016 to reach an average of 403.3 parts per million, up from 400 parts per million a year earlier, the WMO said in a statement on Monday warning of "severe ecological and economic disruptions." The WMO said the last time the Earth had a comparable concentration of CO2s, the temperature of the planet was 2 degrees to 3 degrees Celsius warmer and sea levels were 10 meters to 20 meters higher than now.
The way you can tell CO2 doesn't have the effect on the climate the fear-mongers want you to think it does, is that as CO2 continues to climb climate changes do not track with CO2 increases, much less exhibit any kind of runaway effect which is the whole reason you were supposed to fear CO2 to begin with.
Luckily even for those of you that continue to fear irrationally, CO2 production will inevitably decline in the coming decades as solar and other forms of renewable energy take over for real, now that that are close to actually making more sense than fossil fuels.
I don't think that you understand the meaning of the word rational.
CO2's effect has been demonstrated conclusively.
That "El Nino" needs to be taxed so this doesn't happen again.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Face it: Whether or not it's human-caused, there is literally no downside to our species ceasing to dump unnecessary waste gasses and pollutants into our environment. Saying "it costs too much, it's too much of an economic burden!" is about as short-sighted as you can get. We, as a species, keep shitting all over the planet we live on, and through the magic of denial, expect there's going to be no consequences -- or worse, don't care because the consequences won't affect us, immediately, it'll affect future generations ("that's their problem, not ours, why should we care?"); reprehensible. We have the technology to move away from 100-year-old energy sources, why not use it?
Luckily even for those of you that continue to fear irrationally, CO2 production will inevitably decline in the coming decades as solar and other forms of renewable energy take over for real, now that that are close to actually making more sense than fossil fuels.
Luck is the key word there, because despite huge increase in solar and wind, we are see NO improvement in CO2 emissions. As long as so many cling to the oversimplified dream that simply adding solar and wind and EVs will make enough of a difference, we will fail.
We need all the tools in the toolbox, particularly nuclear, to stand a chance. We can't hope for breakthroughs as a strategy. We must consider the socioeconomic aspects of solutions as well. But, unfortunately we'll just hear more of the same 'more solar, more wind, hope for battery storage' mantra... the definition of insanity.
The credits had an expiration date of 800,000 years and just need to be renewed. Problem solved.
You will see real change when Al Gore gives up his private jet and three vacation homes.
The Earth used to be covered in lava. I'm sure life would survive just fine if it was again, right? Yes, life will survive our current changes, but not before a mass die-off.
At the same time, what exactly do we have to lose by finding cleaner and potentially more efficient ways to do things? Surely 100+ years later there are better alternatives.
Why did everything not die then?
Just a guess, but the lack of 7 billion people and their concomitant industrial output probably had something to do with it.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Climate Change is a Threat...
But apparently not enough of a threat to convince the anti-nukes to abandon their irrational fears.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
When you attack somebody for asking questions, you aren't doing science. You're doing religion.
Yes he is.
Back then it was covered in lush forests and giant mammals.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
There's lots of effects that you generally wouldn't think of. For example, as someone who's working on engineering a house to last many hundreds of years, one thing that's key to avoid is the key longevity limitation of traditional concrete: carbon dioxide slowly seeps into the concrete, turning calcium hydroxide to calcium carbonate (limestone) and thus lowering its pH; when the pH drops too much at the steel rebar, it no longer protects it, it rusts, increases greatly in volume, and the concrete spalls out. So I have to avoid steel rebar.
Now, most buildings aren't engineered for such long lifespans, and so they include steel rebar, with standard calculations on how long it will last relative to how deep it is within the concrete, local climactic conditions, and so forth, to meet a preset target lifespan. But as the CO2 level in the atmosphere rises, the rate at which CO2 reacts with concrete increases; this affects every concrete structure on Earth. The average building can expect its lifespan to be cut short 15-20 years in a "business as usual" CO2 scenario.
The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.
The runaway effect needs something like 3000ppm of CO2. This is not going to happen. What you need to fear is the sea level rise, desertification, extreme weather and your neighbors who will gladly kill you once they have nothing to eat.
Care to present a scientific article which pretended earth would end up like venus in a run away effect ? There is quite a few fear that there is a potential run effect with methane clathrate and a few fear about permafrost earth melting dumping a lot of carbon in the atmosphere, but none are about a venus end effect, all are more about going back to pre-cambrian or similar climate, which would be hell for all our coast , agricultural area, and various very negative effect on the food supply of a majority of the earth population, not counting that this would be so quick many species would not be able to adapt. Some *dumb* lay people may have told that, end effect venus, but then it is your fault to believe lay source rather than hard science.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
It's impossible to have discussions about technology that can offset our carbon emissions because everyone ends up replying to the same tired old logical fallacies from the same willfully obtuse deniers like yourself. Your logical fallacy of choice for this post is the straw man fallacy. No one except you claimed that everything would die off. That's intellectually dishonest. Perhaps you'll return with another denial attempt from your bag of tricks such as a false dichotomy, the ad hominem fallacy, the false equivalency, dodging the question, or any number of other logical fallacies that you and other deniers love to trot out. It's a tired act that needs to stop.
The greenhouse effect is established science. Its basic physics than can be demonstrated in a laboratory. Adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere makes the greenhouse effect stronger. This is obvious. As for why the warmer temperatures in the past didn't have more dramatic effects on life, it's because the worst effects were probably in the oceans, plus the relatively gradual nature of the changes allowed life more time to adapt. The present day greenhouse gas increases are much more abrupt compared with what's been observed in the past, and thus there's far less time for life to evolve and adapt to the changes. An abrupt change is almost certainly much more dangerous than a gradual one, and on geologic time scales, what we're witnessing in the present day is incredibly abrupt.
Nobody sane has been saying that scenario is likely. If that's what people you are listening to are either saying or claiming that other people are saying, then you should consider listening to other people.
Not that it isn't possible. You mentioned the incontrovertible evidence yourself: Venus. It's just that the climate models don't predict it. Of course, if you believe the climate models are unreliable and untrustworthy, then a Venusian scenario is back on the table, and you really should worry about it.
But when sane people talk about runaway effects, they are talking about scenarios that merely kill hundreds of millions of people and ruin the lives of billions more. Nothing really to worry about from a species extinction point of view, but personally I'd like to avoid that.
"CO2 is plant food," a stupid argument to use in favor of global warming considering CO2's other negative effects - especially the reduction in arable land, isn't even right in itself.
More accurately, CO2 is plant junk food. Higher CO2 levels produce less nutritious crops:
http://www.nature.com/nature/j...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The slashdot link is really useless. Further rant: I really hate sites that highlight a word/organisation/site and then when you click on that link will show all articles on that subject in their own site (Looking at you, engadget! )That's what bloomberg seems to do.
Here's the original link
https://public.wmo.int/en/medi...
and the actual bulletin:
https://ane4bf-datap1.s3-eu-we...
CO2 provides raw material for plant photosynthesis, which helps to grow food. Global warming = more food.
Food plants can't tolerate a desert. What we are doing is creating changes to the areas that produce the food. Even India, the greatest food producing nation on earth is suffering from localized seasonal temperature pattern changes that are slowly making areas that once produced food uninhabitable. The Mediterranean climate influenced food producing regions of Spain are also experiencing changes that make areas less productive of food and will kill humans at certain times of the year when temperatures soar to levels over 115f for weeks at a time.
But amongst the climate change deniers there are also those who think that rapid melting of permafrost will open up vast areas of land to agriculture. Little do they understand that the areas they so wrongly think can support agriculture are in reality are mostly the cold northern deserts which do not have the rainfall to support agriculture. In contrast the areas around the equator which have high rain fall are very low in biomass and when the farmers slash and burn the rain forests the land exposed cannot produce food for more than a few years.
The highest food producing areas of Western North America in California, which by and large rely upon water from systems that are slowly but surely being effected by less and less rainfall on the mountains of West Coast. So the water levels in the Colorado at lake Mead and the other dam ridden systems are slowly cycling lower and lower each year. While ironically the lakes behind the dams are filling with sediment at a faster than predicted rate because of sudden snow melts after large snow fall instead of a predictable cycle of sedimentation.
On top of this California which relies almost entirely upon imported water from the greater Pacific water shed is also experiencing what Spain, Portugal and other areas with similar climate parameters is also headed for dangerous ground in terms of losing areas of habitability due to prolonged heat waves.
We are raping the planet and as we reach the tipping point and start to see the serious consequences of our greed and stupidity there will always be those with rose coloured glasses who claim that the good ship earth is unsinkable.
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
This tired old nonsense again?
https://www.skepticalscience.c...
Bring a fresh argument next time. If the climate conspiracy blogs can cook up any.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
There's a simple and logical answer to why the current increase in CO2 might well be worse. When 403 ppm was reached previously, the change in CO2 and the effects on temperature were much more gradual than what we're experiencing now. Life is very resilient. Give it time to adapt to changing climate and it will. However, the present increase in CO2 and the associated warming is much more abrupt, leaving far less time for life to adapt and evolve.
Insofar as he understands anything, he knows the desires of political hacks who will use this for massive control of the economy so they can get huge kickbacks to ease off a bit.
Ooh, libertarian-tainted conspiracy thinkings! The global illuminati/socialist/masonic/Rothschild conspiracy is making its bid for global control, and they're using solar power as their tool! Everybody organize to stop it!
Follow the money.
OK. The fossil fuel industry is a trillion dollar a year industry. Everything else is trivial compared to that number. Money followed: the fossil fuel industry is driving everything.
We should no more be throwing brakes on the economy
OK. To not brake the economy, the best thing to do would be to go rapidly into new energy technologies, which are economic growth areas, and quit supporting antique fossil-fuel plants that haven't been updates since Ford was in office.
than people in 1900 should have to "help" us today...leaving us with 1970 level tech (if that) in 2017.
Coal power is 1920s decade technology. Wind is 1990s decade technology. Low cost solar is 2000s decade technology. High capacity battery night storage is 2010 decade technology. If you're worried about 1970 level tech, that was fossil fuel, allright.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
How about "moderation -1 stupid" instead?
Even the IPCC say there is virtually no chance of anthropogenic activities causing a runaway greenhouse effect a la Venus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
A runaway greenhouse effect is a process in which a net positive feedback between surface temperature and atmospheric opacity increases the strength of the greenhouse effect on a planet until its oceans boil away.[1][2] An example of this is believed to have happened in the early history of Venus. On the Earth, the IPCC states that "a 'runaway greenhouse effect'â"analogous to [that of] Venusâ"appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities."
https://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/s... page 11
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Maybe we will not have a "venus effect", but you should still fear CO2.
FYI: professional safety limits for CO2 exposition, 8 hrs/day, are 5000 ppm (italian laws). Check your country's laws, probably your values aren't too different. Considering a 24/7/365 exposition, I figure we end up with numbers even closer to the current 400 ppm level.
2C makes a huge difference in the timing of spring & fall weather, in the elevations at which certain plants can live (and they can't simply move) and in the ability of pests to survive in different locations.
Whether changes are limited to 2C average remains to be seen, especially as CO2 changes have been happening very quickly (in geological terms) and the ability of the ocean to absorb CO2 and heat has left the atmospheric climate changes to lag, so far.
Lucky then that climate change causes increased evaporation and probably overall increased precipitation.
And, again, good thing that climate change is here to help.
The rose coloured glass effect in spades. The fly in the ointment with this belief is that the areas that are warming the most are not receiving increased rainfall and will not, unless the patterns of the jet stream and continental weather streams change drastically. The arid deserts are not about to change suddenly into agricultural land, neither will the areas with the greatest biomass in the form of peat bogs and a cold climate desert ecology. The territories in Canada and the northern sections of the provinces are not suitable for agriculture and will not suddenly become arable lands, the fools that spout off about the benefits of global warming are exactly that FOOLS. Yes we will be soon able to send oil tankers through the North West Passage and drill the hell out of areas of the Arctic. Yes there are huge areas of fertile prairie which is quickly losing the permafrost but most are are based upon an acidic top soil that will not produce our chosen food stuffs or support adequate grass for grazing animals for centuries until many cycles of grass fires can change the top soil ph. This is how our prairie grain lands are created and is how they will eventually be created in some more northernly areas of North America
Some of the areas just south of the permafrost have already been used for Northern agriculture in a very recent time frame. The Peace River region is one example, but these areas have had centuries to adjust to the loss of the permafrost.
Unless the arm chair scientists claiming that global warming will increase food production have a way to change the polar rotation of the earth there is absolutely no way to increase the growing seasons of the North which around the 60th parallel is 3-4 months of frost free temperatures and enough daylight to grow plants.
Even more importantly, FYI what it takes to raise a cow on grass and forage plants at the 60th and even down to Dawson creek at 55.7596 N is more in monetary terms of feed than the animal will bring at market. Most cattle grown there are stock produced first or trucked in then range fed, then trucked out to then be market fattened in the production feed lots in southern Alberta before going to market. Also the animals must be housed during the coldest months in a heated barns to avoid them losing too much fat and muscle mass to the cold. The range season there much shorter than in Montana even if the winters are not much colder they are much longer. The low cost of natural gas in Canada is the only thing that makes cattle ranching there possible.
Traditional agriculture does not work in most of Canada and Russia and the fools who believe it will are living with rose coloured glasses that blind them to the realities of the environment of the north and what it takes to live and work there. Productive prairies are slowly created by cycles fire and grass and the slow warming since the last ice age. Prairie agricultural lands will not and cannot be magically created by man made global warming.
This message was not sent from an iPhone because Peter Sellers really was a deviated prevert without a dime for the call
True, but the effects are diminishing with increasing concentrations. That's because CO2 acts like an optical filter, and most of the radiation is already absorbed.
Unless I'm completely misunderstanding what you're getting at, this is almost completely wrong. The reduction in effect with increasing CO2 concentrations is trivial. Why? Because Carbon dioxide (only) absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of wavelengths, which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (M). In other words incoming sunlight is barely filtered by CO2 at all, it's the light that's reflected from Earth that's 'trapped' by the CO2 in the atmosphere.
those feedback loops are not "basic physics", can't be "demonstrated in a laboratory"
And wrong again! Increased CO2 --> Increased temperature --> Increased evaporation --> Increased temperature (due to water vapour also trapping heat) --> Increased evaporation... Pretty basic, if you ask me.
You also have to assume that there are no additional negative feedback loops to counteract the effects, again something we don't know.
Are you suggesting the burden of proof here (for postulating, and proving these hypothetical negative feedback loops) lies with the people saying Global Warming is a problem?
It's dishonest for you and others to conflate the basic physics of the greenhouse effect with the speculative models involving assumptions about feedback that are used to argue for the need to reduce carbon emissions.
Since there's no need to invoke speculative feedback loops to say increasing CO2 concentrations are, for want of a better way of phrasing it, fucking up the future standard of life for everyone on the planet I'm not sure we're the ones being dishonest. We're certainly not the ones telling ourselves the biggest porkies!
The way you can tell CO2 doesn't have the effect on the climate the fear-mongers want you to think it does, is that as CO2 continues to climb climate changes do not track with CO2 increases,
The very first numerical integration of the greenhouse effect incorporating real-world IR aborption and convective/radiative heat transfer, Manabe and Wetherald 1967, predicted a 2.4C temperature rise per doubling. (The same as the current IPCC estimate: "in the range 2 to 4.5 C, with a most likely value of about 3 C.") Since then the CO2 has risen by a factor of 1.25 (from 322 ppm to 404 ppm), and the temperature by 0.98 degrees C. Looking at the correlation, yes the temperature has very well tracked with CO2-- the temperature is actually slightly higher than predicted (applying Arrhenius' logarithmic relationship)-- but well within error bars.
So, basically: you're wrong. Temperature does track CO2 increases.
much less exhibit any kind of runaway effect which is the whole reason you were supposed to fear CO2 to begin with.
Citation needed. What "runaway"?
CO2's effect has been demonstrated conclusively.
Really, in what way? How do you "demonstrate" the whole planet will warm into an unstoppable Venus like unlivable atmosphere? Because that's why we were told to fear CO2.
Strawman.. I suppose somebody, somewhere, some time might have talked about a scenario where Earth warms to Venus temperatures, but I don't know who and I've never heard that argument put forth. Actual scientists talk about: 3 degrees per doubling. How has it been "demonstrated conclusively"? Well, by measurements, for one.
Meanwhile in real life even though CO2 increases exponentially, we see only the same slow warming trend we have been seeing for a while.
Yes: carbon dioxide is increasing and the temperature is warming in the exact amount predicted. Your point is?
Even the IPCC now forecasts MAYBE 2C warming over 100 years.
And, remarkably, the IPCC hasn't changed that prediction at all. The 1990 IPCC First Assessment Report estimated that equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling lay between 1.5 and 4.5 C, with a "best guess in the light of current knowledge" of 2.5 C. The IPCC Fifth Assessment Report stated: "Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5 C to 4.5 C (high confidence)".
Your comment subject is "Re:Runaway effect? Nope." That's correct. Nope. It's not happening, because it wasn't predicted in the first place. That's a strawman.
And you think that your best-case scenario gains could possibly make up for loss of arable land?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
True, but the effects are diminishing with increasing concentrations. That's because CO2 acts like an optical filter, and most of the radiation is already absorbed.
Yes, the effect is logarithmic. This has been known since Arrhenius calculated it in 1896 [ref]. And it is incorporated into every single greenhouse model that is run.
It's why the anthropogenic greenhouse effect-- about 1 degree C so far-- is so vastly smaller than the natural greenhouse effect, about 33 degrees C.[ref].
Really. This is already part of the science. You're not telling us anything that the scientists aren't already incorporating into their models.
So, if that basic physics was all there was to the science, we clearly wouldn't have to worry about carbon emissions at all.
That's not true. Again: all of the current models already incorporate the effect you notice.
In order to conclude that there is any significant danger from greenhouse gases, you have to run climate models that make various assumptions about positive feedback loops;
The main feedback effect is known as "constant humidity." If you want to turn this feedback off, you need to come up with a mechanism that decreases the humidity as the temperature rises. I'm not saying that such a model is impossible... but it's hard to come up with a realistic mechanism.
those feedback loops are not "basic physics",
They most certainly are.
can't be "demonstrated in a laboratory",
Humidity can't be measured in a laboratory? I beg to differ.
and are largely speculative and unproven at this point.
They are not.
You also have to assume that there are no additional negative feedback loops to counteract the effects, again something we don't know.
People have been searching for such a negative feedback loop for several decades. So far all of the ones proposed have been disproven by measurements.
Uh, you do know that people measure the properties of the atmosphere, right? And that climate models are baselined against measured values?
It's dishonest for you and others to conflate the basic physics of the greenhouse effect with the speculative models involving assumptions about feedback that are used to argue for the need to reduce carbon emissions.
Except for the most part these aren't speculative models. They're well-tested models that are checked against measurements. And, there are many thousands of models run-- by independent groups on all five continents-- and cross-checked against each other to see which effects dominate. That's why the climate study outputs have error bars, because one of the things we do know is how much we don't know.
Yes, that's right: the actual science includes error bars. That's one of the ways you can tell the science from the speculation, like yours.
When you attack somebody for asking questions, you aren't doing science. You're doing religion.
It's not so much attacking people for asking questions, it's people getting annoyed and frustrated at anonymous cowards making assertions and raising objections that have been answered over and over and over and over again. The people doing this aren't actually asking questions, because they don't actually care about getting answers.
And that heat trapping effect, the greenhouse effect, is nearly saturated already.
Your understanding clearly differs from mine, and you seem to be basing your understanding on information I've either not seen, or overlooked in my researches. Could you provide a reference to back up, and possibly expand upon, the highlighted section above, please?
Furthermore, water vapor leads to increased cloud cover, which provides negative feedback.
Well, it would be more accurate to say increased humidity can lead to increased cloud cover, which would certainly self limit the positive feedback. That's not the same as saying it's a negative feedback loop, merely that the positive feedback does indeed 'suffer' from diminishing returns, and hence will, likely, not lead to runaway warming. It's also not entirely clear, as far as I know, exactly what effects this will have on rainfall intensities or location, other than there is an assumption (based on reasonable, if unproven, projections) of increased localised flood risks.
Pretty basic, if you ask me.
Simplistic would be a better description. In fact, to get serious climate change out of the models, climate models tend to replace "basic physics" with empirical short-term relations between carbon concentrations and temperature and assume unbounded exponential growth of carbon emissions, both wildly unrealistic assumptions.
In response to a challenge by a 'denier' 5 years or so ago I made a prediction, which has since turned out to be true. I have, on several occasions, asked 'deniers' what would change their minds, and what (if predictions turned out to be true, or if their minds were changed) they would do differently. In mathematical terms however what I have witnessed is "A & !B". So, please forgive me if I've been reduced to 'simplistic' reasoning. Being simplistic doesn't, however, make it any less true.
As to the latter part of your statement, I dispute both assertions, although this somewhat depends on what you mean by "short term" or "serious climate change". Perhaps you'd care to define the terms of what looks suspiciously like a strawman.
Anyway, firstly the relationship between CO2 concentrations and temperature is clear, but there's a, in human lifespan terms, long lag between peak CO2 and peak temperature. This is basic physics backed up by empirical observation. Odd that you'd find something to complain about in this. As an aside, it's partly this lag which is vexing politicians and climate scientists. The very real concern is that since we won't feel the full climatic effects of the CO2 we've already added to the atmosphere (for many decades yet) we feel like there really isn't a problem, and we keep on adding more CO2, which will magnify those climatic effects further.
Secondly, any serious climate model, of which there are a number, has been run for a number of carbon emission scenarios. A model does not assume 'unbounded exponential growth' it merely tells us what the likely effects (on global temperatures) will be given particular inputs. No sensible person has argued, that I'm aware of anyway, that humanity is even capable of producing 'unbounded exponential carbon emissions', let alone that this is the most likely scenario for the future.
I'd like to finish on a positive note: It's beginning to look like this year will be the first year since roughly the start of the industrial revolution (there may be the odd momentary vale in the landscape) in which our carbon emissions haven't risen from the previous year. In addition, last year over half of all the power generation capacity that was added, globally, was based on renewable resources. Despite all the denial, despite all the entrenched interests, we many finally be making positive steps towards dealing with the problem.
I gave the latitude frim my mind. So being 4 - 5 degres off is not as bad ad the original poster who was 15-20 degrees off. ... no way you will soon farm grain there.
Latitude 45 is already perfectly farmable. So global warming does nit bring any more farmland at latitude 45.
Latitude 60 will always be bad for farmin: to long frost times, after thawing to long muddy, tundra and woods, usually yield back farmland. Edge cases like you example about Fairbanks don't contradict that.
Try that in the middle of Siberia
Then on the other hand: you lose the current grain reagions in the USA, and you want to trade that for new grain regions in Canada?
You seem to be rather stupid, which your nitpicking about my 4 degrees 'mistake' clearly indicates.
Oh, and most plant growth is mostly restricted by the length of the day, or the total length of the growsing season. The srticle you link especially mentions: water, and the right fertoizer.
So good luck with your 'expansion of the growing zones theory'.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
One answer is that, last time, it was much more gradual. Life had a much better chance to adapt. This time around, we've got concerns that aren't just species survival.
Another is that we haven't stopped putting more CO2 into the air, so it's not going to stay 403ppm for long.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes