Sharp Rise In Co2 Levels

[Scribbler]

BBC News

By David Shukman

BBC science correspondent

US climate scientists have recorded a significant rise in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, pushing it to a new record level.

BBC News has learned the latest data shows CO2 levels now stand at 381 parts per million (ppm) - 100ppm above the pre-industrial average.

The research indicates that 2005 saw one of the largest increases on record - a rise of 2.6ppm.

"We don't see any sign of a decrease; in fact, we're seeing the opposite, the rate of increase is accelerating," Dr Pieter Tans told the BBC.

The precise level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is of global concern because climate scientists fear certain thresholds may be "tipping points" that trigger sudden changes.

"Today we're over 380 ppm," he said. "That's higher than we've been for over a million years, possibly 30 million years. Mankind is changing the climate."

:huh: :unsure:

So - if high CO2 levels equal greenhouse conditions - how come we're not already "on the boil"? :huh:

Or are we?

[Angel15]

We probably already are; I found this excerpt -

Paul Brown, environment correspondent

Monday October 11, 2004

The Guardian

An unexplained and unprecedented rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere two years running has raised fears that the world may be on the brink of runaway global warming.

Scientists are baffled why the quantity of the main greenhouse gas has leapt in a two-year period and are concerned that the Earth's natural systems are no longer able to absorb as much as in the past.

The findings will be discussed tomorrow by the government's chief scientist, Dr David King, at the annual Greenpeace business lecture.

.......

But as we know, the government never provide the public with full facts.

[Scribbler]

But as we know, the government never provide the public with full facts.

lol :unsure: But in this case I think that the government STILL don't know the full facts!

[Methuselah]

BBC News

By David Shukman

BBC science correspondent

"Today we're over 380 ppm," he said. "That's higher than we've been for over a million years, possibly 30 million years. Mankind is changing the climate."

It's amazing how the vast majority of reputable scientists are blissfully unaware that at the onset of he last Ice Age, CO2 levels were allegedly 12 TIMES HIGHER than that??? :huh: :unsure:

Strange that those with the real expertise should miss such a 'well-known factoid' as that??

[The Penguin]

I don’t know whether CO2 levels were twelve times higher at the start of the last ice age (however you define that,) than they are now, is a fact.

I don’t know whether current CO2 levels being at they’re highest for one million or thirty million years is a fact.

I am pretty sure there’s nobody around to confirm either fact from first hand experience, so either proposition is purely based on interpolation and is therefore open to challenge.

And I’m damn sure nobody looking for today’s big headline is going to bother explaining the qualitative, quantitative, or contextual background to his or her revelation, far less explain an alternative proposition.

[Scribbler]

It's amazing how the vast majority of reputable scientists are blissfully unaware that at the onset of he last Ice Age, CO2 levels were allegedly 12 TIMES HIGHER than that???

Hi Pete

I wish you'd tell me where you got that figure from - I can't find it!

Surely 12 times today's level would mean 4,600 ppm or 4.6% CO2 in the atmosphere.

Prehistoric man would have needed an oxygen mask!

[reef]

Hi Pete

I wish you'd tell me where you got that figure from - I can't find it!

Surely 12 times today's level would mean 4,600 ppm or 4.6% CO2 in the atmosphere.

Prehistoric man would have needed an oxygen mask!

Its 4.6 parts per thousand, or 0.46%, still, thats pretty high

[Thundery wintry showers]

The BBC seem to put a fair amount of 'spin' on climate change issues, with a strong bias towards anthropogenic forcing- although they aren't as bad for it as some media outlets.

There is a prevailing view that in order for people to be "frightened" into action, one needs to present extremes, and also that presenting extremes is the only way to get people to take lesser action. I tend to disagree- exaggeration, particularly when twisting statistics and providing half-truths, leads to more scepticism, with regards the emissions debate, is the last thing that is needed.

[Scribbler]

Its 4.6 parts per thousand, or 0.46%, still, thats pretty high

Oops! :blush:

Amazing what a difference a 0 makes! :wacko:

[Guest Daniel]

BBC News

By David Shukman

BBC science correspondent

US climate scientists have recorded a significant rise in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, pushing it to a new record level.

BBC News has learned the latest data shows CO2 levels now stand at 381 parts per million (ppm) - 100ppm above the pre-industrial average.

The research indicates that 2005 saw one of the largest increases on record - a rise of 2.6ppm.

"We don't see any sign of a decrease; in fact, we're seeing the opposite, the rate of increase is accelerating," Dr Pieter Tans told the BBC.

The precise level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is of global concern because climate scientists fear certain thresholds may be "tipping points" that trigger sudden changes.

"Today we're over 380 ppm," he said. "That's higher than we've been for over a million years, possibly 30 million years. Mankind is changing the climate."

:blush:

So - if high CO2 levels equal greenhouse conditions - how come we're not already "on the boil"?

Or are we? :wacko:

What they seem to be forgetting is carbon is also a natrual gaess that comes from volcanos. now if therses been a big increase in under water Volcanos than that would lead large increases in carbon levels and there nothing we can do about it. this is what occured in the past.

[Bobby]

Do you have any evidence for exponential increases in volcanic activity? That is, a constant and accelerating rate of increase for the past 200 years? It's nonsense. Humans are causing this increase.

Anyway... it's worrying that the rate is accelerating so much. Perhaps the positive feedback mechanisms have now started to kick in and we're on a one way road to rapid, unstoppable temp increases. And with the effects of global dimming starting to weaken, we can expect rapid rises in temperature over the next few decades. Pretty worrying I think.

[Guest Daniel]

Do you have any evidence for exponential increases in volcanic activity? That is, a constant and accelerating rate of increase for the past 200 years? It's nonsense. Humans are causing this increase.

Anyway... it's worrying that the rate is accelerating so much. Perhaps the positive feedback mechanisms have now started to kick in and we're on a one way road to rapid, unstoppable temp increases. And with the effects of global dimming starting to weaken, we can expect rapid rises in temperature over the next few decades. Pretty worrying I think.

Go to iceage now and the site explains all about underwater volcanos and ice ages

[Methuselah]

Hi Pete

I wish you'd tell me where you got that figure from - I can't find it!

Surely 12 times today's level would mean 4,600 ppm or 4.6% CO2 in the atmosphere.

Prehistoric man would have needed an oxygen mask! :lol:

It's been touted by quite a few folks on here, when I've stated that current CO2 levels are worth worrying about...I've no idea whence it came Scribbler...

My post was purely facetious...I think the claim is bo***cks! :lol:

Go to iceage now and the site explains all about underwater volcanos and ice ages

Better still, try NASA or the IPCC??

[Scribbler]

Hello Pete

I'm glad to find that it's just hearsay or similar. I was getting a bit worried because I couldn't find any mention of 12 times CO2 levels on other sites.

Iceagenow.com was slated on that BBC program last night - quite an interesting site but a bit one-sided, obviously.

NASA and IPCC - been there, done that, etc! :lol:

[BrickFielder]

You might assume that increased CO2 means warming due to the greenhouse effect with clouds keeping the heat in. It is actually more complex than that and you have to take into account the amount of suns radiation coming in and the longwave radiation going out. This is known as the planetary albedo and it is this which determines whether the planet is warming or not. In terms of what affects this then deserts reflect light and thus cool the planet as do snow fields and sea ice. Clouds effect this as well with deep thunderstorm clouds increasing the planetary temperature (due to abosrbing heat) while thin blanket layers of cloud reduce the planetary temperature (reflecting heat away). In terms of measurements of these then go to the TOMS site. My feeling is that the effects of CO2 are somewhat mitigated by increased low level cloud cover and more deserts and exacerbated by the reductions in sea ice and snow tundra in northern asia.

Arguing that the planet has never seen such CO2 levels seems unlikely to be true due to the vast forest fires that use to sweep across vast areas of continent every year before man started cultivating land. Having said all this the consensus is that the planet has warmed by half a degree in the last 50 years.

[Scribbler]

Hi BrickFielder – this pretty well ties in with your comments, I think.

Forget CO2 – try blaming ice crystals!

University of Leicester website

http://www2.le.ac.uk - ebulletin/news/press-releases

Greenhouse Theory Smashed by Biggest Stone

According to Vladimir Shaidurov of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the apparent rise in average global temperature recorded by scientists over the last hundred years or so could be due to atmospheric changes that are not connected to human emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of natural gas and oil.

Shaidurov explained how changes in the amount of ice crystals at high altitude could damage the layer of thin, high altitude clouds found in the mesosphere that reduce the amount of warming solar radiation reaching the earth's surface.

He suggests that the rise, which began between 1906 and 1909, could have had a very different cause, which he believes was the massive Tunguska Event, which rocked a remote part of Siberia, northwest of Lake Baikal on the 30th June 1908.

I’ve paraphrased the report but in essence he doesn’t blame us or CO2 at all. Hurray! I think.

[Optimus Prime]

I keep thinking this Global Warming thing is one big hype to tax the crap out of us, I don't know why.

These organisations don't release all the truth. It's fact the UK/World has gone through remarkable warming before. And we're hardly going thourgh remarkable warming.

Also these scientists say the earth has never been so warm before. How can they say when it's based of hundreds of years? Even thousands of years isn't long enough.

These people aren't scientists, their opinionators. This graph posted here not so long ago explains a great deal;

[SNOW-MAN2006]

the earth stores masisve amounts of co2 and i was watching something on the telly the other day about marshs and swamp and they hold more carbon dioxide thantress infact the swamps / marshes in the hills of england hold more co2 than all the forests in britain and france combined!!!! i think marshes will help reduce o2 but i hope it is not too late...

but i do not believe in GW but i do believe we have some part in climate change when we are producing excessive amounts of co2 but if the earth was suffering then the earth would reset itself i.e. ice age so i dont thoink anything major is happening just yet

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate!.

The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)-- long before human's invented industrial pollution.

2. CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years-- long before humans invented smokestacks. Unless you count campfires and intestinal gas, man played no role in the pre-industrial increases.

As illustrated in the Soviet Station Vostok in Antarctica, CO2 concentrations in earth's atmosphere move with temperature. Both temperatures and CO2 have been steadily increasing for 18,000 years. Ignoring these 18,000 years of data "global warming activists" contend recent increases in atmospheric CO2 are unnatural and are the result of only 200 years or so of human pollution causing a runaway greenhouse effect.

Incidentally, earth's temperature and CO2 levels today have reached levels similar to a previous interglacial cycle of 120,000 - 140,000 years ago. From beginning to end this cycle lasted about 20,000 years. This is known as the Eemian Interglacial Period and the earth returned to a full-fledged ice age immediately afterward.

regards

BFTP :blink:

[SNOW-MAN2006]

the goverment are putting 1billion pounds towards reasearch into climate change

[Methuselah]

FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

Six billion EXTRA tons BFTP??

At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

regards

BFTP :blink:

That's exactly why it's so important! Were it a major constituent anyway, it mightn't be such a potentially damaging situation...

[frozen_north]

All the money we are spending on climate change today is just completly wasted to keep the environmentalists happy. Its like "Oh look weve reduced our CO2 emmisions by 10% or to below 1990's level(keeping with the Kyoto Proticol), arent we saving the planet." Im fed up with the tosh that some people come out with. We have to reduce our emmisions the environmentalists say, so how exactly do you do that. Well

1) Stop burning all fossil fuels. Well its a great idea except the whole country would be back in the dark ages. We should just live in caves.

2) Use Nuclear energy. Its clean and realtivlely safe. Oh no we cant use that becuase its radioactive and we all know what that means.

3) Wind farms. Its what the environmentalists want. Good idea but it wont produce enough electricity to power the UK. Think calm days. Oh no but they are an eyesore so we cant use them.

4) Wave power. Good but our entire coastline would be destroyed and replaces with something more concrete.

5) Solar panels. Not sunny enough. Fin.

Its not looking good. These environmentalists want us to reduce our emmisions but even they cannot come with the answer. So lets say we reduce our by 5% . Is that really going to make a difference. The CO2 is going to keep increasing.

And then we have the government. Gordon Brown "We are going to tax 4x4 and suvs because they are the biggest polluters." Can this guy give me a break. Firstly I mike take him seriously if he drove in a fuel efficient car. Has someone told him his big Jag pollutes alot more than quite a few 4x4 and suvs at the moment.

Global Warming. Not a day goes by without someone mentioning it. But what most people dont realise is how easily they percieve Global Warming. Take the heavy snows this month. Already I hear people going on about how can Global warming be happening. But if theres a heat wave its all across the news. GW, GW and more GW!!!

Theres one final thing I would like to add. Nobody these days are taking the number of humans into the equation of Global warming. Day in and day out 6 billion humans are pumping out CO2 and the number of humans is increasing. Wasnt there also a population boom around the 1800-1900 when the amount of CO2 started to increase.

Overall Global Warming is it a myth. Who knows, but there is little disscusion about other greenhouse gases such as methane which are alot more powerful than CO2 but then again everyone has become obessed with CO2.

[Scribbler]

the goverment are putting 1billion pounds towards reasearch into climate change

That sounds a typical response to green lobbyists. Spend more money "looking into" the problem. Not actually doing anything - but spending a lot of money to make a lot of hot air B)

All the money we are spending on climate change today is just completly wasted to keep the environmentalists happy. Its like "Oh look we've reduced our CO2 emmisions by 10% or to below 1990's level(keeping with the Kyoto Proticol), arent we saving the planet." I'm fed up with the tosh that some people come out with. We have to reduce our emmisions the environmentalists say, so how exactly do you do that.

Etc......

Great post F-N. B)

I'd like to say that you've said it all but.........

[Methuselah]

I also agree with a lot of what FN says... B)

IMO, far too many environmentalists spend time flying round the world to this or that Environmental Conference, seemingly oblivious to their own emissions; many also drive gas guzzlers...How can the populace be expected to act 'sensibly', if given such a bad, if not hypocritical, example! B)

That said: the globe is getting warmer, we are putting tons of carbon dioxide into the atmophere, and that is havng a knock-on effect on methane and others things...

But, I do agree that not every warm day can be put down to GW - any more than one particular cold spell in one particular corner of the world, means that GW has suddenly reversed...

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I would like to add...re my last paragraph of my previous post...where's the modern problem? Lobbyists always avoid the fact that the planet has been here before prior to humans, prior to industrialisation etc etc etc etc etc.

BFTP