Sharp Rise In Co2 Levels

[Scribbler]

Real evidence of Global Warming whether man-made or natural, can be seen from the chart

Etc, etc.

For those of you who like graphs and charts to back up their argument, try -

http://www.junkscience.com

Scroll down to and click on - Climate Quick Pick

That will take you to Climate Proxies and to a list of charts – take your choice! :lol:

Or check out the ‘Mixed Text and Thumbnail’ option -

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.htm

There's over 60 climate related graphs – from Beijing Stalagmites to Burgundy Grapes - from Greenland to Tasmania. :lol:

Enough evidence to prove or disprove anything about the climate!

[The Penguin]

Zero emissions is an unrealistic aim if we are to sustain humankind- there were emissions even when humans lived very primitive lifestyles. However, it is entirely feasible to think in terms of significantly reducing emissions. Any significant reduction emissions is likely to help, regardless of the extent of human contribution to climate change, from sustainability and air quality points of view.

The problem with reducing emissions is that we risk destabilising economies and forcing a return to primitive lifestyles. That's why I favour the route of focusing on alternative technology, while progressively limiting/taxing greenhouse gas emissions- that way, there is hope that we may be able to achieve a situation where standards of living, economies etc. are limited only by availability of clean technology, rather than that plus additional draconian legislation. Alternatively, the more draconian approaches that are popular with environmental groups could well force far more extreme cutbacks than is necessary. But doing nothing isn't likely to have pretty consequences either.

I do find that there are a lot of extremists and hypocrites and "spin-doctors" in the environmental campaigning community, which tends to put people off and make them sceptical. Politics is an even larger barrier with politicians copying environmental agendas as an excuse to fulfil other political agendas. Maybe if they presented relatively unbiased and "as is" views, like the findings of the IPCC reports for example, the public might start to take notice, though the current lack of trust in the environmental movement would remain a problem.

Absolutely correct. Beginning to end. Totally agree TWS. People should also think about the efffect on marginal, subsistence style populations if the more technologically advanced community regresses.

Nice link, Scribbler.

[Devonian]

Devonian, surely you could argue that the reason a spike didn't show in CO2 levels after those eruptions is that we were also emmiting high enough levels of cooling pollutants at the time which was masking any CO2 emmisions, now we don't do that anymore we are getting the full punch of CO2 warming.

Erm, I don't think cooling pollutants (areosols) mask rising CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere - how could they? They might, though, mask rising temperatures.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Quote Professor Robert CARTER

Measurements from ground-based thermometers and independently from satellite and weather balloon sensors all agree (i) that a minor warming trend of a few tenths of a degree occurred during the last two decades of the 20th century, and (ii) that that trend has now flattened out. Such rates fall comfortably within the multi-decadal warming and cooling rates of up to 3 degrees/century that occur commonly in the recent geological past. Ice core data from Greenland, and other geological data, show also that the magnitude of the late-20th-century warming peak has been nearly matched or exceeded many times during climatic cycling in both the recent and deep geological past. Thus neither the rate nor the magnitude of late 20th century warming can yet be shown to be in any way unusual

This is why for example there are sceptics to man made GW. There are many professors and scientists who do NOT believe that we are warming the planet...neither do I :lol:

BFTP

[Devonian]

Quote Professor Robert CARTER

Measurements from ground-based thermometers and independently from satellite and weather balloon sensors all agree (i) that a minor warming trend of a few tenths of a degree occurred during the last two decades of the 20th century, and (ii) that that trend has now flattened out. Such rates fall comfortably within the multi-decadal warming and cooling rates of up to 3 degrees/century that occur commonly in the recent geological past. Ice core data from Greenland, and other geological data, show also that the magnitude of the late-20th-century warming peak has been nearly matched or exceeded many times during climatic cycling in both the recent and deep geological past. Thus neither the rate nor the magnitude of late 20th century warming can yet be shown to be in any way unusual

This is why for example there are sceptics to man made GW. There are many professors and scientists who do NOT believe that we are warming the planet...neither do I :lol:

BFTP

He cherry picked his starting and ending date to get a flattening trend.

If it warms by, say, 2/3C this century there will, I'm sure, still be those claiming it's all natural.

[Guest Mike W]

it's already aestablished that SO2 masks Co2 levels increasing, I didn't been ttotally, they still rise but very much slower compared to low to no cooling pollutants. Sorry didn't explain myself clearly on that one. :lol:

[Essan]

Such rates fall comfortably within the multi-decadal warming and cooling rates of up to 3 degrees/century that occur commonly in the recent geological past.

There is no evidence for global changes of 3c/century in the recent geological past that I know of. Although ice cores do indicate such variations to have occurred in Greenland, especially in the closing stages of the last ice age. We can't be entirely sure of the reasons for such changes, but atmospheric CO2 is not a likely candidate.

[Devonian]

it's already aestablished that SO2 masks Co2 levels increasing, I didn't been ttotally, they still rise but very much slower compared to low to no cooling pollutants. Sorry didn't explain myself clearly on that one. :lol:

No it isn't :lol: (AFAIK). There is evidence SO2 (well, aerosols) mask warming, due to CO2, but not mask CO2 itself. How could SO2 'mask' CO2?

Edited April 14, 2006 by Devonian

[kold weather]

In terms of temps having flattened out from 1998 I think I'll say a few things myslef.

It's worth remembering that year had a monster El nino, truely the largest ever recorded. It should be no supirse then with such a huge increase of heat in a large surface area that that year was gonig to be the warmest ever.

I'd argue that 1998 was rather the extreme end of what WAS (changed!) possible in terms of global warmth.

So rather then temps having flattened out, they've just come back down to more consitant levels that are expected with global warming.

Once we get a decent El Nino again, we will get the warmest year ever, I'm pretty confident on that.

[Guest Mike W]

If you look at CO2 level history you notice that when we were emmiting SO2 and soot, the increase in CO3 was slower compared with post 88 increases, which what I was saying, I wouldn't mention unless it was proven. I didn't say it completely masks it, I said it puts the brakes on a bit basically, ratehr than bringing to a stop it slows it down so it's doing 30 instead of 60 miles an hour to use a metaphor.

[Devonian]

In terms of temps having flattened out from 1998 I think I'll say a few things myslef.

It's worth remembering that year had a monster El nino, truely the largest ever recorded. It should be no supirse then with such a huge increase of heat in a large surface area that that year was gonig to be the warmest ever.

I'd argue that 1998 was rather the extreme end of what is presently possible in terms of global warmth.

So rather then temps having flattened out, they've just come back down to more consitant levels that are expected with global warming.

Once we get a decent El Nino again, we will get the warmest year ever, I'm pretty confident on that.

I'd say you're spot on (though, it being 2006 not 1998, what's 'presently possible in terms of global warmth' has changed).

[Devonian]

If you look at CO2 level history you notice that when we were emmiting SO2 and soot, the increase in CO3 was slower compared with post 88 increases, which what I was saying, I wouldn't mention unless it was proven. I didn't say it completely masks it, I said it puts the brakes on a bit basically, ratehr than bringing to a stop it slows it down so it's doing 30 instead of 60 miles an hour to use a metaphor.

I think we're getting mixed up.

SO2 (well, aerosols) has no effect on CO2 concentrations. SO2 might mask the warming effect of CO2. Agreed?

Or are you saying what now is emitted as CO2 was being emitted as SO2? Well, I think that's 'wrong' as well. You burn a carbon based fuel you get CO2, the SO2 come from sluphates (and sulphides I guess) in the fuel, and from 'dirty' inefficent combustion. So the west, at least, is producing less aerosols (we're burning less coal for a start, we burn it more efficiently and cleanly now), the aerosols are clearing and the masking effect lessening.

[Essan]

Once we get a decent El Nino again, we will get the warmest year ever, I'm pretty confident on that.

That's exactly what I expect to happen - if the mainstream GW theory is correct

If you look at CO2 level history you notice that when we were emmiting SO2 and soot, the increase in CO3 was slower compared with post 88 increases, which what I was saying, I wouldn't mention unless it was proven.

Increases in CO2 emission are completely unconnected with and reduction in SO2 emissions.

Whilst the later have gone down due to improvements in industrial processes, the former have increased because we all drive cars more, have the central heating on more, use computers all day long and fly abroad several times a year.

In other words, had we not reduced SO2 emissions, CO2 emissions would have increased just as much.

[Stratos Ferric]

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

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrgggggggh...

Hang on:

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarghhhhhh...

That's exactly what I expect to happen - if the mainstream GW theory is correct

Increases in CO2 emission are completely unconnected with and reduction in SO2 emissions.

Whilst the later have gone down due to improvements in industrial processes, the former have increased because we all drive cars more, have the central heating on more, use computers all day long and fly abroad several times a year.

In other words, had we not reduced SO2 emissions, CO2 emissions would have increased just as much.

Essan, I'm not sure that CO2 has gone down globally actually. The rate of increase might have slowed but I'm pretty sure that with rapid industrialisation and carbon burn going on in the developing world the net is still upwards. Also. I would expect some correlation between CO2 and SO2 on this basis, simply because a lot of oil burn include base compounds of both sulphur and carbon. Yes, the former (and in some cases the latter too) is scrubbed out in some places. but not all.

Once we get a decent El Nino again, we will get the warmest year ever, I'm pretty confident on that.

I think that's a sensible call. There is much silliness on this site whenever we get a cold week or a hot day with variously either "whatever happened to GW" or "here's proof" type comments. Several on here make the point that what matters is the time series trend: point data make no proof of anything other than peculiar synoptics at a particular moment. Within any trend there will still be medium and short term cycles up and down of the middle of the trend simply because there are several factors combining to produce climate, and these will not always be consistently aligned or positioned at one end of the scale or the other. These short cycles prove nothing.

[Stratos Ferric]

Quote Professor Robert CARTER

Measurements from ground-based thermometers and independently from satellite and weather balloon sensors all agree (i) that a minor warming trend of a few tenths of a degree occurred during the last two decades of the 20th century, and (ii) that that trend has now flattened out. Such rates fall comfortably within the multi-decadal warming and cooling rates of up to 3 degrees/century that occur commonly in the recent geological past. Ice core data from Greenland, and other geological data, show also that the magnitude of the late-20th-century warming peak has been nearly matched or exceeded many times during climatic cycling in both the recent and deep geological past. Thus neither the rate nor the magnitude of late 20th century warming can yet be shown to be in any way unusual

This is why for example there are sceptics to man made GW. There are many professors and scientists who do NOT believe that we are warming the planet...neither do I

BFTP

BFTP,

Too early to say for sure that the trend has flattened out permanently, and in any case it depends what period average you use: using a short cycle (say 5 years) there is a case, but short cycles prove little: as kold says, lack of a key warming element over these years accounts for that much, and possibly more.

The attached diagram suggests that your contention regarding rate of change might be open to debate, but one has to accept the science used to create the data first. There might have been occasions when CO2 has risen more rapidly, but I would content NOT without some forcing e.g. the metorite that caused the KT layer, and periods of intense vulcanism. At these points, and hence some of PT's comments, it is possible that not only was there high CO2, but also higher (and more than counterbalancing amounts) of other aerosols that served to more than damp any warming effect. This would explain why high levels of CO2 have sometimes correlated with the onset of ice ages. Before Daniel starts getting excited, note that at present there is no overriding damping at present!

Quote Professor Robert CARTER

Measurements from ground-based thermometers and independently from satellite and weather balloon sensors all agree (i) that a minor warming trend of a few tenths of a degree occurred during the last two decades of the 20th century, and (ii) that that trend has now flattened out. Such rates fall comfortably within the multi-decadal warming and cooling rates of up to 3 degrees/century that occur commonly in the recent geological past. Ice core data from Greenland, and other geological data, show also that the magnitude of the late-20th-century warming peak has been nearly matched or exceeded many times during climatic cycling in both the recent and deep geological past. Thus neither the rate nor the magnitude of late 20th century warming can yet be shown to be in any way unusual

This is why for example there are sceptics to man made GW. There are many professors and scientists who do NOT believe that we are warming the planet...neither do I

BFTP

BFTP,

Too early to say for sure that the trend has flattened out permanently, and in any case it depends what period average you use: using a short cycle (say 5 years) there is a case, but short cycles prove little: as kold says, lack of a key warming element over these years accounts for that much, and possibly more.

The attached diagram suggests that your contention regarding rate of change might be open to debate, but one has to accept the science used to create the data first. There might have been occasions when CO2 has risen more rapidly, but I would content NOT without some forcing e.g. the metorite that caused the KT layer, and periods of intense vulcanism. At these points, and hence some of PT's comments, it is possible that not only was there high CO2, but also higher (and more than counterbalancing amounts) of other aerosols that served to more than damp any warming effect. This would explain why high levels of CO2 have sometimes correlated with the onset of ice ages. Before Daniel starts getting excited, note that at present there is no overriding damping at present!

[Methuselah]

Another confusing paradox???

In one breath the GW skeptics try to ridicule 300 years' of data as 'wholly insufficient' when it comes to assessing the degree of recent warming. (Some even go as far to deny that there actually is/has been any at all!)

Then, with the very next breath: the 'fact' that 1998 was warmer than 2003 PROVES BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT that the Earth is now in a cooling phase????

Like you said SF:

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrggghhhhh!!!!

You cannae have it both ways!!

[Thundery wintry showers]

The problem for GW-deniers is that 2005 was almost as warm globally as 1998 (some measures have it as even warmer) while there was no significant El Nino.

The winter of 2005/06 was not especially warm globally, being only the ninth warmest on record according to NOAA, but that could be a blip, just as Summer 2004 wasn't a particularly warm summer globally but October and November 2004 were second warmest and warmest on record respectively.

What we can take heart from is that, as yet, the rate of warming does not appear to have accelerated since the mid 1980s, but even this is consistent with a rise of 2C globally over the next 100 years, and nearer 3-4C in high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.

[Methuselah]

I've just thought of another problem for GW-deniers: The world IS getting warmer!

[The Penguin]

BFTP,

Too early to say for sure that the trend has flattened out permanently, and in any case it depends what period average you use: using a short cycle (say 5 years) there is a case, but short cycles prove little: as kold says, lack of a key warming element over these years accounts for that much, and possibly more.

The attached diagram suggests that your contention regarding rate of change might be open to debate, but one has to accept the science used to create the data first. There might have been occasions when CO2 has risen more rapidly, but I would content NOT without some forcing e.g. the metorite that caused the KT layer, and periods of intense vulcanism. At these points, and hence some of PT's comments, it is possible that not only was there high CO2, but also higher (and more than counterbalancing amounts) of other aerosols that served to more than damp any warming effect. This would explain why high levels of CO2 have sometimes correlated with the onset of ice ages. Before Daniel starts getting excited, note that at present there is no overriding damping at present!

Nice graph. Interestingly, (apologies if this has been noted before and explained, but I must have missed it,) at the same time as a pretty consistent correlation is illustrated between temperature and CO2 levels there is also a similarly consistent regime of time lag from temperature change to apparent adjustment in CO2. For most of the period described CO2 content is affected by temperature change rather than the other way round.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I've just thought of another problem for GW-deniers: The world IS getting warmer!

Pete

I am not denying the world has warmed...it has on the surface. Air temps have shown no rise over last 20 years. I don't believe it is by us. Some good posting going on here (SF, TWS etc).

The global warming lobby said the most accurate measure of climate change would be air temperatures. For the past 20 years or more, air temperatures have been measured with extreme accuracy. They show no warming whatsoever.

Surface temperatures are much less reliable since the recording stations are often encroached on by expanding cities, which warm the local environment. The curve most often used by the global warmers is one showing surface temperatures rising by about half a degree in the past 100 years.

BFTP

Edited April 14, 2006 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Thundery wintry showers]

One question that springs to my mind is, where is the evidence that air temperatures aren't getting warmer?

I have an open mind to the possibility if it is true, but every source I have come across has suggested a warming of about 0.4C since the 1961-90 base period across the globe, and nearer 0.8C in northern Europe.

If the contention is that upper air temps aren't getting warmer, there are reasons for this given in the IPCC Report of 2001. In particular air above the greenhouse gas accumulation areas is unlikely to warm up as no heat will be trapped in that area of the atmosphere.

[Methuselah]

I might be wrong here - but as the Solar Constant has remained 'almost' the same over the past 30 years, any near-surface warming attributable to CO2-induced GW must be accompanied by a concomitant cooling at high altitude - effectively above the zone of re-radiation - for any overall heat 'balance' to be maintained?

IMO, for warming to occur equally at all levels, we'd need a Ken Ring-style 'lid' sitting atop the atmosphere? For what we actually see (warming near the surface, thermal neutrality somewhere in the middle and cooling at the top) we'd need re-radiation to emanate from greenhouse gases at all levels...Isn't this pretty-much what we have? B)

[Stratos Ferric]

Devonian, please read it again whether we increase or not is not what I raised, where is the established fact that CO2 warms the planet. All that can be stated as fact is that as the planet warms so does CO2, that is the link....causation or consequence?

BFTP

Peter

It is NOT a good analogy. Baths do not leak so water keeps filling until overflows. The planet absorbs and recycles CO2. Now if you have a colonder and you place it under a fast enough flow then it will fill if the imput is higher than the leakage...that I'd accept. However, it is unlikely that the Earth would overfill as the imput would never be high enough. It has been here before and it has reversed before...I'll stick with that thankyou

But I will accept your opinions, its not mine. My concern is that we are on a tipping point and we must be ready for that. The planet will not keep warming, it never has it went into reversal every single time it got to this point...WITHOUT FAIL

BFTP

BFTP,

There is a strong correlation between CO2 and temps, and you're right to suggest that this could either be a lagging or leading effect, apart from one critical factor - and hence why "the greenhouse effect": CO2 absorbs energy at precisely some of the wavelengths that incoming solar radiation is reradiated to space by the earth's surface. It's rather like saying: oooh look, the climate's getting warmer, but when it does the growing season is longer and my daffodils flower earlier, therefore it may be the case that my daffodils are actually causing the growing season to lengthen. Mmmm.

The colander analogy is actually the better one, and you inadvertently stumble on the point (I'm not sure it's the point that you were making): what is happening at present is that the rate at which CO2 is being added has increased markedly. Anyone who is going to argue the toss on this might like to refer me to a point in history before the industrial revolution when we had cars, planes, power stations, slash-and-burn on a huge scale, central heating etc. etc. The spees at which the natural sinks can adapt to increased forcing (and all other aspects of nature come to that) are far slower than our ability to add to the forcing.

Pete

I am not denying the world has warmed...it has on the surface. Air temps have shown no rise over last 20 years. I don't believe it is by us. Some good posting going on here (SF, TWS etc).

The global warming lobby said the most accurate measure of climate change would be air temperatures. For the past 20 years or more, air temperatures have been measured with extreme accuracy. They show no warming whatsoever.

Surface temperatures are much less reliable since the recording stations are often encroached on by expanding cities, which warm the local environment. The curve most often used by the global warmers is one showing surface temperatures rising by about half a degree in the past 100 years.

BFTP

BFTP,

You'd better find a source (other than Ice Age now please) to back you on that one! As TWS suggests. I'm not sure it stacks up.

Mike I nearly passed out reading that, where are your full stops? B) BFTP

Excellent! Still chuckling now...

Nail on the head, GW.

The thing about the current situation - i.e. rapid, man made release of CO2 stored over geological time scales - is that it is unique and we are in uncharted territory. We can talk about natural cycles all we want - but all bets are off because of the scale and uniqueness our intervention.

Personally, I don't believe that the current efforts being made along the lines of reducing our input to the Carbon Cycle from fossil fuels will even scratch the surface. I think this input will only start to decrease when these fossil fuels begin to run out and so become too expensive cf alternative energy sources. Just when this will occur (and it certainly won't be over the next 10-20 years, methinks - anyone have a timescale on this?) may determine - more than all our debates and scientific research - whether we head down the road of the disaster of runaway warming or 'just' a major problem for humanity and small scale extinctions..

Sad to think that economics and human nature may be the determinants of our long term future, rather than science or informed debate!

Much sense in that post I think. However, I wouldn't be too sceptical about having to wait for research, though that is a certain "last port of storm"; history is littered with examples of man's capability to adopt and the technocrats, thus far at least, have tended to win the day - albeit with US-into-Iraq-(or anywhere else)-lack-of-downstream-view-of-price-to-be-paid-blindness-in-one-eye at times: the one upside of $70 oil is that the oil companies are awash with cash, and the bounty for the first to find viable alternatives is huge; I woldn't worry that there's a lot more investment going into alternatives than there is (from corporates at least) into reduced primary usage.