While CO2 has increased to “record” levels, the pause in global temperature continues.
Via AP: 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.
Here is the press release:
Record Greenhouse Gas Levels Impact Atmosphere and Oceans
Carbon Dioxide Concentration Surges
Geneva, 9 September 2014 (WMO) – The amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reached a new record high in 2013, propelled by a surge in levels of carbon dioxide. This is according to the World Meteorological Organization’s annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, which injected even greater urgency into the need for concerted international action against accelerating and potentially devastating climate change.
The Greenhouse Gas Bulletin showed that between 1990 and 2013 there was a 34% increase in radiative forcing – the warming effect on our climate – because of long-lived greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide.
In 2013, concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 142% of the pre-industrial era (1750), and of methane and nitrous oxide 253% and 121% respectively.
The observations from WMO’s Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) network showed that CO2 levels increased more between 2012 and 2013 than during any other year since 1984. Preliminary data indicated that this was possibly related to reduced CO2 uptake by the earth’s biosphere in addition to the steadily increasing CO2 emissions.
The WMO Greenhouse Gas Bulletin reports on atmospheric concentrations – and not emissions – of greenhouse gases. Emissions represent what goes into the atmosphere. Concentrations represent what remains in the atmosphere after the complex system of interactions between the atmosphere, biosphere and the oceans. About a quarter of the total emissions are taken up by the oceans and another quarter by the biosphere, reducing in this way the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The ocean cushions the increase in CO2 that would otherwise occur in the atmosphere, but with far-reaching impacts. The current rate of ocean acidification appears unprecedented at least over the last 300 million years, according to an analysis in the report.
“We know without any doubt that our climate is changing and our weather is becoming more extreme due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud.
“The Greenhouse Gas Bulletin shows that, far from falling, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere actually increased last year at the fastest rate for nearly 30 years. We must reverse this trend by cutting emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases across the board,” he said. “We are running out of time.”
“Carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for many hundreds of years and in the ocean for even longer. Past, present and future CO2 emissions will have a cumulative impact on both global warming and ocean acidification. The laws of physics are non-negotiable,” said Mr Jarraud.
“The Greenhouse Gas Bulletin provides a scientific base for decision-making. We have the knowledge and we have the tools for action to try keep temperature increases within 2°C to give our planet a chance and to give our children and grandchildren a future. Pleading ignorance can no longer be an excuse for not acting,” said Mr Jarraud.
“The inclusion of a section on ocean acidification in this issue of WMO’s Greenhouse Gas Bulletin is appropriate and needed. It is high time the ocean, as the primary driver of the planet’s climate and attenuator of climate change, becomesa central part of climate change discussions,” said Wendy Watson-Wright, Executive Secretary of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO.
“If global warming is not a strong enough reason to cut CO2 emissions, ocean acidification should be, since its effects are already being felt and will increase for many decades to come. I echo WMO Secretary General Jarraud’s concern – we ARE running out of time,” she said.
Atmospheric Concentrations
Carbon dioxide accounted for 80% of the 34% increase in radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases from 1990 to 2013, according to the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Annual Greenhouse Gas Index.
On the global scale, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere reached 396.0 parts per million in 2013. The atmospheric increase of CO2 from 2012 to 2013 was 2.9 parts per million, which is the largest annual increase for the period 1984-2013. Concentrations of CO2 are subject to seasonal and regional fluctuations. At the current rate of increase, the global annual average CO2 concentration is set to cross the symbolic 400 parts per million threshold in 2015 or 2016.
Methane is the second most important long-lived greenhouse gas. Approximately 40% of methane is emitted into the atmosphere by natural sources (e.g., wetlands and termites), and about 60 % comes from human activities like cattle breeding, rice agriculture, fossil fuel exploitation, landfills and biomass burning. Atmospheric methane reached a new high of about 1824 parts per billion (ppb) in 2013, due to increased emissions from anthropogenic sources. Since 2007, atmospheric methane has been increasing again after a temporary period of leveling-off.
Nitrous oxide (N2O)
Nitrous oxide is emitted into the atmosphere from both natural (about 60%) and anthropogenic sources (approximately 40%), including oceans, soil, biomass burning, fertilizer use, and various industrial processes. Its atmospheric concentration in 2013 was about 325.9 parts per billion. Its impact on climate, over a 100-year period, is 298 times greater than equal emissions of carbon dioxide. It also plays an important role in the destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer which protects us from the harmful ultraviolet rays of the sun.
Ocean Acidification:
For the first time, this Bulletin contains a section on ocean acidification prepared in collaboration with the International Ocean Carbon Coordination Project (IOCCP) of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO (IOC-UNESCO), the Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research (SCOR), and the Ocean Acidification International Coordination Centre (OA-ICC) of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The ocean currently absorbs one-fourth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, reducing the increase in atmospheric CO2 that would otherwise occur because of fossil fuel combustion. Enhanced ocean CO2 uptake alters the marine carbonate system and lead to increasing acidity. The ocean’s acidity increase is already measurable as oceans take up about 4 kilogrammes of CO2 per day per person.
The current rate of ocean acidification appears unprecedented at least over the last 300 million years, based on proxy-data from paleo archives. In the future, acidification will continue to accelerate at least until mid-century, based on projections from Earth system models.
The potential consequences of ocean acidification on marine organisms are complex. A major concern is the response of calcifying organisms, such as corals, algae, mollusks and some plankton, because their ability to build shell or skeletal material (via calcification) depends on the abundance of carbonate ion. For many organisms, calcification declines with increased acidification. Other impacts of acidification include reduced survival, development, and growth rates as well as changes in physiological functions and reduced biodiversity.
===========================================
But despite all this, there is still no warming in the lower troposphere:
and no warming at the surface:
NOTE: (added) Some people saw the green line in the figure above as a trend line. It is not. It is a comparison line to show the similarity of global temperatures 19 years apart in relation to McKittrick’s paper on the pause. It simply shows the “plateau” of temperatures has not changed much since then. To see more about the pause in trends, this essay will be informative.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Most of these WMO claims debunked…
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/09/debunking-latest-un-climate-propaganda.html
although they did get it right about “It is high time the ocean, as the primary driver of the planet’s climate and attenuator of climate change, becomes a central part of climate change discussions”
I have noticed that the CO2 – level has been on 399,14 for a long time on this page; http://wattsupwiththat.com/widget/
And what do you know, the link to the source for the update has been broken. Earlier this year it was reported that the CO2 level had crossed the 400 ppmv. roof set to be castrastious. That was also reported in a article with the headline; “The sky is falling!” Now, however, the link is gone, the level is sinking, but reportedly is increasing – are we witnessing more data tampering?
I agree, it was a long time ago that the 400ppm was forecast as being a danger level that was ‘imminent’. With all the data tampering by so called climate scientists in the past, it surely must be a distinct possibility that these data have also been made to suit the warmist cause. ‘. Is there any possibility that an independent check on the atmospheric pollution can be made to either agree or disprove these figures?
Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant!!
This link; ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/data/trace_gases/co2/flask/surface/co2_mlo_surface-flask_1_ccgg_event.txt
is the raw-data from MLO. As we can see, at the beginning of last year, the level was over 400 ppmv. several times. But on the last reading on 31. of December it was down to 323,17 ppmv. That alone should tell everybody, human can not be responsible. Because 1. The CO2 emissions we put out in the atmosphere is the biggest source of CO2, right!? And 2. It doesn’t go away, it stays there for years. So how do the alarmists explaine the difference of 24% (77 ppmv) in one year?
I particularly like the pure alarmist drivel of throwing in the acid ocean lines. As more and more people comprehend that CO2 is net beneficial, by a long ways, they must hype the pathetic acid ocean claims, or other modeled scares, all failing to manifest in real world observations. From your link…
2. Claim: “The current rate of ocean acidification appears unprecedented at least over the last 300 million years”
There is no good long-term observational data showing a trend of decreased pH at any location on earth, much less the entire ocean. The best continuous long-term record of observed pH is from the Monterey Bay Aquarium from 1996-present, which shows no trend:
The claim of “unprecedented” pH is from dicey proxy studies that are not accurate enough to detect a tiny 0.1 pH change allegedly since the start of the industrial revolution. Even direct measurements with the best pH meters available today are generally uncertain to ± 0.2 pH units. All claims about anthropogenic ‘acidification’ are from models, not observations, which are debunked here by Professor of geochemistry Dr. Tom Segalstad.”
———————————————————————————–
Indeed, just as the proxy climate studies are meaningless about anything less then 100 to 200 year periods, and so say nothing about decadal trends, (and have a host of other problems) these proxy studies are essentially meaningless. It really is failed models, and bad science all the way down.
David A,
Good post. The “acidification” scare is having a hard time getting traction, for the reasons you cite. The only reason it is mentioned is because the label sounds scary to ignorant people who know nothing about the oceans’ immense buffering capacity.
When CO2 rises from 3 parts in 10,000 to 4 parts in 10,000, over a century and a half, that is hardly going to change the oceans’ pH. CO2 is only a tiny trace gas. The ocean doesn’t even know it’s there.
Following dbstealey’s remarks, I recently made a back-of-envelope calculation that it all the CO2 in the atmosphere instantly dissolved in the ocean, it would increase the concentration of CO2 in the ocean by about 1 ppm.
I did a calculation a while back that based on deep ocean temps and volume it could store (iirc) about 2,000 times the entire carbon cycle (~700 GTon).
Until the pH of the ocean is less than 7.0 which is not going to happen, “acidification” is a misnomer with nefarious intentions.
There is about a 1 pH swing along the pacific coast between upwelling and other surface seawater. There is about a 1 pH swing at Vancouver and at Elkhorn Slough on Monterey Bay between summer highs and winter lows because both are biologically driven estuaries.
There is a 3 pH swing in Florida Bay from the Everglades mangrove fringe in winter to Key West in summer–a distance of 60 miles. Caused by freshwater seawater mixing, seagrass photosynthesis difference between summer and winter insolation, and summer evaporation increasing salinity in these shallows.
AR5 impossible high CO2 RCP8.5 means ocean pH would decline between 0.15 and 0.2 because of the enormous buffering in the alkaline system. IPCC AR5 estimate.
The supposed threat of ocean ‘acidification’ is pure alarmism. The coral and oyster ‘science’ supporting the alarm is wrong to the point of possible scientific misconduct. There is a whole exposé chapter on this in the forthcoming book.
I wonder if there is a way to determine whether or not any of this CO2 is from the Medieval Warming Period? The oceanic CO2 cycle is anywhere from 500 to 1000 years between sink from to release back to the atmosphere. Just about now we should be experiencing lots of released CO2 that is anything but of recent origin.
Right on!! For decades we have been told of abyssal currents which take a thousand years or so to transport cold water from carbon sink areas (near the poles) – carbon solution being more effective in cold water during ice ages, such as the LIA – to upwell and release their ancestral CO2. The timing is aboutt right for this LIA ancestral CO2 to re-emerge. A more significant source for increasing atmospheric CO2 than anthropogenic “carbon” emissions?????
I don’t know if there is a way to determine which period the CO2 comes from, but ….
The gap between a change of [average global] temperature and a change in [global] CO2 levels is said to be about an average of 800 years. … About 800 years ago the Earth was in the last stages of the Medieval Warm Period (about AD 950 to 1250) — as shown in this graph :-
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0133edf988be970b-pi
There appears to be a correlation between the increasing temperatures in about AD 950, and the increasing CO2 levels that started about the year 1750.. (950 plus 800 years), .. at least in the Arctic areas.
If there is any truth in this correlation, CO2 levels should begin to *decrease in the next decades – until about the year 2050 .. (1250 plus 800 years).
Yes, I know, this all seems to be too neat and tidy. .. Maybe it could be an example of Ockham’s razor!
It would be fantastic if this were true, but there may be a serious problem. The previous warm period was about a thousand years before the MWP, during the Roman period. If there were no corresponding CO2 increase around 1000 AD, then the theory is probably wrong.
Is there any evidence of a CO2 increase roughly 800 years after the Roman period – and, for that matter, roughly 800 years after the Minoan Warm Period?
Chris
That has been my POV for a decade. Since CO2 follows temperature in all studies at all time scales. If this is true, and I haven’t seen data that it’s not, what else could we expect but the release of this gas from past warming or cooling. This is one of the IPCC’s forbidden territories.
According to Mauna Loa (NOAA) August 2014 CO2 397.01 ppm August 2013 CO2 395.15 ppm. That’s an annual rate of increase of 1.86 ppm. Why did the rate of increase DECREASE so much last month?
Thanks Jane, I thought so as well. Indeed, I thought months ago they were already claiming 400 ppm. 1/2 year later and I find out we are about 18 months away from the wholly beneficial 400 ppm CO2 we need.
The 400 ppm reading was *only at Mauna Loa earlier this year. See the graph on this page :-
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
The *global average readings have still not reached 400 ppm. As shown here :-
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html#global
There is a substantial seasonal component to MLO CO2. It peaks in late NH winter and minimums in later summer–I.e. now. It did touch 400 ppm in March, before photosynthesis kicked in to reduce it. The rate of concentration increase will start to rise again in October.
The plant food thing.
Because the rate of change of CO2 is affinely related to temperatures, and temperatures are starting their cyclic decline.
Causation is not correlation! Oh wait … 😉
Interesting point. There is no causation without correlation!
Interesting distinction between human and natural causes. I would have thought thought humans were very natural. We actually belong on the earth as much as plants do. We’re a consequence of natural development. I’ll keep an eye out for unnatural humans.
Gaia sez humans are tasked with returning CO2 levels to the plant comfort zone. About 2,000 ppm should do it.
James, you need a CO2 detector; unnatural humans do not exhale CO2.
Why, oh why, does this “record increase” of CO2 get published now when it is a known fact since May 2013, nearly a year and a half ago?
A new season has come, and the new increase in CO2 levels, October2013-May2014, is below 2ppm, so actually lower than what has been normal so far in the XXI century. Why are they talking about the 2013 season as if it was the latest data?
Sorry, I meant May 2013 – May 2014
That’s easy. The warmists are being caught out and they need… OH Look, Squirrel.
PV = nRT !
(y)
Gee, Only went 4 nights total in the summer of 2013 in Canada without a comforter. Same as for 2012 and 2011. But I went 3 nights without a comforter this summer of 2014. Without A/C. I use a comforter only 1 or 2 nights in the winter in the Bahamas. Without heat.
At less than 1% of the resonating molecules, CO2, CH4, and stragglers are insignificant in the greenhouse effect. Hello? Don’t trust the satellites. Trust the spatially biased, corrupt, and much adjusted surface temperature record.
Again no mention of the elephant in the parlor….water vapor. How did methane move to number two after CO2? How long before humans , who also breath out water vapor, get tagged for this as well?
Reuters is now reporting that methane has reached *gasp* 1824 parts per billion! [ppb]. And nitrous oxide is 325.9 ppb! Wow. Those are some big numbers!
Not very long ago, methane was being reported in parts per million [ppm]. That would make it 1.8 ppm. And nitrous oxide would be only 0.9 ppm.
But 1,824 and 325.9 ppb sounds much scarier. So that’s what they’re using now; ppb, instead of the usual ppm. Spin, spin, spin.
Damn those pesky satellites and their increasing numbers with irrefutable readings – they just aren’t playing the game the way it could be played with BoM “adjusted” readings…
Of course the CO2 level keeps going up, the figure is produced using UN data by the IPCC. In the FAQ section of the 2001 Report they answer the question “How does the IPCC produce its Inventory Guidelines?” regarding provenance of annual CO2 measures, as follows.
“Utilizing IPCC procedures, nominated experts from around the world draft the reports that are then extensively reviewed twice before approval by the IPCC.”
I would love to see a chart with the major temp series and CO2 since 2000…
Jack
Here is (extended) CET to 2013 showing temperature and co2 levels to 1538
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/clip_image002_thumb8.jpg?w=614&h=373
It is taken from my short article here;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-curious-case-of-rising-co2-and-falling-temperatures/
tonyb
I saw this press release in the news today and cringed. No numbers, no error bars, no graphs, no statistics, nothing at all to put these statements in perspective. It seems to me that the annual increase of CO2 varies between 1 and 3 ppm, so unless the annual increase stays around 3 ppm for several years I don’t buy it. And the biosphere is no longer capable of absorbing as much CO2 as before? Really? Says who and based on what?
My guess is that the CO2 graph (b) error bars are huge. The rate is derived by differentiation of the ppm curve, an inherently error-prone process.
Methane long lived? Isn’t methane converted to CO2 in about a decade?
londo,
Less than a decade. Methane is converted to CO2 and H2O. It is a non-problem.
And vice-versa:
>>Natural gas production from CO2 and hydrogen ready for the market
An innovative method for storing electricity from renewable energy sources is now finished for the market with a fourth patent application. The method based on micro-organisms of the Austrian Krajete GmbH allows the highly efficient and clean conversion of harmful CO2 emissions and hydrogen in – storable – methane. Here, a natural metabolic process known as archaea is used, the absence of oxygen pure methane – produced – ie natural gas. The clean solution of the Austrian innovation leader offers the power storage and resource-efficient ways of producing biofuels and for cheap purification of biogas or waste gas. <<
Cont'd…
Translation by google, published 29.04.2013 in German here:
http://www.umweltdialog.de/de/wirtschaft/energie/archiv/2013-04-29_Erdgasproduktion-aus-CO2-und-Wasserstoff-marktreif.php
I don't quite understand why these Geneva scaremongers are kicking up such a fuss on completely natural things that will come and go as they always did.
“Carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for many hundreds of years and in the ocean for even longer. Past, present and future CO2 emissions will have a cumulative impact on both global warming and ocean acidification. The laws of physics are non-negotiable,” said Mr Jarraud.
Where did you learn science? CO2 residence time is only 4 years. Even the warmists at Skeptical Science admit that. If you know college chemistry, you can easily compute that anthropogenic CO2 cannot acidify the ocean. You were not paying attention to your chemistry teacher. Acids and bases are taught in chemistry class, not in physics.
“The Greenhouse Gas Bulletin provides a scientific base for decision-making. We have the knowledge and we have the tools for action to try keep temperature increases within 2°C to give our planet a chance and to give our children and grandchildren a future. Pleading ignorance can no longer be an excuse for not acting,” said Mr Jarraud.
Your ignorance can no longer be an excuse to spread your stupidity. Emit more CO2 to give our planet a chance to warm because it stopped warming since 1997. We couldn’t warm it even if try so hard.
Residence time of CO2 is about 5 years, but that says next to nothing for the e-fold decay time of some extra injection of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Residence time is how long a CO2 molecule of whatever origin in average remains in the atmosphere before being exchanged with a molecule from another reservoir. That is thus molecule swapping and doesn’t change the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Some 20% of all CO2 in the atmosphere is exchanged with the oceans and the biosphere each year in and out over the seasons.
What counts is the difference between ins and outs: that is what changes the CO2 mass in the atmosphere. Currently that is ~4.5 GtC/year (2.15 ppmv/year), while humans emit ~9 GtC/year (4.5 ppmv/year) at a CO2 pressure in the atmosphere about 110 ppmv over the temperature driven equilibrium. See:
http://www.john-daly.com/carbon.htm
That gives a e-fold decay rate of slightly over 50 years, much longer than residence time, but much shorter than the IPCC’s decay time, as that is based on the Bern model, which includes a saturation of the deep oceans, for which is not the slightest indication (yet)…
It doesn’t matter. There has been no validation that there is any effect on actual atmospheric temperatures by increasing atmospheric CO2. Other immediate feedbacks with far greater effects would appear to nullify what impact there is – such as a very very small change in the hydrologic cycle or an associated slight increase in albedo. Indeed there is more evidence to the contrary indicating that CO2 has no impact on actual atmospheric temperatures, such as the stasis in measured tropospheric temperatures over the last 15 years.
What has been validated beyond doubt is the beneficial effect on plants and plant growth and thus the biosphere as a whole of increase in atmospheric CO2.
The 55-year CO2 lifetime is a mathematical derivation. Its physical relevance is trivial. The choice of 290 ppm as baseline is arbitrary. It assumes equilibrium level. But atmospheric CO2 is not constant. It is always changing whether above or below 290 ppm. This pre-industrial level is just a number. Any other number will do. You can do the calculation using 250, 300, 320, 350, 380 or whatever ppm.
The 290 ppmv is based on the 800,000 years record of CO2 vs, temperature in ice cores, or 8 ppmv/K over that time span. There are other proxies and direct measurements which show between 4 ppmv/K and up to 17 ppmv/K for ocean surface temperature changes, vegetation in general a higher sink at higher temperatures. Thus the 8 ppmv/K in equilibrium is not far off.
Not that it matters much, as the effect indeed is minimal, but one shouldn’t mix residence time with the e-fold decay rate which are completely different and largely unrelated factors…
Ice cores do not show constant 290 ppm. It is varying by 100 ppm. Since ocean CO2 absorption is also varying. All that confirm my point that there is nothing special about picking one particular number for ppm and another another particular number for ppm/K. They are all arbitrary. The curve is a quadratic equation or higher order polynomial. The slope is not constant. It is constantly changing depending on the points selected.
No mixing of residence time and decay rate. The former is physical. The latter is mathematical. Scientists are interested in physics. Mathematicians in the mathematics.
Dr. Strangelove
September 11, 2014 at 8:56 pm
Ice cores do not show constant 290 ppm.
Indeed, but they do show a quite constant ratio between CO2 levels and temperature (proxy) over the past 800,000 years of ~8 ppmv/K. For the current temperature the pre-industrial CO2 level was 290 ppmv, not the current 400 ppmv. It is that pressure difference which pushes more CO2 into the oceans and vegetation.
The 290 ppmv is not an arbitrary number, but the equilibrium level of CO2 in the atmosphere vs. oceans (and vegetation) for the current temperature per Henry’s law. That is as physical as the residence time, the difference is that the residence time is (seasonal and continuous) temperature driven and the e-fold decay rate is pressure (difference) driven.
How is “residence time” actually measured?
Hardly measured, more estimates than measurements…
There is a whole list of estimates, based on different observations, see:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/09/why-i-am-an-anthropogenic-global-warming-sceptic-part-3/
Where the IPCC’s estimate is wrongly projected, as that is not their estimate for the residence time, but decay rate for an excess amount of CO2 in the atmosphere above equilibrium.
That is followed by a lot of discussion, with the same arguments as today…
Whoa! The CO2 graph looks so scary. But to put it into perspective:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/50-years-of-co2-0-to-100.gif
http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/50-years-of-co2-0-to-10.gif
http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/50-years-of-co2-0-to-1.gif
From http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/50-years-of-co2-time-for-a-vision-test/
Some-one observed that if the concentration of all atmospheric gases were plotted on a graph as high as a 10 story building. carbon dioxide would be represented by the thickness of the linoleum on the ground floor.
Another way to look at the rise in CO2: that beneficial trace gas has increased over the past 150 years, from 3 parts in 10,000, to only 4 parts in 10,000 now.
Also, CO2 levels have been more than sixteen times (16X) higher in the past, with no ill effects, and causing no runaway global warming. In addition, CO2 levels have been much higher than now in the depths of some of the great Ice Ages. There is no correlation between rising CO2 and subsequent temperature rises. Every short-term coincidental rise in both has quickly broken down.
The current small rise in CO2 is hardly frightening. But it is the basis for the “carbon” scare.
Since global warming trends have crashed and burned for the past 18 years, I see the warmunists moving away from scaring the masses with ocean acidification…
With the PDO entering a 30-yr cool cycle in 2005, AMO’s 30-yr warm ocean cycle winding down and switching to a 30-yr cool cycle from around 2020, and the sun in an apparent weakening cycle, there is an excellent chance global temps could fall for the next 20~30+ years. Accordingly, the warmunists have to find another dead horse to beat to death, and ocean acidification fits the bill…
Too bad that ocean pH has only dropped around 0.05 pH since 1750 to 8.1, but heh, you gotta scare the masses with something to keep the research grant money flowing….
This stupid CAGW swindle is in its death spiral. In about 5 years, the discrepancies between projected catastrophes and reality will be so great, it will be laughed into obscurity. Public support for this scam is quickly waning and approaching a point of singularity, when the whole thing just implodes upon itself….
If I may paraphrase Winston Churchill:
“Never in the field of human conflict has so much money been wasted by so few for so little benefit for no reason.”
You realize pH is on a log-scale, don’t you? So if pH of oceans has fallen from 8.25 to 8.14, that means there are 30% more hydrogen ions in the water, i.e., it is 30% more acidic. Why don’t you ask the coral reefs how they’re doing?
Well since the pH scale wasn’t even invented until 1909 I have always wondered how they did those measurements back in 1750. Measuring pH with a precision of 0.01 is very difficult even today (yes, I know there are plenty of pH-meters that show two decimals in the window, but just try to calibrate them at that level….)
And as for coral reefs, You know of course that the pH level around a reef changes up to 1.0 units per day due to the photosynthetic activity of the symbiotic algae in corals?
I did. So did famed coral expert Dr. Walter Stark at Milne Bay, Papau New Guinea in 2010, where because of naturally seeping volcanic CO2 there are places where the pH is as low as 7.8. The corals were still doing fine. You need to study this more carefully, rather than just drink the coolaid.
Further to your point about corals. There have been severe bleaching events. Where cyanide has not been used to hunt tropical fish (the Pacific) most are related to water pollution, especially sediment runoff. The decomposition of organic matter produces trace hydrogen sulfide which has a coral L50 of 30 ppb! More toxic than cyanide via the same oxygen metabolism. So it is careless land use, not ‘acidification’ that is the problem. As said upthread, the Fabricus studies from Australia border on scientific misconduct because they included Milne Bay seep transects with 163ppm H2S at Dobu Island.
You might find my forthcoming book educational, as this is exposed in detail using information from the papers own supplemental information.
No need to have to ask, though coral is not noted for having the power of speech. The coral reefs are thriving where they are not being threatened by pollution, excess sediment and man’s upsetting of the ecosystem by over exploitation of the resource. Hypothetical decreased alkalinity by a miniscule to unmeasurable level is simply ludicrous as a factor in coral degradation.
No, it is 22% less acidic. The change is 22% of the initial value.
You can easily find lots of fossil coral reefs in sediments of the jurassic era, when there was at least 500% more CO2 in the atmosphere than today. What about the alleged dangerous Ocean “Acidification” then?
Ben M,
The coral reefs are doing just fine. There is occasional bleaching, which is reversed the following year. It is completely natural, and it has nothing to do with the rise in atmospheric CO2 — from 3 parts in ten thousand, to only 4 parts in ten thousand — over a century and a half.
Think, boy! Don’t let the alarmist clique lead you by the nose. They have ulterior motives in trying to scare you.
Yes, Ben, I’m well aware pH is logarithmic…
I’m also aware that the average ocean pH over the past 500 million years has been around 7.6… I’m also aware that the average pH level of a typical municipal aquarium varies from 7.8~8.2 during a typical year… I’m also aware that there was approximately 10 TIMES more carbon dissolved in the oceans 500 million years ago and the ocean were STILL alkaline and corals and shellfish thrived; entire mountain ranges are made from the remains of shellfish that died 100’s of millions ago, when pH was around 7.6…
Oceans are now at the highest alkaline levels in 4.5 billion years, so an excellent case could be made the oceans are too alkaline–not too acidic….
The Earth is certainly still starved of CO2. During the last glaciation, CO2 levels fell to 170ppm, which is just 20ppm away from photosynthesis shutting down and all life on Earth going extinct….
Don’t fall for the silly notion of some mythical “Golidlocks” level of: ocean pH, atmospheric CO2 concentration, average global temp, polar ice level, etc. The Earth’s chemistry and climate are ALWAYS in a state of flux. The idea that man can miraculously create some Climate Utopia by taxing air and building wind/solar farms is the height of hubris, conceit and stupidity.
Societies should continue reducing REAL pollutants like: O3, CO, SO2, NOx, Pb, VOC, dioxins, etc. Since 1980, the levels of these REAL pollutants have been cut dramatically:
http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html
Let’s stop wasting money on cutting CO2 and deal with reality for a change.
Ocean acidification my foot.
They want ALL the water.
Assuming that the 1750 numbers were measured wouldn’t it be quite amazing for instruments from the mid 18th century would agree to within 0.05 units with those from the early 21st.
IIRC these figures are actually derived from “proxies” so comparisons with actual measurements are likely to be “apples and oranges”.
Given that water vapor accounts for upwards of 75% of forcing in computer models due to a 2-3X amplification of the textbook greenhouse effect of CO2, is their 34% jump in forcing claim real or merely a presumption? No required plot of humidity is offered. I guess they don’t want the public to figure out that all alarm is merely a highly speculative parameter hidden in their code. If they admitted that, they couldn’t encourage slandering skeptics as greenhouse effect deniers.
Correction: a 3X amplification of the greenhouse effect by water vapor gives that vapor 66% of the forcing, not 75%.
“We know without any doubt that our climate is changing and our weather is becoming more extreme due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud.
Well he is at odds with the IPCC’s conclusions then, or has not bothered to read SREX 2013 or AR5.
Speaking as WMO Secretary-General the “we” is presumably WMO. If he is unable to keep up he should resign.
Unfortunately WMO is another political arm of the UN pushing for world government, not the advancement of science.
said Mr Jarraud.
They are for IPCC modellers.
In 1992 Lacis et al established by basic physics and observational data that the scaling of volcanic forcing was about atmospheric optical density ( AOD ) x 30.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1992/1992_Lacis_etal_1.pdf
By 2002 they had redefined it to be AOD x 21 , in order to the data in better agree with model output.
http://apollo.eas.gatech.edu/yhw/publications/hansen_etal_2002.pdf
Analysis of satellite data from Mt Pinatubo shows that their earlier, physics based estimation was much nearer.
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/tropical-feedback_resp-fcos.png?w=843
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=884
The reason this was “renegotiated” is because it implies strong negative tropical feedbacks to radiative forcing. The implications for AGW hypothesis are obvious.
Rather than change the models to fit the data , they “renegotiated” the volcanic forcing, changing the data to fit their models.
“At the current rate of increase, the global annual average CO2 concentration is set to cross the symbolic 400 parts per million threshold in 2015 or 2016.”
How many times are they going to play the same card? It was “symbolic” the first time we crossed it, is going to be symbolic every time the annual cycle pops us above and below the magic number?
Perhaps WUWT should be make a big splash each time the annual variation takes us BELOW the “symbolic 400 parts per million threshold”.
The “first time we crossed it” was *only at Mauna Loa. .. It wasn’t the *global readings.
What happened to the CO2 is a well mix gas thingy?
Mauna Loa, (the volcano vent) is a good place to read CO2 I was told.
And why isn’t temperature going up the same everywhere because of this well mixed gas?
WMO:
I recently showed the close match between the annual cycle of CO2 and Arctic ice coverage:
http://climategrog.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/co2_nh_ice_area_2001.png?w=800
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=996
Perhaps this years increase in atm CO2 is also due to the rapid increase ice area.
I also suggested that the recent warm spike in high northern latitude SST “anomalies” may be due to the heat dumped into the ocean by water freezing into ice. ( Latent heat of fusion. )
One thing seems clear, with “warmest evah” SST anomalies and highest atmospheric CO2 in 300 million years Arctic ice area and volume are making an “unprecedented” recovery.
Look like the control knob just fell off the climate.
Hardly surprising that there’s a close correlation between CO2 measured on the shore of the arctic ocean in the NWT and arctic sea-ice area. Why did you feel the need to multiply the [CO2] by 0.444?
So, if I understand this correctly, temperatures have risen for a bit, then stopped, CO2, meanwhile has also risen, but has continued to do so for a bit after temperature rises stopped.
Where we ALL came in on the CO2 / Temperature correlation was “CO2 rises lag behind temperature rises, don’t cause them”. This would appear to be a very pleasant confirmation…