Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
Yesterday, in the press release Greenhouse gas benchmark reached, NOAA announced:
Global carbon dioxide concentrations surpass 400 parts per million for the first month since measurements began.
The press release begins:
For the first time since we began tracking carbon dioxide in the global atmosphere, the monthly global average concentration of this greenhouse gas surpassed 400 parts per million in March 2015, according to NOAA’s latest results.
“It was only a matter of time that we would average 400 parts per million globally,” said Pieter Tans, lead scientist of NOAA’s Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network. “We first reported 400 ppm when all of our Arctic sites reached that value in the spring of 2012. In 2013 the record at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory first crossed the 400 ppm threshold. Reaching 400 parts per million as a global average is a significant milestone.
After a few general discussions, the press release ends:
James Butler, director of NOAA’s Global Monitoring Division, added that it would be difficult to reverse the increases of greenhouse gases which are driving increased atmospheric temperatures. “Elimination of about 80 percent of fossil fuel emissions would essentially stop the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but concentrations of carbon dioxide would not start decreasing until even further reductions are made and then it would only do so slowly.”
“…difficult to reverse…”? I’ll let you comment on that.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I still think the best way to express CO2 concentration to the average Joe is to say that it’s 4 molecules of carbon dioxide for every 10,000 molecules of nitrogen, oxygen, argon and other trace gases. Big deal, we’ve gone from around 3 to 4 and only about 3% of that increase is caused by man. In other words, with no temperature rise of significance this invalidates the theory that increased CO2 means drastic warming. Ain’t happening. Just a fart in a windstorm.
But, but, but…going from 3 to 4 is like, what, 33%!!! That’s a HUGE percentage!!!
Oooo Kay! So why are we not now roasting in Hell?
May it keep on rising and temperatures keep on pausing
It’s May in California and I’m still running the furnace. I want more warming!
Wow!
350 ppm was a tipping point from which we could not recover,
so at 400 ppm I would surmise we are all dead?
Pity too – I actually like some of us.
At the state school I retired from I can think of several employees who might add this to their list of excuses to be on disability. Sick leave exhausted due to “Low Carbon Tolerance”.
I posted this on the Guardian earlier today.
“So CO2 concentration keeps rising and temperatures do not. Further evidence that climate sensitivity to CO2 is very low. As we sceptics have been arguing.
So this is good news.”
But it’s now been deleted (even from my comment history).
M Courtney, that’s because your thoughts, words and opinions are dangerous.
What did you think the Guardian guards against? Yes, thoughts. Especially evil, contrarian thoughts like yours, you wicked person! Eftsoon the Guardian in its zeal will stamp out all thought, by order of the congoscenti (sic), witch doctors who wish to protect us from de heap big warmy.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100222487/when-it-comes-to-climate-change-we-have-to-trust-our-scientists-because-they-know-lots-of-big-scary-words/
“…difficult to reverse…”? ……
Since no one seems to be stating the obvious….
That means that very little of it is man made.
The planet has had much higher concentrations of CO2 than now—-1,500 ppm to 2,000 ppm—-as recently as during the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous ages, when much of the biosphere as we know it evolved and thrived (and the oceanic biosphere wasn’t “acidified”). This is documented in college textbooks (see below link, for example).
http://hyzercreek.com/co2.jpg
And why is it that the Arctic was, for example, about 5.0 C warmer than now during the last interglacial (~125,000 years ago), when CO2 levels only reached 290 ppm to 300 ppm…if CO2 concentration is the primary determinant of climate?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bor.12085/full
Shells of the blue mussel Mytilus edulis have been dated to occur between 9500 and 5400 cal. a BP in central East Greenland; this warmth-loving species does not live in the region anymore and indicates higher sea surface temperatures than at present and more extensive fjord water (Bennike & Wagner 2013). … According to studies of the Greenland NEEM ice-core, mean annual temperatures during the warmest part of the Eemian were as much as 8°C higher than during the last millennium, and from 127 000 to 118 300 years ago the mean annual temperature was ∼5°C higher (NEEM community members 2013). In central East Greenland, the mean summer temperature was ∼5°C higher than today (Bennike & Böcher 1994).
http://www.clim-past.net/9/1589/2013/cp-9-1589-2013.html
The previous interglacial (Eemian, 130–114 kyr BP) had a mean sea level highstand 4 to 7 meters above the current level, and, according to climate proxies, a 2 to 6 K warmer Arctic summer climate.
http://helheim-glacier.org/xpdf/abstracts-helheim.pdf
Recent results from the DYE 3 ice core and other sources indicate that the dome melted away, and gave way to forested mountains for the last time during marine isotope stage 11, c. 400,000 years ago. The southern dome, and of course the northern also, persisted in a reduced form during the warm Eemian interglacial (c. 125,000 years ago), when annual mean temperatures over Greenland were 5°C warmer than now for some millenia. During the last ice age the southeast coast of Greenland was one of the areas of major ice sheet growth, reaching the shelf edge at the last glacial maximum, c. 20,000 years ago, as shown by bathymetric studies. During the Holocene thermal maximum, c. 8,000 years ago, when annual mean temperatures were 2°C warmer than now for some thousands of years, modelling and GPS altimetry show that the southern dome was the most sensitive part of the ice sheet, retreating as much as 80 km behind its present front in some areas.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7433/full/nature11789.html
Efforts to extract a Greenland ice core with a complete record of the Eemian interglacial (130,000 to 115,000 years ago) have until now been unsuccessful. The response of the Greenland ice sheet to the warmer-than-present climate of the Eemian has thus remained unclear. Here we present the new North Greenland Eemian Ice Drilling (‘NEEM’) ice core and show only a modest ice-sheet response to the strong warming in the early Eemian. We reconstructed the Eemian record from folded ice using globally homogeneous parameters known from dated Greenland and Antarctic ice-core records. On the basis of water stable isotopes, NEEM surface temperatures after the onset of the Eemian (126,000 years ago) peaked at 8 ± 4 degrees Celsius above the mean of the past millennium, followed by a gradual cooling that was probably driven by the decreasing summer insolation. Between 128,000 and 122,000 years ago, the thickness of the northwest Greenland ice sheet decreased by 400 ± 250 metres, reaching surface elevations 122,000 years ago of 130 ± 300 metres lower than the present.
http://www.micropress.org/stratigraphy/papers/Stratigraphy_6_4_265-275.pdf
Pollen from three subarctic sites in the Norwegian Sea, northern Iceland and Labrador Sea indicate that mid-Pliocene January temperatures in Norway, Iceland and southeastern Canada were 4 to 10°C warmer than today (Willard 1994). Many researchers documented Pliocene warmth recorded in the Beaufort Formation of Arctic Canada (Matthews 1987; Fyles 1990; Matthews and Ovenden 1990; Vincent 1990; Fyles et al. 1991; Brigham-Grette and Carter 1992; Fyles et al. 1994). Evidence of both mixed deciduous/coniferous and coniferous forests places mean July temperatures 10°C warmer than today (Vincent 1990). In addition, northwestern Alaska air and sea temperatures during peak Pliocene interglacials were considerably warmer than present, by 7 to 8°C, with no permafrost, and absent or severely limited sea ice (Carter et al. 1986; Kaufman and Brigham-Grette 1993).
Well, yeah, if you want to get all sciency on us. But this is NOAA, who have a higher truth, the orders of the Great One, from whom all blessings flow. {all genuflect}
When asked to comment on the 400 ppm milestone, Gaia was cautiously optimistic. “It has taken a long time to reverse the dangerous drop in atmospheric carbon dioxide,” she said, “and we’re still well below optimal levels. But the trend is encouraging.”
In response to a question from Fox News, she took full responsibility for the crisis, but also claimed her unorthodox solution was working. “It’s true,” she admitted, “I made a serious mistake in allowing all that carbon to be chemically ‘sequestered’, so to speak, or simply buried with no access to the atmosphere. I failed to foresee the problem or its horrific consequences. I didn’t give up, however, and came up with a rather clever response, if I do say so myself. Despite the predictions of failure from certain naysayers, my semi-evolved simians are slowly but surely greening the earth. More importantly, they’re making good progress in protecting my children from those nasty asteroids and comets, which as you know have done catastrophic damage in the past. If present trends continue, they may even recreate that glorious ‘paradise lost’ of 65 million years ago.”
Gaia’s most vocal critic, who calls himself “The Ehrlich”, scoffed at her remarks, saying, “If she had given those upright monkeys true intelligence, she might have grounds for her optimism. But as it is, they’re slaves to their short term cravings, think nothing of the future, and worst of all pay no attention to my warnings. I predict their current ‘golden age’ will be short-lived. Any day now they’ll begin their inevitable descent back to the level of subsistence their stupidity has earned.” When reminded that he’s been predicting this for the last 45 years, he would say only, “This time for sure!”
Anyone who is not utterly terrified by the plot you’ve posted is a true denialist. I think most reasonable interpretations suggest that the plot will lead to the death of the biosphere. One wonders why so many other planets are devoid of a biosphere, this plot is suggestive. We should be racing to achieve interstellar travel.
Welcome to 400 ppm Groundhog Day! It seems to be turning into an annual event.
May 9 2013, Scientific American:
400 PPM: What’s Next for a Warming Planet
Concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have reached this level for the first time in millions of years. What does this portend?
May 14 2013 Guardian:
Record 400ppm CO2 milestone ‘feels like we’re moving into another era’
Then a year later,
June 30, 2014, Climate Central
New CO2 Milestone: 3 Months Above 400 PPM
July 2 2014 Scientific American:
CO2 Levels above 400 PPM Threshold for Third Month in a Row
And now another year on,
May 6 2015, Guardian
Global carbon dioxide levels break 400ppm milestone
May 7 2015, Climatewire
Global CO2 levels surge past 400-ppm mark for first time in millions of years
Not only that, but in even more shocking news, the universe is the oldest has ever been this morning.
400 ppm? Big deal.
Somebody wake me up when it gets warm enough to grow palm trees in my back yard here in Wisconsin…..all year round. Yawn……zzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Meaningless milestone
Fake precision
Oh how climate ‘scientists’
Earn my derision
A look at NOAA’s tall tower data sites shows ppm back and forth through 400 at some sites many times over the past several past years.
But what to do about the pause/hiatus?
Did I not see a prediction of the ‘mix’ of energy producers for the next century which wonderfully, marvellously, optimistically, sees developing nations consuming simply enormous amounts of fossil fuels to their enormous benefit. Nuclear was there. Wind – eh? Nowhere.
I am curious if there is data on other common CO2 sources aside from just fuel. For instance, how much CO2 is released via the soft drink/beer industry in total? How many billions of cans, bottles, cups or pitchers are opened or poured a day? Better yet, how many cans of soft drink = a tonne of fuel coal burned or gallon of gasoline used from a CO2 standpoint?
Somebody had to do a study on that since CO2 is such a perceived problem. Perhaps that was the underlying reason Bloomberg wanted to ban the large “Big Gulp” soft drinks in New York?
No, Bloomberg is just a progressive that knows the right answer…for everything.
Some of the CO2 used in soft drinks is the result of beer making, some is made from fossil fuels. The first doesn’t add to the total CO2 in that atmosphere, as that was captured out of the atmosphere a few months to a few years before to make the starch in grains that is converted in glucose and alcohol. The latter is adding to total CO2, but I doubt that it is significant compared to fuel use for heat, power and transport…
It’s neither here nor there where CO2 comes from. Any effect it might have on the atmosphere is undetectable. They talk about the amount of warming with CO2 doubling but, if we burned every scrap of carbon we have, we could not raise it more than 20% because 50 parts out of 51 parts will go into the oceans, a la Henry’s Law.
As CO2 is only 5% of the supposed greenhouse effect and we only emit 3 to 5% of the CO2 budget every year, the 1.4 deg C estimated from doubling COs becomes 0.0028 deg C by man, which is seriously undetectable and meaningless for us.
Remember, the IPCC assumes that water vapor would augment CO2’s effects, but they lie by ignoring the water cycle. This hydrologic cycle is a huge global heat engine that serves as a huge negative feedback mechanism, which ramps up with warming to bring it back down.
7.2.1.2 Effects of Clouds on the Earth’s Radiation Budget
The effect of clouds on the Earth’s present-day top of the atmosphere (TOA) radiation budget, or cloud radiative effect (CRE), can be inferred from satellite data by comparing upwelling radiation in cloudy and non-cloudy conditions (Ramanathan et al., 1989). By enhancing the planetary albedo, cloudy conditions exert a global and annual short¬wave cloud radiative effect (SWCRE) of approximately –50 W m–2 and, by contributing to the greenhouse effect, exert a mean longwave effect (LWCRE) of approximately +30 W m–2, with a range of 10% or less between published satellite estimates (Loeb et al., 2009). Some of the apparent LWCRE comes from the enhanced water vapour coinciding with the natural cloud fluctuations used to measure the effect, so the true cloud LWCRE is about 10% smaller (Sohn et al., 2010).
The net global mean CRE of approximately –20 W m–2 implies a net cooling
RF for CO2 = <2.0 W/m^2.
The Cult of CAGW needs a back-up plan. Planetary temperature has started to fall. The drop in planetary temperature is very soon going to appear as if the warming switch has been turned off. The mechanisms which were inhibiting the solar cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover have started to abate. While the inhibiting mechanisms were doing their thing, solar activity has dropping year by year, so when the inhibiting mechanism abate, bingo, the planet cools significantly due to increased cloud cover.
Atmospheric CO2 will also start to fall lagging temperature change by roughly 1 year.
From a temperature standpoint, the astonishing number of coronal holes on the surface of the sun in low latitude position during solar cycle 24 is one of the reasons why the warming switch has stayed on.
The coronal holes are now starting to dissipate and/or to move the poles of the sun where they no longer affect cloud cover on the earth. The long lasting coronal holes (a coronal hole can last many months and in some cases multiple years) create solar wind bursts which in turn creata a space charge movement in the earth’s ionosphere.
The charge movement in the ionosphere causes a change ions in the high latitude regions of the planet and in the tropics. In the tropics this phenomena electroscavening is a key fundamental driver and modulator of the magnitude of the El Niño and La Niña events.
The following is a 5000 foot explanation of why atmospheric CO2 will fall when planetary temperature falls.
Carbon sinks and sources
Observational evidence that supports Sably’s assertion that no less than 66% of the recent rise in atmospheric.
1) Detailed piecewise analysis (same result as phase analysis however easier to see what is going on for a general audience) supports the assertion that the rise in atmospheric CO tracks planetary temperature not the anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
2) Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have increased by 80% from 5 GtC/yr to 9 GtC/yr yet the rise in atmospheric CO2 has only increased by 40% from 1.4 GctC/year to 2 GctC/year. What we would have expected if the IPCC CO2 sink and source model were correct is a gradually increasing year by year increase in atmospheric CO2 as the anthropogenic CO2 is increasing gradually year by year.
3) The increase in atmospheric CO2 is tracking the integral of the planetary temperature anomaly with a roughly 1 year lag rather than the anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Why?
The Cult of CAGW’s scientific team IPCC speak with forked tongue.
They have told us again, again, and end again that the ocean to 750 m is warming, yet they assume that the only mixing of surface ocean is the first 100m for their CO2 source and sink model.
Obviously as the first 750m of the ocean is slowly warming there is most definitely mixing of surface water down to 750m. That mixing increases the total net equalization mixing sink for the ocean for CO2 from 1000 Gct to 7500 Gct, seven times the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The anthropogenic emissions of 9 Gct/year are lost in the 7500 Gct sink. This also explains why the step increase in C14 from atomic bomb testing completely disappeared in 20 years, as opposed to a 1000 years if base on the IPCC Bern model. The Bern model was created to push the cult of CAWG.
We live in very interesting times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_layer#/media/File:MixedLayerTempDepthMonth.png
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.png
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_April_2015_v61.png
http://scienceprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/carbon_cycle_591.jpg
Why was annual CO2 growth so low in 1992 and 3?
There are quite large swings in variability which do not mirror manmade emissions, so what is the reason?
Richard,
1992-1993 was the result of the 1991 Pinatubo eruption: at one side that blocked and reflected some sunlight on the SO2/SO3 drops high in the stratosphere, which reduced earth temperatures somewhat, but the interesting point is that the scattering of sunlight in all directions also increased photosynthesis, as leaves which were in the shadow of other leaves for part of the day did receive more light than before the Pinatubo eruption…
The main variability is from the influence of temperature (and precipitation) on (tropical) vegetation, as the opposite CO2 and δ13C show. But that is not more than +/- 1 ppmv around the trend and levels off to zero within 1-3 years. The trend of 110 ppmv is almost completely from the over 200 ppmv human emissions…
In the monthly Mauna Loa Co2 graphs – especially shorter ones showing 10 or fewer years – one can see a slight “hitch” in the middle of the seasonal increase during the (approximate) months of February – March. It’s a slight slow-down in the rate of increase lasting about a month before the normal climb continues for another two or three months. I think someone raised the question here on WUWT – must have blinked during the answer.
What causes the hitch?
@ur momisugly Ferdinand Engelbeen May 7, 2015 at 11:10 am
Ferdinand, I done told you to ….. leave the Biology up to the Biologists (and Botanists) …. and cease with the above posting of such silly and asinine statements.
You can be, …..but you shouldn’t be, …. thinking up new “junk science” claims of factuality for the sole intent of them providing “credibility and truth” that supports your other “junk science” claims.
Leaf foliage, … the same as Solar Panels, ….. likes direct Sunlight, … but the leaf foliage likes direct Sunlight for maximum photosynthesis “sugar” production … and iffen the 1991 Pinatubo eruption blocked and/or scattered some of that direct Sunlight … then there is no way in hell that your above said “increase in scattered sunlight to the in-shadow foliage” could make up the difference in lost sugar production due to the loss of direct Sunlight.
Besides, sensible thinking people know that it doesn’t get lighter or brighter underneath a forest canopy whenever a thin lay of Cirrus clouds scatters the incoming Sunlight.
Samuel,
I have no stake in the discussion about the sink rate after the Pinatubo: that only was what I have read. Seems that later work, based on models (!) refute that hypothesis. See:
http://www.citeulike.org/user/ahuesler/article/5757605
Fact is that the small cooling after the Pinatubo eruption doesn’t fully explain the drop in CO2 increase rate in the atmosphere. Thus some other mechanism caused the extra uptake of CO2…
William,
Sorry, but you only repeat a bunch of nonsense which was discussed more than one time here at WUWT.
1) the variability tracks the temperature variability, as an effect on vegetation, but that is only +/- 1 ppmv around the trend. The trend of 110 ppmv is NOT caused by the same process that causes the variability, as vegetation is a net, growing sink for CO2.
2) Human emissions increased a fourfold over the past 55 years, so did the increase in the atmosphere and so did the net sink rate. Any natural cause MUST have increased a fourfold in the same time span to have a possibility of a natural cause. For which is not a shred of evidence.
3) Your integral gets completely wrong at several parts of the curve: 1976-1996 shows an decreasing growth rate with increasing temperatures and increasing emissions, and after 2000: no temperature increase, still slightly increasing CO2…
The anthropogenic emissions of 9 Gct/year are lost in the 7500 Gct sink.
Yes and the increase in the atmosphere comes from the same oceans? Seems what they call “creative bookkeeping”. More than one sits in prison for that…
@ur momisugly Ferdinand Engelbeen May 7, 2015 at 11:26 am
Ferdinand, that is really AMAZING that your guesstimated human emissions and your fanaticized net sink rate ….. just happened to be the right numerical values for explaining the past 55 years of atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities.
I still have to wonder why I can not see a ….. human CO2 emission “signature” anywhere within the 56+ years of the Mauna Loa Monthly Average CO2 ppm Record as stipulated @ur momisugly ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
Maybe you could “point out” the signature of that fourfold increase … so that I tell all my friends where it is.
@ur momisugly William Astley May 7, 2015 at 8:18 am
Here is the above graph ….. but with the atmospheric CO2 plotted on it.
http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/1979-2013UAHsatelliteglobalaveragetemperatures.png
Samuel,
Here the plot of human emissions, increase in the atmosphere and net sink rate over the past 55 years:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg
Yearly human emissions, increase rate and sink rate all increased a 4-fold in the past 55 years.
If some natural flux was the cause, that should have increased a 4-fold too, or the increase in the atmosphere couldn’t have been a 4-fold. But there is not the slightest indication that the natural cycle increased or that the residence time decreased (as result of more cycling), to the contrary…
Your plot of the increase in the atmosphere gives a nice impression of the influence of the temperature variations on the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere: a 60 ppmv increase and the “huge” variability in rate of change around the trend caused by temperature variability is hardly visible…
Even more clear if you plot the full 55 years, assuming an 8 ppmv/K CO2 response on temperature changes… Add to that human emissions which were double the measured increase in the atmosphere…
Even if you enlarge the period 1990-2001, where we had the largest disturbances of the past century:
1991-1993 Pinatubo influence, 1998-2000 El Niño – La Niña, hardly any influence on the trend…
@ur momisugly Ferdinand Engelbeen May 8, 2015 at 3:10 am
Ferdinand, if that is what you are seeing on your graph ….. then you are literally hallucinating. Of course that doesn’t surprise me any given the fact that all of the “data” you used for plotting is nothing more than useless garbage that you created yourself via your “fuzzy math” statistical calculations using highly questionable numerical quantities that you derived from wild arsed guesses and estimations ….. and which you kept adjusting and massaging until you got the “correct fit” that would give credence to your “pet” junk science claims.
It is imbecilic for anyone to assume that “human activities” are …. steady and consistent, ….year in, year out, …… for 55+ years in succession.
Ferdinand, did you include these “emissions” in with your other asinine estimations of “human emissions” …. that you claimed were based in/on … “fossil fuel Sales Records? To wit:
—————-
I literally detest scientific fraud …. as well as the “fraudsters” that perpetuate it.
OK Samuel, how did you choose the relative scaling of the two parameters and why didn’t you plot ln(CO2)?
Consequently your graph is meaningless junk.
Samuel,
All what you have proven is that the human emissions are probably underestimated by under the counter sales, uncontrolled flares, etc…
That only increases the case for human emissions as the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere…
Phil, I am not the author of the above graph. And secondly, the scaling of all the parameters on that graph looks fine to me with temp to the left, ppm to the right and year on the bottom.
And just what the ell are asking when you asked ….. “why didn’t you plot ln(CO2)?”
And if you think the …. “graph is meaningless junk ….. then best you learn some Science fore you get “branded” as being a disillusioned CAGW’er.
@ur momisugly Ferdinand Engelbeen May 8, 2015 at 9:09 am
Ferdinand,
What I have proven is …… you are a purveyor of “junk science” …… and the fact that you have estimated all of your numerical quantities that you include in your posted commentary and graphics for the sole reason that, in your mind, ….. “THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS”.
Ferdinand, I have known for the past 10+ years that all you “experts” started with the actual measurement of the ….. “yearly increase in atmospheric CO2 ppm as per Mauna Loa data” ….. and then ya’ll started your estimations and guesstimations of all the known CO2 source and sink quantities, ….. and then via reverse math calculations and the massaging of your estimated source and sink quantities …… your “junk science” calculations then, …. and only then, ….. implied that the human emissions were responsible for said …. “yearly average increase in CO2 ppm”.
The root source of your “data” is 100% wrong …. and any where you cite or reference that “data” then your commentary and/or claims are also 100% wrong.
Including your above posted graph. It’s purdy, ….. but it’s trash.
Okay, I’ll plant my garden this weekend.
My son gave me an old book, Man and Climate, published during WW II (1942) by the USDA.
They list all the frost dates for counties in each state.
I live 50 miles west of Chicago, and based on the old book and current U of Illinois extension maps, I still can’t plant tomatoes before memorial day. This is despite all the alleged “warming” we have had in the past 70 years !
We had temperatures in the 40s last night here in San Francisco. Winter Weather advisory today in the high country east of here.
Thanks, Bob.
400 out of 1,000,000 molecules are now CO2, and it’s extra warming power is very small, if you don’t invent a positive feedback from water vapor.
Reaching 400 parts per million as a global average is a significant milestone. 🙂
Yes, all the green plants are thankful, the warmunistas should be climbing up trees.
What’s not to like about this?
Or was it vehicle emissions at the the telescope construction sites?
Spring of 2012?
Once upon a time in 2013?
The warmist wet dream.
It took three years for NOAA to achieve 400ppmv average for a whole month.
It’s ok if they have measured since the climate started once to appear, but this is important:
“For the first time since we began tracking carbon dioxide in the global atmosphere …”
That leaves out most of (atmospheric) history and from a scientific point of view, that’s not science …
Is it the usual lack of time concept …?
400 ppm, what part is natural, what part anthropogenic? Seems people get their shorts in a knot over c02 rise but conveniently leave out the overwhelming natural contribution.
Volcanoes are contributing 90-95% of the total carbon cycle (they all emit CO2 always, it varies with status …). Man contributes ~1-2% (some “optimists” will claim up to 3%) Also, the nature don’t give a cr@p about how it was generated. The more the merrier!
This has been taught in mandatory school for many years or at least was once …
Then it shouldn’t be difficult to realize that the measurements on Hawaii are contaminated, due to number of volcanoes on the main island. Measurements done at volcanoes slopes shows basically one thing: Any gases emitted increases just before an outbreak. The measuring station on Hawaii like all similar was built for that purpose only! Later the AGW crowd hijacked it and all of the rest around the world … Unevenly spread and low number of monitoring stations causes large margins of error. These errors will not disappear despite tricks in computer software later on. One has to understand that the atmosphere is also constantly changing, causing any measurement to be basically valid only for the moment it is performed.
@ur momisugly SasjaL May 7, 2015 at 12:35 pm
The AGW crowd also hijacked all of the Interglacial “warming” from 1880 to present.
Volcanoes are contributing 90-95% of the total carbon cycle (they all emit CO2 always, it varies with status …). Man contributes ~1-2% (some “optimists” will claim up to 3%) Also, the nature don’t give a cr@p about how it was generated. The more the merrier!
This has been taught in mandatory school for many years or at least was once …
Then it shouldn’t be difficult to realize that the measurements on Hawaii are contaminated, due to number of volcanoes on the main island. Measurements done at volcanoes slopes shows basically one thing: Any gases emitted increases just before an outbreak. The measuring station on Hawaii like all similar was built for that purpose only! Later the AGW crowd hijacked it and all of the rest around the world … Unevenly spread and low number of monitoring stations causes large margins of error. These errors will not disappear despite tricks in computer software later on. One has to understand that the atmosphere is also constantly changing, causing any measurement to be basically valid only for the moment it is performed. (The stuff in the atmosphere are not stuck in fixed positions, but are constantly moving …)
SasjaL,
Sorry, but CO2 is rather easily distributed all over the earth, with a lag between altitudes and between the hemispheres. Mauna Loa indeed is on a volcano, but when the winds come downslope, the data are not used for averaging. But it hardly matters: you can use the data from near the North Pole (Barrow) or from the South Pole: they show the same trends. All stations show CO2 measurements within 2% of full scale, including huge swings in seasonal CO2 changes…
There is no vegetation or volcano for thousands of km around the South Pole station…
See: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/
Human emissions btw are estimated 100 times larger than all land volcanoes and vents together…
More myths … You’ll need to get back to what you should have learned already in mandatory school! CO2 levels varies during the year and even during the 24h cycle! Human emission are not even close to what Mt Etna produce alone. You don’t even understand basic requirements for measuring … Then you don’t make the correct conclusion as a result. If I would have used their method when I was at secondary school in the early 1980’s, it would have been classified as a complete failure …
SasjaL,
Wow, I didn’t know that my math is that bad that I have to go back to school…
Have a look at my page about where to measure CO2:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html
Mount Etna emits 13±3 Tg CO2 per year, humans emit ~9 Pg carbon per year, or 3-4 orders of magnitude more…
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v351/n6325/abs/351387a0.html
We have heard for decades how the recent and rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 was caused entirely by industrialized man. So let’s run the numbers.
Atmospheric mass: 5.14E18 kg
Atmospheric mass CO2 @ur momisugly 390.5 ppm (2011): 3.05E15 kg
Per IPCC AR5:
CO2 increase 1750 (278 ppm) to 2011 (390.5 ppm): 8.78E14 kg
Global fossil fuel CO2 1750 to 2011 w/ 45% residual: 3.67E14 * 0.45=1.65E14 kg
Global fossil fuel share 1750 to 2011: 1.65/8.78 = 18.9% Not even close to “entirely.”
Global FF share of atmospheric CO2: 1.65/30.5=5.4% Natural sources fluctuate more than this.
Seems to me man is trying to solve a problem that is 95% not his.
(ppm mole basis)
nickreality65,
That is creative bookkeeping… Nobody says that the 45% residual is mandatory for human CO2 alone, it is the net result of the increase in the atmosphere, whatever the source. Nature doesn’t select between natural and human CO2…
Humans have added some 380 GtC as CO2 directly into the atmosphere since 1750.
The increase in the atmosphere was (395 – 280) * 2.13 = 245 GtC since 1750.
Seems to me that there is a high probability that humans are the cause of the increase…
Human emissions today are 9 GtC/year or ~4.5 ppmv/year. Half of that amount (not the same molecules…) gets into sinks, 2.2 ppmv/year remains in the atmosphere. Natural year by year variability is +/- 1 ppmv, half of human emissions…
3.67E14 ? Looks like the kg C burnt, not CO2 produced. All your later numbers should be *3.666. Your 18.9% is 69.3%.
But 45% is low ball. Its actually about 56% re fossil fuel. 45% applies to all CO2, incl land use.
@ur momisugly Ferdinand Engelbeen May 8, 2015 at 3:35 am
Ferdinand,
This is creative bookkeeping… to wit:
But Ferdinand, most sane people would call it ….. “the height of silliness”. … whereas learned persons would call it “idiotic ”…. and that’s because, to wit:
Algebraically added “estimations“, … “(1 Wrong) + (1 Wrong) = (1 Right)”, …. only applies to Religious or Political Science issues.
Is not that Amazon forest expanding causing more CO2 in atmosphere? What is the % of anthropogenic CO2 to natural one.
Two thoughts here:
1. After serving on a submarine, who gives a rip about 400ppm???
2. Can we make recommendations for the one-way-trip to Mars???? I can think of a few….
I’ve been wondering how long it would take them to make this announcement, since every time I’ve checked for the last two years it’s always been on the verge. If the level starts going down it’s going to be hilarious listening to all the excuses!