The horror! Atmospheric CO2 concentration at Syowa Station in Antarctica exceeds 400 ppm

From the RESEARCH ORGANIZATION OF INFORMATION AND SYSTEMS and “it’s just a number” department, comes this breathless press release.

This figure shows variations in the atmospheric CO2 concentration observed at Syowa Station since 2014. CREDIT National Institute of Polar Research and Tohoku University
This figure shows variations in the atmospheric CO2 concentration observed at Syowa Station since 2014. CREDIT National Institute of Polar Research and Tohoku University

Atmospheric CO2 concentration at Syowa Station in Antarctica exceeds 400 ppm

According to the 57th Japan Antarctic Research Expedition (JARE)/National Institute of Polar Research (NIPR), a daily mean atmospheric CO2 concentration value of 400.06 ppm was observed at Syowa Station, Antarctica, on May 14, 2016.

This is the first time that the CO2 concentration at Syowa Station has exceeded 400 ppm since NIPR and the Tohoku University in Japan initiated observations in 1984. In addition, the monthly mean CO2 concentration value for June 2016 reached 400.51 ppm.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and its atmospheric concentration is increasing owing to human activities since the Industrial Revolution. Global warming associated with the increase in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases has become a serious problem worldwide.

“The fact that an atmospheric CO2 concentration over 400 ppm was observed at Syowa implies that anthropogenic activities are definitely affecting the Antarctic region, even though Antarctica is far from the northern hemisphere where the population is concentrated,” said Daisuke Goto, an assistant professor at NIPR. CO2 has exceeded 400 ppm at many locations on Earth; however, the Antarctic was the only region where CO2 had not yet reached 400 ppm. “It is important to continue monitoring the atmospheric CO2 concentration,” Goto emphasized.

###

0 0 votes
Article Rating
162 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 25, 2016 1:38 pm

Is there greater significance if it is CO 2-squared?

Reply to  Bob Greene
October 25, 2016 2:55 pm

Does the significance of whatever level it is become greater if the threshold-passing event is re-announced in breathless fashion more than one time?
The PBS NewsHour breathlessly reported this last night during its newswrap segment ( http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/news-wrap-att-confident-time-warner-deal-approval/ ), “There’s word that greenhouse gases passed a grim milestone in 2015. The U.N.’s weather organization says carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached 400 parts per million last year for the first time on record.” Yep, she said last year, not this year. But the NewsHour had already given this breathless announcement on October 6th when NASA’s Gavin Schmidt was their honored guest ( http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/paris-accord-wont-halt-climate-change-step/ ), “JUDY WOODRUFF: So, this week, Gavin Schmidt, we saw one of the world’s most important sites for measuring carbon dioxide levels tell us levels now recently have risen above a symbolically important figure of 400 parts per million. This was a site in Hawaii.” And the NewsHour pointed out this breathtaking CO2 level in a May 2013 online blog post ( http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/the-odds-of-disaster-an-econom-1/ ) from their famous economic analyst: “Paul Solman: Are headlines trumpeting the fact that carbon dioxide levels in the earth’s atmosphere have now passed 400 parts per million for the first time in something like three million years unduly alarmist?” The ‘headlines’ there was in reference to the NY Times Justin Gillis article, “Heat-Trapping Gas Passes Milestone, Raising Fears” ( http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/science/earth/carbon-dioxide-level-passes-long-feared-milestone.html ).
How many times does this breathless CO2 level announcement need to be made before it runs out of breath?

Reply to  Russell Cook (@questionAGW)
October 26, 2016 9:14 am

My comment was in reference to representing CO2 as CO2 rather than CO2, not a quantity.

Ryan S.
October 25, 2016 1:43 pm

Can someone please make this shirt:
I survived Acid Rain (strikethrough)
I survived the hole in the Ozone (strikethrough)
I survived Y2K (strikethrough)
I survived 400 ppm CO2

Lucius von Steinkaninchen
Reply to  Ryan S.
October 25, 2016 1:47 pm

Heck I’ll buy one. Do you have different colors?
And may I suggest a model adding “I survived the coming ice age in the 70s” to the top? Older guys like me can use longer lists. =)

Janice Moore
Reply to  Lucius von Steinkaninchen
October 25, 2016 1:51 pm

I survived red M&M’s.

Reply to  Lucius von Steinkaninchen
October 25, 2016 3:34 pm

I survived New Coke

afonzarelli
Reply to  Lucius von Steinkaninchen
October 25, 2016 3:54 pm

i survived the incredible edible egg…

James Bull
Reply to  Lucius von Steinkaninchen
October 25, 2016 10:01 pm

I bought one of the ones a Mr A Watts was selling from his website which had the
I survived Y2K struck through and 400 PPM underneath.
Unfortunately he doesn’t seem to have them anymore.
James Bull

Steve Case
Reply to  Ryan S.
October 25, 2016 2:33 pm

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
That was funny (-:

AndyG55
Reply to  Ryan S.
October 25, 2016 2:33 pm

This is the one I have…comment image

Steve Case
Reply to  AndyG55
October 25, 2016 2:35 pm

I need one that says:
   CO2
 Is not a
Problem

AndyG55
Reply to  AndyG55
October 25, 2016 2:45 pm

Well make one. Its not rocket science. 🙂
ps, don’t forget to print in reverse for iron on transfers.

AndyG55
Reply to  AndyG55
October 25, 2016 2:46 pm

btw, The one above was intended as a badge.

AndyG55
Reply to  AndyG55
October 25, 2016 2:58 pm

Here ya gocomment image

AndyG55
Reply to  AndyG55
October 25, 2016 3:02 pm

Sorry Anthony… I don’t know why they are displaying so big.

Janice Moore
Reply to  AndyG55
October 25, 2016 3:14 pm

AndyG55: Because those badges are SUPER COOL! 🙂

AndyG55
Reply to  AndyG55
October 25, 2016 3:30 pm

Feel free to use.

JohnKnight
Reply to  AndyG55
October 25, 2016 4:54 pm

I like it; CO2 is Super Cool!

Bryan A
Reply to  AndyG55
October 25, 2016 10:13 pm

Well in the oceans, CO2 is a solution

Patrick Maher
Reply to  Ryan S.
October 25, 2016 2:45 pm

You forgot killer bees, termites, SARS, AIDS, bird flu, swine flu, GM foods, fracking and a few dozen other things. We’re doomed again!

Reply to  Patrick Maher
October 25, 2016 7:40 pm

@ everybody those t-shirts with that many logos are becoming big enough to be bath robes and they’ll keep you warmer, so see no matter what you do they’ll say: see ” CO2 is a warming factor “.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Patrick Maher
October 25, 2016 7:52 pm

@ asybot: cute. 🙂

Darrin
Reply to  Ryan S.
October 25, 2016 3:12 pm

You also need: I survived the coming ice age (strikethrough)
I’ll buy one!

Rhoda R
Reply to  Ryan S.
October 25, 2016 3:55 pm

I believe that Cafe Press will print one up for you and if you let them they will offer it online and give you a (small) commission on all t’s sold.

SkepticGoneWild
Reply to  Ryan S.
October 25, 2016 4:18 pm

I survived Y2K.

schitzree
Reply to  Ryan S.
October 25, 2016 4:30 pm

Add
I survived the Population Bomb (strikethrough)
I survived Peak Oil – Delayed

John in Oz
Reply to  Ryan S.
October 25, 2016 10:01 pm

I proudly wear my Wattsupwiththat ‘I survived Y2k/400PPM’ at every opportunity but it has been under several other layers for several months in sunny, rain- and wind-swept, globally-unwarmed South Australia.

brians356
Reply to  Ryan S.
October 26, 2016 12:23 pm

“I survived the hole in the Ozone (strikethrough)”
Shorten this one to “I survived the Ozone Hole”
Then print it!

Bob B.
October 25, 2016 1:44 pm

“Global warming associated with the increase in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases has become a serious problem worldwide.”
Where?

Graeme
Reply to  Bob B.
October 25, 2016 2:04 pm

Scientists have too spend too much time filling out grant application forms. Detracts from their modelling.

Janice Moore
October 25, 2016 1:48 pm

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and its atmospheric concentration is {conjectured to be} increasing owing to human activities …
There is not one piece of data that proves this to be true.
Given:
1. Natural sources (and sinks) of CO2 are 2 orders of magnitude greater (around 150 gigatons per year versus around 5 gigatons per year) than human CO2 emissions.
2. The ocean surrounding the Antarctic is an enormously large source of CO2 outgassing.
3. CO2 levels lag temperature by a quarter cycle.
Conclusion:
It is highly improbable that the 400 ppmv measured above was “affected” by human CO2.
**************************************
Also:
CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.
End of story.

Reply to  Janice Moore
October 25, 2016 2:10 pm

Actually the southern ocean is a sink, the co2 gradient is north to south, if the southern ocean were a source then co2 would be higher in the south which it isn’t.
QED

Reply to  Hans Erren
October 25, 2016 3:01 pm

Hans
Atmospheric transport that carries CO2 is also from the NH to the SH. It starts in May and continues through to after December. Check the thirty detailed OCO2 satellite images released in April. Then check the surface sampling stations from the low SH points all the way down to the South pole, and that will quickly dismiss any ideas that the southern oceans are sinks. Only 8 pecent of human CO2 emissions are sourced from the SH, and its spring down here also, start of land and plankton activity. Given the huge sea surface area and that the seas are very cold, I would expect that the CO2 values would go down as the atmosphere travels south to the Antarctic vortex. They dont, its a flat line = zero adsorbsion.
Regards

Reply to  Janice Moore
October 25, 2016 2:28 pm

Janice,
As usual, here we differ in opinion… As Hans Erren already said: the Southern Ocean is a big sink for CO2.
The oceans are monitored for their CO2 pressure (pCO2) and if that is below the atmospheric CO2 pressure (pCO2 ~= ppmv), then CO2 enters the oceans or reverse. The speed of CO2 transfer is influenced by wind speed as simple diffusion of CO2 is very slow.
As you know, cold water does dissolve much more CO2, while warm water expells CO2. That is also the case here.
For the map with yearly averaged ocean-atmosphere and reverse fluxes, see:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/mean.shtml
The oceans as a whole do absorb more CO2 than they release: some 3 GtC/year…

AndyG55
Reply to  Ferdinand Engelbeen
October 25, 2016 3:11 pm

Ferd, not to mention the CO2 used by aquatic plant life, and in calcification for shells etc.
To keep these ocean environments prosperous, we must try to keep feeding them plenty of CO2.
Thankfully, China , India and many other countries know this. 🙂

AndyG55
Reply to  Janice Moore
October 25, 2016 2:28 pm

Doesn’t seem to be warming anything, does it. No Blanket down there.comment image

Reply to  AndyG55
October 25, 2016 2:39 pm
AndyG55
Reply to  AndyG55
October 25, 2016 2:43 pm

Until Gavin gets his hands on the surface temp data. !

Reply to  Janice Moore
October 25, 2016 2:35 pm

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing , radiative forcing is given by delta F = 5.35 ln(C/C0) , so when C = 2 C0 , delta F = 5.35 ln2 = 3.7 W/m^2 which the IPCC says produces 3 K warming (when feedbacks are included). Since 1850, CO2 has increased from 280 to 400 ppmv, so the forcing should be 5.35 ln(400/280) = 1.9 W/m^2, which would correspond to 3 K (1.9/3.7) = 1.55 K , which is twice the warming of 0.8 +/- 0.1 K actually measured, way outside the error bars. The recent 18-year hiatus, even as CO2 has continued to increase year-by-year, means that an appeal to a decades- or centuries-long time constant is not valid (because in that case temperatures would continue to increase, even if CO2 stopped rising). This obviously explains why all the computer models have consistently predicted temperature rises way above those actually observed. So if temperature rises caused by doubling CO2 can be no more than 1.5 K, then we would be wasting trillions of dollars trying to limit CO2 emissions to keep the resulting temperature rises to 2 K. You are right. End of story.

george e. smith
Reply to  Janice Moore
October 25, 2016 2:47 pm

I don’t see what they are concerned about.
The reason they have not seen this value before is that the value of CO2 ppm there has not gotten that high there before now, at least in recent memory.
Get used to it; we have never seen a calendar date like October 25th 2016 before either, but we will survive it.
G

nevket240
Reply to  george e. smith
October 26, 2016 3:20 am

(( I don’t see what they are concerned about. ))
Mainly their income, big salaries, book sales, Docudramas, movies, speaking tours.
regards

AndyG55
Reply to  Janice Moore
October 25, 2016 3:07 pm

Janice, I have no problems with the alarmist “saying” that man’s CO2 is increasing atmospheric CO2
That way I can rub it in that with China, India, and many other countries will be continuing to RAPIDLY increase their fossil fuel burning for many years to come, and that there will be PLENTY of atmospheric CO2 for all the world’s plant life..
Best of all… there is NOTHING they can do about it. 🙂

Janice Moore
Reply to  AndyG55
October 25, 2016 3:17 pm

I think you are doing very WELL, Andy, to flog them with their own stick of bamboo!
#(:))

Reply to  Janice Moore
October 25, 2016 4:02 pm

CO2 is plant food and if it goes below a point the plants starts to die then we will start to die too

DreadUK
Reply to  Luciano Miceli
October 26, 2016 11:14 am

150ppm apparently. We are only 250ppm away from certain extinction, but 1,100ppm away from ideal plant growing conditions of 1,500ppm.
However, we have been undone. The alarmists are heading us off at the pass by producing more ‘peer-reviewed’ papers stating that higher CO2 levels will likely be bad for plant life!
You and I couldn’t make it up, but they do.

Reply to  Janice Moore
October 25, 2016 9:18 pm

You got that right. As CO2 is more accurately called a radiative gas, it absorbs and emits IR radiation, and converts some heat energy to IR and some IR to heat constantly in daylight—it’s overall effect is a wash during the day and has no detectable effect.
It is during the night, when there is no solar energy input, that both CO2 and water vapor (another radiative gas, more powerful and abundant than CO2) actively convert heat in the atmosphere to IR radiation, much of which is lost to space. Downwelling IR is absorbed and re-emitted by the cooling surface and eventually lost to space as well. That is why the air chills down so quickly after sunset and small breezes kick up so rapidly around the shadows of clouds on sunny days with scudding clouds.
The global climate computer models do not have night-time, so this radiative gas cooling function is completely absent, and they have bastardized the action of these radiative gases, renaming them “greenhouse gases.”

barry
Reply to  higley7
October 26, 2016 5:55 pm

The global climate computer models do not have night-time
Where did you hear that poppycock? Following link dicusses diurnal range in models – 10 years ago.
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-3-1.html

DHR
October 25, 2016 1:49 pm

One wonders why, with the CO2 going up, why has not the temperature?

Reply to  DHR
October 25, 2016 2:36 pm

Because it doesn’t effect temperature in a measurable way.

Bruce Cobb
October 25, 2016 1:50 pm

Plants everywhere are celebrating.

The other Phil
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 25, 2016 1:52 pm

Maybe not in Antarctica 🙂

Gary Hladik
Reply to  The other Phil
October 25, 2016 3:20 pm

Do personnel at the South Pole keep houseplants?

October 25, 2016 1:53 pm

Tipping-Point?
I just looked out the window, and we’re still here on SaltSpring Island.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Ross King
October 25, 2016 2:57 pm

Yes, but if you were on Guam you should worry. But only if you’re a Democrat. 😉

AndyG55
Reply to  Ross King
October 25, 2016 3:00 pm

Tipping point,
That’s the angle when the beer starts to leave the glass.

Janice Moore
Reply to  AndyG55
October 25, 2016 3:23 pm

… on its way to a beneficial effect.
And any excess quantity is nicely handled by an amazingly well-designed sink …. and, ultimately, far downstream, via evaporation, puts rain in the sky and sea weed (and other green things) in the lakes and oceans.
Thus: DRINK BEER — SAVE THE PLANET!

Steve Fraser
Reply to  AndyG55
October 25, 2016 4:07 pm

After all, you can only rent it.

DreadUK
Reply to  AndyG55
October 26, 2016 11:19 am

Negative perspective.
The tipping point is when the beer enters the mouth.

Matt
October 25, 2016 1:54 pm

Is it true that every square inch of the earth’s surface gives off CO2 as a by-product of the munching of methane by subterranean microbes. Far more than mankind can produce. Ain’t the trees and plants lucky.

FerdiEgb
Reply to  Matt
October 25, 2016 2:33 pm

Matt,
Soil bacteria only can release what the plants have collected as CO2 out of the atmosphere in that and previous years. The net effect is more uptake by photosynthesis than release by (near) every non-plant. Some 1 GtC/year as can be measured in the oxygen balance:
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf

Matt
Reply to  FerdiEgb
October 25, 2016 3:11 pm

I was actually thinking of these little fellows:- http://www.universetoday.com/851/bacteria-found-deep-underground/
Google has a few thousand other references to similar tough little chaps.

The Original Mike M
October 25, 2016 2:07 pm

If only they has used base 7 instead of base 10 they could have gotten over this number obsession back around 1985 when it crossed from 999 to 1000.

The Original Mike M
Reply to  The Original Mike M
October 25, 2016 2:09 pm

Ooops! Meant 666 not 999 … upside down!

Steve Fraser
Reply to  The Original Mike M
October 25, 2016 4:09 pm

Yeah, Y1K was a big deal for the scribes… Moving from a 3-column year to 4-column…

Knutsen
October 25, 2016 2:08 pm

Without humans it would be like yeah so 2012 climate or so.

George McFly......I'm your density
October 25, 2016 2:15 pm

Wow, 32 whole years of data. In study of the climate that represents a single data point. And what has temperature over the Antarctic done since satellite measurements started in 1979: 0.0 degrees change.

DreadUK
Reply to  George McFly......I'm your density
October 25, 2016 3:13 pm

32 years of data; and predictions based on that data didn’t come true. But to alarmists, every day is day one in their ongoing desire to condemn CO2 as the culprit for a natural event.
What is it with these self-flagellating, hair-shirt sporting, manic depressives, that they are compelled to impose their demonic beliefs on the rest of us?

Eve
October 25, 2016 2:19 pm

Is North America the biggest carbon sink? Since all the leaves are gone here now, is that why C02 is up? I am pretty sure Antarctica is not a carbon sink.

October 25, 2016 2:24 pm

They should stop spooking themselves and go buy a CM-0039 1% datalogger. About $200, or a lot less from the manufacturer. Get a few sequences of the diurnal variation. Around here its about 40ppm, eg 380 – 420. Been the same for years.

AndyG55
October 25, 2016 2:31 pm

The next big step is to double 350.org. And watch the weepy tears.comment image

gnome
Reply to  AndyG55
October 25, 2016 2:52 pm

Well done. That 400ppm isn’t just a number, it’s a very good number, and it’s getting better all the time.

richard verney
Reply to  AndyG55
October 25, 2016 4:32 pm

…watch the weepy tears.

Double CO2 and water (from the weepy tears). What happy plants we will have.
Now if only the increase in CO2 could add a bit more warmth. Now that would be even better still. We can live in hope..

AndyG55
Reply to  richard verney
October 25, 2016 5:00 pm

Too much salt in those tears.

October 25, 2016 2:32 pm

Here in Colorado all the marijuana grow facilities pump CO2 into the enclosures until the concentration reaches 1500ppm. Coloradans used to worry about global warming and CO2 but since pot became legal….they don’t worry about anything any more.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Dick Piland
October 25, 2016 2:53 pm

Now that’s what I call greening of the planet.

Reply to  Dick Piland
October 25, 2016 2:54 pm

and Peyton Manning, retired Denver Broncos quarterback and owner of many Papa John’s Pizza places, says he has sold mucho more slices since legal recreational pot in the Mile High City …

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Bubba Cow
October 25, 2016 4:12 pm

Now High figuratively and altitudinaly.

NW sage
Reply to  Bubba Cow
October 25, 2016 5:20 pm

I haven’t even tried Papa John’s new ‘grass’ pizza. Should be a big seller though! Leaves a mellow aftertaste.

schitzree
Reply to  Bubba Cow
October 25, 2016 5:35 pm

Hey now, Bubba Cow! Peyton was a Colts boy for far longer then he was a Bronco. And some of us still burn Jim Irsay in effigy for releasing him. >_< But at least Manning was able to win another Superbowl with the Broncos.

Greg Woods
October 25, 2016 2:32 pm

In today’s El Tiempo, Bogota: The planet breaks the record for CO2 in the atmosphere.
Of course they are only repeating what overseas news services repeat – Efe and AFP in this case.
As usual there is no attempt to present any counterarguments. Luckily, I suppose Colombians have more to worry about than Global Warming.

Matt
October 25, 2016 2:34 pm

It’s a shame we didn’t evolve with 6 digits on each paw. If we had, we would count in base 12 and it would only be 294.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Matt
October 25, 2016 4:13 pm

What? You don’t have 12 digits?

AndyG55
Reply to  Steve Fraser
October 25, 2016 5:01 pm

base 21 for us males.

Reply to  Steve Fraser
October 25, 2016 8:43 pm

@ andyg55 you forgot everybody is equal , so women have 21 as well and it is fun trying to find it with our 21st. ( okay a bit off color , I admit)

AndyG55
Reply to  Steve Fraser
October 25, 2016 9:00 pm

20.1

nc
October 25, 2016 2:39 pm

Did they purposely leave out a supposedly ratio of Mann’s vs natural C02 in that 400.06 ppm.

October 25, 2016 2:45 pm

Some of NOAA’s tall towers have been back and forth across 400 ppm for several past years.

October 25, 2016 2:57 pm

Re: “Global warming associated with the increase in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases has become a serious problem worldwide.”
It’s a “serious problem” for ZPG-ers who cling to the Malthusian hypothesis and masochistically hope for vindication, because all that CO2 is greening arid regions, and increasing food production all over the world:
http://www.sealevel.info/resources.html#plants2
http://www.webcitation.org/6lX1irvqj

richard verney
Reply to  daveburton
October 25, 2016 4:28 pm

As of today, there is no problem.
As of today, there is a net benefit.
Will this continue to be the case as CO2 increases?
Personally, I would say yes. And if by some happy coincidence increasing CO2 brings with it some increase in temperature, personally I would suggest that that would be a godsend; the planet is presently way too cold (we are in the 2nd coldest period in the last 500 million years) and life in general would benefit if the planet were to further warm by a few degrees.
Of course, there would be some winners and losers, but overall, warming would be a net benefit to the biosphere.

plane4069
October 25, 2016 3:04 pm

Gasp! Choke! I just reached a tipping point! Just look outside!
Woops. It’s exactly like it was yesterday. Except four degrees Celsius cooler.
I imagine the phenomenon of ‘a cooler day after a warmer day’ is exactly what’s predicted by the climate models.
My problem is having to constantly put up with this nonsense.

October 25, 2016 3:16 pm

Chart from the main post.
What I find interesting is the rise in CO2 values during December through to February, the SH summer period. Note 2014 / 15 and the the 2015/16 period.
Also note the unusually long increase curve from March through to late September into October. This is from two sources, first the end of summer in the SH to mid May with some NH mixed in, and then the continuous flow of well mixed atmosphere from the NH that starts in May drawn by the increasing vortex. Then it goes flat until mid December. Depending on the NH winter and events occuring there, the rise over December to Febfruary is mostly from the NH.

October 25, 2016 4:06 pm

The fact that CO2 concentrations are much the same all over the World, is simply proof that the variation in CO2 concentrations in almost entirely caused by natural emanations from land and oceans. If industry was responsible for the growth of CO2, concentrations would be higher in the northern hemisphere.

richard verney
Reply to  ntesdorf
October 25, 2016 4:23 pm

Manmade CO2 is swamped by natural sources.
But that does not necessarily mean that the increase in the concentration of CO2 is not a consequence of manmade emissions.
The question to be answered is suppose man did not emit any CO2 (on an industrial scale) would present CO2 levels be less?

DreadUK
Reply to  richard verney
October 25, 2016 5:23 pm

At between 2ppm and 4ppm…..are you kidding? Man’s CO2 fingerprint is only detectable because someone wants to find it. The scientific community largely condemns Homeopathic remedies which are dispensed at ppm treatments. Why should they believe in CO2 ‘forcing’ at levels comparable?

tony mcleod
Reply to  richard verney
October 25, 2016 6:04 pm

“Manmade CO2 is swamped by natural sources.”
That is true Richard, but you’re omitting to mention is that natural sinks also swamp man-made ones. The difference in observed concentrations are overwhelmingly human in origin as per their isotope analysis.

Reply to  ntesdorf
October 25, 2016 4:25 pm

ntesdorf
Currently there is a higher volume of CO2 in the SH than the NH by about 15ppm average. The rise in the mid to high latitudes is almost entirely from the NH, it transports down here every year. That is why the latest OCO-2 images – 30 of released in April are not well known. They are not easy to find on the NASA OCO-2 website. You have to really search for them. No comment from NASA when they were released. They completely rebuke and make a joke of the current carbon cycle theory (the first drawings for the IPCC CAGW program were from Walt Disney !!).
Study the images you can see them with commntary here. Ignore the commentary by all means – just look at the images. And rememeber, only 8% of human CO2 emissions are from the SH.
After all, isnt the centre of the whole discussion CO2 ????????????????????
http://www.blozonehole.com/blozone-hole-theory/blozone-hole-theory/carbon-cycle-using-nasa-oco-2-satellite-images

richard verney
Reply to  ozonebust
October 25, 2016 4:50 pm

It is an interesting commentary.
Has anyone worked out how much oxygen we are losing (consuming) from our atmosphere by burning fossil fuels?
We are essentially replacing oxygen with CO2, CO and H2O (and other miscellaneous gases such as SO2).

Reply to  ozonebust
October 25, 2016 7:11 pm

The last time I looked, Ralph Keeling reported that Oxygen was reducing at a faster rate than can be attributed to binding in CO2 formation. The older CO2 surface station reprts had CO2 and O2 on the same chart. Some would say that the decreasing O2 levels are a greater problem long term as most of it is bound and the only freely available stuff is in the atmosphere. Note that the base level is about 20% of total atmosphereic gas. Studies have identified that O2 levels drop in heavily populated areas especially on still nites, combustion for heating, vehicle usage. So breathing problems can be a problem.
Thanks for the comments on the article. The next one is on the way, it will focus on sea ice, atmospheric transport and a few other directly inter-related events. Sometimes you need to look at the data in a different light.

Richard M
October 25, 2016 4:08 pm

There was a recent paper that claimed the greenhouse forcing over much of Antarctica was negative. It cools. I wonder why they didn’t mention this little fact.

October 25, 2016 4:19 pm

Great news, Emerald Antarctica is returning..
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/media/images/51125000/jpg/_51125879_51125877.jpg
Dinosaurs once foraged beneath the Southern Lights in Antarctica
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12378934

Chimp
Reply to  vukcevic
October 25, 2016 5:01 pm

Antarctica was still fairly balmy well into the Cenozoic Era. Fossil marsupials have been found there from the mid-Eocene Epoch. They probably survived at least into the Oligocene, before the ice buildup got too great.
Antarctica of course was the bridge connecting South America with Australia, so that marsupials could spread from the Americas to Oz. When the Southern Ocean formed, with South America and Australia both separated from Antarctica by deep channels, ice sheets spread across the South Polar continent, burying prospective fossil beds.

richard verney
October 25, 2016 4:19 pm

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and its atmospheric concentration is increasing owing to human activities since the Industrial Revolution.

We do not even know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is a radiative gas, but whether it is a greenhouse gas is moot.
Since no one has yet been able to show through observational data any signal to CO2 forcing temperatures upward, and given that the data suggest, if anything, that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature, on any time scale, and to the extent that there are similarities (between temperature and CO2) it appears that CO2 lags temperatures, such that the data (admitted poor, uncertain and of short duration), suggests that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
But as i say the jury is out, and the position is moot until we get better and more reliable data.

DreadUK
Reply to  richard verney
October 25, 2016 5:05 pm

“We do not even know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is a radiative gas, but whether it is a greenhouse gas is moot.”
Sorry, did I read that right? CO2 might not be a greenhouse gas? So we have a global warming ‘theory’ based on the unproven warming properties of a ‘greenhouse’ gas, that isn’t a greenhouse gas after all?
Where can I find (layman’s) information on radiative gases, CO2 as one, that bear scrutiny?

Chimp
Reply to  richard verney
October 25, 2016 5:45 pm

CO2 has risen monotonously since the end of WWII, but global average temperature (to the extent that it can be measured) has not. Indeed, far from it.
GASTA fell dramatically from the ’40s to about 1977, when the PDO flipped. Despite thoroughly cooked books, the climate gatekeepers haven’t yet been able to make this decades-long chilling disappear yet. And it’s recorded in data from the time, which showed such cold that the big scare in the ’70s was the coming ice age.
Then, from 1977 until the super El Nino of 1997-98, rising CO2 and global warming happened to coincide accidentally. From 1998 until this year, GASTA was flat to falling. The super El Nino of 2016 may have turned the slope slightly up, but it’s liable to flatten out again. In any case, the satellite observations since 1979 (and before) show warming far below that predicted by GIGO climate models.
So the null hypothesis can’t be rejected, ie that nothing the least bit unusual has happened to global climate as a result of rising CO2 over the past 71 years.

richard verney
Reply to  Chimp
October 26, 2016 3:40 am

Absolutely.
I would go as far as to say, it is far from clear that today (2015/16/17) is in fact any warmer than it was in the 1940s.
If in about 1980 one looked at the temperature record, it showed a cooling of about 0.3 to 0.5 degC between (about) 1940 and early 1970. There are even some NASA papers stating that the planet cooled by that amount. It is documented.
If one looks at the satellite data, it suggests a warming from 1979 to date of about 0.36 to 0,42 degC. This therefore suggests the possibility that we are today back to the temperatures last seen in the 1940s.
Further, the tree ring data that M@nn had to ignore when performing his nature trick also does not suggest that it is warmer in the mid/late 1990s than it was in the 1940s. This therefore also suggests that the temperature today could be about the same as it was around the 1940s.
The importance of this is that if temperatures today are approximately the same as they were back in the 1940s, then notwithstanding that about 95% of all manmade emissions having taken place during this period, there has been no measurable increase in temperature over and above measurement errors/the limitation of the data that we have available to us.
That would put Climate Sensitivity at zero or close thereto or say at a level below which it cannot be measured. As I say, whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas is a moot point.The data that we have available to us is of too poor a quality to measure and ascertain this.

October 25, 2016 4:23 pm

CO2 started to correlate with average global temperature in about 1973 and stopped correlating in about 2005. Other than that, not so much.
Water vapor increase, combined with an approximation of ocean cycles and a proxy, which is the time-integral of sunspot number anomalies, however . . . 98% match 1895-2015.

Thomas Graney
October 25, 2016 4:32 pm

Wholely shit, Batman. 400ppm!

DreadUK
October 25, 2016 4:48 pm

““It is important to continue monitoring the atmospheric CO2 concentration,” Goto emphasized.”
Bullshit. Only if one believes that a natural, valuable trace gas can affect the world, like Homeopathic medicine can’t.
Seriously, would a millionaire be concerned about a £/$4 increase (4ppm CO2 increase) in his wealth every year, over 40 years…..It’s £/$160 for Christ sakes!…….I spend more than that on beer ever month.
Come the revolution, the Ferrari’s mine!…….A nice bright Green one, with a 5 Litre, petrol burning, CO2 emitting, plant life stimulating, V12 engine. And woe betide any greeny, luvvy cyclist gets in my way when I’m driving down a cycle lane in central London!
I’ll never be famous, so f**k em all. I hate PC crap, I hate cultural integration for the sake of it, I hate cyclist’s who provoke confrontation with drivers because they’re always ‘victims’. I hate runners on the street when they can go to a track, I hate effing water bottles, I hate lycra and the gym mob who express their healthy credentials by heaving their fat arses around in track pants and shorts. Have they no sodding dignity! I think Zumba/Step etc. and boom boxes are puerile, self obsessive and a complete waste of time; stop stuffing your face and you just need to walk the goddamn dog for exercise! Most of all, I hate the liberal city dwelling muppets who believe CO2 is poisonous.What planet do they come from? Seriously. But you tell them, and you tell them, and you tell them, and they continue to tell you that the planet is dying because CO2 is increasing. What effing chance do we really have in the face of abject stupidity?……….I think I should stop now, and breathe.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh……..better now. Until tomorrow!

DreadUK
Reply to  DreadUK
October 25, 2016 5:02 pm

“We do not even know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It is a radiative gas, but whether it is a greenhouse gas is moot.”
Sorry, did I read that right? CO2 might not be a greenhouse gas? So we have a global warming ‘theory’ based on the unproven warming properties of a ‘greenhouse’ gas, that isn’t a greenhouse gas after all?
Where can I find (layman’s) information on radiative gases, CO2 as one, that bear scrutiny?

DreadUK
Reply to  DreadUK
October 25, 2016 5:04 pm

How did my last comment end up here?

richard verney
Reply to  DreadUK
October 26, 2016 3:45 am

Both Chimp and myself have responded to your above posted comment. See:

Chimp October 25, 2016 at 5:45 pm

and

richard verney October 26, 2016 at 3:40 am

jpatrick
October 25, 2016 4:52 pm

What will be said if atmospheric CO2 begins to decrease? Aw, I’ll answer my own question. There would be a scramble to take credit for it, and that would take many forms.

DreadUK
Reply to  jpatrick
October 25, 2016 5:03 pm

And of course, the world must cool if CO2 decreases because it heats up if we add it. So we get a cold planet with no plant food, effing marvelous. Like I want that for my kids!!!

Reply to  DreadUK
October 26, 2016 2:32 am

Food scientists have probably got something in the pipeline for that & laced with synthetic vitamins+ minerals. Yum!! can’t wait!!

DreadUK
Reply to  jpatrick
October 25, 2016 5:11 pm

More importantly, in my opinion, is that no matter how dismally the ‘clean’ energy, windmill and solar brigade fail in the future, they will take the credit for ‘restraining’ temperature rises, that never happened. They will spend Trillions on wind farms and bio fuels, tax people into poverty, preside over mass third poverty, enjoy their filthy lucre, and then tell us they saved the planet.
As bad as the coal and oil barons were, they were kindergarten kids compared to the mob we are dealing with now.

Reply to  DreadUK
October 25, 2016 9:01 pm

Love the rant at 4:48pm. I think there many of us that feel the same way as apparently the mods do as well. All of us are just as frustrated with the crap that is going on and your description of the urbanites firs to a T. Thanks you got at least 1 supporter but I think there are many. Thanks for the rant, but do sit back and relax now and have that beer. Cheers!

AndyG55
October 25, 2016 5:03 pm

400ppm..
That’s 4c in every $100. up from 3c oooow… scary !!!

DreadUK
Reply to  AndyG55
October 25, 2016 5:16 pm

And what can you buy with 4 cents?

AndyG55
Reply to  DreadUK
October 25, 2016 6:02 pm

I remember when I was young…..
… a long, long time ago when the earth was a pretty cool place …
4c would have bought a nice swag of lollies.

Janice Moore
Reply to  DreadUK
October 25, 2016 6:17 pm

(dear Andy — in your ear… Ithinkitismuchlessthan4cents)

AndyG55
Reply to  DreadUK
October 25, 2016 9:02 pm

400ppm is 4c in $100.. really it is. !

Janice Moore
Reply to  DreadUK
October 26, 2016 12:32 pm

Oh, math professor Andy (and that is for real, not a mere compliment, WUWTers) — I messed up! Somehow (who knows) I put a decimal into that $100 and made it $1.00!! aaaaaaa. Next time, I’ll be more humble and double-check. As IF a math prof. wouldn’t get that right. **double blush**

GeeJam
Reply to  AndyG55
October 25, 2016 7:30 pm

Andy,
. . . . or 1 x 2,500ths of the sky!

Caligula Jones
October 25, 2016 5:29 pm

Mother Nature’s “grim milestone” seems to be as effective as Barack “Nobel Peace Prize” Obama’s red line(s) in Syria…

Reply to  Caligula Jones
October 25, 2016 9:02 pm

And Clinton’s “reset” button with Putin.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  asybot
October 26, 2016 6:35 am

I believe its actually written “rseset”…at least, that’s what the smart people say. You know, the ones whose entire foreign policy is based on “zingers” like “the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because…the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.”
Wow, what depth. What intelligence. What?

SAMURAI
October 25, 2016 6:03 pm

If CO2 lev ls fall below 150ppm, photosynthesis shuts down and all life on earth goes extinct…
12,000 years ago, at the end of the last glaciation period, CO2 levels fell to 170ppm (just 20ppm from an extinction event) the lowest level since complex life evolved about 600 million years ago.
We should be ecstatic that CO2 levels are returning to healthier levels with our help, but they’re still too low.
A recent peer-reviewed paper (Zhu et al 2016) shows that manmade CO2 emissions have increased global greening by about 38% just since 1980 due to th positive benefits of CO2 fertilization:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n8/full/nclimate3004.html
I thought both rational humans and eco-wackos wanted a greener earth…. Oh, the irony.
All the physics and empirical evidence show ECS (warming per CO2 doubling by 2100) will be around 0.5C, which not only isn’t a problem, it’s a net benefit….
CAGW is dead…. I can’t believe this disconfirmed hypothesis is still taken seriously.

tony mcleod
Reply to  SAMURAI
October 25, 2016 6:12 pm

“12,000 years ago, at the end of the last glaciation period, CO2 levels fell to 170ppm (just 20ppm from an extinction event) the lowest level since complex life evolved about 600 million years ago.”
Gee, just when human civilisation exploded and took over the planet. Can’t have been all that bad after all.

richard verney
Reply to  tony mcleod
October 26, 2016 3:26 am

As you no doubt know, the planet is presently in an ice age. Rather than having a fever, the planet is way too cold, as one might expect given that it is in an age.
About 12,000 years ago was just in to the start of the present inter-glacial, the Holocene. An inter glacial, being a period of relatively short period of benign warmth within what is an ice age.
All significant human advance has taken place during this inter-glacial, because life loves warmth and hates cold. The history of civilisation can be traced to temperature; warmer places having obtained advanced civilisation earlier than cold places. Same with technology; mesolithic/neolithic, bronze age, iron age etc are all temperature dependent.
Unfortunately for humans (and life in general on this planet), the Holocene is probably over half way through its epoch. It will probably come to an end sometime within the next 6,000 to 14,000 years whereupon the planet with descend into the deep throes of the ice age that it is presently in. That is when we will see real climate change, and this is when there will be mass migration of humans (and other life forms) all heading nearer the tropical regions of the planet. It will be impossible to live in high northern latitudes.

tony mcleod
Reply to  SAMURAI
October 25, 2016 9:16 pm

And according to you speculation if neither you nor I were here then then no-one would be here to speculate.
Well done Sherlock.

DreadUK
Reply to  SAMURAI
October 26, 2016 11:38 am

Did he say CO2 fell below 150ppm? I thought he said it went down to 170ppm.

October 25, 2016 6:19 pm

CO2 measurements up at an Antarctic station.
What perchance is the plot of # of personnel and fuel consumption at the station over the same time frame?
Just dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s.

Chris
October 25, 2016 8:12 pm

It seems like the CO2 level has been busting through the 400 ppm threshold for several years now. Every time I look at the chart it shows it going vertical through the magic level. One would think it’s long since left 400 in the dust and should be pushing through 410/420 but no, it’s always just pushing through 400.

tony mcleod
Reply to  Chris
October 25, 2016 9:20 pm

There’s a hoax under every rock.

mickgreenhough
October 25, 2016 9:20 pm

That must be good as if it spreads we can expect a significant increase in the yield of corn and rice. MG
From: Watts Up With That? To: mickgreenhough@yahoo.co.uk Sent: Tuesday, 25 October 2016, 21:27 Subject: [New post] The horror! Atmospheric CO2 concentration at Syowa Station in Antarctica exceeds 400 ppm #yiv3915228796 a:hover {color:red;}#yiv3915228796 a {text-decoration:none;color:#0088cc;}#yiv3915228796 a.yiv3915228796primaryactionlink:link, #yiv3915228796 a.yiv3915228796primaryactionlink:visited {background-color:#2585B2;color:#fff;}#yiv3915228796 a.yiv3915228796primaryactionlink:hover, #yiv3915228796 a.yiv3915228796primaryactionlink:active {background-color:#11729E;color:#fff;}#yiv3915228796 WordPress.com | Anthony Watts posted: “From the RESEARCH ORGANIZATION OF INFORMATION AND SYSTEMS and “it’s just a number” department, comes this breathless press release.Atmospheric CO2 concentration at Syowa Station in Antarctica exceeds 400 ppmAccording to the 57th Japan Antarctic Re” | |

yarpos
October 25, 2016 10:42 pm

I cant believe you are all so calm. This is surely a tipping point, point of no return, apocalypse, game changing thingy. I feel the urge to run around in circles, shrieking and waving my hands. Where is Tim Flannery when you need him?

rogerthesurf
October 25, 2016 10:56 pm

“implies that anthropogenic activities are definitely affecting the Antarctic region”
I am still bemused how they recognise the anthropogenic CO2 molecules from the natural ones
Cheers
Roger
http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

rogerthesurf
Reply to  tony mcleod
October 26, 2016 2:45 am

I take it that you read your link?
Cheers

tony mcleod
Reply to  tony mcleod
October 26, 2016 4:35 am

Yeah I did. Pity this site has gone don hill so much.

rogerthesurf
Reply to  tony mcleod
October 26, 2016 3:09 pm

Tony.
I take it that you read the final conclusion of Spencer’s analysis then?
“BOTTOM LINE: If the C13/C12 relationship during NATURAL inter-annual variability is the same as that found for the trends, how can people claim that the trend signal is MANMADE??”
Griff
This is all very interesting but the website you refer to is more a news paper journal, and is clearly in the AGW camp as it states in a number of places. The article was about as informative as a newspaper column as well.
I tried to locate the original paper through the link they gave but it lead me nowhere.
But thanks guys for the comment.
Cheers
Roger

Griff
Reply to  rogerthesurf
October 26, 2016 2:48 am
HFB
Reply to  Griff
October 26, 2016 7:11 am

So, there’s no other source of carbon-12 than man’s burning of fossil fuels? The paper seems to be behind a paywall.
From what I’ve seen online (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/c13tellsus.html) fossil fuels have CO2 that is more C-12, depleted in C-13, and NO C-14. So, releasing that CO2 into the atmosphere would lower the overall composition of C-13 in total. They also mention terrestrial sources but seem to say that it can’t be them.
Is there NO possibility that there are natural sources of C-12 that could also lower the relative C-13 and C-14 levels?
IANAS, so my brain may hurt trying to follow much more of the details, but the way they “fingerprint” what comes from where would seem to have gigantic error bars, no?

Walter Sobchak
October 25, 2016 11:44 pm

The trees tell me that there is great rejoicing in the vegetable kingdom:-)

ren
October 25, 2016 11:55 pm

During strong geomagnetic storms increases the strength and depth of earthquakes in California.comment image

ren
October 26, 2016 12:29 am

From early 1990s the values of both eleven-year and bicentennial components of TSI variations are decreasing at
accelerating (at present) rate (Fig. 2), and hence a fraction of TSI absorbed by the Earth is declining at practically
the same rate (e.g., Frhlich, 2011; Abdussamatov, 2007b, 2009a, b). Average value of TSI in the 23rd cycle was by 0.17 W/m2 less than in the 22nd cycle. Smoothed value of TSI in the minimum between the cycles 23/24 (1365.24 0.02 W/m2) was by 0.26 W/m2 and by 0.33 W/m2 less than in the minima between cycles 22/23 and
21/22, respectively. However, forming from early 1990s long-term deficit of TSI (see Fig. 2) was not
compensated by decrease in the emission of the Earth intrinsic thermal energy into space which practically
remains on the same high level during 146 years due to thermal inertia of the World Ocean. Since the Sun is
now entering a bicentennial long-term phase of low luminosity (e.g., Abdussamatov, 2004, 2005, 2007b; Penn
and Livingston, 2010; American-astronomical-society, 2011) such energy imbalance of the system (E<0) will
continue further for the next few 11-year cycles. As a result, the Earth as a planet will henceforward have
negative balance (E<0) in the energy budget. This gradual consumption of solar energy accumulated by the
World Ocean during the whole XX century will result in decrease of global temperature after 146 years because
of a negative balance in the energy budget of the Earth. This, in its turn, will lead to the rise of Earth albedo, the
drop of atmospheric concentration of the most important greenhouse gas water vapor, as well as of carbon
dioxide and other gases. Let us note that water vapor absorbs ~68% of the integral power of the intrinsic
long-wave emission of the Earth, while carbon dioxide only ~12%. As a consequence, a portion of solar
radiation absorbed by the Earth will gradually go down together with manifestations of the greenhouse effect
caused by the secondary feedback effects. The influence of the growing consecutive chain of such changes will
cause additional decrease of the global temperature exceeding the effect of a bicentennial TSI decrease.
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/view/14754/10140

Griff
October 26, 2016 4:44 am

No relation between the CO2 level and near record low in antarctic winter sea ice and dramatically retreating antarctic glaciers?
https://summitcountyvoice.com/2016/10/05/antarctic-sea-ice-peaks-near-record-low-extent/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/10/25/these-antarctic-glaciers-have-experienced-staggering-ice-loss-in-the-past-15-years-and-scientists-think-the-ocean-is-to-blame/?utm_term=.dd5a8cb26f28
Or to the current ‘lowest ever sea ice extent for the date’ we see in the arctic?

stevekeohane
Reply to  Griff
October 26, 2016 8:58 am

If CO2 is so warming, why do we re-glaciate every time it is at its highest levels?
Lowest ever sea ice extent for the date since 1970, must be a major historic event, what a joke.

Griff
Reply to  stevekeohane
October 27, 2016 12:50 am

I don’t see your evidence we do re-glaciate in those circumstances.
Is it really of no concern that at this point in the freezing season we are seeing such low ice extent (and its not very thick compared to recent years either)?
And just look at the Antarctic:
http://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/VISHOP_Extent-20161024.jpg

October 26, 2016 4:56 am

Antarctica is unique in another respect, multidecadal change in strength of the geomagnetic pole (location shown in blue on the map) follows change in the solar activity (inversed correlation) with details here.

Thomas Homer
October 26, 2016 5:50 am

From the article:
“CO2 has exceeded 400 ppm at many locations on Earth; however, the Antarctic was the only region where CO2 had not yet reached 400 ppm”
Are they asserting that CO2 is not evenly distributed around the globe? If that’s the case then all of the ice core recordings of ancient CO2 levels are rendered meaningless. Bubbles in ice cannot be considered representative of the global atmosphere unless CO2 is considered evenly distributed.
And if ice core sampling is rendered meaningless, can we stop actively drilling ice cores? Especially since we have tens of thousands of polar ice core samples stored in a frozen lab in Colorado.

Griff
Reply to  Thomas Homer
October 26, 2016 7:43 am

It isn’t
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=82142
There are seasonal variations by growing season in each hemisphere and more is produced by man in some areas than others…

DreadUK
Reply to  Griff
October 26, 2016 11:44 am

Didn’t you just make his point?

Griff
Reply to  Griff
October 27, 2016 12:51 am

What, science didn’t notice the variation and include it in calculating the results?

beng135
October 26, 2016 5:57 am

Gee. 1 CO2 molecule for every 2500 air molecules. I’m shaking in my boots.

ren
October 26, 2016 9:40 am

Carbon Dioxide Surface Concentration
the fraction of carbon dioxide present in air at the earth’s surface.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/chem/surface/level/overlay=co2sc/equirectangular

Svend Ferdinandsen
October 26, 2016 12:07 pm

It is not strange that the CO2 would also rise at Antarctica. The strange thing is that the variation over the year gets larger and larger the far north you travel. Even at Greenland Summit you have a twofold variation relative to Mauna Loa. Despite all the CO2 mankind is making, the nature can suck it up at twice the speed half the year, and then release a part of it again the next half year. If mankind stopped all release i would believe the CO2 in the air would drop by 2ppm a year untill we starved to death.

James at 48
October 26, 2016 12:20 pm

Every increase gives us a better margin against the scenario of a photosynthesis crash. At these low levels, a good bolide strike might be all it takes to incite such a crash. 1000 ppm or bust. In all seriousness, though, we will reach a point where it is not practical to increase. We are probably going to peak at around 500. Then, the long slide to true oblivion shall resume.

David S
October 26, 2016 12:41 pm

Isn’t 400 ppm a trigger point or a point of no return. Hopefully it is because once we pass the point of no return then any further expenses incurred in the attempt of reversing it is by definition futile. The money we save can then be spent on real problems like health and education.

ren
October 26, 2016 1:50 pm
November 5, 2016 10:55 am

Be afraid; be very afraid…

%d bloggers like this: