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 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.
###
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.
“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?
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.
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.
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.
Wholely shit, Batman. 400ppm!
““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!
“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?
How did my last comment end up here?
Both Chimp and myself have responded to your above posted comment. See:
and
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.
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!!!
Food scientists have probably got something in the pipeline for that & laced with synthetic vitamins+ minerals. Yum!! can’t wait!!
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.
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!
400ppm..
That’s 4c in every $100. up from 3c oooow… scary !!!
And what can you buy with 4 cents?
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.
(dear Andy — in your ear… Ithinkitismuchlessthan4cents)
400ppm is 4c in $100.. really it is. !
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**
Andy,
. . . . or 1 x 2,500ths of the sky!
Mother Nature’s “grim milestone” seems to be as effective as Barack “Nobel Peace Prize” Obama’s red line(s) in Syria…
And Clinton’s “reset” button with Putin.
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?
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.
“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.
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.
And according to you speculation if neither you nor I were here then then no-one would be here to speculate.
Well done Sherlock.
Did he say CO2 fell below 150ppm? I thought he said it went down to 170ppm.
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.
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.
There’s a hoax under every rock.
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” | |
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?
“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
With science Roger.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/
I take it that you read your link?
Cheers
Yeah I did. Pity this site has gone don hill so much.
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
Well Roger they use scientific observation!
http://www.bitsofscience.org/natural-anthropogenic-co2-differentiation-monitoring-5732/
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?
The trees tell me that there is great rejoicing in the vegetable kingdom:-)
During strong geomagnetic storms increases the strength and depth of earthquakes in California.
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
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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…
Didn’t you just make his point?
What, science didn’t notice the variation and include it in calculating the results?
Gee. 1 CO2 molecule for every 2500 air molecules. I’m shaking in my boots.
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
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.
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.
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.
Is it a 12CO2 or 14CO2?
http://sol.spacenvironment.net/raps_ops/current_files/rtimg/dose.15km.png