Observed Atmospheric CO2 Hits 400 Parts Per Million 367
symbolset writes "Over the past month a number of individual observations of CO2 at the Mauna Loa Observatory have exceeded 400 parts per million. The daily average observation has crept above 399 ppm, and as annually the peak is typically in mid-May it seems likely the daily observation will break the 400 ppm milestone within a few days. This measure of potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere should spark renewed discussion about the use of fossil fuels. For the past few decades the annual peak becomes the annual average two or three years later, and the annual minimum after two or three years more."
Re:Out of Curiosity.... (Score:5, Interesting)
You can't make predictions when a human factor is involved. If we were all controlled by a hivemind and made CO2 decrease our highest priority, stopping CO2 production could be done in 20 years (there's enough nuclear power to sustain our needs, and we have electric vehicles - technologically it's already possible). After that, the oceans would absorb the excess CO2 and bring it below 300ppm in about 300 years (according to a study I sadly can't find now). So absent some miracle like fusion reactors even in a best case scenario it would take at least 150 years to get below 350.
But the most important thing is the human factor which depends on our decisions, and can make that time much much longer.
Re: Yawn (Score:4, Interesting)
From your linked PDF - "The agreement of the reconstruction of the temperature history using only the six strongest components of the spectrum, with M6, shows that the present climate dynamics is dominated by periodic processes. This does NOT rule out a warming by anthropogenic inuences such as an increase of
atmospheric CO2(bolding and emphasis mine)
All the records examined in this paper were in a time period where GHG levels were significantly lower than at present and the dominant climate forcings would have been natural ones such as insolation, and volcanic eruptions.
Our use of fossil fuels have complicated the issue by adding significantly large amounts of both warming and cooling agents into the mix. But a net positive heat balance cannot simply be handwaved away into a "periodic oscillation". The heat has to go somewhere and wherever that may be, it will have an impact.
Whether or not the impact is significant and long-term is a longer discussion.
Re: Yawn (Score:3, Interesting)
skepticalscience.com is completely unreliable source, they make non-trivial edits to posts after comments have began, they edit user comments and delete user comments without reference.
From 3 to 4 parts per 10,000 (Score:2, Interesting)
Bringing the numbers closer to human-scale, a 300 parts per million is the same as 3 parts per 10,000. Similarly 400 is 4 parts per 10,000. So basically, we've gone from 3 molecules per 10,000 to 4 molecules of CO2 per 10,000 molecules of air.
In the same period, plankton levels have declined over 1% per year since the late 1970's [nature.com]. John Martin at MBARI [mbari.org] postulated that the decline was due to a decline of dissolved iron in the oceans. He's quoted as saying "Give me a tanker full of iron and I'll give you an ice age." A series of experiments, IRONEX [usc.edu] and SOFEX [mbari.org] demonstrated that he was right - adding iron caused the plankton to bloom. The SOFEX bloom lasted longer than the 45 days allotted to collect plankton samples. IRONEX demonstrated that the predators could find the bloom and feed on it.
You want to reduce CO2 levels? Stop hunter-gatherer style fishing and start farming the oceans. Of course, then the problems will be keeping the earth warm enough to avoid another ice age and preventing fish rustlers from making off with your harvest.
Re:Out of Curiosity.... (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it's one of the hypocracies of the AGW alarmists that every technology that can help us avoid their worst fears is roundly decried as worse than the global warming itself. The Three Gorges Dam in China was continuously railed against,
as it would cause massive ecological damage, which has in fact been the case. It's even been fingered in heavy seismic activity which has occurred since.
Logically though, anyone who thinks the world would be significantly better off with a lower population should take matters into their own hands and remove themselves from it.
You really don't want people who think the world needs population reducation to take matters into their own hands.
Re:Yawn (Score:3, Interesting)
"Can someone offer a short and simple explanation for why abnormally cold weather doesn't mean "global warming is a myth"?"
No.
Then you probably shouldn't be entering into the discussion at all as you don't know the basics. Global warming refers to climate. "Abnormally cold weather" is weather. They are completely different things.
Weather happens at a particular place at a particular time. Climate is an average of weather over a large geographical area over a long period of time. Typically 30 years.
The two are as different as instantaneous speed of a car, and the average speed of a car over it's entire lifetime.
Re:Yawn (Score:2, Interesting)
Weather happens at a particular place at a particular time. Climate is an average of weather over a large geographical area over a long period of time. Typically 30 years.
Ah yes, the typical 30 year period. Where in most places there weren't even measurements in place. And the said averages, were made by guesstimates from nearby areas. Never mind that when this part of the world(North America) was being settled, that the winters were so severe on the east coast that people were freezing to death, and many believed that this was the land where "winter never ended." Or that a few hundred years prior to that, it was so warm in the same areas that it caused massive population booms, and settlements.
30 years is so small a period of time, that pissing up wind would be a better indicator of when it was going to rain next.