Carbon dioxyde in the athmosphere record breaking year-over-years raise

CO2 levels in atmosphere rising at dramatically faster rate, U.N. report warns


Levels of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose at a record-shattering pace last year, a new report shows, a surge that surprised scientists and spurred fears of an accelerated warming of the planet in decades to come.

Concentrations of nearly all the major greenhouse gases reached historic highs in 2013, reflecting ever-rising emissions from automobiles and smokestacks but also, scientists believe, a diminishing ability of the world’s oceans and plant life to soak up the excess carbon put into the atmosphere by humans, according to data released early Tuesday by the United Nations’ meteorological advisory body.

The latest figures from the World Meteorological Organization’s monitoring network are considered particularly significant because they reflect not only the amount of carbon pumped into the air by humans, but also the complex interaction between man-made gases and the natural world. Historically, about half of the pollution from human sources has been absorbed by the oceans and by terrestrial plants, preventing temperatures from rising as quickly as they otherwise would, scientists say.


“If the oceans and the biosphere cannot absorb as much carbon, the effect on the atmosphere could be much worse,” said Oksana Tarasova, a scientist and chief of the WMO’s Global Atmospheric Watch program, which collects data from 125 monitoring stations worldwide. The monitoring network is regarded as the most reliable window on the health of Earth’s atmosphere, drawing on air samples collected near the poles, over the oceans, and in other locations far from cities and other major sources of pollution.


The new figures for carbon dioxide were particularly surprising, showing the biggest year-over-year increase since detailed records were first compiled in the 1980s, Tarasova said in an interview. The jump of nearly three parts per million over 2012 levels was twice as large as the average increase in carbon levels in recent decades, she said.


“The changes we’re seeing are really drastic,” Tarasova said. “We are seeing the growth rate rising exponentially.”

The organization’s annual report on greenhouse gas levels was released ahead of a climate summit of world leaders at this year’s U.N. General Assembly meetings in New York. On Sept. 23, President Obama will meet with chief executives from dozens of other countries to discuss ways to lower industrial emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other gases blamed for heating up the planet.

Natural carbon dioxide is an essential ingredient for life on Earth, enabling green plants to convert sunlight into energy. But at excessive levels it acts as a heat trap, causing the planet to warm. Scientists say that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been rising since the start of the Industrial Revolution and that the increase has accelerated since the 1990s.

The WMO’s data for 2013 shows the global average level of atmospheric carbon at just under 400 parts per million, about 40 percent higher than in *pre-industrial times and higher than in any other period in at least 800,000 years. The symbolically important threshold of 400 parts per million — described by scientists as the level at which more dramatic climactic impacts become likely — will probably be crossed in the next two years, the report said.


It’s the level that climate scientists have identified as the beginning of the danger zone,” said Michael Oppenheimer, a Princeton University professor of geosciences who was not involved in the WMO report. “It means we’re probably getting to the point where we’re looking at the ‘safe zone’ in the rearview mirror, even as we’re stepping on the gas.

A landmark report last year by a U.N.-appointed panel of climate scientists warned that, if current trends continue, the world could soon see major disruptions to both natural ecosystems and human civilization, including rising sea levels that could swamp many of the world’s coastal cities. That report, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, projected a rise in temperatures of up to nine degrees in the next century unless action is taken to lower carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

Methane, another major greenhouse gas, also rose significantly in the WMO’s latest report, continuing a steady climb that began six years ago. Global concentrations of methane — a byproduct of farming and fossil-fuel extraction, as well as numerous natural processes — are now 21 / 2 times as high as they were at the start of the industrial age, in the mid-18th century, the report said.

The organization’s annual report included, for the first time, figures on the increasing acidification of the oceans stemming from higher levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. As the seas absorb more carbon dioxide from the air, the water’s chemical composition becomes more acidic. Studies extrapolating from the fossil record suggest that the rate of acidification is now “unprecedented, at least over the past 300,000 years,” the WMO said.

Higher acidity in seawater is known to disrupt the life cycles of many marine species — from reef-building corals to shellfish beloved by humans — by interfering with the creatures’ ability to use sea-borne calcium to build their shells.

In an indirect way, the acidification of seawater also exacerbates climate change: The oceans over time become less capable of absorbing carbon from the air, allowing more of the greenhouse gas to accumulate in the atmosphere, the report said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...2277d2-378d-11e4-bdfb-de4104544a37_story.html

Recently, Joe Biden said the US will "follow ISIS to the gates of Hell". Well, as a matter of fact, this whole planet will soon be Hell...
But let's focus on some wars in some tiny part of the world that are not of our concerned...

Anyway, Global Warming isn't real and it's certainly not man-made. It's a liberal hoax.
Scientists ? Who care of what scientists are saying ?!
 

Will E Worm

Conspiracy...
:1orglaugh


No one cares what the UN says.
 
You know there's a all world outside the US ? A world where not everyone is a moron like you...

The report comes from the UN 'cause it's the UN that publishes it, that financed the research that lead to it but it was made by scientist, not by the UN. Anyway, I know yoy don't relly care abou the opinion of scientists, particulary if their opinion is different from yours.
Science ?! What a joke ! Who needs science when the truth can be found in the Bible and on Fox News ?!
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
 
Might as well give up, Johan. He'll never understand how tragically hypocritical that post was. For republicans in America, ignorance is something to be proud of. "Who cares if 95% of published work agrees. I found a single article on an obscure fanatical website that says different! You're cherry picking!!!!!!"
 

Ace Boobtoucher

Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
The U.N.(enlightened) and Dear Leader have been using these fraudulent claims to distract simpletons like you from the shitty job they have been doing in all other aspects of their assigned jobs. It's slight of hand and you are suckers.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_globalwarmingpseudo.htm
SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY; COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING VIEWPOINTS (Michael Asher August 29, 2007 on the Inhofe EPW Press Blog)
https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/GlobWarm.HTM
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

In 2006, Nicola Scarfetta of Duke University and Bruce West of the U.S. Army Research Office published a paper in Geophysical Research Letters where they estimated that the sun contributed as much as 45-50% of the global warming observed between 1900 and 2000, and 25-30% of the warming observed between 1980 and 2000.

In the April, 2007 issue of Scientific American, Piers Forster, lead author of the report on global warming by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said that, compared to its long-term average, the sun contributes 0.12 watt of energy per square meter of the earth's surface, compared to 1.6 watts for human-made sources.

You really have to wonder how any mention of a solar contribution gets into major scientific journals at all if there's so much suppression going on.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...scientific-fraud-i-have-seen-in-my-long-life/

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/14/c...rs-pseudo-science-rambling-on-global-warming/

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/06/d...-white-house-climate-report-as-pseudoscience/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/...ieavaer-asks-is-climate-change-pseudoscience/

“Is climate change pseudoscience? If I’m going to answer the question, the answer is: absolutely.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/01/more_global_warming_pseudo-science.html
 
Here's a classic example of that cherry picking by probably the biggest habitual picker on this forum. A handful of obscure sites and blogs from a very specific google search. It's very easy to google for the answer you want and fool yourself into believing you're getting the right one.
 

bobjustbob

Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
So what does this report say? Our cars and factories are running cleaner. We recycle more. Our appliances and lighting are more energy efficient. We are taking more public transportation. Bike and walk instead of driving. Working from home rather than driving to work. Reducing the amount of paper we use through electronic transactions. Shopping from home instead of driving. Using less water. We weren't doing these kinds of things 50 years ago. I guess all of these efforts is just pissing into the wind.
 
So what does this report say? Our cars and factories are running cleaner. We recycle more. Our appliances and lighting are more energy efficient. We are taking more public transportation. Bike and walk instead of driving. Working from home rather than driving to work. Reducing the amount of paper we use through electronic transactions. Shopping from home instead of driving. Using less water. We weren't doing these kinds of things 50 years ago. I guess all of these efforts is just pissing into the wind.
Not everyone does all this, particulary in the US and in Russia and even more in China and India where most people don't give a shit about climate change since their economy is fine and since their people need more and more goods...
 
I had a CO2 gun when I was a kid. I liked it.
Plants like CO2.

So, I'm probably pro on the side of CO2.

th
 

bobjustbob

Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
Not everyone does all this, particulary in the US and in Russia and even more in China and India where most people don't give a shit about climate change since their economy is fine and since their people need more and more goods...

I can't speak for other countries but all of the measures I mentioned are in effect in USA. Automobile emissions are a part of the yearly inspection process. If it doesn't pass you can't drive it. Businesses are required to separate cardboard and plastic from their trash. At a perfume factory I worked for, glass was recycled and separated clear from colored. For our household garbage we separate recyclables into separate container for pickup. Paper and cardboard is bundled and tied before being put to the curb. Electronic equipment has their own disposal stations to strip them down to recycle. Cooking oil from restaurants have a particular place to go. Auto service stations have used fluid pickups. Tire shops charge a fee to properly dispose of the old ones. Some auto parts purchases have core fees that are returned to the customer when the old parts are brought back to the store for recycling. Energy companies will come into your home free of charge to give you a home energy audit. They will put you in touch with programs that will give rebates for changing over be it insulation, windows, furnaces, hot water heaters, water saving devices, etc. I've got dozens of more examples.

Governmental environmental standards have tightened and we have been falling in line. Cleaner environment is part of our lifestyle now so don't point that finger at us.
 

Ace Boobtoucher

Founder and Captain of the Douchepatrol
Meanwhile...A RECORD ICE GROWTH CONTINUES TO EXPAND IN THE ARCTIC.
 
The area of ice is growing, not the volume, dipshit. Ice cover extent is thin, seasonally fluctuating ice that can completely disappear in a year. Ice volume is still rapidly decreasing. Can you just accept that you're not a climate scientist? And that the hundreds or possibly thousands of climate scientists who are climate scientists are climate scientists and they say that this is happening? Of course not. Republican shit-stupid arrogance trumps all facts, doesn't it?
 
The area of ice is growing, not the volume, dipshit. Ice cover extent is thin, seasonally fluctuating ice that can completely disappear in a year. Ice volume is still rapidly decreasing. Can you just accept that you're not a climate scientist? And that the hundreds or possibly thousands of climate scientists who are climate scientists are climate scientists and they say that this is happening? Of course not. Republican shit-stupid arrogance trumps all facts, doesn't it?

You're right, he's a heretic and needs to burned at the stake.

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”

-Michael Crichton


Wasn't the scientific consensus at one time that the world was flat or that it was the center of the universe?

And what about climate scientists who fudge their data?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...e-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

Derr? Huh? Mongo?
 
Wasn't the scientific consensus at one time that the world was flat or that it was the center of the universe?
It wasn't a scientific consensus, it was a religious consensus.
Galilleo wasn't told he was wrong by other scientists basing their arguments on scientific observations, he was told he was wrong by religious people basing their arguments on the fact that it was written in the Bible that the Earth was at the center of the universe and that the sun and the other plantes were rotating around it.
 
It wasn't a scientific consensus, it was a religious consensus.
Galilleo wasn't told he was wrong by other scientists basing their arguments on scientific observations, he was told he was wrong by religious people basing their arguments on the fact that it was written in the Bible that the Earth was at the center of the universe and that the sun and the other plantes were rotating around it.


Galileo was also opposed by most of his fellow astronomers who subscribed to geocentrism. The point is, Galileo went against the prevailing thought of the day (consensus).
 
Top