Atmospheric CO2 levels hit 800,000-year high: CSIRO

[Dead_Parrot]

Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are now higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years, while the last decade in Australia was the warmest on record, CSIRO scientists say.

The findings are released in the CSIRO's annual State of the Climate report, which has been released today.

The report says Australia's annual-average daily maximum temperatures have increased by 0.75 degrees Celsius since 1910.

Australian temperatures are forecast to rise by between 1C and 5C by 2070 "when compared with the climate of recent decades."

More: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-14/temperatures-may-rise-5-degrees-by-2070/3887672
CSIRO report: http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding/State-of-the-Climate-2012.aspx

[CAPHAVOC]

1. I don't care

I care about real pollution. Smog..and especially "runoff" after a rain. Around here it sucks. I care about clean water and air. Not CO2. The CO2 scam is hurting the real environmental debate. Pollution. Just my opinion. I do not believe in CO2 Global Warming. CO2 just gives the polluters an easy target. It is arguable.

[izquierdista]

2. "Belief" is for religions; the OP is about science.

[lacrew]

4. I have a silly question

Why was CO2 at higher levels than today, 800,000 years ago?

[Dead_Parrot]

11. It started off very high...

...from molten rocks degassing when the planet formed. Since photosynthesis started about 3.5 billion years ago, it's been decreasing: large volcanic eruptions, Milankovitch cycles and continental drift make the graph a bumpy one.

[lacrew]

12. Milankovitch Cycles Affect CO2 concentrations?

...or is it temperature?

[NickB79]

17. Both

Milankovitch cycles can alter the global temperature enough to alter global photosynthesis rates, which then affect carbon sequestration levels. This can create either positive or negative feedback mechanisms, depending on which way the sequestration levels swing.

[lacrew]

23. So temperature drives CO2 levels?

"can alter the global temperature enough to alter global photosynthesis rates, which then affect carbon sequestration levels"

[Dead_Parrot]

25. And vice versa

because it's also a greenhouse gas. The system is usually in an equilibrium where the feedbacks cancel out: where this equilibrium is, is then dependent on stuff like the Milankovitch cycles etc.

Where we should be, right now, is gentle cooling as we start sliding to the next ice age: What we have instead is rapid heating.

[lacrew]

30. Hmmm...I'm gonna take my chances and not worry about CO2

The highest percentage contribution of CO2 by man, that I could find, is 3.5%. Half of that is breathing.

So, barring genocide, we could park all our cars and shutter all the power plants...and we will have reduced CO2 emmissions by less than 2%.

I'm gonna save my environmental indignation over real pollution, like mountain-top removal mining, over-fishing, water pollution, etc.

(all that graph shows me is that its been alot hotter in the past, than it is today).

[Dead_Parrot]

32. Pretend you're on a motorbike, cruising down route 66 at 90mph...

...and consider a point on your wheel. Over the course of a mile, that point will rise 63,360 inches, and fall 63,360 inches: The two cancel out and you stay in equilibrium. No problem.

Now pretend you're cruising down route 66 at 90mph, and hit a railway sleeper after a mile. That point on your wheel rises by 63,370 inches - only a 0.174% difference - but you are no longer in equilibrium and are, in fact, completely fucked.

[Nihil]

46. Excellent analogy.

Probably wasted on our little visitors but excellent anyway.

[CAPHAVOC]

36. I am

All in for that. Have you been to the Beach lately....Real pollution is all over. And they babble on about CO2.

[Viking12]

40. You're off by a factor of 10

Humans are responsible for ~35% of the atmospheric concentrations of CO2, not 3.5%. Learn a little about stocks and flows. In the meantime, you might want to refrain from posting because you're really coming off as an ignorant doofus.

[lacrew]

47. "you're really coming off as an ignorant doofus"

Name calling....the first sign you've got nothing left in the intellectual tank.

[Viking12]

48. Snappy comeback

When someone posts clearly ignorant statements, it's pretty easy draw the conclusion that they may be an ignorant doofus. Do yo have anymore made up facts? Because I have plenty of fuel left in the tank.

[lacrew]

49. Tell me about it

"When someone posts clearly ignorant statements, it's pretty easy draw the conclusion that they may be an ignorant doofus."

I have a secret: Mankind does not create 35% of the CO2 on the planet. You are being duped.

[Viking12]

50. It's closer to 40%, but thanks for playing.

Oh please, please tell me how the atmospheric concentrations of C02 increased from 280ppm to 392ppm without human contributions....I can't wait to hear this one.

Like I said to other other poster, learn a little about stocks and flows and get back to us. Until then, you may want to refrain from posting.

[lacrew]

51. If the streets are wet, it must be raining, right?

Causality isn't exactly a strong suit, I see.

Lets just say we live in a world, where co2 concentations have been as high as 7,000 ppm.

With or without mankind.

You have been tricked into looking at the results of one set of ice core data, from Russia, as the be all and end all of our knowledge of co2 concentrations. This data goes back less than a tenth of a percent of our earth's history...not exactly giving a representative sample. In fact, its just plain silly to use it in any sort of comparative way.

And you have been scared.

Here is a website, listing all of the absurd things that have been blamed on global warming: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Each one of these items likely represents a request for grant money.

Think about what real environmentsl good could have been done with that grant money. Imagine if all that brain power and money were applied towards more traditional environmental causes.

And the media gets in on the act too. After all, its sells papers, right? Here is a link to 100 years of scare journalism, relating to climate:

http://butnowyouknow.net/those-who-fail-to-learn-from-history/climate-change-timeline/

My grandparents were born into an era of cold alarmism.

My parents were born into an era of warming alarmism.

I was born in an era of cold alarmism.

My children were born into an era of warming alarmism.

And so it goes...I think I know what the headlines will be, about the time I have grandchildren.

We can have alarming affects on our environment. We dig canyons to mine minerals. We lop off the tops of mountains to mine coal. We pave river beds, and deny habitat to fish. These are all very real problems which can be seen every day. (just go to Google Earth and enter in mountaintop removal mining). I will concentrate on these endeavors, and leave the alarmism for people selling papers.

Go ahead, keep calling me dumb, and directing me not to post anymore. People who are drowning often try to take their rescuers down with them.

[Viking12]

52. So you are unable to explain the rise in CO2 concentrations independent of human activity.

As predicted.

This is usually what happens when I denier is confronted with reality. They go off the rails like you have and start the Gish Gallop. Thanks for playing.

[lacrew]

54. "I denier"

Classic

I'm sorry. It is very hard for me to disprove what is not proven.

You came up with the 35% contribution number.

And the only evidence is an anectdotal rise of 35%, with no causality established.

So far, there is no meat for me to pick at.

I don't know where you get 35%, and you certainly haven't divulged any sources...just called me names for using the commonly accepted number.

But lets look at the earth's greenhouse effect (parenthetically, we would not be here without it). What causes it?

Water Vapor: 95%
CO2: 3.6%
Methane: 0.36%
Nitrous Oxide: 0.95%
CFC's: 0.072%

Lets use your number, and assume man is responsible for 35% of all CO2...that would be 35% of 3.6%...or 1.26% of the whole.

Ok, so if we all exterminated ourselves, quit breathing, and stopped burning fuels, we would have a 1.26% impact on the greenhouse effect. I'm not going to sign up for that.

Even if you can make the leap of logic that man has any control over global temps, you then have to believe that warm temperatures are bad.

Why?

Has the earth been warmer than it is today? Yes.

Has it been colder than it is today? Yes

Then how do we determine what is the 'right' temperature?

I'm getting into some philosphical questions, which clearly you don't welcome.

You have been told: Man makes it warm. Warm scary.

...because that does sell the papers and keep the grant money flowing.

I chose not to succumb to scare journalism.

BTW, the term 'denier' is a perjorative, meant to silence me by creating an equivalency with a Holocaust denier. This term originated in Europe, where in some nations is is actually a criminal act to deny the Holocaust.

Time for some more philosophical introspection: You have responded to every one of my posts, with name calling, and directives that I stop posting. How does that make you feel about your argument?

I have graded debates...and I don't give many points for name calling.

[Viking12]

56. Yawn. More denier talking points.

Just to be clear. Pre-industrial concentrations of CO2 were 280ppm. Current levels are 40% higher than pre-industrial levels at 392ppm. The ~35% figure was a lowball reference to the increase playing off the 3.5% figure in the post to which I originally replied. The increase is all the result of human activities. There is nothing anecdotal about the rise is CO2 concentrations. The cause is well known. The physics of greenhouse gasses are well established. You are a denier, it is quite clear.

[lacrew]

60. "You are a denier"

More name calling

Less Substantive Response

You are relying on one report to base all of your decisions off of....if I were into name calling, I could point out how this makes the pot look very black.

You have been scared by cherry picked information.

Below, a paper discussing the other dozen or so records of CO2 concentrations:

http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/CO2%20Gas%20Analysis-Ernst-Georg%20Beck.pdf

"The physics of greenhouse gasses are well established" Well now, at least one of us has an extensive background in Physics ...and is a licensed Engineer...and (allow me to blow your mind) is LEED accredited....and apparently also an ignorant doofus for being scientifically inquisitive, and skeptical of science dished out to me by politicians.

One of us has a very closed mind. I know you won't go to my link (and probably haven't visited any of the ones I have put up). Its telling that you had no links to provide. I am also quite sure that you will have to get in a last word, calling me some name or another...so lay it on me. But hopefully, maybe, possibly, your mind might let a little sunlight in...and perhaps this will have been a valuable learning experience for you.

[Viking12]

61. LOL. You claim to be skeptical of politicians, then link to political websites.

Last edited Wed Mar 14, 2012, 07:32 PM - Edit history (1)

Engineers are not physicists, they're engineers, that's why they call them engineers. You're not inquisitive nor scientifically trained. Someone who was would be, oh I don't know, reading the actual scientific literature not the first result at the University of Google that links to a Canadian Denier site with an article written by a thorough discredited denier.

http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/Comment_E&E-on_Beck_Meijer_update.doc
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/Response-Beck-by-R-Keeling-2.doc

Since you appear to be limited to Google for your research, try this. Happy reading denier:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=pre+industrial+co2+concentration&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=oB9hT-mOGITW0QHF-P2sBw&ved=0CCgQgQMwAA

[Dead_Parrot]

62. It's interesting...

...that you've pulled out a paper that reviews CO₂ measurements but cuts off - by staggering coincidence - at the point where spectographic analysis becomes commonplace: You'd think Beck would want to run on by a few years to get some overlap, enabling us all to see how far out it was and appreciate how wild the swings really are, but noo....

It's even more interesting to see you make claims of cherry-picking at the same time.

[Viking12]

26. CO2 is both a feedback and a forcing...

When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to give up CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Conversely, when the Earth's orbital changes shift towards ice age, the oceans can absorb greater amounts of CO2, reducing the atmospheric concentrations and speeding up the glaciation.

[CAPHAVOC]

28. Maybe

It was the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. Nahh the Sun could not have anything to do with it....It was muscle cars. GTO and 442's.

[Dead_Parrot]

31. We know Earth's orbit to within a km

It hasn't changed. If you have some data that it has changed in the last few decades, there's a Nobel with your name on it waiting for you...

[NickB79]

13. It doesn't say that CO2 was higher 800,000 years ago

It says they can't find any evidence that CO2 levels were higher than today, going back 800,000 years. Beyond that they don't have the statistical accuracy from paleontological evidence to maintain their claim.

[CAPHAVOC]

6. Righto

Show me the science. Not politically or financially motivated. There is none. CO2 pollution is an unproven theory. Not worth my time of day. All this Global Warming stuff is a distraction from actual real pollution. That is my personal opinion. If we ever got the actual pollution under control call me.

[izquierdista]

15. If you pay me

When I teach science, I expect to get paid. When I do, I will separate facts from opinion, for no extra charge.

[Viking12]

16. Welcome to DU Mr. Santorum!

BTW, the solutions to the 'real' pollution to which you refer and the solutions CO2 happen to be one in the same.

[pscot]

24. You show me yours...

There's an stablished scientific consensus that climate change is real and that it's driven by CO2. You could read the IPCC report or the published findings of hundreds of scientists working on climate change. There are mountains of evidence. Nothing is keeping you from looking at it. The self-serving, politically or financially motivated junk is all coming from propagandists in the employ of the oil, coal and gas industries. There is no one getting rich sitting atop a Greenland glacier field drilling ice cores. You're opinion is irrelevant. If you want to challenge the science, you have to do it with science. So show us what you've got.

[CAPHAVOC]

38. Of course my opinion is irrelevant

I am just a regular. But I do know this. The weatherman is wrong more than he is right. Call me when they can get it right next week. Til then I do not want to hear about 20 year silly projections. By so called Scientists.

[neverforget]

63. I know! What have so-called scientists ever done for you? Isn't it a little ironic that

Last edited Wed Mar 14, 2012, 11:27 PM - Edit history (1)

as you type on a computer that is connected to the internet which uses electricity that you bash scientists?

[Dead_Parrot]

3. Out of interest...

When you say "I do not believe in CO2 Global Warming." are you saying you don't believe in CO₂, don't believe CO₂ causes warming, don't believe warming is happening, or all three?

[CAPHAVOC]

8. Well

Since you ask. I am asthmatic. Real smog screws me up bad. For 40 years I have used Primatine inhaler to help stop the attacks from real smog. But now it has been outlawed to prevent Global Warming. Little tiny inhalers. Forget it with these screwball theories that are all politically and financially motivated. I see real pollution in the Ocean. Not from CO2. Nobody cares. No I do not think extra CO2 from human activity is causing the Earth to overheat. I do think that pollution from all the uncontrolled human activity is ruining the environment. I think the CO2 is just a diversion. Meanwhile back in China....

[Dead_Parrot]

19. Well...

Primatine is going under the Montreal protocol - The propellant is a CFC which destroys the ozone layer. Global warming isn't really a factor in that. Apparently they're working on a hydrofluoroalkane version, so hopefully you'll be OK.

Other types of pollution are a real problem: You only have to look at the Pacific garbage gyre, or Love Canal, or practicly any river in China.

But these get noticed, and tend to be localised: Climate change is invisible, everywhere, and just as deadly.
You still haven't quite answered the question, BTW - is it that we're not producing that much CO₂, or that it doesn't cause warming?

[CAPHAVOC]

27. Phooey!

So pay for the new inhaler with an RX required that costs 5 times more...Phooey! And I like the pic of real and actual pollution. This CO2 crap is a diversion. You oughta take a stroll in Cap Haitian and the call me about CO2. And my tiny little cheap inhaler...Phooey!

[Dead_Parrot]

34. There's a moral in there...

...about one's quality of life relying on cheap stuff that fucks the environment. But since I'm just as guilty, It's making me uncomfortable....

[CAPHAVOC]

35. My

Little asthma inhaler does not fuck the environment. No way. No how. Not on a bet. Not a chance. And I can't afford the RX. So what's a Boy to do? Hack wheeze ugghh! This is insane. But believe me they will get to you in same way somehow. Not yet but they will. And you will not like it either. Now I have to go to the Doc. I have no insurance. Then get a RX. Then who knows how to pay for it....this sucks! I am poor. Barely making it. Just over the line. Ugghhh! I used it for 40 years. It was a lifesaver. Now what. Wheeze til 2014. No thanks.

[Dead_Parrot]

41. But yours is one of how many?

Could they have made an exception in Montreal for inhalers? Probably. Are they ripping you off with the replacement? I'll bet the mortgage on it. But, it's been around since 1963, and was used by 2 million people every day: It all adds up.

[XemaSab]

43. Ventolin's 5 bucks a pop in Mexico

[TupperHappy]

9. Won't speak for the other poster...

But I don't believe that the increase in CO2 is what has caused the recent warming period of the last 30-40 years. I believe that natural cycles have a much greater effect on global temperature, and that CO2, while it is a greenhouse gas, has a relatively small effect.

[NickB79]

14. Which natural cycle exactly are you referring to?

And why is it that no climate research organizations seem to be able to isolate it in their studies?

[Viking12]

21. Clealry, the God cycles.

Inhofe told him so.

[TupperHappy]

33. Ah yes, I must be a religious fanatic...

Because I don't mindlessly accept the mantra that "the science is settled".

I guess all the adherants of the Ptolemaic system also shrieked "the science is settled" even in the face of all the data to the contrary. Just add more epicycles and crystal spheres!


Here's just one alternate view: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/astronomical_harmonics.pdf

Here's the abstract: (emphasis added)

We compare the performance of a recently proposed empirical climate model based
on astronomical harmonics against all CMIP3 available general circulation climate
models (GCM) used by the IPCC (2007) to interpret the 20th century global surface
temperature. The proposed astronomical empirical climate model assumes that the
climate is resonating with, or synchronized to a set of natural harmonics that, in
previous works (Scafetta, 2010b, 2011b), have been associated to the solar system
planetary motion, which is mostly determined by Jupiter and Saturn. We show that
the GCMs fail to reproduce the major decadal and multidecadal oscillations found in
the global surface temperature record from 1850 to 2011. On the contrary, the
proposed harmonic model (which herein uses cycles with 9.1, 10–10.5, 20–21, 60–62
year periods) is found to well reconstruct the observed climate oscillations from 1850
to 2011, and it is shown to be able to forecast the climate oscillations from 1950 to
2011 using the data covering the period 1850–1950, and vice versa. The 9.1-year
cycle is shown to be likely related to a decadal Soli/Lunar tidal oscillation, while the
10–10.5, 20–21 and 60–62 year cycles are synchronous to solar and heliospheric
planetary oscillations. We show that the IPCC GCM's claim that all warming
observed from 1970 to 2000 has been anthropogenically induced is erroneous
because of the GCM failure in reconstructing the quasi 20-year and 60-year climatic
cycles. Finally, we show how the presence of these large natural cycles can be used
to correct the IPCC projected anthropogenic warming trend for the 21st century. By
combining this corrected trend with the natural cycles, we show that the temperature
may not significantly increase during the next 30 years mostly because of the
negative phase of the 60-year cycle. If multisecular natural cycles (which according
to some authors have significantly contributed to the observed 1700–2010 warming
and may contribute to an additional natural cooling by 2100) are ignored, the same
IPCC projected anthropogenic emissions would imply a global warming by about
0.3–1.2 °C by 2100, contrary to the IPCC 1.0–3.6 °C projected warming. The results
of this paper reinforce previous claims that the relevant physical mechanisms that
explain the detected climatic cycles are still missing in the current GCMs and that
climate variations at the multidecadal scales are astronomically induced and, in first
approximation, can be forecast.

[Viking12]

39. No, you must be a religious fanatic because you midlessly accept denialist nonsense

If you really want to debate science and be taken seriously, linking RW propaganda sites is not a good place to start.

[TupperHappy]

42. So you won't even entertain the notion...

That there could be an alternate explaination for global temperature cycles other than the U.S. has too many SUVs?

You do realize global temperatures have been basically flat for over a decade? That Arctic ice extant is within one standard deviation of the (IIRC) 2007 mean and rising? That the U.S. has not had a major hurricane strike since 2005, and that the rate of major tornado storms has been baiscally flat?

Oh no, the science is settled. And no matter the hide the declines and Glieckgates and Himalayan glaciers not melting by 2035. Anybody that says otherwise must be a religious fanatic.

[Viking12]

45. I'd happily entertain peer-reviewed scientific literature

there could be an alternate explaination for global temperature cycles other than the U.S. has too many SUVs?

There could be, but there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.

You do realize global temperatures have been basically flat for over a decade?

So what? You need the learn the difference between signal and noise.

http://tinyurl.com/7tq3mm5

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/

That Arctic ice extant is within one standard deviation of the (IIRC) 2007 mean and rising?

Barely within 2 standard deviations from the long term trend. Talk to me in September.


and rising? Fail. Again, you have signal to noise issues.


That the U.S. has not had a major hurricane strike since 2005, and that the rate of major tornado storms has been baiscally flat?

So what?

And no matter the hide the declines and Glieckgates and Himalayan glaciers not melting by 2035. Anybody that says otherwise must be a religious fanatic.

Well ,you certainly know the denier talking points. Senator Inhofe would be very proud of you.

[GliderGuider]

53. I think you're in the wrong room.

This is the science center. You want the Heartland Institute - it's down the hall on your right.

It must be an easy mistake to make - we get a few lost denialists wandering in with their pamphlets from time to time. No harm done, we need to be reminded how deep the delusions run.

[villager]

5. well then. I guess that means the rest of the planet can stop worrying about those climate shifts!

n/t

[OKIsItJustMe]

58. Wow! “CO2 just gives the polluters an easy target.”

Actually, CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] is kind of a hard target to hit.

For example, a coal plant can install a scrubber to capture mercury emissions, much more easily than they can capture CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] emissions.

[GopperStopper2680]

7. Carbon Dioxide-Enabled by Deforestation

Carbon Dioxide would not even be an issue if it were not for thousands of acres of runaway deforestation. All these convoluted debates about the cost and technical difficulty of 'carbon sequestration' are silly children's quarrels when you look at the fact that if we were not clearcutting environments like the Amazon and Northwest Woods the trees would take care of the CO2 for us. That is what they do and that's their purpose! Instant carbon sequestration with no diffulty or expense courtesy of nature itself.

[Viking12]

18. Ummm, no.

While deforestation does contribute in a small way to the atmospheric build up of CO2, simply reforesting those ares would not offset CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. The carbon that we're releasing took millions of years to be sequestered into the Earth's flora, we're releasing it all back in a matter of decades.

[GopperStopper2680]

10. Also..

As to whether or not CO2 is actually causing global warming I will not hazard to say. It is well known from the fossil record evidence that the Earth is usually a lot warmer than it has been for the last several hundred thousand years. In fact it could be said that we're in a period of minor glaciation. The Earth has cooling and warming cycles based on the activity of the sun. When the Earth is warmer it's a sign that the whole solar system is warmer.
To the politicians they definitely get an easy out by redirecting CERTAIN issues such as acid rain, nuclear waste, farm runoff, plastic reefs in the ocean, ozone holes, and you name it-by passing the buck onto CO2. I am not saying CO2 is not a problem. It could be even if it isn't. But if my community had elevated CO2 levels in the air and Frack Fluid in the water I know which one I would be more immediately concerned about..

[Viking12]

20. Also, no.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming-advanced.htm

[Dead_Parrot]

22. We've been watching the sun closely for some time

And it doesn't explain the changes we're seeing.

But if you're next to a fracking site, not having climate change as your top priority is understandable.

[CAPHAVOC]

29. I would consider the Frack Fluid pollution

I do not know what it is but it sounds tangible. Unlike CO2 gas.

[Dead_Parrot]

37. If you could see climate change, would it make a difference? nt

[CAPHAVOC]

44. Yes!

But I see the weather change all the time. The weatherman seems to miss it. The worst is the Marine Forecast. The best weatherman was George Carlin. So I do not buy the 20 year forecast. Not even the 2 day forecast.

[Dead_Parrot]

59. No, we need decades-long effects

Upsala Glacier, 1938 vs 2004


McCarthy Glacier, 1909 vs 2004


Dawson City, Yukon, Est 1897. The permafrost is melting out from under the buildings.


Vorkuta, Russia, Est 1932. Same thing.


after 4,000 years of occupation, Kiribati are negotiating to by land from Fiji as they now are regularly flooded out by tides:


Nearby Tuvalu are expected to come to NZ and Australia

[GliderGuider]

55. Looks like SOMEBODY left the window open again.

Now we're going to have to spray the place.

[Viking12]

57. kind of odd

How they all swarmed together in this particular thread.

[hatrack]

64. I was thinking that maybe a bridge fell over somewhere . . .

A very large bridge with a substantial population living underneath.

I mean, the weatherman argument again? Jesus Christ . . . .