Seth Borenstein reports that CO2 is rising at an accelerating pace
WASHINGTON – (AP) — The world’s air has reached what scientists call a troubling new milestone for carbon dioxide, the main global warming pollutant.
Monitoring stations across the Arctic this spring are measuring more than 400 parts per million of the heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. The number isn’t quite a surprise, because it’s been rising at an accelerating pace. Years ago, it passed the 350 ppm mark that many scientists say is the highest safe level for carbon dioxide. It now stands globally at 395.
Last year, Romm reported that CO2 was increasing “super-exponentially.” Yet when discussing Hansen’s 1988 predictions, they claim that Scenario B is closest to actual emissions.
Scenario A assumes continued exponential trace gas growth, scenario B assumes a reduced linear growth of trace gases, and scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000.
The term “reduced linear” doesn’t make any sense, but it certainly doesn’t mean “accelerating.” The only scenario which fits the description is scenario A.
I think what Jim meant, is “reduced emissions, resulting in a linear growth.”
Or something like that. Hard to tell with Jim.
When Jim was going to school, the shop teacher said, “noun” and the science teacher said, “adjective noun” for the same thing. Jim is merely building on what he sees as the “science talkin'” pattern.
It’s been too long since his last social science class or he would have recognized the “adjective adverb adjective noun” pattern.
50,000 ppm is the safe level :3
Steve,
😉
Help cure global warming. Fire all male experimenters.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/30/mans-touch-women-hotter-face-chest_n_1555460.html
Borenstein is still peddling the “CO2 traps heat” argument. Of course, nothing of the sort happens when atmospheric CO2 absorbs and emits, in all directions, long-wave infrared in the 15 micrometers frequency band. The process may cause an imperceptable delay in the radiation of heat from the atmosphere, but it doesn’t “trap heat” and warm the planet — at least not in a discernable or measurable way.
(Note: Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation (IR) in three narrow bands of frequencies,
which are 2.7, 4.3 and 15 micrometers (?M). This means that most of the heat
producing radiation escapes those aborption bands. About 8 percent of the available black body radiation is picked up by these “fingerprint” frequencies of CO2. Most heat energy escapes to space via convection.)
By the way, it is hardly possible for humans to “double atmospheric CO2,” given the fact that we are responsible for only three percent of the total. Most CO2 occurs naturally as the result of outgassing from the oceans caused by solar heating. The human contribution to warming (assuming it exists at all outside of the urban heat island effect) is mere background noise — a signal overwhelmed by solar effects and oceanic oscillations (and volcanism).
As Australian scientist Ian Plimer observes:
It is impossible for us skeptics to believe that the doubling of CO2 which causes a global average infrared (IR) radiation blockage to space ~3.7 Wm-2 for doubling of CO2 can be very much of a climate altering feature. Especially when we contrast this 3.7 Wm-2 IR blockage (from a doubling of CO2) with the much larger and continuous 342 Wm-2 average short-wave radiation impinging on the earth and the near balancing concomitant 342 Wm-2 net long-wave and solar (albedo) energy going back to space.
“Most heat energy escapes to space via convection.”
I am sure that you meant that a major portion of the heat in the lower troposphere escapes to the upper troposphere by convection and all heat escapes to space by long wave radiation. Long wave radiation from the upper troposphere is essential to the strong convection systems that characterize Earth’s atmosphere.
so what’s causing climate change?
What causes ice ages? What caused the dust bowl? What caused the drought which wiped out the Anasazi?
so what’s causing climate change?…….
…so far, nothing
Corrections to my previous post: The quote above is from Dr. William Gray of Colorado State University, not Ian Plimer. Also, man’s contribution to CO2 is now about 4 percent.
Haste makes waste.
Plimer, however, does make this observation:
If one imagines a length of the Earth’s atmosphere one kilometre long, 780 metres of this are made up of nitrogen, 210 are oxygen and 10 metres are water vapour (the largest greenhouse gas). Just 0.38 of a metre is carbon dioxide, to which human emissions contribute one millimetre.”
Kirk, you’re exactly correct. the 15 um is already covered by H2O and there it is saturated. The rest is so very narrow in the band that it’s like trying to heat a house in winter with a laser penlight…… with the window wide open! It is a preposterous proposition.
Now that Yale has stunned the green rent seeking world by announcing that the idea of providing more climate science information to scientifically literate people would make them accept CAGW was wrong and that it actually made them more skeptical, does this mean that Seth Boringstein has done more harm than good? It’s quite probable given that polls continue to indicate that climate change continues to decline as a major concern for Americans.
I am paying more attention to articles to see if people like Seth, an old dog, can learn new tricks and change their approach in reporting on climate change in the face of evidence provided by Yale. Based on this offering from Seth’s, it seems not. It’s the same old same old Boringstein formula of providing quotes from an expert to support Seth’s “fear meme” of the day. He then presents the unscientific thoughts of evil obstructionists at Cato and CEI and explains why they are inaccurate. As I said nothing new which means Seth has stayed the course of failed communication. Well done Seth you old dog, well done.
There is little acceleration in the rate of CO2 growth now. It has shifted to very close to a straight linear rate.
The longer-term trend is 2.04 ppm/yr and the rate is accelerating at 0.002 ppm/yr/yr. So in 5 years, the rate will increase to 2.05 ppm/yr and in 50 years it will be 2.14 ppm/yr. This is close enough to a linear rate.
Last year, however, the global CO2 level increased by only 1.85 ppm (a little more absorption by natural sinks than expected most likely given the rate of emission did not really slow).
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/
The high Arctic CO2 numbers have always been a little higher than the global level and Barrow Alaska has been over 400 ppm this winter.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=BRW&program=ccgg&type=ts
It would appear that the science behind the “settled science” is hardly settled. Or maybe is settled, that aside from the Urban Heat Island Effect there is little or no human contribution to “climate change”.
Andy:
The real human contribution to “Climate Change” is the WAGs provided by the so called researchers that claim humans are responsible for any climate change.
This brings up the ever present question: If the study of climate is all about constant changes in weather patterns, what situation would define “Climate Change”? A lack of change in weather patterns? 😉
You have to buy into a ‘fragile Earth’ hypothesis to worry about this, which also means being able to ignore a lot of other observations about the planet and its history
“Bill Illis says: May 31, 2012 at 5:03 pm
There is little acceleration in the rate of CO2 growth now. It has shifted to very close to a straight linear rate.
The high Arctic CO2 numbers have always been a little higher than the global level and Barrow Alaska has been over 400 ppm this winter.”
Gee. We were told by AGW/CC experts it’s been over a million years since the last time CO2 levels reached 400ppm.
Quick blame it on Santa. Get the EPA to close down his CO2 emitting toy factory somewhere at the North Pole. 🙂
Seth and those that defend Big Jim’s creations do more to dispel the myth of CAGW than any of us can because what they claim in defense is so easy to see through.
David A. Does a great deal for the realist side with all his delusions.