CO2 Levels Grew at Record Pace in 2016

Visbek · Oct 31, 2017

For those who missed it: CO2 levels hit 403ppm in 2016.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dioxide-levels-grew-at-record-pace-in-2016/

Generation of CO2 was flat, but still at high levels; the most likely reason for the boost is the side effects of the 2016 El Nino. Plus, forests -- which normally act like carbon sinks -- are rapidly becoming carbon sources as we chop them down and burn the wood.

This is a CO2 level the planet hasn't hit in 3 to 5 million years. During that period, the atmosphere was 2-3C hotter, and sea levels were 10-20 meters higher. We should also note that it took thousands of years for CO2 levels to rise to that level during the Pliocene era, whereas the recent run-up took only a few decades. Meaning that yes, we have yet to see the full effects of such high levels of CO2.

Surface Detail · Oct 31, 2017

Yes, we've stomped the CO2 gas pedal to the floor, but the wheels are only just starting to gain traction. It's going to be a hairy ride for humanity.

longview · Oct 31, 2017

Visbek said:
For those who missed it: CO2 levels hit 403ppm in 2016.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dioxide-levels-grew-at-record-pace-in-2016/

Generation of CO2 was flat, but still at high levels; the most likely reason for the boost is the side effects of the 2016 El Nino. Plus, forests -- which normally act like carbon sinks -- are rapidly becoming carbon sources as we chop them down and burn the wood.

This is a CO2 level the planet hasn't hit in 3 to 5 million years. During that period, the atmosphere was 2-3C hotter, and sea levels were 10-20 meters higher. We should also note that it took thousands of years for CO2 levels to rise to that level during the Pliocene era, whereas the recent run-up took only a few decades. Meaning that yes, we have yet to see the full effects of such high levels of CO2.

Real data vs headlines is always interesting.
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
The growth rate page shows 2016 rate slightly lower than 2015's.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html
2.98 ppm per year vs 3.03 ppm per year.
The average of the the last 12 months ending with Sept 2017 was 2.58 ppm per year,
and while Oct will be lower, Nov and Dec will be higher, still one has to question the findings which
are saying something different than the actual data.

longview · Oct 31, 2017

Surface Detail said:
Yes, we've stomped the CO2 gas pedal to the floor, but the wheels are only just starting to gain traction. It's going to be a hairy ride for humanity.

The hairy ride will only occur if we attempt to ween society off of organic hydrocarbons before the
alternatives are prepared to take up the slack.
There are plenty of small things we can do, but any real impact will require transitioning transport
to carbon neutral resources.

Glen Contrarian · Oct 31, 2017

longview said:
Real data vs headlines is always interesting.
ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
The growth rate page shows 2016 rate slightly lower than 2015's.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html
2.98 ppm per year vs 3.03 ppm per year.
The average of the the last 12 months ending with Sept 2017 was 2.58 ppm per year,
and while Oct will be lower, Nov and Dec will be higher, still one has to question the findings which
are saying something different than the actual data.

But it's still a growth rate. That's the problem.

joG · Oct 31, 2017

Visbek said:
For those who missed it: CO2 levels hit 403ppm in 2016.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dioxide-levels-grew-at-record-pace-in-2016/

Generation of CO2 was flat, but still at high levels; the most likely reason for the boost is the side effects of the 2016 El Nino. Plus, forests -- which normally act like carbon sinks -- are rapidly becoming carbon sources as we chop them down and burn the wood.

This is a CO2 level the planet hasn't hit in 3 to 5 million years. During that period, the atmosphere was 2-3C hotter, and sea levels were 10-20 meters higher. We should also note that it took thousands of years for CO2 levels to rise to that level during the Pliocene era, whereas the recent run-up took only a few decades. Meaning that yes, we have yet to see the full effects of such high levels of CO2.

Yes. I saw that ten or twenty meters number. On the UN page they indicate far lower level rises more consistent with 100th of that. It can certainly be explained, but to sell the product less confusion would help.

But, what does it mean? Do we want to tax climate gases to the extent that they are phased out? That is the efficient way to do it. How much will that cost us compared to acceptin business as usual? How much less meat and more sugar will a middle class kids and seniors have to eat? If the tax is high enough to discourage cars and plaines and cows, it will be possible to reduce corporate and income taxes, of course. Will that offset the life style declice? Do you know?

joG · Oct 31, 2017

Surface Detail said:
Yes, we've stomped the CO2 gas pedal to the floor, but the wheels are only just starting to gain traction. It's going to be a hairy ride for humanity.

If it takes long enough, .... You know, what Keynes said about the long run.

Glen Contrarian · Oct 31, 2017

longview said:
The hairy ride will only occur if we attempt to ween society off of organic hydrocarbons before the
alternatives are prepared to take up the slack.
There are plenty of small things we can do, but any real impact will require transitioning transport
to carbon neutral resources.

Problem is, MOST conservatives don't want to do that. MOST conservatives (or at least, American conservatives) think that global warming is a hoax, or can't in any way be blamed on the gigatonnes of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere every year, or is part of some vast left-wing conspiracy to promote socialism.

The alternatives can only "pick up the slack" if we - including the conservatives - actually make the effort to promote those alternatives. Unfortunately, MOST American conservatives think that making any such effort is somehow...unAmerican.

longview · Oct 31, 2017

Glen Contrarian said:
But it's still a growth rate. That's the problem.

Why do the press fee the need to lie about it.
The data clearly shows the rate of growth has slowed for the last 1.8 years.
Why do they need an incorrect story now that says CO2 grew at a record pace,
when it can be proven that it did not?
Perhaps it is the Bonn 2017 UN climate change conference coming up in 6 days?

Glen Contrarian · Oct 31, 2017

joG said:
Yes. I saw that ten or twenty meters number. On the UN page they indicate far lower level rises more consistent with 100th of that. It can certainly be explained, but to sell the product less confusion would help.

But, what does it mean? Do we want to tax climate gases to the extent that they are phased out? That is the efficient way to do it. How much will that cost us compared to acceptin business as usual? How much less meat and more sugar will a middle class kids and seniors have to eat? If the tax is high enough to discourage cars and plaines and cows, it will be possible to reduce corporate and income taxes, of course. Will that offset the life style declice? Do you know?

Well, the problem is that as long as we don't join in with the rest of the world with addressing climate change, any corporate or income tax cuts will not come close to offsetting the lifestyle decline that WILL come with full-blown climate change.

AlbqOwl · Oct 31, 2017

Visbek said:
For those who missed it: CO2 levels hit 403ppm in 2016.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dioxide-levels-grew-at-record-pace-in-2016/

Generation of CO2 was flat, but still at high levels; the most likely reason for the boost is the side effects of the 2016 El Nino. Plus, forests -- which normally act like carbon sinks -- are rapidly becoming carbon sources as we chop them down and burn the wood.

This is a CO2 level the planet hasn't hit in 3 to 5 million years. During that period, the atmosphere was 2-3C hotter, and sea levels were 10-20 meters higher. We should also note that it took thousands of years for CO2 levels to rise to that level during the Pliocene era, whereas the recent run-up took only a few decades. Meaning that yes, we have yet to see the full effects of such high levels of CO2.

Though there are hundreds of billions more trees on the Earth than some of the doomsdayers had estimated not long ago, it is true that most paleoscientists believe there are far fewer trees now than there were before humans showed up. And we are depleting world forests faster than they are being replaced. So instead of focusing on fossil fuel elimination, why don't the AGW alarmists promoting CO2 reduction simply advocate for planting more trees? It doesn't require using less trees, but simply planting two for each one taken for whatever purposes. Wouldn't that be the simplest solution?

Another solution is encouraging third world populations to elevate themselves economically so that they too will be interested in preserving the environment aesthetically and practically. We who have a roof over our heads, enough to eat, our basic needs met, have the luxury to protect the Earth. The guy who is thinking if he just cleared one more acre of rain forest, he might be able to grow enough food or pasture enough livestock to feed his family for another year simply isn't going to care about global warming or much of anything else other than that.

longview · Oct 31, 2017

Glen Contrarian said:
Problem is, MOST conservatives don't want to do that. MOST conservatives (or at least, American conservatives) think that global warming is a hoax, or can't in any way be blamed on the gigatonnes of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere every year, or is part of some vast left-wing conspiracy to promote socialism.

The alternatives can only "pick up the slack" if we - including the conservatives - actually make the effort to promote those alternatives. Unfortunately, MOST American conservatives think that making any such effort is somehow...unAmerican.

The current alternatives lack the density and the duty cycle to fill the requirements.

As to the CO2, while we hear all sorts of doom and gloom stories, the actual data is considerable
less concerning.
It is true the CO2 has been steadily increasing, even accelerating, but the central parameter of AGW,
the net energy entering and leaving earth, has been steady or declining slightly,
per the CERES satellite data.
Besides that we are seeing a large amount of extra greening of the planet.
More arable land, longer growing seasons, generally a more livable world.
Within a decade or two we will stop using organic oil for fuel, because more profitable
alternatives will be available.
Until those yet to be identified alternatives are available and ready for production,
We should avoid knee jerk reactions which could kill countless millions of people.

Glen Contrarian · Oct 31, 2017

longview said:
The current alternatives lack the density and the duty cycle to fill the requirements.

As to the CO2, while we hear all sorts of doom and gloom stories, the actual data is considerable
less concerning.
It is true the CO2 has been steadily increasing, even accelerating, but the central parameter of AGW,
the net energy entering and leaving earth, has been steady or declining slightly,
per the CERES satellite data.
Besides that we are seeing a large amount of extra greening of the planet.
More arable land, longer growing seasons, generally a more livable world.
Within a decade or two we will stop using organic oil for fuel, because more profitable
alternatives will be available.
Until those yet to be identified alternatives are available and ready for production,
We should avoid knee jerk reactions which could kill countless millions of people.

That's magical thinking. Why? Because along with that warming comes a significant rise in the sea level and areas of the planet that become too hot for human habitation. In other words, there's will be not just tens, but hundreds of millions of people who will be moving away from coastal cities and away from too-hot-to-live areas, and they will be moving to places where they can live.

And guess what happens with mass human migrations like this? Ask the Syrians what happened when a few million Iraqis moved in....

joG · Oct 31, 2017

Glen Contrarian said:
But it's still a growth rate. That's the problem.

Climate gas exhaust decline best, when the economy shrinks.

longview · Oct 31, 2017

Glen Contrarian said:
That's magical thinking. Why? Because along with that warming comes a significant rise in the sea level and areas of the planet that become too hot for human habitation. In other words, there's will be not just tens, but hundreds of millions of people who will be moving away from coastal cities and away from too-hot-to-live areas, and they will be moving to places where they can live.

And guess what happens with mass human migrations like this? Ask the Syrians what happened when a few million Iraqis moved in....

The nature of the observed warming is such that tropics are staying about the same, while the plant hardiness zones are expanding.
Syria is a good example of overuse of water resources.
Sea level do not seem to be following the rules defined by the IPCC.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
A.C. Clark

Dirt Sands · Oct 31, 2017

Visbek said:
For those who missed it: CO2 levels hit 403ppm in 2016.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dioxide-levels-grew-at-record-pace-in-2016/

Generation of CO2 was flat, but still at high levels; the most likely reason for the boost is the side effects of the 2016 El Nino. Plus, forests -- which normally act like carbon sinks -- are rapidly becoming carbon sources as we chop them down and burn the wood.

This is a CO2 level the planet hasn't hit in 3 to 5 million years. During that period, the atmosphere was 2-3C hotter, and sea levels were 10-20 meters higher. We should also note that it took thousands of years for CO2 levels to rise to that level during the Pliocene era, whereas the recent run-up took only a few decades. Meaning that yes, we have yet to see the full effects of such high levels of CO2.

Republicans don't care because they want to be able to sell as clean air. After all it's a privilege not a right.

Sent from my Z833 using Tapatalk

Glen Contrarian · Oct 31, 2017

longview said:
The nature of the observed warming is such that tropics are staying about the same, while the plant hardiness zones are expanding.
Syria is a good example of overuse of water resources.
Sea level do not seem to be following the rules defined by the IPCC.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
A.C. Clark

Um, no. Try asking Australia how temps along their northern climate have been over the past decade. Same thing for the Middle East. These are things that right-wing media won't tell you because it doesn't fit with their narrative.

And when it comes to sea level rise,

Glen Contrarian · Oct 31, 2017

joG said:
Climate gas exhaust decline best, when the economy shrinks.

Yes...and no. When the economy shrinks, that makes it harder to invest in renewable, zero-carbon energy sources...whereas the experience of several states has shown that investment in solar and wind power is very profitable indeed. From the Iowa newspaper The Gazette:

A 2015 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics fastest-growing occupations report projects wind turbine service technicians to see the highest rate of growth for any career in the nation. The report forecasts a 108 percent growth in the occupation over a 10-year span — from 4,400 jobs in 2014 to 9,200 jobs in 2024.

Median pay for a wind turbine service technician in 2015 was $51,000 a year, according to the report.

A GROWING INDUSTRY

Much of the strength of Iowa’s wind industry can be tied to the Federal Production Tax Credit, an inflation-adjusted per-kilowatt-hour tax credit. The federal incentive program provides tax credits for energy generated by qualified renewable sources, such as wind.

Wind jobs dropped significantly in 2013, for example, due to layoffs following delays in the credit’s 2013 renewal. A December 2014 Iowa Advanced Energy Employment Survey showed Iowa’s wind-power workforce in 2014 represented a decline of as much as 50 percent of the jobs that were added in 2011 and 2012.

That decline “resulted in a 90 percent drop in wind industry revenue in 2013,” according to the survey.

The industry started to bounce back after the credit was renewed and, in late 2015, lawmakers signed a multiyear extension of the credit through 2019.

longview · Oct 31, 2017

Glen Contrarian said:
Um, no. Try asking Australia how temps along their northern climate have been over the past decade. Same thing for the Middle East. These are things that right-wing media won't tell you because it doesn't fit with their narrative.

And when it comes to sea level rise,

The climate is and has been warming, the sea level are and have been raising.
The relationship to CO2 is becoming questionable.
The closest apparent link is between CO2 and warming, but that would result from
CO2 causing a top of atmosphere energy imbalance, which does not appear to be happening.
On your sea level chart, notice how there does not appear to be a change in slope over the entire record?
I also have to question why NOAA choose only 23 tide gauge records for their average, they have hundreds.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html
Also consider that your sea level graph shows an increase of 20 cm per century,
meaning it would take another 400 years to get to one meter of sea level rise.
Many alarmist claim the 2100 sea level rise will be 100 cm (1 meter),
so we need to increase 80 cm in 83 years, or a rate of 96 cm per century.

joG · Oct 31, 2017

Glen Contrarian said:
Well, the problem is that as long as we don't join in with the rest of the world with addressing climate change, any corporate or income tax cuts will not come close to offsetting the lifestyle decline that WILL come with full-blown climate change.

Thing is that the treaties aren't enough binding. Take germany. They signed it and their emissions have begun rising again.
Also, climate is not our most pressing problem at present. That is an other global public good that is increasingly threatening to survival and set to catch up with us much earlier. We do not have the money for both.
Also, the technology to reign in or replace climate gasses have made so much progress that many of them are competitive with conventional production and others will be so soon enough. This is true at least for power production and will become so for other sectors. It should be a business decision soon. So forget the political issue mode and think about what Clinton said about those that don't know it's about the economy.

joG · Oct 31, 2017

Glen Contrarian said:
Yes...and no. When the economy shrinks, that makes it harder to invest in renewable, zero-carbon energy sources...whereas the experience of several states has shown that investment in solar and wind power is very profitable indeed. From the Iowa newspaper The Gazette:

A 2015 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics fastest-growing occupations report projects wind turbine service technicians to see the highest rate of growth for any career in the nation. The report forecasts a 108 percent growth in the occupation over a 10-year span — from 4,400 jobs in 2014 to 9,200 jobs in 2024.

Median pay for a wind turbine service technician in 2015 was $51,000 a year, according to the report.

A GROWING INDUSTRY

Much of the strength of Iowa’s wind industry can be tied to the Federal Production Tax Credit, an inflation-adjusted per-kilowatt-hour tax credit. The federal incentive program provides tax credits for energy generated by qualified renewable sources, such as wind.

Wind jobs dropped significantly in 2013, for example, due to layoffs following delays in the credit’s 2013 renewal. A December 2014 Iowa Advanced Energy Employment Survey showed Iowa’s wind-power workforce in 2014 represented a decline of as much as 50 percent of the jobs that were added in 2011 and 2012.

That decline “resulted in a 90 percent drop in wind industry revenue in 2013,” according to the survey.

The industry started to bounce back after the credit was renewed and, in late 2015, lawmakers signed a multiyear extension of the credit through 2019.

Tax credits is almost certainly the wrong way to go. The only reason governments have taken that route is because they were afraid of the optimal ones.

Yes. A number of technologies that replace power production with coal etc have been becoming competitive under certain circumstances. That is why it is increasingly no longer a political issue as a business one. Automotive is yet that far, but it is improving.

flogger · Oct 31, 2017

Visbek said:
For those who missed it: CO2 levels hit 403ppm in 2016.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dioxide-levels-grew-at-record-pace-in-2016/

Generation of CO2 was flat, but still at high levels; the most likely reason for the boost is the side effects of the 2016 El Nino. Plus, forests -- which normally act like carbon sinks -- are rapidly becoming carbon sources as we chop them down and burn the wood.

This is a CO2 level the planet hasn't hit in 3 to 5 million years. During that period, the atmosphere was 2-3C hotter, and sea levels were 10-20 meters higher. We should also note that it took thousands of years for CO2 levels to rise to that level during the Pliocene era, whereas the recent run-up took only a few decades. Meaning that yes, we have yet to see the full effects of such high levels of CO2.

Given the optimal level for crop growth is some three times the level of CO2 we have today then this is all good. Yields will keep increasing and the earth will continue getting ever greener just like it has for the last 35 years :thumbs:

Threegoofs · Oct 31, 2017

joG said:
Yes. I saw that ten or twenty meters number. On the UN page they indicate far lower level rises more consistent with 100th of that. It can certainly be explained, but to sell the product less confusion would help.

But, what does it mean? Do we want to tax climate gases to the extent that they are phased out? That is the efficient way to do it. How much will that cost us compared to acceptin business as usual? How much less meat and more sugar will a middle class kids and seniors have to eat? If the tax is high enough to discourage cars and plaines and cows, it will be possible to reduce corporate and income taxes, of course. Will that offset the life style declice? Do you know?

The longer we delay action, the more painful the cuts will need to be.

That's kinda the whole point.

Glen Contrarian · Oct 31, 2017

joG said:
Thing is that the treaties aren't enough binding. Take germany. They signed it and their emissions have begun rising again.
Also, climate is not our most pressing problem at present. That is an other global public good that is increasingly threatening to survival and set to catch up with us much earlier. We do not have the money for both.
Also, the technology to reign in or replace climate gasses have made so much progress that many of them are competitive with conventional production and others will be so soon enough. This is true at least for power production and will become so for other sectors. It should be a business decision soon. So forget the political issue mode and think about what Clinton said about those that don't know it's about the economy.

So if Germany hasn't cut emissions, therefore we shouldn't even try to do so?

When you look at what the scientists are pointing out will happen and realize that they are not making this stuff up as part of some vast left wing conspiracy, but that they are quite serious, you soon realize that the only greater threat over which mankind has any control is that of nuclear war. Why? When the seas rise and the cities are swamped (and the majority of the world's population lives close to the sea), there will be hundreds of millions of "climate refugees" looking for someplace else to live. Add to that the fact that areas of the planet near the equator will become so hot as to be nearly unlivable...and suddenly we have more climate refugees. And what happens when hundreds of millions of people are displaced? Social disorder...and eventually, war.

This is not a political game - it's scientific fact. It's long past time y'all realized that.

holbritter · Oct 31, 2017

AlbqOwl said:
Though there are hundreds of billions more trees on the Earth than some of the doomsdayers had estimated not long ago, it is true that most paleoscientists believe there are far fewer trees now than there were before humans showed up. And we are depleting world forests faster than they are being replaced. So instead of focusing on fossil fuel elimination, why don't the AGW alarmists promoting CO2 reduction simply advocate for planting more trees? It doesn't require using less trees, but simply planting two for each one taken for whatever purposes. Wouldn't that be the simplest solution?

Another solution is encouraging third world populations to elevate themselves economically so that they too will be interested in preserving the environment aesthetically and practically. We who have a roof over our heads, enough to eat, our basic needs met, have the luxury to protect the Earth. The guy who is thinking if he just cleared one more acre of rain forest, he might be able to grow enough food or pasture enough livestock to feed his family for another year simply isn't going to care about global warming or much of anything else other than that.

Agreed. According to the World Watch Institute, agriculture is the largest contributor to CO2 emissions, with deforestation being another large contributor. The amount of emissions from agriculture is climbing at a slower rate than most though.

Livestock contribute to global emissions in other ways as well. Manure deposited and left on pastures is a major source of nitrous oxide emissions because of its high nitrogen content. When more nitrogen is added to soil than is needed, bacteria convert the extra nitrogen into nitrous oxide and release it into the atmosphere. Emissions from manure on pasture in Asia, Africa, and South America together account for as much as 81 percent of global emissions from this source. These emissions from the three regions increased 42 percent on average between 1990 and 2010, reflecting an increase in range-based livestock populations; elsewhere, these emissions either decreased or stagnated.

Carbon dioxide emissions from cultivated organic soils account for some 14 percent of total agricultural emissions, with Asia contributing 54 percent of these emissions. Deforestation and clearing for agricultural land in many tropical South and Southeast Asian countries are a leading cause of these emissions. Asia is home to four out of the top five countries with the highest CO2 emissions from cultivated organic soils, with Indonesia contributing 279 million tons, Papua New Guinea 41 million tons, Malaysia 35 million tons, and Bangladesh 31 million tons.

I think it's ironic that cultivated organic soils contribute so much. And other countries need to be doing their part.

Agriculture and Livestock Remain Major Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions | Worldwatch Institute

CO2 Levels Grew at Record Pace in 2016

Visbek

Stuck In The Circle

Surface Detail

longview

longview

Glen Contrarian

joG

joG

Glen Contrarian

longview

Glen Contrarian

AlbqOwl

longview

Glen Contrarian

joG

longview

Dirt Sands

Well-known member

Glen Contrarian

Glen Contrarian

longview

joG

joG

flogger

Threegoofs

Sophisticated man-about-town

Glen Contrarian

holbritter