Record surge in CO2 in 2016

Deadlock

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2011
Messages
6,170
Very positive news.

More CO[SUB]2[/SUB] => more plant growth => healthier ecosystems
And more carbonic acid in the world oceans, less marine life.
And more retention of heat in the global atmosphere.

Great news altogther.
 


roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,330
So what caused the Ice Age? Increased carbon emissions?
No. Variations in Earth’s orbit alter the amount of energy Earth receives from the Sun.

However CO2 levels in the atmosphere always tracked closely those energy levels.




But your question is a strawman, as its logic is inadequate to these phenomena. You seem to be trying to postulate some linear "cause and effect". But that is not the way complex systems such as we are talking about behave. Rather, you find "cause and effect" diminishes, and instead you begin to observe such phenomena as emergence, spontaneous order, adaptation, and feedback loops, among other phenomena, as complexity of the system increases.

Of course, the complexity inherent in the "system" involved in planetary climate regulation is immense.
 

Volatire

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
13,550
Warmer, wetter, more CO2.

Plants gonna love this.
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,330
Warmer, wetter, more CO2.

Plants gonna love this.
Sure. Some plants very far north gonna be happy out.

But probably not the plants in the path of the encroaching expanding Sahara desert. (Which may have reached Europe by the middle of this century according to some predictions.)

Or the plants under water... Or even the plants far enough north, but affected by the the migration of millions of people from low-lying, too hot, regions like Bangladesh into northern Europe etc...

Why all the glib simplifications anyway? Is it just you like to bang on a preferred ideological drum, without care for the actual arguments?
 

Iarmuid

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,655
I would say, break out the Sackcloth and Ashes. Except that would raise CO2 even more. petunia

The shocker with 2016 is that CO2 is rising, but human emitted CO2 is not. Or just a bit. Not enough to make a fuss about, but just enough to employ thousands of scientists and rake in billions in "levies" and extra taxes.


Record surge in atmospheric CO2 seen in 2016 - BBC News

Concentrations of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere surged to a record high in 2016, according to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).
Last year's increase was 50% higher than the average of the past 10 years.le.

But all is well

Global carbon growth stalls as US coal continues to slump - BBC News


Declining consumption of coal in the US last year played a significant role in keeping down global emissions of carbon dioxide, according to a new report.
The Global Carbon Project annual analysis shows that CO2 emissions were almost flat for the third year in a row, despite a rise in economic growth.
The slowdown in the Chinese economy since 2012 has also been a key factor limiting carbon.
Experts believe it is too early to say if global CO2 emissions have peaked.
This is not entirely unexpected. El Nino occurs when ocean temperatures rise. The El Nino of 2016 was a particularly strong one comparable to the one in 1998. When ocean temperatures rise; CO2 is out gassed as a natural phenomena.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13428

El Niño and a record CO2 rise

Richard A. Betts, Chris D. Jones, Jeff R. Knight, Ralph F. Keeling & John J. Kennedy
AffiliationsCorresponding author
Nature Climate Change 6, 806–810 (2016) doi:10.1038/nclimate3063
Published online 13 June 2016

The recent El Niño event has elevated the rise in CO2 concentration this year. Here, using emissions, sea surface temperature data and a climate model, we forecast that the CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa will for the first time remain above 400 ppm all year, and hence for our lifetimes.
Also CO2 sinks are known to be increasing faster than expected, reconcile those two facts with the way in which this is actually reported.

Recent pause in the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 due to enhanced terrestrial carbon uptake
Trevor F Keenan, I. Colin Prentice, Josep G Canadell, Christopher A Williams, Han Wang, Michael Raupach & G. James Collatz

Published online:
08 November 2016
Corrigendum (14 July 2017)
Abstract
Terrestrial ecosystems play a significant role in the global carbon cycle and offset a large fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. The terrestrial carbon sink is increasing, yet the mechanisms responsible for its enhancement, and implications for the growth rate of atmospheric CO2, remain unclear. Here using global carbon budget estimates, ground, atmospheric and satellite observations, and multiple global vegetation models, we report a recent pause in the growth rate of atmospheric CO2, and a decline in the fraction of anthropogenic emissions that remain in the atmosphere, despite increasing anthropogenic emissions. We attribute the observed decline to increases in the terrestrial sink during the past decade, associated with the effects of rising atmospheric CO2 on vegetation and the slowdown in the rate of warming on global respiration. The pause in the atmospheric CO2 growth rate provides further evidence of the roles of CO2 fertilization and warming-induced respiration, and highlights the need to protect both existing carbon stocks and regions, where the sink is growing rapidly.
 
Last edited:

Volatire

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
13,550
Sure. Some plants very far north gonna be happy out.

But probably not the plants in the path of the encroaching expanding Sahara desert. (Which may have reached Europe by the middle of this century according to some predictions.)

Or the plants under water... Or even the plants far enough north, but affected by the the migration of millions of people from low-lying, too hot, regions like Bangladesh into northern Europe etc...

Why all the glib simplifications anyway? Is it just you like to bang on a preferred ideological drum, without care for the actual arguments?
Don’t you like plants?
 

Turbinator

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,866
Sure. Some plants very far north gonna be happy out.

But probably not the plants in the path of the encroaching expanding Sahara desert. (Which may have reached Europe by the middle of this century according to some predictions.)

Or the plants under water... Or even the plants far enough north, but affected by the the migration of millions of people from low-lying, too hot, regions like Bangladesh into northern Europe etc...

Why all the glib simplifications anyway? Is it just you like to bang on a preferred ideological drum, without care for the actual arguments?
Actually contrary to the hysterical rantings of the alarmists - the Sahara desert is actually shrinking as rainfall increases across the region in the past 20 years

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/10/25/contrary-to-what-you-hear-global-warming-has-been-good-to-africa/#26c2c54727f6


In 2009 scientists at Boston University examined satellite data and discovered a long-term shift from dryer to wetter conditions throughout the Sahara Desert. As reported by BBC News, “satellite images from the last 15 years do seem to show a recovery of vegetation in the Southern Sahara.”
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,330
Actually contrary to the hysterical rantings of the alarmists - the Sahara desert is actually shrinking as rainfall increases across the region in the past 20 years

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/10/25/contrary-to-what-you-hear-global-warming-has-been-good-to-africa/#26c2c54727f6


In 2009 scientists at Boston University examined satellite data and discovered a long-term shift from dryer to wetter conditions throughout the Sahara Desert. As reported by BBC News, “satellite images from the last 15 years do seem to show a recovery of vegetation in the Southern Sahara.”
Well that's very interesting. Indeed it shows it is extremely difficult to predict future outcomes.

But it does not refute the hypothesis of anthropogenic warming and accompanying hazard to humanity.

So just to take you up on the ideological fervour I detect in your post - you of course know that the overwhelming peer consensus among scientists who have immersed themselves in the question for most of their lifetime, is that warming exacerbated by humans is highly probable.

But you, an untrained dilettante, refer to this peer consensus as the "hysterical ranting of the alarmists"!

Why? - You seem to harness the internet to seek out and descend on articles like the above to reinforce your prejudice. -
However who are you to make a generalised judgement about the prevailing peer consensus? - It sounds ridiculous (to my ears at least).

No doubt, there are always fringe elements in a scientific community that go against the peer consensus. This is as it should be. - While science to meet certain professional standards must impose a framework of discipline, it must at the same time encourage (just) enough rebellion to foster the originality which is a part of the criterion of scientific merit.

But climate science in particular is beset by cranks, frauds and bunglers. The bulk of those contributions must be rejected if the scientific journals are not to be swamped by them. Especially if the conclusions of a paper appear to be unsound in the light of current scientific knowledge.

That is the function of the scientific peer community. So why are you, a random tosser on the internet, so vocal about the "hysterical rantings of the alarmists"? - What do you know about it? - What is it that excites you so much that you hand out these judgements, when you are so terribly unqualified to do so?

It is important that decisions are taken with respect to what is most probable, also taken together with the high risk and catastrophic outcomes involved if those probabilities are borne out by future events.
 

Trainwreck

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 6, 2012
Messages
26,416
Well that's very interesting. Indeed it shows it is extremely difficult to predict future outcomes.

But it does not refute the hypothesis of anthropogenic warming and accompanying hazard to humanity.
Exactly, an hypothesis. Get to work proving this "hazard to humanity".

While we are waiting, this observation completely falsifies the predictions of increased desertification in the Sahara, does it not? And we know this is a global observation - the earth is greening.


Next falsifying observation? No increase in extreme weather.

Next? No increase in drought.

Next? No acceleration in sea level.

Next? Not sufficiently high global temperature increase.

It goes on and on and on...



And yet more and more predictions - some of which already falsified, like this one - are used as the justification for "laws and regulations to avert catastrophe".

Guess what - there is still no evidence that catastrophe is going to befall.
 

roc_

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2009
Messages
6,330
... this observation completely falsifies the predictions of increased desertification in the Sahara, does it not? ....
The theory under discussion is anthropogenic warming.

It predicts a rise in global temperature corresponding with increased levels of CO2. It certainly never predicted a linear rate of warming. It predicted instability, and then a jump to a new equilibrium.

Now, how many observations have been made not only with respect to how in prehistory, global average temperature has consistently tracked atmospheric CO2 levels, but the weight of current data? e.g.

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-direct-observations.html

I suppose more to the point is what "cause" do you impute to the fact that scientific peer consensus is almost unanimous about the high probability of anthropogenic warming. I suppose the usual conspiracies you gravitate to?

Your argument seems to boil down to, let it happen, and then I will be convinced. "That is the only evidence that will satisfy me...".
 

valamhic

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
19,476
co2 is an essential gas for life, it is to be celebrated like a new child in the family
 

okibb

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
696
No. Variations in Earth’s orbit alter the amount of energy Earth receives from the Sun.

However CO2 levels in the atmosphere always tracked closely those energy levels.





But your question is a strawman, as its logic is inadequate to these phenomena. You seem to be trying to postulate some linear "cause and effect". But that is not the way complex systems such as we are talking about behave. Rather, you find "cause and effect" diminishes, and instead you begin to observe such phenomena as emergence, spontaneous order, adaptation, and feedback loops, among other phenomena, as complexity of the system increases.

Of course, the complexity inherent in the "system" involved in planetary climate regulation is immense.
Very interesting data.

The temperature graph especially so. I see a distinct periodicity in it and today's temperatures seem not to deviate from the pattern.
 
D

Deleted member 45466

No. Variations in Earth’s orbit alter the amount of energy Earth receives from the Sun.

However CO2 levels in the atmosphere always tracked closely those energy levels.




But your question is a strawman, as its logic is inadequate to these phenomena. You seem to be trying to postulate some linear "cause and effect". But that is not the way complex systems such as we are talking about behave. Rather, you find "cause and effect" diminishes, and instead you begin to observe such phenomena as emergence, spontaneous order, adaptation, and feedback loops, among other phenomena, as complexity of the system increases.

Of course, the complexity inherent in the "system" involved in planetary climate regulation is immense.
Complex systems typically express themselves in a non linear way, yes. It's worth noting that non linearity is incredibly difficult to model accurately.
 

cricket

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
13,786
I'm holding tough until Danny Healy Rea gives his verdict.
 

Turbinator

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 26, 2012
Messages
1,866
.[/I] So why are you, a random tosser on the internet, so vocal about the "hysterical rantings of the alarmists"? - What do you know about it? - What is it that excites you so much that you hand out these judgements, when you are so terribly unqualified to do so?

.[/I]

A lot more than a tosspot like you!!
 

Black Swan

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 18, 2014
Messages
5,462
Some part of me hopes that the biosphere collapses in my own lifetime. Just imagine how satisfying it would be (just before the end), to march the denialists out the back and brutally club them to death for their indiscretions. Wouldn't that be worth surviving for? :)
 
D

Deleted member 45466

Some part of me hopes that the biosphere collapses in my own lifetime. Just imagine how satisfying it would be (just before the end), to march the denialists out the back and brutally club them to death for their indiscretions. Wouldn't that be worth surviving for? :)
We're all responsible for the destruction of the planet.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top