Staying with the terrible news that we are now above 400 ppm atmospheric CO2.
If there is anything of comfort to be drawn from the news that we are above 400 ppm CO2 it is that the mainstream media are running with it. I shall focus on the reportage from the BBC News website.
First, there was the news of the passing of that “symbolic mark”.
10 May 2013Last updated at 11:39 ET
Carbon dioxide passes symbolic mark
Key measurements are made on top of the Mauna Loa volcano
Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have broken through a symbolic mark.
Daily measurements of CO2 at a US government agency lab on Hawaii have topped 400 parts per million for the first time.
The station, which sits on the Mauna Loa volcano, feeds its numbers into a continuous record of the concentration of the gas stretching back to 1958.
The last time CO2 was regularly above 400ppm was three to five million years ago – before modern humans existed.
Scientists say the climate back then was also considerably warmer than it is today.
Carbon dioxide is regarded as the most important of the manmade greenhouse gases blamed for raising the temperature on the planet over recent decades.
Then David Shukman, Science editor BBC News added this further background, that I am going to republish in full:
David Shukman
Near the summit of the Mauna Loa volcano, the carbon dioxide monitors stand amid one of the world’s remotest huddles of scientific instruments. To reach them you have to leave the steamy Hawaii coast and climb through barren lava-fields.
At the top, above 11,000ft, the air is thin and the sun piercing. During my visit, I watched rain clouds boiling in the valleys below me. Charles David Keeling chose this otherworldly spot because the air up here is neither industrial nor pristine; it is “well-mixed” which means it can serve as a useful guide to changes in the atmosphere.
Despite their global significance, the devices he installed back in 1958 do not look impressive. But he battled bureaucratic objections to fund them and his legacy is the longest continuous record of a gas, linked to much of global warming, that just keeps rising.
Scientists are calling on world leaders to take action on climate change after carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere broke through a symbolic threshold.
Daily CO2 readings at a US government agency lab on Hawaii have topped 400 parts per million for the first time.
Sir Brian Hoskins, the head of climate change at the UK-based Royal Society, said the figure should “jolt governments into action”.
China and the US have made a commitment to co-operate on clean technology.
But BBC environment analyst Roger Harrabin said the EU was backing off the issue, and cheap fossil fuels looked attractive to industries.
The laboratory, which sits on the Mauna Loa volcano, feeds its numbers into a continuous record of the concentration of the gas stretching back to 1958.
‘Sense of urgency’
Carbon dioxide is regarded as the most important of the manmade greenhouse gases blamed for raising the temperature on the planet over recent decades.
Human sources come principally from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas.
Ministers in the UK have claimed global leadership in reducing CO2 emissions and urged other nations to follow suit.
But the official Climate Change Committee (CCC) last month said that Britain’s total contribution towards heating the climate had increased, because the UK is importing goods that produce CO2 in other countries.
Rest of that news article is here. But I can’t resist the picture and quote from Professor Sir Brian Hoskins, director of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change at Imperial College London.
Sir Brian Hoskins said a greater sense of urgency was needed
“A greater sense of urgency was needed.” I’m going to be emotional! Frankly, those wishy-washy words are pathetic.
We need the sort of words that George Monbiot penned a few days ago. Those I will share with you tomorrow.
In terms of his potential influence upon UK government and policy, Sir Brian Hoskins is possibly one of the most important scientists in the UK. Sadly, he is far more likely to be listened to than is George Monbiot. Even more sadly, however, recent history suggests that both Hoskins and Monbiot are being ignored by governments who seem determined to burn all the Earth’s fossil fuels simply because we can (and because the fossil fuel industry promises to the impossible – solving the problem via carbon capture and storage – simply to perpetuate their own existence).
Sadly, I think we will have to wait much longer than 6 months for those in denial to face reality. Meanwhile, the highest CO2 levels for 3 million years is just the Overture to a much bigger tragedy:
now NOAA is reporting a cross of the 400ppm line again
NOAA who were the only organisation to show a daily CO2 reading over 400ppm which was later corrected, downward are now showing a reading over 400ppm
May 13th 400.07 ..on their website now http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html
– that figure is 0.0175% over 400 so I would still say that is not outside the margin of error
– hang on, I just checked the Scripps reading for the same day using the same instruments “May 13, 2013 reading not available Data too variable”
Can a I suggest that Stewgreen needs to ruminate on this (slide 4 of 6 especially)? However, if The Guardian newspaper is considered merely an eco-Marxist mouthpiece, perhaps Stew will be willing to consider the facts of history and where we are currently heading? After nearly a million years of CO2 fluctuating between 180 and 280 ppm, the burning of fossil fuels will, unless we choose to change our current trajectory, result in 1000 ppm of CO2 by the end of this Century. The fact that levels fluctuate by fractions of a ppm on a daily, weekly and annual basis is therefore utterly irrelevant.
– NEWS just checked again the NOAA May 12th reading has been downgraded to 399.4
– but now they report May 14 as the first day EVER over 400 at 400.03
Scrips’s/Keeling say May 14 399.58 : parts per million (ppm) CO2 in air
– so it wouldn’t surprise me if the NOAA May 14th is soon downgraded also
– The fact that news media like the Guardian get it wrong like rush to shout CO2 is over 400ppm when the it actually wasn’t cos the reading had not been confirmed and was later downgraded..and they fail to correct their stories tells us a lot about their credibility.
oops I blinked ..yes it has been re-adjusted downwards so CO2 has STILL NOT crossed the 400ppm line
NOAA Last 5 days of preliminary daily average CO2
May 15 – 399.59 May 14 – 399.97 May 13 – 399.98 May 12 – 399.48 May 11 – 399.45
notice how the official page says PRELIMINARY
Scripps/Keeling Twitterfeed also all below 400ppm
– Your original point is “oh my God CO2 is crossing 400ppm” the only point is that although it will inevitably cross 400ppm next year it is hasn’t yet and for 98%-100% of the rest of the days until February 2014 ..so that should make you happy.
– The cause and effect on global temperature is another matter.
– Personally “I don’t know things are full colour complex not black and white simple”, so future climate could be any scenario and I cannot say that the chance of lower temperatures is any different from the chance of higher temperatures”
– In 1998 what was your prediction of 2013 global temperature and degree of confidence ?
(remember the stock exchange warning “past performance is no indication of future performance”)
Not sure how to respond so will leave it for a while as the demands of the day over here in Oregon are taking me, quite rightly, away from the computer.
Stew, as it happens, a reply I left to a later post is the reply I want to offer you. Namely,
Oakwood, do you follow Damn the Matrix? If not you may find this recent post about as compelling as it gets. That post concludes:
The active disinformation agents think that they are playing a game. Their game risks all of our lives, especially the lives of future generations. If you encounter any ‘doubters’, please ask them just how much more ‘proof’ they are going to need? If they can’t or won’t answer then you’ll know that they are in denial, or worse.
It’s called projection when some one or group projects their own flaws onto someone else.
– I have already told you above science works when the 2 conditions are met that 1. The is a plausible method, and 2. when that is backed up by replicated PROPER experimental observation. At that stage you can produce models/theories which predict accurately will happen in reality. This is what happened with the Ulcers caused by bacteria theory. which replaced the ulcers are caused by stress theory,. This is also what happens with evolution, you can good predictions of what will happen. This has not happened with the “cult of Gore”. The “too smooth to be true” exponential graphs going ever upward have not happened after 1998. There are countless other prediction failures like ice-free Artic and sea level rise , death of the great barrier Reef etc.
– Now I in turn ask you what would you accept ? How do falsify the theory that 1.There will certainly be a Climate catastophe and that 2. That it will be caused by Man made CO2. Or maybe state your alternative CLEAR definition.
– Either way good science since Popper relies on people not proving themselves “right”, but rather rigourously testing their own theory and trying to prove themselves WRONG. That is why every theory has terms of FALSIFICATION. So what would falsify your theory ? What if global temperatures are OK in 100 years time and haven’t run away , so what about or 50 years time or 30 years time
.. Maybe state your percentage certainties or possible future scenarios and your justification for them.
– Note it is not upto atheists to prove God doesn’t exist ..you can’t prove an existential negative. It is up to believers to prove there is a God
– Beware of false dichotomy .. it’s an easy debate tactic to say there are only 2 possible viewpoints and then project someobne who disagrees to the extreme of the scale and so dismiss them.
– Now back to projection I should point out that with that the skeptics side is vastly under resourced when the warmist side has “multi-national eco-activist lobby charities” with more than $1bn annual budget each, aswell as huge government resources and masses of paid PR professionals who run tightly controlled sites like Non-Skeptical Non-Science where comment is censored , note even Bill Mckibben is well paid ..then look at the skeptic side : there is open discussion, comments are not censored and the main players not paid (Antony Watts & Andrew Montford, Joanna Nova etc.)
– Please ask yourself if you are trapped inside a cult. ..good to see you are thinking ..byee
– It is not a game ..Climate hysteria has already killed people in the UK, and is costing normal real money due to ridculous Green subsidies ..aswll as having a serious effect on the ecomnomies of countries that conform as opposed to those that take the business.
– “If they can’t or won’t answer then you’ll know that they are in denial, or worse.” ..There you go i already answered that bit. I find it offensive when debaters try tactics like namecalling to demean people who don’t “just accept” their views. Don’t you think it basically shows that they have lost the debate ?
– Is it acceptable for a believers in Gods to call non-believers deniers ?
– It’s about 12 years since I came out the other side of the green tunnel and into the light. People usually go the easy way of believing first, before they get into the complexity of reality
A research paper published in Nature Geoscience (Otto et al, 2013) led to a fair amount of media coverage yesterday, including articles in the Guardian, BBC and an opinion piece by Matt Ridley in The Times (this article is behind a pay wall).
The research paper looked at a ‘best estimate’ of the warming expected when the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere is doubled over pre-industrial levels (known as the Transient Climate Response).
Alexander Otto, Research Fellow in Climate Decisions at the Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, was the lead author of the research.
He has written an article discussing the science and the implications of the research which can be seen on the Research News pages on our website.
Here is a short extract from Alexander Otto’s article :
“We published a paper in Nature Geoscience on Sunday giving a new best-estimate of 1.3°C for the Transient Climate Response, or the warming expected at the time carbon dioxide reaches double its pre-industrial concentration, using data from the most recent climate observations.
This best-estimate is lower than the HadGEM2 [one of the Met Office climate models] TCR value of 2.5°C and it is also 30% lower than the multi-model average of 1.8°C of the CMIP5 models used in the current IPCC assessment. Does this mean that the Met Office’s advice to government is based on a flawed model? Certainly not.
It is well acknowledged by all that the HadGEM2 model is at the top end of the range of TCR values in CMIP5, but we need a diverse range of TCR values to represent the uncertainties in our understanding of climate system processes. And the Met Office’s advice to government, like any solid policy advice, is based on the range of results from different models, not just their own.
…
The ‘warming pause’ over the recent decade does not show that climate change is not happening. And it certainly does not mean that climate scientists are “backing away” from our fundamental understanding.
Every new decade of data brings new information that helps reduce uncertainties in climate forecasts. In some ways, the picture changes surprisingly slowly for such an intensely scrutinised problem… This study highlights the importance of continued careful monitoring of the climate system, and also the dangers of over-interpreting any single decade’s worth of data.”
Learning from Dogs 
some good news the 400ppm limit was not crossed .. figure has QUIETLY been corrected to 399.89
– Scripps Keeling’s latest figs are on their Twitter feed – https://twitter.com/Keeling_curvefrom
– NOAA – http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html
..both figures tend to be about 72 hours late for some reason
.. Both are from the La Moana station in Hawaii. Only the NOAA reading was reported as being above 400 on Thursday .. the last 3 days of readings have dropped to 399.41 (around now is always the peak time of the year for CO2)
LA Times : http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-carbon-dioxide-400-20130513,0,7196126.story
LikeLike
Thanks Stew, nice to make the connection.
LikeLike
In terms of his potential influence upon UK government and policy, Sir Brian Hoskins is possibly one of the most important scientists in the UK. Sadly, he is far more likely to be listened to than is George Monbiot. Even more sadly, however, recent history suggests that both Hoskins and Monbiot are being ignored by governments who seem determined to burn all the Earth’s fossil fuels simply because we can (and because the fossil fuel industry promises to the impossible – solving the problem via carbon capture and storage – simply to perpetuate their own existence).
LikeLike
I could think of alternative words to ‘sadly’! But we won’t have to wait for too many years to learn the words that would have been appropriate!
LikeLike
Sadly, I think we will have to wait much longer than 6 months for those in denial to face reality. Meanwhile, the highest CO2 levels for 3 million years is just the Overture to a much bigger tragedy:
LikeLike
now NOAA is reporting a cross of the 400ppm line again
NOAA who were the only organisation to show a daily CO2 reading over 400ppm which was later corrected, downward are now showing a reading over 400ppm
May 13th 400.07 ..on their website now http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html
– that figure is 0.0175% over 400 so I would still say that is not outside the margin of error
– hang on, I just checked the Scripps reading for the same day using the same instruments “May 13, 2013 reading not available Data too variable”
LikeLike
Surely there is no margin of error over the trend!
LikeLike
Can a I suggest that Stewgreen needs to ruminate on this (slide 4 of 6 especially)? However, if The Guardian newspaper is considered merely an eco-Marxist mouthpiece, perhaps Stew will be willing to consider the facts of history and where we are currently heading? After nearly a million years of CO2 fluctuating between 180 and 280 ppm, the burning of fossil fuels will, unless we choose to change our current trajectory, result in 1000 ppm of CO2 by the end of this Century. The fact that levels fluctuate by fractions of a ppm on a daily, weekly and annual basis is therefore utterly irrelevant.
LikeLike
Couldn’t argue with either your words or your sentiments. Stew, want to respond?
LikeLike
– NEWS just checked again the NOAA May 12th reading has been downgraded to 399.4
– but now they report May 14 as the first day EVER over 400 at 400.03
Scrips’s/Keeling say May 14 399.58 : parts per million (ppm) CO2 in air
– so it wouldn’t surprise me if the NOAA May 14th is soon downgraded also
– The fact that news media like the Guardian get it wrong like rush to shout CO2 is over 400ppm when the it actually wasn’t cos the reading had not been confirmed and was later downgraded..and they fail to correct their stories tells us a lot about their credibility.
LikeLike
oops I blinked ..yes it has been re-adjusted downwards so CO2 has STILL NOT crossed the 400ppm line
NOAA Last 5 days of preliminary daily average CO2
May 15 – 399.59 May 14 – 399.97 May 13 – 399.98 May 12 – 399.48 May 11 – 399.45
notice how the official page says PRELIMINARY
Scripps/Keeling Twitterfeed also all below 400ppm
LikeLike
Stew, what point are you trying to make?
Are you implying that we do not have a CO2 problem?
Do please answer these questions. Thanks.
LikeLike
– Your original point is “oh my God CO2 is crossing 400ppm” the only point is that although it will inevitably cross 400ppm next year it is hasn’t yet and for 98%-100% of the rest of the days until February 2014 ..so that should make you happy.
– The cause and effect on global temperature is another matter.
– Personally “I don’t know things are full colour complex not black and white simple”, so future climate could be any scenario and I cannot say that the chance of lower temperatures is any different from the chance of higher temperatures”
– In 1998 what was your prediction of 2013 global temperature and degree of confidence ?
(remember the stock exchange warning “past performance is no indication of future performance”)
LikeLike
Thank you, Stew.
Not sure how to respond so will leave it for a while as the demands of the day over here in Oregon are taking me, quite rightly, away from the computer.
LikeLike
Stew, as it happens, a reply I left to a later post is the reply I want to offer you. Namely,
Oakwood, do you follow Damn the Matrix? If not you may find this recent post about as compelling as it gets. That post concludes:
LikeLike
It’s called projection when some one or group projects their own flaws onto someone else.
– I have already told you above science works when the 2 conditions are met that 1. The is a plausible method, and 2. when that is backed up by replicated PROPER experimental observation. At that stage you can produce models/theories which predict accurately will happen in reality. This is what happened with the Ulcers caused by bacteria theory. which replaced the ulcers are caused by stress theory,. This is also what happens with evolution, you can good predictions of what will happen. This has not happened with the “cult of Gore”. The “too smooth to be true” exponential graphs going ever upward have not happened after 1998. There are countless other prediction failures like ice-free Artic and sea level rise , death of the great barrier Reef etc.
– Now I in turn ask you what would you accept ? How do falsify the theory that 1.There will certainly be a Climate catastophe and that 2. That it will be caused by Man made CO2. Or maybe state your alternative CLEAR definition.
– Either way good science since Popper relies on people not proving themselves “right”, but rather rigourously testing their own theory and trying to prove themselves WRONG. That is why every theory has terms of FALSIFICATION. So what would falsify your theory ? What if global temperatures are OK in 100 years time and haven’t run away , so what about or 50 years time or 30 years time
.. Maybe state your percentage certainties or possible future scenarios and your justification for them.
– Note it is not upto atheists to prove God doesn’t exist ..you can’t prove an existential negative. It is up to believers to prove there is a God
– Beware of false dichotomy .. it’s an easy debate tactic to say there are only 2 possible viewpoints and then project someobne who disagrees to the extreme of the scale and so dismiss them.
– Now back to projection I should point out that with that the skeptics side is vastly under resourced when the warmist side has “multi-national eco-activist lobby charities” with more than $1bn annual budget each, aswell as huge government resources and masses of paid PR professionals who run tightly controlled sites like Non-Skeptical Non-Science where comment is censored , note even Bill Mckibben is well paid ..then look at the skeptic side : there is open discussion, comments are not censored and the main players not paid (Antony Watts & Andrew Montford, Joanna Nova etc.)
– Please ask yourself if you are trapped inside a cult. ..good to see you are thinking ..byee
– It is not a game ..Climate hysteria has already killed people in the UK, and is costing normal real money due to ridculous Green subsidies ..aswll as having a serious effect on the ecomnomies of countries that conform as opposed to those that take the business.
– “If they can’t or won’t answer then you’ll know that they are in denial, or worse.” ..There you go i already answered that bit. I find it offensive when debaters try tactics like namecalling to demean people who don’t “just accept” their views. Don’t you think it basically shows that they have lost the debate ?
– Is it acceptable for a believers in Gods to call non-believers deniers ?
– It’s about 12 years since I came out the other side of the green tunnel and into the light. People usually go the easy way of believing first, before they get into the complexity of reality
LikeLike
From the UK Met Office blog:
A research paper published in Nature Geoscience (Otto et al, 2013) led to a fair amount of media coverage yesterday, including articles in the Guardian, BBC and an opinion piece by Matt Ridley in The Times (this article is behind a pay wall).
The research paper looked at a ‘best estimate’ of the warming expected when the concentration of carbon in the atmosphere is doubled over pre-industrial levels (known as the Transient Climate Response).
Alexander Otto, Research Fellow in Climate Decisions at the Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, was the lead author of the research.
He has written an article discussing the science and the implications of the research which can be seen on the Research News pages on our website.
Here is a short extract from Alexander Otto’s article :
“We published a paper in Nature Geoscience on Sunday giving a new best-estimate of 1.3°C for the Transient Climate Response, or the warming expected at the time carbon dioxide reaches double its pre-industrial concentration, using data from the most recent climate observations.
This best-estimate is lower than the HadGEM2 [one of the Met Office climate models] TCR value of 2.5°C and it is also 30% lower than the multi-model average of 1.8°C of the CMIP5 models used in the current IPCC assessment. Does this mean that the Met Office’s advice to government is based on a flawed model? Certainly not.
It is well acknowledged by all that the HadGEM2 model is at the top end of the range of TCR values in CMIP5, but we need a diverse range of TCR values to represent the uncertainties in our understanding of climate system processes. And the Met Office’s advice to government, like any solid policy advice, is based on the range of results from different models, not just their own.
…
The ‘warming pause’ over the recent decade does not show that climate change is not happening. And it certainly does not mean that climate scientists are “backing away” from our fundamental understanding.
Every new decade of data brings new information that helps reduce uncertainties in climate forecasts. In some ways, the picture changes surprisingly slowly for such an intensely scrutinised problem… This study highlights the importance of continued careful monitoring of the climate system, and also the dangers of over-interpreting any single decade’s worth of data.”
LikeLike