Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Observed Atmospheric CO2 Hits 400 Parts Per Million

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the why-hawaii-is-warm dept.

Earth 367

symbolset writes "Over the past month a number of individual observations of CO2 at the Mauna Loa Observatory have exceeded 400 parts per million. The daily average observation has crept above 399 ppm, and as annually the peak is typically in mid-May it seems likely the daily observation will break the 400 ppm milestone within a few days. This measure of potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere should spark renewed discussion about the use of fossil fuels. For the past few decades the annual peak becomes the annual average two or three years later, and the annual minimum after two or three years more."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yawn (3, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634139)

This measure of potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere should spark renewed discussion about the use of fossil fuels.

No it won't. It's not like politicians and the public have been just sitting on the sidelines, waiting util a value about 400 PPM was observed. I don't believe the public really doubts that atmospheric CO2 is increasing, and so a wonky measure of it is pretty irrelevant to public sentiment.

Re:Yawn (0)

DFurno2003 (739807) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634149)

Agreed

Mauna Loa is an Active Volcano (-1, Redundant)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634435)

Just sayin.'

Re:Mauna Loa is an Active Volcano (1)

Jager Dave (1238106) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634743)

Just sayin.'

Exactly my thought... it's like saying "This town stinks" when you visit the evening after their Baked Bean Eating Contest.

Re:Mauna Loa is an Active Volcano (1)

Goaway (82658) | about a year and a half ago | (#43635143)

Oh wow, good thing you notice! Those scientists are going to be so embarrassed when we tell them they missed that!

Re: Yawn (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43634173)

Might be better for warming argument if mean avg global temp hadn't been declining whilst CO2 concentrations increased.

Re: Yawn (3, Informative)

HertzaHaeon (1164143) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634239)

Re: Yawn (3, Insightful)

tmosley (996283) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634297)

I like how the chart at the end actually looks a lot more like a peaking temperature. They set up a strawman to make "skeptics" look ridiculous by having them "believe" that temperature was flat while it was rising. That ridiculous fake argument masks the fact that they are doing a linear extrapolation, and that that extrapolation is pulling away from the moving average. And we all know how linear extrapolation always works as a predictor, right? That's why the DOW is now at 72,000 and Pets.com is the powerhouse of the world economy. Also why my Dad has 11,300 wives.

Of note is that that temperature chart looks a LOT like a log chart of planetary industrial output [industryweek.com] , which has leveled off in recent years. Almost as if the warming hasn't come from a persistent gas who's concentration continues to rise even as production falls, but by a transitory gas that is forced into higher concentrations by continuous industrial output, but which falls quickly with falling production and actually works as a significant greenhouse gas. You know, water vapor. The other product of combustion.

But that doesn't mean that CO2 isn't a problem. It is a world-killing problem, but not because of some stupid idea like global warming. It is OCEAN ACIDIFICATION that will destroy us all, not balmy temperatures and poorly defined "increases in violent weather". Might want to stock up on canned tuna.

Re: Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43634559)

Lol...stupid idea like global warming. Yes, because heating the earth up indefinitely is a great idea.

Re: Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43634901)

actually it has been shown that plankton quickly adapt to 4x current ocean acidification levels by growing thicker cell walls

Re: Yawn (1, Insightful)

Snocone (158524) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634383)

Any reconstruction less than Milankovitch cycle scale is cherry-picking. Your link to three decades is not qualitatively superior to the decade and a half of standstill enough to in any way merit "completely false".

For a particularly fascinating recent paper calling the hypothesis of C02 driving into question, check out:

http://www.clim-past.net/9/447/2013/cp-9-447-2013.pdf

Six identified oscillations with NO -- repeat, NO! -- parameter fitting result in an almost spooky close match to instrument records. Not a single model used in any of the IPCC reports can produce backcasting even laughably comparable to that.

And as an extra bonus, unlike the alarmists who appear to consider no actual observation whatsoever a possible falsification, which makes them priests and not scientists, you will note on page 451 that we have a very specific testable prediction of this theory, namely that temperatures have just begun to freefall in a mirror image of the 70s-90s period where why yes the slope of C02 concentration did coincide with temperature rise for a couple decades. If temperatures don't keep plummeting as this paper predicts, I'll cheerfully agree in a year or two they were clearly wrong. If the global anomaly does drop by half a degree over the next decade or so as this model implies and no CAGW supporter I am aware of admits as a possibility currently, will you agree that they've got climate drivers identified substantially correctly and the idea that 400 parts per million of something had any chance of primarily driving any positive feedback process always was as ridiculous as those of us who are numerate figured out at first glance?

What!?!?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43634633)

A Testable Theory?

A way to falsify your assertions?

No way. That's not how science is done.

Re: Yawn (3, Interesting)

haruchai (17472) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634729)

From your linked PDF - "The agreement of the reconstruction of the temperature history using only the six strongest components of the spectrum, with M6, shows that the present climate dynamics is dominated by periodic processes. This does NOT rule out a warming by anthropogenic inuences such as an increase of
atmospheric CO2
(bolding and emphasis mine)

All the records examined in this paper were in a time period where GHG levels were significantly lower than at present and the dominant climate forcings would have been natural ones such as insolation, and volcanic eruptions.

Our use of fossil fuels have complicated the issue by adding significantly large amounts of both warming and cooling agents into the mix. But a net positive heat balance cannot simply be handwaved away into a "periodic oscillation". The heat has to go somewhere and wherever that may be, it will have an impact.
Whether or not the impact is significant and long-term is a longer discussion.

Re: Yawn (2, Insightful)

Snocone (158524) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634851)

Nobody rational disputes that anthropogenic C02 will have a primary warming effect.

In exactly the same fashion that nobody rational disputes that anthropogenic H20 will raise the ocean level when I spit into it.

That the magnitude of this effect is concerning -- or even observable! -- any more in the first case than the second, that is unproven and looking less likely all the time as evidence accumulates that the solely positive feedbacks that IPCC-selected models assume are just not in accord with reality.

Re: Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43635117)

Hey there!
Here's an atmosphere with 400 ppm CO, just step right in!

Re: Yawn (2, Interesting)

budgenator (254554) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634763)

skepticalscience.com is completely unreliable source, they make non-trivial edits to posts after comments have began, they edit user comments and delete user comments without reference.

Re: Yawn (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#43635221)

Here is another source [forbes.com] showing global warming slowing down and even reversing some cases!

I am a former Alaskan. Tell that to the Alaskans where May first 60 degree days hit and leaves start appearing on the trees [blogspot.com] when it just hit 4 a night or two ago and the snow hasn't even melted yet?

Before you say climate != weather, check this graph out? For 13 years straight it has persistently getting colder. [dailymail.co.uk] The UK is getting colder every year as well. The climate of the world did get warmer starting in the 1970s but it is reversing now. It is not just Alaska or the UK.

I think our calculations on CO2 are way off.

Re: Yawn (3, Insightful)

dcherryholmes (1322535) | about a year and a half ago | (#43635345)

DAILY MAIL ALERT!

Re: Yawn (1)

Luckyo (1726890) | about a year and a half ago | (#43635355)

And its extremely worrying as it fits the model to a tee. Golf Stream is powered by osmosis, which requires glaciers not to melt too much so that fresh water from them doesn't weaken the osmotic reaction. Glaciers melt as environment heats up. Every year they melt and re-freeze. But they melt more and more and re-freeze less and less.

The really bad outcome of this scenario would be near-stoppage or full stoppage of Golf Stream, which would push tundra line several hundreds of kilometers south across entire Northern Europe and severely heating up US East Coast. It would be a massive environmental shock.

Re: Yawn (4, Informative)

chihowa (366380) | about a year and a half ago | (#43635419)

I'm not weighing in on this "debate", but the temperatures in the UK are artificially warm because of the ocean currents. Compare the UK to other regions of similar latitude to demonstrate this. If those ocean currents are disrupted by larger climate changes, expect to see the UK and most of western Europe get much colder overall, even though the global temperatures may be higher.

Being coastal and bounded on the west by an ocean, I wouldn't be surprised if Alaska is in the same situation.

Re: Yawn (4, Insightful)

cplusplus (782679) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634269)

Graphs of natural phenomena are rarely linear. This is true for global temperature... this graph of average global temperatures [nasa.gov] , however, very clearly shows a trend. Picking small sections of data (portions of a graph) whilst ignoring the rest to try and make a point is scientifically dishonest at best (and wrong/completely inaccurate at worst).

Re: Yawn (2)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634647)

So you're saying World War II stopped, and even reversed, global warming for decades? Great, now we know what he have to do to save the planet. Bomb it into submission again.

Re:Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43634199)

But the Earth was warmer before, right?

So we'll be OK!

Re:Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43634283)

does this mean we're getting close to some sort of threshold? like, where things start to get really hot?
I hope so...I live in Canada.
Time to rev my engine a bit, brb.

On another note, when people ask me if I donate to charity, I always say "Yes." when they ask which one,
I tell them that I pay to return clean water to lake Ontario through my local purification plant, and that anyone can get in on it.
They usually ask how, to which I reply "Turn on your taps a few times a day, then turn them off."
Not many are amused and I rarely keep a straight face. In fact, I have my trollface on as I am typing this.

- Blaze

Re:Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43634591)

I don't believe the public really doubts that atmospheric CO2 is increasing ...

You don't know much about the "public".

Most of them are idiots who should not have been allowed to breed, and they
don't even begin to THINK about the consequences of any of their actions,
any more than an amoeba does.

The public are scum. It is a shame we cannot have huge wars which kill them off
by the millions any more. The gene pool needs cleaning, and it needs it badly.

Re:Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43635407)

Mister President, you should stop letting us know what you really plan on doing. It will only hurt your poll numbers.

Re:Yawn (1)

thereitis (2355426) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634611)

This year I've heard 3 people I know say in passing "so much for global warming" because of the abnormally cold weather we're getting this season. Can someone offer a short and simple explanation for why abnormally cold weather doesn't mean "global warming is a myth"?

Re:Yawn (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43634659)

Because denier, Koch Brothers, corporate shill, other liberal name-calling, shut up that's why.

Re:Yawn (1, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634671)

Can someone offer a short and simple explanation for why abnormally cold weather doesn't mean "global warming is a myth"?

No.

Because our understanding of atmospheric thermodynamics is pathetically incomplete. Someone might be able to outline one of many hypothesis in simple terms. But the odds are that it will be short lived as scientists discover yet one more factor that they hadn't thought of yet.

Atmospheric science is interesting and is a field worthy of further study. But we are nowhere near using it to make any sort of useful predictions, let alone as the basis for economic policy.

Re:Yawn (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43634809)

Can someone offer a short and simple explanation for why abnormally cold weather doesn't mean "global warming is a myth"?

Basic Physics: CO2 acts as an insulating blanket on any planet. More CO2 means more heat retention. However, there are other factors which may add to or subtract from any greenhouse effect. But we can be pretty confident that over time, CO2 will push things seriously in one direction rather than another.

Re:Yawn (2, Informative)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634867)

Just remind them of the thousands of record highs set in the past few years all around the world. For every small increase in average temps caused by global warming, larger extreme temperatures are seen throughout the year. Higher highs and lower lows but an overall average of warmer.

Re:Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43635233)

Because short term events do not necessarily reflect a long term trend. It can happen that April is colder than March. Does this mean that summer isn't coming?

Single Data Point (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | about a year and a half ago | (#43635279)

One cold year says nothing about the trend in the Earth's climate.

Re:Yawn (1)

WSOGMM (1460481) | about a year and a half ago | (#43635195)

This measure of potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere should spark renewed discussion about the use of fossil fuels.

No it won't. It's not like politicians and the public have been just sitting on the sidelines, waiting util a value about 400 PPM was observed. I don't believe the public really doubts that atmospheric CO2 is increasing, and so a wonky measure of it is pretty irrelevant to public sentiment.

I think you misinterpreted the use of "should" there. It's not that it should happen, as in it likely will happen, it's just we have an obligation to do it.

People have HEARD (and accept) that we're pumping too much CO2 into our atmosphere, but very few people have taken serious effort against it. As I'm sure many slashdotters would agree (hopefully I'm not stretching myself too far here), renewed discussion of fossil fuels in public forums, media and government needs to happen. Our population is large enough to affect an entire planet. Following our reckless impulses and immediate desires is NOT an option, and we should work [our asses off] to change that.

Out of Curiosity.... (2)

Ferretman (224859) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634165)

There are groups (misguided in my opinion, but that's not relevant to the question) such as 350.org that want to restrict CO2 levels to 350ppm, feeling that that level is the "trigger" for global warming.

It's not clear to me exactly how much time they propose it will take to get there though. On their web site are some generic words about installing solar panels and stopping fossil fuel subsidies, which I think anybody is generally for. But I don't see anything about how much time they expect this to take even if the world moved to their agenda.

Anybody know?

Ferret From the High, Snowy Mountains of Colorado

Re:Out of Curiosity.... (4, Interesting)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634295)

You can't make predictions when a human factor is involved. If we were all controlled by a hivemind and made CO2 decrease our highest priority, stopping CO2 production could be done in 20 years (there's enough nuclear power to sustain our needs, and we have electric vehicles - technologically it's already possible). After that, the oceans would absorb the excess CO2 and bring it below 300ppm in about 300 years (according to a study I sadly can't find now). So absent some miracle like fusion reactors even in a best case scenario it would take at least 150 years to get below 350.

But the most important thing is the human factor which depends on our decisions, and can make that time much much longer.

Re:Out of Curiosity.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43634343)

We're all going to be wearing respirators soon enough, I guess. And then living at night wearing heat sinking clothing.
And still we will be dumping stuff into the atmosphere.

I for one can't wait because I'm a clever guy and will thrive amidst the chaos.
Other people, not so much.

Rule number one for surviving any apocalyptic scenario: Cardio.

Re:Out of Curiosity.... (1)

Ferretman (224859) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634475)

Good movie...

One good thing about a Zombie Apocalypse scenario, I guess...at least the AGW folks would get their CO2 reductions...

Ferret
From the High, Snowy Mountains of Colorado

Re:Out of Curiosity.... (3, Funny)

budgenator (254554) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634839)

Yes but zombies give off methane as they ferment, which is worse than carbon dioxide!

Re:Out of Curiosity.... (1, Troll)

Ferretman (224859) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634461)

That's not really quite right...there have been several predictions from the AGW crowd that have proven to be less than accurate. One of the more notable was for an "ice free Arctic by 2000" and recent prediction that it would be ice free by 2013 (to be fair there are a couple of months yet there). These perhaps prove your point that making predictions with human factors involved is chancy at best.

On the other hand, that's not particularly an answer to the question I asked. Groups like 350.org are asking for a dedicated, wholesale change to the entire economy of the planet in pursuit of what is (at best) an unproven goal. What is missing from their website is any estimate of how much this would cost, or how long it would take.

Nobody is saying once we hit the magic 350ppm we'd have to stop all these great things they want to do. I'm just asking how long they think it would take to get there if their agenda was widely adopted.

Ferret
From the High, Snowy Mountains of Colorado

Re:Out of Curiosity.... (1)

nomadic (141991) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634495)

I think that's one of the major fallacies used by AGW deniers, the idea that reducing emissions needs some completely world-reshaping economic measures. While it would take a lot of effort, the end result would be a world economic system not fundamentally different than what we have now.

Re:Out of Curiosity.... (1, Insightful)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634771)

I think it's one of the hypocracies of the AGW alarmists that every technology that can help us avoid their worst fears is roundly decried as worse than the global warming itself. The Three Gorges Dam in China was continuously railed against, with some people predicting it was definitely going to fail before it was even finished, others predicting it would fail as soon as the water filled in behind it.

As far as world-reshaping measures, the really important ones from the alarmists concern reducing the world population by 50-90%. The reduction would undoubtedly not come from the ranks of the environmentalists themselves, but from their ideological opponents. Logically though, anyone who thinks the world would be significantly better off with a lower population should take matters into their own hands and remove themselves from it.

Re:Out of Curiosity.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43634861)

" One of the more notable was for an "ice free Arctic by 2000" and recent prediction that it would be ice free by 2013 (to be fair there are a couple of months yet there)."

Agreed that this was jumping the gun.

But the basic idea is sound:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm [uaf.edu]

This suggests an ice free Arctic (at ice minimum) by about 2020-2030

Re:Out of Curiosity.... (1)

Bengie (1121981) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634895)

CO2 levels will come down naturally. As levels rise and temps rise, more and more CO2 will get trapped by dissolving rock through acidification, which will eventually scrub our atmosphere of much CO2 and kill off the plants.

Seems Odd To Me (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43634185)

Why would you take this measurement in such close proximity to one of the most active volcanoes on the planet?

Re:Seems Odd To Me (1)

Ferretman (224859) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634197)

Now THAT is something I'd never considered!

I know they chose the site for reasons of altitude, but you raise a valid question. Unless perhaps the prevailing winds there are strong and predictable with volcanic emissions going "downwind", it's surely a factor?

Ferret
From the High, Snowy Mountains of Colorado

Re:Seems Odd To Me (3, Informative)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634581)

Now THAT is something I'd never considered!

But others have, it's an old canard, yes it's a factor for that site (the oldest continuous monitoring site), but nobody is relying on just that site, we are at ~400ppm global average across all sites. CO2 concentration varies by ~5ppm in sync with the northern seasons (deciduous trees are responsible) so there is some "wiggle room" in the numbers.

Re:Seems Odd To Me (1)

gkndivebum (664421) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634277)

You bring up a good point [archive.org] .

The MLO [noaa.gov] is located 34KM WNW from and well above the summit of Kilauea. The primary volcanic emissions plume from Kilauea is driven by trade winds which blow mostly from the NE, and because of the topography of the Big Island most of that plume will bypass the observatory. However, there has to be some effect from it; the question is how much?

FWIW, I live on the Kona [wikipedia.org] side of the Big Island and get to enjoy the effects of Kilauea's vog [wikipedia.org] (volcanic smog) more than would like.

Re:Seems Odd To Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43634285)

Really? I guess all the measurements are invalid because the scientists (including geologists) never noticed that they were standing on the worlds largest volcano!

They take measurements when the wind is right, and verify with other observations around the world.
http://grist.org/article/mauna-loa-is-a-volcano/

Re:Seems Odd To Me (0)

Ferretman (224859) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634317)

Your decision to post anonymously says much.

It's a valid question--nobody said "all measurements were invalid" or anything like that--the poster asked a question.

I'm certainly no geologist, but I do know that volcanic areas are home to all manner of gas seapage through the rock in addition to the main volcanic plumes. When MOA was originally established it was primarily to measure for rainfall--I wonder how much (if any) gas seepage occurs in the region? I'd like to think that these were at least evaluated prior to it being drafted for CO2 measurements--and I'd think it would be addressed in the site FAQ. I couldn't find it there anywhere.

Just questions...can't imagine why somebody would have a problem with them.

Ferret
From the High, Snowy Mountains of Colorado

Re:Seems Odd To Me (2)

nomadic (141991) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634519)

Re:Seems Odd To Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43635365)

Slashdot has now set up a little censoring system which will reject anything going against the deep government of the US and Israel. So far to open discussion here. Instead we have to live with the apk hosts file crap.

Re:Seems Odd To Me (1)

nextekcarl (1402899) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634693)

Depending on context, the original question did seem like it might have been worded to misdirect readers into a particular answer. But context is really hard to read in a response if you don't personally know the writer (and sometimes even if you do) so maybe it was intended innocently.

Re:Seems Odd To Me (3, Insightful)

KGIII (973947) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634903)

They have a problem with you asking questions likely because they view it as an assault on their religion. I am not a climate scientist and I leave the debate to them but, as an observer, it is amazing how many people have turned this into their belief system. It is amazing how many people have decided that they understand the science and are qualified to opine on it. It is amazing how many people have come to identify so strongly with a theory that they froth at the mouth even when someone poses a legitimate question. And, worse, it is amazing how many have managed to confuse the difference between political science and climate science.

When I observe people responding it often includes something akin to, "You're not a climate scientist. There is a consensus so leave it to them. The data is infallible."

Then they go on to opine on what the various countries need to do. I'm inclined to point out that, "They're not the political scientists, there's a consensus, leave it to them. The data is irrelevant in political science." (Politicians are pretty dumb, that is my opinion and I'm sticking with it.)

Anyhow, I truly don't hold much of an opinion (one way or the other) concerning AGW though I see no reason why we shouldn't clean up our atmosphere. As such, an agnostic if you will, I don't tend to join in on the debate (though I do wonder, from time to time, about the validity of placing theoretical fixes on theoretical problems and using a lot of guesstimated and massaged data to reach conclusions) very often because I dislike the aggression when people are so passionate about their belief systems. I suppose I don't have anything to debate with either side actually, I simply don't know and am not a climate scientist. Just observing them, however, leaves a "sour taste in my mouth" type of feeling. It's as if some of them are rabid religious fanatics. One can't have a reasoned debate or change the opinions of people like that and that is a waste of time.

From the other side, I'd also offer, you have people on the denialist's side who truly are religious and lay claims down such as it is just the Sun, the Earth will take care of itself (which is true in the long run but not in the manner that they're expecting I imagine), and things like that which don't do much more than muddy the waters further. They also seem to want to tie it into their political views as well and, really, science doesn't care what your political affiliations are - it just is. So, no, they're not really helping. Sometimes I see skeptics who appear to have valid reasons for their skepticism, I've seen reports of various underhanded deals, and have seen the responses and found them lacking but that may be because I'm not a climate scientist and I'm not understanding them. But I mostly see nuts in the denialist camp and that's not very helpful for the science either I suspect.

Either way, I'll be dead and gone before it does much to change life around these parts. I don't know, I don't care to take the time to understand it either, and I have no plans on changing my life further (I'm pretty "green" by default) for this. It is sad to see science bastardized like this though, it is unfortunate that the people screaming the loudest (for either side of the debate) are given the most exposure. The lack of restraint by all involved has made me think that destruction of the human race may be the best thing after all.

Re:Seems Odd To Me (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43635371)

Slashdot has now set xxxxx up a little censoring system which will reject anything going against the deep government of the US and Israel. So far to open discussion here. Instead we have to live with the xxxxxxxx apk hosts file crap.

Re:Seems Odd To Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43634673)

They didn't seem to notice the air conditioner units blowing hot air on the temp monitoring stations...Or the giant Mall someone keeps building by them. So I can see where they really would miss a volcano.

Re:Seems Odd To Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43635379)

Welcome to the ministry of information and it's stooges of Slashdot. They won't allow criticism of the US and the Israel Apartheid state any more. They call it "lameness filter". Boycott this site.

Plus, criticism of Wahabist terror financing out of the nice dictator ally Saudi-Arabia is also "lame".

Re:Seems Odd To Me (4, Informative)

Misagon (1135) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634289)

The Muana Loa observatory measures only at night, when air is descending from far up high. That air has come from across the Pacific Ocean, far from any specific CO2 sources.
At night, the volcanic gasses are trapped in a thin layer near the ground by a temperature inversion. The observatory measures the air at several towers at different altitudes and also closer to the volcano so as to get a comparative reading.

You can read more in this report [ornl.gov] .

Re:Seems Odd To Me (1)

Ferretman (224859) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634333)

Thank you for the link.

Doesn't say anything at all about "only at night" though.....in fact it says they're taking hourly and continuously. Where did you see that?

Ferret
From the High, Snowy Mountains of Colorado

Re:Seems Odd To Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43635031)

There's a difference between continuous measurement and using continuous measurements to measure the CO2 content of the atmosphere.

Re:Seems Odd To Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43634579)

The Muana Loa observatory measures only at night, when air is descending from far up high. That air has come from across the Pacific Ocean, far from any specific CO2 sources.

China is a specific CO2 source. Not just industrial either -- there is more CO2 released by underground coal fires in China and Australia (burning for hundreds or even thousands of years) than from all the cars in the US.

... and yet no global warming in the last 16 years (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43634219)

The lastest IPCC AR5 data confirms there has been no measurable global warming in the last 16 years, something that the IPCC's computer models completely failed to predict:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/14/the-real-ipcc-ar5-draft-bombshell-plus-a-poll/

Re:... and yet no global warming in the last 16 ye (1, Insightful)

cplusplus (782679) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634299)

Sounds exactly like the data between 1960 and 1978! And nothing has changed since then! The temperature has stayed exactly [ucar.edu] the [nasa.gov] same [ornl.gov] ! Oh, wait.

Re:... and yet no global warming in the last 16 ye (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43634707)

You pick your part of the global temperature chart and we'll pick ours. [drroyspencer.com]

Really you people whine about looking at only part of the record yet you yourselves ignore the larger record.

Hypocrites

Levels were 16-18 times higher in the past (0, Troll)

knorthern knight (513660) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634251)

Just one of many articles that a Google search turns up. See http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0012821X9500213V [sciencedirect.com]

> Atmospheric PCO2 as determined from the goethites in these four âoewell-behavedâ
> cases ranged from values indistinguishable from modern (within analytical
> uncertainty) to values up to approximately 16 time modern (modern
> atmospheric PCO2 was taken to be 10â'3.5 atm). One interpretation
> of the fifth, âoeanomalousâ, comparison is that atmospheric CO2 levels
> increased from about 3 times modern to about 18 times modern from the
> Triassic into the Early Jurassic. This inferred value for the PCO2 of the
> Early Jurassic atmosphere is not uniquely constrained by the existing data
> and needs to be substantiated. However, even considerably lower Early
> Jurassic atmospheric PCO2 values of 6 to 9 times modern (i.e., 1/3 to 1/2
> of the estimated value of 18 times modern) would still indicate significant
> differences between the global carbon cycles then and now. These
> results highlight the need for more research on the behavior of the
> atmosphere during and after the Triassic-Jurassic transition.

Guess what...
* planet earth didn't blow up
* it didn't turn into a Venusian hell
* planet earth had some of the lushest growth of flora and fauna in its entire history

Re:Levels were 16-18 times higher in the past (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43634275)

does any of those links mention sea levels ? Water expands at higher temperatures ... the sea has been 70 meters higher in the past.

Re:Levels were 16-18 times higher in the past (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43634375)

That and of course, CO2 isn't the only thing in the air atm, there's methane, sulphur, a three minute monologue's worth of derivatives of those wonderful elements, love, C2O, CO, and probably a lot of other things that didn't exist in the sepia/black and white toned eras.

Re:Levels were 16-18 times higher in the past (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634815)

That and of course, CO2 isn't the only thing in the air atm, there's methane, sulphur, a three minute monologue's worth of derivatives of those wonderful elements, love, C3PO, CO, R2, and probably a lot of other things that didn't exist in the sepia/black and white toned eras.

Wait! There are droids in the air?

Re:Levels were 16-18 times higher in the past (2)

blackiner (2787381) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634381)

And how about when they were 2000 ppm higher?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event [wikipedia.org]

Re:Levels were 16-18 times higher in the past (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43635409)

Welcome NORDPOL to the ministry of information and ANTON it's stooges of Slashdot. They won't TANGO allow criticism of the US and the Israel Apartheid state any more. They call it "lameness filter". Boycott this site.

Plus, criticism of Wahabist terror financing out of the OTTO nice dictator ally Saudi-Arabia is also "lame".

An example of "lameness": ...redacted.... ...section removed by censor..... ..section removed by censor..... ..self-censored to comply with American Tsheka....

In short, Rear Admiral Hyman Rickover did the Right Thing and his reactors operated perfectly. They do to the present day, until they will be fucked up by MBA-officers, which will undoubtedly creep into the US Navy, now that this retarded, anti-scientific "education" is being used more and more by the cynical and ambitious. The MBA who ran Hyman's reactors in Fukushima (yes, even those were more or less designed under the engineering officer Hyman Rickover) had the objective of TEPCO "reducing operating costs every year by a fixed percentage". How the FUCKING HELL can you achieve that under the pressure of inflation ? I'll tell you - by "saving" until the radioactive shit hits the fan. This is the atrophying state of the west (Japan belongs to that since 1945 and American control) - we believe in the pseudo-science of MBA beancounters instead of the Hard Science of engineers and physicists, which is verifiable by experiment and governed by very hard and exact mathematics. We are essentially degenerating back into a world of voodoo.

Re:Levels were 16-18 times higher in the past (1)

nomadic (141991) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634479)

Wow, amazing. So don't keep us in suspense, how did all those coastal cities fare during the Jurassic-Triassic?

Re:Levels were 16-18 times higher in the past (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634859)

There was no substantial damage to any coastal cities during the Jurassic period. However for the Triassic period, scientists have found no evidence that any cities survived the event that separates it from the Jurassic.

man-made phytoplankton blooms planned (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43634273)

article [spiegel.de]

Hydrogen Sulfide (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43634335)

It isn't the heat from atmospheric greenhouse gasses that will kill us, but the ocean stratification and subsequent hydrogen sulfide production this stratification is causing. Hydrogen sulfide is a deadly poison.

There is a new novel just published a month or so ago that describes this process in detail with real references. Most of what you need to know is in the first two chapters, which are conveniently in the "look inside" blurb on Amazon. The book is called "Hubris Ark" and was written by William Bradford Cushman. The back cover has this on it:

"In the history of our planet there have been several mass extinctions. The worst of these was the end-Permian. It is estimated that this event killed between 80 and 96% of all animals and plants on land and in the sea. The end-Permian extinction was initiated by an increase in global temperatures that was caused by greenhouse gases from widespread volcanism. This modest temperature rise started a cascade of events that culminated in the release of massive amounts of poisonous gas into the air and sea. We are seeing the first elements of the same cascade unfolding today. For most there will be no escape from this gas, only a quick death. A handful of individuals with sufficient foresight will, however, have a small chance to survive. This is their story."

Has anyone reached their "threshold" yet? You know, the threshold where they will actually get off the couch and out of their Mom's basement and join with others to fight this "cascade of events?"

I know I have.

Re: Hydrogen Sulfide (5, Insightful)

Chris Alemany (2877519) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634465)

Once again I am saddened by The depths to which the Slashdot community has fallen. This used to be a technology site. Technology that could not happen without extremely advanced science. And yet here you are, questioning global warming and the effect of human induced rises in CO2 levels. This stuff has been studied for going on 125 years. There is no doubt what has happened, what is happening, and what will happen. It's Grade School physics for goodness sakes. We should be the ones leading the charge to shift away from Fossil Fuels before great harm to our civilization becomes inevitable. But here we are, mired in the same ridiculously simplistic arguments about stuff that has been proven or disproven by science over and over. This isn't a matter of science being wrong, it is a matter of society not being allowed to trust a very small subset of scientists because they threaten a very profitable economic paradigm. Eventually, that will turn, I hope not before it is too late to avoid catastrophe.

Re: Hydrogen Sulfide (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43634523)

Sir you have it all wrong! Our gloriously elected leaders are on this problem, and think of nothing else but saving the world from this looming catastrophe one saved dollar or carbon credit at a time!

I would also politely ask you to cease your seditious activities within the three domains available to citizens: online, in public and in private as they may be used against you in court as an enemy combatant.
Sedition is a crime as detailed in both the public and secret portions of the patriot act.

C'mon son, get with the program, come in for the big win!

Re: Hydrogen Sulfide (5, Insightful)

Ironchew (1069966) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634533)

Once again I am saddened by The depths to which the Slashdot community has fallen. This used to be a technology site. Technology that could not happen without extremely advanced science.

As long as I've been here, it's been a technophile site for advertisting consumer electronics.

This isn't a matter of science being wrong, it is a matter of society not being allowed to trust a very small subset of scientists because they threaten a very profitable economic paradigm.

You've hit the nail on the head. The Slashdot community as a whole touts the virtues of science, unless it's the kind of science that discovers the uncomfortable reality about capitalism and unlimited economic growth. Then they go apeshit and cover their ears as if it makes the evidence go away.

Re: Hydrogen Sulfide (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43634599)

" It's Grade School physics for goodness sakes. "

You are aware that this is the same site that espouses the destruction of this "mud ball" by some unspecified killer asteroid and that the species must colonize Mars? Usually by invoking dozens of non-existent technologies not based on reality? Slashdot has never been about science and technology, it's mostly a bunch of self-satisfied smug nerds who think that because they can type "include graphics.lib" they are qualified to talk about physical reality.

Re: Hydrogen Sulfide (1)

balsy2001 (941953) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634625)

And I wonder how many of the people making claims on here are actually climatologists. I am not and since I don't think there is a giant conspiracy of climatologists, I take my cues about global warming from the IPCC (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml). Even though I am not a climatologist, I can read, and the IPCC 4th assessment report agrees with you.

Re: Hydrogen Sulfide (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43634691)

In the U.S. 1 person per thousand drives an electric car. I am willing to bet you are not one of them. Even so, I am willing to bet your computer is not solar powered.
Why don't you stop being a hypocrite first. Then we can focus on your other misdirected liberal tendencies.

Re: Hydrogen Sulfide (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43634813)

>It's Grade School physics for goodness sakes.

There is not a shred of evidence for CO2-induced global warming. Note that:

CO2 has risen for 15 years while temperatures remained the same.
CO2 has been at 15x the current levels when temperatures were similar.

There is plenty of evidence of scientific misconduct, repeatedly massaging data, and the search for truth corrupted by political processes.

We're doomed.... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43634445)

We're DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMED!

(and no, that wasn't yelling... well, maybe perhaps it was).

Renewed Discussion (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43634531)

That's when alarmists proclaim that the science is settled and everybody but them should just shut up, right?

Linear Growth? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43634583)

Why does rate of increase seem constant. I mean, if it's influenced by human activity (of which I have no doubt), then shouldn't it track closely to the fluctuations in the global economy. Specifically, shouldn't there be a dip or flat corresponding to the Great Recession periods of '08/'09?

Re:Linear Growth? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43634791)

Indeed it should. It turns out quite a lot of that CO2 increase is completely natural.

Which is well known in the scientific community. Most CAGW-supporting posters here, while they claim to post the "scientific consensus", rarely read any actual papers but instead rely on blogs that offer up complete fabrications. "Skeptical Science" seems to be the most popular one at the moment. It's to climate science as The Onion is to the news.

Re:Linear Growth? (2)

jfbriere (785550) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634977)

It isn't constant since the industrial revolution : Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Linear Growth? (2, Informative)

Hentes (2461350) | about a year and a half ago | (#43635333)

There was a small dip in '09 in CO2 emissions but we have quickly recovered from it. Mind you, this is CO2 concentration, not production, so it's the log of the integral of production (that's why it's linear).

Past the point of no return (0)

phantomfive (622387) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634755)

It probably doesn't matter, we already passed the danger point [arxiv.org] , which is 350ppm. From the paper:

"If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm."

Re:Past the point of no return (2)

Troed (102527) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634857)

That "danger point" is completely reliant upon the value of the so-called "climate sensitivity" factor, our understanding of which changes each year as we increase our knowledge of the climate system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity [wikipedia.org]

There have been numerous studies lately (post IPCC AR4) pointing to a low climate sensitivity factor, which would change the value of "the danger point" upwards from 350 ppm as well (450 ppm IIRC, but that's from memory based on the below mean).

http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-content/uploads/gsr_042513_fig1.jpg [cato.org]

(Please see image content, not domain name, for actual references)

Re:Then why the cooling? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#43635187)

After the UK and Alaska has seen a 2 - 5 degree temperature drop since 2000, and cooling global wide many observations are counteracting the global warming models [forbes.com] .

As a former Alaskan I can tell you that glacialization has come back the last 3 years and summer temperatures are rapidly falling year after year. So climate != weather but 13 years of data is starting to make a case for a cooler climate regardless of increased CO2.

400 posts per million (1)

imikem (767509) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634799)

That seems a fair, though perhaps somewhat generous, estimate for the ratio of signal to noise here. "News for nerds" has become just another giant Red vs. Blue flamefest. Might as well just turn my attention to my wife's cat pictures on FB.

Re:400 posts per million (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43634837)

CAT LOVER! I GOT ONE! stay where you are, citizen! an addiction services team will be there soon to assist you with your cat problem.

From 3 to 4 parts per 10,000 (2, Interesting)

jmichaelg (148257) | about a year and a half ago | (#43634869)

Bringing the numbers closer to human-scale, a 300 parts per million is the same as 3 parts per 10,000. Similarly 400 is 4 parts per 10,000. So basically, we've gone from 3 molecules per 10,000 to 4 molecules of CO2 per 10,000 molecules of air.

In the same period, plankton levels have declined over 1% per year since the late 1970's [nature.com] . John Martin at MBARI [mbari.org] postulated that the decline was due to a decline of dissolved iron in the oceans. He's quoted as saying "Give me a tanker full of iron and I'll give you an ice age." A series of experiments, IRONEX [usc.edu] and SOFEX [mbari.org] demonstrated that he was right - adding iron caused the plankton to bloom. The SOFEX bloom lasted longer than the 45 days allotted to collect plankton samples. IRONEX demonstrated that the predators could find the bloom and feed on it.

You want to reduce CO2 levels? Stop hunter-gatherer style fishing and start farming the oceans. Of course, then the problems will be keeping the earth warm enough to avoid another ice age and preventing fish rustlers from making off with your harvest.

Yuo FAil It! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43635057)

FrreBSD showed [goat.cx]

Looks like the plants (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43635059)

Are going to be Very Happy.

By King's Decree: All Fuels will be dubbed Fossils (0)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year and a half ago | (#43635111)

This measure of potent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere should spark renewed discussion about the use of fossil fuels.

Uh, isn't burning other fuels just as bad -- I mean, separating C, H, and O chains is separating C,H, & O chains no matter if it came from long dead or recent dead stuff. Just call it "the Burning of Resources", because that's what it is. Oil is so useful we'll be pumping it out of the Earth until every last drop is gone to make stuff out of even if we never burned fossil fuels for energy ever again.

I only have one quibble (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43635323)

The article says, "This measure of potent greenhouse gas". I would point out that CO2 is neither particularly "potent", nor is it common when compared to far more common and potent green house gases, like water vapor.

And what about methane? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43635377)

How's methane levels doin'? Supposedly it's up 3x since the '80s.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?