CO2 at the highest level in 2.1 million years

[Chris]

(Reuters) - Global emissions of carbon dioxide hit their highest level ever in 2010, with the growth driven mainly by booming coal-reliant emerging economies, the International Energy Agency's chief economist said on Monday.

Fatih Birol warned that carbon dioxide emissions were coming close to a target set by the 190-nation Cancun climate talks last year to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times.

CO2 emissions rose by 5.9 percent to 30.6 billion tonnes in 2010, Birol said, citing IEA estimates,

IEA sees record CO2 emissions in 2010 | Reuters

 

[waltky]

Global warming gonna get hotter...

Carbon emissions at record levels: report
May 30, 2011 - CARBON emissions are at their highest ever levels, stoking fears of a global temperature rise over the "dangerous" two degrees Celsius threshold, according to leaked figures published by a British newspaper.

Unpublished estimates from the International Energy Agency revealed that the world economy's return to growth in 2010 coincided with a 1.6 gigatonne rise in carbon dioxide emissions, the highest ever recorded jump. “This is the worst news on emission,” IEA chief economist Faith Birol told the Guardian newspaper. “It is becoming extremely challenging to remain below two degrees”, he added. “The prospect is getting bleaker. That is what the numbers say.”

Scientists believe that a temperature rise of more than two degrees celsius would represent “dangerous climate change”. The IEA has warned that annual energy-related emissions should be no higher than 32Gt by 2020. The latest figures estimate that 30.6Gt of carbon dioxide were emitted in 2010. Nicholas Stern of the London School of Economics, the author of an influential report into the economics of climate change, predicted dire consequences unless emissions were reined in.

“These figures indicate that (emissions) are now close to being back on a 'business as usual' path,” he told the Guardian. According to... projections, such a path ... would mean around a 50 per cent chance of a rise in global average temperature of more than 4C by 2100,” he added. “Such warming would disrupt the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people across the planet, leading to widespread mass migration and conflict,” he added. Around three-quarters of the rise was attributed to emerging economies.

Source

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yes, there have been. About 120 thousand years ago, the CO2 stood at 300 ppm for a couple thousand years, and the temperatures were warmer, and the sea level about 3 to 6 meters higher.

It takes time for the environment to react to the input of heat that the GHGs are creating. However, the speed at which the globe is reacting at present exceeds the speed with which it reacted in prior geological times to rapid GHG input. The times just pror to some very serious extinction events.

If CO2 is the highest it's been in over 2 million years and the temps are not the highest they've been in 2 million years then.......



Maybe you all should stop imitating Chicken Little.

Skull, i have been on here for awhile but pay little attention to names.

Were you the fella who said he did not care if greenhiuse gasses retained heat in enclosed fish tank like experiments because that was not reoresentstive of the earth?

If so then I believe you to be pretty radical and potentially have your head in the sand.

If not then my apologies.

To quote Bob Dylan

"It ain't me babe"

I have said that yes the earth is warming slightly but I do not believe that we are headed for some biblical catastrophe.

IMO milder winters and longer growing seasons are a good thing.

 

[Skull Pilot]

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. This was proven experimentally in 1859.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 40% in the last 200 years.

Atmospheric CO2 is now at its highest level in 2 million years.

We are going to add another 1,000 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere in this century.

We are warming the earth, my friends.

If CO2 is the highest it's been in 2 million years then how come the temperature is not the highest it's been in 2 million years?

 

[konradv]

I'd be more interested in the numbers from say the past 300 years or so. Just before and including all the industrialization period...

...and then when someone reports them, reply that the variations have happened repeatedly over billions of years and those are the important numbers.

 

[code1211]

CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. This was proven experimentally in 1859.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 40% in the last 200 years.

Atmospheric CO2 is now at its highest level in 2 million years.

We are going to add another 1,000 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere in this century.

We are warming the earth, my friends.

We have increased atmospheric CO2 40% in the last 200 years.

And 40% of 0.04% of the atmosphere is significant how? Why are we not worried about our water vapor emissions that consist of up to 8% of the atmospheric composition and are a much more powerful "greenhouse gas"?

We have steam everywhere! Even coming out of our ethanol powered cars in greater abundance than petroleum powered ones. Or did you not know why you saw water running from tailpipes?

Stop big steam before it kills us all! And it's HOT when it comes out! Oh noes!

Glad you brought this up.

The oceans have warmed up so much that it is adding to the humidity in the air. Thus the increase in snowfall in the winter.

CO2 is a very powerful greenhouse gas. That's why Venus is hotter than Mercury.

Just out of Curiosity, did you know that almost 100% of Mars atmosphere is CO2?

Did you also know that there is a very large ball of nuclear fire at the center of the Solar System and that Venus is closer to it than is Mars?

 

[daveman]

CO2 is a very powerful greenhouse gas. That's why Venus is hotter than Mercury.

Wrong. Venus is hotter than Mercury because it has a thick atmosphere -- Mercury has almost none.

It doesn't matter what Venus' atmosphere is composed of. The fact it's there is what traps heat.

 

[RWatt]

CO2 is a very powerful greenhouse gas. That's why Venus is hotter than Mercury.

Wrong. Venus is hotter than Mercury because it has a thick atmosphere -- Mercury has almost none.

It doesn't matter what Venus' atmosphere is composed of. The fact it's there is what traps heat.

If the atmosphere doesn't contain greenhouse gases, it can't trap heat

 

[RWatt]

Another estimate putting recent and future changes into historical context. This time ocean pH:

These large and sudden changes to the atmosphere and to the oceans are effectively irreversible on any relevant timescale. This is a very risky business, we don't have a planet B if this one goes tits up.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The study, in the June 19 issue of the journal Science, is the latest to rule out a drop in CO2as the cause for earth's ice ages growing longer and more intense some 850,000 years ago. But it also confirms many researchers' suspicion that higher carbon dioxide levels coincided with warmer intervals during the study period.

The authors show that peak CO2 levels over the last 2.1 million years averaged only 280 parts per million; but today, CO2 is at 385 parts per million, or 38% higher.

Carbon Dioxide Higher Today Than Last 2.1 Million Years

And plants around the world are smiling.

 

[daveman]

CO2 is a very powerful greenhouse gas. That's why Venus is hotter than Mercury.

Wrong. Venus is hotter than Mercury because it has a thick atmosphere -- Mercury has almost none.

It doesn't matter what Venus' atmosphere is composed of. The fact it's there is what traps heat.

If the atmosphere doesn't contain greenhouse gases, it can't trap heat

Again, wrong.

 

[RWatt]

Wrong. Venus is hotter than Mercury because it has a thick atmosphere -- Mercury has almost none.

It doesn't matter what Venus' atmosphere is composed of. The fact it's there is what traps heat.

If the atmosphere doesn't contain greenhouse gases, it can't trap heat

Again, wrong.

Effectively true. If Earth's atmosphere didn't contain any infrared absorbing property it wouldn't be able to absorb any of the infrared radiation emitted by the surface. As a result the surface couldn't average above zero, because above zero the surface would be emitting more energy than it gains from the Sun.

 

[daveman]

If the atmosphere doesn't contain greenhouse gases, it can't trap heat

Again, wrong.

Effectively true. If Earth's atmosphere didn't contain any infrared absorbing property it wouldn't be able to absorb any of the infrared radiation emitted by the surface. As a result the surface couldn't average above zero, because above zero the surface would be emitting more energy than it gains from the Sun.

Surely you realize that ANY gas is a more efficient insulator than a vacuum.

Don't you?

 

[RWatt]

Again, wrong.

Effectively true. If Earth's atmosphere didn't contain any infrared absorbing property it wouldn't be able to absorb any of the infrared radiation emitted by the surface. As a result the surface couldn't average above zero, because above zero the surface would be emitting more energy than it gains from the Sun.

Surely you realize that ANY gas is a more efficient insulator than a vacuum.

Don't you?

The vacuum prevents energy escaping by convection or conduction, but not radiation. If you don't have anything absorbing infrared between the surface and space all the infrared radiation emitted from the surface is going to escape straight into space unhindered.

 

[daveman]

Effectively true. If Earth's atmosphere didn't contain any infrared absorbing property it wouldn't be able to absorb any of the infrared radiation emitted by the surface. As a result the surface couldn't average above zero, because above zero the surface would be emitting more energy than it gains from the Sun.

Surely you realize that ANY gas is a more efficient insulator than a vacuum.

Don't you?

The vacuum prevents energy escaping by convection or conduction, but not radiation. If you don't have anything absorbing infrared between the surface and space all the infrared radiation emitted from the surface is going to escape straight into space unhindered.

And if you were standing on the surface of Venus, you couldn't help but notice the big glowy thing in the sky that continually replaces all that lost IR.

 

[RWatt]

The surface temperature of venus is 460C. At that temperature the surface is emitting 16 kilowatts per square meter of infrared radiation.

Venus only absorbs about 2.5 kilowatts sunlight per square meter. So 6 times less sunlight than necessary to maintain such a warm surface temperature.

If it's atmosphere was not trapping outgoing infrared, and it just all shot through, Venus's surface temperature wouldn't be anywhere near 460C

 

[daveman]

The surface temperature of venus is 460C. At that temperature the surface is emitting 16 kilowatts per square meter of infrared radiation.

Venus only absorbs about 2.5 kilowatts sunlight per square meter. So 6 times less sunlight than necessary to maintain such a warm surface temperature.

If it's atmosphere was not trapping outgoing infrared, and it just all shot through, Venus's surface temperature wouldn't be anywhere near 460C

[citation needed]

 

[Toronado3800]

The surface temperature of venus is 460C. At that temperature the surface is emitting 16 kilowatts per square meter of infrared radiation.

Venus only absorbs about 2.5 kilowatts sunlight per square meter. So 6 times less sunlight than necessary to maintain such a warm surface temperature.

If it's atmosphere was not trapping outgoing infrared, and it just all shot through, Venus's surface temperature wouldn't be anywhere near 460C

[citation needed]

Dave, play nice. That seems to be the current thinking of the scientific community.

The correct argument is to say "well the atmosphere of Venus is so thick, of course it retains more heat". But that leads you down a slippery slope of denying why it is so thick for a planet with only 90 something % the gravity of earth.

I think less of you now.

 

[Old Rocks]

Surely you realize that ANY gas is a more efficient insulator than a vacuum.

Don't you?

The vacuum prevents energy escaping by convection or conduction, but not radiation. If you don't have anything absorbing infrared between the surface and space all the infrared radiation emitted from the surface is going to escape straight into space unhindered.

And if you were standing on the surface of Venus, you couldn't help but notice the big glowy thing in the sky that continually replaces all that lost IR.

If you were standing on the surface of Venus, I doubt that you could see the sun through the clouds and that atmosphere.

 

[daveman]

The surface temperature of venus is 460C. At that temperature the surface is emitting 16 kilowatts per square meter of infrared radiation.

Venus only absorbs about 2.5 kilowatts sunlight per square meter. So 6 times less sunlight than necessary to maintain such a warm surface temperature.

If it's atmosphere was not trapping outgoing infrared, and it just all shot through, Venus's surface temperature wouldn't be anywhere near 460C

[citation needed]

Dave, play nice. That seems to be the current thinking of the scientific community.

The correct argument is to say "well the atmosphere of Venus is so thick, of course it retains more heat". But that leads you down a slippery slope of denying why it is so thick for a planet with only 90 something % the gravity of earth.

I think less of you now.

And I think less of you, for blindly accepting something without proof.

Asking someone to back up their claims presented as fact isn't not "playing nice". Accepting claims without proof is what got the AGW cult a foothold in the first place. Don't fall for it.