Carbon dioxide levels grew at record pace in 2016, U.N. says

[snoop1130]

Carbon dioxide levels grew at record pace in 2016, U.N. says

By Tom Miles

 

GENEVA (Reuters) - The amount of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere grew at record rate in 2016 to a level not seen for millions of years, potentially fuelling a 20-metre rise in sea levels and adding 3 degrees to temperatures, the United Nations said on Monday.

 

Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main man-made greenhouse gas, hit 403.3 parts per million (ppm), up from 400.0 in 2015, the U.N. World Meteorological Organization said in its annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin.

 

That growth rate was 50 percent faster than the average over the past decade, driving CO2 levels 45 percent above pre-industrial levels and further outside the range of 180-280 ppm seen in recent cycles of ice ages and warmer periods.

 

"Today’s CO2 concentration of ~400 ppm exceeds the natural variability seen over hundreds of thousands of years," the WMO bulletin said.

 

The latest data adds to the urgency of a meeting in Bonn next month, when environment ministers from around the world will work on guidelines for the Paris climate accord backed by 195 countries in 2015.

 

The agreement is already under pressure because U.S. President Donald Trump has said he plans to pull the United States out of the deal, which seeks to limit the rise in temperatures to "well below" 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times.

 

Human CO2 emissions from sources such as coal, oil, cement and deforestation reached a record in 2016, and the El Niño weather pattern gave CO2 levels a further boost, the WMO said.

 

As far as scientists can tell, the world has never experienced a rise in carbon dioxide like that of recent decades, which has happened 100 times faster than when the world was emerging from the last ice age.

 

Scientists know prehistoric levels from tiny air bubbles found in ancient Antarctic ice cores, and they can derive even older data from fossils and chemicals trapped in sediment.

 

The last time carbon dioxide levels reached 400 ppm was 3-5 million years ago, in the mid-Pliocene era.

 

"During that period, global mean surface temperatures were 2–3°C warmer than today, ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica melted and even parts of East Antarctica’s ice retreated, causing the sea level to rise 10–20 m higher than that today," the WMO bulletin said.

 

Since 1990, the global warming effect of CO2 and other long-lived greenhouse gases has risen by 40 percent. The two other main gases - methane and nitrous oxide - also grew to record concentrations last year, although at a slower rate of increase than carbon dioxide.

 

(Reporting by Tom Miles; Editing by Hugh Lawson)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-10-30

[ExpatOilWorker]

They just can't resist it can't they "potentially fuelling a 20-metre rise in sea levels "?

 

It always need to have some kind of the world is doomed twist.

[brain150]

Read and understand AGENDA 2030 and you know why the [criminal] U.N. tells this bunch of BS.

I would like to get a name of any of these [so called] "scientists".

 

AGENDA 2030 , Technocracy ... and total control of everything, that's what the U.N. wants !

If everything is controlled there is no freedom left for anybody.

Just read what the U.N. really is about !!!

[boomerangutang]

That's the sort of news that only reasonable people hear.   Deniers only deny or get angry when they hear scientific news that doesn't fit with their desired agenda:  that CC is a hoax designed to make greedy scientists rich and a nefarious plan to tax everyone for emitting carbon.

 

 

[jcsmith]

3 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

They just can't resist it can't they "potentially fuelling a 20-metre rise in sea levels "?

 

It always need to have some kind of the world is doomed twist.

Perhaps that is the best way to grab the attention of the people who keep convincing themselves that it's not happening.

[55Jay]

It would be interesting to know what caused the spike in spike in C02 approx 3.5 million years ago.  And what factors caused the cool period that followed, at which point our human ancestors emerged.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/199704_pliocene/page3.html

 

Regardless though, seems a warmer Earth isn't conducive to human life, so any effort to address one part of the issue seems like the right thing to do.... but it also seems like it's gunna happen regardless. 

Edited October 31, 2017 by 55Jay

[TKDfella]

Climate Change is natural and happens continuously due to many factors. Global Warming, on the other hand, is the controversial part, which may be part CC and part anthropogenic. The controversy obviously starts with what % is due to CC &  Humankind? I have no desire to start arguments on that as we all have reasons for being in one camp or the other.

The real question is; if in the worse case scenario where industrialization etc. is responsible for a major of GW what is to be done. It isn't just a question of fossil fuels it's a question of I, other posters here and the rest of the world's 'ordinary person' is/are willing to sacrifice to bring down demand thereby reducing pollution output. We all want to have holidays here and there, flying in planes; we all want a car to go on trips; we all want to update computers, mobile phones etc etc. The list goes on and on. Before anyone else mentions it, yes, this also has an impact on employment, revenue and so on. Okay, there are alternatives coming up but I don't think they are ready yet in such quantity to aid a smooth transition without loss of commodities. To put it crudely, we've dug ourselves into such a deep 'supply & demand hole' that it will be almost impossible to get ourselves out without some catastrophic consequence (a world wide long term slump?). The real test for anthropogenic driven CO₂ case (and other GHG's) would be to slow down industrialization by a certain percentage, say for a year, and then find the impact on pollution levels. Yes, I know, this is not going to happen! So we will continue to argue while possibly running out of time.

[ExpatOilWorker]

12 hours ago, jcsmith said:

Perhaps that is the best way to grab the attention of the people who keep convincing themselves that it's not happening.

Sea levels were 130 m below their current levels 20,000 years ago, which by any stand is a blink of an eye compared to the millions of years the UN is using as reference point.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, 55Jay said:

It would be interesting to know what caused the spike in spike in C02 approx 3.5 million years ago.  And what factors caused the cool period that followed, at which point our human ancestors emerged.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/features/199704_pliocene/page3.html

 

Regardless though, seems a warmer Earth isn't conducive to human life, so any effort to address one part of the issue seems like the right thing to do.... but it also seems like it's gunna happen regardless. 

Yes, they are going to impose taxes and force people to buy expensive cars etc etc, but they won't do anything to actually change anything. Regardless of the truth or not, the response to it is a sham and a fraud.

[luk AJ]

It doesn’t look good! I hope scientists will find a way to put the CO2 back in the ground. I see no other way to reverse this.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, TKDfella said:

Climate Change is natural and happens continuously due to many factors. Global Warming, on the other hand, is the controversial part, which may be part CC and part anthropogenic. The controversy obviously starts with what % is due to CC &  Humankind? I have no desire to start arguments on that as we all have reasons for being in one camp or the other.

The real question is; if in the worse case scenario where industrialization etc. is responsible for a major of GW what is to be done. It isn't just a question of fossil fuels it's a question of I, other posters here and the rest of the world's 'ordinary person' is/are willing to sacrifice to bring down demand thereby reducing pollution output. We all want to have holidays here and there, flying in planes; we all want a car to go on trips; we all want to update computers, mobile phones etc etc. The list goes on and on. Before anyone else mentions it, yes, this also has an impact on employment, revenue and so on. Okay, there are alternatives coming up but I don't think they are ready yet in such quantity to aid a smooth transition without loss of commodities. To put it crudely, we've dug ourselves into such a deep 'supply & demand hole' that it will be almost impossible to get ourselves out without some catastrophic consequence (a world wide long term slump?). The real test for anthropogenic driven CO₂ case (and other GHG's) would be to slow down industrialization by a certain percentage, say for a year, and then find the impact on pollution levels. Yes, I know, this is not going to happen! So we will continue to argue while possibly running out of time.

LOL. No minor change is going to have an effect so the only thing that would actually have a provable positive/ negative effect would be to cease all fossil fuel use NOW, plus kill every farmed animal on the entire planet.

That's not going to happen, so IMO just carry on moving to non polluting ways of living and hope for the best. It may not save us, but at least we'll live better till the end comes ( or not, depending on whom is right ).

Unfortunately, the majority of the human population on the planet isn't going to stop wanting to live like Americans, which is what got us into the present situation in the first place.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 minutes ago, luk AJ said:

It doesn’t look good! I hope scientists will find a way to put the CO2 back in the ground. I see no other way to reverse this.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

They already have proven technology to put the CO2 in the ground, so the REAL question is why governments won't invest in them? Perhaps because they know the whole thing is a sham and just good for increasing taxes.

[RPCVguy]

19 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. No minor change is going to have an effect so the only thing that would actually have a provable positive/ negative effect would be to cease all fossil fuel use NOW, plus kill every farmed animal on the entire planet.

That's not going to happen, so IMO just carry on moving to non polluting ways of living and hope for the best. It may not save us, but at least we'll live better till the end comes ( or not, depending on whom is right ).

Unfortunately, the majority of the human population on the planet isn't going to stop wanting to live like Americans, which is what got us into the present situation in the first place.

Definitely agree, no minor change is going to supply the response needed. CO2 and other greenhouse gases have added enough insulation to the atmosphere to assure several degrees more warming this century. Some of what is ahead is masked by the aerosols / particulates - which, when stopped, will quickly add another degree to the temps.

In disaster movies like Bruce Willis "Armageddon" the problem grows worse, harder to avoid, the longer people wait to attempt a course change. Human collective responses resist such changes, particularly when people perceive that some are not sacrificing "fairly" - a perception now plain for most to see as valid.

Are those with power and authority seeking human solutions? Or is this a gamble that population constriction from climate consequences will still leave them an inhabitable world? (I suspect the string of extinctions ahead will include humanity... cash won't get far though it may provide an extension.)
 

16 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

They already have proven technology to put the CO2 in the ground, so the REAL question is why governments won't invest in them? Perhaps because they know the whole thing is a sham and just good for increasing taxes.

The size of the sequestration processes needed exceeds any single industrial process now done. (Current civilization now releases over 48 giga-tonnes of CO2e per year. see ) Add in the energy needed to run the process - oh, and said processes are still experimental. The IPCC projections that show gaining control of the CO2e and then reducing the net greenhouse gases rely on inventions that are not yet known. Short video to back that up.

Overall, NOT a good century for children to grow up into.
Survivable IPCC projections based on science fiction - reality is far worse - YouTube
(

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, RPCVguy said:

 

The size of the sequestration processes needed exceeds any single industrial process now done. (Current civilization now releases over 48 giga-tonnes of CO2e per year. see ) Add in the energy needed to run the process - oh, and said processes are still experimental. The IPCC projections that show gaining control of the CO2e and then reducing the net greenhouse gases rely on inventions that are not yet known. Short video to back that up.
 

 

When WW2 started can anyone imagine Churchill et al saying "it's going to cost too much to defeat the Nazis so we'll just give in"?

Either this is an actual threat to the survival of the human race or it isn't.

The choice is simple- if it is a threat to humanity, do whatever it takes and pay whatever it costs

OR

do nothing sufficient to change it ( the present situation ), but PULEEEEEZE just shut up about it and stop inventing new taxes that don't make a difference.

[Guest]

17 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

They just can't resist it can't they "potentially fuelling a 20-metre rise in sea levels "?

 

It always need to have some kind of the world is doomed twist.

That's kind of the point of why we need to be wary about the global warming. Rising sea levels, along with stronger storms (there is more energy reserved on warmer air and water), can cause mass immigration from the lower parts of the world to new locations. There is no wall or army, which can stop masses of hungry people. 

 

The other thing is that the fauna might not be able to adapt to the new situation. Thus dying like palm trees in the arctics or arctic trees when placed to the tropics.

 

The increased amount of CO2 is harmless to humans, animals in general. The fauna loves increased CO2, which is why some greenhouses pump CO2 to confined places to increase productivity. It's the side effects, which can dramatically change our climates around the world.

 

Smart man, up wealthy north, would do everything to find solutions to prevent global warming. That is the best way to avoid having to deal with millions of immigrants getting into their countries. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, luk AJ said:

It doesn’t look good! I hope scientists will find a way to put the CO2 back in the ground. I see no other way to reverse this.

We use and need more and more energy. That's a fact. There are far better ways to create the needed energy than using still rather cheap fossil fuels. 

 

While solar, wind, tide, volcanic etc. powers are developing, we need realistic solutions today.

 

Nuclear power (fission) is available, but it has a stigma, created by the 'Green' people. The fear of 'unknown' is one of the major contributing factors to the mess we are currently. But what about Fukushima? One might ask? Well, I'm guessing each of us are able to name every major nuclear disaster which has happened in the past 50 years. Meanwhile coal has caused far more death to the population, not forgetting it has contributed greatly to the 400ppm CO2 we have today.

 

Nuclear fusion, if we ever make it to work, will be a great solution. I hope it will work, but it seems to be on "ready in 20 years" phase at any given time it's evaluated.

What if we have almost unlimited energy for our disposal? Then we can start to find real solutions.

 

My own vision of the future is where we use our atmosphere as delivery system for CO2. We setup nth generation 3D-printing stations, which collect CO2 from the air, split the molecule to carbon and oxygen. Use the carbon to create carbon nanotubes, which the 3D-printer uses to build everyday items. 

There are possibilities. We just need to be a bit more open to let our silly dreams fly. :)

[Gecko123]

Clean air is healthier than dirty air.

 

Can't we all at least agree on that?

[ExpatOilWorker]

2 hours ago, luk AJ said:

It doesn’t look good! I hope scientists will find a way to put the CO2 back in the ground. I see no other way to reverse this.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

I have pumped liquid CO2 in the ground, it is really not that complicated as long at it is kept in the liquid phase around minus 12-20 C and 15-20 bar of pressure.

Of course we injected it to produce more oil.

[RickBradford]

16 hours ago, jcsmith said:

Perhaps that is the best way to grab the attention of the people who keep convincing themselves that it's not happening.

Given that the Green/Left been saying it for 20 years, and have achieved nothing substantive globally in policy terms,  perhaps they could try not crying "Wolf" at every possible opportunity, and see how that works.

 

First, though, the  Green/Left would have to admit that not everyone who disagrees with them is irretrievably stupid or terminally greedy. And given their overweening arrogance and unearned sense of moral superiority, that is never going to happen.

[Becker]

4 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Given that the Green/Left been saying it for 20 years, and have achieved nothing substantive globally in policy terms,  perhaps they could try not crying "Wolf" at every possible opportunity, and see how that works.

 

First, though, the  Green/Left would have to admit that not everyone who disagrees with them is irretrievably stupid or terminally greedy. And given their overweening arrogance and unearned sense of moral superiority, that is never going to happen.

If you'd had practically the entire scientific community on your side and the opposition was entirely resorting to ostrich type of arguments then you could feel a bit arrogant as well.

[TKDfella]

Some here have talked about scientists finding solutions but it isn't, in general, scientists that make the decisions, it's politicians. And then of course, there is the general public who will have a say if a referendum is held on certain issues.

[ilostmypassword]

33 minutes ago, RickBradford said:

Given that the Green/Left been saying it for 20 years, and have achieved nothing substantive globally in policy terms,  perhaps they could try not crying "Wolf" at every possible opportunity, and see how that works.

 

First, though, the  Green/Left would have to admit that not everyone who disagrees with them is irretrievably stupid or terminally greedy. And given their overweening arrogance and unearned sense of moral superiority, that is never going to happen.

Ridiculous, unverifiable generalizations like yours, certainly don't help your case.

Edited October 31, 2017 by ilostmypassword

[ilostmypassword]

3 hours ago, oilinki said:

That's kind of the point of why we need to be wary about the global warming. Rising sea levels, along with stronger storms (there is more energy reserved on warmer air and water), can cause mass immigration from the lower parts of the world to new locations. There is no wall or army, which can stop masses of hungry people. 

 

The other thing is that the fauna might not be able to adapt to the new situation. Thus dying like palm trees in the arctics or arctic trees when placed to the tropics.

 

The increased amount of CO2 is harmless to humans, animals in general. The fauna loves increased CO2, which is why some greenhouses pump CO2 to confined places to increase productivity. It's the side effects, which can dramatically change our climates around the world.

 

Smart man, up wealthy north, would do everything to find solutions to prevent global warming. That is the best way to avoid having to deal with millions of immigrants getting into their countries. 

I'm sure you meant flora, not fauna and it's not true. Some crops will do better with more CO2 provided that they get the increased water and fertilizer necessary. Obviously those conditions don't obtain in the wild. And the major grain crops actually lose some of their nutritive value when exposed to higher levels of CO2. Not just that, but since certain plant species will do better than others given higher CO2 levels, that has the potential to wreak great environmental damage.

[ilostmypassword]

14 minutes ago, TKDfella said:

Some here have talked about scientists finding solutions but it isn't, in general, scientists that make the decisions, it's politicians. And then of course, there is the general public who will have a say if a referendum is held on certain issues.

What makes you think that the solutions will have to be imposed by government? Already alternative energy sources such as wind and solar have dropped drastically in price and are still dropping It looks like solid state batteries, which can hold more power than lithion-ion batteries, are safe, and easily recyclable are on the verge of being a commercial reality. Cheap production + improved storage...

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

I have pumped liquid CO2 in the ground, it is really not that complicated as long at it is kept in the liquid phase around minus 12-20 C and 15-20 bar of pressure.

Of course we injected it to produce more oil.

 "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

Upton Sinclair

[RickBradford]

29 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Ridiculous, unverifiable generalizations like yours, certainly don't help your case.

My case doesn't need helping. If the best the climate alarmists can do after 20 years of agit-prop is the Paris Agreement, a deal so bad that even environmentalists have denounced it, then you can be sure the Green/Left has utterly failed.

 

Your characterisation of my generalisations as "ridiculous" rather proves my point. You don't get it, and the Green/Left as a whole doesn't get it, and never will. And so they will continue to fail.

[ilostmypassword]

 

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

My case doesn't need helping. If the best the climate alarmists can do after 20 years of agit-prop is the Paris Agreement, a deal so bad that even environmentalists have denounced it, then you can be sure the Green/Left has utterly failed.

 

Your characterisation of my generalisations as "ridiculous" rather proves my point. You don't get it, and the Green/Left as a whole doesn't get it, and never will. And so they will continue to fail.

"If the best the climate alarmists can do after 20 years of agit-prop is the Paris Agreement, a deal so bad that even environmentalists have denounced it,"

Another ridiculous generalization.

[nobodysfriend]

 Don't dream , the process of global warming is irreversible ... the emissions won't be stopped , the corals won't stop bleaching and dying , the insects will slowly disappear , plastic will still be produced and used just as insecticides and all that other toxic stuff and so on and on , on top of this we have another few nuclear crazy leaders who announced already that they will be building more nuclear bombs ... could be funny but is too sad  --------- nobody should pay any more taxes because this is where these crazy politicians get their income from --------- anyway , it's too late already , prepare for what is coming ....

[RickBradford]

  @  ilostmypassword

 

Long may your delusions continue.

 

If the world's influential people are similarly deniers of the failure that the Paris Agreement represented, then the future for fossil fuels is very bright.

 

As was noted tearfully at the time by Friends of the Earth, Action Aid, Oil Change International, 350.org, Climate Tracker, Oxfam, and even dear old Bernie Sanders.

 

The Paris Agreement was so bad that a great many commentators regarded the later US withdrawal as being insignificant. The best summary was by Oren Cass of the Manhattan Institute:

 

Quote

The Paris agreement did not represent a significant global effort to combat climate change — if anything, it endorsed the policy of most countries to proceed on their pre-existing emissions trajectories. [The US withdrawal] calling attention to that situation and rejecting it is not likely to have a significant negative impact.

 

That's the ball game.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, RickBradford said:

  @  ilostmypassword

 

Long may your delusions continue.

 

If the world's influential people are similarly deniers of the failure that the Paris Agreement represented, then the future for fossil fuels is very bright.

 

As was noted tearfully at the time by Friends of the Earth, Action Aid, Oil Change International, 350.org, Climate Tracker, Oxfam, and even dear old Bernie Sanders.

 

The Paris Agreement was so bad that a great many commentators regarded the later US withdrawal as being insignificant. The best summary was by Oren Cass of the Manhattan Institute:

 

 

That's the ball game.

 

 

To your way of thinking Is Oren Cass one of those environmentalists who criticized the Paris agreements?