PDA

View Full Version : atmospheric CO2 levels rising faster



Bigrock
06-01-2004, 08:49 AM
CO2 buildup accelerating in atmosphere
MAUNA LOA OBSERVATORY, Hawaii (AP) — Carbon dioxide, the gas largely blamed for global warming, has reached record-high levels in the atmosphere after growing at an accelerated pace in the past year, say scientists monitoring the sky from this 2-mile-high station atop a Hawaiian volcano.

The reason for the faster buildup of the most important "greenhouse gas" will require further analysis, the U.S. government experts say.

"But the big picture is that CO2 is continuing to go up," said Russell Schnell, deputy director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's climate monitoring laboratory in Boulder, Colo., which operates the Mauna Loa Observatory on the island of Hawaii.

The observatory, which is operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory, has been measuring carbon dioxide and other gases in the air since 1958. It's about 11,000 feet above sea level on the second-highest mountain on Hawaii's Big Island, south of the highest mountain, Mauna Kea. This location means its measurements are of some of the cleanest air on Earth. (Related: Mauna Loa Web site)

Carbon dioxide, mostly from burning of coal, gasoline and other fossil fuels, traps heat that otherwise would radiate into space. Global temperatures increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) during the 20th century, and international panels of scientists sponsored by world governments have concluded that most of the warming probably was due to greenhouse gases.

The climatologists forecast continued temperature rises that will disrupt the climate, cause seas to rise and lead to other unpredictable consequences — unpredictable in part because of uncertainties in computer modeling of future climate.

Before the industrial age and extensive use of fossil fuels, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere stood at about 280 parts per million, scientists have determined.

Average readings at the 11,141-foot Mauna Loa Observatory, where carbon dioxide density peaks each northern winter, hovered around 379 parts per million on Friday, compared with about 376 a year ago.

That year-to-year increase of about 3 parts per million is considerably higher than the average annual increase of 1.8 parts per million over the past decade, and markedly more accelerated than the 1-part-per-million annual increase recorded a half-century ago, when observations were first made here.

Asked to explain the stepped-up rate, climatologists were cautious, saying data needed to be further evaluated. But Asia immediately sprang to mind.

"China is taking off economically and burning a lot of fuel. India, too," said Pieter Tans, a prominent carbon-cycle expert at NOAA's Boulder lab.

Another leading climatologist, Ralph Keeling, whose father, Charles D. Keeling, developed methods for measuring carbon dioxide, noted that the rate "does fluctuate up and down a bit," and said it was too early to reach conclusions. But he added: "People are worried about 'feedbacks.' We are moving into a warmer world."

He explained that warming itself releases carbon dioxide from the ocean and soil. By raising the gas's level in the atmosphere, that in turn could increase warming, in a "positive feedback," said Keeling, of San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects that, if unchecked, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations by 2100 will range from 650 to 970 parts per million. As a result, the panel estimates, average global temperature would probably rise by 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius (2.7 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit) between 1990 and 2100.

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol would oblige ratifying countries to reduce carbon dioxide emissions according to set schedules, to minimize potential global warming. The pact has not taken effect, however.

The United States, the world's biggest carbon dioxide emitter, signed the agreement but did not ratify it, and the Bush administration has since withdrawn U.S. support, calling instead for voluntary emission reductions by U.S. industry and more scientific research into climate change

Andrew Craig-Bennett
06-01-2004, 04:17 PM
Yeah. I posted an item about the 3 parts per million rise in CO2 last year and got just as much reaction as you did.

It scares the **** out of me. :rolleyes:

Bigrock
06-01-2004, 04:37 PM
Well ACB, to admit there is a problem, entails the possibility of making the necessary changes to correct the problem. Those changes might mean a some what less extravagant life style and that is not some thing that most self centered folks are going to go for. Instead of scaling back, the maxum from the leadership of this country is to scale up- go all out- consume- have it all, get it now- deny your selves nothing- you deserve it. All on easy credit terms of course. Gotta keep the economy moving ahead.

Jack Heinlen
06-01-2004, 05:45 PM
Andrew,

Assuming a bunch of things not completely in evidence--centrally that it is human CO2 emissions that are making the planet warmer--and that you wish to do your part, why don't you and your family live in a two bedroom flat much closer to your work? Preferably the flat would have been rehabilitated so as to be much more energy efficient, or of new construction, and you'd take the train to work. You'd have to give up Mirelle, because driving to and from, burning the diesel, manufacture of paint, etc is contributing your dollop of CO2.

I drive about 7,000 miles a year, in a mid-twenties-per-gallon small truck. More importantly, perhaps, is that it is an efficient truck that is fifteen years old.

Do you know how much CO2 is released when you make a new vehicle?

Not to pick on you, but what do you suggest?

Jack

Andrew Craig-Bennett
06-01-2004, 06:08 PM
Jack...

Do you suppose that if I could get a job nearer my house, which is a very small one, I would not do so?

Moving to be nearer my work would involve moving my foreign wife and two young boys from a small country town where they are safe and happy and have friends into a big city, not a nice area of it, and even then the house prices would be higher than where we are.

I live half a mile from a railway station and work half a mile from one; no train would get me to work on time in the mornings - I would have to change twice and walk a mile to do it even arriving half an hour late.

I also have debts to clear built up during an 18 month long spell of unemployment that ended last February. So like most of the human race I am not master of my destiny. I don't mind, because I love my family, but my scope for changing things is small.

Next idea, please. :(

Donn
06-01-2004, 06:10 PM
Andrew, I believe that Jack asked you for an idea.

Wild Wassa
06-01-2004, 06:23 PM
Donn, one way could be to make people take responsibility for their own air. If we humans supposedly have 1 cubic kilometre of air each, mine is 2 ks west of here, and smelling good.

What are you doing with your cubic kilometre Donn?

A recent report by Oz's CSIRO, the Commonwealth Scientists says, ... plants are now slowing down their absorption of CO2, ... this should speed things up.

Warren.

[ 06-01-2004, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

Larry P.
06-01-2004, 07:04 PM
So what you are saying Andrew is that you choose to create the pollution that you do to provide for your family's quality of life.

Is it possible that this is true of most everyone else even us evil and greedy Americans.

Bigrock
06-01-2004, 07:16 PM
We may have the choice to create pollution to " enrich" our way of life now. I doubt our grandchildren will.

What to do? Conserve. Stop eating meat. Drive only when necessary. Scale back on vehicle and home size. The average american family of about 1.5 children now live in a 2000 square foot house. Why? It takes huge amounts of carbon release to both heat and cool homes. The bigger the cubic feet the more it takes.

It requires little imagination to make drastic cuts on carbon emitting fossil fuel use, and little to no actual sacrifice.

Wild Wassa
06-01-2004, 07:40 PM
I don't trust technology and industry to fix too many environmental problems, while we seek quarterly profit returns. It takes 360 years to regenerate a cool temperate rainforest. We should start regenerating more forests now, in case one day we run out of fibre glass type resins.

Warren.

stan v
06-01-2004, 08:27 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaa......

shamus
06-01-2004, 08:40 PM
One large contributor to CO2 emissions is concrete, or rather the cement used in its manufacture. If concrete was banned in buildings and timber used instead....we'd have a lot less high buildings and that would be good too.

brad9798
06-01-2004, 10:36 PM
... and like I said last year, our BOATS throw more pollution in a weekend than our cars do in a year ... especially those old engines of which we are so fond.

Let's get our priorities straight.

Get an auxiliary-free sailboat, an electric lawnmower, a hybrid car, solar and wind powered home RIGHT NOW ... or shut the hell up!

ALL is readily available ...

So, again, how important is this issue really to you, and everyone else complaining?

I thought so ... tongue.gif

Andrew Craig-Bennett
06-02-2004, 12:48 AM
I am about to change the 2 litre diesel that I drive for a Toyota Prius. We did not put the central heating on at all last winter - the house is well insulated and we did not need to. Mirelle burned 5 gallons of diesel last season and will probably burn even less this year. She is a sailing boat and is sailed. That's why she gets along with a 37 year old engine. But here are some numbers for you to think on:

Barrels of oil consumed, per head, per annum:

China: 1.5
Japan: 12
Britain and France: 12
Germany: 15
USA: 26

Meerkat
06-02-2004, 01:25 AM
Of course, the really dicy question is how one either weans from, or copes with, the end of the US drunkard's binge of consumerism and consumer driven economy.

[ 06-02-2004, 02:25 AM: Message edited by: Meerkat ]

martin schulz
06-02-2004, 02:23 AM
Originally posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett:
Barrels of oil consumed, per head, per annum:

China: 1.5
Japan: 12
Britain and France: 12
Germany: 15
USA: 26And then there are other figures as well. Right now Germany has a percentage of 12% of energy aquired through regenerative means (water, wind, biomass).

imported_Conrad
06-02-2004, 02:58 AM
I read the other day that one often over-looked consequence of the higher CO2 levels is that the "reflectivity index" of the earth has increased. So while everyone has been focusing on the "blanket effect" of the upper atmosphere and the heat trapped below, the increased reflectivity has cut the amount of energy reaching earth from the sun. And in fact, the long term consequence of the warming we seem to be experiencing now could realistically be a cooling trend. :eek:

So enjoy the warmth while it's here- because the next ice-age may be just around the corner! ;) And while a small increase in atmospheric CO2 may have started the current temperature swings, the future gross effect will be controlled by active bio-mass and the cycles of the sun.

[ 06-02-2004, 04:01 AM: Message edited by: Conrad ]

Andrew Craig-Bennett
06-02-2004, 04:24 AM
Britain is actually ahead of its target under the Kyoto protocols. This is a bit of a fiddle due to rapid conversion of power stations to natural gas, but anyway at the moment we are good boys and girls.

But the shining example to follow is Japan. Japan imports all its energy. Anyone in the tanker or bulk carrier businesses will tell you that Japan has not increased its imports of oil, gas and thermal coal in the last 20 years , during which time the Japanese economy has grown more than somewhat. This is because the Japanese have really taken energy conservation seriously.

brad9798
06-02-2004, 08:13 AM
Good on you, ACB! Seriously. It's refreshing (to say the least) to have someone put his money where his mouth is!!!

Garrett Lowell
06-02-2004, 10:02 AM
Can't say I know anyone with 1.5 kids. My neighbors have 1 or two, and I know one family of 5. Around here, only the government required "Affordable Housing" in each neighborhood are at 2k square feet each. The median house price in my county alone is over 290 large, and the average single family costs more than $500,000. In this region, at least currently, for those prices you better come off with at least 3500 square feet, and that's what the builders provide.