Greenhouse gases rise to record high in 2010: UN

Nov 21, 2011

The amount of global warming-causing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere rose to a new high in 2010, and the rate of increase has accelerated, the UN weather agency said on Monday.

Levels of -- a and major contributor to -- rose by 2.3 parts per million between 2009 and 2010, higher than the average for the past decade of 2.0 parts per million, a new report by the World Meteorological Organisation found.

"The atmospheric burden of due to human activities has yet again reached record levels since pre-industrial time," said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud.

Greenhouse gases trap within the ’s atmosphere, causing it to warm.

The last two decades have seen a 29 percent increase in radiative forcing -- the warming effect -- from greenhouse gases, the report said.

Scientists attributed the continuing rise in levels of carbon dioxide, which contributes about 64 percent to climate warming, to fossil fuel burning, deforestation and changes in land use.

Methane, produced by cattle-rearing and landfills, is the second most important greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide, followed by nitrous oxide.

The WMO's annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin said methane levels rose 5 parts per billion or 0.28 percent in 2009-2010 after a period of relative stabilisation from 1999 to 2006, possibly due to the thawing of the Northern permafrost and increased emissions from tropical wetlands.

Nitrous oxide, emitted into the atmosphere from natural and man-made sources, including biomass burning and fertiliser use, rose 0.8 parts per billion to 323.2 in 2010 -- 20 percent higher than in the pre-industrial era, defined as the period before 1750.

Its impact on the climate over a 100-year period was said to be 298 times greater than equal emissions of carbon dioxide.

"Even if we managed to halt our greenhouse gas emissions today -- and this is far from the case -- they would continue to linger in the atmosphere for decades to come and so continue to affect the delicate balance of our living planet and our climate," said Jarraud.

"Now more than ever before, we need to understand the complex, and sometimes unexpected, interactions between greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, Earth’s biosphere and oceans."

The seventh Greenhouse Gas Bulletin comes ahead of a new round of UN climate talks in South Africa next Monday, testing global resolve to tackle what scientists warn is a time bomb with an ever-shorter fuse.

Analysts say the UN process is still traumatised by the near-collapse of the 2009 Copenhagen Summit and, in Durban, faces a bust-up over the Kyoto Protocol, the only agreement setting legal curbs on greenhouse gases.

Data from the US Department of Energy released earlier this month showed carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels made their biggest ever annual jump in 2010, led by China, the United States and India.

Explore further: Coastal defences could contribute to flooding with sea-level rise

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

NOAA greenhouse gas index continues to climb

Nov 09, 2011

NOAA's updated Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI), which measures the direct climate influence of many greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, shows a continued steady upward trend that began with the Industrial ...

New website to monitor greenhouse gases

Jun 20, 2011

An Australian research institute on Monday launched a website that allows the public to monitor greenhouse gas emissions in the southern hemisphere.

Recommended for you

Tracking giant kelp from space

13 hours ago

Citizen scientists worldwide are invited to take part in marine ecology research, and they won't have to get their feet wet to do it. The Floating Forests project, an initiative spearheaded by scientists ...

Heavy metals and hydroelectricity

15 hours ago

Hydraulic engineering is increasingly relied on for hydroelectricity generation. However, redirecting stream flow can yield unintended consequences. In the August 2014 issue of GSA Today, Donald Rodbell of ...

What's wiping out the Caribbean corals?

15 hours ago

Here's what we know about white-band disease: It has already killed up to 95 percent of the Caribbean's reef-building elkhorn and staghorn corals, and it's caused by an infectious bacteria that seems to be ...

User comments : 35

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

3432682
1.8 / 5 (15) Nov 21, 2011
Apparently CO2 rise does not cause temperature rise, since 1998.
Skepticus_Rex
1.6 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2011
I had to sit down quickly to prevent myself from falling over when I read this:
...they [greenhouse gasses] would continue to linger in the atmosphere for decades to come...


They actually went by the CO2 evidence this time! I'm impressed. Decades...not centuries (as was sold and panicked to the public in the recent past). Of course, that only applies to CO2 and CH4.

NF3 and SF6 (and a few pluripotent potent others), wholly manmade GHGs manufactured and introduced into the atmosphere in mankind's botched attempts to save the planet via solar technology, will be there in the atmosphere for centuries. :)
Arkaleus
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 21, 2011
What's with the unqualified superlatives? The period before 1750 includes the ancient epochs where much higher concentrations of CO2 and higher temperatures prevailed over a thriving, green world burgeoning with life.

I would welcome a return to those times, please make that possible with my carbon taxes.
SemiNerd
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 21, 2011
What's with the unqualified superlatives? The period before 1750 includes the ancient epochs where much higher concentrations of CO2 and higher temperatures prevailed over a thriving, green world burgeoning with life.

I would welcome a return to those times, please make that possible with my carbon taxes.

I suspect your carbon taxes will go towards the millions of displaced refugees from low lying areas inundated by raising ocean levels.
SemiNerd
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2011
Apparently CO2 rise does not cause temperature rise, since 1998.

I guess you didn't get the memo. Scientists have recorded quite an increase since 1998. Please stop repeating right wing myths. They are as out of date as they are wrong.
astro_optics
2 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2011
"...they [greenhouse gasses] would continue to linger in the atmosphere for decades to come...

in one of the other articles it was claim that CO2 would linger for thousands of years...
Arkaleus
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2011
I suspect your carbon taxes will go towards the millions of displaced refugees from low lying areas inundated by raising ocean levels.


I strongly doubt even a single penny will ever go from the hands of the carbon cabal to the poor people of the earth.

More likely it will fund vast institutions of social control to prepare the poor nations for concerted domination and scientifically planned resource extraction.

Anyone delusional enough to expect altruism and humanity from this band of jackals should be the first to submit to their "population control" regimes.

For years the mad-hatter climate kooks were merely a sad offshoot of anti-human nihilism until the big money groups figured out how to turn their hysteria into a fast track for global domination.

For us to accept these plans would be to utterly abandon our reason.

Nothing short circuits human reason like panic.
Davecoolman
1.4 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2011
Wow. mostly common sense on the doom and gloom site maybe truth overcomes dogma after all.
The Co2 is higher Co2 residence in the atmosphere is between 5 and 15 years, the temperature increase has stalled since 1998. even the most alarmist warmist doom and gloomier scientist agree with this, that's why they now want a 17 year stable or slight cooling before acknowledgement of a cycle warm cool or static.

Ben Santer, said that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human caused changes.
Whats magic about 17 years instead of 15? From their point of view,
it would give the alarmists at least two more years of grace before they had to admit the giant computer models are a total failure.
That might be enough time to re-elect Obama.

The gravy train grant and loan giver in chief!
Howhot
1 / 5 (3) Nov 21, 2011
Given that CO2 levels just keep going up and up, please read this about CO2 linger time; It's more than 17 year. More like 1700 years.

http://www.nature...122.html

Davecoolman
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 21, 2011

THE POTENTIAL DEPENDENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING ON THE RESIDENCE TIME (RT) IN THE ATMOSPHERE OF ANTHROPOLOGICALLY-SOURCED CARBON DIOXIDE

by Robert H. Essenhigh, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University,
Columbus, USA. In press in the journal 'Energy and Fuels', but now available at ACS

website http://pubs.acs.o...FmgAkdpu

Tom Quirk recently arrived at a similar conclusion:

http://jenniferma...-support
-fossil-fuels-as-the-source-of-elevated-concentrations-of-atmospheric-carbon-dio
xide-part-1/

Using the combustion/chemical-engineering Perfectly Stirred Reactor (PSR) mixing structure, or 0-D Box, as the basis of a model for residence time in the atmosphere, he explains that carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels are likely to have a residence time of between 5 and 15 years.
Howhot
1 / 5 (2) Nov 22, 2011
You know your a fool when you expect the earth will magically take up all of the "EXCESS" CO2 in 17 years. How many gigatons of excess CO2 can you sequester in the ocean before it gives up a big burp! No friends, CO2 lingers a hell of a long time, and if we don't stop this rightwing propaganda campaign on the environment, we are talking dead earth by 2050.

Skepticus_Rex
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 22, 2011
15 years was the observed time, over the last 15 years, to remove naturally 50% of everything we emitted. That is why the numbers go up only a couple percent or so every year. There was no real evidence of slowing down, either, at least so far.

How long until it gets to that point where it can contain no more? Probably never.

When we consider that CO2 was in levels of several 1000s ppm in the distant past, and life figured out a way to deal with it, I see no reason why that cannot happen again.

There is no way that mankind will ever be able to burn everything that became buried as they cannot get to it all (a lot of it has been subducted under continental plates many times over), so the levels will never reach that height again from man's burning of fossil fuels. It is a physical impossibility.

The oceans held it in, then. They will most likely do it again, with the additional support of not having the levels of the gas raised as high as they were by humans.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 22, 2011
Greenhouse gases rise to record high in 2010: UN

The amount of global warming-causing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere rose to a new high in 2010, and the rate of increase has accelerated
And yet, strangely, the arctic ice is recovering normally for the season, and (so far) snow cover is heavier than in 2010.

It makes one wonder: Is there really a significant cause and effect between atmospheric carbon content and global warming?

http://igloo.atmo...;sy=2011

PinkElephant
4 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2011
THE POTENTIAL DEPENDENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING ON THE RESIDENCE TIME (RT) IN THE ATMOSPHERE OF ANTHROPOLOGICALLY-SOURCED CARBON DIOXIDE
What does anthropology have to do with climate science?
15 years was the observed time, over the last 15 years, to remove naturally 50% of everything we emitted.
There is no such removal. There is only equilibration. Equilibration is relatively rapid, assuming you stop disturbing the equilibrium on a continuing basis. With more CO2 pumped into the carbon cycle, the point of equilibrium continues to rise. It takes centuries (and up to millennia) for all of the extra CO2 to exit the carbon cycle.
life figured out a way to deal with it
The argument against carbon caps is that it costs too much. How much will it cost to adapt the global economy to the radically altered climate? Deferred costs are not defrayed costs. What's your economic risk premium for uncertainty in eventual (and inevitable) impacts?
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2011
And yet, strangely, the arctic ice is recovering normally for the season, and (so far) snow cover is heavier than in 2010.
What is strange about arctic ice recovering just when it is supposed to be recovering? It has happened every year in the past, and will continue to happen in the foreseeable future.

Snow cover will vary from year to year. What is strange about that?
s there really a significant cause and effect between atmospheric carbon content and global warming?
The physics of the atmospheric greenhouse effect have been explained to you repeatedly, by various people, in various ways, at various points in time. It boggles the mind that you still fail to comprehend the very basics of the science you endeavor to criticize and reject. What makes you imagine that any of your points have any merit whatsoever, unless and until you have managed to attain at least a grade-school level understanding of the issues at hand? Egomania is not an excuse.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Nov 23, 2011
What is strange about arctic ice recovering just when it is supposed to be recovering? It has happened every year in the past, and will continue to happen in the foreseeable future.
So you're saying "global warming" is NOT having (or is going to have) a significant effect on seasonal polar ice, inspite of the dire warnings of increasing "greenhouse gasses?"

Snow cover will vary from year to year. What is strange about that?
So you're saying precipitation is not expected to trend continually downward at an increasing rate, caused by the buildup of CO2 induced global warming?

Question: If there's no significant trend either way, then why worry about it at all?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Nov 23, 2011
The physics of the atmospheric greenhouse effect have been explained to you repeatedly, by various people, in various ways, at various points in time.
Oh, I've long been warned of the "dire consequences" of GW. Funny how all their predictions turn out wrong, isn't it? How do you explain it?

It boggles the mind that you still fail to comprehend the very basics of the science you endeavor to criticize and reject.
Naw, that'd be you.

What makes you imagine that any of your points have any merit whatsoever,
And you, yours?

unless and until you have managed to attain at least a grade-school level understanding of the issues at hand?
Funny how the doomsayers keep coming up short, isn't it?

Egomania is not an excuse.
Then quit with it already.

Howhot
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2011
Skepticus says "When we consider that CO2 was in levels of several 1000s ppm in the distant past, and life figured out a way to deal with it, I see no reason why that cannot happen again."

This is fallacy. Your not getting the big picture here Skepticus. The reason why we would like to keep Co2 to 450ppm preferably less is this only amounts to a global average temperature rise of 1.7C from 1990. If you double that, then models predict doubling of the temp. Why you and I can probably "put up" with a 2C increase, trees, plants, animals, fish, reefs and whole ecosystems could easily be wiped out. There is no guarantee your going to like the results.

If you look at the projections (yeah computer models to the deniers) it does not look good for man kind. Even cooler climates could be susceptible to man effects of a warmer environment.
Howhot
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2011
You know the the thing you Nay-sayers are missing is while CO2 from burning fossil fuels will eventually be taken up by the oceans, that will increase the acidity of the oceans. And *most* of the CO2 in the ocean eventually is re-released into the ocean. Just look at Hockey-Stick you all hate so much.
Here is the CO2 cycle interaction with oceans;

http://www.treehu...now.html

The the thing you need to be concerned about is once you've done the damage, it may take 100000years to repair.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (1) Nov 23, 2011
The the thing you need to be concerned about is once you've done the damage, it may take 100000years to repair.
What "damage?"
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (1) Nov 23, 2011
There is no such removal.


I meant removal from the atmosphere. And, yes, it was removed from the atmosphere and absorbed by all natural sinks. That is, by definition, removal from the atmosphere.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2011
The argument against carbon caps is that it costs too much. How much will it cost to adapt the global economy to the radically altered climate?


You are assuming that the models are correct. So far, they have been way off. If you take the land temperatures only, it has not warmed significantly since 2001. If you take the land and sea global average temperatures, there is a slight downward trend since 2001. Either way, the warming has not been significant for the entire decade. In addition, the models were off, reality being only 40% of what was predicted by the models.

When I see a real warming trend, it will then be time to calculate risk premiums and so forth. We will have to wait and see what happens over the next two to three decades to be sure about anything relative to temperatures. That it how long it will take to see whether we are on target for long-term cooling or we have no more than noise as part of a long-term warming. I believe in patience rather than alarmism.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (3) Nov 23, 2011
If you double that, then models predict doubling of the temp.


The models have been inaccurate. You should do some experiments with CO2. I have several for you to try, all of which have one or more controls. I have yet to replicate empirically what the models say will happen. I and friends have been trying to get as many people to try to do these experiments as possible. The one thing that has been a constant is that nearly every alarmist who does the experiments gets angry and refuses to share their results with either us or the public.

What do you think? Willing to give the experiments a try? PM me. I'll give you the parameters of the experiments.
Howhot
1 / 5 (1) Nov 24, 2011
Skep; The models are accurate. They have been accurate for 10 years now and have proven that fact over and over. Bottom line is the world is getting hotter and will be getting even hotter.

Why argue about it? Please explain WHY IS THE WORLD GETTING HOTTER?
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2011
Why argue about it? Please explain WHY IS THE WORLD GETTING HOTTER?


Overall, using global average combined land and sea surface temperatures, it hasn't really warmed since 2001. What is there to explain? And, don't try to invoke BEST. That data only covers land data and does not include anything else--which makes it not so global a data set, considering that the earth is about 70% ocean.

The models in AR4 were not correct. Reality is at only just under 40% of what the models predicted. That leaves a margin of error of over 60%. That is why research is ongoing to improve the models and include weather and climate elements that are not accurately portrayed in the models. You need to keep up with the flow of information, and read some papers. You might need a paid subscription for some of them, however. Not all of them are available for free.
Howhot
3 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2011
Skep; "Either way, the warming has not been significant for the entire decade. In addition, the models were off, reality being only 40% of what was predicted by the models."

What planet are you living on man?
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2011
while CO2 from burning fossil fuels will eventually be taken up by the oceans, that will increase the acidity of the oceans.


I forgot to address this. Just so you know in advance, I have been told by someone I know that there are groups who have been studying ocean pH, following up in oceans where samples were previously taken that showed declines in pH in published papers. I cannot say much in public about this other than to mention that it is happening.

The only thing I will say further about this is that a number of samples in several locations taken this year are showing increases in pH since the samples were last taken. That is all I am saying about it. When the work is finished and the work completed, I am sure that all will be made public eventually. You can then read more about it then.

Who knows, maybe overall the data still will lean toward supporting your side of the argument. We'll see. :)
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2011
What planet are you living on man?


The one where a scientific paper was published by climate scientists, who support the idea of AGW/AGCC, found that reality is only just under 40% of what the models say should have happened by now. I have linked the study elsewhere on this site. You will need to pay to view it, however. Read it. It is an eye-opener. :)
Howhot
3 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2011
Skep, I've read them and you know what... what planet are you living on?
Howhot
3 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2011
Seriously, you think this a debate?
Howhot
3 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2011
Seriously, you think this a debate?

The amount of global warming-causing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere rose to a new high in 2010, and the rate of increase has accelerated


Accelerating mind you. And how many stories here on physorg have we seen global temperature increases debated. They too are accelerating. Ergo... global temperatures are rising.

Howhot
3 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2011
I know that there are groups who have been studying ocean pH, following up in oceans where samples were previously taken that showed declines in pH in published papers. I cannot say much in public.


So ocean acidification is a concern. If your an oil company and you have no customers because you have poisoned everything and the customers are dead what is the point?

Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2011
Skep, I've read them and you know what... what planet are you living on?


If you had read the paper I am talking about, you would have known the answer. You also would have known from that same paper about the rather large margin of error. Obviously, you have not read the paper. The link is somewhere around here. As I said, I posted it in one of these articles.

So ocean acidification is a concern.


The media has made it a concern. The trouble is, if more samples turn up a higher pH in a wider array of samples, thus showing increasing pH of the various oceans being tested, the whole idea of ocean acidification goes out the window.

And, who cares what the oil companies think? I certainly don't.

They too are accelerating. Ergo... global temperatures are rising.


No, not for the last decade and are stagnating rather than accelerating. The data entire globe together and there is no accelerated warming for the last decade.

It could change. Only time will tell.
Howhot
3 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2011
Skep, you have to have a cold heart. So from your point of view everything is "lawty-dawty" Ok fine. Drill-baby-drill.

I hope that is a correct personification.

If it is, its a sad point of view if you have any concern about the human condition of future generations. That is really what this GW debate really is about. Its the future of the next generations; your offspring and theirs.

You had better make sure in your mind @skep that the crap you spew here is what you want to pass along.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (2) Nov 24, 2011
I just learned something very interesting about BEST. All I have to say at the moment is that I hope that they accounted for the temperature stations that do not meet proper criteria. There are some interesting things coming around the turnpike. :)

And, you have me all wrong. That's OK, though. I really couldn't care less. I am more interested in unvarnished truth from both sides of the equation.

So, are you ready to try the experiments yet? :)