Greenhouse gases soar; no signs warming is slowed

Nov 21, 2011 By SETH BORENSTEIN , AP Science Writer

(AP) -- Heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are building up so high, so fast, that some scientists now think the world can no longer limit global warming to the level world leaders have agreed upon as safe.

New figures from the U.N. weather agency Monday showed that the three biggest greenhouse gases not only reached record levels last year but were increasing at an ever-faster rate, despite efforts by many countries to reduce emissions.

As world leaders meet next week in South Africa to tackle the issue of , several scientists said their projections show it is unlikely the world can hold warming to the target set by leaders just two years ago in Copenhagen.

"The growth rate is increasing every decade," said Jim Butler, director of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Global Monitoring Division. "That's kind of scary."

Scientists can't say exactly what levels of greenhouse gases are safe, but some fear a continued rise in will lead to irreversible melting of some of the world's ice sheets and a several-foot rise in sea levels over the centuries - the so-called tipping point.

The findings from the U.N. are consistent with other grim reports issued recently. Earlier this month, figures from the U.S. Department of Energy showed that global in 2010 jumped by the highest one-year amount ever.

The WMO found that total levels in 2010 hit 389 parts per million, up from 280 parts per million in 1750, before the start of the Industrial Revolution. Levels increased 1.5 ppm per year in the 1990s and 2.0 per year in the first decade of this century, and are now rising at a rate of 2.3 per year. The top two other greenhouse gases - methane and - are also soaring.

The U.N. agency cited fossil fuel-burning, loss of forests that absorb CO2 and use of fertilizer as the main culprits.

Since 1990 - a year that international climate negotiators have set as a benchmark for emissions - the total heat-trapping force from all the major has increased by 29 percent, according to NOAA.

The accelerating rise is happening despite the 1997 Kyoto agreement to cut emissions. Europe, Russia and Japan have about reached their targets under the treaty. But China, the U.S. and India are all increasing emissions. The treaty didn't require emission cuts from China and India because they are developing nations. The U.S. pulled out of the treaty in 2001, the Senate having never ratified it.

While scientists can't agree on what level of warming of the climate is considered dangerous, environmental activists have seized upon 350 parts per million as a for carbon dioxide levels. The world pushed past that mark more than 20 years ago.

Governments have focused more on projected temperature increases rather than carbon levels. Since the mid-1990s, European governments have set a goal of limiting warming to slightly more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit (1.2 degrees Celsius) above current levels by the end of this century. The goal was part of a nonbinding agreement reached in Copenhagen in 2009 that was signed by the U.S. and other countries.

Temperatures have already risen about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) since pre-industrial times.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology professors Ron Prinn, Henry Jacoby and John Sterman said MIT's calculations show the world is unlikely to meet that two-degree goal now.

"There's very, very little chance," Prinn said. "One has to be pessimistic about making that absolute threshold." He added: "Maybe we've waited too long to do anything serious if two degrees is the danger level."

Andrew Weaver at the University of Victoria, Granger Morgan of Carnegie Mellon University and Gregg Marland of Appalachian State University agreed with the MIT analysis that holding warming to two degrees now seems unlikely.

"There's no way to stop it. There's so much inertia in the system," Morgan said. "We've committed to quite a bit of warming."

Prinn said new studies predict that if temperatures increase by more than two degrees, the Greenland ice sheets will start an irreversible melting. And that will add to rise significantly.

"Over the next several centuries, Greenland slowly melts away," Weaver said.

Explore further: New estimates on carbon emissions triggered by 300 years of cropland expansion in Northeast China

More information:
World Meteorological Organization's Greenhouse Gas Bulletin: http://bit.ly/vu04vB

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Annual Greenhouse Gas Index: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

4.4 /5 (13 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Biggest jump ever seen in global warming gases

Nov 03, 2011

(AP) -- The global output of heat-trapping carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record, the U.S. Department of Energy calculated, a sign of how feeble the world's efforts are at slowing man-made ...

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.

Planned emission cuts still mean far hotter Earth

Sep 24, 2009

(AP) -- Earth's temperature is likely to jump nearly 6 degrees between now and the end of the century even if every country cuts greenhouse gas emissions as proposed, according to a United Nations update.

Recommended for you

Time for worldwide fund to save mangroves: UNEP

13 hours ago

World lenders should set up a "Global Mangrove Fund" to protect these hotspots of biodiversity and vital sources of income, the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) said on Monday.

User comments : 61

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

StarGazer2011
2.4 / 5 (9) Nov 21, 2011
Im confused, this article talks about 1.4 rise since pre-industrial times, but the IPCC says AGW has added 0.7C and started in the 1950s. So what was the, presumably natural, cause of the warming from the end of the LIA in 1850's to the start of the AGW period in 1950?
gregor1
2.1 / 5 (15) Nov 21, 2011
Prinn said new studies predict that if temperatures increase by more than two degrees, the Greenland ice sheets will start an irreversible melting. And that will add to sea level rise significantly.

"New studies" how can a leading science website accept articles that don't back up their claims with a click through link in the text? Maybe I'm wrong but the last research I read on physorg was that tipping points with arctic ice were not going to happen. Very confusing.

gregor1
2.3 / 5 (16) Nov 21, 2011
We're all confused. That is the problem. We seem to have a hodgepodge of hypotheses that are unfalsifiable. The word "skeptic" is used as a term of vilification when skepticism is what science actually is. To my understanding any contributor to the climate debate who is not a skeptic, is not a scientist by definition. Very strange.
PinkElephant
3.7 / 5 (15) Nov 21, 2011
@StarGazer2011,
the IPCC says AGW has added 0.7C and started in the 1950s
Not quite. AGW started as soon as humans started digging up fossil carbon, burning it up, and releasing the combustion products into the atmosphere, concomitantly with clearing of forests. As industries grew world-wide, this impact escalated, and is still escalating exponentially today -- in parallel with the exponential growth of the world's economies. None of this "started" in 1950s. However, around 1950s is when this anthropogenic component starts to become large enough to be discernible in climate data in spite of measurement noise, uncertainties, and background climate variability.
what was the, presumably natural, cause of the warming from the end of the LIA in 1850's to the start of the AGW period in 1950?
Doesn't matter much. There's background climate variability. Overlaid additively on top of that is the AGW. AGW takes the natural noise curve, and gives it an upward ramp.
PinkElephant
4.1 / 5 (14) Nov 21, 2011
@gregor1,
how can a leading science website accept articles that don't back up their claims with a click through link in the text?
A valid point; however the people quoted are not pundits on TV -- they're actual professors (at MIT, no less) -- so maybe you should assume they know quite a bit more than you and should probably be trusted when they refer to "new studies". And then you say,
Maybe I'm wrong but the last research I read on physorg was that tipping points with arctic ice were not going to happen.
Maybe follow your own advice, and include a couple of links? Where are the recent physorg articles regarding tipping points (or lack thereof) for the Greenland glacier? Inquiring minds want to know.
To my understanding any contributor to the climate debate who is not a skeptic, is not a scientist by definition.
And yet people who aren't knowledgeable in the field on which they attempt to opine, aren't behaving very scientifically either.
gregor1
1.8 / 5 (16) Nov 21, 2011
So Pink Elephant, you seem better informed than me. How can they state there has been no signs that warming has slowed when apparently there has been no warming since 1998. I understand that climate is weather over 30 years but surely no warming for 10 years is at least a sign?
PinkElephant
4.1 / 5 (13) Nov 21, 2011
@gregor1,

First of all, 1998 was what is known in statistics as an "outlier". It was extraordinarily warm -- well above the trend line (most of that is attributed to a monstrous El Nino that occurred in that year.) Using 1998 as a benchmark from which to measure subsequent trends is a mistake only ignoramuses or well-informed yet malicious propagandists would make.

Secondly, as I said before there is natural variability in climate. There are various cycles; one of those is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), another is the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). A recent Berkeley Earth finding is that AMO is a significant component of global temperature trends:

http://berkeleyea...ions.pdf

Due to AMO being in a waning phase currently, we may see _average_ global temperatures stagnate or even retreat for a couple of decades. However, this doesn't make AGW go away: the next peak on AMO will reach much higher than the last one.
Howhot
4.6 / 5 (11) Nov 21, 2011
I have found this to be a truism:

Fox News Viewers Know Less Than People Who Don't Watch Any News: Study

In other words, rightwing propaganda really can influence how much you know. It really does show.

Pink, on the linger time of CO2, please see:

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

That was the reference I wanted to share with you about Co2 lasting 1000s of years. Good read IMHO.

gregor1
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 21, 2011
@ Pink Elephan
Apologies Pink it wasn't Physorg it was New Scientist &here
http://news.ku.dk...sea_ice/
I have a science degree on on my first day of Uni my professor told us the human race would be extinct by yr 2,000 so it taught me to question the hubris of professors who predict the future. It also led me into becoming an activist scientist though I now consider that an oxymoron. I am definitely an ignoramus and as a former activist am wondering if you are actually a schill for the oil industry who drives the unwary into the skeptic camp by calling people names. Also I said 10 years. That goes back to 2001 not 1998.

Please don't take to the skies on me. Your much more knowledgeable than me, and a flying pink elephant is no help to anyone. Take care mate
StarGazer2011
1 / 5 (9) Nov 22, 2011
@PinkElephant: You may ascribe the lack of warming to AMO, others ascribe it to SO2 (sulphur dioxide) from China's growing coal burning. If SO2 can cause relative cooling, removing SO2 would cause relative warming right?
So has anyone checked if the late 20th Century warming of 0.7C could have been caused by cleaner coal fired stations removing an existing cooling bias caused by SO2?
jsa09
1 / 5 (1) Nov 22, 2011
Problem with science and Government can generally be sourced back to politicians. They mean well, but good intentions...

I think coming up with a plan to limit global warming to any specific amount is completely wrong and stupid as well.

If we want to set a limit to something it would have to be expressed in either production or total PPM of specific gases.

If we set a limit to specific gas production or relative air ratios it is easily measured and we can see exactly where we are in relation.

The fact that we are passed an acceptable level and actually have to reduce output to below current levels is a sure sign that things need to happen in order to meet targets.

So if a set PPM rate of CO2 causes x amount of warming it would not be apparent exactly how much in total, until after Y years. Till then it could increase every year by some small amount.
PinkElephant
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 22, 2011
@gregor1,
it wasn't Physorg it was New Scientist here
You might notice that your link talks about arctic sea ice. The point in the article above you disputed, refers to the Greenland glacier. Do you realize that these two things are completely different entities?
it taught me to question the hubris of professors who predict the future
Predicting the future (incorrectly) is one thing. PUBLICLY LYING about "new studies" or results that don't actually exist -- which is the accusation you insinuate against these professors -- is an entirely different thing. Do you perceive the difference?
I am definitely an ignoramus
I hope that is the case, because that at least is curable. So far, you have recited a few very old, very tired, very scientifically invalid talking points used by malicious propagandists. Perhaps you should re-examine your sources of information, and make some changes. Unless, that is, you enjoy being a tool for professional BS artists.
PinkElephant
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 22, 2011
@StarGazer2011,
removing SO2 would cause relative warming right?
Yes. And not just SO2. Any form of smog, generally, causes cooling by reflecting solar radiation back out to space before it can reach the ground.
has anyone checked if the late 20th Century warming of 0.7C could have been caused by cleaner coal fired stations removing an existing cooling bias caused by SO2?
What do you think? Do you really think climate scientists are so stupid and incompetent that they wouldn't think of investigating such a basic and obvious effect?

In case it's not sufficiently obvious, industrial pollution did not exist until development of industry. And since then, it has to some extent masked the warming effects of greenhouse gases like CO2. Unfortunately, modern societies don't hold a very high regard for toxic air or acid rain, so they tend to clean up SO2 in particular and smog in general.

Also, CO2 lingers long after SO2 is gone from the atmosphere. CO2 builds up; SO2 doesn't.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (15) Nov 22, 2011
Greenhouse gases soar; no signs warming is slowed

(AP) -- Heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are building up so high, so fast, that some scientists now think the world can no longer limit global warming to the level world leaders have agreed upon as safe.
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
4.3 / 5 (11) 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.
SteveL
5 / 5 (7) Nov 22, 2011
We had no reason to suppose that weather and climate didn't have a form of inertia. If they didn't, the hottest days of the year would be evenly distributed around the longest day of the year, and the coldest days of a year would be evenly distributed around the shortest day of the year. We should naturally expect some inertia to the changes we have been recording for the last few generations.

It seems the only way to reverse this trend is to return to sustainable pre-1900 levels of carbon and other greenhouse gas output. Not very likely without something devastating happening to the human species. The important question we need to answer is: How do we survive this? Because "it" is coming.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2011
"Im confused, this article talks about 1.4 rise since pre-industrial times, but the IPCC says AGW has added 0.7C and started in the 1950s" - StarGazer

Perhaps you are confused because your reading comprehension levels are so low.

From the article you can't understand...

"Temperatures have already risen about 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) since pre-industrial times."

Get back to us if you need any help parsing the sentence above.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2011
"And yet, strangely, the arctic ice is recovering normally for the season" - UBVOn

What are you jabbering about now? Moron.

Arctic sea ice EXTENT (TODAY) is still 0.8 million square kilometers less than historic norms, and arctic sea ice volume is dropping like a stone.

http://www.skepti...maly.gif

Vendicar_Decarian
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2011
"So Pink Elephant, you seem better informed than me." - Gregor

Pretty much everyone is better informed than you. Tard Boy.

The amount of change expected over the last decade is expected to be around 0.1'C which is smaller than the natural level of variability which is around 0.5'C Hence over time scales of a decade natural variability always masks the underlying trend.

When you get to grade 10. Have your math teacher explain it to you.

Vendicar_Decarian
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2011
"We're all confused." - Gregor

You in particular Gregor.

Haven't you heard? Faux news makes you stupid.

"We seem to have a hodgepodge of hypotheses that are unfalsifiable." - Gregor

You can easily falsify the theory by showing that CO2 doesn't absorb light in the IR region of the spectra.

Or you could falsify it by showing that Co2 scattering is always forward coherent.

Your tacit admission is that you can't falsify the truth.

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.... How sad to be you.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2011
"Skepticism IS science." - Gregor1

Not by a long shot. The scientific method involves observing the world, formulating a hypothesis about it and verifying that hypothesis in the best way possible.

Skepticism is an open and honest suspicion that an observation is in error or an open and honest suspicion based on a viable alternate theory, that the theory doesn't explain the observations.

In the case of Global Warming Denialism, there is no viable alternate theory, and certainly no honesty in the denialist camp.

Denialism is the refusal to accept reality as reality.
It is the antithesis of science.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 22, 2011
there is no viable alternate theory,

Yes, there are.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2011
"Yes, there are." - RyggTard

Explanations that include Alien visitation's and Bigfoot, Illuminati, or a Bilderberg conspiracy aren't legitimate Tard Boy.
gregor1
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 22, 2011
@Vendicar "formulating a hypothesis about it and verifying that hypothesis in the best way possible."
NO that's religion or ideology. In science you try to disprove the hypothesis not prove it. That IS what science is. For a hypothesis to be valid it must be falsifiable and that is the problem with calling mathematical models science. I think you missed something at school. Science is not a body of knowledge, it's a method. Sorry Climate science risks becoming a dogma. Science only moves forward when the hypothesis is disproved. The problem we have here is that green ideology is clashing with actual science. The "activist scientist" is an oxymoron.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 22, 2011
Clearly you know nothing about science.

Go away. Little Tard Boy.

"NO that's religion or ideology." - Gregor

"Science is not a body of knowledge, it's a method." - Gregor

Idiot
gregor1
1.4 / 5 (12) Nov 22, 2011
People skills are not your strong point then? From my experience people become abusive when they're losing an argument and they feel their ideology is being threatened.
From this I make two hypotheses
1/ You're a "big oil" shill deliberately trying to give activists a bad name.
or
2/ You're a " big green" shill trying to prevent debate by bullying.
Now, If you are a scientist you will try to disprove my hypotheses
(By the way, where I come from calling someone "Tard boy" is akin to calling someone "Nigger" )

PinkElephant
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 22, 2011
In science you try to disprove the hypothesis not prove it.
The null hypothesis that anthropogenic greenhouse gases do not cause global climate to warm, is long since soundly disproven. Why do people continue to champion it? Ah, here's the answer:
NO that's religion or ideology.
I mean, consider the contents of the article above.

The Sun has been at a cyclical low for the past several years, with Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) in the dumps. Yet, no slowing in global warming. Oceans continue to heat up, glaciers continue to melt off, ecosystems continue being disrupted. The fundamental physics involved here (radiative and convective heat transport through the atmosphere) is well-tested, well-known, and well-established. Slanderous allegations of scientific fraud have been shown to be a scam, and BEST reproduced the very same data despite being funded (and run by) prominent "skeptics".

What's missing? Do you need to hear it from a burning bush, or something?
gregor1
2 / 5 (12) Nov 22, 2011
The null hypothesis that anthropogenic greenhouse gases do not cause global climate to warm, is long since soundly disproven. Why do people continue to champion it?
I agree. Personally I don't know many who would disagree. You've used a classic straw man. I say there's been no warming for 10 years (as I remember even the BEST data shows this) and you assume that I don't think GHG cause the climate to warm. The question is how much?
The hypothesis from the alarmist point of view seems to have changed from
That human carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming. to this
That human activity is causing dangerous global warming. Another proposition entirely (though as there is no warming we now call it climate change)
I think you'd have to agree that if the CO@ concentration rises dramatically and the temperature stays put the first hypothesis has to go. As for the second H, that remains to be tested at the moment it's merely speculation.
PinkElephant
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 22, 2011
I think you'd have to agree that if the CO@ concentration rises dramatically and the temperature stays put the first hypothesis has to go.
No, I don't have to agree because the climate is highly variable in the short term. Pinpointing 10-year periods of "temperature staying put" does not negate multi-decadal trends.

The "alarmist point of view" (your very use of that loaded term is quite telling, and you have my pity) is that AGW will drive temperatures upward on multi-decadal, multi-century scales. It DOES NOT postulate a perfect linear rise in global temperature averages. It DOES NOT say that there can be no 10-year periods of failing to exceed an EXTREME OUTLIER like 1998. Indeed, that would be rather stupid to assume, considering all the long-period cycles involved with oceanic circulation, and general chaotic noise due to short-term climate turbulence. You want to discuss classic strawmen? Look in the mirror.
gregor1
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 22, 2011
Ok apologies my large pink friend. Are you then saying the hypothesis was and perhaps still is
"That human carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming except when other things are causing more cooling."
and you are suggesting that So4 might be one of those things though that's yet to be established. I"VE GOT AN IDEA! Why don't instead of calling them "other things" why don't we call them "Negative feedbacks" and why don't we study them? Perhaps there are completely natural ones! Like clouds! For a large African mammal you astonish me sometimes! Look what we've achieved with science! You still can't manage basic maths though. It's now 2011. subtract 10 years and you get 2001. Not 1998. Your heaps of fun
bluehigh
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 23, 2011
ice sheets will start an irreversible melting
- from the article.

Wow. A major discovery. Water that melts and cannot ever be re-frozen. Amazing new physics.

Its hard to take any of this seriously. The views are so polarised that common sense and reason long ago vanished in this debate.

Your heaps of fun


good attitude.

gregor1
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 23, 2011
Oh I just noticed another hypothesis
"The "alarmist point of view" (your very use of that loaded term is quite telling, and you have my pity) is that AGW will drive temperatures upward on multi-decadal, multi-century scales."
Where did this come from? I know you are well informed so please a reference would be nice. I'm not sure the BEST data shows this. Is this actually falsifiable (testable) without actually doing nothing but waiting centuries to see what happens? I'm pretty sure the BEST data doesn't show this but I may be wrong. I'm thinking that this comes from mathematical models but as I remember this show no 10 year hiatus. Are models actually science? Are there experiments that are reproducible? I'm thinking a point of view is a guess rather than a fact, but then I'm just an ignoramus. I'm thinking you may be subject to the "post hoc" error with a little confirmation bias added for good measure.
bluehigh
2.8 / 5 (12) Nov 23, 2011
with a little confirmation bias added for good measure.


A little? Now that's an understatement.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (15) 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
1.3 / 5 (15) 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.

rubberman
4.1 / 5 (9) Nov 23, 2011
UVT....You post like a child. Try, just try to grasp the timescales involved. We can revisit your dumbass remarks in 40 years, if GHG emmissions continue on their current trend you will have your "dire consequences" quite evident for alot more locations around the globe.
And yes seasonal ice will return to the arctic every winter...have you been to the arctic, or even anywhere close to it? If the earth is ever in a state where seasonal ice doesn't return to the arctic, I doubt any of us would be alive.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 23, 2011
"...the three biggest greenhouse gases...carbon dioxide... The top two other greenhouse gases - methane and nitrous oxide"

Ahem. Isn't water vapor the #1 greenhouse gas by a huge margin?

This kind of reporting reminds me of a certain poll recently in which the ranking went from 1st place to third and then to fourth without mentioning who was tied for second place. Propaganda of the most blatant kind, in both cases.
rubberman
4.3 / 5 (9) Nov 23, 2011
Water vapour doesn't stay in the atmosphere long enough to be considered a consistent variable, the amount is always changing.
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 23, 2011
Water vapour doesn't stay in the atmosphere long enough to be considered a consistent variable, the amount is always changing.


"Water vapor is a potent greenhouse gas along with other gases such as carbon dioxide and methane."

-Wikipedia

Even in the desert, water vapor is 4%, which is orders of magnitude higher than CO2.

To ignore water vapor in discussing greenhouse gases is pure sophistry, a tool of propagandists.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Nov 23, 2011
Water vapour doesn't stay in the atmosphere long enough to be considered a consistent variable, the amount is always changing.

How is water vapor modeled then with high fidelity?
Water vapor is consistently in the atm.
H2O absorbs the most IR energy in the atm.
rubberman
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 23, 2011
Water vapour IS a potent GHG, no argument on that one . The concentration isn't uniform and it always changes. Yes it is always in the atmosphere but not always in the same location or at the same level, like the arctic ice in winter, if it wasn't there we probably wouldn't be alive. It creates a positive feedback and amplifies the effects of other GHG's. This is pretty much basket weaving 101 as far as the greenhouse effect goes.... you've had all of this pointed out to you multiple times R2....short term memory loss can be pesky.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Nov 23, 2011
The concentration isn't uniform and it always changes.

Since H2O is the most potent GHG, how is it modeled if the concentration is not uniform and well mixed?
So what you are saying is measuring and modeling H2O is really hard and, even if it could be accomplished with high fidelity, how can the IPCC control water vapor in the atm?
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 23, 2011
My point is that water vapor is indisputably the most important greenhouse gas, yet it is ignored by the authors of this report.

I think this (ignoring the facts) is important in order to elevate the importance of CO2. It is hard to find another explanation.

Also, why do you believe is it significant that water vapor's concentration isn't uniform? Even at its lowest concentration (desert,) it is still a far more significant greenhouse gas than CO2, by orders of magnitude.
rubberman
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 23, 2011
Claudius, R2 is asking how to model it. Water vapor is a product of weather conditions, it is signifigant that it's concentration isn't uniform because attempting to model based on a random, ever changing variable is futile.
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 23, 2011
Variability in water vapor concentration does not change its importance as the most significant greenhouse gas.

I am not impressed with reliance on models. It seems they are like the Bible, you can get them to say whatever you want by changing the inputs, which the climategate email leaks have shown.
Claudius
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 23, 2011
how can the IPCC control water vapor in the atm?


Well, they've already had CO2 classified as a pollutant. They could classify H20 as a pollutant. After all, H20 is the most significant greenhouse gas, and most of what comes out of nuclear and coal fired power plants is H20. Since human activity is increasing the concentration of H20 in the atmosphere, we must be causing global warming with H20 emissions, which must be controlled. We should crack down on any activity that increases the concentration of H20 in the atmosphere, including breathing. (This would be tongue in cheek if it weren't so close to reality.)
Howhot
5 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2011
Well @Claud H2O is very important in our computer models and could really be a major consequence of AGW not being stopped in time. AGW says that oceans will heat up, evaporate more water and, as you've noted, cause more global warming.

Of course, methane and other green house gasses also increase.
Howhot
5 / 5 (6) Nov 23, 2011
R2, I don't think we can do anything about excess H2O vapor given that 2/3rd of the earth is covered in oceans. However if we control the trigger mechanism that is causing excess H2O then problem solved. The trigger is of course human created excess CO2 levels from burning fossil fuels.

So, stop coal, oil, natural gas and switch to solar, geothermal, hydro-electric, wind! It's the only way to save earth.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 23, 2011
We also exhale CO2, I failed to mention. Another reason to stop breathing. If this sounds over the top, Bill Gates gave a speech last year advocating massively reducing global population as a way to decrease CO2 emissions. So we are not only going to need to abandon our most efficient fuel sources, but create massive population reduction in a short amount of time in order to satisfy the need to reduce CO2. People are already starving in 3rd world countries because land is being diverted from food production to producing "renewable" energy sources.

This imperative drives the AGW movement, and in spite of a questionable so-called consensus, there is no conclusive link between catastrophic climate change and human activity.

Extraordinary change requires extraordinary evidence. We do not have extraordinary evidence for AGW.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Nov 23, 2011
UVT....You post like a child.
Since I'm only twelve, I'll accept that as a compliment.

Try, just try to grasp the timescales involved. We can revisit your dumbass remarks in 40 years, if GHG emmissions continue on their current trend you will have your "dire consequences" quite evident for alot more locations around the globe.
Blather, nothing but blather. If CO2 is such a big deal, and we have more now than ever before, why haven't Al Gore's predictions held up?

And yes seasonal ice will return to the arctic every winter
It aint winter yet.

...have you been to the arctic, or even anywhere close to it? If the earth is ever in a state where seasonal ice doesn't return to the arctic, I doubt any of us would be alive.
What? Didn't you know even the Antarctic has been ice free before?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Nov 23, 2011
Did MIT professor Lindzen peer review this paper?

MIT made some famously wrong calculations in the 70s. The critique was published in Models of Doom.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Nov 23, 2011
"Professor Prinn reminded the
audience of an often overlooked fact: omnipresent water vapor itself is one of the most important and potent of the greenhouse gases."
"But Prinn
asked, "Is this a chicken and egg problem? Is carbon rising merely
because temperature is rising and the biosphere responds, or, is the
temperature rise itself due to changes in carbon dioxide? We don't have
an answer to that yet.""
"We're not going to severely
restrict by regulation or pricing the use of carbon dioxide.""
{But that is exactly what is being attempted.}
http://www.google...VOapxmpw
Howhot
5 / 5 (6) Nov 24, 2011
Geez R2? Your logic is just confounding to this Great One. Yeah as someone pointed out so correctly we do exhale carbon dioxide (that is CO2 by the way). Perhaps with your logic then, the reason we have global warming from CO2 is we have too many people exhaling at the same time. So if we just hold our breaths then there will be less CO2? Ok then let's do an experiment. All those that believe global warming is a hoax, please hold your breath now!

Amazing isn't it. Being able to breath? Now take all of those exhales and pack them so dense as to be COAL and you see why burning coal could be a problem? All of those exhales all at once and what do you get? CO2 overdose!

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, traps heat, and then Earth is cooked.
Howhot
5 / 5 (6) Nov 25, 2011
:Greenhouse gases soar; no signs warming is slowed" NUFF SAID.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Nov 26, 2011
Soar? 100 parts per MILLION is soaring?
Callippo
1 / 5 (8) Nov 26, 2011
We aren't willing to limit our consumption, so that only cold fusion could help us to limit the greenhouse gases production. But I don't think, the people are responsible for all this increasing concentration of carbon dioxide. In my theory the Earth itself is heating, being surrounded with clouds of antineutrinos from dark matter, which are accelerating the decay of radioactive elements inside of Earth mantle and oceans and releasing the carbon dioxide dissolved from there. At any case, the people can do nearly nothing against it, but we should limit the fossil fuel consumption with respect to risk of geopolitical instability and nuclear wars at the case of sudden rise of oil price.
Callippo
1 / 5 (8) Nov 26, 2011
This is carbon dioxide curve, as measured at Hawaii. One doesn't need to be climatic expert for being able to recognize, all anti-warming actions and billions spent in carbon tax so far had a zero net effect. This "strategy" simply doesn't work at all.

http://www.coolan...xide.png

The biggest problem of emissions trading is the fact, it virtualizes the main purpose of carbon tax, i.e. the providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants, the collection of money into introduction of green-house gases free technologies in particular.

Instead of it, the rich companies of western word are sponsoring the introduction of older fossil carbon technologies at the less developed countries and nothing forces them to limit their own production of green-house gases.
SteveL
5 / 5 (7) Nov 26, 2011
So, stop coal, oil, natural gas and switch to solar, geothermal, hydro-electric, wind! It's the only way to save earth.
The Earth will be fine no matter what. To be honest; it's really our own tails and those of our decendants we are concerned with saving.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2011
"100 parts per MILLION is soaring" - RyggTard

Correct. But of course it is actually closer to 150 PPM.

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2011
"We're not going to severely restrict by regulation or pricing the use of carbon dioxide." - RyggTard

Correct again.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2011
"I'm only twelve, I'll accept Blather, nothing but blather" - Ubvon

"CO2 is such a big deal, and we have more now than ever before" - Ubvon

Correct.