'Time running out' as CO2 levels hit new high, UN says

May 26, 2014
Cooling towers of the coal-fired power plant of Scholven in Gelsenkirchen, western Germany, are pictured on January 16, 2012

Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have crossed a new threshold, the UN's weather agency said Monday, highlighting the urgency of curbing manmade, climate-altering greenhouse gases.

In April, for the first time, the mean monthly CO2 concentration in the atmosphere topped 400 parts per million (ppm) throughout the northern hemisphere, which pollutes more than the south, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said.

"This should serve as yet another wakeup call about the constantly rising levels of which are driving climate change," WMO chief Michel Jarraud said in a statement.

"If we are to preserve our planet for future generations, we need urgent action to curb new emissions of these heat-trapping gases. Time is running out," he warned.

Spring values in the had previously spiked over the 400 ppm level, but this was the first time the monthly mean concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere exceeded the threshold.

The global annual average is set to exceed the 400 ppm level in 2015 or 2016, the agency added.

The threshold is of symbolic and scientific significance, and reinforces evidence that the burning of fossil fuels is responsible for the non-stop increase in heat-trapping gases, the WMO underlined.

CO2 stays locked in the atmosphere for hundreds of years, and its lifespan in the oceans is longer still.

It is by far the most important emitted by human activities and was responsible for 85 percent of the increase in radiative forcing, the warming effect on the climate, from 2002-2012.

According to the WMO, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere reached 393.1 parts per million in 2012, or 141 percent of the pre-industrial level of 278 parts per million.

The amount of CO2 in the has increased on average by two parts per million every year for the past decade.

Explore further: Legume has potential to turn sandy soils into productive land

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Climate chief warns of 'urgency' as CO2 levels rise

Apr 29, 2013

The UN's climate chief called for urgency Monday as she opened a new round of global talks amid warnings that Earth-warming carbon dioxide levels were approaching a symbolic threshold never seen in human ...

Atmospheric carbon levels nearing historic threshold

Apr 24, 2013

(Phys.org) —For the first time in human history, concentrations of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide (CO2) could rise above 400 parts per million (ppm) for sustained lengths of time throughout much of the Northern Hemisphere ...

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.

Recommended for you

New challenges for ocean acidification research

9 hours ago

Over the past decade, ocean acidification has received growing recognition not only in the scientific area. Decision-makers, stakeholders, and the general public are becoming increasingly aware of "the other carbon dioxide ...

Compromises lead to climate change deal

9 hours ago

Earlier this month, delegates from the various states that make up the UN met in Lima, Peru, to agree on a framework for the Climate Change Conference that is scheduled to take place in Paris next year. For ...

User comments : 28

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

hurricane25
1.8 / 5 (20) May 26, 2014
Rooting for 500 ppm. 10 years without a single .01c of temperature increase.
BaconBits
4.4 / 5 (19) May 26, 2014
@hurricane - smug and self righteous and wrong much?

By your idiotic logic human average has been declining because the tallest man lived 80 years ago when in fact, the average height has been increasing. Cherry picked baselines don't win your argument they reveal your intention to deceive.

Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (16) May 26, 2014
10 years without a single .01c of temperature increase.
@hurricane25
BaconBits has it right
you see the world like this: http://www.skepti...rame.jpg
whereas SCIENCE will see this: http://www.skepti...rame.gif

this is taken from an article here: http://www.skepti...php?g=47
cantdrive85
1.5 / 5 (17) May 26, 2014
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

https://www.youtu...rwwT6Zps

At least we can rock some badass tunes while we burn....
tommo
4.2 / 5 (15) May 26, 2014
The oceans are some 1.6C/2.9F warmer than pre-industrial, the Arctic has more of an effect on climate than anyone would have stated 10-years ago and it's heated 3-times faster than models ... the thawing permafrost & clathrates will finish the job ... methane is 100-times more potent than CO2 for a decade then turns to CO2 after that, so what is going on? ... mass fracking for fossil methane ... perfect summary of human wisdom as a species.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (19) May 26, 2014
........but it has been so damn cold. I guess CO2 with only 0.04% of the total of all atmospheric gases must not mean so much after all.
3432682
1.9 / 5 (17) May 26, 2014
The only thing wrong with global warming theory is that it has failed since 1998. We have simply recovered from the little ice age (1400-1850), a very good thing. Temperatures are below the average of the last 12,000 years. Global warming based on increased CO2 works great in a beaker in the laboratory, but not in the atmosphere. The theory is a failure. It did not predict and cannot explain the cessation of warming since 1998. How many more years of no warming will it take to convince the alarmists that they are barking up the wrong tree?
PinkElephant
4 / 5 (16) May 26, 2014
@hurricane25, cantdrive85, Benni, 3432682,

All aboard the denial Escalator!

http://www.skepti...php?g=47

wheeeeee, what fun...
hurricane25
1.5 / 5 (16) May 26, 2014
How do you explain this? http://www.drroys...-RSS.png On top of this it was warming .2c/decade in the 1990's, but since 2005, I honestly couldn't sniff any out.

A case could be made we're within the 50's through 70's again, but the positive forcing should be so strong now comparably it would take a far larger negative to be the reason for the stall. Why don't you alarmist consider the evidence all around you and hone in on this a little? Just saying that all debate is over is silly.
Caliban
4.5 / 5 (15) May 26, 2014
How do you explain this? http://www.drroys...-RSS.png On top of this it was warming .2c/decade in the 1990's, but since 2005, I honestly couldn't sniff any out.

A case could be made we're within the 50's through 70's again, but the positive forcing should be so strong now comparably it would take a far larger negative to be the reason for the stall. Why don't you alarmist consider the evidence all around you and hone in on this a little? Just saying that all debate is over is silly.


PE --do you mind?

hurricane25--

Can't you understand a simple graphic depiction of the duplicitous nature of the claim you are making? PE has already shown it you once, but since you obviously either missed it or didn't understand it, please --have a(nother) look:

http://www.skepti...php?g=47

...now do you get it?

Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (8) May 27, 2014
... methane is 100-times more potent than CO2 for a decade then turns to CO2 after that...

That might explain previous observations of CO2 rises FOLLOWING warming trends. Anybody checking methane levels?
PinkElephant
4.7 / 5 (15) May 27, 2014
@hurricane25,
How do you explain this? http://www.drroys...-RSS.png
The UAH and RSS data sets Spencer likes using have been known to low-ball surface temperatures due to measurement and analysis errors (some of which have been corrected), and even now seem to continue low-balling (they don't track either the GISS or CRU series, nor the SST series (the oceans being 70% of the planet's surface...):

http://woodfortre...rom:1970

Aside from Spencer's advocacy, how do you explain this?

http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/

Lastly, I'm not concerned with natural climate variability, even multidecadal cycles like the PDO and AMO. They only add wobbles around the surface temp. trend, not total heat trend. If we were to get off easy for another 30 years thanks to them, we'll only pay all that much harder and faster on the other side of the cycle in the 30 years after.
PluviAL
1.9 / 5 (9) May 27, 2014
Denial is natural, when there seem to be no options. It is not that people are so dense that they don't understand the science, or simple reason. They are emotionally unable to, and when they fear for their jobs, they not only ignore it, they fight against reason and science. If however, they think there is a solution, then they are equally irrational on demanding that politicians do something.
We should investigate and develop Pluvinergy for two reasons, one is to give people a solution. A second reason is that with our intensive study of climate science it has become clear that civilization will always be threatened not only by human caused climate catastrophe, but by natural variation. We need to have capacity to cool the planet or to warm it. This is what Pluvinergy claims, if it works as proposed is another matter. The point is we need solutions, not just valid scientific facts.
This is why people here cling to their escalator graphs, any little bit of support to deny reality.
Caliban
4.1 / 5 (10) May 27, 2014
Denial is natural, when there seem to be no options. It is not that people are so dense that they don't understand the science, or simple reason. They are emotionally unable to, and when they[...]. We need to have capacity to cool the planet or to warm it. This is what Pluvinergy claims, if it works as proposed is another matter. The point is we need solutions, not just valid scientific facts.
This is why people here cling to their escalator graphs, any little bit of support to deny reality


Okey dokey!

Let's have your link, so that we can LEARN what there is to know about pluvinergy, before we debate its relatives merits, shall we?

Is that asking too much, PluviAl?

Whydening Gyre
3.2 / 5 (5) May 27, 2014
... methane is 100-times more potent than CO2 for a decade then turns to CO2 after that...

That might explain previous observations of CO2 rises FOLLOWING warming trends.

I do have a simple question - If we keep in mind this historical record - is there possibly something ELSE causing a global temp rise that we have not considered? Like - Earth itself heating up? Maybe caused by removal of an "insulating blanket" of Oil?
I know, I know - way out there...
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (7) May 27, 2014
... methane is 100-times more potent than CO2 for a decade then turns to CO2 after that...

That might explain previous observations of CO2 rises FOLLOWING warming trends.

I do have a simple question - If we keep in mind this historical record - is there possibly something ELSE causing a global temp rise that we have not considered? Like - Earth itself heating up? Maybe caused by removal of an "insulating blanket" of Oil?
I know, I know - way out there...


Would the answer to that lie in cave and mine shaft temperatures? Are they recorded? Have they changed?
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (10) May 27, 2014
... methane is 100-times more potent than CO2 for a decade then turns to CO2 after that...

That might explain previous observations of CO2 rises FOLLOWING warming trends.

I do have a simple question - If we keep in mind this historical record - is there possibly something ELSE causing a global temp rise that we have not considered? Like - Earth itself heating up? Maybe caused by removal of an "insulating blanket" of Oil?
I know, I know - way out there...


Would the answer to that lie in cave and mine shaft temperatures? Are they recorded? Have they changed?


All you have to do is to make some calculations of how temperature can change inside the earth. When I took the PE exam for Mechanical Engineering they had a heat transfer problem where they wanted to have us calculate the change in temperature with depth every year for the annual change in average temperature at the surface. It turns out heat does not travel fast through the earth. Cont
thermodynamics
5 / 5 (12) May 27, 2014
Cont: One way to look at that is permafrost. The temperature of the surface gets above freezing for extended periods of time every year. However, when you go a meter or so down into the soil it remains frozen through the summer season (hence the "perma" part of the word). The only way that heat moves quickly through the crust is by convection of magma or lava (from volcanoes). Petroleum products don't move that way. They are trapped below layers that prevent them from leaking over geological time (or they wouldn't be there). When we pull the petroleum products out it doesn't change the "diffusivity" of the earth much at all and we would have to measure to decide which direction it goes. That is the long way of saying that it is unlikely that changes to the crust would change heat transfer from the mantel to the surface in anything faster than "geological" time frames.
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (5) May 27, 2014
@ thermo

Thanks.

Although I wasn't too serious about the proposal, and I don't think WG was either, it would be interesting to note if the crust is warming a little. The permafrost layer is getting deeper from the surface and I expect it is retreating towards the poles also. This would be yet another reservoir of latent heat similar to the oceans but obviously absent mixing currents and waves. Thus a much smaller & slower uptake of energy, but the value cannot be zero.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) May 29, 2014
Although I wasn't too serious about the proposal, and I don't think WG was either, it would be interesting to note if the crust is warming a little. The permafrost layer is getting deeper from the surface and I expect it is retreating towards the poles also. This would be yet another reservoir of latent heat similar to the oceans but obviously absent mixing currents and waves. Thus a much smaller & slower uptake of energy, but the value cannot be zero.

Was a "thought" experiment...:-)
That said, we need to look at the complete cycle. "Black body" heat absorption generates higher temps causing increased liquid phase water, leading to increased water vapor, leading to higher volume of rain which "washes out" the absorptive factors and which then collect on the earths surface, get covered by the increased surface water, carried down to sea floor, leaving the water reflectivity to then "cool" the planet - Again...
Bottom line is - Earth wins, regardless of us...:-)
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (12) May 29, 2014
........but it has been so damn cold. I guess CO2 with only 0.04% of the total of all atmospheric gases must not mean so much after all.
The Engineer! He says its been cold! Yet here is what scientists say:

http://www.climat...ly-17196
http://www.washin...hivered/
http://www.weathe...20140220

But Benni the Engineer lives in the US and it was cold there! So, because he is an engineer and all, he KNOWS more then all them PAID OFF scientists FOISTING that CONSPIRACY on us!
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) May 29, 2014
........but it has been so damn cold. I guess CO2 with only 0.04% of the total of all atmospheric gases must not mean so much after all
@Benni
guess you forgot all about that video I linked to you already... more than once...
http://qz.com/163...n-worse/
try just THIS link... you can just watch the video...
http://www.youtub...m9JAdfcs

I don't know about Magnus, but given that you tend to ignore any evidence that does not conform to the belief that you post about here, & that you ignore as well as argue against observed and empirical data, and that you continually misrepresent climate science...in times like this I find it very difficult to believe that you are an engineer.
Eddy Courant
1 / 5 (6) May 31, 2014
Those cooling towers are belching steam. What of it?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Jun 01, 2014
Rooting for 500 ppm. 10 years without a single .01c of temperature increase.

10? Only 10? Where have you been? It's been much longer than that. Try 18 years!

http://www.woodfo....3/trend

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Jun 01, 2014
10 years without a single .01c of temperature increase.
@hurricane25 BaconBits has it right you see the world like this: http://www.skepti...rame.jpg whereas SCIENCE will see this: http://www.skepti...rame.gif

this is taken from an article here: http://www.skepti...php?g=47
Funny how that last step keeps getting longer ...and longer ...and longer...

Have you ever really examined that chart? Did you know the previously longest step only lasted eight years? We're more than double that now.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Jun 01, 2014
The oceans are some 1.6C/2.9F warmer than pre-industrial, the Arctic has more of an effect on climate than anyone would have stated 10-years ago and it's heated 3-times faster than models ... the thawing permafrost & clathrates will finish the job ... methane is 100-times more potent than CO2 for a decade then turns to CO2 after that, so what is going on? ... mass fracking for fossil methane ... perfect summary of human wisdom as a species.
References?

Did you know the oceans have actually been cooling for more than a dozen years?

http://www.woodfo....3/trend

Caliban
5 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2014
The oceans are some 1.6C/2.9F warmer than pre-industrial, the Arctic has more of an effect on climate than anyone would have stated 10-years ago and it's heated 3-times faster than models ... the thawing permafrost & clathrates will finish the job ... methane is 100-times more potent than CO2 for a decade then turns to CO2 after that, so what is going on? ... mass fracking for fossil methane ... perfect summary of human wisdom as a species.
References?

Did you know the oceans have actually been cooling for more than a dozen years?

http://www.woodfo....3/trend


Damn, ubybooby --that's really weird, since they've been heating rapidly for the last 6 years!

Looky:

http://www.woodfo....3/trend

Cherrypicking moron.

thermodynamics
5 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2014
Uba: You keep putting up the same woodfortrees data every time you post. Using it you are trying to show a "pause" in warming. Even your link does not show anything other than a slow down, but it is a limited measurement.

What I would like to see from you is a post of any reliable source that shows a "pause" in heating. Your posts show a slow down in warming for the sites that measure surface temperatures. What others have pointed out to you is that those temperatures are not indicative of the heating that can go on by melting ice (isothermal) or heating oceans (high heat capacity).

The concept of the greenhouse effect is that it traps heat, in the form of IR, within the atmospheric envelop. So, that heat goes into heating the earth.

Can you show one link that shows the earth is not being heated as time is marching on?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.