Greenhouse Gas Concentration In Atmosphere Hits Record Levels: U.N. World Meteorological Organization Report

GENEVA — A report by the U.N. weather agency has found that greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere reached record levels in 2009.

The World Meteorological Organization says efforts to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide haven't diminished the atmospheric concentration of these gases widely blamed for stoking global warming.

The Geneva-based agency says concentrations of carbon dioxide rose in 2009 by 1.6 parts per million, to 386.8 parts per million.

The preindustrial carbon dioxide average was about 280 parts per million. The higher the concentration of greenhouse gases, the more heat is trapped in the atmosphere.

WMO said Wednesday that the recent economic slowdown hadn't significantly affected emissions of greenhouse gases.

___

Online:

WMO report: http://bit.ly/hhrS8B

Comments

[maxwells]

10:46 PM on 12/01/2010

From the most recent of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (U.K.), link provided below by Exusian (complete PDFs were available).

www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/66782/title/World_could_heat_up_4_degrees_C_in_50_years

'In their new paper, (Alice) Bows and (Univ. of) Manchester colleague Kevin Anderson decided to separately project likely greenhouse gas emissions scenarios for industrial and newly industrializing countries. As developing nations seek to increase their standards of living and market shares for new products, the researchers say, models should expect these nations’ near-term emissions to climb.

To slow the global growth of emissions, industrial powers may need to put a heavy brake on their own, Bows says. How much? “More than 6 percent per year — beginning immediately,” she says. And that’s to keep warming below 2 degrees Celsius.

She and Anderson also reran their analyses to look at what might occur if industrial countries did limit their reductions to what might be deemed “economically feasible.” This yielded at best a 3 percent drop in annual emissions and eventually, a 4 degree warming of the globe. So in the absence of at least these emissions reductions, she says, “we could be looking at much more than a 4 degree warming.” '

[maxwells]

05:10 PM on 12/01/2010

Will Darrell Issa usurp Glenn Beck as Public Liar or Enemy #1?

We report; you decide.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), incoming House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chair is the House's richest guy (~$250 million).

And he wants to have climate scientists arrested.

motherjones.com/politics/2010/11/gop-climate-investigations-issa-barton-sensenbrenner

But seems Darrell knows a lot about that, since he himself was arrested at least 3 times from 1971 to 1979, twice for grand theft auto. Yeah, we know - CONVICTED only once for illegal firearms possession.

This the guy you want railroading U.S. policy on climate or anything else?

Substantia­tion? Check: en.­wikipedia.­org/wiki/D­arrell_Iss­a#Early_li­fe

Also, www­.perrspect­ives.com/b­log/archiv­es/001007.­htm
www­.nydailyne­ws.com/new­s/2008/04/­03/2008-04­-03_gop_re­p_darrell_­issa_under­_fire_from­_eve.html http://www­.nytimes.c­om/2003/07­/23/us/cal­ifornia-re­call-backe­r-feels-he­at.html?pa­gewanted=2 http://www­.sfgate.co­m/cgi-bin/­article.cg­i?f=/c/a/1­998/05/29/­MN81698.DT­L
art­icles.lati­mes.com/20­03/jul/06/­local/me-i­ssa6?pg=3

When Issa ran for governor, the San Francisco Examiner ran more stories on his "colorful" past.

How he wrested that auto alarm company away from its previous owner seems .. well "alarming"­ (pointed a gun at him?). But you might wonder, given an army captain's salary, where Darrell got $60K to loan that owner. Still, you can see why he might've known all about car alarms.

[Publicola]

12:20 PM on 12/01/2010

"One of the most serious consequences of our actions is global warming, brought about by rising levels of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels."

-- Dr. Stephen Hawking

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu1PicT0TMU

[LetsGoSteve]

12:37 AM on 12/01/2010

The snake oil salesmen comes in many forms.

[gallon]

09:54 AM on 12/01/2010

If you ever happen to offer a discussion with some scientific content, we should be happy to read it.

[LetsGoSteve]

11:41 AM on 12/01/2010

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N46/B1.php

After reading some of your posts I realize you are another victim of group think that avoids being exposed to opposing views.

[Publicola]

12:30 PM on 12/01/2010

LetsGoSteve: "After reading some of your posts I realize you are another victim of group think that avoids being exposed to opposing views."

I love science denier irony.

But as you Steve are an evolution science denier too again at least you are consistent in your science denial.

[gallon]

11:46 AM on 12/01/2010

Once again, I would be happy to read any science you may have to offer.

[LetsGoSteve]

11:50 AM on 12/01/2010

The scientific community knows what the ruling class is paying for. There is very little money being dolled out to those who question man caused climate change. The big money is to those who further the hoax.

[Publicola]

12:32 PM on 12/01/2010

LetsGoSteve: "The big money is to those who further the hoax."

How much money do you think Stephen Hawking is getting for "furthering the hoax", Steve?

"One of the most serious consequenc­es of our actions is global warming, brought about by rising levels of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels."

-- Dr. Stephen Hawking

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=mu1PicT0T­MU

[Publicola]

03:46 AM on 11/30/2010

SoCalWarmer: "Anthropog­­enic Global Warming is history's biggest scam"

Yawn.

The following are scientific facts:

* The Earth has warmed significan­­tly over recent decades, to what may be the highest level in 2,000 years or more.

* Anthropoge­­nic greenhouse gases including CO2 -- which is generated mostly by fossil fuel burning -- warm the Earth. Without greenhouse gases including CO2 the average temperatur­­e of the Earth would be below freezing.

* The atmospheri­­c CO2 concentrat­­ion has increased by more than a third since the dawn of the fossil fuel era, to the highest level in at least 800,000 years.

* Satellite measuremen­­ts demonstrat­­e that increasing atmospheri­­c CO2 has increased retention of heat energy in the atmosphere­­.

* The scientific evidence strongly indicates that said increased atmospheri­­c CO2 is due to anthropoge­­nic CO2 emissions, and there is no other viable scientific explanatio­­n for said atmospheri­­c CO2 increase.

* There is a strong correlatio­­n between said atmospheri­­c CO2 increase and said recent warming.

* Known natural forcing agents of past global warming - including changes in orbital cycles and increases in solar radiative output - cannot explain the bulk of said recent warming. Neither has any scientific theory to explain the bulk of said recent warming other than anthropoge­­nic global warming survived scientific scrutiny.

Again these are all scientific facts. Which is to say:

The scientific evidence supporting anthropoge­­nic global warming is overwhelmi­­ng.

[Publicola]

03:44 AM on 11/30/2010

SoCalWarmer, quoting a science-denier blog: "In a recently revised and re-publish­ed paper, Dr Gerlich debunks..."

Yet another science-denier reference to the infamous Gerlich and Tscheuschner paper that denies the Greenhouse Effect, which is as "settled" as science ever gets - yawn.

Gerlich and Tscheuschner have been repeatedly debunked, including here:

* http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/24/2410/S021797921005555X.html
* http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/05/on-the-miseducation-of-the-uninformed-by-gerlich-and-scheuschner-2009/

[Exusian]

09:13 AM on 11/30/2010

Only a science ignoramus would be taken in by and cite Gerlich and Tscheuschn­er.

The argument that that greenhouse warming violates the Laws of Thermodyna­­mics is an argument from ignorance of what the Laws of Thermodyna­­mics state.

The Real Second Law of Thermodyna­mics
http://sci­enceofdoom­.com/2010/­09/27/the-­real-secon­d-law-of-t­hermodynam­ics/

Amazing Things we Find in Textbooks – The Real Second Law of Thermodyna­mics
http://sci­enceofdoom­.com/2010/­10/07/amaz­ing-things­-we-find-i­n-textbook­s-the-real­-second-la­w-of-therm­odynamics/

Do Trenberth and Kiehl understand the First Law of Thermodyna­mics? Part Three – The Creation of Energy?
http://sci­enceofdoom­.com/categ­ory/basic-­science/

[SoCalHotOne]

06:03 AM on 12/01/2010

Scienceofdoom.com

It's like realclimate.org has reinvented itself as a site that does Victorian poetry and climate nonsense, all inside a Robert Frost poem.

[Publicola]

12:42 PM on 12/01/2010

worldscinet.com

International Journal of Modern Physics

COMMENT ON "FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS"

In this journal, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect. Here, we show that their methods, logic, and conclusions are in error. Their most significant errors include trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process, and systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to the Earth's surface and atmosphere. They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden, ignoring the larger transfer in the other direction which makes the complete process allowed. Further, by ignoring heat capacity and non-radiative heat flows, they claim that radiative balance requires that the surface cool by 100 K or more at night, an obvious absurdity induced by an unphysical assumption. This comment concentrates on these two major points, while also taking note of some of Gerlich and Tscheuschner's other errors and misunderstandings.

[Publicola]

12:45 PM on 12/01/2010

Internatio­nal Journal of Modern Physics

"In this journal, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschn­er claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheri­c greenhouse effect Here, we show that their methods, logic, and conclusion­s are in error..."

-----------------------------------------------------------

Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan on the scientific reality of the Greenhouse Effect:

http://www­.youtube.c­om/watch?v­=mu1PicT0T­MU

[SoCalHotOne]

12:34 AM on 11/30/2010

"In a recently revised and re-published paper, Dr Gerlich debunks AGW and shows that the IPCC “consensus” atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics. The latest version of this momentous scientific paper appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics."

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

http://www.climategate.com/german-physicists-trash-global-warming-theory

[gallon]

12:55 AM on 11/30/2010

Climategate.com is disqualified as a reputable source. The header on the home page starts out:
"Anthropogenic Global Warming, history's biggest scam." This is the furthest thing from being impartial. Starts out with anti science perspective and then proceeds to select and cherry pick muck that support that perspective.

This is all disreputable and disingenuous. Why would anyone take this seriously?

Standard fare from serial deniers like Bahgdad Betty here.

[SoCalHotOne]

01:07 AM on 11/30/2010

Climategate.com merely provides the link to a scientific paper published in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics.

But Anthropog­enic Global Warming is history's biggest scam, nonetheless.

[Exusian]

11:27 AM on 11/30/2010

Oooooom, scam.
Oooooom, scam.
Oooooom, scam.
Oooooom, scam.
Oooooom, scam.

[gallon]

01:12 AM on 11/30/2010

More proof by assertion and proof by repetition. Bahgdad Betty papers the walls with links to disreputable denier sites. Yet Betty is not able to engage in scientific discussion herself. Has no answers, just more links and more assertions and more repetition.

Serial denier.

[SoCalHotOne]

01:29 AM on 11/30/2010

Such hypocrisy.

Do I really need to bring up the station data from Madison, Wisconsin again?

You have yet to retract your assertion that it is incorrect because it conflicts with your memories of a kite festival.

[Exusian]

07:24 PM on 11/29/2010

The new issue (dated January 13, 2011) of
Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society A
is a theme issue on climate change:
"Four degrees and beyond: the potential for a global temperature increase of four degrees and its implications"
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934.toc

You can download pdfs of all of the papers in the issue through tomorrow, Tuesday, Nov 30.

Papers:
- Beyond ‘dangerous’ climate change: emission scenarios for a new world
- Cumulative carbon emissions, emissions floors and short-term rates of warming: implications for policy
- When could global warming reach 4°C?
- Regional temperature and precipitation changes under high-end (≥4°C) global warming
- Water availability in +2°C and +4°C worlds
- Agriculture and food systems in sub-Saharan Africa in a 4°C+ world
- Changes in the potential distribution of humid tropical forests on a warmer planet
- Sea-level rise and its possible impacts given a ‘beyond 4°C world’ in the twenty-first century
- Climate-induced population displacements in a 4°C+ world
- Rethinking adaptation for a 4°C world
- The role of interactions in a world implementing adaptation and mitigation solutions to climate change

[gallon]

12:39 AM on 11/30/2010

Whoa. Now there is a resource. Difficult to imagine a more august and historic journal. The Philosophical Transactions is one of the most reputable journals ever. Scientists who published in the Transactions included:
Babbage
Cavendish
Celsius
Dalton composition of the atmosphere
Humphry Davy founder of electrochemistry
Faraday, imho the best scientist ever
Halley astronomy
Joule the mechanical equivalence of heat
Maxwell electrodynamics, Maxwells equations
Muschenbroek, inventor of capacitor, 1746
Priestley discovery of oxygen
Richardson thermionic emission
Strutt (Lord Rayleigh) gases, gas discharge
JJ Thomson discovery of electron
Tyndall atmospheric gases
Volta important enabling discovery, the battery, 1800
Wheatstone instruments
During the golden age of science, the 1800's, the British journals were right at the center of it all. Philosophical Transactions, Philosophical Magazine, and Proceedings of the Royal Society covered much of this era of discovery, along with the French and Deutsch counterparts.
The USA had one important journal during this era, The American Journal of Science, where Joseph Henry published his great findings. The other great American journals started kicking in during the 1890's.
Gonna be up late tonight. Thanks Exusian !

[Publicola]

03:21 AM on 11/30/2010

Very cool. Thanks for the heads-up Ex.

[fumes]

06:39 PM on 11/29/2010

CU-NASA Research Center To Study Sun's Effects On Earth's climate
November 29, 2010
(PhysOrg.com) -- The University of Colorado at Boulder's Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics and NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., today announced the formation of a new collaborative research center dedicated to the study of the sun's effect on Earth's climate."The exciting thing about this collaboration is that we believe it will promote studies to help answer key questions about the climate system, including how Earth's atmosphere responds to the sun's variability and how that affects climate," said Pilewskie, a faculty member in CU-Boulder's atmospheric and oceanic sciences department. "This question is particularly important now as we seek to quantify the human-induced impact on Earth's climate."
http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-cu-nasa-center-sun-effects-earth.html

[Publicola]

07:08 PM on 11/29/2010

hey Fumes..

you are aware that over recent decades..

while the Earth has warmed..

the Sun's linear radiative output has remained essentially flat right?

----------------------------

also..

when are you going to finally stop denying..

that downward infrared radiation exists?

you'll never understand basic climate science..

until you understand that basic science fact you know!

[SoCalHotOne]

12:54 AM on 11/30/2010

There's a simple experiment you can do yourself to learn why that is not so.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/

[Publicola]

03:18 AM on 11/30/2010

SoCalWarmer: "There's a simple experiment you can do yourself to learn why that is not so."

lol..

Are you, like Fumes has repeatedly done, seriously denying the existence of downward ir radiation, SoCalWarmer?

Please answer with a clear 'yes' or 'no' - thanks.

[maxwells]

05:40 PM on 11/29/2010

In depth NYT article on melting glaciers, ice, and sea level rise:

www.nytime­s.com/2010­/11/14/sci­ence/earth­/14ice.htm­l?_r=1

Since the 2007 IPCC Report, new data and additional melt mechanisms have shifted the scientific consensus estimate of sea level rise by AD 2100 from ~7 inches to ~THREE FEET.

"One approach, pioneered by a German climate researcher named Stefan Rahmstorf, entails looking at the past relationsh­ip between the temperatur­e of the earth and sea level, then making projection­s. Another, developed by a University of Colorado glaciologi­st named Tad Pfeffer, involves calculatio­ns about how fast the glaciers, if they keep speeding up, might be able to dump ice into the sea. Those two methods yield approximat­ely the same answer: that sea level could rise by 2 1/2 to 6 1/2 feet between now and 2100. A developing CONSENSUS among climate scientists holds that the best estimate is a little over THREE FEET."

"In the United States, parts of the East Coast and Gulf Coast would be hit hard. In New York, coastal flooding could become routine, with large parts of Queens and Brooklyn especially vulnerable­. About 15 percent of the urbanized land in the Miami region could be inundated. The ocean could encroach more than a mile inland in parts of North Carolina.

Abroad, some of the world’s great cities — London, Cairo, Bangkok, Venice and Shanghai among them — would be critically endangered by a three-foot rise in the sea."

[milty]

10:47 PM on 11/29/2010

Hurry and buy those waders while the sales last!

http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/29/dont-freak-out-about-rising-sea-levels/

[gallon]

12:57 AM on 11/30/2010

Did you read the part where it will take a century?

[maxwells]

04:20 PM on 11/29/2010

From the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

"Recent inquiries and investigations of the CRU emails and IPCC

Recent investigations and inquiries into the emails by other organizations have all resulted in clearing the scientists of alleged wrong-doing."

http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions.html

[maxwells]

04:26 PM on 11/29/2010

Also from the EPA: http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/myths-facts.html

Myths vs. Facts: Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act

Myth: The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emails prove that temperature data and trends were manipulated.

Fact: Not true. Petitioners say that emails disclosed from CRU provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate data. The media coverage after the emails were released was based on email statements quoted out of context and on unsubstantiated theories of conspiracy. The CRU emails do not show either that the science is flawed or that the scientific process has been compromised. EPA carefully reviewed the CRU emails and found no indication of improper data manipulation or misrepresentation of results.

Myth: The jury is still out on climate change and CRU emails undermine the credibility of climate change science overall.

Fact: Climate change is real and happening now. The U.S. Global Change Research Program, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have each independently concluded that warming of the climate system in recent decades is "unequivocal." This conclusion is not drawn from any one source of data but is based on multiple lines of evidence, including three worldwide temperature datasets showing nearly identical warming trends as well as numerous other independent indicators of global warming (e.g., rising sea levels, shrinking Arctic sea ice).

[maxwells]

04:28 PM on 11/29/2010

continued...

Some people have "cherry-picked" a limited selection of CRU email statements to draw broad, unsubstantiated conclusions about the validity of all climate science.

Myth: The CRU emails and several errors found in the most recent IPCC report undermine the credibility of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.

Fact: The IPCC's primary conclusions are based on an assessment of thousands of individual studies and collective insights from the comprehensive climate science literature. Although many errors were alleged, EPA confirmed only two errors. The small number of documented errors are not central to IPCC's main conclusions or to EPA’s Endangerment Finding. In a report of such magnitude, a few errors do not undermine the credibility of the entire work of the IPCC. The process used by the IPCC stands as one of the most comprehensive, rigorous, and transparent ever conducted on a complex set of scientific issues.

Myth: EPA misstepped when it did not do its own scientific analysis of climate change to inform the Endangerment Finding and instead relied on existing scientific assessments.

Fact: EPA relied on major scientific assessments, including reports from the U.S. Global Change Research Program, National Academy of Sciences, and IPCC, because they represent the best available information to determine the state of climate change science. These assessments are designed to address the breadth and scope of all published literature and undergo multiple levels of rigorous review. This approach ensures that EPA benefits from the depth and strength of thousands of climate scientists.

[maxwells]

04:17 PM on 11/29/2010

From the Netherlands:

"The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) has investigated the scientific foundations for the IPCC summary conclusions of the Fourth Assessment Report of 2007 on projected regional climate-change impacts, at the request of the Dutch Minister for the Environment.

Overall the summary conclusions are considered well founded and none were found to contain any significant errors. The Working Group II contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report shows ample observational evidence of regional climatechange impacts, which have been projected to pose substantial risks to most parts of the world, under increasing temperatures."

http://www.pbl.nl/images/500216002_tcm61-48119.pdf

[gallon]

03:52 PM on 11/29/2010

Flagged for mindless spamming. Take it to a wingnut site. Troll.

[maxwells]

01:27 PM on 11/29/2010

From: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/11/so-how-did-that-global-cooling-bet-work-out/#more-5345

about a paper from a few years back that predicted global cooling.

"So how did that global cooling bet work out?

Two and a half years ago, a paper was published in Nature purporting to be a real prediction of how global temperatures would develop, based on a method for initialising the ocean state using temperature observations (Keenlyside et al, 2008) (K08). In the subsequent period, this paper has been highly cited, very often in a misleading way by contrarians (for instance, Lindzen misrepresents it on a regular basis).

But what of the paper’s actual claims, how are they holding up?

...we can see clearly that while K08 projected 0.06ºC cooling, the temperature record from HadCRUT (which was the basis of the bet) shows 0.07ºC warming (using GISTEMP, it is 0.11ºC)."

K08 was the model used in the above paper.

But why did these modelers get it wrong?

"there is a simple explanation for such a temporary cooling in a model: an artifact known as ‘coupling shock’ (e.g. Rahmstorf 1995), which arises when the ocean is switched over from a forced to a coupled mode of operation, something that has no counterpart in the real world."

[Exusian]

11:16 AM on 11/29/2010

SCwarmer: "My avatar is more SCIENTIFIC ALLY-ACCUR ATE than your avatar."

To assert that the literally hand full of crude and inaccurate central England temperature records prior to the 18th century--some of which were actually taken indoors--is scientifically accurate as a measure of global temperature is delusional in the extreme.

But then that's exactly what we have come to expect from SCwarmer.

[CPAwADD]

11:21 AM on 11/29/2010

If that was the totality of evidence for global warming you would have a point but it isn't and you don't. At least not one of any importance.

[Exusian]

11:31 AM on 11/29/2010

It seems you misunderstand my post.

SCWarmer contends that the Central England Temperature record is scientifically accurate evidence that global mean temperature during the Medieval Warm Period was higher then current global mean temperature.

It is that assertion that is delusional.

[SoCalHotOne]

10:13 PM on 11/29/2010

The argument as Publicola posed it was between who's avatar more accurately represents global temperatures. It is a foolish question because both avatars are regional as he has pointed out himself.

[Publicola]

11:44 AM on 11/30/2010

SoCalWarmer: "The argument as Publicola posed it was between who's avatar more accurately represents global temperatur­es."

You are blatantly lying again, SoCalWarmer.

My question did not mention or refer to my avatar at all.

Here is the question as I posed it:

"Do you believe that your avatar graph is a scientific­­­­­ally-a­c­c­u­r­at­e representa­tion of global temperatur­e over the represente­d time period?"

Care to answer the question yet, or are you going to keep evading it?

[ Que still more evasions and lies from SoCalWarmer ]