Excerpt; A surge in atmospheric CO2 saw levels of greenhouse gases reach record levels in 2013, according to new figures. Concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere between 2012 and 2013 grew at their fastest rate since 1984. If there are human behaviors which contribute to these issues and if this behavior can reasonable be mitigated, then we should begin. If we refuse to do anything, then we should at least be prepared for the potential outcome. If we refuse and do not prepare...then shame on us if or when the (*)(*)(*)(*) hits the fan...
What is funny is that you think this actually strengthens your position. No it doesn't it weakens it. It further establishes the disconnect between global temperature and CO2 emissions.
Atmospheric CO2 is not "greenhouse gases". It's a gas (insert Jumping Jack Flash reference). If greenhouse gases are reaching record levels, CO2 may be one component. What's clear is temperatures are not following the trend in CO2 increases as we were told. In fact if greenhouse gasses are surging, the temperature is not trending. The predictions failed, the models failed, the "science" so far has failed. Restart and come back with theories and models that reflect reality. Cooking data tends to have a negative effect, even when substantial data comes to light. It has to do with that old proverb, fool me one, fool me twice, fool me three times.
I don't have a position to strengthen or weaken?? This is news that I reported on this thread...not your political nonsense. There are no disconnects except in your limited thinking...there is nothing that says global temperatures must rise in parallel at the same time as CO2 levels rise.
A greenhouse gas (sometimes abbreviated GHG) is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect. The primary greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Greenhouse gases greatly affect the temperature of the Earth; without them, Earth's surface would average about 33 °C colder, which is about 59 °F below the present average of 14 °C (57 °F). Let's see what latent effects climate has from increased levels of CO2...the temperatures are not required to trend instantaneously with CO2 levels. The warming and cooling of ocean water, evaporation, salt content, currents, etc. which are effected by atmospheric temperatures can take months/years to take effect. Obviously you wish to ignore all the warnings while I wish to pay attention...
A comment on this thread. Only the OP has any facts to back up their arguments. Everyone else has nothing but empty words. Must be a reflection on the strength of their cases.
Global temperatures are rising. You do realise that the general trend over time is up and that the oceans, which are PART OF THE (*)(*)(*)(*)ING GLOBE, are warming?
A minor oversight by the OP http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29115845 So no not all comments are as valid as anyone else. Comments based on facts I can take seriously. Comments that are based on nothing more than wishful thinking are not worth anything.
While the data is what it is, I urge caution to interpretation. CO2 rising at a faster rate than usual over one year of time is not evidence of very much, nor should the one-year "trend" in global temperature care at all. It would be interesting to see what aspect of the fast carbon cycle is responsible, but the implications for climate change are zero.
I agree one year of data is not indicative of anything with regard to the climate. Since you're an atmospheric science student, I'd like to know your opinion on the CO2 vs temperature trends since 1998. Also, if I may ask, what was your undergrad major?
Says who and what data? I know of the reanalysis that try and convince stupid people that a reanalysis is actual data but even the authors of the papers know that isn't true. They just hope that there are enough stupid dolts with enough bias that they will confuses what some call "a data based reanalysis" as actual data. A reanalysis is just a model run.
My honest opinion is somewhat along the lines of this (from another young scientist). A somewhat more scientific breakdown of the observations I posted is in this comment. In general, variability in the climate system is interesting, and because of the associated timescales involved we don't expect good correspondence between CO2 and temperature short of decadal timescales. The most recent hiatus is interesting for a few reasons, but I don't see any connection to the long-term climate change outlook that is outlined in IPCC, etc. These discussions need to be guided by physics. It's a convenient talking point right now, but not terribly surprising to most climatologists. My B.S. was also in Atmos. & Oceanic sciences at UW Madison.
Would you like to debunk each of these; Glaciers have shrunk Ice on rivers and lakes is breaking up earlier Plant and animal ranges are shifting Trees are flowering sooner Loss of sea ice Accelerated sea level rise Longer and more intense heat waves
Then it's your job to theorize 'implications' of these trends. Are they temporary? Are they prolonged? Will they negatively effect plant, animal and human life? Will they effect society? Does human activity effect these trends? How can they effect the economy or national security? When science begins to impact society, it is then imperative for science to be involved in these public dialogues not only armed with empirical data but also to warn/protect society by providing your best and educated guesses which are in the best interest of people and the nation...and ultimately the world. If sea ice on average, continues to reduce at current rates, for example, what are the potential implications over a timeline? I would rather have this information provided by scientists rather than the idiots who pretend to run the country...
Unfortunately I'm not an expert in political science and socio-economics, but I can comment on the physical science. In general, I think it's pretty safe to say that people should take seriously the concept of a changing climate that is outside the bounds of what our civilization has grown accustomed to since we started agriculture some 10,000 years ago. Different areas will be impacted differently, to different degrees, and due to different climate phenomena (whether it be sea level, drought, declining sea ice, changing growing seasons, changes in fresh water sources from glacial melt, the opening of new trade routes in the Arctic and military deployment, etc). Some impacts may be beneficial for some regions and some metric of interest, or harmful for other regions and for other metrics of impact...and these impacts will change as the level of climate warming does. Whether one tolerates these impacts is a value judgment, but to ignore it or deny the science because of values is simply to work against the notion of rational decision-making and risk-management in a society engaging in intelligent discourse. It's a complex problem but dismissing it in favor of talking points (like "plants will like CO2!" or the hiatus) is not appropriate. We can do better, even on random blogs or forums! My original point was simply to say that we shouldn't read into a one year variation in CO2.
Great response! When I said 'you' I did not mean only 'you' but the scientific community. Earth's climate cannot be defined with one year's data...perhaps tens to hundreds of years. Most people and certainly the media demand instant gratification and pretty much live in the moment...it's 110 today so there must be global warming or it's raining and 52 so it must be global cooling or the Iceland volcano is erupting and it's the end of the world. Regardless, the scientific community must deal with our lunacy! 99.9% of us are factually and scientifically clueless no matter our bravado. But the .1% do wish to see the data and we wish to understand the potential and our options sans political science and socio-economics. I'm in the wine business and US Davis recently reported that only 1-1/2-2 degrees F. increase in average temperature in my area 'might' lead to a 25-50% drop in yield of the most popular wine grape varieties...this would be catastrophic! So we can politicize it, pick political sides, ignore the warning, trivialize the report, or we can give some long thought to what it might ultimately mean. So what actions can I take...let it unfold and deal with the losses, think about planting more drought tolerant wine grape varieties, sell and buy in OR or WA or ??. None are easy choices but all of them stem from your scientific input and your educated guesses about the future...
