Sharp Rise In Co2 Levels

[Scribbler]

Scribbler. I don't wish to lower the tone of the neighbourhood, (any more than necessary,) but really! We have more influence than the sun?

I think not.

I think that in retrospect my wording was somewhat ambiguous.

Of course the sun is more influential overall but we at the present are causing more (influential) changes than the sun has done in many a long eon.

I’m trying to imply that while the sun continues much the same for millennia, we haven’t remained the same – our energy output levels have changed enormously and have simply shot up.

Still badly put but perhaps you can now see what I meant.

[Devonian]

ffO, wonderful to see you back, drawn like a moth no doubt to this emotionally charged but factually imperfect debate. Rather than going round in circles gain, we may all now actually learn something.

Scribbler. I don't wish to lower the tone of the neighbourhood, (any more than necessary,) but really! We have more influence than the sun?

I think not.

But that's the point really. I find myself in regular agreement with BFTP, for instance, in the belief that the Earth is a big thing, like massive, and we are wee, very very wee, so although the human race may make tiny adjustments to the climate these are insignificant compared to the ebbs and flows of the natural cycles.

As for the hockey stick blade, might this not be just another spike in the handle rather than the defining event in climatic evolution?

Chill man, everything's cool. (It certainly bl**dy is today!)

No, the change we make is small, but it will have a big impact. Look at it this way:

The sun raises temps from close to absolute zero to about -18C. Pre humanity GHG's topped this up to a average world temp of 14C (or so, ball park figures these off the top of my head). People like me are talking of perhaps 2-4C on top of that thanks to anthropogenic ghg's, not much compared to the sun's 270C or so warming is it!!! But 5C cooling is an ice age and 2-4C warming on heck of a lot in climate terms....

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

No, the change we make is small, but it will have a big impact. Look at it this way:

The sun raises temps from close to absolute zero to about -18C. Pre humanity GHG's topped this up to a average world temp of 14C (or so, ball park figures these off the top of my head). People like me are talking of perhaps 2-4C on top of that thanks to anthropogenic ghg's, not much compared to the sun's 270C or so warming is it!!! But 5C cooling is an ice age and 2-4C warming on heck of a lot in climate terms....

But 2-4c is projected warming the planet has warmed by 0.6C approx over the last 100 years and 1998 was the warmest year on record, so have we stopped warming?. There is no evidence of such a rise will occur...I don't think 0.6c is above whatcould be expected in a natural cycle

BFTP

[Devonian]

But 2-4c is projected warming the planet has warmed by 0.6C approx over the last 100 years and 1998 was the warmest year on record, so have we stopped warming?. There is no evidence of such a rise will occur...I don't think 0.6c is above whatcould be expected in a natural cycle

BFTP

'No evidence'? Not that warming lags emission (not least because oceans warm slowly)? Not that emissions will continue and almost certainly grow?

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

'No evidence'? Not that warming lags emission (not least because oceans warm slowly)? Not that emissions will continue and almost certainly grow?

Yes Oceans warm slowly but the global increase in temps is in line with the ocean warming? Cool period 40s to 1970, was there zero carbon emissions for 20 years prior to that? Of course not CO2 increased yet the temp dropped. Its all projection and the temps I would suggest aren't rising as quickly as some would like to think. As I say no evidence it will continue to warm and reach those heights...only opinions from scientists with counter opinions from other scientists

regards

BFTP

[Devonian]

Yes Oceans warm slowly but the global increase in temps is in line with the ocean warming? Cool period 40s to 1970, was there zero carbon emissions for 20 years prior to that? Of course not CO2 increased yet the temp dropped. Its all projection and the temps I would suggest aren't rising as quickly as some would like to think. As I say no evidence it will continue to warm and reach those heights...only opinions from scientists with counter opinions from other scientists

regards

BFTP

Aerosols

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Aerosols

Have we by cutting our SO2 emissions massively reduced the natural output of SO2 as well? CO2 was overwhelmed, yes that sounds about right as it has at some point been many times previously.

BFTP

[Gray-Wolf]

I was reading an article on the mass extinctions at the end of the Permian and the (atmospheric) situation which drove the extinctions seemed similar to what we are experiencing here today. The extinction period seemed to span a time period of over 80 thousand yrs or so and is split into 3 phases.

Phase 1 was the introduction of greenhouse gasses into the environment (a small number of land animals went extinct during this phase). The initial phase of 'greenhouse gasses' being introduced into the environment was a direct result of some major fissure vulcanicity (the Siberian Traps?) which led to a global increase in temps of around 5c over some tens of thousands of years (we seem to be more efficient in our phase 1 warming )

Phase 2 nearly wiped out all the oceanic life across the planet. The concentration of Carbon 12 in deposits from this time seem to indicate that the warming oceans led to massive, global releases of methane (Methane hydrites?) from the continental shelves which killed off the oceanic life by rapidly de-oxygenating the seas.

Phase 3 was the final phase which led to a 95% extinction of all life planet wide and is now thought to be a direct result of the 'extra' warming the addition of the methane allowed in the atmosphere leading to a further temp increase of about 5c.

This period of time would seem to suggest that if (for whatever reason) global temps increase by a certain, critical amount then (due to the resultant warming of the oceans) Methane hydrites DO start to be released adding massive amounts of very efficient greenhouse gasses into the environment further adding to the warming.

Whether mans addition into the ecosphere of CO2 or nature's own cycles upping CO2 levels it would seem that we had better be very aware of this 'Tipping Point' as whether our current models show this methane release or not the geological record does show us that it is one of the cycles the planet can experience.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Good post GW, this should continue this excellent discussion. A spiffinghtening possibilty and one direction we could well be heading. Nicely highlighted comparable episodes too....food for thought

BFTP

[The Penguin]

That the Earths ecology, atmospheric composition and climate are all complex and intricately linked is, I hope, beyond question. All are in critical balance but highly responsive to (albeit on a timescale far exceeding mere human lifetimes) the incident energy received from the Sun.

This incident energy changes with factors such as Milankovitch cycles, solar fluctuations, rotational precession etc. There are many more variables but these are probably the main influences.

Humans are an adaptive species. Our perception of ‘change’ is based on comparison to the present and within our own time reference. i.e. human lifetimes. Over a longer period, our ability and adaptation to change is almost imperceptible, with the Earth appearing to be in a state of constant equilibrium.

The interesting factor with the hockey stick is therefore not limited to the size of the blade, but the rate at which the blade is growing. (rate of change). Equilibrium will be reached – it always does – the resultant instability while it does so may exceed the ability of humans, and far more, other species to adapt and survive.

ffO.

FfO, I see what you mean but I’m still interested in the temperature records over the past thousand or so years because a) there are significant changes and human influence was far less.

There are a couple of graphs in Wikipedia that illustrate what I mean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Ye..._Comparison.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Ye..._Comparison.png

As I said in a previous post, the analogy of a hockey stick is misleading as that description alludes to a long period of temperature stability, a straight line on the graph, with a sudden, unprecedented, and dramatic upturn towards the end of the measured period. Looking at the graphs in the above links we see that this is not the case.

There were sustained warm and cool periods, ‘medieval warm’ and ‘little ice age’, together with a regime of constantly fluctuating temperatures where hot to cold and vice versa happened as repetitively as they happened suddenly. My understanding is that human activity was imperceptible in the causes of these changes.

It’s also notable that, looking at the last thousand years, if the latest period of temperature increases had not occurred the downwards temperature trend would by now have us in an alarmingly cold period. So we could simply be in a period of balancing out.

With reference to survivability, we know that, today, people inhabit vastly different environments the world over. From equatorial regions of high temperatures and high humidity to sub-tropical deserts with high temperatures and zero humidity, to polar areas with freezing temperatures and large seasonal changes in humidity. We also know that, as a species, humans have dispersed from one point to all points on the globe, adapting physiologically and technically as they went. In that evolutionary period the climates humans were faced with were more extreme than that referred to in the links.

In response then, ffO, I don’t see that we are necessarily faced with imminent extinction, based on the facts currently to hand. I’m not saying there’s no point in looking into the future, but if we do, the assessment should be analytical rather than simply prophetic in it’s primary objective.

Quote, Devonian, 2 April 2006 - "No, the change we make is small, but it will have a big impact. Look at it this way:

The sun raises temps from close to absolute zero to about -18C. Pre humanity GHG's topped this up to a average world temp of 14C (or so, ball park figures these off the top of my head). People like me are talking of perhaps 2-4C on top of that thanks to anthropogenic ghg's, not much compared to the sun's 270C or so warming is it!!! But 5C cooling is an ice age and 2-4C warming on heck of a lot in climate terms...."

Devonian, your point is possibly quite correct – in general terms. My worry, when we’re talking up the high significance of temperature increases slightly over half a degree in a thousand years, is that an argument which relies on terms like ‘14C or so’ and ‘2 – 4C on top of that’ is insufficiently accurate to engender real concern in accurately defined and very small global temperature increases.

[Devonian]

Devonian, your point is possibly quite correct – in general terms. My worry, when we’re talking up the high significance of temperature increases slightly over half a degree in a thousand years, is that an argument which relies on terms like ‘14C or so’ and ‘2 – 4C on top of that’ is insufficiently accurate to engender real concern in accurately defined and very small global temperature increases.

Oh, I agree. I just pointed out to the poster that while significant in terms of climate (perhaps/probably highly significant) compared with what the sun does warming us from the depths of near absolute zero it might not, at first glance, seem like 'much'.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

That's debatable- some measures have 2005 as the warmest year on record. Also, 2005 was comparably warm to 1998 despite not having a strong El Nino.

TWS

Only in northern Hemisphere is that claim for. It won't be the warmest globally

BFTP

[Gray-Wolf]

Doesn't the pedantry of some posters get yer goat?

I don't think that you can argue that humans have not had a 'large' impact upon our ecosystem. Australia largely deforrested by the first human migrants (35 thousand years ago), Western Europe largely deforested over the past 4 thousand years, massive land use changes in Asia, the creation of the prairies in North America, deforrestation of the major rainforest, overgrazing in sub-saharan Africa expanding the Sahara desert the list goes on and on. how can this level of physical impact have no affect on climate? Just the removal of the forrests (and the release of their stored CO2) takes away a 'carbon sink' so where does this carbon go? In 1986 monitoring of the Amazon basin seemed to show that the rainforrests had started taking up more CO2 (good I hear you say). When folk got into the forrests to find out 'why' they found that the Lianas had gone beserk (stealth logging opens up 'glades' within the forrest and the extra light helps the lianas), lianas strangle trees. So what would appear at first hand to be a positive is in fact a BIG negative and will lead to the final devestation of this carbon sink. How many other , short term, 'masking' events are currently happening around the world moderating the true impact of human activity on the ecosphere?.

No matter what your stance you must surely accept that humans have had an effect on this planet that nature could not replicate and as such has taken the planets 'response' beyond its normal cyclical capacity to self regulate. The planet will find it's balence but humanity is a frail and dependant thing and will not do well during this period of 're-'adjustment'.

Edited April 6, 2006 by Gray-Wolf

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Doesn't the pedantry of some posters get yer goat?

GW

Maybe I'm wrong but I assume this refers to my post? If it does then I am sorry that 2005 wasn't warmest globally its not my fault and it would seem it isn't CO2's fault either

Nothing pedantic about it, just providing counter arguments. CO2 is still on the increase, it seems the planet as a whole isn't since 1998. Why? We cooled down 40s to 70s and Devonian pointed out that it was aerosols. We have reduced SO2 so what is the reason now? Just plenty of questions that for me haven't been answered adequately. No I don't like the hacking down of the forests.

BFTP

[Essan]

I thought 2005 was the warmest on record for the Northern hemisphere, and 2nd warmest Globally? Which, considering there was no El Nino strongly suggests the planet may well have warmed further since 1998

[Guest Mike W]

Interesting article that basically says that we were really dumb in reducing SO2 levels first when we should have reduced CO2 levels first instead. : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4880328.stm

[Gray-Wolf]

Interesting article that basically says that we were really dumb in reducing SO2 levels first when we should have reduced CO2 levels first instead. : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4880328.stm

So another 'masking event' that is/has skewed our understanding of the post industrial effects we humans have had on our planet. We all adhere (in some way or other) to the model predictions only to find the models fatally flawed by our ignorance and so 'update them' whenever we find 'new evidence' .Basically the models appear little more than useless giving only trends and not the climate predictions that they are run to model.

On the 'Hurricane thread' folk are holding up a 'lower' SST anomalies' than last year and yet this year the fur seals in the St. Lawrence are falling through the 'ultra thin' ice sheets posing more of a threat to them than the 'seal cullers'. So why didn't this occur last spring? Do not be surprised at the extent of 'berg Calving' from thre outlet flows off Greenland this year nor the 'spiking' of methane from sub-tundra areas across the Northern hemisphere either.

The disruption that deglaciation will cause to the rate of global warming will be a short lived event overshadowed by far by the flooding of most of the planets major cities that were sited over the 'lowest bridging point' of rivers.

Edited April 7, 2006 by Gray-Wolf

[Methuselah]

The fact that global temperatures do not rise EXACTLY in concert with CO2, only suggests that the system is somewhat more than a simple straight-forward one-to-one linear relationship...The notion that GTs must increase by precisely x amount each year OR ELSE CO2 cannot be the cause of said increase, is a somewhat odd conclusion IMO??? B)

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

The rate of ice melt IMO does not and cannot match the rate of temp increase, no way can 0.6C to 0.8C cause so much sea ice melt indeed arctic temps are matching 1938 yet arctic ice has continued to decline!? The oceans are warming as fast if not faster than global air temps...CO2 warming can't cause that, no warming can unless we are experiencing Ocean warming...otherwise it is ass backwards. Seas take longer to warm but the increase is matching the air temp increase so if we are continually warming how are sea temps matching growth. The more I read the more a dramatic switch I favour towards onset of glaciation as many continental ice sheets continue to thicken.

BFTP

[Methuselah]

But it's only the Oceans' surface-layers that are being warmed by contact with the atmosphere... Any warming at greater depths would have be due to inhibition of high-latitude sinking zones; an effect caused by retreating sea ice?

So, I agree with you BFTP: CO2 cannot be directly warming the bulk of the Oceans' water. But, IMO, the 'expected' reduction in the supply of Arctic/Antarctic Bottom Waters, would have said effect. At least (unlike the mysterious, and as-yet undiscovered, huge-scale underwater volcanicity), the mechanism, albeit secondary, has been shown to exist?

[kold weather]

The problem is Blast, its not 0.6c warmer at the poles, a more accurate figure would be anywhere between 5-15c depending on how much ice can be held on from the previous winter. Inland regions of the pole and that sort of rise really shouldn't make a large difference but to sea ice, thats a massive difference.

With that sort of warming going on, its hardly suprising that we are seeing quite massive melt going on.

As per normal, I think the likely answer to the problem is that there are several factors at work that are warming the oceans.

underwater volcanoes would certainly melt the ice, as would warm SSTA.

Also, worth pointing out that the rise in sea temps may also be partly down to a positive AMO, which means that on average the atlantic is warmer then normal and we've been in that positive phase ever since 1995, also this has been linked with the increase in hurricanes as well and we was in the negative phase since the 60-mid 90's roughly.

[Essan]

Yes, I agree with Kold - the current warm phase of the AMO has amplified any other warming that's been occurring - accelerating Arctic melting. This should ease off once the AMO turns back to its cold phase. I don't expect current rates of melting to continue.

That said, the next warm phase of the AMO could lead to even faster melting....

We have this idea that there should be linear warming. But, regardless of the ultimate cause, it will go in jumps and starts as various natural oscillations fall in and out of play. We may even see a spell of cooling for a time. But that doesn't mean that the overal trend - which must be measured in decades if not centuries - may continue to be upwards.

[Portybelly]

I was reading an article on the mass extinctions at the end of the Permian and the (atmospheric) situation which drove the extinctions seemed similar to what we are experiencing here today. The extinction period seemed to span a time period of over 80 thousand yrs or so and is split into 3 phases.

Phase 1 was the introduction of greenhouse gasses into the environment (a small number of land animals went extinct during this phase). The initial phase of 'greenhouse gasses' being introduced into the environment was a direct result of some major fissure vulcanicity (the Siberian Traps?) which led to a global increase in temps of around 5c over some tens of thousands of years (we seem to be more efficient in our phase 1 warming )

Phase 2 nearly wiped out all the oceanic life across the planet. The concentration of Carbon 12 in deposits from this time seem to indicate that the warming oceans led to massive, global releases of methane (Methane hydrites?) from the continental shelves which killed off the oceanic life by rapidly de-oxygenating the seas.

Phase 3 was the final phase which led to a 95% extinction of all life planet wide and is now thought to be a direct result of the 'extra' warming the addition of the methane allowed in the atmosphere leading to a further temp increase of about 5c.

This period of time would seem to suggest that if (for whatever reason) global temps increase by a certain, critical amount then (due to the resultant warming of the oceans) Methane hydrites DO start to be released adding massive amounts of very efficient greenhouse gasses into the environment further adding to the warming.

Whether mans addition into the ecosphere of CO2 or nature's own cycles upping CO2 levels it would seem that we had better be very aware of this 'Tipping Point' as whether our current models show this methane release or not the geological record does show us that it is one of the cycles the planet can experience.

Nail on the head, GW.

The thing about the current situation - i.e. rapid, man made release of CO2 stored over geological time scales - is that it is unique and we are in uncharted territory. We can talk about natural cycles all we want - but all bets are off because of the scale and uniqueness our intervention.

Personally, I don't believe that the current efforts being made along the lines of reducing our input to the Carbon Cycle from fossil fuels will even scratch the surface. I think this input will only start to decrease when these fossil fuels begin to run out and so become too expensive cf alternative energy sources. Just when this will occur (and it certainly won't be over the next 10-20 years, methinks - anyone have a timescale on this?) may determine - more than all our debates and scientific research - whether we head down the road of the disaster of runaway warming or 'just' a major problem for humanity and small scale extinctions..

Sad to think that economics and human nature may be the determinants of our long term future, rather than science or informed debate!

[Methuselah]

Welcome to net-weather Portybelly...

I hope you make such erudite contributions for a long time!

[Devonian]

Welcome to net-weather Portybelly...

I hope you make such erudite contributions for a long time!

I'd echo that, though I find such a prognosis (which might well happen) pretty darn depressing. I guess it just goes to show, we are just animals and we can collectively behave with as little forsight as they do. Otoh, we could address these problems - but not by doing nowt, or by urging doing nowt on those who can do things, or by shrugging shoulders.

Edited April 8, 2006 by Devonian