Highest recorded level of CO2 in May

According to Climate Central carbon dioxide peaked at 409.65 ppm in May, the highest recorded and higher than research indicates there has been in human history.

However the current estimate Earth’s CO2 Home Page is 408.84, still very high, and an increase on last year (406.81).

kc-monthly-0600

NASA:  The relentless rise of carbon dioxide

CO2Trends

If fossil-fuel burning continues at a business-as-usual rate, such that humanity exhausts the reserves over the next few centuries, CO2 will continue to rise to levels of order of 1500 ppm. The atmosphere would then not return to pre-industrial levels even tens of thousands of years into the future. This graph not only conveys the scientific measurements, but it also underscores the fact that humans have a great capacity to change the climate and planet.

NASA: Evidence

The Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.

 

Leave a comment

36 Comments

  1. Alan Wilkinson

     /  July 24, 2017

    Good God, are we going to get a highest ever CO2 story every month now? We know CO2 levels are on a slow, steady upward path and have been for over a century.

    The good news is that saturation effects mean increases become less and less powerful influences on temperature.

    Reply
    • This is the first one I’ve done. Every post I do does not signal a monthly feature.

      I can do one every week if you like. Or I could probably manage a sidebar live update.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  July 24, 2017

        I didn’t mean you, PG. I meant the alarmist media feeders.

        Reply
    • CO2 Saturation

      The Myth: CO2 is saturated. This myth states that as CO2 is added to the atmosphere that there is a point where the more CO2 will simply not impact the environment anymore. This is known as once the atmosphere reaches a saturation point. That additional CO2 impact will not have any major impact. The myth compares CO2 to insulation.

      What the Science Really Says: Adding more CO2 will not absorb much more radiation. The main problem in the thought of the myth is that CO2 also plays an impact in the heat loss that comes through the air. With an increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere then the IR radiation into space is not equal to the atmospheric absorption of CO2.

      Discussion: This myth is a myth that accepts climate change and agrees that humans have a role, but claims that the change isn’t that bad. This is seen because the myth acknowledeges the fact that carbon dioxide does abdorb infrared radiation leaving the Earth’s surface. However, it claims that the potential effects from climate change are not nearly as big of a deal because the myth claims that we have already done enough damage and some more will not impact. However, we know that through proven data. By simply doubling the amount of carbon dioxide present in the Earth’s atmosphere will cause dramatic warming. There is a logical fallacy present in this myth as well which is an argument from adverse consequences. This is where humans must accept that we have and are damaging the Earth and we need to accept this in order to make steps to better the current situation.

      http://www.terpconnect.umd.edu/~dschofie/SGC/climatemyth.html

      Reply
      • unitedtribes2

         /  July 24, 2017

        I wish someone would come out with some real science so I can decide which myth to believe

        Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  July 24, 2017

        The real myth: “By simply doubling the amount of carbon dioxide present in the Earth’s atmosphere will cause dramatic warming”

        We don’t know that. We do know there is mild warming. Predictions of dramatic warming have all failed.

        The rest is blather. There is a saturation effect and it has a steady but gradual impact.

        Reply
  2. sorethumb

     /  July 24, 2017

    The other myth is that responding to C02 can be business as usual.
    Justin Trudeau said tar sand production would have to be phased out – was booed – cried- backed down.

    Reply
  3. Gerrit

     /  July 24, 2017

    Worth a read including the comments that follow the article. Basically calls the climate change activists as pushing an incorrect barrel uphill. Scientifically set out to prove that even with CO2 at 1000 ppm, it still wont increase earth temperatures by the much vaunted fatal 2 degrees.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/08/the-effectiveness-of-co2-as-a-greenhouse-gas-becomes-ever-more-marginal-with-greater-concentration/

    Reply
    • That was in 2013. Do you have anything more up to date? I searched for information ion CO2 saturation and it was mostly on climate ‘sceptical’ websites, but most of the limited information was quite dated.

      Reply
      • Brown

         /  July 24, 2017

        You can find whatever you want and while hearing what you agree with may be comforting you just can’t get past those pesky facts that may take many, many years of science to appear and then get disregarded because some new evidence was discovered that made the old facts wrong. You can go and panic but I’m not changing my lifestyle because someone’s computer model (with which observed reality does not agree) says I should.

        Reply
        • Computer models are being continually improved as more data is obtained.

          Numerous model intercomparisons with observations, such as shown in Figure 3 (above), have led the IPCC to make a very strong statement about attribution of climate change in their latest Fourth Assessment: “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” Model simulations similar to those in Figure 3, but where greenhouse gas concentration does not increase over the century, do not show any significant warming of the global climate. Many other predictions from climate models are becoming more evident in the observations in many parts of the world as time progresses, such as: changing wind patterns, increases in sea-level, reduction in sea-ice, changes in the distribution of daily rainfall with more extreme events occurring.

          https://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/clivar/models

          Observations are the black line, 58 simulations are the orange lines.

          Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  July 24, 2017

        There are three components to saturation effects. One is the simple theoretical absorption factor which is simply logarithmic. A second one is the dynamic mixing and effusion of the system. And the third very unknown is the impact of feedback systems which are incredibly complex in the multiple phase interactions of the earth’s atmosphere, land and water, sun, moon and planets.

        Reply
  4. PDB

     /  July 24, 2017

    With increasing CO2 levels over the previous century we had a significant temperature drop between the mid 1940’s and mid-1970’s which is never explained and now glossed over, nor the 2000’s temperature ‘pause’ which the climate scientists finally agreed existed but again offered no explanation in relation to rising CO2 levels.

    Reply
    • There has been many explanations about many aspects of temperature trends.

      Two independent studies published in August 2014 concluded that, once surface temperatures start rising again, it is most likely that “they will keep going up without a break for the rest of the century, unless we cut greenhouse gas emissions.” Watanabe et al said, “this warming hiatus originated from eastern equatorial Pacific cooling associated with strengthening of trade winds,” and that while decadal climate variability has a considerable effect on global mean surface temperatures, its influence is gradually decreasing compared to the ongoing man-made global warming. Maher et al found that under the existing and projected high rates of greenhouse gas emissions there is little chance of another hiatus decade occurring after 2030, even if there were a large volcanic eruption after that time. They went on to say that most non-volcanic warming hiatuses are associated with enhanced cooling at the surface in the equatorial Pacific, which is linked to the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation.

      Another study, published in September 2014, found that had present-day climate models been available in the mid-1990s, this hiatus could have been forecast at that time.

      See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus

      It’s well known that climate conditions and temperatures fluctuate. Overall trends are what is most important.

      Reply
      • PDB

         /  July 24, 2017

        “Another study, published in September 2014, found that had present-day climate models been available in the mid-1990s”

        Climate models have to this point in time been at best around 95% incorrect, strongly in the direction of overstating man-made climate change effects.

        Reply
        • Brown

           /  July 24, 2017

          ”Overall trends are what is most important.”

          Looked at in isolation trends are of no consequence because they do not allow a considered response to perceived causes and problems which, given the debunked causes and predictions bandied about for decades, were not worth the time of day. NZ is making no difference to climate so anything we do is just a flush of wealth from the productive to the drain of socialism.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  July 24, 2017

            NZ is making no difference to climate so anything we do is just a flush of wealth from the productive to the drain of socialism.

            Can you just elaborate on that last bit Browny? How’s this contributing to socialism? There’s good evidence it’s been pretty good for capitalism via business if you can exploit the newly available opportunities in renewable energy markets.

            Reply
            • Brown

               /  July 24, 2017

              In my view capitalist enterprises should not require a subsidy to run a business and to that end companies putting their hand in my pocket for a subsidy because the product is otherwise uneconomic annoys me and does not meet what I would call a standard for capitalism. Tesla looks fine and dandy but has made no money so is not yet economically viable – its a socialist business. Taxpayers who cannot afford on subsidise those nearly wealthy enough to buy one. Likewise the industrial scale big wind and solar projects are not reliable because they need backup plants that work on the old basis of hydro or heat (gas and coal) to cover their down times. I bought and installed solar hot water some years ago and like it but its suitable for me in isolation because I have back up via the grid. If I have to have alternatives such as coal fired generation (which is efficient and clean nowadays) what point is there in expensive ideologically driven feel good schemes that make the skyline look horrible?

              The whole CO2 issue is being driven by the UN and socialism and if capitalism was running things without top ups you would see more investment in making existing technology superior because that makes economic sense and gives reliable outcomes. Coal will have had its day but that’s not yet – its being forced out prematurely when there are insufficient alternatives. That’s how socialism works – do what we tell you but don’t do what is sensible.

            • Gezza

               /  July 24, 2017

              I bought and installed solar hot water some years ago and like it but its suitable for me in isolation because I have back up via the grid.

              The point is you didn’t have to & it’s suitable for you, you need to use less energy off the grid, & I assume it’s cheaper for you, so it’s win-win, isn’t.

              I’m probably a social democrat in that I think capitalism when used for productive investment is good thing, & I admire especially businesspeople who start a business, employ others & pay them well, and produce products or services that are useful & needed, at affordable prices.

              But I’m not keen on unbridled financial capitalism, nor on things like corporations buying up competitors & politicians & monopolosing markets – so I believe in their activities being regulated by governments for the benefit of the nation’s people. People are not just human resources, just commodities or just purchasers of commodities. They are societies of individuals who should pay their own way (except those who for valid reasons can’t) but share some of the costs of living in a modern, civilised society.

              I think the climate change threat and/or debate has been a big factor in pushing the development of clean fossil energy. Companies & especially corporations raking in $$$b have a bad record for doing nothing to change when they damage the environment until they are forced to.

            • Gezza

               /  July 24, 2017

              * my para 1 line 3 … so (solar, is a ) win-win, isn’t IT?

              PS: I don’t like the visual pollution of the wind turbines @ Makara or Spicer Valley either – but I got used to them, hiking, & kids who’ve grown up with them love them. Very ‘space age’ to them.

  5. Maggy Wassilieff

     /  July 24, 2017

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  July 24, 2017

      Source, Maggy?

      Reply
      • Maggy Wassilieff

         /  July 24, 2017

        Oh…. probably any decent meteorological agency….
        Here’s one in degrees C.

        Do you ever ask yourself why we hardly ever see this form of graph… and only get endless temp anomaly graphs (always with changing base lines0?

        Reply
    • High Flying Duck

       /  July 24, 2017

      Seems legit. I like that it doesn’t have the wavy lines other graphs have.

      Reply
  6. Maggy Wassilieff

     /  July 24, 2017
    Reply
  7. Maggy Wassilieff

     /  July 24, 2017

    As Global Man-made emissions of CO2 have levelled off in the last few years (from 2010), where do you think the rising levels of CO2 are coming from?

    Reply
  1. Highest recorded level of CO2 in May — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s