The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing more than expected due to less-efficient use of fossil fuels, and carbon sinks that are absorbing less carbon, according to research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Overall, "atmospheric carbon dioxide growth has increased 35 percent faster than expected since 2000," said the British Antarctic Survey, a group involved in the research. The report said that changes in carbon levels "characterize a carbon cycle that is generating stronger-than-expected and sooner-than-expected climate forcing." In lay terms, that means many climate models may be off the mark since only the most gloomy have forecasted less-efficient carbon sinks in the present. The effect of the weakening sinks alone could translate into an increase in the global average temperature of 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, according to study coauthor Corinne Le Quere. Le Quere said it's not clear precisely where the sinks are weakening, except in the Southern Ocean. A separate study of the North Atlantic Ocean to be published in the Journal of Geophysical Research next month also suggests the world's oceans may be sequestering far less carbon dioxide than previously thought.
source: Agence France-Presse, Bloomberg, The Guardian
Copenhagen talks ready for take off: 5, 4, 3…
Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets
Comments
View as Flat
Delay And Deny Posted 3:24 pm
23 Oct 2007
Strange, 2000 to 2006. Mmmm...What was going on.
Oh yeah, a worldwide recession!
Just like in the 1930s when global temperatures were at an all time high.
I don't understand how the IPCC's logic can work.
The two periods of lowest economic activity, when presumably manmade CO2 was also lowest, has the highest temperatures and the most CO2.
Permalink
charlesjustice Posted 4:08 pm
23 Oct 2007
Permalink
ngoddard Posted 6:08 pm
23 Oct 2007
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 11:24 pm
23 Oct 2007
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:49 am
24 Oct 2007
Mmmm...that sounds a lot like Svensmark's theory, that low level clouds act as a "particulate" that let in more or less sunshine like a Venetian blind.
Maybe it's the particulates (clouds) that the primary drivers of climate and CO2 is a result, not a reason, for climate changes.
Permalink
danielbell Posted 6:25 am
24 Oct 2007
Is the point you're trying to make this- that clouds are acting differently and, thus, causing climate change? And that C02 changes are a response to changing clouds?
It is interesting to contemplate the mental layout of deniers. What is their incentive to continue denial in the face of unprecedented scientific consensus, and they must be extremely risk seeking to not feel that funking with our climate system is not the most dangerous game possible.
Perhaps it is ego and hubris, that causes them to think that the effect of wator vapor hasn't been taken into account by the scientists. Scientists posit these questions to themselves and others when testing their hypotheses. More likely for deniers, it is intentional ignorance combined with some sort of other conservative agenda.
Anyhow, I believe that intellectual discourse is necessary when considering any great change in our society. The problem is, whenever anyone with intellectual honesty starts looking into this thing, they end up concluding that global warming is from burning fossil fuels and that something should be done about it.
A friend recently told me that he was speaking with some deniers and asked them why they didn't believe any scientists. Simple, they said, all scientists are liberals.
The truth has a well known liberal bias.
Permalink