It Hasn't Sunk In Just Yet

Atmospheric CO2 rises more than expected since 2000

Posted at 7:11 AM on 23 Oct 2007

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.

sources: Agence France-Presse, Bloomberg, The Guardian

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (6 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Recessions Generate More CO2 Than Ever

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.

by jabailo at 10:24 PM on 23 Oct 2007

CO2 in the atmosphere, is cumulative

CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere but isn't absorbed very quickly. So even if economic activity slows down for a few years it doesnt effect CO2 levels. But particulate matter, eg. smoke etc. doesn't last anywhere near as long in the atmosphere so when there is an economic slowdown and there is less production of particulate matter there will be a corresponding decrease in particulate matter in the atmosphere. Since particulate matter in the atmosphere reflects more sunlight than it aborbs, when you have less of it the climate gets hotter. This effect of CO2 and of particulate matter in the atmosphere mask each other but eventually the effect of CO2 will dominate due to positive feedback effects.

by charlesjustice at 11:08 PM on 23 Oct 2007

2000-2006 recession? I must have missed it

Can you point me to some evidence for this? A 6-year worldwide recession? Sure I live in Scotland but even we should have noticed something like that!

by ngoddard at 1:08 AM on 24 Oct 2007
[ Parent ]

NGoddard,

I think a case could possibly be made for a three-year recession, mid-2000 to mid-2003. Did you notice anything like that in Scotland?

by Nucbuddy at 6:24 AM on 24 Oct 2007

Clouds Are Particles Too

Since particulate matter in the atmosphere reflects more sunlight than it aborbs, when you have less of it the climate gets hotter. This effect of CO2 and of particulate matter in the atmosphere mask each other but eventually the effect of CO2 will dominate due to positive feedback effects.

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.

by jabailo at 9:49 AM on 24 Oct 2007

nonesense

John, what are you talking about?
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.

by danielbell at 1:25 PM on 24 Oct 2007

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?