Those are good points--previous post, from jmclemore --but when I look at numbers, the evidence still points overwhelmingly to humans as the cause for rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and not to volcanoes, or to forest fires like the fires that are still threatening Fort McMurray in Canada's Alberta province.
But before "we" get to any specific numbers, "let's talk about isotopes".
There are three naturally occuring isotopes of the element carbon (C): C12, C13 and C14. C12 and C13 are stable, and there are about 100 C12 atoms for every one C13 atom. C14 is a radioisotope. It’s produced when cosmic rays collide with nitrogen atoms in the atmosphere. C14 reverts to nitrogen by emitting electrons as beta radiation with a half-life of just over 5700 years. This is the foundation of the carbon dating techniques that are widely used by archaeologists to close in on the antiquity of archaeologic discoveries in terms of Years Before Present.
So there are three naturally occuring versions of the CO2 molecule, depending on which carbon isotope. The three isotopically different CO2 molecules are all equivalent or interchangeable (no difference) in terms of their greenhouse warming effect and in terms of their chemical and biological pathways into and out of the atmosphere as part of the “carbon cycle”.
Some of the evidence that has been developed to support the thinking that recent and current global temperature increases are driven by recent and current increases in the amount of fossil carbon (in the form of atmospheric CO2)--and not from some other natural source of carbon emissions such as deforestation or forest fires--is based on analyzing CO2 in air samples and measuring the ratio between the CO2 molecules that contain C14 and the CO2 molecules that contain either C12 or C13.
These carbon isotope ratio measurements are (likely, I would think) mute (or moot) on distinguishing between CO2 that was released into the atmosphere from human reliance on fossil fuels and CO2 that was transported into the atmosphere from deep below the surface by volcanic activity. However--and I posted this right here, as recently as May 9--I cannot find much in the way of scientific reporting that leans towards volcanic activity as a significant source of atmospheric CO2 (or other greenhouse gases), in comparison to the recent and current greenhouse gas emissions from human activities; and especially, in comparison to the magnitude of human-driven carbon emissions from the intentional combustion of fossil fuels in order to extract energy.
In terms of the greenhouse effect, there is only one factor that differentiates the CO2 from forest and wildfires vs the CO2 from volcanic activity vs the CO2 from the human reliance upon fossil fuels for energy, and that is the relative amounts of CO2 from each different pathway that have already been released, are continuing to be released and are predicted to be released into the atmosphere over the next two or three hundred years. (Trying to look any farther into the future than the next two or three hundred years—and there is a great deal of focus on just the remainder of the current century in the IPCC reports—would be going beyond the scope of the current concerns and disagreements about human activities and climate change.)
More about the evidence that clears volcanoes of any major "wrongdoing"
"The emissions of CO2 from volcanic eruptions are at least 100 times smaller than anthropogenic [human] emissions, and [are] inconsequential for climate on century time scales." ~IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis
Could that assessment change in a significant way during the next 15 or 20 years, based on as yet unpublished research that either hasn't been completed yet, or hasn't been started yet, or hasn't even been conceived of yet in terms of how to go about it?
Perhaps the most difficult challenge is to quantify the amount of CO2 that is being released by volcanic activity offshore and deep below the surface of the oceans.
Here's a comment from a fellow who (as recently as 2011) was skeptical that offshore volcanic activity will be found to be a "game changer" in comparison to human emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases:
quote
Don’t you think it’s too much of a coincidence that Casey’s “1000 potentially active subaerial volcanoes worldwide” have been hypothetically increasing their emissions, starting around 1850, precisely matching the rate of anthropogenic fossil fuel emissions? Something that has never happened in the last [400 thousand] years, according to the Vostok [ice core] CO2 record.
Casey is also wrong in his assertion that volcanic CO2 is indistinguishable from fossil fuel emissions.
Concentrations and isotope ratios of carbon, nitrogen and sulfur in ocean-floor basalts SARAI et. al 1984 found “The isotopic ratios of indigenous carbon and nitrogen are in very narrow ranges, -6.2 [per mil; symbol didn’t paste] relative to PDB and +0.2 & 0.6460 relative to atmospheric nitrogen, respectively.” This is less negative than the atmospheric ratio, which declined from -7.6 in 1980 to -8.2 in 2008.
The Mid Ocean Ridge is the largest volcanic structure on earth, 65,000 miles long. Its erupted basalt created the ocean floor, average age ~70 million years, thickness ~2km, area ~1.8e8 km^2. The volume is therefore 3.6e8 km^3, and the eruption rate is ~5km^3 per year. The is equivalent to one "Pinatubo" every 2 years. Pinatubo was the largest eruption since Novarupta in 1912, and caused no measurable change in atmospheric carbon isotope ratios.
“We estimate that the carbon flux (CO2 plus methane) through submarine fluid venting at the outer fore arc is 8.0 × 105 g C km−1 yr−1, which is virtually negligible compared to the total sedimentary carbon input to the margin, …the implication is that most of the carbon being subducted in Costa Rica must be transferred to the (deeper) mantle, i.e., beyond the depth of arc magma generation.”
The ocean ridge carbon has the wrong isotope ratio to account for atmospheric CO2 rise. Plate margin subduction zone volcanism removes more carbon than it emits. Even if you accept Casey’s glorified guesswork that Toba emitted 494 Mt of carbon, that is a small fraction (<2%) of the 26 Gt of carbon from fossil fuels and other human activities. We can't possibly be missing 50 Toba scale eruptions per year, (or 500 Tambora scale eruptions). Pinatubo didn't even make Casey's scale, and most of us noticed that eruption and its effect on climate.
Volcanoes are free to leave the courtroom. Now for stacking up the amount of carbon emissions from wildfires (forest fires and brush fires) and from fires that are purposely set to clear land for agricultural use, against the amount of carbon emissions from other human factors
How significant is the amount of CO2 from forest and brush fires, and from fires that are set to clear uncultivated areas of natural vegetation for human projects such as farming? What is the effect of these accidental and intentional fires on the planet's capacity to remove CO2 from the atmosphere as part of the carbon cycle?
Several recent estimates have converged on 2 gigatons (2 billion tons) of carbon emissions per year [in recent years] from accidental and intentional fires all around the world.
The deforestation that resulted from accidental and intentional fires all around the world reduced the planet's ability to remove carbon from the atmosphere by an average of 0.3 gigaton per year over the years from 1901 to 2012. This is the equivalent of an additional 0.3 gigatons per year of carbon emissions. So you could just as well say that fires are adding about 2.3 (or almost 2.5) gigatons of carbon to the atmosphere every year.
Carbon emissions from all human causes--which would (on the face of it) include energy extraction from fossil fuels, forest and wildfires and fires set to clear land for cultivation, CO2 and methane emissions from farm and livestock waste and other miscellaneous categories including building and road construction using concrete and many other smaller "line items"--reached a record high of 10 gigatons of carbon emissions per year in 2014.
So, fires account for almost 2.5 gigatons of the current (or almost current) 10 gigatond of human-derived carbon emissions per year. Or, on a percentage basis, fires account for about 25 percent of all human-related carbon emissions.
And in so far as what Mickey_Moose has been alluding to--on the previous page--it seems to me that even if the carbon emissions from fires are essentially irreducible--something that humans have no realistic chance of controlling--there is another 75 percent of the total human carbon footprint to look at, in terms of finding reductions.
How do these numbers, which are from other sources, line up for comparison with the IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis?
quote
Carbon emissions from fossil fuel combustion and cement production came to 8.3 gigatons per year, averaged over the years 2002 to 2011, and topped out at 9.5 gigatons for the year 2011, which is more than 50 percent above the year 1990. Land use changes added another 0.9 gigatons of carbon emissions per year, averaged over the same period of years from 2002 to 2011.
I'd say that is "kind of on the same page".
This, also, from the IPCC Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis:
quote
The atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide--all greenhouse gases--have increased to levels that are higher than at any other time in the previous 800,000 years. CO2 concentrations have increased by 40% since pre-industrial times, first and foremost from fossil fuel emissions, and secondly, from net land use changes.
Additional sources:
"Modelling the role of fires in the terrestrial carbon balance by incorporating SPITFIRE into the global vegetation model ORCHIDEE – Part 2: Carbon emissions and the role of fires in the global carbon balance" Geoscientific Model Development; May 6,2 015 (Yup, Ciais, Cadule, Thonicke and van Leeuwin) http://www.geosci-model-dev.../gmd-8-1321-2015.pdf
While the contributors of CO2 emissions are unequal in their level of contribution, it is incorrect to conclude that any specific source is more harmful than another.
They are either equally harmful or equally inconsequential. However, after reading a lot of the articles that have been referenced to shotgun claims that are counter to the CO2 connection to global warming climate change, there is one fact mentioned that adds to the number of flags being raised.
quote
Carbon Cycle
The ocean plays a vital dominant role in the Earth's carbon cycle. The total amount of carbon in the ocean is about 50 times greater than the amount in the atmosphere, and is exchanged with the atmosphere on a time-scale of several hundred years. At least 1/2 of the oxygen we breathe comes from the photosynthesis of marine plants. Currently, 48% of the carbon emitted to the atmosphere by fossil fuel burning is sequestered into the ocean. But the future fate of this important carbon sink is quite uncertain because of potential climate change impacts on ocean circulation, biogeochemical cycling, and ecosystem dynamics. Global Flows of Carbon
The ocean plays a vital dominant role in the Earth's carbon cycle. The total amount of carbon in the ocean is about 50 times greater than the amount in the atmosphere, and is exchanged with the atmosphere on a time-scale of several hundred years.
Carbon atoms are constantly being cycled through the earth's ocean by a number of physical and biological processes. The flux of carbon dioxide between the atmosphere and the ocean is a function of surface mixing (related to wind speed) and the difference the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air and water The concentration in the ocean depends on the atmosphere and ocean carbon dioxide partial pressure which, in turn, is a function of temperature, alkalinity (which is closely related to salinity), photosynthesis, and respiration. Carbon is also sequestered for long periods of time in carbon reservoirs (sinks) such as deep ocean and ocean sediment.
According to those articles, the world's CO2 inventory heavily relies on the ocean to remove excess carbon from the atmosphere. This argument presents another chicken/egg discussion. Apparently, The effect CO2 has on our atmosphere interferes with ocean temperatures and causes ocean currents to slow which reduce the absorption of CO2. So excess CO2 causes the ocean to absorb less CO2 and the reduced absorption of CO2 causes an increase in CO2. It's like a dog chasing it's tail and no matter how many times it bites it's own tail it starts the run around all over again.
However, this should not happen. According to the carbon cycle, co2 is absorbed at the surface as current flows, waves, churning and wind mixes and transfers captured co2 from the surface to lower depths until it finally rests at the bottom of the ocean floor as sediment. please think that idea through. It does not require a higher education to recognize a contradiction when you see one.
Wait just one minute.....
Are they asking us to believe that CO2 level at 400PPM has saturated the entire carbon storage capacity to such a degree that We can not remove the CO2 being produced today.
Our transportation systems and vehicles produce CO2. Our industries produce CO2. Our environment produces CO2. Our planet produces CO2.
All of which contributes to the milestone of 400 PPM.
At 400 PPM
It is to much for the Trees and vegetation to remove. culprit : industrialization it is to much for the oceans to absorb. culprit: industrialization and it is now being seen in nearly every layer of our atmosphere. culprit: industrialization.
Edit - I unintentionally deleted this part of my reply and had to add it back in.
With all of the natural occurring obstacles reducing CO2 absorption, how can we expect that a reduction in the emission rate would resolve the problem. After all, All of the natural reservoirs have a bottom to them and can not last forever. If we removed all combustion propulsion and drive systems it would not increase the amount of natural storage capacity. If, we were able to stop all countries from industrial, farming and waste disposal methods that produce CO2, it will not increase the natural storage capacity.
If all we had were volcanoes and forest fires, the destruction of CO2 capture alone would reduce absorption rates. Worse, the lack of industrial equipment, productions and processes would leave us without the most important ingredient we have to fight and correct such natural disasters, The Human Initiated and Fulfillment of Recovery. Human beings, with internal combustion vehicles fight the spread and devastation of fires. Afterwards, more Human beings with fossil fuel burning equipment clean up, replant, redevelop and restore the environment.
Human activities are the only one that benefit this planet. Without our intervention it would be a chaotic, charred and inhospitable. We are the only life form that produces it's own food supply. All others take what they need without maintaining or replenishing their food supply. No they eat, poop, procreate and pollute until the area becomes toxic, barren and inhabitable and just move on to an untouched area to squat and destroy.
Human activities destroying this planet, not likely. It's like marrying a a person hoping they will be transformed by you into someone you can love instead of just admiring and respecting them for their good points. Everybody thinks the little monkey is cute until it's hurling a nice warn handful of poop at you.....
Besides, we don't have to force manufacture into making higher quality products with lower emissions. They will do it anyway just to have a couple of niche areas to promote their product under. How many different ways can a car engine burn fuel? At some point they all do the same thing. Yeah one might gave more valves per cylinder, more HP with fewer pistons, or a more precise computer controlling finer ignition and combustion factor. But all are competing to be the most fuel efficient vehicle on the market.
[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 05-18-2016).]
While the contributors of CO2 emissions are unequal in their level of contribution, it is incorrect to conclude that any specific source is more harmful than another.
They are either equally harmful or equally inconsequential. However, after reading a lot of the articles that have been referenced to shotgun claims that are counter to the CO2 connection to global warming climate change, there is one fact mentioned that adds to the number of flags being raised.
According to those articles, the world's CO2 inventory heavily relies on the ocean to remove excess carbon from the atmosphere. This argument presents another chicken/egg discussion. Apparently, The effect CO2 has on our atmosphere interferes with ocean temperatures and causes ocean currents to slow which reduce the absorption of CO2. So excess CO2 causes the ocean to absorb less CO2 and the reduced absorption of CO2 causes an increase in CO2. It's like a dog chasing it's tail and no matter how many times it bites it's own tail it starts the run around all over again.
However, this should not happen. According to the carbon cycle, co2 is absorbed at the surface as current flows, waves, churning and wind mixes and transfers captured co2 from the surface to lower depths until it finally rests at the bottom of the ocean floor as sediment. please think that idea through. It does not require a higher education to recognize a contradiction when you see one.
Wait just one minute.....
Are they asking us to believe that CO2 level at 400PPM has saturated the entire carbon storage capacity to such a degree that We can not remove the CO2 being produced today.
Our transportation systems and vehicles produce CO2. Our industries produce CO2. Our environment produces CO2. Our planet produces CO2.
All of which contributes to the milestone of 400 PPM.
At 400 PPM
It is to much for the Trees and vegetation to remove. culprit : industrialization it is to much for the oceans to absorb. culprit: industrialization and it is now being seen in nearly every layer of our atmosphere. culprit: industrialization.
Sounds like you are on to something, I'm sure the numerous scientists who study Climate Change would like to hear your rebuttal of their work.
The majority of people who believe global warming is man made are not scientists. But just like their belief in global warming, they only believe the 97% claim because they were told to. It's easy to use someone else's credibility to support a belief than it is to look at the claim, information and sources while thinking it through for yourself.
The contradictions of the claim do not disprove the facts that exist. It only brings in to question the credibility, intention and integrity of the person making the claim.
So, the "climate alarmists" cry out (in alarm), "But CO2 levels are the highest in 800,000 years."
And the "wise men" of Breitbart(.com) respond thusly:
quote
CO2 levels in the atmosphere are currently among the lowest ever recorded in the earth’s long history. The past 800,000 years is a convenient time frame [for the "climate alarmists"] to cite, however, since the earth has undergone repeated glacial cycles in that time—which has reduced atmospheric CO2.
And I say:
What else is significant about the most recent 800,000 years of geologic history? The lineage of human species only goes back slightly farther, to about two million years ago. That is when the earliest known species that was recognizably human--homo habilis--first appeared.
The fossil evidence for modern day humans--homo sapiens--fixes our origins as a species to only about 200,000 years ago.
In terms of our anatomy and physiology, all of the evolutionary fine-tuning that has shaped our bodies and distinguishes us from somewhat earlier human species has come about within the last 200,000 years of the last 800,000 years of relatively low CO2 levels, as compared with earlier periods in the Deep History of Earth when much higher CO2 levels were prevalent. (This is known from fossil evidence and from other analytical methods that have been developed by paleoclimatologists.)
Where we modern humans live. What we eat. Where and how we grow and harvest food from the land and wrest food from the lakes, rivers and seas. The other species of plants, animals and microorganisms that affect us. All of this fell into place as it is today within the last 200,000 years of the last 800,000 years of relatively low CO2 in terms of the Earth's four billion year history. The domestication of wild growing plant species to be farmed as cereal crops and wild herd animals to be raised as livestock are developments that date back to only about 11,000 years ago--all that in this smallest and most recent fraction of the last 200,000 years of the last 800,000 years of relatively low CO2.
"Relatively low CO2" is very much "who we are". So when the wise men of Breitbart(.com) say, as they have here--in so many words--that to see a near-term transition to higher CO2 levels from where we already are today (~400 ppm) is "no big deal", they are indulging in a kind of mislead, along the lines of "putting lipstick on a pig" or "polishing a turd".
That is not a compelling or well-reasoned observation (IMO), from the wise men of Breitbart(.com).
The planet's climate will change, and probably in a big way, regardless of any human plans or decisions.
But why would anyone with a humanist perspective about life reasonably want to shorten the time between today and the leading edge of the next big climate change that Mother Nature has in store for us? Wouldn't it be better, in terms of prolonging the "day" of our own kind (modern humans), to have anything from several hundred to several thousand more years of something similar to the current climate, as lead time, to be used for planning our adaptions to the next big climate change--instead of having to adapt to the next big climate change over just the remainder of the current century and the course of the next century after that?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-29-2016).]
Just noticed this one in a blog by the former editor of a local newspaper on May 22, 2016.
Although no one mentioned this, it seems to me that the Portland schools now face a problem: What to do with books and other material doubting that mankind's use of fossil fuels is mainly responsible for climate change. I suggest a solution in the spirit of the Portland School Board's decision last week to ban such material from the schools: Have students pile up the offending books in a great big heap and set them on fire.
Actually, it's kind of surprising that school books still have not fallen completely into line. Yet, as one person complained to the Portland board, there are still too many books that use words like "may" and "might" to describe what fossil fuels are doing to the climate. And that allows for too much freedom of thought.
Burning books used to be the approved method in totalitarian systems of getting rid of ideas running counter to the prevailing ideology. And presumably Portland school children, brought up in a system that would yield such a decision by a unanimous board, would be enthusiastic about putting to the torch the output of enemies of the state.
Enemies of the state? Sure, that's how some people in government and academia now regard anyone who questions the tenets of the global warming religion. There have been calls, isolated so far, to put climate change skeptics in jail. The attorney general of the United States has asked the FBI to investigate whether Exxon could be prosecuted for misleading the public about climate change. The attorney generals of New York, California and other states are suing the energy company. The attorney general of the U.S. Virgin Islands has served a subpoena on a non-profit organization keeping the climate debate alive.
We are told that 97 percent of scientists think we're to blame for global warming and we must do something to prevent a catastrophe. The 97 percent assertion has been debunked. But even if it were true, even if 100 percent of all scientists were on board with the theory as proven beyond any doubt, would that be a reason to shut up, shout down and even prosecute and possibly jail anyone who raised questions?
You'd think that if the science were so convincing, it could stand on its own. Its supporters would not have to resort to prosecuting those who dare to have other ideas.
Totalitarian societies typically do their best to suppress free speech and free inquiry in science. That seems to be where we are heading now. It's sad that the school board in Oregon's biggest city is making the place sound like the People's Republic of Portland. (hh)
[This message has been edited by spark1 (edited 06-01-2016).]
General estimates have placed a can of Coca-Cola to have 2.2 grams of CO2 in a single can. As a can is around 12 fluid ounces, or 355 ml
about 29.6 mil per 1 ounce multiplied by 8 ounces = 236.8 mil per 8oz serving.
coke claims 18% market share with 1.2 billion 8 ounce servings consumed daily. (1,200,000,000 * 236.8 mil = 9,600,000,000 mil of co2)
9,600,000,000 mil of co2 converted to metric tonnes Approximately 30,000,000 metric tonnes
30,000,000 metric tonnes of co2 (only 18% of the market) That about 1,600,000 metric tonnes for ever 1% of the global market.
100% of the market would contain 160,000,000 million metric tonnes per day. multiplied by 365 days = 58,400,000,000 metric tonnes of co2. 58.4 billion metric tonnes.
A Popular Global warming website claims that humans have an output of 29 gigatons of CO2 (29 billion tons)
All cola drinkers consume a combined 58 billion metric tonnes of co2.
All human output is 29 billion tons. 29 billion tons converts to 26.31 billion metric tonnes.
Human Release ________ 27 billion metric tonnes Human Absorption ______ 58 billion metric tonnes Human Carbon foot print - 31 billion metric tonnes
So have a cola and a smile. When someone gives you grief about drinking pop, shake, point, pop and share.....
The YourNewsWire report is dated September 29, 2015.
It's about a letter of resignation from a UC Santa Barbara physics professor that was submitted on October 8, 2010. YourNewsWire reports--five years later--that the professor (Hal Lewis) resigned from his tenured faculty position at UC Santa Barbara. Did he? The letter is actually Dr. Lewis's resignation from the American Physical Society.
This was the response from the American Physical Society (APS), posted on October 12, 2010:
APS Comments on Harold Lewis’ Resignation of his Society Membership
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a recent letter to the American Physical Society (APS) President Curtis A. Callan, chair of the Princeton University Physics Department, Harold Lewis, emeritus physics professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, announced that he was resigning his APS membership.
In response to numerous accusations in the letter, APS issues the following statement:
There is no truth to Dr. Lewis’ assertion that APS policy statements are driven by financial gain. To the contrary, as a membership organization of more than 48,000 physicists, APS adheres to rigorous ethical standards in developing its statements. The Society is open to review of its statements if members petition the APS Council – the Society’s democratically elected governing body – to do so.
Dr. Lewis’ specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting financially from climate change funding is equally false. Neither the operating officers nor the elected leaders of the Society have a monetary stake in such funding. Moreover, relatively few APS members conduct climate change research, and therefore the vast majority of the Society’s members derive no personal benefit from such research support.
On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:
Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.
On these matters, APS judges the science to be quite clear. However, APS continues to recognize that climate models are far from adequate, and the extent of global warming and climatic disruptions produced by sustained increases in atmospheric carbon loading remain uncertain. In light of the significant settled aspects of the science, APS totally rejects Dr. Lewis’ claim that global warming is a “scam” and a “pseudoscientific fraud.”
Additionally, APS notes that it has taken extraordinary steps to solicit opinions from its membership on climate change. After receiving significant commentary from APS members, the Society’s Panel on Public Affairs finalized an addendum to the APS climate change statement reaffirming the significance of the issue. The APS Council overwhelmingly endorsed the reaffirmation.
Lastly, in response to widespread interest expressed by its members, the APS is in the process of organizing a Topical Group to feature forefront research and to encourage exchange of information on the physics of climate.
Bob Inglis, executive director of climate policy advocacy group republicEn, describes his transformation from a Republican and socially conservative Congressional representative from South Carolina who did not accept the reality of Man Made Global Warming into an advocate for free enterprise friendly solutions to curtail the use of fossil fuels and reduce the amount of CO2 in the planet's atmosphere. Mr Inglis interviews with The Weather Channel's Sam Champion on a recently aired segment of "23.5". The video length is 8+ minutes.
That was followed by an interview with Dr. Paul Bunje of XPRIZE, who talked about the $20 million XPRIZE competition to find new ways of capturing CO2 emissions from coal, oil and gas-powered electricity plants and other industrial facilities where fossil fuels are burned to create energy.
If the Government put up 1 billion dollars for global cooling research , the temperature could reach 130° and the same scientists will flowed flood us with data explaining how we could have a record breaking heat wave and still be in a cooling trend.
[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 08-14-2016).]
In less than two months (October 6, 2016) it will be 4,000 days since the last time a major hurricane made landfall in the U.S., which was Wilma on October 24, 2005.
In less than two months (October 6, 2016) it will be 4,000 days since the last time a major hurricane made landfall in the U.S., which was Wilma on October 24, 2005.
•Greenhouse gases were the highest on record. Major greenhouse gas concentrations, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide, rose to new record high values during 2015. The 2015 average global CO2 concentration was 399.4 parts per million (ppm), an increase of 2.2 ppm compared with 2014.
•Global surface temperature was the highest on record. Aided by the strong El Niño, the 2015 annual global surface temperature was 0.76–0.83 degrees F (0.42°–0.46°C) above the 1981–2010 average, surpassing the previous record set in 2014.
•Sea surface temperature was the highest on record. The globally averaged sea surface temperature was 0.59–0.70 degrees F (0.33°–0.39°C) above average, breaking the previous mark set in 2014.
•Global upper ocean heat content highest on record. Upper ocean heat content exceeded the record set in 2014, reflecting the continuing accumulation of heat in the ocean’s top layers.
•Global sea level rose to a new record high in 2015. It measured about 2.75 inches (70 mm) higher than that observed in 1993, when satellite record-keeping for global sea level rise began.
•Tropical cyclones were well above average, overall. There were 101 tropical cyclones total across all ocean basins in 2015, well above the 1981-2010 average of 82 storms. The eastern/central Pacific had 26 named storms, the most since 1992. The North Atlantic, in contrast, had fewer storms than most years during the last two decades.
•The Arctic continued to warm; sea ice extent remained low. The Arctic land surface temperature in 2015 was 2.2 degrees F (1.2°C) above the 1981-2010 average, tying 2007 and 2011 as the highest on record. The maximum Arctic sea ice extent reached in February 2015 was the smallest in the 37-year satellite record, while the minimum sea ice extent that September was the fourth lowest on record.
This is the way it was reported by IFL Science, which is an online venue that is new to me... so new (to me) that I have no idea about their credibility or track record.
"There Probably Won't Be A “Mini Ice Age” In 15 Years"
Since our article yesterday about how reduced solar activity could lead to the next little ice age, IFLScience has spoken to the researcher who started the furor: Valentina Zharkova. She announced the findings from her team's research on solar activity last week at the Royal Astronomical Society. She noted that her team didn't realize how much of an impact their research would have on the media, and that it was journalists (including ourselves) who picked up on the possible impact on the climate. However, Zharkova says that this is not a reason to dismiss this research or the predictions about the environment.
“We didn't mention anything about the weather change, but I would have to agree that possibly you can expect it,” she informed IFLScience.
The future predicted activity of the Sun has been likened to the Maunder Minimum. This was a period when the Sun entered an especially inactive period, producing fewer sunspots than usual. This minimum happened at the same time that conditions in Northern America and Europe went unusually icy and cold, a period of time known as the “little ice age.”
The previous Maunder Minimum occurred in the 17th century and lasted between 50 and 60 years. . . .<SNIP>
Zharkova compared the Maunder Minimum with the one that her team predicted to occur around 15 years into the future. The next minimum will likely be a little bit shorter than the one in the 17th century, only lasting a maximum of three solar cycles (around 30 years).
The conditions during this next predicted minimum will still be chilly: “It will be cold, but it will not be this ice age when everything is freezing like in the Hollywood films,” Zharkova chuckled.
The predictions that Zharkova announced came from a mathematical program that analyzed data from the Sun. The team decided that they wanted to monitor the Sun's background magnetic field (which governs solar features like sunspots). You can see the team's data for cycles 21–23 published in The Astrophysical Journal.
<SNIP>
* * * * * However, Zharkova ends with a word of warning: not about the cold but about humanity's attitude toward the environment during the minimum. We must not ignore the effects of global warming and assume that it isn't happening. “The Sun buys us time to stop these carbon emissions,” Zharkova says. The next minimum might give the Earth a chance to reduce adverse effects from global warming.
ever higher temps new records every month even as there was a very slight drop in the sun's output is proof 400 ppm CO2 has effects as predicted that part of our rightwing just will not see
the results are in science won BS lost time to find a new losing cause because this one is lost stick a fork in it done
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
yesterday.. the record for the hottest day recorded in the boston area was in 1880 .. not 1980 not 2010 not 2015 1880
must suck when your own record keeping debunks, the fraud that is global "pick a new buzz word every few years" warming.
most use the polar ice caps as "proof" of man made global warming.. but when asked what caused the rest of the ice from the ice age to melt, it's well, um, you see, well that's different, um, well, oh, go away..
2015 is the hottest year on record? Under the Obama Administration? While a Democrat is in Office? After all of the restriction imposed by the government? Despite All fines issued by the EPA?
At what point do we have enough evidence that anthropogenic intervention is not effective under the current model and that may perhaps suggest that our understanding of global climate change is a Mis-Understanding.
quote
Climate change feedback is important in the understanding of global warming because feedback processes may amplify or diminish the effect of each climate forcing, and so play an important part in determining the climate sensitivity and future climate state. Feedback in general is the process in which changing one quantity changes a second quantity, and the change in the second quantity in turn changes the first. Positive feedback amplifies the change in the first quantity while negative feedback reduces it.
Catch22: environment protection policies are VITAL to address global climate change and yet 2015 was the hottest year on record. Either 1 of those are factually incorrect or we are trying to treat the symptoms not the disease. The logic as I see it is this. If we are concerned about rising temperatures, we should be seeing a cosistant increase in temperatures annually even if it is a fraction of a degree. Not just a few spikes, here and there, that are quickly erased by the previous or following year.
Originally posted by jmclemore: 2015 is the hottest year on record? Under the Obama Administration? While a Democrat is in Office? After all of the restriction imposed by the government? Despite All fines issued by the EPA?
This is a common mistake by many but America does not = the Earth.
quote
Originally posted by jmclemore:
At what point do we have enough evidence that anthropogenic intervention is not effective under the current model and that may perhaps suggest that our understanding of global climate change is a Mis-Understanding.
Intervention is not effective, I agree most scientists are warning that we are not doing near enough.
quote
Originally posted by jmclemore: Catch22: environment protection policies are VITAL to address global climate change and yet 2015 was the hottest year on record. Either 1 of those are factually incorrect or we are trying to treat the symptoms not the disease. The logic as I see it is this. If we are concerned about rising temperatures, we should be seeing a cosistant increase in temperatures annually even if it is a fraction of a degree. Not just a few spikes, here and there, that are quickly erased by the previous or following year.
As you said that logic as YOU see it, however the science is pretty consistent. Expecting a consistent yearly increase in something like Climate is like expecting someone's cancer to grow consistently with every cigarette they smoke.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 08-24-2016).]
As you said that logic as YOU see it, however the science is pretty consistent. Expecting a consistent yearly increase in something like Climate is like expecting someone's cancer to grow consistently with every cigarette they smoke.
Granted, but if we aren't doing enough and climate change still moves forward, is there any way to measure our effect at slowing it's progress?
Likewise, if we are not doing nearly enough now, what would nearly enough be and can we afford it?
If we are not slowing this puppy down, we need to redirect resource and consider a different approach. And if we can not afford to do nearly enough, we must begin preparing for migration.....
Granted, but if we aren't doing enough and climate change still moves forward, is there any way to measure our effect at slowing it's progress?
Likewise, if we are not doing nearly enough now, what would nearly enough be and can we afford it?
If we are not slowing this puppy down, we need to redirect resource and consider a different approach. And if we can not afford to do nearly enough, we must begin preparing for migration.....
Yes I agree once one accepts that it is happening there is a debate to be had on what to do.
--but when I look at numbers, the evidence still points overwhelmingly to humans as the cause for rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and not to volcanoes, or to forest fires like the fires that are still threatening Fort McMurray in Canada's Alberta province.
has been alluding to--on the previous page--it seems to me that even if the carbon emissions from fires are essentially irreducible--something that humans have no realistic chance of controlling--there is another 75 percent of the total human carbon footprint to look at, in terms of finding reductions.
please think 
