Greenhouse gas milestone; CO2 levels set record

[Cincinnatus]

Worldwide levels of the chief greenhouse gas that causes global warming have hit a milestone, reaching an amount never before encountered by humans, federal scientists said Friday.

Carbon dioxide was measured at 400 parts per million at the oldest monitoring station which is in Hawaii sets the global benchmark. The last time the worldwide carbon level was probably that high was about 2 million years ago, said Pieter Tans of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration...

"What we see today is 100 percent due to human activity," said Tans, a NOAA senior scientist. The burning of fossil fuels, such as coal for electricity and oil for gasoline, has caused the overwhelming bulk of the man-made increase in carbon in the air, scientists say.

Sounds terrible doesn't it? However, you don't get to the meat of the matter until almost the end of the report:

The world pumps on average 2.4 million pounds of carbon dioxide into the air every second for a total of 38.2 billion tons in 2011, according international calculations published in a scientific journal in December. China spews 10 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the air per year, leading all countries, and its emissions are growing about 10 percent annually.

Hmmm. If my math is correct that means China alone is responsible for 25% of the CO2 entering the atmosphere, and, if my memory is correct, China is not a signator to any environmental agreement, nor is it held to any international standard.

So if this is really such a pressing matter, "The speed of the change is the big worry, said Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann. If carbon dioxide levels go up 100 parts per million over thousands or millions of years, plants and animals can adapt. But that can't be done at the speed it is now happening.", then do something about China.

[EC]

Up 70ppm since I was a sprog at school. A fair increase.

Of course, I am wondering exactly where this weather station is and the levels of volcanic activity recently.

[Cincinnatus]

Good point, EC: Of course, I am wondering exactly where this weather station is and the levels of volcanic activity recently.

You know, even though you're a Brit, you do make some excellent contributions on here.

[EC]

Good point, EC: Of course, I am wondering exactly where this weather station is and the levels of volcanic activity recently.

You know, even though you're a Brit, you do make some excellent contributions on here.

  I like to talk. Also strongly believe in the importance of both open debate and Western democracy. It is the least flawed system that has been developed thus far and is worth fighting for. 

[Cincinnatus]

Well said, old chap, but I felt sure the part that would draw your greater attention would be, even though you're a Brit.

You surprised me.

[EC]

If we had a sticking out tongue smiley, I'd use it.

Used to that - I have worked with Texans. 

[jmyrlefuller]

Up 70ppm since I was a sprog at school. A fair increase.

Of course, I am wondering exactly where this weather station is and the levels of volcanic activity recently.

It's directly on top of Mauna Loa, an active Hawaiian volcano.

I was reading the write-up on this article from the NYTimes and got a good laugh from it: crisp, clean air traveling over thousands of miles. On top of a volcano that belches gases daily!

[Oceander]

Query:  how sure are we that this station is even calibrated correctly anymore?  As a very pedestrian example:  volcanic areas spew a lot of CO2, and the amount can be highly variable over time, and this monitoring station is right in the middle of an active volcanic system.  Do we know that the monitoring station results are normalized to take into account the varying amounts of CO2 put out by the volcanoes in and around Hawaii?  This supposed "increase" could simply be an artifact of an increase in the local CO2 emitted by the volcanic system and may bear no relationship to the overall levels of CO2.

Finally, let's be very, very careful about the rhetorical strategies and covert political agendas here.  The underlying, implicit, narrative is that we have to harshly curtail human activity to stop this increase - and there is precious little evidence, let alone proof, that human activity is the primary, or even a significant, contributor to these alleged increases.  Without that causal link - which the global warming cult has never been able to provide - there is absolutely no justification for curtailing human activities simply because those activities involve the release of CO2.

So, the next time someone accuses you of being a global warming denier, simply say:  I don't deny anything, I demand proof, and so far you haven't produced a shred of proof that human activity causes global warming, and therefore even if global warming is happening - and I'll grant you that it's happening just to be polite - you have no justification for forcing people to change their activities.  The only denier here is you:  you're denying your own lack of evidence in order to further your own political agenda.