CO2 levels higher than any time in last 800,000 years

cassandrabandra · Mar 13, 2012

Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are now higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years, while the last decade in Australia was the warmest on record, CSIRO scientists say.

The findings are released in the CSIRO's annual State of the Climate report, which has been released today.

The report says Australia's annual-average daily maximum temperatures have increased by 0.75 degrees Celsius since 1910.

Australian temperatures are forecast to rise by between 1C and 5C by 2070 "when compared with the climate of recent decades."

But CSIRO says 2010 and 2011 were the coolest years recorded since 2001, because of two consecutive La Nina events.

Dr Karl Breganza from the Bureau of Meteorology says that while 2010 and 2011 were slightly cooler due to high rainfall, temperatures are still increasing.

"Australia tends to be cooler during periods where you have intense rainfall. But despite that, the last decade was still the warmest decade that we've recorded in Australia," he said.

"We've actually started to see an increase in the amount of stations, weather stations that are recording their monthly maximum temperatures.

"So the highest temperatures on record are occurring with greater frequency and over greater areas of Australia."

Interactive

See how sea levels are changing near you with ABC Environment's interactive tool, based on CSIRO data.
CSIRO senior research scientist Dr Paul Fraser says the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has reached 390 parts per million.

"We find no evidence going back 800,000 years of CO2 levels above 300 parts per million," he said.

Dr Breganza says the pace of climate change is alarming.

"In the geological history of earth, global changes of this magnitude happen very rarely," he said.

The report says the projected increases in temperature will lead to floods, droughts, and extreme cyclones.

And it says global sea levels continued to rise, with the CSIRO putting them at 210 millimetres higher than they were in 1880.

Dr Braganza hopes the report will convince people the climate is warming and that the pace of change is worrying.

"Global changes of this magnitude happen very rarely. They happen when asteroids strike, they happen when there's planetary volcanic activity," he said.

"They're happening now because we're digging up fossil fuels and basically burning them all. And we're doing that very, very rapidly.

"And that transition system has a lot of unknowns in it, a lot of nasty surprises."
Click to expand...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-14/temperatures-may-rise-5-degrees-by-2070/3887672

I would be interested to hear what explanations the denialists might come up with for this.

Panzerkampfwagen · Mar 13, 2012

Sorry, but according to American right wing politicians God promised Noah to not destroy the world again until the end of days, so you're wrong. It's arrogant to think that scientists know more about what is happening than the most scientifically accurate book of all time, The Bible.

cassandrabandra · Mar 14, 2012

I would still be interested to hear what explanations the denialists might come up with for this, even though they don't appear willing to proffer one.

I suspect you may be right Panzer ... but I thought God said he wouldn't cause a global flood again ... he never said he wouldn't destroy the world again .....

but maybe tthe denialists think AGW is OK because its caused by gays and atheists ... or socialists wanting to impose high taxes .... and its a sign of the end of times so they'll all be saved?

robot · Mar 14, 2012

Panzerkampfwagen said: ↑

Sorry, but according to American right wing politicians God promised Noah to not destroy the world again until the end of days, so you're wrong. It's arrogant to think that scientists know more about what is happening than the most scientifically accurate book of all time, The Bible.
Click to expand...

He would not destroy the world. He said nothing about not allowing humans to destroy the world.

waltky · Mar 15, 2012

Uncle Ferd says all dat CO2 is causin' the glaciers to melt an' all dat meltwater is goin' into the oceans makin' the sea levels rise...

New figures: More of US at risk to sea level rise
14 Mar.`12 - WASHINGTON (AP) Nearly 4 million people across the United States, from Los Angeles to much of the East Coast, live in homes more prone to flooding from rising seas fueled by global warming, according to a new method of looking at flood risk published in two scientific papers.

The cities that have the most people living within three feet (one meter) of high tide the projected sea level rise by the year 2100 made by many scientists and computer models are in Florida, Louisiana, and New York. New York City, often not thought of as a city prone to flooding, has 141,000 people at risk, which is second only to New Orleans' 284,000. The two big Southeast Florida counties, Miami-Dade and Broward, have 312,000 people at risk combined.

All told, 3.7 million people live in homes within three feet of high tide. More than 500 US cities have at least 10 percent of the population at increased risk, the studies said. "Southeast Florida is definitely the highest density of population that's really on low coastal land that's really most at risk," said lead author Ben Strauss, a scientist at Climate Central. Climate Central is a New Jersey-based group of scientists and journalists who do research about climate change.

The studies look at people who live in homes within three feet of high tide, whereas old studies looked just at elevation above sea level, according to work published Thursday in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research and an accompanying report by Climate Central. That's an important distinction because using high tide is more accurate for flooding impacts, said study co-author Jonathan Overpeck, a scientist at the University of Arizona's Institute of the Environment. And when the new way of looking at risk is factored in, the outlook looks worse, Overpeck said. "It's shocking to see how large the impacts could be, particularly in southern Florida and Louisiana, but much of the coastal U.S. will share in the serious pain," Overpeck said.

And it's not just residents of coastal areas who will be hurt by this, said Sharlene Leurig, a senior manager for the insurance program at Ceres, a Boston-based investment network. Most coastal areas get flood insurance from the federal program and with more flooding, the program will have to spend more and that will come out of all taxpayers' wallets, she said. Sea level has already risen about 8 inches since 1880 because warmer waters expand, Strauss said. In addition to the basic physics of ever-warming water expanding, scientist say hotter climate will cause some melting of glaciers in Greenland and western Antarctica that would then cause seas to rise even more.

More http://news.yahoo.com/figures-more-us-risk-sea-level-rise-124408242.html
Click to expand...

cassandrabandra · Mar 15, 2012

waltky said: ↑

Uncle Ferd says all dat CO2 is causin' the glaciers to melt an' all dat meltwater is goin' into the oceans makin' the sea levels rise...

New figures: More of US at risk to sea level rise
14 Mar.`12 - WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly 4 million people across the United States, from Los Angeles to much of the East Coast, live in homes more prone to flooding from rising seas fueled by global warming, according to a new method of looking at flood risk published in two scientific papers.
Click to expand...

Uncle Ferd is a lot smarter than a lot of people on this forum.

got to sat the idea that our temps here may rise by up to 5C here by 2070 is quite alarming. even half that increase would have extremely adverse effects of food production, water supply and ... everything.

waltky · Mar 15, 2012

Yea, Uncle Ferd says dat CO2 is causin' the polar an' glacier ice to melt too...

Great Lakes show massive ice loss, study says
Mar 13, 2012 - Journal of Climate study attributes shrinking ice cover to global warming

Most of the water in the Great Lakes hasn't frozen over this year largely because of a warmer-than-usual winter and a new study shows the lakes have been losing ice cover for 40 years. Lake Superior is the coldest of the Great Lakes. Yet only a thin layer of ice surrounds a cargo ship in the Thunder Bay, Ont., harbour. Past the breakwall, there's no ice at all. Thunder Bay Port Authority CEO Tim Heney, a 20 year-veteran in his industry, said the lack of ice is remarkable. It's the first time I ever remember the water being open right into Thunder Bay, Heney said. I've never seen this before."

According to a new study published in the Journal of Climate, the Great Lakes have lost more than two-thirds of their ice cover over the last four decades. Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair lost the least (50 per cent), while Lake Ontario has lost the most ice (88 per cent). That's more than even the study's lead author, ice climatologist Jia Wang, expected. "It's really, really huge, he said.

Adam Cornwell, an assistant professor of geography at Lakehead University, said Wang's findings are consistent with other climate research all of which sends a powerful message. "What's happening on the Great Lakes is an immediate reminder that our climate is changing and the expectations that we've had in the past aren't going to hold true for the future, Cornwell said. And one of those expectations is a season of ice cover on the Great Lakes."

The study noted that ice cover varies from year to year, depending on whether cold or warm systems are passing through. But it attributes the overall ice decrease to global warming a factor that can affect fish and marine plants. The impact isn't just environmental, according to the study. Ships could be forced to navigate lower water levels as less ice results in more evaporation. We could be changing to a regime even just over the next 30 years where ice-free seasons happen more often than not, Cornwell said.

Source
Click to expand...

ronmatt · Mar 16, 2012

cassandrabandra said: ↑

Uncle Ferd is a lot smarter than a lot of people on this forum.

got to sat the idea that our temps here may rise by up to 5C here by 2070 is quite alarming. even half that increase would have extremely adverse effects of food production, water supply and ... everything.
Click to expand...

How would warmer weather and more water 'adversely effect' food production? I would think they'd increase food production...I certainly don't know one way or the other, but it seems that if growing seasons were extended and agricultural areas broadened and there was more rainfall....that would be beneficial. Having the Mojave and Sahara and other arid deserts in bloom (like they once were) sounds positive to me.

MannieD · Mar 16, 2012

ronmatt said: ↑

How would warmer weather and more water 'adversely effect' food production? I would think they'd increase food production...I certainly don't know one way or the other, but it seems that if growing seasons were extended and agricultural areas broadened and there was more rainfall....that would be beneficial. Having the Mojave and Sahara and other arid deserts in bloom (like they once were) sounds positive to me.
Click to expand...

Because rain may not fall where it needed most. Because flooding of farmland is not good for food production. See last year's Mississippi flooding of farmland. Because extended growing seasons means increased # of pests.

Here come the mosquitos

HOLLAND, Mich. (WZZM) - Experts are predicting mosquitos will be more of a problem this year. They say its all due to the early arrival of warm weather.
Carlos Garcia, an entomologist with Michigan State University, says mosquitos often hide in wooded areas during the winter and they typically don't reappear until May or June.
"Their biology starts moving faster, their metabolism is accelerating faster," says Garcia.
Click to expand...

Also an extended mosquito season means an extra generation of mosquitoes which leads to more mosquitoes.

CLIMATE-RELATED TRANSBOUNDARY PESTS AND DISEASES TECHNICAL

The introduction of diseases and pests will result in higher costs to the national industry in relation to inspection, treatment and compliance with obligations of the importing trading partners. Trade disputes in the WTO systems could become more frequent. Investments in early control and detection mechanisms will undoubtedly be valuable, to avoid higher costs of eradication and control.
Click to expand...

Complete with references.

ronmatt · Mar 16, 2012

MannieD said: ↑

Because rain may not fall where it needed most. Because flooding of farmland is not good for food production. See last year's Mississippi flooding of farmland. Because extended growing seasons means increased # of pests.

Here come the mosquitos

Also an extended mosquito season means an extra generation of mosquitoes which leads to more mosquitoes.

CLIMATE-RELATED TRANSBOUNDARY PESTS AND DISEASES TECHNICAL

Complete with references.
Click to expand...

You're right, of course. I 'over simplified', no doubt.

Bowerbird · Mar 17, 2012

ronmatt said: ↑

You're right, of course. I 'over simplified', no doubt.
Click to expand...

ron - there is more to it than that even - higher temps equal more evaporation equals more need for reliable water. Climate change means unreliability of rainfall (think no monsoons)

While CO2 is essential for plant growth, all agriculture depends also on steady water supplies, and climate change is likely to disrupt those supplies through floods and droughts. It has been suggested that higher latitudes Siberia, for example may become productive due to global warming, but the soil in Arctic and bordering territories is very poor, and the amount of sunlight reaching the ground in summer will not change because it is governed by the tilt of the earth. Agriculture can also be disrupted by wildfires and changes in seasonal periodicity, which is already taking place, and changes to grasslands and water supplies could impact grazing and welfare of domestic livestock. Increased warming may also have a greater effect on countries whose climate is already near or at a temperature limit over which yields reduce or crops fail in the tropics or sub-Sahara, for example.
Click to expand...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm

waltky · Feb 23, 2016

Granny told Uncle Ferd to slap the pontoons back onna trailer, sea levels goin' up again...

Temperatures, Sea Levels on the Rise
February 22, 2016 - Worried about climate change? This isn't your week. In a consequential pairing of bad news, scientists have released new information showing a record rise in sea levels, and record high temperatures in the Arctic in January.

The researchers who looked at sea levels were able to collect information going back 28 centuries. They found that sea levels are rising faster today than at any time over the past 3,000 years. The news was released Monday by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "The 20th century rise was extraordinary in the context of the last three millennia," said the paper's lead author, Robert Kopp from Rutgers University, "and the rise over the last two decades has been even faster."

Temperatures, sea levels

The best estimates show that temperatures around the globe have risen more than a half-degree Celsius since 1880. Scientists attribute most of that rise to human emissions into the atmosphere. Stefan Rahmstorf, a professor of ocean physics and the paper's co-author, is from Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. Rahmstorf says the water is only going to get higher. "I think we can definitely be confident that sea level rise is going to continue to accelerate if there's further warming," he told the New York Times, "which inevitably there will be." How much rise? The researchers say the Earth's sea level could rise more than a meter by the year 2100.

An iceberg melts near the Arctic Circle, Kulusuk, Greenland.

Thin ice in Arctic

In separate research, scientists from NASA and from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that global temperatures, which already made 2015 the hottest year ever recorded, were unusually high at the North Pole. On average, the North was nearly 4 degrees Celsius higher in January than average temperatures between 1951 and 1980. To make matters more dire, the researchers already had reported a record low amount of sea ice up North.

The National Snow and Ice Data Center says the amount of January sea ice is 644,000 square kilometers below average. NOAA says the lack of sea ice is due in part to an unusually strong El Nino and something scientists called "The Blob." That's their name for an atypically warm expanse of water in the northern Pacific that has been keeping temperatures in an area millions of kilometers wide about 3 degrees warmer than usual.

http://www.voanews.com/content/temperatures-sea-levels-rise-arctic/3202687.html
Click to expand...

Robert · Feb 23, 2016

cassandrabandra said: ↑

I would still be interested to hear what explanations the denialists might come up with for this, even though they don't appear willing to proffer one.

I suspect you may be right Panzer ... but I thought God said he wouldn't cause a global flood again ... he never said he wouldn't destroy the world again .....

but maybe tthe denialists think AGW is OK because its caused by gays and atheists ... or socialists wanting to impose high taxes .... and its a sign of the end of times so they'll all be saved?
Click to expand...

The term denialists is supposed to be a pejorative.

My reply is that below Australia, the Antarctic has perhaps record snowfalls. Though the Ross Ice shelf is breaking, that is normal given it breaks as it moves off the ledge.

They said in your report that there were two years in a row that were not as warm.

Nasa reports that globally, for the past 15 or more years, the earth has not warmed. Sure at places it has warmed, but at others it cooled.

Bjorn Lomborg has it guessed properly.

I maintain that were the globe warming as they claim, you would see all countries working hard to chill it off.

But as you notice, nobody is using science principles to chill off Earth.

MrNick · Feb 23, 2016

cassandrabandra said: ↑

I would still be interested to hear what explanations the denialists might come up with for this, even though they don't appear willing to proffer one.

I suspect you may be right Panzer ... but I thought God said he wouldn't cause a global flood again ... he never said he wouldn't destroy the world again .....

but maybe tthe denialists think AGW is OK because its caused by gays and atheists ... or socialists wanting to impose high taxes .... and its a sign of the end of times so they'll all be saved?
Click to expand...

4.7 billion years....

What do you think the environment is static?

MrNick · Feb 23, 2016

I would love for someone to describe what a "denialist" actually is...

cassandrabandra · Mar 7, 2016

MrNick said: ↑

4.7 billion years....

What do you think the environment is static?
Click to expand...

what do you mean?

are you suggesting that people who accept the science on global warming think that humans are the only reason climate change has ever occurred on this planet?

if so you need to familiarize yourself with the scientific aspects of the discussion and rely less on the political spin of denialism.

cassandrabandra · Mar 7, 2016

MrNick said: ↑

I would love for someone to describe what a "denialist" actually is...
Click to expand...

Someone who consciously chooses to deny the existence of the scientific evidence demonstrating either the current warming or human influence on the current warming. Often both.

Deckel · Mar 7, 2016

MrNick said: ↑

I would love for someone to describe what a "denialist" actually is...
Click to expand...

The opposite of "Fabricator"

dagosa · Mar 7, 2016

Robert said: ↑

The term denialists is supposed to be a pejorative.

My reply is that below Australia, the Antarctic has perhaps record snowfalls. Though the Ross Ice shelf is breaking, that is normal given it breaks as it moves off the ledge.

They said in your report that there were two years in a row that were not as warm.

Nasa reports that globally, for the past 15 or more years, the earth has not warmed. Sure at places it has warmed, but at others it cooled.

Bjorn Lomborg has it guessed properly.
L
I maintain that were the globe warming as they claim, you would see all countries working hard to chill it off.

But as you notice, nobody is using science principles to chill off Earth.
Click to expand...

Rather then use NASA as a reason to disagree with climate change, just do one thing. Go to their web sight and read their stance on climate change. Then, go to any credited 4 year college or university IN THE INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD, and if they have a web sight and science department, see if the have an official stance on it. Then go to the govt. web sites of the industrialized nations of the world.
I could under stand people's ignorance on this matter if we had no computers and we're talking by telephone...get real. Use your Google.
Just making stuff up doesn't mean anything.

dagosa · Mar 7, 2016

Deckel said: ↑

The opposite of "Fabricator"
Click to expand...

How's life inside the bubble ?

Robert · Mar 7, 2016

dagosa said: ↑

Rather then use NASA as a reason to disagree with climate change, just do one thing. Go to their web sight and read their stance on climate change. Then, go to any credited 4 year college or university IN THE INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD, and if they have a web sight and science department, see if the have an official stance on it. Then go to the govt. web sites of the industrialized nations of the world.
I could under stand people's ignorance on this matter if we had no computers and we're talking by telephone...get real. Use your Google.
Just making stuff up doesn't mean anything.
Click to expand...

I have studied this for over 20 years.

You go right ahead and fret over this because politicians told you to.

dagosa · Mar 7, 2016

Robert said: ↑

I have studied this for over 20 years.

You go right ahead and fret over this because politicians told you to.
Click to expand...

You have been eating for over 20 years, that doesn't make you an expert in nutrient. Any formal education with a degree from an accredited 4 year college or university in a climate related science not to be confused with cosmetology. Or, is this just 20 years of talking to people who agree with you...inside the bubble.

Deckel · Mar 7, 2016

dagosa said: ↑

How's life inside the bubble ?
Click to expand...

Quite fine. The CO2 levels are up but the temperatures have been rather stable. Certainly not as hot as it has been in the past when there was less CO2, but then again all the scientific evidence does show that the CO2 levels rise after the warming so it expected. Sure as hell glad we aren't in the little ice age any more. Trees were functionally extinct until petroleum saved humanity.

BTW, forgot to ask, how is life in the vacuum? Living devoid of everything must suck donkey balls.

Distraff · Mar 7, 2016

ronmatt said: ↑

How would warmer weather and more water 'adversely effect' food production? I would think they'd increase food production...I certainly don't know one way or the other, but it seems that if growing seasons were extended and agricultural areas broadened and there was more rainfall....that would be beneficial. Having the Mojave and Sahara and other arid deserts in bloom (like they once were) sounds positive to me.
Click to expand...

Hotter weather would not bring flowers to deserts. It will make deserts bigger and hotter. We are already seeing California turning into a desert. During the age of the dinosaurs when temperatures and CO2 level were much higher much of the United States was under water and the rest was mostly desert.

cassandrabandra · Mar 9, 2016

Robert said: ↑

I have studied this for over 20 years.

You go right ahead and fret over this because politicians told you to.
Click to expand...

I can see no evidence that you have, as you are clearly unfamiliar with the complexity of what is happening in antarctica. No scientist would take such a blase attitude about what is happening.

Log in or Sign up

CO2 levels higher than any time in last 800,000 years

cassandrabandra New Member

Panzerkampfwagen New Member

cassandrabandra New Member

robot Active Member

waltky Well-Known Member

cassandrabandra New Member

waltky Well-Known Member

ronmatt New Member

MannieD New Member

ronmatt New Member

Bowerbird Well-Known Member

waltky Well-Known Member

Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

MrNick Banned

MrNick Banned

cassandrabandra New Member

cassandrabandra New Member

Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

dagosa Well-Known Member

dagosa Well-Known Member

Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

dagosa Well-Known Member

Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

Distraff Well-Known Member

cassandrabandra New Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

CO2 levels higher than any time in last 800,000 years

cassandrabandra New Member

Panzerkampfwagen New Member

cassandrabandra New Member

robot Active Member

waltky Well-Known Member

cassandrabandra New Member

waltky Well-Known Member

ronmatt New Member

MannieD New Member

ronmatt New Member

Bowerbird Well-Known Member

waltky Well-Known Member

Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

MrNick Banned

MrNick Banned

cassandrabandra New Member

cassandrabandra New Member

Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

dagosa Well-Known Member

dagosa Well-Known Member

Robert Well-Known Member Past Donor

dagosa Well-Known Member

Deckel Well-Known Member Past Donor

Distraff Well-Known Member

cassandrabandra New Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches