The North Pole could melt this year

[Chris]

Got a link?

NOAA News Online (Story 2412)

 

[jreeves]

The wildfire season has changed significantly in the last 20 years. That's the point. Please read this article again.

Global Warming Fuels U.S. Forest Fires | LiveScience

So CA only seen an increase in wildfires in the last 20 years, while CO2 levels have an increased at a rate of 30% since 1880. Like I said there hasn't been extraordinary increase in CA wildfires in the last 500 years. If the wildfires since 1980 were caused by GW the increase would have started way before 1980.

 

[Chris]

So CA only seen an increase in wildfires in the last 20 years, while CO2 levels have an increased at a rate of 30% since 1880. Like I said there hasn't been extraordinary increase in CA wildfires in the last 500 years. If the wildfires since 1980 were caused by GW the increase would have started way before 1980.

The greatest rate of increase in CO2 has been since 1958 and that rate of increase has doubled between 1958 and 2007. It will increase even more as China and India industrialize.

 

[Chris]

Here are the raw numbers on CO2 increases. It's pretty convincing...

ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt

 

[jreeves]

The greatest rate of increase in CO2 has been since 1958 and that rate of increase has doubled between 1958 and 2007. It will increase even more as China and India industrialize.

Atomspheric CO2 has increased at a rate of 22% since 1958 and 30% since 1880. If the wildfires in CA were caused by GW then we would have seen an increase before the 1980's, isn't that correct?

 

[jreeves]

You have to be joking on this one. Have you ever heard of NOAA? Here's a quote from their website...

"Global combustion of fossil fuels and other materials places almost 7 billion tons of carbon, in the form of CO2, into the atmosphere each year. On average, Earth's oceans, trees, plants and soils absorb about one-half of this carbon. The balance remains in the air and is responsible for the annual increase.

Most of the variability in the year-to-year CO2 uptake is related to natural processes, including droughts and fires as well as such factors as global temperatures, rainfall amounts and volcanic eruptions.

Understanding these processes is key to forecasting annual CO2 increases, thus providing important information for future CO2 management. NOAA's Carbon Cycle Research Program, which includes surface-, ocean- and space-based measurements of CO2 and other important atmospheric gases, is aimed at developing a comprehensive picture of how CO2 is stored and released. The carbon-cycle studies are a part of NOAA's Climate Program, an integral part of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.

"Reducing scientific uncertainties of carbon sources and sinks is a priority for the Climate Change Science Program, as carbon dioxide is the single largest forcing agent of climate change," said James R. Mahoney, NOAA deputy administrator and CCSP director.

NOAA scientists have been tracking CO2 levels around the world for more than 25 years. The oldest record comes from the Mauna Loa Observatory, which is located atop a Hawaiian volcano. There, Charles Keeling began CO2 measurements in 1958. Following NOAA's formation in 1970, measurements continued at Mauna Loa and began at other places around the world. There are now more than 60 monitoring sites worldwide.

Mahoney adds, "The measurement capabilities established at NOAA's Mauna Loa and other sites around the world demonstrates the importance of observational networks as a contribution to understanding the complexities of the carbon cycle."

Each year since global measurements of CO2 began, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased.

Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 contained in cylinders of ice, called ice cores, indicate that the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was 278 ppm. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between 1000 and 1800 A.D.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm at the end of 2004, which means human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent."

Now why wouldn't you have posted this part of the article?
However, according to David Hofmann, director of the NOAA Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., the rate of carbon-dioxide increase returned to the long-term average level of about 1.5 ppm per year in 2004, indicating that the temporary fluctuation was probably due to changes in the natural processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

 

[Chris]

Atomspheric CO2 has increased at a rate of 22% since 1958 and 30% since 1880. If the wildfires in CA were caused by GW then we would have seen an increase before the 1980's, is that correct?

Who knows? The increases are cumulative. They will keep going up forever until we stop burning fossil fuels. This is from CNN's website right now....

"Temperatures in some parts of California's Central Valley were forecast to climb close to 110 degrees Tuesday. The agency that monitors the state's power grid said peak energy demand could approach the record set in July 2006, and it asked customers to reduce their late-afternoon power consumption.

The expected heat wave raised not only the fire danger, but also concerns about heat illness among firefighters worn down by the long fight against blazes that have consumed more than 985 square miles in California since late June."

Almost 1,000 square miles of California have burned so far, and IT IS NOT EVEN FIRE SEASON YET.

 

[Chris]

Now why wouldn't you have posted this part of the article?
However, according to David Hofmann, director of the NOAA Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., the rate of carbon-dioxide increase returned to the long-term average level of about 1.5 ppm per year in 2004, indicating that the temporary fluctuation was probably due to changes in the natural processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

Because that was a reference to a one year fluctuation in a 50 year march upward. Look at the raw numbers from Mauna Loa. They tell the real story.

 

[jreeves]

Who knows? The increases are cumulative. They will keep going up forever until we stop burning fossil fuels. This is from CNN's website right now....

"Temperatures in some parts of California's Central Valley were forecast to climb close to 110 degrees Tuesday. The agency that monitors the state's power grid said peak energy demand could approach the record set in July 2006, and it asked customers to reduce their late-afternoon power consumption.

The expected heat wave raised not only the fire danger, but also concerns about heat illness among firefighters worn down by the long fight against blazes that have consumed more than 985 square miles in California since late June."

Almost 1,000 square miles of California have burned so far, and IT IS NOT EVEN FIRE SEASON YET.

I'm sorry that still doesn't show a link between GW and these wildfires. We would have seen an increase in CA well before 20 years ago.

 

[Chris]

I'm sorry that still doesn't show a link between GW and these wildfires. We would have seen an increase in CA well before 20 years ago.

1,000 square miles burned so far, and the fire season doesn't start until late July. God bless those fire fighters. Here are the raw CO2 numbers for people who don't click on links....

# year mean unc
1959 315.98 0.12
1960 316.91 0.12
1961 317.65 0.12
1962 318.45 0.12
1963 318.99 0.12
1964 319.61 0.12
1965 320.03 0.12
1966 321.37 0.12
1967 322.18 0.12
1968 323.05 0.12
1969 324.62 0.12
1970 325.68 0.12
1971 326.32 0.12
1972 327.46 0.12
1973 329.68 0.12
1974 330.17 0.12
1975 331.09 0.12
1976 332.06 0.12
1977 333.78 0.12
1978 335.40 0.12
1979 336.78 0.12
1980 338.70 0.12
1981 340.11 0.12
1982 341.21 0.12
1983 342.84 0.12
1984 344.40 0.12
1985 345.87 0.12
1986 347.19 0.12
1987 348.98 0.12
1988 351.45 0.12
1989 352.89 0.12
1990 354.16 0.12
1991 355.49 0.12
1992 356.27 0.12
1993 356.96 0.12
1994 358.63 0.12
1995 360.62 0.12
1996 362.37 0.12
1997 363.47 0.12
1998 366.50 0.12
1999 368.14 0.12
2000 369.41 0.12
2001 371.07 0.12
2002 373.16 0.12
2003 375.80 0.12
2004 377.55 0.12
2005 379.75 0.12
2006 381.85 0.12
2007 383.72 0.12

 

[Foxfyre]

Now why wouldn't you have posted this part of the article?
However, according to David Hofmann, director of the NOAA Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., the rate of carbon-dioxide increase returned to the long-term average level of about 1.5 ppm per year in 2004, indicating that the temporary fluctuation was probably due to changes in the natural processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere.

25 years of measurements isn't even a blink on a global scale. The other problem that occurs is that the instruments used to measure temperatures and CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been in the same places for those 25 years despite a population explosion and rapid rate of urbanization around some of those locations. Many measuring devices that were once in a hayfield or pasture are now surrounded by buildings, concrete and asphalt so of course the measurements now are different than they were 25 years ago. Those devices mounted on buoys on the oceans, however, have fairly consistently recorded minor changes or even a drop over the last 20+ years.

This was illustrated in my city when some became curious at the wide discrepancy among various weather reporting stations in the Weatherunderground system here. So a reporter went out on an impromptu information gathering mission to find out why there were such broad discrepancies. He found station mounted next to air conditioning compressors, hung near dryer vents, placed in the sun much of the day, placed between buildings in a sheltered area. Needless to say, none of those were giving competent readings. And the same kind of problems exist with those measuring devices used for much scientific analysis of mean temperatures and CO2 levels too.

Of course we should continue to study all aspects of our environment, climate etc. But there simply is still insuficient evidence that AGW is occurring to any significant degree and, even if it is, insufficient evidence that it will be harmful in any way.

I think we need a great deal more certainty than now exists before making global policy, taking away choices and freedoms, and perhaps dooming hundreds of millions of people to more generations of crushing poverty.

 

[jreeves]

Because that was a reference to a one year fluctuation in a 50 year march upward. Look at the raw numbers from Mauna Loa. They tell the real story.

This I believe tells the whole story about the increase of CO2.
The concentration of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere has increased
during the past century, as shown in Figure 17. The magnitude of
this atmospheric increase is currently about 4 gigatons (Gt C) of carbon
per year. Total hu man industrial CO2 production, primarily from
use of coal, oil, and natural gas and the production of cement, is currently
about 8 Gt C per year (7,56,57). Humans also exhale about 0.6
Gt C per year, which has been sequestered by plants from atmospheric
CO2. Office air concentrations often exceed 1,000 ppm CO2.
To put these figures in perspective, it is estimated that the atmosphere
contains 780 Gt C; the surface ocean contains 1,000 Gt C;
vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2,000 Gt C; and the intermediate
and deep oceans contain 38,000 Gt C, as CO2 or CO2 hydration
products. Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an
estimated 90 Gt C; vegetation and the atmosphere, 100 Gt C; marine
biota and the surface ocean, 50 Gt C; and the surface ocean and the
intermediate and deep oceans, 40 Gt C (56,57).
So great are the magnitudes of these reservoirs, the rates of ex -
change between them, and the uncertainties of these estimated num -
bers that the sources of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 have not
been determined with certainty (58,59). Atmospheric concentrations
of CO2 are reported to have varied widely over ge logical time, with
peaks, according to some estimates, some 20-fold higher than at
present and lows at approximately 200 ppm (60-62).
Ice-core records are reported to show seven extended periods dur -
ing 650,000 years in which CO2, methane (CH4), and temperature
increased and then decreased (63-65). Ice-core records contain sub -
stantial uncertainties (58), so these correlations are imprecise.
In all seven glacial and inter glacial cycles, the reported changes in
CO2 and CH4 lagged the temperature changes and could not, therefore,
have caused them (66). These fluctuations probably involved
temperature-caused changes in oceanic and terrestrial CO2 and CH4
content. More recent CO2 fluctuations also lag temperature (67,68).
In 1957, Revelle and Seuss (69) estimated that temperature-
caused out-gassing of ocean CO2 would increase atmospheric
CO2 by about 7% per °C temperature rise. The reported change dur -
ing the seven interglacials of the 650,000-year ice core record is
about 5% per °C (63), which agrees with the out-gassing calculation.
Between 1900 and 2006, Antarctic CO2 increased 30% per 0.1 °C
temperature change (72), and world CO2 increased 30% per 0.5 °C.
In addition to ocean out-gassing, CO2 from human use of hydrocarbons
is a new source. Neither this new source nor the older natural
CO2 sources are caus ing atmospheric temperature to change.
The hypothesis that the CO2 rise during the interglacials caused
the temperature to rise requires an increase of about 6 °C per 30%
rise in CO2 as seen in the ice core record. If this hypothesis were correct,
Earth temperatures would have risen about 6 °C between 1900
and 2006, rather than the rise of between 0.1 °C and 0.5 °C, which
actually occurred. This difference is illustrated in Figure 16.
The 650,000-year ice-core record does not, therefore, agree with
the hypothesis of “human-caused global warming,” and, in fact, pro -
vides empirical evidence that invalidates this hypothesis.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWReview_OISM600.pdf

 

[Chris]

25 years of measurements isn't even a blink on a global scale. The other problem that occurs is that the instruments used to measure temperatures and CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been in the same places for those 25 years despite a population explosion and rapid rate of urbanization around some of those locations. Many measuring devices that were once in a hayfield or pasture are now surrounded by buildings, concrete and asphalt so of course the measurements now are different than they were 25 years ago. Those devices mounted on buoys on the oceans, however, have fairly consistently recorded minor changes or even a drop over the last 20+ years.

This was illustrated in my city when some became curious at the wide discrepancy among various weather reporting stations in the Weatherunderground system here. So a reporter went out on an impromptu information gathering mission to find out why there were such broad discrepancies. He found station mounted next to air conditioning compressors, hung near dryer vents, placed in the sun much of the day, placed between buildings in a sheltered area. Needless to say, none of those were giving competent readings. And the same kind of problems exist with those measuring devices used for much scientific analysis of mean temperatures and CO2 levels too.

Of course we should continue to study all aspects of our environment, climate etc. But there simply is still insuficient evidence that AGW is occurring to any significant degree and, even if it is, insufficient evidence that it will be harmful in any way.

I think we need a great deal more certainty than now exists before making global policy, taking away choices and freedoms, and perhaps dooming hundreds of millions of people to more generations of crushing poverty.

Now you are being silly. The Danes already get 20% of their energy from wind power. Are the Danes in poverty? The Israelis are building ONE solar power plant that will supply 5% of their energy needs. Algae farms can produce 10,000 gallons of ethanol per acre and algae LOVE CO2. T. Boone Pickens is building the largest wind farm in the world in the good old USA, and he's a hard core Republican. The solutions are there. All we need is the leadership and the political will to move in that direction.

 

[Chris]

jreeves, the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine knows more about the global warming than NOAA?

CO2 is not the only contributor to global warming. The Stanford solar scientists estimate that the sun has contributed about 25%, but the increase in CO2 is continuous and cumulative. It keeps going up every day, every month, every year. At what point does it melt the North Pole? At what point does it cause wildfires? At what point does it melt Antarctica?

 

[jreeves]

Now you are being silly. The Danes already get 20% of their energy from wind power. Are the Danes in poverty? The Israelis are building ONE solar power plant that will supply 5% of their energy needs. Algae farms can produce 10,000 gallons of ethanol per acre and algae LOVE CO2. T. Boone Pickens is building the largest wind farm in the world in the good old USA, and he's a hard core Republican. The solutions are there. All we need is the leadership and the political will to move in that direction.

I still haven't seen one link between AGW and enviromental changes.....

You cite the wildfires in CA as evidence;
1. CA is only a small part of the planet
2. There is no link between AGW and wildfires, since CO2 increased 30% from 1880 while there was no increase in wildfires until the 1980's
3. CA's population has grown tremendously and 4 out of 5 wildfires are caused by human carelessness

 

[jreeves]

jreeves, the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine knows more about the global warming than NOAA?

CO2 is not the only contributor to global warming. The Stanford solar scientists estimate that the sun has contributed about 25%, but the increase in CO2 is continuous and cumulative. It keeps going up every day, every month, every year. At what point does it melt the North Pole? At what point does it cause wildfires? At what point does it melt Antarctica?

Your article states that the increases in CO2 levels were due to natural processes.

 

[jreeves]

Your article states that the increases in CO2 levels were due to natural processes.

Also if there is a flaw in their logic please point it out....

 

[Chris]

I still haven't seen one link between AGW and enviromental changes.....

You cite the wildfires in CA as evidence;
1. CA is only a small part of the planet
2. There is no link between AGW and wildfires, since CO2 increased 30% from 1880 while there was no increase in wildfires until the 1980's
3. CA's population has grown tremendously and 4 out of 5 wildfires are caused by human carelessness

California is experiencing the driest year on record, and the wildfires were started by lightening strikes.

But nevermind, if the melting of the North Pole can't convince you that the earth is warming, nothing will.

 

[Chris]

Your article states that the increases in CO2 levels were due to natural processes.

Now you are just lying. How sad for you.

 

[Chris]

Your article states that the increases in CO2 levels were due to natural processes.

"Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 contained in cylinders of ice, called ice cores, indicate that the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was 278 ppm. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between 1000 and 1800 A.D.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm at the end of 2004, which means human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent."