As I noted in my post above, by 3/17/09 they had revised the earlier 2.28 down to 2.08

Are we supposed to believe that a change of this size is normal and typical to be made after March 17 of the following year? Is political pressure affecting them? If so that’s extremely worrying. If not, then it’s still worrying that the middle of March of the next year they still have a reading that far off (and further in the same direction as earlier correction) for the preceding year.

The symbolic nature of two consecutive years in which CO2 increases by 2ppm or more is very powerful indeed. As BBC reported in 2004, the back to back changes in 2002 and 2003 of more than 2ppm each was the first time that happened “without a strong El Nino” (presumably to distinguish from teh back to back changes of more than 2ppm each in 1987 and 1988). For two 2ppm or higher readings to register for 2007 and 2008 without El Nino could potentially make powerful headlines. So one has to wonder about the second revision of that magnitude (a revision by 0.05 at this late date would be less of an alarm bell). Again, either that or else at the very least a blemish on their calculations. although I haven’t followed their website as closely as some here, I have followed it in previous years and don’t recall a change of this size 0.4ppm after February…

Further, “could potentially” above does not mean “automatically unless pressured by concerned citizens”; indeed the mainstream media did not make much of this back when the 2028ppm figure came out.

What’s going on here? Maybe an investigative reporter will look into this.

Of course, the climate denialists will as always have a picnic. Believe it or not those of us who were very concerned because we pay attention to the science would be relieved it it really is “only” an increase by 1.84…there are already scientific measurements that feedbacks are kicking in (example: oceans are already absorbing less CO2) so back-to-back increases by more than 2ppm/year are very possible, probably likely barring other surprises, in our future in any case. But more timely consistency from esrl.noaa.gov would be helpful.

I lost any hope to see the required ‘ACTIONS’. May be if this economic crisis turn in an absolute economic anhilation worldwide… we can have small hope.

It should be 0.55% and 0.51% or factors of 0.0055 and 0.0051 per year increase in CO2. The results are the same. An increase of about 16 billion meteric tons (BMT) in the atmosphere vs. about 27 BMT to 37 BMT produced by us per year.

Since the annual production of CO2 from fossil fuels is about 27 BMT and the total from all human activity is about 37 BMT, there sure is a lot missing. And all the numbers I’ve seen indicate this has been the pattern for many decades. So where is all that CO2?

Also, since this would indicate that at least half of all human produced CO2 somehow leaves the atmosphere every year, how come I see all those estimates that the CO2 we produce has a lifetime in the atmosphere of 50 years to 200 years? It sure looks like it’s much less. I believe this difference in CO2 lifetime would have very great effects on the projections for the rate of Global Warming increase if this warming was due mostly to the CO2 we produce. For example, the UN projections I’ve seen assume about 100 years.

Oh, and from what I’ve read, before we started messing things up, temperature change generally came before CO2 change. So the ocean thing could work backwards from what you said. Couldn’t natural temperature increases, from who knows where at this point, increase CO2 in the atmosphere?

Just a few questions and observations.

And the “head in the sand” crowd produced yet another series of random unrelated and un-proven statements like “s. The assumptions that led to the declaration of CO2 as a polutant are megalomaniacal” Guess what? It is only CO2 at levels that are (a) too high (b) increasing too fast that makes it a pollutant. The most safe item in the world if it is too high, or increasing too fast (or, asin this case, both) becomes a dangerous pollutant to the environment.

Second problem is even if we didn’t mind all of that real estate underwater is, the RATE of increase of CO2 is many, many times faster than it’s been in the last 800,000 years at least…see preceding post of mine..so even if you were ok at a PPM level that’s much higher than today, the world reaching it in natural much much slower rates would be one thing (bad enough, with all the lost coastline and problems I add to that in the list below) but much worse if you reach that world not 3 or 10 times faster but 75 times faster rate of change of CO2, since the world can’t adjust (animal and plant life, ocean acidification and other things) …try stopping your car slowly. Now try slamming ont the breaks. See the difference? The rate at which change happens matters.

Thirdly, even if these was no warming, the oceans are becoming more and more acidified due to carbonic acid being formed due to higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. This means we’re helping kill the creatures at the bottom of the food chain in the ocean, which if we harm badly enough, could mess up the entire planet’s food chain.

And there are other adverse effects,…it’s not just “The world will be a little warmer” it will be more extremes of wet and dry (flooding and dust bowls) as have long been understood when you add to the total energy in the system, more humidity gets carried and then in a warmer world dumped all at once. IT’s not like moving your house thermostat from 68 to 71. In your house, you used to have 68 all the time, then you have 71 all the time. In the world, the AVERAGE temperature may go up by several degrees, but there are more extreme events, more extreme heat waves (along with cooler days) so the average goes up by a little, but there number of extreme heat (and extreme wet/dry cycles) events and their severity and how long they last, gets worse.

That’s just the tip of the iceberg…there’s a lot more, but as you can see, the over-simplified “oh well, it’ll just be a little warmer, that’s all” story they tell us in either bad media reporting or in “global warming doesn’t exist” lies, really is very factually inacurate. They almost never, ever, talk about the other issues either, like ocean acidification.

If you want to invest the time to better understand these issues that will affect all of us and our kids and grandkids, some links:

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

http://www.realclimate.org/

On ocean acidification due to rising CO2:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 2/ hi/ science/ nature/ 3571152.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 2/ low/ science/ nature/ 4633681.stm

Remember that pH is a Logarithmic scale, similar to the Richter earthquare scale in which higher by “1″ means 10 times stronger..so lower pH by “only” 0.1 means ocean acid concentration levels are already 30% higher (that’s the math based on that “only” 0.1 lower of the logarithm) than they were before the industrial revolusion.

More here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 2/ hi/ science/ nature/ 7745714.stm

This is a 2008 update in which scientists state “Man-made pollution is raising ocean acidity at least 10 times faster than previously thought”

Sorry to bear bad news but , no, it’s not just “oh, it’ll just be a bit warmer” it’s playing Russian Roulette with the future, that’s what we’re doing..

[JR: No. Levels are concentrations. You misread it.]

You reminded folks of the difference between (net) annual emissions (NAEs) on the one hand, and CO2 concentrations (CC), on the other hand.

You said also, “There isn’t a global economic downturn big enough to stop the growth of carbon dioxide concentrations”

But the article you quoted, you quoted as speaking NOT about “concentrations” but rather about “Emissions”

Either you misread, or (if you’re trying to make another point) your post, while appreciated (and while depressing), is very unclear, particularly in light or your sentence quoted in the second paragraph of this post, and the fact the quoted article you criticize, doesn’t use the word “concentrations” (at least not as you quote it, I didn’t go reaad the original) at all. Clarification?

==========

II. Also, the “highest in 650,000 years” figure is outdated: since 2006 it’s been known to be highest in 800,000 years:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/ 2/ hi/ science/ nature/ 5314592.stm

That’s not the scariest: “In the core, the fastest increase seen was of the order of 30 parts per million (ppm) by volume over a period of roughly 1,000 years. The last 30 ppm of increase has occurred in just 17 years. We really are in the situation where we don’t have an analogue in our records,” That makes the rate today not twice or three times or 10 times but about 75 TIMES faster than the fastest rate of increase in the past 800,000 years

. I’d like to see you blog about this. This rate statistic is more ominous than just “higher than at any time” since it’s highest level AND highest (by far, far, many many times order) RATE of increase too.

III. Having questioned with two points above I’ll say you’re quite Hawk-eyes with that Global Monitoring Division page..I was there just a few weeks back (and I am usually careful to scroll down so I don’t confuse the Mauna Loa with the Global numbers) and could have sworn that at that time just a few weeks ago, they have a lower preliminary figure so you much have caught them right after the revision.