Have we reached critical greenhouse gas levels a decade ahead of schedule?

Question

According to Tim Flannery, the upcoming version of the IPCC report will contain new data showing that the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has already reached critical levels.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071009/ap_on_sc/climate_change

He said the data showed that the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas concentrations had reached about 455 parts per million by mid-2005, well ahead of scientists' previous calculations.

"We thought we'd be at that threshold within about a decade, that we had that much time," Flannery said. "I mean, that's beyond the limits of projection, beyond the worst-case scenario as we thought of it in 2001," when the last major IPCC report was issued.

If Flannery is correct, this is yet another sign that global warming is exceeding the worst IPCC projections. That's very worrying, to say the least.

Raven - AMEN!

Tomcat - as I'm sure you know, ppm is basically just a percentage (more accurately, a fraction of a percentage), so grouping greenhouse gases together in one fractional measurement is hardly earth-shattering.

3DM - how does one have to be a climate science expert to report on what the IPCC is going to report?

I think you can probably come up with a better answer than that pathetic attempt to dismiss the data.

I'm not sure whether to find it more amusing or disturbing that the skeptics/deniers are dismissing this finding offhand.

If they're wrong in their skepticism/denial, this is an extremely important finding, yet the refuse to even acknowledge it.

Sounds like denial to me. Dangerous denial, at that.

Tomcat 2 - no, other greenhouse gases have a GREATER global warming potential than CO2. However, this is a CO2 equivalent measurement.

To claim that global warming has leveled off is pure ignorance and denial.

Answer 1

Its worrying, all right. This isn't actually a surprise--findings over the last couple of years have pointed to an acceleration ofthe rise in CO2 concentrations.

Equally worrying is the acceleration in the melting of polar ice, which is also up sharply. What is uncertain is whether things have reached a critical level--a "tipping point," as its usually called. But if not, its looking more likely that we are getting close to one.

That's the real concern to me. Dealing with CO2 emissions, per se, will hapen sooner or later (and probably sooner) simply because fossil fuel technology is obsolete and inefficient. Its simply not going to be possilbe for special interests to block implementation of more modern technologies much longer. And once that happens, the existing excesss CO2 will start breaking down--though it will take decades.

BUT--if we do reach a "tipping point" we may not have that time. The climate changes resulting from global warming could become severe--more so than we really expect at this pint, and much more quickly. That would be a catastrophe on a worldwide scaleworse than any in history. Its not the individual changes that are the real problem--its large scale pattern sshifting quickly--so quicklly we won't have time to adjust, especially since some may be unpredictable.

Answer 2

First of all the end of the world is December 21, 2012, and it's all our faults. That's the day the Mayan's calender ends for those that don't know. It seems concievable, if that date is right, that global warming may be a huge factor in the end. Everytime they make a prediction about the effect of the warming, it ends up being worse or faster than they thought. It could very well be an exponential phenomena that is impossible to predict. Maybe global warming will only effect the human race enough to panic us around the globe. Uncontrollable heat, Cat. 6 hurricanes, droughts, floods, viruses reborn or evolved... All of these are already happening, and just getting worse. The end of us may be a world war due to the panic, or heck it could be a meteorite.. who knows. I do know this much, I'm going down with some dignity, I'm being nice to this earth that has given me so much. I'm not questioning the effect I can have on this earth. All those people that think what they do has no effect and they can go through their lives being wasteful pigs.. I'm just waiting for mother earth to throw her antibodies on their butt, like our immune system to a virus. Check mate.

Answer 3

Maybe they should have him tested for drugs, because I have not heard anyone attempt to group CO2 and other greenhouse gases into a single PPM measurement before.

EDIT:

Dana

I know that PPM is a percentage, but the radiative properties of other greenhouse gases are not linearly proportional to CO2 on a molecule by molecule basis, the statement was made for the sole purpose of alarmism.

On a more comical note from a skeptical perspective, beating the alarmism drum about already reaching a tipping point, without explaining why temperatures have leveled off will make your case even weaker. The atmosphere should be warming at an even faster rate, not cooling, if greenhouse gases are such a dangerous influence on climate.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2006/ann/msu2006-pg.gif

.
.

Answer 4

Where is an asteroid to hit on the earth or a nuclear Holocaust when you need it?

The creation of a global winter from the ensuing dust cloud in the stratosphere would be the quickest solution to the problem.

So maybe George Bush is on the right path to fixing global warming.

Answer 5

Yeah I know it worries me too, a few days ago I watched something on tv and they were talking about global warming and about how the temps. have been rising more then the past. But i mean people and companies keep making cars and vans that pollute the air and make big vans that take up alot of gas which pollutes the air which could eventually lead to global warming. But I guess there not much we can do because people just keep buying things like that.

Answer 6

There are articles via people who would have an schedule different than incredibly the reality. technology marches forwards and we decide stuff that we did no longer understand till now. There are distinct aspects. did you realize that NASA stumbled on that the Ice Caps on Mars are melting? Mankind would desire to no longer probably have brought about that, top? The solar has have been given to be dealing with some style of cycle. as quickly as we glance at climate historic previous, with data stumbled on interior the floor, tree jewelry, considerable historic activities, it turns into surprisingly glaring that the planet has had various cycles of international warming and international cooling, long till now human technologies became into taking part in quite some a place. i've got not got self belief that anybody factor is in charge. that's a mix. That makes it perplexing to examine this is "greater" or "much less" in charge.

Answer 7

How would we KNOW? If forecasts are already reaching or surpassing predicted worst case scenarios then, sadly, we will soon HAVE to take more urgent action or we will all KNOW.

The shorter the time scale and faster the changes, the harder it is for plants and animals to adapt or migrate. As climate changes accellarate then you are getting more and more negative feedback, I am not suggesting total habitat destruction as many do, I consider that this will only be found in hotspots; where it has flooded for example.

Whilst nature adapts and heals, it takes time, the returning pioneer plants and animals are usually invasive and successive, not offering much to man in terms of food production or habitat initially.

Further by urban development and aggressive agricultural practices we have already made it much more difficult for plants and animals to migrate. We have lengthened the time it will take for them to migrate so we have drastically increased the number of species that will become extinct by even slight changes in temperature. Which will result in loss of diversity, which compounds the problems of recovery.

Many people fail to understand that the eco system is much more complex then we know, you can not just plant new climate resistant crops into the soil and expect them to grow. (see desertification through de forestation, look at the impact on the rain forest through agressive agriculture). Plants and animals need time to adapt or migrate that is from the microbiotic level up through fungal levels all the way up to the top of the food chain.

So this frightens me, the quicker the climate changes the less diverse the Earth will be, the less able to support other animal and plant life, which in turn means the less ability of plants and animals to adapt to new conditions or migrate to more suitable conditions.

So what really scares me is we will KNOW. Like a lot of third world countries there will be food shortages and resulting water shortages if the climate continues to change so quickly. The difference between abundance and starvation is tiny in terms of actual temperature. Massive in terms of all living things.

Answer 8

Just a short 30 years ago, the scientists were all concerned about.... ding ding... GLOBAL COOLING... That went nowhere... Now, with a few hot years on the books, they're shouting... ding ding (again)... GLOBAL WARMING. Take a look at the sun's radiant output as measured over the entire time we have historical records. The Sun's output is up and THAT will cause global warming. Look, the Earth has been HOTTER in the past than it is now, and it will be HOTTER again in the future. It will ALSO be colder in the future, when we slide back into the next ICE AGE! That's right - there are long cycles that the earth goes through and it just so happens we nearing the end of a heating cycle right now. Sometime over the next thousand years, it will start to turn around and get cooler.

Idon't know about you, but I prefer warm over cool!

Answer 9

If Flannery is correct, how would we know? The number of 400 ppm is an arbitrary number set as a goal. In past times co2 levels were more than 10 time what they are today.

Still no one can tell if it will be warmer or colder 5 years from now. Any one who makes that attempt is just taking a guess.

Fine, let's say we need to reduce co2 levels. In the USA over 50% of all co2 is created by power generation. Let's make nuclear power a national cause.

Answer 10

That is worrying, It does shorten the timescale, but then the western, or any other, civilisation never was going to get through this in one piece.

How does that effect the timescale for GW causing significant problems for western economies, with flooding and a stretch on global resources? I was estimating that the west would be OK for my lifetime (currently 32). I'm stuck in mainstream society, but I'd rather be in a self sufficient community, for what it will be worth.

Thanks for the info.