The amount of two key greenhouse gases in Earth's atmosphere rose sharply in 2007, and carbon dioxide levels this year are literally off the chart, the US government reported.But wait, wasn't 2007 the coldest year for quite a little while?
In its annual index of greenhouse gas emissions, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found atmospheric carbon dioxide, the primary driver of global climate change, rose by 0.6 per cent, or 19 billion tonnes last year.
The amount of methane increased by 0.5 per cent, or 27 million tonnes, after nearly a decade of little or no change, according preliminary figures to scientists at the government's Earth System Research Laboratory in Colorado.
Methane's greenhouse effect is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide's, but there is far less of it in the atmosphere. Overall, methane has about half the climate impact of carbon dioxide.
Even if 2001 or 2002 or even 2003 were nearly as cold then it doesn't matter - with CO2 levels rising consistently every year and, now, having risen sharply in 2007 then it's clear that temperature should be moving in an upward direction in line with the 'consensus' that CO2 drives climate.
It's not. Why not?
We're told it's because of the current La Nina. Maybe so. But 1998 is rarely blamed on the large El Nino event of that year in the mainstream media.
Bit by bit, real science is replacing supposition:
- The Hokey Stick is just that, hokey;
- Climate models are an embarrassment. How so much money could be spent creating such predictive drivel that is then used to underpin an argument to restructure econmic activity will become the stuff of university lectures and many books in years to come;
- The effects of the sun are now much better understood and it's clear to anyone with half a brain that most of our warming is being caused by it; and
- Other factors such as the ocean's ability to sequester CO2, impact of land clearing etc are much better understood.
I reckon that Big Green knows full well that we're in for a cooling period driven by low solar activity and is keen to be able to take the credit for it in decades to come with their CO2-as-cause position.
(Nothing Follows)
3 comments:
But wait, wasn't 2007 the coldest year for quite a little while? - for fuck's sake, you just don't ever trouble yourself with any data at all do you? 2007 was among the 10 warmest years in the last 130, whichever dataset you look at.
Fudgie,
You really are an ignorant cretin. I'm sure that you must deliberately misunderstand what you're reading.
The point is that CO2 is increasing and as the primary FORCING agent of our climate the temperature should be rising, as well. It's not. Therefore, some other factor is at work.
Or are you actually too obtuse to understand that?
And, by the way, why pick 130 years? Because the end of the Little Ice Age supports your argument. We're yet to reach the temperatures of the MWP but noooo, that's just a crock to an unscientific buffoon like yourself.
Fucky,
You put up a post containing basic misunderstandings. These are pointed out. Then you just go off on one about something else. That doesn't make the basic misunderstandings go away.
Global average temperatures continue to rise. GISS, Hadcrut, RSS and UAH all tell us this. You seem to think that CO2 should stop the weather, giving us a climate in which each year is exactly 0.02°C warmer than the one before. You think this because you're a fuckwit.
Why pick 130 years? Because that's the length of the direct surface record, you tit. What is your source for your beliefs about the mediaeval warm period? If it really was warmer, it means climate sensitivity must be higher than generally assumed anyway.
Post a Comment