• Space/Science
  • GeekSpeak
  • Mysteries of
    the Multiverse
  • Science Fiction
  • The Comestible Zone
  • Off-Topic
  • Community
  • Flame
  • CurrentEvents

Recent posts

The April numbers ER May 8, 2025 5:59 am (Space/Science)

The Orange Criminal POS abandons another ally BuckGalaxy May 7, 2025 10:18 am (CurrentEvents)

Orion spacecraft for crewed Artemis II lunar mission ready BuckGalaxy May 3, 2025 8:13 pm (Space/Science)

Australia election more bad news conservatives BuckGalaxy May 3, 2025 11:54 am (CurrentEvents)

Massive cuts to NASA budget proposed BuckGalaxy May 3, 2025 9:19 am (Space/Science)

Say what? ER May 1, 2025 8:53 pm (CurrentEvents)

Radio Broadcasts BuckGalaxy May 1, 2025 12:28 pm (Space/Science)

The Last of Us BuckGalaxy April 30, 2025 12:37 pm (Science Fiction)

You can't make this stuff up... RobVG April 29, 2025 1:43 pm (CurrentEvents)

It's election day in Canada RobVG April 28, 2025 2:26 pm (CurrentEvents)

K2-18b BuckGalaxy April 21, 2025 12:07 pm (Space/Science)

Home » CurrentEvents

Continuing CO2 drumbeat. May 19, 2013 11:53 am RobVG

I keep coming across articles declaring the “drastic” increase in the rate at which atmospheric
CO2 is growing. I’m not afraid to question these statements and don’t care if it offends those who gulp down anything that feeds their convictions.

Beginning in 1958, Keeling took regular CO2 measurements at the top of Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii. As the measurements progressed over the years, Keeling noted a steady increase of about 1.5 ppm per year… no one has challenged the steady and significant increase in CO2 found by Dr. Keeling–an increase solely attributable to human-caused burning of fossil fuels.

Again, a “steady” increase. Until:

The Keeling Curve continues it inexorable march upward at 1.5 ppm per year, and was at 378 ppm at the end of 2004. The rate of increase took an unexpected jump to 2.4 ppm per year for the years 2002 and 2003, sparking fears that a major change in emissions had transpired. But the Keeling Curve returned back to normal for 2004, with another 1.5 ppm increase in CO2. Scientists attributed the 2-year increase to natural processes, possibly tied to droughts and fires, or such factors as global temperatures, rainfall amounts and volcanic eruptions.
-Jeff Masters

Return to normal. And now for what it has looked like over the last four years:
 

 
I don’t see how anyone could interpret the “rate” of increase as anything other than “steady”.

  • Here is how: by alcaray 2013-05-19 19:46:58
    • Furthermore... by alcaray 2013-05-19 19:54:10
      • Or, an even more direct way to measure the rate of change. by alcaray 2013-05-19 22:20:26
        • I'll give you that. by RobVG 2013-05-20 07:28:02
          • Well at least that's something that honorable men may dispute. by alcaray 2013-05-20 13:05:25
            • It's a hoot watching you guys wrangle over this... by ER 2013-05-20 08:40:10
              • Suggested reading for Rob and others: by TB 2013-05-20 09:13:51
                • The obvious answer is to create an internnational star committee... by FrankC 2013-05-20 18:50:02
                  • I'm dying to hear the libertarian proposal to solve the problem. by alcaray 2013-05-20 17:57:01
                    • Repeating: by TB 2013-05-20 18:51:43
                      • Errr, that's not what I asked at all. by alcaray 2013-05-20 19:01:36
                      • The libertarians don't believe there is a problem. by ER 2013-05-20 18:06:03
                      • It sounds to me like Hansen's right on. by ER 2013-05-20 10:29:18
            • The CO2 is increasing. by ER 2013-05-19 12:33:15
              • I'm not saying it isn't. by RobVG 2013-05-19 13:49:37
                • In that case, then you're absolutely correct. by ER 2013-05-19 14:06:36
                  • You're putting words in my mouth. by RobVG 2013-05-19 14:32:51
                    • Consequences by TB 2013-05-19 16:07:08
                      • n/t by ER 2013-05-19 16:08:59
                      • Read the scientific papers, not the journalism. by ER 2013-05-19 14:39:06
                        • Here's one: by TB 2013-05-19 20:22:43
                          • Here's one what? by ER 2013-05-19 21:39:29
                            • Okay. by TB 2013-05-19 22:30:21
                              • Next time I'm down at the Earth Science Library, I'll look this up by podrock 2013-05-20 20:07:27
                                • You brought up ice cores, not me. by ER 2013-05-19 22:55:18
                                  • Don't bother. by TB 2013-05-20 08:37:09
                                    • I don't recall ever quoting any ice-core data. by ER 2013-05-20 09:01:43
                                      • Sorry, wasn't clear. by TB 2013-05-20 09:24:43
                                        • "His methods are the equivalent of ice core data for sea ice extent", by ER 2013-05-20 12:05:13
                                          • I'm not interested in the last 1500 years. by ER 2013-05-20 10:40:23

                    Search

                    The Control Panel

                    • Log in
                    • Register