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

Recent posts

Eventually, one has to just admit it. podrock April 6, 2026 8:08 pm (CurrentEvents)

Where no one has gone before BuckGalaxy April 6, 2026 7:49 pm (Space/Science)

Moon noticeably getting larger in live stream RL April 6, 2026 4:23 am (Space/Science)

Regime Change BuckGalaxy April 4, 2026 4:22 pm (CurrentEvents)

HERE WE GO, BABY! BuckGalaxy April 1, 2026 3:07 pm (Space/Science)

April Fool's Day ER April 1, 2026 7:56 am (Space/Science)

A Big Beautiful Bunker podrock March 31, 2026 10:11 am (CurrentEvents)

Artemis II is scheduled to launch on Wednesday, April 1, 2026, at 6:24 p.m. EDT BuckGalaxy March 30, 2026 3:09 pm (Space/Science)

Dragonfly mission to Titan BuckGalaxy March 29, 2026 12:01 pm (Space/Science)

It's a long long road... BuckGalaxy March 26, 2026 4:49 pm (Space/Science)

Lax Americana BuckGalaxy March 24, 2026 1:18 pm (CurrentEvents)

Glad... BuckGalaxy March 21, 2026 4:30 pm (Flame)

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