• Human activities have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, amplifying Earth's natural greenhouse effect.
• The global average amount of carbon dioxide hit a new record high in 2019: 409.8 parts per million.
• The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago.  
• The ocean has absorbed enough carbon dioxide to lower its pH by 0.1 units, a 30% increase in acidity. 
   

  The global average atmospheric carbon dioxide in 2019 was 409.8 parts per million (ppm for short), with a range of uncertainty of plus or minus 0.1 ppm. Carbon dioxide levels today are higher than at any point in at least the past 800,000 years.

  

Global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations (CO₂) in parts per million (ppm) for the past 800,000 years. The peaks and valleys track ice ages (low CO₂) and warmer interglacials (higher CO₂). During these cycles, CO₂ was never higher than 300 ppm. On the geologic time scale, the increase (orange dashed line) looks virtually instantaneous. Graph by NOAA Climate.gov based on data from Lüthi, et al., 2008, via  NOAA NCEI Paleoclimatology Program. [Update August 20, 2020. An earlier version of this image had an error in the scaling on the X axis. This affected the apparent duration and timing of the most recent ice ages, but did not affect the modern or paleoclimate carbon dioxide values.]

In fact, the last time the atmospheric CO₂ amounts were this high was more than 3 million years ago, when temperature was 2°–3°C (3.6°–5.4°F) higher than during the pre-industrial era, and sea level was 15–25 meters (50–80 feet) higher than today.

Carbon dioxide concentrations are rising mostly because of the fossil fuels that people are burning for energy. Fossil fuels like coal and oil contain carbon that plants pulled out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis over the span of many millions of years; we are returning that carbon to the atmosphere in just a few hundred years.  According to State of the Climate in 2019 from NOAA and the American Meteorological Society, 

From 1850 to 2018, 440 ± 20 Pg C (1 Pg C = 10¹⁵ g C) were emitted as CO₂ from fossil fuel burning (Friedlingstein et al. 2019). For 2018 alone, global fossil fuel emissions reached 10 ± 0.5 Pg C yr−1 for the first time in history (Friedlingstein et al. 2019). About half of the CO₂ emitted since 1850 remains in the atmosphere. The rest of it has partially dissolved in the world’s oceans… . While the terrestrial biosphere is currently also a sink for fossil fuel CO₂, the cumulative emissions of CO₂ from land use changes such as deforestation cancel terrestrial uptake over the 1850–2018 period (Friedlingstein et al. 2019).

Global atmospheric carbon dioxide was 409.8 ± 0.1 ppm in 2019, a new record high. That is an increase of 2.5 ± 0.1 ppm from 2018, the same as the increase between 2017 and 2018. In the 1960s, the global growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide was roughly 0.6 ± 0.1 ppm per year. Between 2009-18, however, the growth rate has been 2.3 ppm per year. The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago.  

Squeeze or stretch the graph in either direction by holding the Shift key while you click and drag. The bright red line (source data) shows monthly average carbon dioxide at NOAA's Mauna Loa Observatory on Hawai'i in parts per million (ppm): the number of carbon dioxide molecules per million molecules of dry air.  Over the course of the year, values are higher in Northern Hemisphere winter and lower in summer. The dark red line shows the annual trend, calculated as a 12-month rolling average.

2 minutes ago, Procus said:

And what's your proposal to resolve all of this if true

No idea, it's an incredibly complex problem. We can't even solve a much simpler and yet far more pressing one because morons can't wear a mask or get vaccinated. I'm fresh out of proposals to make idiots stop being idiots. 

21 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

If you mean the rate of increase, then perhaps that's true.

If you mean the total ppm of CO2, then check the geological record and you'll find CO2 isn't scary at all. In fact, it's a puss-puss greenhouse gas. Methane is 25X stronger.

Current CO2 concentration is approx. 412 ppm.

Ice Ball Earth CO2 concentration 7000 ppm. Yeah, Ice Ball Earth. Don't let the climate pirate profiteers make you afraid.

 

Yeah the earth 500 million years ago. When both the planetary orbit and sun strength were different. 

That's like arguing smallpox variolation ordered by Washington had a 2% death rate so we shouldn't vaccinate. It purposely omits buttloads of context.

9 minutes ago, Procus said:

And what's your proposal to resolve all of this if true - throw money at it?  Do you honestly believe it will not get stolen?  How do you propose to reign in Russia, China, India, Brazil.

And as for Covid, the deniers were onto something.  We should have treated this the way Sweden did.  Instead, the alarmists and totalitarians put innocent people under house arrest and destroyed businesses by forcing them to shut down.  Then they helped put currency on the path to destruction by blowing out budgets and printing money like there's no tomorrow.  And of course they did everything possible to suppress cheap, effective treatments like Ivermectin.  Betcha 90% of those reading the boards here don't know they should get monoclonal antibodies ASAP at the first sign of infection.  Shhh.  See anything wrong with that?

The alarmist kooks always due their best to muck things up.  Truth be told, they really don't have a clue on how to effectively deal with emergency situations.  When's the last time you heard a climate change kook work to stop property development on the coastline?

Alarmism is a problem for sure. The media has a profit motive in selling every story as fear or anger inducing.

But your post is insane. 

27 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

If you mean the rate of increase, then perhaps that's true.

If you mean the total ppm of CO2, then check the geological record and you'll find CO2 isn't scary at all. In fact, it's a puss-puss greenhouse gas. Methane is 25X stronger.

Current CO2 concentration is approx. 412 ppm.

Ice Ball Earth CO2 concentration 7000 ppm. Yeah, Ice Ball Earth. Don't let the climate pirate profiteers make you afraid.

 

Co2 isn't scary at all. It's true that Methane is stronger. But Co2 was found to trap heat by John Tyndall in 1859. Are you suggesting pumping more carbon into the atmosphere is not a big deal?

So 412 ppm isn't that high? 412 ppm of Co2 is at the highest level in 800,000 years. How do you explain the recent rise in Co2?

5 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

On the contrary, the overlap in covid denial and climate change denial is massive. You'd have to be politically naive to believe otherwise. Next you'll tell me anti-mask sentiment doesn't massively overlap with political affiliation either.

Even in general though, everything is no big deal until it hits home, but by then, the damage is already done and regret is all that's left. The only difference is in the accelerated timeline for covid where the process can play out in a matter of weeks, versus a century or two for the latter.

Again there is no equivalency between a fantasy problem that we cannot control even if real, and an actual virus that's identifiable and treatable through human endeavor. 

Here's the salient question nobody can answer. Precisely to what extent are humans changing the environment? Provide the % of change that is exclusively attributable to human activity and a real dialog can begin. Until then, we must accept the climate science that we know.

Water vapor accounts for 75% of Earths heat retention. CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas. The Sun has the greatest effect on the Earth's climate. A warmer Earth is far more preferential to a colder Earth. Humans as a species, thrive in a warmer climate and wholly stagnate in a colder one. The temperature data from the 40's and before were admittedly altered, which resulted in an enhancement to the "hockey stick" graph. Once you change data, you have violated the scientific method in favor of a narrative. There's a lot of $ at stake on this subject.

Look, reducing pollution is clearly a good thing to do. If people view carbon as a pollutant, so be it. I'm not convinced we can drive a dramatic change in our climate no matter what we do. I think it's all bluster born of hubris. There is however, a lot of $ to be made.

Queimg up when the levee breaks.  Glad to see people evacuating as there was no time to order a mandatory one. Huge test  for response and resources too with all else that’s goin on.  This is going to be a bad storm.  

25 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

No idea, it's an incredibly complex problem. We can't even solve a much simpler and yet far more pressing one because morons can't wear a mask or get vaccinated. I'm fresh out of proposals to make idiots stop being idiots. 

Who are you calling idiots?  If you understood the Covid problem and saw all these vaccinated people getting sick (I know of one that died last week and another in the ICU - both vaccinated), you'd understand that the criminal aspect of all of this is the failure to publicize effective treatment protocols.  Dollars to donuts you don't realize that you need to RUN to the closest facility providing monoclonal antibody treatment upon first confirmation of infection.  And no doubt, you are against treatment with Ivermectin that worked so well in India.

Instead, all you do is parrot the talking points you see on social media and vilify other people while not taking basic steps to protect yourself and your family in case you do get infected despite taking precautions.

Please, I want you to prove me wrong by letting me know you know where to get Regeneron in case you or a loved one gets infected with Covid.

5 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Co2 isn't scary at all. It's true that Methane is stronger. But Co2 was found to trap heat by John Tyndall in 1859. Are you suggesting pumping more carbon into the atmosphere is not a big deal?

So 412 ppm isn't that high? 412 ppm of Co2 is at the highest level in 800,000 years. How do you explain the recent rise in Co2?

7000 ppm was the atmospheric concentration when the Earth was snow and ice from the poles to the equator. THAT is the point about the "scariness" CO2. CO2 is a minor player. 

Look, if you want a colder Earth, go for it. History shows we survive, but we don't so well when the Earth is cold. We thrive and advance in leaps and bounds when it is warm though. The vast majority of our advancement sin society can be directly linked to our harnessing the energy of fossil fuels. Now, does that mean fossil fuels are our only hope? No, of course not. A cleaner alternative that provides equal or greater energy is the answer. Solar and wind have failed so far. Hydro plants are pretty good ,but nuclear seems like the correct tech to use for now. Then again, the same people running scared of CO2 seem to be against nuclear energy. 

I'm sure we can find a solution but cooling the Earth in any significant way seems like a bad idea to me, especially since it's cycling towards a natural cool down anyway. We're in a warm period right now but for how long? Nobody knows. They guess with climate models and they all fail miserably.

I think an interesting thing to look into is the shift in the earths axis.  Poles have moved 4 meters since like 1995.  There’s a reason why summers are getting shorter, winters longer in certain areas, and the weather patterns have shifted.  When was the last time our area had 10 tornadoes in a year, let alone a day?   I do believe the earths climate goes in cycles and I also believe we are harming the climate, both things can be true.  But bigger picture, is I think the earth itself is changing under its own will, it’s own natural cycle. We’re just along for the ride.  

4 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

Look, if you want a colder Earth, go for it. History shows we survive, but we don't so well when the Earth is cold. We thrive and advance in leaps and bounds when it is warm though. The vast majority of our advancement sin society can be directly linked to our harnessing the energy of fossil fuels. Now, does that mean fossil fuels are our only hope? No, of course not. A cleaner alternative that provides equal or greater energy is the answer. Solar and wind have failed so far. Hydro plants are pretty good ,but nuclear seems like the correct tech to use for now. Then again, the same people running scared of CO2 seem to be against nuclear energy.

All you need to do is look at history.  The Roman Empire thrived in no small part because of the warmer weather patterns that prevailed at that time.

 

25 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Yeah the earth 500 million years ago. When both the planetary orbit and sun strength were different. 

That's like arguing smallpox variolation ordered by Washington had a 2% death rate so we shouldn't vaccinate. It purposely omits buttloads of context.

Another false equivalence, but thank you for making my argument for me. 

The Sun and the 100K year orbital cycles of the Earth change climate, not CO2. Big bad CO2 , even at it's greatest concentration ever couldn't stop global glaciation.

 

14 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

Again there is no equivalency between a fantasy problem that we cannot control even if real, and an actual virus that's identifiable and treatable through human endeavor. 

Here's the salient question nobody can answer. Precisely to what extent are humans changing the environment? Provide the % of change that is exclusively attributable to human activity and a real dialog can begin. Until then, we must accept the climate science that we know.

Water vapor accounts for 75% of Earths heat retention. CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas. The Sun has the greatest effect on the Earth's climate. A warmer Earth is far more preferential to a colder Earth. Humans as a species, thrive in a warmer climate and wholly stagnate in a colder one. The temperature data from the 40's and before were admittedly altered, which resulted in an enhancement to the "hockey stick" graph. Once you change data, you have violated the scientific method in favor of a narrative. There's a lot of $ at stake on this subject.

Look, reducing pollution is clearly a good thing to do. If people view carbon as a pollutant, so be it. I'm not convinced we can drive a dramatic change in our climate no matter what we do. I think it's all bluster born of hubris. There is however, a lot of $ to be made.

Scientists have ventured into this territory. And the answer based on climate science that we know - that human activity is the cause of 95% and likely 100% of change - has been rejected. Because anti-climate change politicos will reject anything that suggests humans have any role in climate change. 

How about making a case that climate change is natural? Where is the evidence for that? 

Just because CO2 is weak compared to methane and water vapor doesn't mean that it isn't having an impact. It's pretty clear that it does, and that throughout history CO2 has correlated highly with temperature: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/temperature-change#:~:text=When the carbon dioxide concentration,goes down%2C temperature goes down.

 

Crabgrass took over my yard this year for only the third time in as many years.  Pretty sure it was due to global warming...or climate change.  Also, ozone depletion and acid rain were likely contributors.  Either way, I thought we should track and discuss it here.   

11 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

7000 ppm was the atmospheric concentration when the Earth was snow and ice from the poles to the equator. THAT is the point about the "scariness" CO2. CO2 is a minor player. 

Look, if you want a colder Earth, go for it. History shows we survive, but we don't so well when the Earth is cold. We thrive and advance in leaps and bounds when it is warm though. The vast majority of our advancement sin society can be directly linked to our harnessing the energy of fossil fuels. Now, does that mean fossil fuels are our only hope? No, of course not. A cleaner alternative that provides equal or greater energy is the answer. Solar and wind have failed so far. Hydro plants are pretty good ,but nuclear seems like the correct tech to use for now. Then again, the same people running scared of CO2 seem to be against nuclear energy. 

I'm sure we can find a solution but cooling the Earth in any significant way seems like a bad idea to me, especially since it's cycling towards a natural cool down anyway. We're in a warm period right now but for how long? Nobody knows. They guess with climate models and they all fail miserably.

in what way has solar and wind failed? 

anybody who suggests we can be 100% on solar and wind are simply wrong. but they are a very important part of our transition off fossil fuels. 

I do agree that nuclear plants would be preferable, though there is still the issue of what to do with waste. And the promises of some of the latest nuclear advances seem to be delayed and farther off than we'd like. Some argue we're past the time where nuclear makes sense, though I'm not so sure. But I'm very much a proponent of nuclear to replace coal/oil as a primary supplier of energy - and the US is well equipped to put nuclear sites in areas that pose less risk to population centers. 

2 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Scientists have ventured into this territory. And the answer based on climate science that we know - that human activity is the cause of 95% and likely 100% of change - has been rejected. Because anti-climate change politicos will reject anything that suggests humans have any role in climate change. 

How about making a case that climate change is natural? Where is the evidence for that? 

Just because CO2 is weak compared to methane and water vapor doesn't mean that it isn't having an impact. It's pretty clear that it does, and that throughout history CO2 has correlated highly with temperature: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/temperature-change#:~:text=When the carbon dioxide concentration,goes down%2C temperature goes down.

 

OK, so which is driving which? We don't know, and I refuse to jump to any unsupported conclusion.

If temperatures rose from a cause other than CO2 concentration, like the Sun increasing activity for a short time for example, then global ocean temperatures rise and the ocean releases CO2 fast. I would expect the CO2 concentration to correlate well with the rise in temperature, but NOT because it is the cause of that rise in temperature. When the ocean warms up, it releases CO2 pretty fast. In fact, faster than previously thought by one study. 

3 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

in what way has solar and wind failed? 

anybody who suggests we can be 100% on solar and wind are simply wrong. but they are a very important part of our transition off fossil fuels. 

I do agree that nuclear plants would be preferable, though there is still the issue of what to do with waste. And the promises of some of the latest nuclear advances seem to be delayed and farther off than we'd like. Some argue we're past the time where nuclear makes sense, though I'm not so sure. But I'm very much a proponent of nuclear to replace coal/oil as a primary supplier of energy - and the US is well equipped to put nuclear sites in areas that pose less risk to population centers. 

Their efficiency in energy generation has been disappointing. I'm not advocating abandoning them, just keeping their true efficacy in perspective.

I agree that nuclear is best for now. Waste management is an issue, but one I believe we are capable of dealing with. If fusion is safely mastered, the game changes forever. 

Just now, PoconoDon said:

OK, so which is driving which? We don't know, and I refuse to jump to any unsupported conclusion.

If temperatures rose from a cause other than CO2 concentration, like the Sun increasing activity for a short time for example, then global ocean temperatures rise and the ocean releases CO2 fast. I would expect the CO2 concentration to correlate well with the rise in temperature, but NOT because it is the cause of that rise in temperature. When the ocean warms up, it releases CO2 pretty fast. In fact, faster than previously thought by one study. 

And there is no evidence that the sun has seen a period of increased activity overlapping this rise in CO2. And we have not had near enough melting to compel the oceans themselves to release more CO2. 

So while you're correct that there are other ways that the Earth can warm and CO2 can be released, there is nothing to support that being the cause of the sharp temperature rise we've tracked. 

There are studies that show changes in CO2 levels to happen ahead of temperature fluctuations, not as a side effect of temperature changes caused by other factors: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915

The science is out there. 

41 minutes ago, Procus said:

Who are you calling idiots?  If you understood the Covid problem and saw all these vaccinated people getting sick (I know of one that died last week and another in the ICU - both vaccinated), you'd understand that the criminal aspect of all of this is the failure to publicize effective treatment protocols.  Dollars to donuts you don't realize that you need to RUN to the closest facility providing monoclonal antibody treatment upon first confirmation of infection.  And no doubt, you are against treatment with Ivermectin that worked so well in India.

Instead, all you do is parrot the talking points you see on social media and vilify other people while not taking basic steps to protect yourself and your family in case you do get infected despite taking precautions.

Please, I want you to prove me wrong by letting me know you know where to get Regeneron in case you or a loved one gets infected with Covid.

@PoconoDon See what I mean?

^This is exactly what you sound like.

12 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

And there is no evidence that the sun has seen a period of increased activity overlapping this rise in CO2. And we have not had near enough melting to compel the oceans themselves to release more CO2. 

So while you're correct that there are other ways that the Earth can warm and CO2 can be released, there is nothing to support that being the cause of the sharp temperature rise we've tracked. 

There are studies that show changes in CO2 levels to happen ahead of temperature fluctuations, not as a side effect of temperature changes caused by other factors: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10915

The science is out there. 

I get what you're saying. but again correlation does not equal causation. 

There are also studies that show the opposite. Antarctic ice cores show that CO2 levels follow temperature changes both up and down by 600-1000 years. Temp first, CO2 second. Seems like temperature change would drive the correlation more.

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

 

Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

@PoconoDon ^see what I mean?

This is exactly what you sound like.

Only to you because you apparently equate the veracity of viral research with climate research. I do not. 

21 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

Only to you because you apparently equate the veracity of viral research with climate research. I do not. 

Nope.

Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

Nope.

OK. 

41 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

@PoconoDon See what I mean?

^This is exactly what you sound like.

And meanwhile, you've proven the point (off topic) that you don't have a plan for treatment if unfortunately you or a loved one gets infected.  You need to take a long hard look in the mirror at what YOU can do better on this front before pointing fingers at other people.

17 minutes ago, Procus said:

And meanwhile, you've proven the point (off topic) that you don't have a plan for treatment if unfortunately you or a loved one gets infected.  You need to take a long hard look in the mirror at what YOU can do better on this front before pointing fingers at other people.

First don claiming there's no overlap between covid denial and climate change denial. And now an anti-mask antivaxer telling me I'm not doing enough to protect myself and my family from covid. I enjoy my time here.