Arctic Research Station Reports Atmospheric CO2 At New Record High Of 394 PPM - Reuters

[hatrack]

TROLL STATION, Antarctica (Reuters) - Atmospheric levels of the main greenhouse gas have set another new peak in a sign of the industrial rise of Asian economies led by China, a senior scientist said on Saturday. "The levels already in January are higher than last year," said Kim Holmen, research director of the Norwegian Polar Institute, during a visit to the Troll scientific research station in Antarctica by Norway's Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg.

Holmen said measurements at a Norwegian station high in the Arctic showed levels of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, were around 394 parts per million, up about 1.5 parts per million from the previous records early in 2007.

The levels have risen by about a third since the start of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century, in tandem with more use of fossil fuels in power plants and factories, and defying recent international efforts to cut back.

The carbon levels usually peak just before the arrival of spring in the northern hemisphere, where most of the world's industries, land masses and plants are found. Levels then dip because plants soak up carbon dioxide as they grow.

EDIT

http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKL0881005720080208

[Systematic Chaos]

1. So another four years, at most, and we should be at 400.

I wanna be sick.

[hatrack]

2. Yeah, it won't be long now

Combine that with the Arctic Ocean deathwatch, and E&E really will be a barn-burner come summer.

[phantom power]

3. Don't forget hurricane season. That's always a crowd-pleaser.

[OKIsItJustMe]

48. Please don't treat 400 as a magic number

It's not as if 399 is okay, but at 400 the whole world goes to hell.

"Fuzzy Logic"/"Fuzzy Math" is really helpful for this sort of thinking.

Start with a "fuzzy value" of 400. This is bad. 399 is essentially just as bad, 390 is also bad (but perhaps not quite as bad as 400.)

What I'm saying is, things are already bad; and getting worse; but it's not like there's a global time bomb set to go off when we reach exactly 400. (It's simply a measurement of how bad things are getting.)

[cloudythescribbler]

4. Said it before & I'll say it again: GLOBAL NET NEGATIVE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS!!!!

and soon. Progressives need to formulate, organize and unite on this issue in the environmental sphere.

[phantom power]

5. Yes, we hear you loud and clear.

[Spoonman]

6. You can calm down,

That's actually 11ppm below the norm established 3 years ago!!!!!!

As an environmentalist, I see that as good news!

CO2 is currently at a globally averaged concentration of approximately 383 ppm by volume in the Earth's atmosphere

Ref: Whorf, T.P., Keeling, CD (2005). "Atmospheric CO2 records from sites in the SIO air sampling network.". Period of record: 1958-2004

The Norwegian Polar Institute is probably up for grant renewal, and needed to publish something that would motivate the committee to approve further funding. You won't get the funding if you say "everything looks within the normal range"!

[hatrack]

7. Yes, if you'll read the article, you'll see that it describes this as a seasonal spike

And it will fall as the northern hemisphere enters spring.

However, it does remain the highest atmospheric concentration measured to date.

[Spoonman]

11. "highest atmospheric concentration measured to date"

Only for that area.

383ppm is a world wide average. CO2 concentrations have been measured as high as 1000ppm in the Mojave desert.

Climate change is determined by large regions, not one monitoring station.

If you really want to get pissed about this, look at the huge $$$ being generated by carbon credit trading.

Truth be known, the whole thing boils down to money, not what's happening to the environment.

[Systematic Chaos]

8. I brought some for everybody!!!

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:
:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

Now if you'll excuse me it appears my :rofl:copter has landed and I must be going!

[Dead_Parrot]

9. 383-11=394?

err, what?

[Spoonman]

10. Sorry,

I meant to say it was only 11ppm above the norm (pretty small increase for 3+ years).

[Dead_Parrot]

12. Are you kidding? it's enormous

fortunately, as noted, it's 'only' a peak. The mean increases for the last 3 years are:
2005: 2.54 ppm
2006: 1.72 ppm
2007: 2.28 ppm
---------------
Total 6.54 ppm. Carry on like this for much longer and we're all fucked.

[hatrack]

13. And, assuming 5.137 x 10(x)18 kg as total atmospheric mass, 1 ppm = 2.13 Gt of carbon

(Trenberth, 1981 JGR 86:5238-46)

[Spoonman]

16. You might have a valid point

if they sampled the entire column of the "atmosphere" you refer to in your equation.
We know they didn't suck a 1 inch by 30 km column of air into a drager tube, because it won't hold it.

Add to this Boyle's Law - in a nutshell heavier gasses will be closer to the bottom (ground level) of that 30 km column of "atmosphere".
CO2 having and an atomic weight of 44 ( carbon atom has a weight of 12, oxygen atom has a weight of 16, giving each single molecule of CO2 an atomic weight of 44 (12 from carbon and 32 oxygen) it is one of the heavier molecules found in our air, thus it sinks to the lower levels of the column.

(This is kind of convenient seeing as our plants need it)

CO2 is not evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere, thus rendering your result wrong.

It's a little more complicated that you present, but it works if your trying to scare people into believing.

I prefer basing my opinions on facts.

[Dead_Parrot]

21. CO2 concentrations at 33km...

...are 7ppm lower than in the tropopause (Bischof, Fabian & Borchers, Nature 288, 347 - 348, 27 Nov 80).

Which, by your own argument, is insignificant.

Edit: I should also point out that they are constant throughout the troposphere.

[Spoonman]

14. No I'm not kidding,

and no it's not enormous!

6.54ppm is so minuscule an increase it's impossible to base the results as FACT.

The most reliable testing methods and means are only accurate to +/- 2%.

So lets say you measure 350ppm, 2% of 350ppm is 7ppm.

Seeing as my masters degree is in Environmental Science/Engineering maybe I understand this a little better than most.

However, increases of ANYTHING less than 2% are highly questionable results. There are to many variables that can change from year to year for the results to be comparable.

Add to that the fact that it would take CONSTANT levels of over 1500ppm to cause noticeable effects on the environment, and 6.54ppm equates to nothing other than a veiled attempt to justify funding, similar to chicken little.

Wake up, it's all about money, and we as a culture are being hoodwinked via fear mongering thus allowing the rich to become even richer by creating a false a market place in which to profit from.

[phantom power]

15. Holy shit -- Michael? Is that you?

:rofl:

[Dead_Parrot]

17. I guess that's what you get...

...when you report from Troll Station. Must have sneaked out in the reporter's pocket...

[Spoonman]

18. Study some history

they pulled the same shit with Freon 12. (6-8 times heavier than air = cannot float up into atmosphere!)

Look at the patent expiration date for DuPonts patent on Freon 12, and then look at when it was outlawed.
Now look at who holds the ONLY legal refrigerant patent. Hint - DuPont

And the American taxpayer payed the bill for all the research to develop it!

[phantom power]

19. CFCs do not decompose ozone directly:

They are decomposed by sunlight and their products in turn decompose ozone:

http://www.wou.edu/~avorder/Refrigeration.htm

[Dead_Parrot]

20. So, the whole ozone thing...

...was actually a cunning ploy by dupont to get one of their own product lines banned. And normal hydrocarbons like propane, butane, hexane, and pentane can't be used as refrigerants. Unless they're processed by dupont, I assume.

Chart of dichlorodifluoromethane distribution in the atmosphere:



Clearly, the person who drew this chart is lying, because molecules are like very small rocks and can't float.

Gotcha.

Off topic, but may one enquire where you got your masters?

[Spoonman]

22. On topic, where did you find this chart?

At the University Of Houston, we learned that dichlorodifluoromethane is not what caused ozone depletion.

I have seen this chart, and yes it is a part of the propaganda that that was used to con the world.

Freon is a massive and heavy chain molecule, and the part of that chain molecule that supposedly caused the O3 molecules to break apart wis the "chloro" part of that molecule. More commonly known as Chlorine. To be even more specific a negatively charged chlorine atom, otherwise known as a "free radical".

This is scientific FACT, so before you start defending your position with more personal attacks, educate yourself.

The three scientists who developed the ozone depletion THEORY were awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry - and it has NEVER been proven as scientific fact!!!!!

Try reading some of the works of Dr. Hugh Ellsaesser - He worked at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, was a weather specialist for the U.S. Air Force, and he holds three degrees in meteorology and is one our nation's premier authorities on the topic.
He along with HUNDREDS of other EXPERTS agree that it is impossible for the depletion theory to have any basis in fact.

So baah like a lamb and follow the shepherd to the slaughter, but don't cry to me about the evils of outsourcing and corporate America when you hand this country over to those who profit from your fear and blind faith.

[Dead_Parrot]

23. That particular one was lifted from the ODC website...

...But, if you look at the label, you'll see the data is from the Cryogen Limb Array Etalon Spectrometer on NASA's Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite. Maybe the satellite was in on the whole thing, but googling 'UARS CLAES CFC12' will certainly give you lots to think about.

Or not. You're right, of course, no-one has ever sat tied to a weather balloon 22km up in the air with a microscope watching the molecules move around: It is indeed just a theory, and no better that those quaint notions about gravity or evolution. Still, you're the Environmental Engineer, you'll know all about what is a scientific theory, and what is a load of crap.

Although, speaking of primordial pond-slime, why would I give a flying fuck about Ellsaesser? He not a premier authoritiy on anything - he hasn't even had a paper published since '84. "There has indeed been a slight decline in global ozone levels... The public has been misled to an even great extent in that the possible beneficial consequences of increased UV have been consistently ignored." are not the words of a sane man, or even an insane man who goes outside much, although curiously they are the words of someone paid by Exxon to deny that climate change is anything to worry about. Dropping his name is certainly not going to impress: Got anyone who isn't a complete whore?

Still, I can give you my word I won't come crying to you when the sheep hand America over to those who profit from fear and blind faith.
In fact, I've been laughing my arse off ever since you did it. :hi:

[Nihil]

25. But on the other hand ...

... as the recently acquired "Master Environmental Engineer" allegedly
gained his paperwork at Oil Well Tech College, why should you be
surprised that
i) his "knowledge" of climate science is somewhat suspect and
ii) his main reference is an Exxon spokesman?

:shrug:

[hunter]

30. "Master Environmental Engineer" degree earned at freedom.org, perhaps?

http://www.freedom.org

They say they have "...a ton of material accumulated over nearly 20 years, and it will take some time to reconstruct all the content."

Here's some old stuff, I hope it helps them in the reconstruction:

Kindred Spirits: Unabomber and Al Gore

When Al Gore published Earth in the Balance in 1992, he probably had no idea that his impassioned plea to "reorganize society" to save the environment was exactly what the Unabomber was trying to do. When Gore advocated using any and "all means" to achieve his reorganized society, he probably didn't mean using bombs to kill people or to destroy power transmission lines as Dave Foreman was convicted of conspiring to do. Whether he realized it or not, Al Gore's eloquently flawed call to arms is a battle cry to join the same revolution advocated by Dave Foreman and the Unabomber.

Al Gore must bear the major responsibility for banning CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons). On the pretext of the unproved, highly controversial theory that CFCs are destroying the ozone layer, Gore bombed inexpensive, safe, refrigeration. The impact on industry of this one salvo is far more deadly than all the Unabomber's bombs. The search for alternative refrigeration is already costing hundreds of billions of dollars - needlessly. And pricing refrigeration out of the market for billions of people in developing countries. This is war on industry.

Al Gore must bear the major responsibility for implementing the Wildlands Project in America. It was his "reinvention of government" that provided the smoke-screen behind which he created the White House Ecosystem Management Task Force that ultimately developed the Ecosystem Management Policy that instructs federal employees to consider human beings as a "biological resource."

[Dead_Parrot]

36. Don't read too much into the word "environmental"

http://www.egr.uh.edu/CIVE/

I'll leave you to browse for the master environmental engineers. You can also play "spot the stratospheric geophysicist" while you're there...
Score 400 point for each one!
It's fun for all the family, so bring your kids!!

For all you hard-core grad spotters, play round two at http://www.egr.uh.edu/cive/envgrad/



Enjoy.

[Spoonman]

27. When you can't PROVE your point,

resort to personal attacks - Not a very good tactic when debating an issue, it makes one look childish.

Still, I can give you my word I won't come crying to you when the sheep hand America over to those who profit from fear and blind faith.
In fact, I've been laughing my arse off ever since you did it.

Thats a pretty strong accusation, please explain in detail how I "did it".

I believe the converse is true. You handed it over long ago, by allowing your emotions to govern your actions.

Exactly want "they" want, and it seems to work every time with people like you.

Yes I've seen the data from the Cryogen Limb Array Etalon Spectrometer NASA's Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite.
Have you ever seen the data that confirms ozone depletion is occurring when they gathered it?
NO you haven't, because it doesn't record it!
However, it does record the UV spectrum that are present at the same time, including the spectrum required to cause depletion. Guess how often it occurs, almost never during the "hole" phenomenon!!

I can tell by your replies you are are educated, and pretty sharp, now start using those attributes to find the truth.

Ellsaesser was paid by Exxon? Find a better source than Exxonsecrets.org - total fridge kooks with an ax to grind.

Got anyone who isn't a complete whore?

That's a great point, let's look at it.

Whore - A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain.

That would definitely describe everyone you quote that promulgates this theory. They have to to keep the funding rolling in. Everyone knows that if you ask for grant money, you have a better chance of receiving it if your studying something that has the potential for catastrophic results, or results that benefit mankind on a grand scale.

The money would dry up pretty fast it they went to committee with "nothing is happening, we haven't found any problems yet, but we will, so just let us keep studying it anyway"!

I could go on about how unstable the O3 molecule is, how it is formed in huge amounts and degraded by hundreds of different factors outside of cfc's, and other gases. But alas, this would all be pointless. If you did start thinking for yourself, you would not be accepted by all those "enlightened" people hanging out at Starbucks that sit around and proclaim how environmentally conscious they are, and how much they want to save the planet.

I use to be one of those "enlightened" people, and that's why I pursued the education I have. 99% of my professors were "extremist", unlike the assertion made in another post that they were part of "Oil Well Tech College". That individual has not the faintest clue.
But the more I looked at things, the more I began to tie things together, and starting seeing the whole movement for what it really was - a profit center for fear mongers!

Eventually you might figure out how the real world works, but I don't have the time to educate you, and you don't seem to want to understand it anyway.

[Viking12]

28. This might help....

http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

[Dead_Parrot]

31. You appear to be confused

Initially your argument ran along the lines of "dichlorodifluoromethane is heavy, so it can't float". Now you're claiming that you knew about the NASA data all along, but it's somehow irrelevant. Clarify this point, please: Are NASA lying? Are you still claiming that atmospheric gasses sit in layers with the heaviest at the bottom? If so, why haven't we all died of asphyxiation?

Have you ever seen the data that confirms ozone depletion is occurring when they gathered it? NO you haven't, because it doesn't record it!

Well Duh, It's an IR spectrometer. It wouldn't gather that data - what you want is a microwave limb sounder. Google 'UARS MLS ozone hole' and tell us what you find, OK?

However, it does record the UV spectrum that are present at the same time...

That's a good trick for an IR spectrometer. Got a link? Maybe it makes tea as well...

I could go on about how unstable the O3 molecule is, how it is formed in huge amounts and degraded by hundreds of different factors outside of cfc's, and other gases. But alas, this would all be pointless

On the contrary, I'm sure we'd all find it fascinating. Go for it.

Find a better source than Exxonsecrets.org

Fine, google 'Ellsaesser Exxon' and take your pick. There's hundreds to choose from.

[Spoonman]

32. Here's a better link,

http://www.generationim.com/

http://www.generationim.com/

Our Advisory Board, convened by our Chairman the Hon. Al Gore, helps set our long-term thematic research agenda into global sustainability issues, including climate change, poverty and development, ecosystem services and biodiversity, water scarcity, pandemics, demographics and migration, and urbanization.

Hmmm, an investment firm, and HOLY SHIT look who the chairman is!

I can't believe I voted for him!!!!!

No different than bushco and the war for profit!!!!

Now explain that away with NASA reports that were generated by instruments that can't measure CFC's.

Pretty fucking convenient how he preached doom and gloom, only to end up FOUNDING AND AS CHAIRMAN of an investment firm that is investing and trading carbon offsets and credits.

Here’s a list of some of the companies that are in bed with him.
AFLAC INC
AQUANTIVE INC
AUTODESK INC
BECTON DICKINSON & CO
BLACKBAUD INC
GENERAL ELECTRIC CO
GREENHILL & CO INC
JOHNSON CTLS INC
LABORATORY CORP AMER HLDGS
METABOLIX INC
NORTHERN TR CORP
NUVEEN INVTS INC
STAPLES INC
SYSCO CORP
TECHNE CORP
UBS AG
VCA ANTECH INC
WATERS CORP

Google those names!!!

The prospectus I received from them clearly states that GIM intends to invest in, or buy companies poised to cash in on Global Warming concerns.

Dr. Ellsaesser may have worked for a firm that did business with Exxon, but he didn't stand to profit in the way Al is!!!!!!

The proof of what I said is staring you right in the face, WAKE UP, ITS ALL BOUT PROFIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dead_Parrot]

34. Curses! Struck down by logic!

Err, except I I wasn't aware anyone claimed Al Gore was a premier authority, a weather specialist, or indeed any sort of researcher or scientist. He's a politician and business man.

May I take it from that post you've given up any attempt to defend your position with science? Or are you going to hit me with iron-clad proof that ethanol cannot evaporate?

[Spoonman]

37. Let's try another approach

I have contended all along that these theories are in large part a con job.
I have no problem being proactive concerning protection of our environment.

I never claimed Al was an authority on anything, other than playing a key role in the disinformation campaign and being responsible for the legislation that banned Freon.

It is clear to any logically thinking individual that my initial assertion is plausible given the facts.

You like so many others refuse to tie it all together regardless of how much evidence is presented.

Instead of replying with facts you bombard me with non sequitur crap.

So I'll pose you own question to you; are you going to hit me with iron-clad proof that Freon 12 ever did damage to the ozone?

But alas, you and I already know the answer to that question.

There is no iron-clad proof and never has been any iron-clad proof!!! That's why it's called a theory!!!

[Viking12]

39. Again, I offer this for your protection.....

[hunter]

42. Damn, this argument is familiar, Spoonman...

There is no iron-clad proof and never has been any iron-clad proof!!! That's why it's called a theory!!!

For a second there it sounded like you were talking about Evolution. (It's just a theory, you know.)

[Viking12]

46. Don't you that 'they' came up with the theory of evolution

Just to persecute christians and make profits for Big Pharma?

[jpak]

45. Ummm... theories are explanations of natural phenomena based on large bodies of evidence

Accepted evifdence based on repeatable observations or experimentation.

They are "scientific facts".

They are NOT conjecture.

The smoking guns supporting anthropogenic climate change (and there are many) were produced in the peer reviewed scientific literature nearly a decade ago.

Read 'em and weep...

J. E. Harries, H. E. Brindley, P. J. Sagoo, R. J. Bantges (2001). Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997. Nature 410: 355 - 357

T. P. Barnett, D. W. Pierce, R. Schnur (2001). Detection of Anthropogenic Climate Change in the World's Oceans. Science 292: 270-274.

S. Levitus, J. I. Antonov, J. Wang, T. L. Delworth, K. W. Dixon, and A. J. Broccoli (2001) Anthropogenic Warming of Earth's Climate System. Science 292: 267-270.

D. J. Karoly, K. Braganza, P. A. Stott, J. M. Arblaster, G. A. Meehl, A. J. Broccoli, and K. W. Dixon (2003) Detection of a Human Influence on North American Climate. Science. 302: 1200-1203

B. D. Santer, M. F. Wehner, T. M. L. Wigley, R. Sausen, G. A. Meehl, K. E. Taylor, C. Ammann, J. Arblaster, W. M. Washington, J. S. Boyle, and W. Brüggemann (2003) Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes. Science. 301: 479-483

P. A. Stott, D. A. Stone and M. R. Allen (2004) Human contribution to the European heatwave of 2003. Nature 432: 610-614

J. Hansen, L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, M Sato, J. Willis, A. Del Genio, D. Koch, A. Lacis, K. Lo, S. Menon, T. Novakov, J. Perlwitz, G. Russell, G. A. Schmidt N. Tausnev (2005) Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications. Science. 308: 1431 – 1435

T. P. Barnett, D. W. Pierce, K. M. AchutaRao, P. J. Gleckler, B. D. Santer, J. M. Gregory, and W. M. Washington (2005) Penetration of Human-Induced Warming into the World's Oceans. Science. 309: 284-287

M. Lockwood and C. Frohlich (2007) Recent oppositely directed trends in solarclimate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature. Proc. R. Soc.doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880 Published online

All claims to the contrary are freeptard nonsense...

[OKIsItJustMe]

49. Theories prove their worth by making predictions

So far, the various theories regarding "global warming" seem to be doing pretty well.

[hunter]

29. "Freon is a massive and heavy chain molecule???" Please, in what universe?

[Spoonman]

33. It's obvious

you have NO chemistry background.

2Cl-2F-C Total atomic weight - 120.912
Just for reference, a water molecule (2H-O) weighs 18.0148

[Dead_Parrot]

35. You're right...

...Something is obvious.

But funnily enough, it's not Hunter's ability in chemistry.

[jpak]

38. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!1111

Russell, J. M. III, M. Luo, R. J. Cicerone, and L. E. Deaver: Satellite Confirmation of the Dominance of Chlorofluorocarbons in the Global Stratospheric Chlorine Budget, Nature, 379, 526-529, February 8, 1996.

Abstract:

OBSERVED increases in concentrations of chlorine in the stratosphere1–7 have been widely implicated in the depletion of lower-stratospheric ozone over the past two decades8–14. The present concentration of stratospheric chlorine is more than five times that expected from known natural 'background' emissions from the oceans and biomass burning15–18, and the balance has been estimated to be dominantly anthropogenic in origin, primarily due to the breakdown products of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)19,20. But despite the wealth of scientific data linking chlorofluorocarbon emissions to the observed chlorine increases, the political sensitivity of the ozone-depletion issue has generated a re-examination of the evidence21,22. Here we report a four-year global time series of satellite observations of hydrogen chloride (HC1) and hydrogen fluoride (HF) in the stratosphere, which shows conclusively that chlorofluorocarbon releases—rather than other anthropogenic or natural emissions—are responsible for the recent global increases in stratospheric chlorine concentrations. Moreover, all but a few per cent of observed stratospheric chlorine amounts can be accounted for by known natural and anthropogenic tropospheric emissions. Altogether, these results implicate the chlorofluorocarbons beyond reasonable doubt as dominating ozone depletion in the lower stratosphere.

<end>

http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/heavier.html



Farman, J. C., B. G. Gardiner, and J. D. Shanklin. 1985. Large losses of total ozone in Antarctica reveal seasonal ClOx/NOx interaction. Nature 315: 207-10

Abstract

Recent attempts <1,2> to consolidate assessments of the effect of human activities on stratospheric ozone (03) using one-dimensional models for 30deg. N have suggested that perturbations of total 03 will remain small for at least the next decade. Results from such models are often accepted by default as global estimates <3>. The inadequacy of this approach is here made evident by observations that the spring values of total O3 in Antarctica have now fallen considerably. The circulation in the lower stratosphere is apparently unchanged, and possible chemical causes must be considered. We suggest that the very low temperatures which prevail from midwinter until several weeks after the spring equinox make the Antarctic stratosphere uniquely sensitive to growth of inorganic chlorine, ClX, primarily by the effect of this growth on the NO2/NO ratio. This, with the height distribution of UV irradiation peculiar to the polar stratosphere, could account for the O3 losses observed.

<end>



BTW: Hugh Ellsaesser is a moonbat

:rofl:

[hatrack]

26. "Wood!" "Apples!" "Very small rocks!"

"Who are you who are so wise in the ways of Science?"

:evilgrin:

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. Except NASA has equipment with an accuracy of 0.25 ppm

http://www-gte.larc.nasa.gov/trace/TP_Avery_Vay_Instrument.htm

and appears to have had it since 2002, or maybe even earlier.

the fact that it would take CONSTANT levels of over 1500ppm to cause noticeable effects on the environment

Where have you pulled this "fact" from? It, of course, flies in the face of scientific opinion.

[OKIsItJustMe]

41. Yes, where did that "fact" come from?

Here's one man's presentation of the facts:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0706.3720v1

How Can We Avert Dangerous Climate Change?
James Hansen

Abstract. Recent analyses indicate that the amount of atmospheric CO₂ required to cause dangerous climate change is at most 450 ppm, and likely less than that. Reductions of non-CO₂ climate forcings can provide only moderate, albeit important, adjustments to the CO₂ limit. Realization of how close the planet is to ‘tipping points’ with unacceptable consequences, especially ice sheet disintegration with sea level rise out of humanity’s control, has a bright side. It implies an imperative: we must find a way to keep the CO₂ amount so low that it will also avert other detrimental effects that had begun to seem inevitable, e.g., ocean acidification, loss of most alpine glaciers and thus the water supply for millions of people, and shifting of climatic zones with consequent extermination of species.

Here I outline from a scientific perspective actions needed to achieve low limits on CO₂ and global warming. These changes are technically feasible and have ancillary benefits. Achievement of needed changes requires overcoming the spurious argument that developed and developing countries have equivalent responsibilities, as well as overcoming special interests advocating minimalist or counterproductive actions such as corn-based ethanol and liquid-fuelfrom-coal programs.

This paper consists of written testimony that I delivered as a private citizen to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, United States House of Representatives on 26 April 2007. I have added to that testimony: this abstract, references for several statements in the testimony, and some specificity in the final section on solutions.

...

[OKIsItJustMe]

40. Hmmm...

Okay, so as I read the "Keeling Curve" at Mauna Loa Observatory, CO₂ concentrations have been increasing at the rate of about 2ppm/year.

According to the article:http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKL0881005720080208

...

Holmen said measurements at a Norwegian station high in the Arctic showed levels of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, were around 394 parts per million, up about 1.5 parts per million from the previous records early in 2007.

...

Okay, so, to make a long story short, atmospheric CO₂ concentrations apparently increased about as much in the past year, as they have for the past several years (perhaps a bit less.)

(Am I missing something here?)

[Viking12]

43. Are you missing something? Duh...

Obviously you are not aware of the grand conspiracy "they" have put together --you know the one that requires the silent cooperation of the vast majority of the world's geophysical scientists and all of the world's major scientific organizations.:sarcasm: (as if the smilie was necessary)

[OKIsItJustMe]

44. Ah! The conspiracy!

Thanks for clearing that up.

[hatrack]

47. Indeed! There's only one Power that approaches that of the Scientific Conspirators . . .

The awesome power of . . . . CLENIS!!!!!!!!!!!