NOAA Announcement: CO2 Concentration Surpasses 400ppm “for the first month since measurements began”

Yesterday, in the press release Greenhouse gas benchmark reached, NOAA announced:

Global carbon dioxide concentrations surpass 400 parts per million for the first month since measurements began.

The press release begins:

For the first time since we began tracking carbon dioxide in the global atmosphere, the monthly global average concentration of this greenhouse gas surpassed 400 parts per million in March 2015, according to NOAA’s latest results.

“It was only a matter of time that we would average 400 parts per million globally,” said Pieter Tans, lead scientist of NOAA’s Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network. “We first reported 400 ppm when all of our Arctic sites reached that value in the spring of 2012. In 2013 the record at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory first crossed the 400 ppm threshold. Reaching 400 parts per million as a global average is a significant milestone.

After a few general discussions, the press release ends:

James Butler, director of NOAA’s Global Monitoring Division, added that it would be difficult to reverse the increases of greenhouse gases which are driving increased atmospheric temperatures. “Elimination of about 80 percent of fossil fuel emissions would essentially stop the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but concentrations of carbon dioxide would not start decreasing until even further reductions are made and then it would only do so slowly.”

“…difficult to reverse…”?    I’ll let you comment on that.

Advertisements

About Bob Tisdale

Research interest: the long-term aftereffects of El Niño and La Nina events on global sea surface temperature and ocean heat content. Author of the ebook Who Turned on the Heat? and regular contributor at WattsUpWithThat.
This entry was posted in CO2. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to NOAA Announcement: CO2 Concentration Surpasses 400ppm “for the first month since measurements began”

  1. Thanks, Bob.
    400 out of 1,000,000 molecules are now CO2, and it’s extra warming power is very small, if you don’t invent a positive feedback from water vapor.
    Reaching 400 parts per million as a global average is a significant milestone. 🙂
    Yes, all the green plants are thankful, the warmunistas should be climbing up trees.
    What’s not to like about this?

  2. Morley Sutter says:

    Bob, does not the present “hiatus” (I prefer “plateau”) in global warming accompanied by the continued increase in CO2 concentration imply that the increase in CO2 is not causal to a rise in air temperature. It then follows that a decrease in CO2 would not be accompanied by a decrease in temperature. In other words CO2 concentration does not control temperature so attempts to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere is simply tilting at windmills.

  3. patmcguinness says:

    James Butler, said: “Elimination of about 80 percent of fossil fuel emissions would essentially stop the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,”

    Checking reference (2012 paper) tells us that … ” approximately one-half of total CO2 emissions is at present taken up by combined land and ocean carbon reservoirs … global carbon uptake doubled, from 2.4 ± 0.8 to 5.0 ± 0.9 billion tonnes per year, between 1960 and 2010.”

    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7409/full/nature11299.html

    So this is wrong, cutting by 50% would stop the rise of Co2 in the atmosphere by reducing to a level that matches

    “but concentrations of carbon dioxide would not start decreasing until even further reductions are made and then it would only do so slowly.”

    This begs the question of we would want to reduce what is effectively plant food and create cooling in a world where warmth is overall good.

  4. Ben Palmer says:

    “which are driving increased atmospheric temperatures. ” Not for the pas 18 years though. No correlation means no causation.

  5. kuhnkat says:

    It’s a LOOOOONG way to 800ppm. Better fire up those barbies, jet boats, SUVs, dune buggies, motorcycles, wood stoves…

  6. Bob Tisdale says:

    Morley, the pause, slowdown, etc., indicate natural variability play a dominant role in global warming. Coupled ocean-atmosphere processes like ENSO and the AMO enhance and suppress greenhouse gas-induced warming.

  7. Neville says:

    Bob I’ve tried to get a discussion going about the latest Royal Society and NAS report’s point 20. Nobody seems interested at all, even though Trenberth and Solomons etc are the authors of this report.
    They state in point 20 that we could stop all human emissions of co2 today and we wouldn’t see a change in co2 levels or temp for thousands of years. Bolt teased a similar admission from Flannery a few years ago. Now I can’t understand why sceptics don’t try and exploit this statement. Either they’re wrong about the residency interval of co2 emissions by a long way or their endless promotion of mitigation of CAGW is a total con and fraud. Here’s the link.
    BTW the mitigation of co2 is a con because over 90% of new emissions until 2040 will come from the non OECD countries like China and India etc. And OECD countries emissions will nearly flat line over that period.

    https://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/question-20/

  8. Bob Tisdale says:

    Thanks, Neville. I haven’t seen those Q&As before.

  9. Neville says:

    Bob I’ve tried to get a response on WUWT , Climate Etc and Jo Nova’s and many other blogs but nearly everyone seems to miss the point.
    I ask again does the RS, NAS, Flannery, Trenberth, Solomons etc really believe the ” thousands of years’ lag of co2 or not?
    The Petit et al study indeed showed that in an Antarctic ice core study co2 did lag temps by at least 6,000 years. Lomborg mentions this long lag in his book “Cool It.” I mean if they believe this where does it leave Obama and the EU etc and their claims about “taking action on CAGW”? IOW who believes this very long lag time of co2 and why isn’t the public informed that the mitigation of CAGW is a total con? That’s according to this RS and NAS analysis.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s