Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Please note this is News in Brief, and so will be a short article.
Published online 3 December 2008 | Nature 456, 558-559 (2008) | doi:10.1038/456558b
News in Brief
Greenhouse gases hit modern-day highs
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Please note this is News in Brief, and so will be a short article.
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
There has been no change in global temperature, now, since 1995; as shown by the data from the Hadley Centre, and also from the NASA satellire data from the University of Huntsville Alabama. These record greenhouse gas concentrations are obviously having no effect whatsoever on global temperatures.
Vincent. Just because 1995 was a particularly hot year, that doesn't mean the average global temperature hasn't risen. Your observations and conclusions belie a common misunderstanding amongst global warming skeptics. It's good to be skeptical, but there is no use criticizing a position that nobody holds to begin with. I could say that, judging from temperatures in the Cretaceous, we are currently in an ice-house world and therefore don't need to worry about global warming at all. Such a position would be absurd of course.
Gray is also incorrect about the Hadley Centre data, which show that every year since 2001 has exhibited a higher temperature anomaly than the 0.275 from 1995. Year 2007, which was quite warm, averaged 0.405, and the current year, despite a very cold start, warming only after La Nina conditions receded, is also higher than 1995, at 0.315. The last month recorded, October 2008, was listed at 0.440. The anthropogenic warming trend of the past 100 years is not a straight line. Rather, it's punctuated by multiple short term peaks and valleys, but the overall trend is unmistakably a rising one, with recent years typical of both the trend and the short term variations.
Yes indeed, "Greenhouse gases hit modern-day highs," but global temperatures did not. There may be a message there for Al Gore and the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control (IPCC). With kind regards, Oliver K. Manuel, http://www.omatumr.com , http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
Yes indeed, "Greenhouse gases hit modern-day highs," but global temperatures did not. There may be a message there for Al Gore and the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control (IPCC). With kind regards, Oliver K. Manuel, http://www.omatumr.com , http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09
"Greenhouse gases hit modern-day highs." Well, not all greenhouse gases, just the ones said to be responsible for "anthropogenic global-warming." That leaves out water vapor, which causes 95% of the greenhouse gas effect. Of course, we have no control over that. And we should count only the 3% of total carbon dioxide that actually comes from human activity, and similar proportions of the other gases cited. A more accurate lead would be: "Human source gases responsible for 1/900 of greenhouse effect reach modern-day high."
Why is it so hard for so many of us to admit that we are actually having a very large and serious influence on our planet? The evidence is very clear. Temperature alone is not the best indicator of change, the evidence from ice-loss and biological signals give a much clearer indication of the changes taking place. By increasing CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and black soot levels in the atmosphere year on year we gradually increase the amount of heat retained. The thermal inertia of the oceans and ice-sheets dampen the temperature response, but the rate of melting of glaciers, ice-caps, sea-ice and permafrost indicate that time is rapidly running out. Since solar output has remained effectively constant, it is clear that impact of accelerating human activity is the cause. I am tired of hearing individuals bicker about details. The consequences of what is happening now will be very unpleasant for 100s of millions of people and many other forms of life, unless we rise to the task of making a swift transition to a fossil free way of life. Let's end the debate and get into action please.
Jeremy is right. There is nothing to bicker about - FACTS are FACTS! Those facts are nicely summarized in the 2008 NIPCC Report: "Nature, not human activity, rules the climate: Summary for Policymakers of the Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)," The Heartland Institute, Chicago, IL 2008, 50 pages. http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf Best wishes for the Holidays and for the New Year ahead! Oliver K. Manuel, http://www.omatumr.com , http://myprofile.cos.com/manuelo09 Post Script - I noticed that President-elect Barack Obama flew to Hawaii instead of enjoying the balmy weather that global warming brought to Chicago this year for the holidays.
FROM NEWS IN BRIEF: "In 2007, the average concentration of carbon dioxide rose to 383 parts per million, an increase of 0.5% from 2006. . ." Look at the arithmetic involved in such a statement: The weight of the CO2 in the atmosphere is about 5*(10)**15 pounds (Humphreys, 'Physics of the Air,'1920) so to increase it by a fraction of 0.005 you have to add 2.5*(10)**13 pounds with no sequestering. The Global Warmers mechanism comports with neither Physics nor Arithmetic. The temperature of our surroundings is moderated by convection and advection. Each gram of rain --snow or ice -- has transported 600 calories of energy high into the atmosphere where it is radiated into the galaxy. One hundred years ago, R. W. Wood of Johns Hopkins showed with a simple experiment the fallacy of the 'Greenhouse Effect.' Happy holidays everyone . . .
FROM MR. WILKINSON?S POST: ?. . .I am tired of hearing individuals bicker about details. . . ? It is in fact ignoring or repudiating the details that got us into the AGW charade. A straightforward look at the ?mechanism? proffered by the advocates of AGW will reveal its shortcomings. The mechanism proposed for this warming is that the radiation from earth into the night sky will be intercepted by CO2 in the air and then returned to earth keeping us warm. As an example, let?s say a molecule in a leaf in a pecan tree in my yard radiates a bit of energy skyward and that bit is absorbed by a molecule in the atmosphere from which it is returned to earth thereby warming the earth. What?s wrong with that scenario? Just this: The molecule that radiated the energy skyward had to cool a bit. And, most important of all, the molecule in the atmosphere could not re-radiate more energy earthward than it received from the tree leaf. This is Thermo 101/102, for goodness sakes! The current episode of AGW is not new. Over 100 years ago such a mechanism was proposed for the waxing and waning of ice from, and back into, the mountains. The idea was examined by scientists of those times and determined to be false. Such a mechanism could not in fact be affecting the temperature of our surroundings. This latest version of AGW was based, at least partly, on two graphs: One, the Hockey Stick, was obviously and patently fallacious and quickly slipped from view. The other, the Keeling Curve, purports to show an Anthropogenic component to an increase in CO2 measurements made near active volcanoes! There are indeed other 'details' that are ignored and repudiated by the 'global warmers.' A full accounting of this episode will surely get a chapter in any revisions or updating of 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and Madness of Crowds' Happy holidays everyone . . . Dr. Robert L Hamilton, Engineer