CO2 at 403.3 ppm

2016 saw average concentrations of CO2 hit 403.3 parts per million, up from 400ppm in 2015.

“It is the largest increase we have ever seen in the 30 years we have had this network,” Dr Oksana Tarasova, chief of WMO’s global atmosphere watch programme, told BBC News.

“The largest increase was in the previous El Niño, in 1997-1998, and it was 2.7ppm; and now it is 3.3ppm. It is also 50% higher than the average of the last 10 years.”

Another concern in the report is the continuing, mysterious rise of methane levels in the atmosphere, which were also larger than the average over the past 10 years. Prof Nisbet says there is a fear of a vicious cycle, where methane drives up temperatures which in turn releases more methane from natural sources.

Earlier in 2017, there was a publication that climate models needed to be corrected to correctly model the water loss in leaves in plants.

Prior to the adjustment the old models had projected temperature based upon CO2 ppm as follows.

16 thoughts on “CO2 at 403.3 ppm”

  1. Are you considering the impact of the Grand Solar Minimum that Solar Scientist are predicting will cause a very cold climate for a very long period? It will reduce food growth causing very high prices and not enough food to feed most of the people on earth. A large percent of the worlds population will perish from starvation and freezing.

    Reply
  2. Photosynthesis – Plants/Plankton turning Sunlight/CO2/H2O into Food/O2; neither animal nor blade of grass would exist, absent CO2. More CO2 helps plants resist drought, disease & damage from insects & viruses. It extends growing seasons & lets plants move higher in altitude & Latitudes; just as it shrinks deserts, plants using H2O more efficiently. Rising temperatures also extend growing seasons, help babies, increase net rainfall & save lives. As CO2 levels rise, photosynthesis flourishes & plants take in more CO2, sparking more plant growth, photosynthesis & CO2 uptake.
    This Cradle of Life is greener, more fertile & life sustaining than it was 50 years ago.

    Reply
    • We all know plants use CO2. Not a surprise to anybody.

      The trouble is, we don’t have more plant life than we did 50 years ago. Fields are plowed under, not growing for 6 months of the year, forests are still being cut down (it’s moved from temperate lands to the faster growing tropical regions, which are the “world’s lungs”). And of course, more parking lots and roads.

      Average rainfall is not increasing, except in places that are already wet. Deserts are expanding across the globe, areas that are dry will get dryer, areas that are wet will get wetter. Expect more devastating floods.

      Reply
  3. I’m still at a loss to see any serious efforts for planting trees, grass, algae, etc. which uses CO2 and could bind it (sequestration). Is this a “snail darter” problem? Yes, reductions are important. But so long as efficiency and science are mandated by bureaucrats, all this is going nowhere.

    Reply
    • I’m not totally sure that would actually do anything meaningful. Mature trees if I recall correctly, dont really sequester any significant amount of Co2. Also – When they die (or are cut down) that Co2 gets released.

      It’s seems obvious to me that cutting emissions is not going to work, to your point, we maybe should be focusing on how to start scrubbing the atmosphere via other means. I think that will be the ultimate solution with a technology that is TBD.

      Reply
      • It’s when trees rot or burn that the CO2 gets released again, not when the trees die.
        So any scheme that doesn’t leave the dead trees lying around in moist conditions, or on fire, will pull net CO2 out of the atmosphere.

        Reply
        • Right. specifically, if it gets put into the ground, it will stay there for quite awhile. This happens by root growth, by plants and trees getting buried, or falling into swamps. Prairies are actually pretty good as carbon sinks.

          It’s not well-publicized, but agriculture practices account for about 40% of our carbon emissions. Better ways to grow food, and lab-grown meat could reduce that part of the carbon footprint significantly.

          Reply
  4. So what? It takes more C02 than before to raise temperatures. A sort of law of diminishing returns or reverse logarithmic order applies.

    AND temps have dropped after El Nino.

    But these hard facts piss into the face of the Watermelon Agenda.

    Reply
  5. When we left off, the question was whether Lunar Solar Power radars could “hit” myriad receiving rectennae following pilot beams from those same rectennae. All other known issues had been addressed, being matters of cost rather than possibility.

    Reply
  6. When we left off, the question was whether Lunar Solar Power radars could “hit” myriad receiving rectennae using pilot beams from those very rectennae locations, 3 sec in the “future” to account for light delay. All other considerations have been dealt with, being matters of cost rather than possibility. Minimum 20 tWe needed!

    Reply

Leave a Comment