One mighty suck for mankind

Newsnight -

Speaking of sucking...

'Susan Watts reports on a radical new approach designed to stop climate change. Confused?'

As I look out of my window at a lovely autumn taking over from summer (well, what passed for one), I simply ask that whatever man-made effort is made to mitigate (if at all possible and affordable) the power of what man might not be helping much as nature does her thing, I'd still like the climate to change a bit, please.

It's complex, and so easy for us all to get confused, I guess. But while dealing with possibly addressing possibly/probably man-worsened negative climate change is a rallying cry I could get behind, the shorter version used here is about as much use as Global Warming is... was.

Guess we should ask all those chaps I saw on the news recently who are going up to the Antarctic to race about how it's all going. Maybe when they meet the eco-racers driving round the country to see how little fuel they can use?

At least the atmospheric Deep Throat (one mighty suck for mankind) hoover sounds a bit more like DOING than talking, but I do worry about relative %ages near the things. Harking back to my A level sciences, if you suck all the C02 out locally and hence cause an osmotic (or is that fluids?) gradient towards them, won't that monkey around with the natural balances of the various gasses that make up air?

And is that a good thing?

I know it looked nifty (if in reverse) in Total Recall, but it's just that 'we' have not proven over nifty in our meddling with nature before.

OCO to monitor CO2

Reported on Economist.com, the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) [hey, isn't that yet another CO2 molecule?], to be launched in 2009, is going to gather and monitor planetary wide data with the objective of providing a high resolution global map of CO2.

It all sounds highly intriguing and extremely complex, but, hopefully, will provide some much needed genuine empirical data.

Just love the conclusion ...... "Understanding what might happen is essential. Even if we don’t like the answers."

CO2 levels reach new record high

As reported by the Guardian today, using data from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which takes readings from Mauna Lao in Hawaii.

Atmospheric CO2 nows stands at 387 ppm (parts per million), a figure that is now some 40% higher than the level pre industrial revolution, and the mean growth rate for 2007 was some 2.14 ppm.

"From 1970 to 2000, the concentration rose by about 1.5ppm each year, but since 2000 the annual rise has leapt to an average 2.1ppm."

Now no-one really knows exactly what the increasing CO2 levels will actually do to our planet's biosphere and climate, but the models used by the IPCC are projecting some pretty scary trends, and anything mankind can do to mitigate the rate of CO2 increase seems, at least to me, to be getting rather important, to say the least. Yet, we seem to still be doing loads of talking (and arguing), setting targets [see post below], and actually achieving, well, sod all! Meanwhile, the amount of CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere is climbing, inexorably, increasing almost year on year, and at a rate not seen for millions of years.

I'm beginning to fell like I'm sitting inside a global scientific experiment; we don't know what might happen, or when it will, but something sure as hell is going to, sometime in the future. Let's hope mankind finally doesn't realise it has to act at a point that is too late?

Atmospheric CO2 at record levels

From Nasdaq News.

"The global average concentrations in the atmosphere of carbon dioxide, or CO2, and nitrous oxide, or N2O, were higher than ever in measurements coordinated by the World Meteorological Organization".

Levels in 2006 reached "381.2 parts per million, according to the agency. Nitrous oxide totaled 320.1 parts per billion, which is a quarter per cent higher than in 2005."

"There is 36.1% more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there was in the late 18th century, primarily because of combustion of fossil fuels" and "it appears the upward trend will continue at least for the next few years."

They calculate that CO2 has now contributed some 91% of the warming effect on the biosphere over the last five years. That's the first time I've spotted an empirical measure of the contribution to warming that CO2 makes, and given the number of new fossil fuel power stations coming on stream each year, frankly, it rather scares the hell out of me.

You've got to right/left hand it to them

I no longer participate on the BBC is Biased site.

It was because I felt I had been moderated off unfairly, and indeed with slight sense of agenda, for an attempt to point out that an extreme view on one 'side' of climate change is usually inevitably 'balanced' to resultant deadlock by an equally view on another.

But its contributors can still throw up some interesting stuff, if erring on the 'optimistic' side of things.

I thought this was of note, more to highlight how we are in the hands of journalists and, possibly, editorial policy who can often serve the facts poorly and hence create doubt on their abilities and offerings.

Remember this

"The change could have catastrophic consequences for marine life.
Oceans mop up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, lowering the water's pH value - an effect that may be exacerbated by burning of fossil fuels."

Phew, what a relief that the catastrophic consequences have been averted by this morning's news.

I for one would like to thank Mr Harrabin [at least it says 'BBC environment analyst [a what? As noted before, he is not exactly qualified in this field, yet his opinion is given such weight by this title?] Roger Harrabin said: "The researchers don't know if the change is due to climate change or to natural variations] for putting my mind at ease with his agenda free reporting of this issue.

Now years have passed and things change, but I really would like the BBC, with all its staff and resources, to get its act together so we don't just get served sensationalist stuff all the time, punted out without consideration by questionably qualified folk, usually from some press release.

It's simply too important not to get right, and especially not to give any how would use such woeful instances to advocate a 'do nothing' approach.

Actually, by my reading the BBBC implied 'critique' may not be fair, because it looks to me that the first is pointing out the consequent acidification due to increased CO2 absorption, and the second the possibility that the oceans have reached a limit of doing that any more. They are slightly different, if related, things. And neither are good, or a pass to keep on pumping the stuff out. Which I would point out on site (at risk of a real oceanographic chemical scientist - if such a title exists - slapping me down, but I'd like to get such things clear), but they don't seem keen on such questions. Shame. On them. On the BBC for being just untrustworthy these days and certainly creating an impression of agenda. And for the future of the planet our kids are being handed by 'us'.

If anyone more qualified could confirm or deny my initial thoughts I'd be grateful. On the one hand I envy folk so sure of themselves in this manner, but on the other I am appalled that simply be saying something 'is' in such a way gets though so often without challenge.

ADDENDUM - A bit more via a BBBC poster:

Article is based on an article in the Journal of Geophysical Research