Global warming...yes again

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

cdiver2

Contributor
Messages
3,783
Reaction score
8
Location
Safety Harbor (West central) GB xpat
# of dives
500 - 999
50 years on: The Keeling Curve legacy
By Helen Briggs
Science reporter, BBC News



It is a scientific icon, which belongs, some claim, alongside E=mc2 and the double helix.

Its name - the Keeling Curve - may be scarcely known outside scientific circles, but the jagged upward slope showing rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere has become one of the most famous graphs in science, and a potent symbol of our times.

It was 50 years ago that a young American scientist, Charles David Keeling, began tracking CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere at two of the world's last wildernesses - the South Pole and the summit of the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii.

His very precise measurements produced a remarkable data set, which first sounded alarm bells over the build-up of the gas in the atmosphere, and eventually led to the tracking of greenhouse gases worldwide.

The curve set the scene for the debate over climate change, and policies, sometimes controversial, that address the human contribution to the greenhouse effect.

Without this curve, and Professor Keeling's tireless work, there is no question that our understanding and acceptance of human-induced global warming would be 10-20 years less advanced than it is today

Dr Andrew Manning, UEA
"It wasn't until Keeling came along and started measuring CO2 that we got the evidence that CO2 was increasing from human activities," says Professor Andrew Watkinson, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK.

"The graph is iconic from a climate perspective."

Dr Alistair Manning of the UK Met Office agrees. "It was the first real indication that CO2 levels were rising," he says. "That therefore started scientists thinking about the impact such a change would have on the climate."

'Tireless work'

Back in the 1950s, when Keeling began his experiments, no-one knew whether the CO2 released from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil/petroleum and natural gas) would end up in the atmosphere or be fully absorbed by oceans and forests.


Keeling had to work hard to justify his work
"The goal behind starting the measurements was to see if it was possible to track what at that time was only a suspicion: that atmospheric CO2 levels might be increasing owing to the burning of fossil fuels," explains biogeochemist Dr Andrew Manning, also from the UEA, who worked with Professor Keeling in the 1990s.

"To do this, a location was needed very far removed from the contamination and pollution of local emissions from cities; therefore Mauna Loa, high on a volcano in the middle of the Pacific Ocean was chosen.

"Without this curve, and Professor Keeling's tireless work, there is no question that our understanding and acceptance of human-induced global warming would be 10-20 years less advanced than it is today," adds Dr Manning.

Sleepless nights

Professor Keeling discovered that carbon dioxide was rising continuously and that there were annual fluctuations in carbon in the atmosphere (the little squiggles on the line), caused by seasonal variations in plant growth and decay.

When he started his measurements in 1958, CO2 levels were around 315 ppmv (parts per million by volume - that is 315 molecules of CO2 for every one million molecules in the air); by the year 2005 they had risen to about 378 ppmv.

Yet despite the importance we place on climate change research today, Professor Keeling, known as Dave to friends and colleagues, struggled to secure funding for his monitoring efforts.


The work focussed attention on the impact of greenhouse emissions
"Dave Keeling suffered many sleepless nights, even as late as in the 1990s, being forced again and again to justify continued funding of his programme," recalls Dr Manning.

"The fact that we are celebrating 50 years now is due purely to his incredible perseverance, courage and optimism."

He says the technical, analytical and logistical challenges of the work are enormous.

"To measure such tiny changes in the composition of the air, high on a remote mountain top in the middle of the Pacific Ocean is extremely challenging even today in the 21st Century," he explains.

"That Dave Keeling was able to successfully begin and continue such highly demanding measurements in the 1950s is a tribute to his brilliance."

Detailed monitoring

Today, carbon dioxide levels are sampled weekly at about 100 sites around the world.

Flasks filled with air are taken to a laboratory, where they are analysed for carbon dioxide, other greenhouse gases and pollutants.

Aircraft collect similar samples at higher altitude, while space-borne sensors detect some gases remotely throughout the atmosphere.


Monitoring efforts continue atop the Mauna Loa volcano
"Putting together detailed monitoring like this often takes quite a lot of vision and faith in what you are doing," says Professor Watkinson.

"[The Keeling Curve] is even more valuable today in many ways even though the measurements have become more sophisticated."

Charles Keeling died in 2005, aged 77. He continued his research into carbon dioxide at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, US, until his final day.

By then he had authored nearly 100 research articles and had received the National Medal of Science - the US's highest award for lifetime achievement in scientific research.

His son, Professor Ralph Keeling, also a geochemist at Scripps, continues his work.

TIMELINE: carbon monitoring

1957: Charles David Keeling starts work monitoring CO2 at the South Pole and Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii

1958: Keeling starts first direct continuous atmospheric measurements of CO2

Early 1970s: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), a US federal agency, starts monitoring CO2 worldwide

1995-2003: Noaa's Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) at Boulder, Colorado, develops and maintains the world's standard references for CO2 and other greenhouse gases

Links related to the news item
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 50 years on: The Keeling Curve legacy
 

Attachments

  • _44272057_co2_monitoring.gif
    _44272057_co2_monitoring.gif
    6.5 KB · Views: 79
Alongside the double helix and relativity theory? A little hyperbolic don't you think? Especially since GW differs from molecular biology and relativity in one key respect --- the latter two are actually true.
 
Alongside the double helix and relativity theory? A little hyperbolic don't you think? Especially since GW differs from molecular biology and relativity in one key respect --- the latter two are actually true.

Global warning is real...the Wisconsin glaciers are gone.
 
I stand corrected. The world has indeed been warming since the glaciers receded 10,000 years ago. I wonder who was burning all the gasoline back then? Perhaps the mammoths...

That industry is not effecting the earth or just not as much as the scientist say it is?
 
What I am saying is 1) the role of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in climate change is not established with acceptable certainty (even the IPCC report claims only 90 percent certainty, which is not only overstated, it's not even the degree of certainty required to publish a trend --- try submitting a paper in which your conclusions are good to p = 0.10 and see where you get)

2) the role of C02 in climate control is not even established historically --- a point made on other GW threads and met with deafening silence from GW enthusiasts is that ice core measurments show that temp rises 600 to 1000 years BEFORE carbon dioxide rises, suggesting that carbon dioxide follows temp trends, it doesn't cause them. No one seems to question this data, they just ignore it.

3) no one yet knows even if GW occurs that it will be bad...in fact, historically, at least for humans, cooling has had far worse effects on us than warming...those that gripe about mass extinctions should know that the globe has endured warmer periods than those PROJECTED to wipe out the planet, even in the mammalian age, yet we still seem to have plenty of mammals around. How on earth did they survive in the past?

As I have stated numerous times elsewhere, I don't dispute that climate change may be occuring, it may be manmade and it may be bad. All I dispute is that these things are now so CERTAIN that criticizing them puts you on par with flat earthers, creationists and holocaust deniers.
 
The subject is too complex for most people to understand. It's too complex for me too but most people won't invest the effort to even understand what questions they should be asking.
Who cares that P = 0.1 when Al Gore says that sea level is going to rise 20 feet in the next six minutes? People are better swayed by political tricks, emotional antics and theatrical nonsense than they are by anything as dry as facts and reason. I'm convinced that P. T. Barnum overestimated the human race when he suggested that there is a sucker born every minute...there must be several.

In this "enlightened age" people buy homeopathy, bio-vibration-therapy, science from Al Gore and Hillary may become president and give us all free health care.
 
Nope, not getting involved here... I'm going diving before our kelp forests give way to coral reefs.
 
What I am saying is 1) the role of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in climate change is not established with acceptable certainty (even the IPCC report claims only 90 percent certainty, which is not only overstated, it's not even the degree of certainty required to publish a trend --- try submitting a paper in which your conclusions are good to p = 0.10 and see where you get)

with a p=0.1, it depends. Maybe nothing, maybe something. However, depending on exactly what they are claiming as 90% certainty, we may not be talking about a p value at all. It could be variation, SD, SEM, etc. 10% variance in those factors is quite common in science, and hardly represents any sort of a serious problem.

I also note that you completely failed to support your claim that its "overstated"; perhaps you could provide us with this magical counter-evidence...

2) the role of C02 in climate control is not even established historically --- a point made on other GW threads and met with deafening silence from GW enthusiasts

I musta missed that one...

is that ice core measurments show that temp rises 600 to 1000 years BEFORE carbon dioxide rises,

Congratulation's on joining the early 1990's. When you get to the scientific literature of the mid-1990's you'll find that that discrepancy is well accounted for and understood. Its pretty simple; its a form of environmentally-induced error. But don't take my word for it - the climatologist Eric Steig has written a laymans description of why this occurs; the long and short can be summarized in one simple sentence:

"We don't really know the magnitude of that lag as well as Barton implies we do, because it is very challenging to put CO2 records from ice cores on the same timescale as temperature records from those same ice cores, due to the time delay in trapping the atmosphere as the snow is compressed into ice"

RealClimate » The lag between temperature and CO2. (Gore’s got it right.)

For those of you outside of the science end of this, Eric Steig is from UWash (Seattle, not DC), and is one of the leading experts in reconstructing past climate using ice-cores with over 60 scientific publications in this area alone.


Or, in other words, you can believe anything you want, so long as you ignore the relevant facts.


suggesting that carbon dioxide follows temp trends, it doesn't cause them. No one seems to question this data, they just ignore it.

Hardly. Not only is that trend well known, but the underling reason for it is understood. And once again, quoting the above article:

"Thus, both CO2 and ice volume should lag temperature somewhat, depending on the characteristic response times of these different components of the climate system. Ice volume should lag temperature by about 10,000 years, due to the relatively long time period required to grow or shrink ice sheets. CO2 might well be expected to lag temperature by about 1000 years, which is the timescale we expect from..."

and again

"Second, the idea that there might be a lag of CO2 concentrations behind temperature change (during glacial-interglacial climate changes) is hardly new to the climate science community. Indeed, Claude Lorius, Jim Hansen and others essentially predicted this finding fully 17 years ago, in a landmark paper that addressed the cause of temperature change observed in Antarctic ice core records, well before the data showed that CO2 might lag temperature"

So no, it was not ignored. In fact, it was expected and accounted for before we even began measuring CO2 in ice cores.

The only ones ignoring things here is you. You're only out-of-date by about a decade...

3) no one yet knows even if GW occurs that it will be bad...in fact, historically, at least for humans, cooling has had far worse effects on us than warming...

That is very much a matter of opinion. Many of the great advances in human technology throughout our history occurred during colder periods. Possibly due to an increased reliance on technology.

those that gripe about mass extinctions should know that the globe has endured warmer periods than those PROJECTED to wipe out the planet

Now your just being stupid. No one is claiming that we're going to destroy all life. Even nuclear war wouldn't be able to do that. And we're also well aware of the fact the earths been warmer in the distant past. The problem is not one of magnitude, but rather due to rate of change. Evolution takes time; so does migration. Meaning that if things change too quickly life cannot adapt. And we know that the magnitude of change we're seeing now is unparalleled in the last few million years, if not longer.

We also know climate change is driving extinction. Numerous species have gone extinct due to these changes. The first - the golden toad; way back in 1989.

, even in the mammalian age, yet we still seem to have plenty of mammals around. How on earth did they survive in the past?

Because change was slow enough that they could evolve to deal with it. Now that we're driving it thousands of times faster then it went in the past this option is not available to most large animals and plants.

As I have stated numerous times elsewhere, I don't dispute that climate change may be occuring, it may be manmade and it may be bad. All I dispute is that these things are now so CERTAIN that criticizing them puts you on par with flat earthers, creationists and holocaust deniers.

You are closer to those things then those who "believe" in GW. At the end of the day there is a vast amount of data showing that the world is warming, and that we are at least partially at fault. In order to believe otherwise you have to ignore several thousand scientific publications.

Ignoring inconvenient facts, or trying to explain them away, is more the realm of pseuodscience, creationism and holocaust deniers then is taking that data at face value and accepting what it means...

Bryan
 
the topic is global warming and the post we are talking about is where the post will go.

Global warming-where the post will go!!!!, kinda like 1+1 = 3
Speaking of focusing on topic..., we've had non-stop threads running on global warming for several weeks now. I suspect that Andy's post describes perfectly how this thread will progress, assuming its allowed to remain active after the "you're a moron" "no, you're a moron" begins.

Why do you feel compelled to come to a scuba board and start new threads on global warming? Why not go to 'GlobalWarmingSucksBoard.com' and start them there?

Just curious...
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/teric/

Back
Top Bottom