Australia bushfires contribute to big rise in global CO2 levels - UK's Met Office

[snoop1130]

Australia bushfires contribute to big rise in global CO2 levels - UK's Met Office

By Matthew Green

 

FILE PHOTO: The sun struggles through the clouds as high winds push smoke and ash from the Currowan Fire towards Nowra, New South Wales, Australia January 4, 2020. REUTERS/Tracey Nearmy

 

LONDON (Reuters) - Australia’s bushfires are contributing to one of the biggest annual increases in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere since record-keeping began more than 60 years ago, according to a forecast published by Britain’s Met Office on Friday.

 

While human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are responsible for the bulk of the increase in CO2 levels, Australia’s bushfires have made the problem measurably worse, underscoring the impact of the catastrophe on the global climate system.

 

“A forecast of the atmospheric concentration of carbon-dioxide shows that 2020 will witness one of the largest annual rises in concentration since measurements began at Mauna Loa, in Hawaii, 1958,” the Met Office said in a statement.

 

It said the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is expected to peak above 417 parts per million in May, with the average for the year forecast to be 414.2 ± 0.6ppm. This annual average represents a 2.74 ± 0.57 ppm rise on the 2019 average.

 

Concentrations of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere have already far surpassed what scientists consider to be safe limits.

 

At a climate summit in Madrid in December, U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that 400 ppm had once been considered “an unthinkable tipping point.”

 

The last time there was a comparable concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was between 3 and 5 million years ago, when the temperature was between 2 and 3 degrees Celsius warmer and sea levels were 10 to 20 metres higher than today, scientists say.

 

Although the data series started in 1958 has always shown CO2 concentrations increasing year-on-year, driven by fossil fuel burning and deforestation, the rate of rise has not been perfectly even, the Met Office said.

 

Fluctations in the amount of CO2 absorbed by tropical forests and other natural carbon sinks can affect overall levels of the gas in the atmosphere.

 

“Overall these are expected to be weaker than normal for a second year running,” said Richard Betts, of the Met Office Hadley Centre and University of Exeter.

 

This year, the Met forecasts that the impact of weather patterns on global ecosystems will increase the annual human-caused rise in CO2 concentration by 10%, with emissions from the Australian fires accounting for one-fifth of that increase.

 

Australia’s fires are themselves a foretaste of the kind of catastrophes that are liable to become normal as the planet warms, with prolonged drought and low humidity making arid landscapes more vulnerable to huge blazes, scientists say.

 

The CO2 forecast underscored the urgency of the task facing negotiators trying to persuade big countries to cut emissions under the 2015 Paris Agreement to combat climate change, which is still nowhere near on track to spare the world from devastating temperature increases.

 

The accord enters a crucial implementation phase this year, with governments due to submit more ambitious plans for climate action ahead of a summit in Glasgow in November. Australia’s government is regarded as among the main laggards.

 

Last month, the 2020 Climate Change Performance Index rated Australia as one of the worst performers among 57 high-emitters, awarding it 0 out of 100 possible points for its policies.

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2020-01-24

Follow Thaivisa on LINE for breaking Thailand news and visa info

[brokenbone]

9 minutes ago, snoop1130 said:

Concentrations of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere have already far surpassed what scientists consider to be safe limits.

i see it the other way around, at 150 ppm plants will die,

we should have a 10 fold safety margin to that

[Tulak]

12 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

i see it the other way around, at 150 ppm plants will die,

we should have a 10 fold safety margin to that

Not quite sure about it. NASA says our planet is in reality greener than 20 years ago. CO2 is food for plants. Please read below:

 

https://www.climate.news/2019-04-26-nasa-declares-carbon-dioxide-is-greening-the-earth.html

 

 

[VocalNeal]

2 minutes ago, Tulak said:

Not quite sure about it. NASA says our planet is in reality greener than 20 years ago. CO2 is food for plants. Please read below:

 

https://www.climate.news/2019-04-26-nasa-declares-carbon-dioxide-is-greening-the-earth.html

 

 

Oh dear this will not be popular?

[brokenbone]

26 minutes ago, Tulak said:

Not quite sure about it. NASA says our planet is in reality greener than 20 years ago. CO2 is food for plants. Please read below:

 

https://www.climate.news/2019-04-26-nasa-declares-carbon-dioxide-is-greening-the-earth.html

 

 

yes, the plants have been starving for hundreds of millions of years due to

a continuous depletion of co2 in the atmosphere, and they are still starving

albeit no longer at the brink of extinction.

still, as critical as this is, we should have a comfortable safety margin.

a simple extrapolation of this trend is that without man recycling back

co2 back into atmosphere where it belong will inevitably end in end of plant life

in another 2 million years, and with it all other life forms up the food chain

[DrTuner]

Sure, and when the plants grow back it'll suck the CO2 in. It's called life.

 

Nifty that they include bushfires in the 'human-caused'. I suppose it's all meat eating straight middle aged white man's fault, as usual.

Edited January 24, 2020 by DrTuner

[brokenbone]

1 hour ago, DrTuner said:

Sure, and when the plants grow back it'll suck the CO2 in. It's called life.

 

Nifty that they include bushfires in the 'human-caused'. I suppose it's all meat eating straight middle aged white man's fault, as usual.

the aborigines saw the painting on the wall as early as 1846,

that white-man would come and mess up the gentle climate of australia,

legends had it that white man brought about a molecule that

burned ancient aborigines land to the ground

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/679787?searchTerm=the aborigines say that the climate has undergone this change since white-man came in country&searchLimits=

Edited January 24, 2020 by brokenbone

[bristolboy]

As per usual, what denialists seem incapable of understanding is that rate matters. I just wonder if in their financial affairs they are similarly incapable of understanding the difference high interest rates make to loans and investments.

Another point they seem incapable of assimilating is that more isn't necessarily better. 

4 hours ago, VocalNeal said:

Oh dear this will not be popular?

Always a good idea to actually read a linked page before posting it as evidence. Again, more is not necessariy better.

[brokenbone]

6 hours ago, bristolboy said:

As per usual, what denialists seem incapable of understanding is that rate matters. I just wonder if in their financial affairs they are similarly incapable of understanding the difference high interest rates make to loans and investments.

Another point they seem incapable of assimilating is that more isn't necessarily better. 

Always a good idea to actually read a linked page before posting it as evidence. Again, more is not necessariy better.

when it comes to safety matters, more is better, and that is doubly true

in the face of inevitable extinction of life on earth.

at the bottom of last glacial period, earth hit an all time low of 180 ppm co2,

that is as close as you get from wiping out life on earth.

we need to ensure next upcoming glacial period isnt going to dip below 150 ppm co2,

so we have a time frame to work with, we need to make sure whatever comes

isnt going to dip co2 below 150 ppm.

on top of that, in case of co2 relation to plant growth,

its an established fact that more = better to at least 1500 ppm co2,

which coincide with a safety factor of 10, a common safety factor in construction,

why would a bridge that has the potential of killing 20 humans

have a higher safety factor then all life on earth combined ?

Edited January 24, 2020 by brokenbone

[Chazar]

12 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

The last time there was a comparable concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was between 3 and 5 million years ago, when the temperature was between 2 and 3 degrees Celsius warmer and sea levels were 10 to 20 metres higher than today, scientists say.

so  why arent they at thos e levels  now  then

[Chazar]

9 hours ago, DrTuner said:

Sure, and when the plants grow back it'll suck the CO2 in. It's called life.

 

Nifty that they include bushfires in the 'human-caused'. I suppose it's all meat eating straight middle aged white man's fault, as usual.

I  was slagged  off for mentioning  a lot of those burnt trees  would  grow  back, someone spouted  sterile  soil at me..............great  it  means an easy ride for the eucs to get going again as  well as other plants https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-51036608

Edited January 24, 2020 by Chazar

[mike787]

u think????

[brokenbone]

1 hour ago, Chazar said:

so  why arent they at thos e levels  now  then

there was no ice in arctic / NH until 3 million years ago, it was full of plants,

this is what it may have looked like

https://www.livescience.com/27639-camel-fossil-found-in-arctic.html

 

[brokenbone]

1 hour ago, Chazar said:

I  was slagged  off for mentioning  a lot of those burnt trees  would  grow  back, someone spouted  sterile  soil at me..............great  it  means an easy ride for the eucs to get going again as  well as other plants https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-51036608

the burning is a natural and necessary process for the fauna

[tifino]

2 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

the burning is a natural and necessary process for the fauna

 ummm  'flora' 

[metisdead]

An off topic post and an inflammtory reply has been removed. 

[Thunder26]

UK metoffice apparently forgot about the volcano eruptions. They are the largest CO2 contributors.

[nauseus]

16 hours ago, Tulak said:

Not quite sure about it. NASA says our planet is in reality greener than 20 years ago. CO2 is food for plants. Please read below:

 

https://www.climate.news/2019-04-26-nasa-declares-carbon-dioxide-is-greening-the-earth.html

 

 

Looks like a big snow job. How green is SE Australia now?

[brokenbone]

32 minutes ago, Thunder26 said:

UK metoffice apparently forgot about the volcano eruptions. They are the largest CO2 contributors.

they were, but earth has gone cold, we cant rely upon volcanoes any longer,

we have to recycle the co2 ourself

[Aspaltso]

We are all just going to have to deal with the consequences of allowing so much carbon into our atmosphere. That includes dealing with this years drought, this years water shortage. Flooding rains which we had in Issan both in 2017, and this past year. We are well beyond the debate as to whether climate change exists. Now its time to deal with it.

[brokenbone]

7 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Looks like a big snow job. How green is SE Australia now?

if it follow common nature procedures, the fire made ground for

a younger more diversified population 10 years later

[brokenbone]

7 minutes ago, Aspaltso said:

We are all just going to have to deal with the consequences of allowing so much carbon into our atmosphere. That includes dealing with this years drought, this years water shortage. Flooding rains which we had in Issan both in 2017, and this past year. We are well beyond the debate as to whether climate change exists. Now its time to deal with it.

co2 makes plants more water efficient, less susceptible to drought,

and generally increases biomass by orders of magnitude

[nauseus]

Just now, brokenbone said:

if it follow common nature procedures, the fire made ground for

a younger more diversified population 10 years later

By "nature procedures" I think that you must mean natural processes. And diversity? Gimme a break! Ask the koalas!

 

Let's see if the carbon sink capacity of this area has recovered to better than pre 2019 levels in 10 years! I bet it won't have.

[bristolboy]

43 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

co2 makes plants more water efficient, less susceptible to drought,

and generally increases biomass by orders of magnitude

Orders of magnitude? Nonsense You got any evidence for that? Do you even know what  "order of magnitude means?" Let me give you a hint:

 If two numbers differ by one order of magnitude, one is about ten times larger than the other. If they differ by two orders of magnitude, they differ by a factor of about 100. Two numbers of the same order of magnitude have roughly the same scale: the larger value is less than ten times the smaller value.

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_magnitude

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, Thunder26 said:

UK metoffice apparently forgot about the volcano eruptions. They are the largest CO2 contributors.

Nonsense:

 All studies to date of global volcanic carbon dioxide emissions indicate that present-day subaerial and submarine volcanoes release less than a percent of the carbon dioxide released currently by human activities. 

https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vhp/gas_climate.html

And for brokenbone's benefit, let me point out that even though  human generated CO2 is more than 100 times that released by volcanoes, that amounts to only somewhat more than 2 orders of magnitude. Got it?

Edited January 25, 2020 by bristolboy

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, brokenbone said:

when it comes to safety matters, more is better, and that is doubly true

in the face of inevitable extinction of life on earth.

at the bottom of last glacial period, earth hit an all time low of 180 ppm co2,

that is as close as you get from wiping out life on earth.

we need to ensure next upcoming glacial period isnt going to dip below 150 ppm co2,

so we have a time frame to work with, we need to make sure whatever comes

isnt going to dip co2 below 150 ppm.

on top of that, in case of co2 relation to plant growth,

its an established fact that more = better to at least 1500 ppm co2,

which coincide with a safety factor of 10, a common safety factor in construction,

why would a bridge that has the potential of killing 20 humans

have a higher safety factor then all life on earth combined ?

You seem incapable of understanding the phenomenon of rate. Even if your contention that life on earth faces extinction from too little carbon dioxide, the rate at which it is lowering means that C)2 level of 150 wouldn't be reached for thousands of years. What's more as scientists note, even if all burning of fossils fuels was put an end to, CO2 levels would still be rising for the next 100 years. 

And thanks again for not posting a link to your source for that dubious graphic.  Which is not surprising since I have found no numbers that come close to the claimed increases in yields posited by you. At least in respect to grains and roots which are the most important crops for humankind. God knows where you get this garbage from.

Also you seem to be suffering from the delusion that CO2 is generated from pollution-free sources. Do you believe that it all comes from bottles of soda pop? As a recent study showed, when coal power plants in the US were shut down, crop yields increased from those locales located downwind.

Shutdown of coal-fired plants in US saves lives and improves crop yields

Between 2005 and 2016, the shift away from coal saved an estimated 26,610 lives and 570 million bushels of crops

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200106141445.htm

 

And that's in the USA where those power plants were subject to much tighter pollution controls than in the developing world. Whaddya think the effect of burning fossil fuels is going to have on crop yields where polllution levels are much greater? Ya got a dubious unsourced chart for that, too?

[brokenbone]

56 minutes ago, nauseus said:

By "nature procedures" I think that you must mean natural processes. And diversity? Gimme a break! Ask the koalas!

 

Let's see if the carbon sink capacity of this area has recovered to better than pre 2019 levels in 10 years! I bet it won't have.

all the species in australia has been through that many times through history,

and some species thrive in a younger habitat

 

Koalas face extinction

"Residents of Trunkey say the cries

of koala victims of the 1939 bushfires

are a never-to-be-forgotten horror,"

the report goes on.

https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/249824272/27153558

[brokenbone]

34 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

You seem incapable of understanding the phenomenon of rate. Even if your contention that life on earth faces extinction from too little carbon dioxide, the rate at which it is lowering means that C)2 level of 150 wouldn't be reached for thousands of years. What's more as scientists note, even if all burning of fossils fuels was put an end to, CO2 levels would still be rising for the next 100 years. 

And thanks again for not posting a link to your source for that dubious graphic.  Which is not surprising since I have found no numbers that come close to the claimed increases in yields posited by you. At least in respect to grains and roots which are the most important crops for humankind. God knows where you get this garbage from.

Also you seem to be suffering from the delusion that CO2 is generated from pollution-free sources. Do you believe that it all comes from bottles of soda pop? As a recent study showed, when coal power plants in the US were shut down, crop yields increased from those locales located downwind.

Shutdown of coal-fired plants in US saves lives and improves crop yields

Between 2005 and 2016, the shift away from coal saved an estimated 26,610 lives and 570 million bushels of crops

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/01/200106141445.htm

 

And that's in the USA where those power plants were subject to much tighter pollution controls than in the developing world. Whaddya think the effect of burning fossil fuels is going to have on crop yields where polllution levels are much greater? Ya got a dubious unsourced chart for that, too?

The effect of a doubling in the atmospheric CO2 concentration on the growth of vegetative whole plants was investigated. In a compilation of literature sources, the growth stimulation of 156 plant species was found to be on average 37%.

i would also point out, that in outdoor crops that are being fertilized,

co2 is the only denominating factor, so agriculture will benefit

much more then the average type of plants

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225212490_Interspecific_Variation_in_the_Growth-Response_of_Plants_to_An_Elevated_Ambient_CO2_Concentration

im not hoping for a doubling of co2, im hoping for quadrupling co2 from todays level

Edited January 25, 2020 by brokenbone

[wasabi]

Someone air drop Greta Thunberg in there so she can shake her fingers and bemoan the trees.

Edited January 25, 2020 by wasabi

[jany123]

7 hours ago, brokenbone said:

when it comes to safety matters, more is better, and that is doubly true

in the face of inevitable extinction of life on earth.

at the bottom of last glacial period, earth hit an all time low of 180 ppm co2,

that is as close as you get from wiping out life on earth.

we need to ensure next upcoming glacial period isnt going to dip below 150 ppm co2,

so we have a time frame to work with, we need to make sure whatever comes

isnt going to dip co2 below 150 ppm.

on top of that, in case of co2 relation to plant growth,

its an established fact that more = better to at least 1500 ppm co2,

which coincide with a safety factor of 10, a common safety factor in construction,

why would a bridge that has the potential of killing 20 humans

have a higher safety factor then all life on earth combined ?

More is most certainly not, always better.... far from it. “More” often involves increased risk around design and implementation, making “more”, worse.... you know, like too many cooks spoiling the broth.

 

meanwhile... 10 is most certainly not a common safety factor in construction. Far from it. Safety factors vary for various things for various reasons.

 

and 1500ppm as a suggestion? Sure, it may help some plants, But I really think the greenies are more concerned about human habitation of the planet, than continued tree life, and these ultra high co2 levels provide issues for the existence of human life

 

if “save the planet, kill the people” is your premise in discussing CO2 levels... your on track.