November 23, 2009 4:05 PM

U.N.: Greenhouse Gases Hit Record in 2008

By
CBSNews
Smoke rises from cooling towers at a coal-fired power plant in Kaifeng, in central China's Henan province, Sunday, Nov. 1, 2009. climate change, global warming, greenhouse gas emissions, carbon CO2 energy electricity

Smoke rises from cooling towers at a coal-fired power plant in Kaifeng, in central China's Henan province, Sunday, Nov. 1, 2009. climate change, global warming, greenhouse gas emissions, carbon CO2 energy electricity (AP Photo)

(AP)  Greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere reached record highs in 2008, with carbon dioxide levels increasing faster than previously, the U.N. weather agency said Monday.

Levels of greenhouse gases, believed to be responsible for global warming, have been rising every year since detailed records started being kept in 1998, the World Meteorological Organization said.

It follows a trend of rising emissions that began with the Industrial Revolution in the mid-18th century, the agency said.

The report by the World Meteorological Organization comes as the European Union urged the United States and China on Monday to set targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions at next month's climate conference in Copenhagen. The European Union said delays by those countries were hindering global efforts to curb climate change.

The gases — carbon dioxide, or CO2; nitrous oxide, N2O; and methane, CH4 — are produced partly by natural sources, such as wetlands, and partly by human activities such as fertilizer use or fuel combustion.

"Concentration of greenhouse gases continued to increase, even a bit faster," the organization's chief, Michel Jarraud, told reporters in Geneva.

Carbon dioxide — the main greenhouse gas in the atmosphere — was 385.2 parts per million in 2008, up 2 parts per million from 2007, the World Meteorological Organization said.

The CO2 content in the atmosphere rose slightly faster in 2008 than over the last decade when the growth rate was 1.9 parts per million, Jarraud said.

"It's significant because what we would like is to see a decrease in the increase," he said.

Nitrous oxide increased by 0.9 parts per billion over the previous year to 321.8 parts per billion.

Methane concentration in the atmosphere was 1,797 parts per billion, up 7 parts per billion from the previous year.

The year-to-year increase may appear small. But compared to the time before the Industrial Revolution, the levels have increased massively, the World Meteorological Organization said.

Since 1750, CO2 has increased 38 percent, nitrous oxide 19 percent and methane 157 percent, according to WMO.

The agency's annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin provides widely accepted worldwide data on the amount of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

It takes time to see the impact of greenhouse gas emissions because of the long time they remain in the atmosphere, said Oksana Tarasova, a specialist with the organization.

"Even if we stop all the emissions right now, after 100 years, 30 percent of the amount added to preindustrial level will remain in the atmosphere," she told reporters.

Jarraud said if emissions continue to grow, the world is likely to face the more pessimistic scenarios laid out by climate experts.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said if nothing is done to stop emissions, global temperatures could rise as much as 6 degrees Celsius (11 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100, triggering droughts, floods and other disasters.

AP
Add a Comment See all 18 Comments
by sarachurch November 24, 2009 6:52 PM EST
Join me to help

www.projectglo.com
Reply to this comment
by troutfishyman November 24, 2009 2:23 PM EST
by sciline November 24, 2009 2:01 PM EST
If anyone believes that the oil an coal industries are going to trade in their Trillions(?) of Dollars(?) worth of sub-surface inventories, recovery rigs, mining equipment, refining and processing facilities, marketing outlets,etc., for some windmills on a hill, they must be as crazy as the oil and coal industries specious ad campaigns indicate they think we are.
Let?s get off the emphasis on ?Climate Change? and focus on what we can see and smell -and will soon be able to taste! I.e., POLLUTION!



Did you know that greenhouse gases are classified as pollutants in the US?
Reply to this comment
by sauder3 November 24, 2009 8:05 PM EST
I understand that water vapor is the most effective greenhouse gas on the planet - by a LARGE margin. So, what is all this fuss about the teensy weensy contribution from a few ppm of carbon dioxide?

Further more. . . How can an atmosphere warmed by approximately 1 degree C over about a century or so, possibly cause any significant melting of earth's polar ice caps?

You might recall that the specific heat of air is very low while the specific heat of water is MUCH higher. Also, it takes a very significant amount of heat to melt a kilo of zero degree ice int a kilo of zero degree water.

Maybe we should get some high school physics students to run the numbers and demonstrate that all this hullabaloo about AGW is just that!
by sciline November 24, 2009 2:01 PM EST
If anyone believes that the oil an coal industries are going to trade in their Trillions(?) of Dollars(?) worth of sub-surface inventories, recovery rigs, mining equipment, refining and processing facilities, marketing outlets,etc., for some windmills on a hill, they must be as crazy as the oil and coal industries specious ad campaigns indicate they think we are.
Let?s get off the emphasis on ?Climate Change? and focus on what we can see and smell -and will soon be able to taste! I.e., POLLUTION!
We will never correct climate change by mandating a severe reduction in greenhouse gases thru a comparable reduction in the use of coal or oil, because the oil and coal industries won?t have it. In fact, it is not likely that we can correct ?Climate Change? at all. Continued allusions to other forms of energy, e.g., wind, bio-fuels, solar, to replace the Multi-Trillion$ oil and coal industries, are nothing more than distractions to keep the ?stupids? in a: ?Hey, everything is really alright?, frame of mind!
Pollutants are already firmly in place and growing by the hour. Each new dumping by Special Interests is adding exponentially to our growing environmental decline. Pesticides, coal ash, chemical and radioactive wastes, by-products and end-products of all the above -and God knows what else, continue to move into out streams, rivers and oceans. This in addition to their being forced downward into our water tables, well waters and aquifers by heavy rains and floods.
It is only a question of time until the old saw: "Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink.", becomes a reality! Along with: ?Air, air everywhere, but all too thick to breath!?
As a scientist, I know that all of the above is already in place and too late to stop. Slow it up, maybe? Stop it, Not a chance! However, we still may have a chance to slow it up. As a Realist, I am painfully aware that to accomplish this, our national debt would reach beyond calculation. Unemployment numbers would precipitate social chaos.
The prevailing feeling, however, seems to be that it is better to die on the job than to die while looking for a job that doesn?t exist. Or, more succinctly, ?Better no planet, than a Planet of the unemployed." The alternatives are, of course: Keep dumping to keep ?Special Interests? happy, keep our debt down, keep people working, keep polluting and wait for the inevitable, devastating results.
I don't think we will be kept in suspense too long!
Tom Nass
5th Marine Division - WWII
Reply to this comment
by lakota2012 November 24, 2009 1:45 PM EST
by Newster1:
We must remember that CO2 has been many times present levels in the past during which periods

We must remember that when it WAS many times the level it is now there were how many people on the planet? 10,000?
=============================================







Hmmmmmmm.....as a matter of fact, our Earth hasn't seen levels this high of CO2 for at least tens of millions of years -- BEFORE MAN -- and when it was highest during the Carboniferous period of 360 to 300 million years ago when most of our fossil fuels were formed.

Why are republicans so science-challenged?

The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney
A stinging indictment of how the Republican Party has not only ignored science, but has used bad science to justify its political agenda.
www.waronscience.com/
Reply to this comment
by cjbNY November 24, 2009 12:50 PM EST
Where is CBS's article exposing the Global Warming hoax and the "scientists" who have been cooking the books. This should be the biggest scandal of the decade but instead CBS elects to support the "politically correct" leftist point of view regardless of the questionable crediblity of the authors. Shame on CBS. There was a time when you were considered a news organization, but that's a long time ago.
Reply to this comment
by troutfishyman November 24, 2009 11:28 AM EST
Thomas Friedman said it very well in a recent column:


"My argument is simple: I think climate change is real. You don't? That's your business."
Reply to this comment
by doctor_know November 24, 2009 11:40 AM EST
I think Cancer is real.... you don't? That's your business.

Trouble is, climate change affects everybody!
by sciline November 24, 2009 2:05 PM EST
Seeing as its everybody's environment, ergo, its everybody's business!
by troutfishyman November 24, 2009 12:27 AM EST
by co2max November 23, 2009 7:22 PM EST
If you really want to get a good insight to what drives global climate and the state of the science, read: "Heaven and Earth: Global Warming - The Hidden Science," by Ian Plimer. Plimer is a highly regarded Australian geologist. He knows this stuff inside and out and airs the issues behind the claims in a civil and respectful tone.


LOL!

Plimer is a mining geologist, and has no experience or education with regard to climatology. His book is full of mistakes and fabrications. You can see it debunked page by page here:


http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php
Reply to this comment
by patocc123 November 24, 2009 8:09 AM EST
Isn't information from the past based on what we find in the earth. To dismiss the information he has cause of geoligist and not a climatology is stupid. Where did the climatologist get thier information on the climate of the earth 1 million years ago or how about 5000 years ago. Did they have accurate equipment recording the weather . . . oh wait they used science from studying the earth to get thier information. If only there was a science field dedicated to the study of the earth.
by troutfishyman November 23, 2009 11:59 PM EST
by co2max November 23, 2009 7:20 PM EST
This is propaganda, not news.


Do not be fooled by the gratuitous comment thrown in that CO2 is accepted as the cause of global warming. CO2 increase is nothing but a coincident phenomenon, not directly linked to current or past climate change in historic times.



That is just dumb dumb dumb.

Are you saying that that burning fossil fuels does not create C02? And that burning more each year would not produce MORE C02 each year?

Conversely, please explain where the ever increasing C02 is coming from, if not anthropogenic? Better yet, publish your explanation and calculations in a peer reviewed journal. That is how science works ... did you know?
Reply to this comment
by Mokkie57 November 23, 2009 8:50 PM EST
You want to know to help the earth? Go out and get the book called: The Emperor Wears No Clothes And read IT. Including Biomass Energy,Economics, Building Materials & Housing,Food Oils & Protein,Economic Stability, Profit & Free Trade Plus a whole lot of other things. Then come back and let's talk about Greenhouse gases.
Reply to this comment
by co2max November 23, 2009 7:22 PM EST
If you really want to get a good insight to what drives global climate and the state of the science, read: "Heaven and Earth: Global Warming - The Hidden Science," by Ian Plimer. Plimer is a highly regarded Australian geologist. He knows this stuff inside and out and airs the issues behind the claims in a civil and respectful tone.
Reply to this comment
by lakota2012 November 24, 2009 2:31 AM EST
It is hard to understate the depth of scientific ignorance that the inclusion of this information demonstrates. It is comparable to a biologist claiming that plants obtain energy from magnetism rather than photosynthesis.

Plimer has done an enormous disservice to science, and the dedicated scientists who are trying to understand climate and the influence of humans, by publishing this book. It is not "merely" atmospheric scientists that would have to be wrong for Plimer to be right. It would require a rewriting of biology, geology, physics, oceanography, astronomy and statistics. Plimer's book deserves to languish on the shelves along with similar pseudo-science such as the writings of Immanuel Velikovsky and Erich von Daniken.
See all 18 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook