The NOAA Greenhouse Index graph is interesting in that they forgot to include the greenhouse gas which is both the most abundant and also absorbs the widest IR spectrum - water vapor. Given that water vapor is probably responsible for 97+% of the greenhouse effect, this might be considered a minor oversight.

The little spike in the CO2 graph appears to line up with the Bali Conference, where 6,000 highly concerned diplomats and profiteers took long haul flights to a tropical paradise in order to express their deep, heartfelt empathy with the poor.

The methane spike is most likely due to Al Gore's new found taste for ethnic food, as he flies around the globe telling other people to cut back on their travel.

Very interesting..CO2 parts per M increases while the planet has been cooling since 1998...let me think about this one for a while.

This is a lie and they know it.

"Why did methane concentrations suddenly rise? NOAA suspects that the rapid rate of industrialization in Asia and rising wetland emissions in the Arctic and tropicical regions are the primary reason."

Strip mining more forests to grow bio-fuel is the main reason.
That is the only thing that has changed in proportion to the rise in methane.

This methane emission staory came out in 2006:
http://www.terranature.org/methaneSiberia.htm

"A frozen peat bog covering the entire sub-Arctic area of Western Siberia, the size of France and Germany, contains billions of tonnes of greenhouse gas that is melting for the first time since since it was sequestered more than 11,000 years ago before the end of the last ice age."

"Researchers Sergei Kirpotin of Tomsk State University in Siberia, and Judith Marquand of Oxford University first reported in 2005 that one million square kilometres of permafrost had started to melt."

It's interesting to note that is exactly the time when the curve of the methane concentration plot started to move upward.

Apparently, the actual rate of increase is beginning to decrease/decline. IOW, the concentrations aren't going up as fast as they were prior to 1998 (hmmm, that seems to be a pivotal year).

h/t Bob Tisdale

It's all in how you present the data.

Asia?? Wetlands in the Arctic/Tropics? Nah, it's we evil captialist Americans! C'mon, get a clue here. Have to tax tax tax us back to the stone age as a result. Remember, THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING....And it's all because of your SUV! Again, I put forth the statement. WHAT A CROCK!!!!!!

DENY DENY DENY THE GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!!!

Analyzing the information on the two concentration plots that Brett provided, I discovered the following:

The CO2 concentrations increased around 1.3% since 2006 while the CH4 concentrations have increased about 0.6%. To put the CH4 concentration increase into perspective relative to CO2, you have to account for the fact that it is 25 times more potent than CO2. Therefore the CH4 increase is more in the order of a 15% increase in relative potential impact to the environment. If the rate of permafrost melting accelerates, as most experts believe, then the resulting environmental changes could increase exponentially as they feed upon themselves. As temperature continue to increase, the more permafrost that melts and the more CH4 that is released, etc.

The 8-year half-life of CH4 in the atmosphere means it will convert into CO2. This short half-life will diminish it's potency long-term, however, the following quote is worth considering:
http://www.terranature.org/methaneSiberia.htm

"An estimated 500 gigatons of carbon have been flash frozen in yedoma regions (in the Siberian tundra), and 900 tons in permafrost worldwide. This large store would more than double the amount of carbon in the atmosphere today if it is released."

If this occurs, it would get us halfway to the 4X CO2 concentrations that we believe occurred in the supergreenhouse Cretaceous period and it may occur in a much shorter time frame than occurred back then. The most problematic situation that needs to be considered is the potential of a more rapid rate of temperature change and whether or not the earth's environment can adapt to that rapid change.

The AGGI graph is interesting. Adding up all of the GHGs (except water vapor) gets us to 1.25% of the atmosphere. I would have preferred a graph showing nitogen and oxygen to lend some perspective to just how small these GHGs are.

I read an interesting Federal Energy Alert dealing with CO2 monitoring inside buildings. The purpose of the alert was to demonstrate energy savings through the monitoring of indoor CO2. They show that maintaining an ideal CO2 concentration of 1000ppm indoors will result in energy savings. As we humans exhale, we raise CO2 levels in confined spaces. Older ventilating systems were set to introduce fresh air at a constant rate of 15 cfm per occupant (which has to be conditioned) muliplied by max. occupancy for the structure. By monitoring CO2 levels, ventilating systems would only operate when CO2 levels rose above a set point, say 1000ppm, thus saving energy. Here is a link to the alert: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/fta_co2.pdf

So, we are fretting about rising atmospheric CO2 levels of 385ppm outdoors while we spend a good deal of time indoors (especially this past winter) at levels many times greater with no apprarent negative effects.

So, you AGWers want us to do what?

Annual Greenhouse gas Index .......Hmmmmm.......why do they omit water vapor ? ?

I understand that water vapor is an integral part of the greenhouse effect.

Is it secretly omitted for "dramatic effect" ? ? If so, is this science ? ? or agenda driven .... at any price ? ?

Casualties of this type of junk science are clearly: integrity, responsibility and accountability.

Yet, how can we expect them to be held accountable when no one is willing to do so ! ! !

AGW Faithful:

Can anyone explain why GHGs keep rising and temps don't appear to be keeping pace?

Shouldn't #1 GHG (water vapor) be included? Let's get some perspective here.

"Gary Gulrud:
AGW Faithful:
Can anyone explain why GHGs keep rising and temps don't appear to be keeping pace?"

Gary, that is explained by lag.

Even though when they drag out the historical graphs, there is no lag.

OK, people are asking for a perspective here regarding why temperatures were steady since 1998 while CO2 has increased. Perhaps the following methan concentration curve will provide that pespective:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/methane.JPG

You will notice a leveling off of the concentration curve around 1996. If you actually read the report that Brett had a link to you you have read that concentrations were essentially constant for 10-year period of 1996-2005. However, as the latest concentration plot shows, and is confirmed by actual data of melting tundra and increase in methane emissions in the attached 2006 report:
http://www.terranature.org/methaneSiberia.htm

I think the increase and then leveling of the methane concentrations seems to match pretty well with the leveling of the temperatures. You also have to remember that methane has a 25 times more influence on a relative basis then CO2 so thast would be no surprise that temperatures would match the methane concentrations more.

We will have to see what effect the latest increase in methane concentrations has on the next few years. The only counter effect to the potential methane increase is that there is a natural 60-year cycle of cooler temperatures for the next 5-10 years. We will have to see which one wins out or do they cancel each other out. The next problem will be when the natural 60-year temperature cycle begins to increase from 2020 to 2050. How the combined effects of the natural temperature cycle with the increase in methane concentrations will be very interesting.

Due to the centuries-long lag between sea surface temperature and atmospheric CO2, we may see increasing CO2 and decreasing global temps for centuries to come.

Brett, why don't you do a posting based on this link that promises 5X more efficient ethanol production? Is large scale production feasible? If so, even a 2X increase in ethanol production efficiency would be marvelous. http://machinedesign.com/ContentItem/72401/ScanningforIdeasABetterWaytoMakeEthanol.aspx

Reply: I'll check it out, thanks

I agree that current ethanol production is marginal at best. However, the human spirit is naturally optimistic. I live in Wisconsin, and the way I see it is that the prospect of highly efficient ethanol production helps both Wisconsin's economy and the obesity epidemic. Also keep in mind that increased atmospheric CO2 helps ethanol-producing crops grow bigger.

I would like to point out that too much cheap food has been a curse on the United States for the past generation. The Japanese have much more expensive food and are healthier despite living in overcrowded conditions.

I can see how the cost of energy has a very direct and profound effect on the US economy. However, I cannot see any long-lasting negative effects of increased food prices. Food is in many respects a luxury item. Therefore, it is easy to slash your food budget.

Energy is not a luxury. Cheap energy is absolutely necessary for economic growth. Energy is incredibly abundant in our universe. The problem is how to efficiently extract and utilize it.

The little spike in the CO2 graph appears to line up with the Bali Conference, where 6,000 highly concerned diplomats and profiteers

(Rat Finks)

took long haul flights to a tropical paradise

(Take a flight to Lapland or the Siberian Tundra. Can't do that, it will go against our agenda.)

in order to express their deep, heartfelt empathy with the poor

(Yep, they really feel for the downtrotten, and the oppressed, and the minorities, and life's forgotton minions. That's why they want to tax them to death.).

The methane spike is most likely due to Al Gore's new found taste for ethnic food, as he flies around the globe telling other people to cut back on their travel.

REPLY: Ethnic food, such as BEEF Bourgeois? Gyros? BEEF Wellington? LOL!!!! Smell the methane, and the BS too.

This is not a good trend. While nature is trying to cool the planet, Man is trying to heat things up. Human ghgs are countering the natural cooling such that temperatures have been relative stagnant the last number of years. This looks like Dr Hansen's vindication. His ultimate vindication will take a little longer.

Today's basic science lesson: (Or is the discussion about water vapor a way on not facing the reality of the CO2 increase)

The major atmospheric constituents (nitrogen, N2 and oxygen, O2) are not greenhouse gases.

The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth; carbon dioxide, which causes 9–26%; methane, which causes 4–9%, and ozone, which causes 3–7%.

Water vapor is a natural greenhouse gas.

About 280 ppm are also natural. Thank God for the natural greenhouse gases that make the planet habitable.

About 100 ppm of CO2 are due to human causes.
The increase in methane is due to CO2 increasing the temperature. This is one reason that CO2 and temp do not rise in tandem. There is always a delay.

PH - why the political bitterness? Bali Conference and Al Gore. You forgot Hansen for your trifecta of AWG political distractions.

Brett you need to look deeper
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
explain that

Another major story and change of stance on AGW by mainstream media
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23597729-7583,00.html

Dennis H:

The melting of the permafrost is largely in Al Gore's mind. The dramatic pictures he showed of buildings sliding into the sea were not in the Arctic, they were in Newfoundland and it was due to clay erosion. The temperature in Eureka at 5:00pm today (Friday) is -23C so I don't think there will be much methane released. It is good to see that you are doing some research though, not just toeing the party line.

So what is your solution to the problem here folks? Talk about sitting on your hands and doing nothing.Go ahead and argue and complain.Who's to say this methane is not from the permafrost melting?? My "TUNNEL" idea solves this problem also!!

I saw a fantastic new documentary tonight at the theater - "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed"

After seeing it I have a much clearer picture of why so few scientists are willing to confront the scientific establishment. It is career catastrophe to do so.

Mandatory viewing for anyone involved in this discussion.

Hi gettingcold,

H20 is indeed a natural greenhouse gas, as is CO2. Both are by-products of burning hydrocarbons and respiration (which is also a form of burning hydrocarbons.)

Nature certainly is not interested in assigning blame - nor does it care about the neurotic guilt of the left.

Heres one reason why I'm still on the fence. GHGs make up roughly 1% of our atmosphere. Of this 1%, water vapor makes up roughly 75%. This means all other GHGs make up the other 25%. For the sake of argument lets say C02 makes up this 25% (we wont include methane and whatever for this discussion). So 25% of 1% of our atmosphere is C02 or as some say .0087% of the total atmosphere is C02. That seems like such a small amount, that its hard to believe it can raise our temps even a little. However the 75% that we call water vapor are also know as clouds and we all know that clouds on a cool night acts like a blanket to prevent temps from falling. Non of us would argue that. In fact clouds could keep them from falling 10 plus degrees per night. So if C02 is the other 25% of water vapor, than I can see how it would keep temps higher. Where am I going wrong besides maybe a little with the math?

My other problem is the whole concept behind global warming is C02 traps heat like a greenhouse. This makes the temps warm. That all makes perfect sense. But the "skeptics" have been saying that temps rise and C02 follows. The AGW side has been saying the opposite in that GHGs (mainly C02) rise mostly because of man and than temps follow. Now slowly at least some on the AGW side is reversing and saying its true that C02 follows temps. All except the Gore group. If both sides agree on this than in my mind the whole Greenhouse theory is proved wrong. So what is the debate about now? If its temps are rising, thats one thing, but you need man to be causing temps to rise for the greenhouse theory to be man's fault not just that they are rising. Have we been debating for so long that we have forgotten what the debate originally was about?

Brett, I really wish you would allow one thread every month or so to be Q & A. That would keep it on topic and allow us beginners to ask the pros here what we are thinking about. Thanks.

Reply: goldfinger, not a bad idea. I do not know how many "climate pros" visit this site, but I think we have a lot of smart individuals who comment frequently on this site who would be able to answer a number of questions. I would try to do so as well.

Its very confusing.

Hi Aviator, if what you say is true about the clay erosion in Newfoundland then my little respect for Al Gore slips yet more. Reminds me of the polar bear photo he stole of the Summer ice melt.

Climate change is proving to be quite a letdown to gardeners. A couple of years ago, we were filled with angst about the hot summers to come. We wrung our hands and applied more suncream.

I tentatively planted lavender and rosemary in my clay soil, and they thrived. "Hmm," I thought. "Long, warm summers and a garden filled with Mediterranean plants - this climate change thing isn't going to be all bad." Then came last summer and the honeymoon was over. Lashings of rain flooded the end of my garden, and the bedraggled lavender looked silly.

http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/gardens/story/0,,2275861,00.html

man its cold up here in minnesota and snowing. damn when is the global warming gonna get here i wanna head out on one of the 10,000 lakes soon.

John Henry raises an interesting point about water vapor. I'm not sure why it isn't measured, but I assume it's because it is regionally quite variable and constantly changing, and therefore harder to measure (as compared for instance to CO2, which is surprisingly constant and uniform around the globe). What is clear is that water vapor is the most potent greenhouse gas on our planet and its concentrations in the lower atmosphere are directly correlated with air temperature and is therefore a major magnifier of all the other AGHs.