Brett,
Any CO2 leveling off is not due to the recession. Use has not stopped climbing that much. The CO2 may or may not be leveling off yet, but I am sure it will probably before it gets much over 500 ppm, and possibly sooner due to limited oil reserves and economic reasons (not treaties), and will then start to drop. The Methane has already slowed a lot and even with the recent slight rise is likely not going to rise much more. The low Solar activity combined with ocean multi year variations, and recent ocean cooling assure a cooling trend (with some ups and downs) over the next several years. This makes the AGW projections clearly wrong. Since it will take a few years of data to be sure, I know you may say it is not so, but the sooner you admit the flaws of the AGW positions, the sooner you will be on the side of reason.

It's really fun to read some of the posts. Mark B and Kipp really gin things up -- thanks, guys. On the basis of their testimonials, I promise to never listen to Beck or Limbaugh ever again, and will categorically reject any analysis presented by Watts! The avuncular and cuddly Hanson I will evermore trust without question, because I know he Loves the Planet.

Oh. My real question is for Brett. Isn't there any way to speed up the posting of replies, so that there is more of a dialogue among respondents? Perhaps an assistant to screen out the questionable posts but let the others slide through in a more timely manner? I could have saved a lot of time and actually helped Save the Planet if I had previously had a more meaningful interaction with Mark B and Kipp & Co....

Reply: I will try harder to get them up in a timely matter Dr. Science. No, I have to screen them myself.

Oh My....

First, global temperatures level off and then begin to fall.
Later Co2 begins to level off.

This is disastrous!

Quick!!! Drive your cars!!!

These trends could have all the warmists going into deep depressions as Nature contradicts all of their fables.

We could be looking at mass suicides of greenies.

Oh wait... that would solve the problem wouldn't it?

Never mind.

This presents an interesting opportunity to observe whether the CO2 is the precursor to temperature increases or a result of them. While we don't quite know the lag time, a flattening, then flat to slightly negative CO2 concentration over the next several years means the warmth comes first. While it takes a while, at least we will eventually know who was right.
Lastly, the recession should have little effect, since the decrease in CO2 producing activity is less than 10%, not enough to flatten an upward sloping dataset.

N2O is now being suggested as the replacement boogieman for CO2.

http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/laughing-gas-knocks-out-co2

Ok, its nice to see the scientific AGW community finally accepting what we have been saying for years, BUT!

How can N2O be used to kill capitalism and usher in Global Socialism?

It just won't make people any where near as guilty as CO2 does.

I just can't see it being effective.

Back to the oxygen shortage scare I guess.

Ok.... Problem solved. Next crisis item will be Meat.

Study claims meat creates half of all greenhouse gases

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/meat-creates-half-of-all-greenhouse-gases-1812909.html

How does this help the socialist agenda?

Simple; force everyone to become Vegan.
That will naturally reduce agression and intellegence and reduece the populations to a maliable mass of dull witted slow moving and controllable socialists.

Could work!

Come on Brett,you don't really believe the recession has anything to do with it now do you?

Reply: In terms of man-made emissions there could be some impact. We did a post on that same subject earlier in the summer.

What explanation is there for the 2008 drop? What with all the hot air spewed from the liberals during the presidential campaign you'd think there would have been an increase.

There is some interesting work going on in agriculture to use engine emissions from tractors to fertilize the soil during planting which cuts down dramatically on fertilizer usage: http://www.theage.com.au/national/a-farmers-field-of-dreams-buries-climate-change-war-20091031-hqty.html

http://bioagtive.com/

Widespread fertilizer usage is a three-way problem:

1. It requires significant oil and/or natural gas feedstock to make fertilizer which increases our reliance on imported oil;
2. Fertilizer runoff is a huge water quality problem creating dead-zones in fresh water and marine bodies.
3. Fuel and fertilizer costs are major justifications for the horrendous agricultural subsidy program in the US that severly distorts much of our economic system.

So, maybe there will be some good that will come out of the single-minded focus on CO2.

Brett-

Until plants start posting on this site, i will not regard the comments about 'plant food' as anything other than outrageous denialism- wishful thinking!

CO2, methane, aerosols, and black carbon are but a few of the 'pollutants' that man is unable to deny that he is emitting into the atmosphere. To say that ANY form of pollution is good is a LIE.

I must be honest I don't see much of a difference in 2009 but if there is one you have to wonder if its the economy.

We have a long enough trend and it shows a perfectly reliable relationship.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.html

All I can say after looking at this graph is so much for the more CO2 is better for plants hypothesis. If it's so much better for plants why aren't they using it? We have all seen this graph before and extended over a much longer time period. The inhale/exhale shows perfectly with the seasons, yet doesn't show a larger swing due to the supposedly "more healthy plant community" sucking up all that CO2. The oscillation should be bigger as CO2 increases should it not? This is more compelling than the linear trend itself because it directly correlates to biological CO2 sequestration.

Looks like the "orchids in a bag" experiments don't really stand up in the real world. They aren't using the extra CO2 so how can it be so much better for them? Like I have allways said, it takes much more to increase plant growth than simply increasing CO2. If it is happening, it certainly doesn't show up here and it is so infinitesimal that its not worth mentioning.

i just love to look at things in terms of percentage increases. from this graph, you can see that CO2 has risen 0.0008% in the last five years. from the previous post we can see that dramatic increase of 0.005% over 30 years. when you look at the methane increase, you'll be frightened out of your mind...it's up about 200 parts per million in 30 years; that's right, 0.02%!!!

i'm surprised we haven't all jumped from a high building by now...i mean just look at those astronomical numbers. the tipping point is coming!!! by my calculations, we'll reach a 1% increase in CO2 in just 6,250 years (at 1.6 ppm/yr)!!!

it's the end of the world as we know it...but i feel fine.

The attached shows the names of 136 signers, who belong to the APS(American Physics Society) that sent a letter to all members of the US Senate saying that the notion that there is a scientific consenus on AGW is bogus. Spend a few minutes and look at the list of signers. Pretty impressive list. Hard to believe they are all on big oil's payroll, but I am sure they must be. Now I know Mark, these guys deal with physics and not climatology, so on and so forth... LOL.
http://www.openletter-globalwarming.info/Site/signatures.html

Interesting that it contrasts so much with the Mauna Loa plot. Maybe because of the active volcanoes in the chain?
Anyhow it seems that the global co2 concentration is reacting to lower sea temperatures as measured by Argo and although the decline is bound to be slow the proof/or not will emerge if sea temperatures continue to decline.
I personally believe, after carefully weighing-up all the available evidence ( peer reviewed and not) that CO2 has virtually no influence on global climate and fevently hope that we do not in the near future go into a period of cooling. Not good for anyone and anything living.

Ryan do a little home work and you will find that Industrial green houses that grow plants for food and sell it increase the CO2 consentrations to 500-800 ppm. Now go find out why that is.

Mr.Science:Why don,t you read Dr. Hansens paper Called Target Co2.The rest of your jargon is another waste of space.You couldn,t begin to refute the real science anyway. Learn atmospheric Physics, and forcings and feedbacks so you can sound like somone who reads a book. One comment to refute global warming,just one is all I ask.
Fake news is not news at all but an information depot for ratings. Listen to bbc at night on NPR.Your world is larger than Disneys, honest!
KIPP

There has been a pretty strong drop in energy usage 2008-2009 and thus emissions from the global recession, but also due to very high energy prices in 2008. In the U.S., renewables have been eating into coal's energy share and there have been small improvements in energy efficiency. Still, I'm not sure the annual rate change is beyond statistical noise at this point.

mc writes:

"The attached shows the names of 136 signers, who belong to the APS(American Physics Society) that sent a letter to all members of the US Senate saying that the notion that there is a scientific consenus on AGW is bogus."

The APS has about 50,000 members. 136/50,000 is less than 0.3% of their membership. Ironically, such lists (which are composed of few who are published climate scientists) is good evidence against the political assertion that there is significant disagreement with the consensus, although without knowing the denominator, such lists can appear interesting.

GAry said"
"Oh My....

First, global temperatures level off and then begin to fall.
Later Co2 begins to level off."

Huh? Neither has happened. Global temps are not declining, no matter how many times deniers make the claim. This is the warmest decade on record. And CO2 has clearly been rising every year this decade about 2 ppm; 2009 is no exception. There is no reason to believe the rate of increase will be slowing down any appreciable amount in the near future.

idecline | November 1, 2009 8:07 PM

"Until plants start posting on this site, i will not regard the comments about 'plant food' as anything other than outrageous denialism- wishful thinking!"

Hi- my name is Tom Mato and I am a plant. I am most comfortable when temperatures are warm and CO2 high. Please don't bury our tasty CO2. If you do we might not produce O2 and sugars for you... anymore. My wife, the eggplant, asked me to tell you "OMG think of the babies!"

Mark B:

The global usage of oil dropped in 2008 and there is a good chance it will drop again in 2009. This is not a statistical anomaly. The last thime this happened was in the early '80s during that major recession. http://www.oxfordprinceton.com/dib/dib.asp?article=18979579&title=Global+oil+use+seen+falling+for+second+year&key=The+Oil+Industry

Basically, major world-wide recessions cause reductions in energy use. When the economy improves, it will likely rise again although there are a lot of good analysts who believe that we are at or just about global peak oil, in which case we will see less oil burned but at higher prices. http://www.theoildrum.com/tag/overview

Tom Mato-

Very funny indeed! How about a slice of cheese to go with your 'whine'? Denier delicacy?

You say 'Tom Mato', I say 'Tom Ato', let's call the whole thing off.

GKarst etc.-

Off topic but in regards to 'entropy' etc. I have just finished reading "Decoding the Universe" by Charles Seife (formerly reporter for 'Science' magazine). Excellent book about many subjects concerning climate, entropy, mathematics, information, quantum physics, etc. Highly recommended reading...also author of "Zero", "Sun in a Bottle" (about nuclear fusion industry), and "Alpha and Omega".

I know many people no longer have the attention span to read a whole book but every chapter is well worth it. Very surprising insights into scientific pursuits, and extremely well researched. FOUR STARS !!!!

markb, 136/50,000 members is a very low percentage as you pointed out of total membership, but spend some time and look at the credentials of those 136 members, it is pretty impressive. I doubt that you researched each name to see if they were held to your holy grail of being "published"(everyone ooh and ahh)as you state that only a few are. This is a serious challenge to the statement that the science is settled. I belong to the ASME, which consists of about 98,000 members, give or take a few. To belong to the society, you mereley send in your $120 approx. yearly dues and you're a member. Now I do hold a bachelors and a masters in mechanical engineering personally, but I am sure a high percentage do not even have a bachelors. This doesn't mean that the ASME does not have brilliant, well educated members however. I am sure the APS is no different. So concentrate on the quality of these 136 members, not the percentage. And if this isn't still satisfying your pallate, consider the 31,000+ names that signed a petition stating the AGW is a false hypothesis.

I find it hard to believe that anyone can blindly follow a group that misplaces or destroys records that is the basis of your claim, refuses to release data until ordered by a court, and other types of foul play. If this doesn't show you these people have something to hide, then there is no saving you and I truly feel sorry for you. If we expect to get anywhere, both sides need to be open with their data and methods. I do not ever see that from your side Mark and that to me reeks of foul play.

"To say that ANY form of pollution is good is a LIE."

Gasoline in a flower bed is a pollutant.
Garden soil in a gas tank is a pollutant.

Timothy growing in a vegetable garden is a weed.
Timothy growing in a meadow is forage for birds and cattle.

Eschew sweeping generalizations.

"Mr. G:
Ryan do a little home work and you will find that Industrial green houses that grow plants for food and sell it increase the CO2 consentrations to 500-800 ppm. Now go find out why that is."

Did you even read my post? Your thought process is pretty simplistic. You are going to have to do better. Why don't you go back and read some of the previous threads on this blog and then get back to me. Go back 6 months or so.

In a greenhouse EVERYTHING is controlled my friend. Do you intend to control humidity, soil composition, nutrients, moisture content, PH, porosity, temperature, length of growing season, light, ect..ect..ect..ect.. all in conjunction with the CO2 you intend to increase? I didn't think so. Life is not a greenhouse. Again, "orchids in a bag" does not stand up in the real world.

Plant growth is more complicated then simply dumping gasoline onto a fire and watching it burn. Most plants are already using as much CO2 as they can under the conditions in which they live. If you don't think I have read that poorly done research you are incorrect. I was provided those links quite some time ago. The only one of those studies I (and many) would find remotely acceptable was the one where they studied plants next to CO2 springs. Which one did you find most compelling? The volcano involves too many variables as well. One could just as easily attribute that to global warming.

So again let me ask you, if its so good for them (look at the chart) why aren't they using it? Please be specific instead of telling me to educate myself with material I have already read.

really?

mc writes:

"consider the 31,000+ names that signed a petition stating the AGW is a false hypothesis. "

Consider them...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition#Signatories

"but spend some time and look at the credentials of those 136 members, it is pretty impressive."

Not really. Some of the members' expertise is in the fossil fuel industry. Many are retirees, long removed from the field. Only a few have published any climate-related studies. I don't see a reason to put them ahead of other APS members, or published scientists for that matter.

If you want a fairly comprehensive list of relevant published climate scientists, start here:

http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table_by_clim.html

The most knowledgeable and qualified are the least skeptical.

"I find it hard to believe that anyone can blindly follow a group that misplaces or destroys records that is the basis of your claim, refuses to release data until ordered by a court, and other types of foul play."

I find it hard to believe that anyone can blindly follow a group that makes these sorts of conspiratorial charges, uncritically accepting them.

MarkB;
While markb, 136/50,000 members is a very low percentage.....
It is infinatley larger than the percentage that signed any letter supporting AGW.

Most of them just don't get involved.

Hey Kipp; MarkB; PaulM;

I found another name to add to your list of non Credible deniers.

Al Gore:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gore_clears_carbon_dioxide_of_most_blame/

Excerpt:
Gore explored new studies - published only last week - that show methane and black carbon or soot had a far greater impact on global warming than previously thought. Carbon dioxide – while the focus of the politics of climate change – produces around 40% of the actual warming. Gore acknowledged to Newsweek that the findings could complicate efforts to build a political consensus around the need to limit carbon emissions.

Personally I was never convinced that he believed his own bull anyway.

Gary writes:

"It is infinatley larger than the percentage that signed any letter supporting AGW."

That's kind of like saying scientists don't go around signing letters arguing that the Earth is spherical. Some things are a given.

"Most of them just don't get involved."

True. Most scientists aren't politically active. Contrarians tend to be more motivated by politics.

Aram-

Sweeping generalizations? Okay, the syntax was incorrect,but you KNOW what I meant....pollution of the atmosphere, not pollutant. Ticky-tack.

rd-

Excellent post about recycling exhaust fumes, also I understand about the permafrost. Thanks again for your insights, you seem to be very open to all sides of issues. Too bad others are not as flexible, that is a bigger problem than debating the science. Some people refuse to change, yet change is coming no matter what. Information is vital to provide ways to be smarter and cleaner in all of our choices, be it transportation, farming, housing, energy production, and so on. Keep thinking ahead...

Gary:

"MarkB;
While markb, 136/50,000 members is a very low percentage.....
It is infinatley larger than the percentage that signed any letter supporting AGW.

Most of them just don't get involved."

Come on now Gary we have all seen the links in previous threads from all over the world with numerous scientific institutions endorsing AGW.

mc writes:

"consider the 31,000+ names that signed a petition stating the AGW is a false hypothesis. "
Consider them..."

Yes I believe thats known as "The 31,000" (the number changes constantly). It is a waste of time and a farce. Very few of these people actually have anything to do with the field. Nobody is interested in what a doctor, and engineer have to say about global warming. This is nothing new here and there is a reason why nobody ever talks about it.

You guys can claim that there is still a debate (which is what we are doing here), but you cannot claim that there is no consensus.

MarkB:
"The most knowledgeable and qualified are the least skeptical."

Actually....The most knowledgeable and qualified are the least skeptical and most likely to be dependent on Political Funding that is dependent on complience with AGW doctrine.

No surprise there.

Oh, by the way, our planet is not round.

This proved to be true: the distance from Earth's nucleus to sea level is about 21 km (13 mi) larger at the equator than at the poles. "Instead of Earth being like a spinning top made of steel, it has a bit of plasticity that allows the shape to deform very slightly. The effect would be similar to spinning a bit of Silly Putty, though Earth's plasticity is much, much less than that of the silicone plastic clay so familiar to children", explained geologist Vic Baker at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

But our planet is not a perfect oblate spheroid, as its mass is not even distributed.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Why-The-Earth-is-Not-Perfectly-Round-51815.shtml

idecline | November 3, 2009 4:21 AM

Thanks for the reading recommendation. I have added the books to my reading list, but it is getting quite long, and may be some time before they are actually consumed. It is not only my attention span that is getting shorter... it's my memory. I may have already read them, but unless they are really good... I've forgotten. Alas, entropy is rampant in my life. also. None of this, however affects my alter ego - Tom Mato.

rd | November 1, 2009 7:06 PM

I was quite fascinated with the article you linked to, regarding exhaust fertilization. Gasoline and diesels are complex compounds containing many chemicals and combustion products. I hope someone follows up with toxicity measurements to ensure no build-up of toxins accumulate. Thanks for the reference. GK

Makes one wonder about the supposed 100 years that CO2 is supposed to stay in the atmosphere according to the IPCC. Many scientists have suggested that it's more like 7 years.

The leveling off of CO2 appears to be following the leveling off of global temperatures. There's your cause and effect.

Wisconsinite said:
"Makes one wonder about the supposed 100 years that CO2 is supposed to stay in the atmosphere according to the IPCC. Many scientists have suggested that it's more like 7 years.

The leveling off of CO2 appears to be following the leveling off of global temperatures. There's your cause and effect."

Atmospheric CO2 is still going up about 2ppm a year. The slight decrease in the rate of increase this last year is just a blip. CO2 in the atmosphere is higher this year than last year, which was higher last year than the year before, and so on. There is no indication whatsoever that this trend is going to stop.

As for temps *leveling off*; this year will be warmer than last year; the last ten years have been the warmest on record. The cause and effect is there alright: Rising CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) is leading to rising global temps.

What there is absolutely no indication of is the exponential increase in CO2 that the global climate models predict.

Also, all of the last 10 years have been cooler than 1998 and probably some of the years in the 1930s.

Wisconsinite said:
"What there is absolutely no indication of is the exponential increase in CO2 that the global climate models predict."

The rate of CO2 increase is going up. It's doubled from 1 ppm a year 50 years ago to 2 ppm now.

"Also, all of the last 10 years have been cooler than 1998 and probably some of the years in the 1930s."

1998 is an anomaly. It was a very strong El Nino year at the right time in the Solar cycle. 1997 and 1999 were both cooler than any this century. Using 1998 and claiming cooling since then is cherry picking at its worst. One year doesn't make a trend; one year isn't climate.

As for the 30's, no year then was even close to the last ten years. You're thinking of the temps in the US which were very warm then. Globally it was a bit cooler in the 30's than it is now. Remember, the USA is only 2% of the Earth's total surface.