GENEVA, Nov 20 (Reuters) - Atmospheric volumes of greenhouse gases blamed for climate change hit a new record in 2011, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said in its annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin on Tuesday.
The volume of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas emitted by human activities, grew at a similar rate to the previous decade and reached 390.9 parts per million (ppm), 40 percent above the pre-industrial level, the survey said.
It has increased by an average of 2 ppm for the past 10 years.
Fossil fuels are the primary source of about 375 billion tonnes of carbon that has been released into the atmosphere since the industrial era began in 1750, the WMO said.
WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said the billions of tonnes of extra carbon dioxide would stay in the atmosphere for centuries, causing the planet to warm further.
"We have already seen that the oceans are becoming more acidic as a result of the carbon dioxide uptake, with potential repercussions for the underwater food chain and coral reefs," he said in a statement.
Levels of methane, another long-lived greenhouse gas, have risen steadily for the past three years after levelling off for about seven years. The reasons for that evening out are unclear.
Growth in volumes of a third gas, nitrous oxide, quickened in 2011. It has a long-term climate impact that is 298 times greater than carbon dioxide.
The WMO, the United Nations' weather agency, said the three gases, which are closely linked to human activities such as fossil fuel use, deforestation and intensive agriculture, had increased the warming effect on the climate by 30 percent between 1990 and 2011.
The prevalence of several less abundant greenhouse gases was also growing fast, it said.
Sulphur hexafluoride, used as an electrical insulator in power distribution equipment, had doubled in volume since the mid-1990s, while hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) were growing at a rapid rate from a low base.
Can't make up your mind can you? first we werem going into an iceage in the 70's because of co2 then it was global warming and you got caught lying and making up data. Now it is climate change so it covers everything and you can screw everyone at will with your cap and trade. Why isn't the answer to co2 "just plant more trees"! Tell you why. Unless you are a nursry or tree grower it won't make any money!Basic science -trees eat co2 to live and give off oxygen!
WMO does not understand basic science! Why would you ever listen to them? They are tied to the U.N. and the ONE World group of elites who want to force this bogus,fake, totally corrupted science down our throats. All to make money with "cap and trade".
"CO2 levels in the atmosphere today are NOT at record high levels. Carbon Dioxide is such a small component of Earth's atmosphere (380 ppmv) that the "slice" it represents in charts is really only a "line" about 1/2 as thick as a line can be shown. Compared to former geologic times, Earth's atmosphere is "CO2 impoverished."
In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm, except during periods of glacial expansion during ice ages.
Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period). "
You would think people so concern about C02 would be calling for an immediate end to corn ethanol corruption simply between air, water and land pollution it is the most devastating thing going.
The only possible solution would be a combination of nuclear and natural gas.
But RLP will keep posting nonsense. That is what it exists for. Propaganda bulletins.
All that hot air....wow, and every time he exhales, just think of how much worse all of that CO2 adds to the problem.....and all air breathing animals on the planet also...with each breath.
I also found it odd that half of the issue seemed to be missing from his post.....the part about the absorbers of CO2 (plants, phytoplankton...etc) and no mention of a ballance or a shift in CO2 ballance except for more farming....but they did not say why that was not a good thing since plants use the CO2 for "food" to make sugars.
Was there a point to that post since he is repeatedly posting why the Marcellus is great on the one hand, and now this above post cut & paste job that CO2 is bad on the otherhand..
..yet when you burn natural gas you get CO2 & water...so it seems even a bit more confused than usual.
.....maybe someone should tell him what you get when you burn natural gas?