The World Meteorological Organization issued a press release about its annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin:
Globally averaged concentrations of CO2 reached 403.3 parts per million in 2016, up from 400.00 ppm in 2015 because of a combination of human activities and a strong El Niño event. [...]
[...] Since 1990, there has been a 40% increase in total radiative forcing – the warming effect on our climate - by all long-lived greenhouse gases, and a 2.5% increase from 2015 to 2016 alone, according to figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration quoted in the bulletin.
[...] Atmospheric methane reached a new high of about 1 853 parts per billion (ppb) in 2016 and is now 257% of the pre-industrial level.
BBC News reported:
"The 3 ppm CO2 growth rate in 2015 and 2016 is extreme - double the growth rate in the 1990-2000 decade," Prof Euan Nisbet from Royal Holloway University of London told BBC News.
[...] Another concern in the report is the continuing, mysterious rise of methane levels in the atmosphere, which were also larger than the average over the past ten years.
The Aliso Canyon gas leak happened in 2016.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @02:36PM (9 children)
By superlogarithmic do you mean the inverse of tetration? I don't see that in those equations.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 02 2017, @05:36PM (5 children)
By superlogarithmic do you mean the inverse of tetration? I don't see that in those equations.
Nope, by "superlogarithmic" he's indicating he doesn't know WTF he's talking about.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 02 2017, @08:23PM (4 children)
If you think you do know shit, do explain how approximating logarithms by square roots work and where it ceases to.
Or do quit jawing.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 02 2017, @09:51PM (3 children)
I don't need to because those expressions do not contain super logarithms.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 02 2017, @10:53PM (1 child)
I'll also point out that radiative forcing factors have nothing to do with the topic at hand which is c02 concentrations.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @03:49PM
Submitter quoted "a 40% increase in total radiative forcing" from the WMO press release.
(Score: 3, Funny) by driverless on Friday November 03 2017, @12:52AM
Look, up there! Is it a sine? Is it a cosine? No, it's Superlogarithm!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 03 2017, @01:30AM (2 children)
It means increases faster asymptotically than the logarithm function, such as those square roots.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 03 2017, @04:30PM (1 child)
One might guess that that could be the intended meaning. Did you post the original critique?
I don't have expertise in this topic, but I see that a December 2016 paper [wiley.com] in Geophysical Research Letters, which is peer-reviewed, also uses equations which have a square root dependence on the concentration when calculating the radiative forcing for N2O and CH4 (see Table 1); for CO2 they use an equation with a logarithmic dependence on the concentration, just as the IPCC did. The original critique ridicules the IPCC without explicitly stating why its methodology is invalid.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 04 2017, @02:06PM