This graph is outdated by 12 years. It takes time to analyze and publish data to peer reviewed journals. The IPCC needs to publish to the public as soon as possible the loss of breathable oxygen of Earth in recent years. People have a right to know where they stand and make an effort to reverse the crisis.
Ralph Keeling, PI (click here) most probably needs additional qualified staff to move the reporting along. Usually, this kind of stuff is boring and no one really cares if it published ten years after the fact or 1 year after collection, so the staff is probably minimal. But, this is the year 2018, the coral reefs have crashed, the loss of a huge carbon sink, and people have a right to know where they stand with Earth's climate under assault by Human Induced Global Warming.
From 1991 through 2005, (click here) the O2 content of the atmosphere has dropped by 0.00248% (248 per meg) of it's initial amount. The rate is mostly explained by the global combustion of fossil-fuel over this period, although the actual rate is slightly smaller than expected from fossil-fuel alone. The difference evidently reflects a global imballance between photosynthesis and respiration.
The O2/N2 data from flasks collected at Mauna Loa are shown in the plot below. Each point is the average of flasks collected on a given day. A smooth trend consisting of a regular seasonal cycle and a long-term trend is fit to the data. The O2/N2 ratio is expressed in per meg units, which express the relative change in the O2/N2 from a standard ratio, multiplied by 1 million....
Stop pandering to the politicians to try to eek out some kind of climate program. Make the facts clear to the drastic circumstance that continues to build. We lost the coral reefs for god sake, what next?
June 3, 2018
London School of Economics
Policymakers (click here) are being misinformed by the results of economic models that underestimate the future risks of climate change impacts, according to a new journal paper by authors in the United States and the United Kingdom, which is published today (4 June 2018).
The paper in the Review of Environmental Economics and Policy calls for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to improve how it analyses the results of economic modelling as it prepares its Sixth Assessment Report, due to be published in 2021 and 2022.
The paper's authors, Thomas Stoerk of the Environmental Defense Fund, Gernot Wagner of the Harvard University Center for the Environment and Bob Ward of the ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy at the London School of Economics and Political Science, draw attention to "mounting evidence that current economic models of the aggregate global impacts of climate change are inadequate in their treatment of uncertainty and grossly underestimate potential future risks".
They warn that the "integrated assessment models" used by economists "largely ignore the potential for 'tipping points' beyond which impacts accelerate, become unstoppable, or become irreversible". As a result "they inadequately account for the potential damages from climate change, especially at moderate to high levels of warming", due to rises in global mean temperature of more than 2 Celsius degrees.
The authors draw attention to "a major discrepancy between scientific and economic estimates of the impacts of unmanaged future climate change". They state: "These discrepancies between the physical and the economic impact estimates are large, and they matter. However, physical impacts are often not translated into monetary terms and they have largely been ignored by climate economists."
The paper states that the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report should "strengthen its focus on decision making under uncertainty" and "focus on estimating how the uncertainty itself affects economic and financial cost estimates of climate change"....
