April was the first time the monthly average of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere passed 400 parts per million, a threshold that the U.N. says has "symbolic and scientific significance"It's from this press release from the World Meteorological Organization:
CO2 remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. Its lifespan in the oceans is even longer. It is the single most important greenhouse gas emitted by human activities. It was responsible for 85% of the increase in radiative forcing – the warming effect on our climate - over the decade 2002-2012.I am wondering if Pennsylvania's Republican senator, Pat Toomey, has changed his mind from a few short years ago when he was quoted as saying:
Between 1990 and 2013 there was a 34% increase in radiative forcing because of greenhouse gases, according to the latest figures from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
According to WMO’s Greenhouse Gas Bulletin, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere reached 393.1 parts per million in 2012, or 141% of the pre-industrial level of 278 parts per million. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased on average by 2 parts per million per year for the past 10 years.
My view is: I think the data is pretty clear. There has been an increase in the surface temperature of the planet over the course of the last 100 years or so. I think it’s clear that that has happened. The extent to which that has been caused by human activity I think is not as clear. I think that is still very much disputed and has been debated.Actually Senator, it's not in dispute. Hasn't been for a long long time.
But the quote is still from a few years ago, has there been a change of mind from the Club For Growth Senator? I tried searching for the word "climate" at his Senatorial webpage and found nothing. Samething for the phrase "global warming" - nothing.
I haven't been able to find any change - but that could be my lack of google skills. Does anyone know if we can still assume Pat Toomey to be among the science deniers in the Senate?
Unless there's evidence to the contrary...