[Mark D]

The daily CO2 reading has exceeded 399 parts per million for the first time at the NOAA's site at Mauna Loa. The weekly average to 14 April stands at 398.41, with one daily reading for that week reaching approx. 399.6. We have therefore now reached the point of being a whole 100 ppm above the highest level cited for recent interglacials being 299 ppm 325,000 years ago.


http://www.esrl.noaa...nds/weekly.html


A significant possibility that a daily reading will exceed 400 ppm over the next 2 to 3 weeks before the annual decline begins. 400ppm on a weekly basis should now be exceeded in March 2014.

[Donki]

Interesting read just I noticed the graph depicting Co2 levels pre-industrial to present times shows a general upward plot.

How did they measure Co2 levels in pre industrial times at Mauna Loa? or anywhere for that matter. In the text it states "These data are still preliminary, pending recalibrations of reference gases and other quality control checks"

Why not do these checks then give the results? It strikes me as odd they show all this data then cast doubt on it. Too many times stuff like this comes out and just causes joe public to shrug and carry on as before.

[John Mason]

Hi Donki,

If you go to:

http://www.skeptical...te-science.html

about halfway down you will get to:

Late 1950s: Carbon dioxide monitoring commences in earnest
The text below that may answer some of your questions.

[ldavidcooke]

Hey Bill,

You have to consider that between 900,000 and 1,800,000 sq km of forest was removed from the surface inventory between 1350 and 1950. With around 250 acres per km^2 and 16 trees per acre and each acre on average, being capable of sequestering roughly 10 tons of CO2/year (1*) plus the general uptake of CO2 by phytoplankton taking up nearly 2500 tons CO2 per km^2 of sea surface per year. (What happens if you add 4,000,000 km^2 of additional sea surface for 3 months of the year?) If no more CO2 were added, the natural carbon cycle balanced out at roughly 240ppm, in the atmosphere, (without human activities being involved). Roughly between 1350 and 1450 the populations rose enough that accelerated carbon cycle burning of firewood and clearing off farm land brought the natural levels to near 260-280ppm by 1750-1800. By the beginning of the 1900s that value rose to only 300-310ppm peaks. By mid 1900 and the addition of fossil fuels for all needs rather then purely commercial/industrial, we saw a rise to roughly 340-350ppm, by 1980 that value had risen to between 375 and 380 ppm, and is now 30 years later running between 395-400ppm.

So it is obvious that human activities, all activities, have participated in the rise. The question is what could we do to reduce that rise? We could try to increase the phytoplankton populations, we could move away from fossil fuels and we could try to return some of the land vegetation to levels of old. The problem is the later is the most difficult as we would have to reduce the human population to reduce demand for carbon based products, whether it be fuel or food. Converting over to non-fossil fuels helps; but, it will be hard to replace a resource of 100s of millions of years in the making, to only the sunlight that streams down on us for 8-10 hours per day. At best if we could somehow combine both the phytoplankton bloom and fuel production and combine that with land based solar collection we might have a chance and preserve the current population of humans.

However, as to future population increases I'm afraid that becomes the fuel for the next world war, which humans are allowed to live, the rich, the poor, the intelligent, the feeble, those with the political might, those who have no political will, the ones with the correct religion or those with no religion; who decides? Of course it may come down to only those who can afford to have children will be allowed to have children. Then however, who is gong to feed the rest of the world, as it is farms of large families that feed many. Do we turn all farming over to the corporate or industrial farm? If so do you make backyard gardens illegal, what about lawns or grass and livestock or even beasts of burden? All in all there are very tough questions that need to be answered and it appears everyone is hoping to pass the baton... Sad to think that it will be the job of the Children born in the last 5 years that will define the world that exists into the next century. So how do we prepare them, what do we suggest to them to help them find a way through, do we suffer a disaster either man made or natural and hope it decides for us? So many questions and so few true answers...

(1* ) (10t/acre *250 acres *1,000,000km = 2.5Trillion tons of CO2 or 800Gt of carbon/year) http://www.co2scienc...14/N15/EDIT.php

[Donki]

My view on this whole subject is when organizations who make statements that are contradictory hardly does their cause any good to " man in the street" or people like myself.

I suppose in general most people want a "is it or isn't it " answer. Therein may be the problem as a lot of this measuring takes place over very long time-spans, the goalposts are always moving resulting in ever changing outlooks.


Signed,

Man in the street.

[ldavidcooke]

Hey Bill,

I think the biggest issue is that we really do not understand the flow of the atmosphere very well yet. Certainly we get the idea that certain large scale circulation patterns can lead to certain weather being observed one way or the other. What we do not understand is what drives the large scale patterns nor how the system changes due to changes in the heating source or location. (IE: Rather then the sun heating the surface, heating via Carbon at 4km or even the global heat flow changes as surface features/characteristics change.) So to suggest a definitive answer of an effect for a given cause means you can predict the effect without experimentation or observation, as we have no prior measures.

Though models are a form of experiment they are not data based they are prediction/calculation based using rudientary physics and large scale weather pattern effects. There are no existing cause and effect measures we can point to on any scale other then either the development of a meso cyclone at this point. To try to expand that out to a whole atmosphere is ridiculous, at the same time so is trying to take large scale patterns that we do not know the drivers of and try to define high resolution effects on them. In short, once we can say what causes a ENSO or NAO or AO or PDC positive or negative pattern we can begin to define thermal flows in the atmosphere. We are on the verge of being able to do that; however, many of the scientific papers today still error on the identification of "dependent" versus " independependent" factors/variables.

(IE: Which would be the dependent factor in the following correlation There are less TVs in China/TV Sales are falling... Do these factors even relate, why are there less TVs in China especialy when most are built there? Why are TV Sales Falling?/ Would that mean that the prices are too high or that the market is saturated or that there are few TV services where there are large populations in China. In short, the degree of freedom defines the dependent versus independent variable.

I can measure the number of TVs in Chinia, hence that would be the independent variable. I can also measure the TV sales in China which would also be an independent variable; but, I cannot define why the Sales are falling as the cause has to be a dependent variable. So If I were instead to suggest TV Sales are falling in China and that the services available are limited, it might be possible to create a correlation based on say population count versus services as a possibility to account for decreasing Sales. I cannot suggest that Sales are related to Demand, unless there is a reason for Demand to exist.

Similarly for CO2 I can measure the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, as to the cause or the effect of CO2, that is the dependent variable. The problem is many dependent variables cannot exist alone, they are dependent on many other variables. There in lies the basic problem, we do not have an accurate measure of all the dependent variables and have yet to establish the experiments to determine the relationship between the dependent variables and the independent variable.)

[Floss the dog]

From the other man in the street.

As a casual reader of threads like this, I have no knowledge of the subject, but is it fair to ask if Mauna Loa is an ideal place to be measuring long term CO2 levels ?
It is an active volcano, though not erupted for some time.
Presumably CO2 levels locally would be highly variable ?

Thanks for your patience.

[skanky]

 Floss the dog, on 22 April 2013 - 15:58, said:

From the other man in the street.

As a casual reader of threads like this, I have no knowledge of the subject, but is it fair to ask if Mauna Loa is an ideal place to be measuring long term CO2 levels ?
It is an active volcano, though not erupted for some time.
Presumably CO2 levels locally would be highly variable ?

Thanks for your patience.

It is generally good for back ground levels as it's in the middle of the ocean and high up. A lot of work went into removing any false readings when the site is downwind of a vent, but this only occurs every now and then.

The reason for using Mauna Loa is not totally straight forward (and as is often the case, involves making use of what you can get, rather than what you would like). A good background can be found here: http://www.aip.org/h...mate/Kfunds.htm - though the main subject of the article is the funding side, it's a good starting point. The whole site is a very good read though, and I'd recommend it (I have the book which is easier to read right through, but has less detail and will not be kept up to date). It may be referenced from the SkepSci page that John linked to, I didn't check, but more specific discussions on the methods might be addressed there.

Note though now, there are other sites that are now used (eg Arctic), but ML is the longest instrument record.

[John Mason]

Of course, another question that may be raised is that if you artificially set fire over several centuries to trillions of tonnes of carbon-based fossil fuels (which we have done), where exactly is the oxide supposed to go? Does the Tooth Fairy pop in while we are asleep to sweep it away? The nitpicking over Mauna Loa is likesaying that a heavy rainfall over Yellowstone won't add to water levels because of the amount of volcanic steam emerging from the ground!

[Floss the dog]

Skanky - thanks for the answer, much appreciated.

John - I have no agenda, I am not nitpicking. I asked a simple question. That's it. Full stop.

[ldavidcooke]

Hey John,

Let us be careful over the amount of carbon released. For fossil fuels most of the coals were post 1500 and even then primarily between 1750 and 1950 with the main balance post 1900, primarily for the purpose of transportation and electrical production. Up through 1900 most residental use was animal oils and wood derived charcoal (IE: Cooking was desired to be quick and hot, even most large ovens or commercial ovens were charcoal heated as the use of coal tainted the taste of foods.) This left coal primarily to steel smelting, heating of steam boilers in cities/factories (prior to fuel oil), steam powered public transportation and into the early 1900s the production of steam for electrical dynamos. (It really was not until the 1940s that bunker/fuel bitumen/oil achieved prominence.)

Overall, most of the fossil fuel usage was between 1930 and 2000, with a large dip around 1970-90 during the US peak oil issue. This then concentrates the Carbon in the atmosphere during periods of both large scale cooling and heating. So I do not know that a direct correlation should be drawn, though many have done that very thing.

By the same token we have had a reduction in forest cover in North America with over 1/2 of the US forests being decimated between 1875 and 1975 ( To a large extent western volcanic fields, coupled with Yellowstone ash and the glaciers, most of the tree growth here on NA were limited to the last 4000 years and coverage was slow to return given normal atmospheric flood/drought/fire varibility.) For Europe most of the forest harvests were between 1250 and 1500 until the emergence of coal and even then it was used more for the purposes of smelting steel then for heating or cooking. (Note: We have not even started discussing changes in the worlds oceans, here...)

So I am at a bit of a disadvantage trying to see the point that you are asserting with trillions of tons of fossil fuel consumption, though the combined value of coal and oil might aproach a trillion tons I am not sure that it could exceed single digits else the Carbon ppm in the atmosphere would have to be in the parts per hundred thousands...

[John Mason]

Bit of a figure of speech Dave - I should have used 'gazillions' as it would have been plainer.

I guess a total value for all of human history would be difficult to calculate. Here's an example however that covers recent times: OK it is ALL energy consumption expressed in MTOE, but much of that will be fossil fuels:



Here's a breakdown showing the different sources:



Sources: Based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2008.

These figures suggest that in 2007 some 88% of 11,100 million tons of oil equivalent of global energy used were fossil fuels being combusted.

[ldavidcooke]

Hey John,

If we look at the CDIAC tables of fossil fuels consumed we range from 7.5Gt during the 2000s to 9Gt during the 2010s; yet in the 1950s we were looking at 3.5 Gt and back through the 1910s on the order of 0.8Gt. If we were to average 3.5Gt per year in the 20th century that would suggest the re-introduction of 350Gt or 350 billion tons of carbon during the 20th century. As it is that the value of demand was less linear and more parabolic, this would suggest the value would be on the order of half to two thirds the average or between 1.75 to 2.4Gt per year or that around 260Gt emitted in the 20th-21st centuries, accounts for over 85% of all fossil fuels humans have extracted and over 90% consumed over the last 500 years, including plastics and cement production. (Though in truth cement is net zero as carbon removed from Calcium Carbonate returns during the curing, hence, only the fuel consumed to release the carbonate is actually new carbon and only since the 1940s, as most reduction before that used charcoal.)

Sorry if I'm being heavy handed I'm just wanting to reflect a little more reality if we are going to discuss CO2. We also need to address that up through the 1950s nature was well able to absorb the extra bit of carbon humans were introducing. Hence, the actual carbon being added to the atmosphere that nature could not process was within the last 65 years. That does wonders for the Carbon sensitivity, the problem is that a change in atmospheric thermal flow and ocean current transport has countered the Temperate Zones warming effect to a large degree, while negatvey affecting the polar ice/temperatures If we were to stop adding CO2 today from fossil fuels roughly 1.5Gt per year of the roughly 240Gt added in the last 65 years would take @160 years to come out of the atmosphere. If we look at the mass of polar ice/sea ice removed by the added heat related to changes in both atmospheric heat content and flow there is where all the missing heat has gone. So far we have been lucky that the planet is configured the way it is. Polar ice is the "Canary in the coal mine", we have been given a chance to change our carbon heavy ways, what we do with it is what's important.

[Mark D]

http://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/

A new site from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography charting the approach to 400 ppm. Contains some more detailed graphs than the NOAA's own website I linked to above (the weekly average from the NOAA is actually for the week commencing 14 April, not finishing on 14 April as I incorrectly stated).

"Concentrations of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide in the global atmosphere are approaching 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in human history. This website provides daily updates, analysis, and information on the state of climate"

[ldavidcooke]

Hey All,

Just for those following this discussion, there appears to be a question as to whether or not anthropogenic fossilized carbon emission (AFCE) skepticism is justified, in light of the facts, I believe , (WRT the release of mineralized Carbon by human activity), the large body of scientific facts do not support it. However, as to human activities negatively affecting the CO2 cycle, it is evident that there is a strong correlation. Hence, once and for all, CO2 fossil emissions alone is not more then a 20% participant in the enduring imbalance, IMHO. Changes in vegetation also are not as important, as it is clear that during the ice age most of the vegetation was restricted to the sub-tropic regions and yet the CO2 levels did not demonstrate a significant spike. In essence, most all evidence points to changes in the ocean, for land changes alone cannot be significant enough to overide what is happening there. Which brings us a little closer to trying to understand the Permiean extinction.

(I will admit that a possibility exists for the combination of land/ocean vegetation reduction and the introduction of fossil carbon are driving the current changes. Though in that case the question is can we attack the problem on two fronts, one the reduction of the emission of fossil carbon and the increase of vegetation, coupled with the burial of carbon bearing wastes.

In short, if we are serious about the science then science and engineering needs to take action. No more conventional power plant designs, even if it means our jobs. No more, architectural designs that do not incorporate passive energy capture, no more products that add demand for power, only the reduction in current power demands with a goal of say 10% per year for the first 5 years and no less then 1/2 of that level every decade for the next 100 years. In short, we cannot change the inevitable if we do not design the root cause out of the current human activities or products.)

If we look at the current oceanic trends, combined with the changes in atmospheric circulation it should suggest why there is a change occurring. Like most things, all processes of life or closed systems are intradependent. I am beginning to see a pattern, the question is if this pattern is Carbon related and if it has occurred in the past, then what changes can we take to reset it? If CO2 levels are the root cause and we stop introducing fossil carbon, no one can answer that it will reset the changes in the Earth processes we are observing. Yet, here for the first time in 40 years, well other then '86, we are seeing a typical Spring season in the NH. Had Pinatubo not gone off it is quite possible the pattern towards cooler conditions that were returning in the '80's may have eliminated the run up in the GAT we have seen over the last 30 years. The question is if we were to make the intelligent choice now and move away from long cycle energy resources and move to short energy resource cycles, which we collect on our own, will the current trends continue and if so why?

[Mark D]

Some hourly readings over the last few days have reached or exceeded 400ppm.


http://bluemoon.ucsd...lo_one_week.png

[ldavidcooke]

Hey Mark,

As a clue to what the emerging pattern is, consider that at this time of year is when the CO2 levels traditionally fall in the NH. It is in the late Fall through Winter that the values normally peak. To see the pattern peak now suggests that though emissions play a part in the base level it is the vegetation uptake that gates the peak.

[ldavidcooke]

Hey Mark,

My apologies, I was wrong the peak in the NH is Winter to Summer as can be seen in this graph. http://www.esrl.noaa...md/ccgg/trends/ Its the first high resolution image I had seen and had gotten the seasons off by about three months in the past as well. Though it does show the average 3ppm trend year over year, which is surprising when the global mineralized carbon emissions actually have been stable or slightly trending down over the last three years. (Though the UEA in this paper is showing an increase http://www.earth-sys...-1107-2012.html , much of the values appear to be based not on actual production/consumption measures at this time. I await the final analysis of the combined Fuel Sales data, once we can measure the amount of fuel actually consumed and combusted and it demonstrates a similar demand to the modeled data I will withdraw my skepticism.)

I can't wait for that explanation. To go from 9Gt to 7.5 Gt in the next five years would be very interesting as, if the CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be directly linked to emissions, then the levels of increase should track with the emissions. If we could also get a moritorium in large diameter forest decimation for 5 years in association with the CO2 reduction it would once and for all either prove or disprove the association of human activities and CO2 in the atmosphere. In the meantime the sequester human sourced, carbon bearing, treated waste products in former mines would go far to removing some of the emissions created over the last century.

(Though that won't work for the US surface mining, it at least would allow the creation of garbage digestion pits for the generation of bio-gas allowing a recycling of the carbon already emitted, preventing the combustion of additional fossil carbon.)

[Mark D]

Yes, high is usually reached in first couple of weeks ofMay, then a four month decline to the annual low around mid-September. We willdrop back to 393-394 ppm this September before rising to 402-403 ppm in May2014, and so on until we are permanently over 400ppm in 3-4 years’ time.

In the meantime a new daily average record yesterday of399.72 ppm.

http://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/co2_400/mlo_one_week.png

[ldavidcooke]

Hey Mark,

I find the peaks and valley timing a bit remarkable tbh. Generally, most of the vegetation that dies is going to drop off no later then about the 2nd week of November. Most anything South of a November freeze date likely will either not be deciduous or is generally only going to die back in seasonal extremes. Usually, if you add a bit of water and give it two weeks the soft tissues breakdown fairly rapidly, the ballance is the silica rich cellulose vein structure.

Normally the remaining structure takes about three months to break down suggesting a CO2 peak roughly in the following March. The main delay could be the liberal application of cool weather delaying most breakdown until early May. However, with the warmer weather we have seen over the last 15 years the freezing temperatures have not been cold enough to delay most decay; hence, why I was biased towards the earlier peak.

Apparently, the CO2 values must not be linked as much to leaf rot as much as related to ocean uptake. It appears the CO2 levels may be mainly driven by light more so then temperature. Given that and the rate of change from 1.8ppm year over year, in the 1950s, to the current 3ppm annual upward trend, I am more inclined to believe that something is affecting the ocean uptake as opposed to the increase in human emissions of GHG.

Given the warmer oceanic temperatures in the Fall, I think, supports the idea that seasonal CO2 sequestration has more to do with light, then with heat or nutrients. It is this idea that drives my adherence to the relationship of Stratospheric Ozone and phytoplankton. In essence, extra UV either kills the plankton in the surface layer or drives it into deeper water and the result would be both a late start of and a reduction of, CO2 uptake. That the warmer temperatures also coincide with the last 35 years of diminished Ozone would appear a better signal, that more accurately matches GAT observations then CO2 emissions, in my minority opinion.