2017 Mauna Loa CO2

[Lord M Vader]

Anyone here who knows why Scripps hasn't updated with a daily value for May 15 which seems to be this years highest value?

[AbruptSLR]

Anyone here who knows why Scripps hasn't updated with a daily value for May 15 which seems to be this years highest value?

I have no idea about when Scripps will update their daily Mauna Loa CO2 value for May 15, but NOAA's corresponding value was 411.27 ppm (which you already know, but that I provide for others).

[Lord M Vader]

Thanks ASLR!

[Pmt111500]

I think Scripps has a bit stricter elimination process for valid measurements than some other orgs, when that happens best likely linearly interpolate between.

[TeaPotty]

This should start going down now

No, it really should not be expected to. We haven't had any serious climate action, and by all records, C02 levels have yet to stop accelerating:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html

And plz dont bring up government propaganda about C02 emissions going down. Those are calculated numbers, and i guarantee they have lots of deliberate and/or unintended omissions of data. Similar to IPCC garbage.

[Pmt111500]

We've passed the Annual peak so it's going down until august-september. Sheesh. Government propaganda, hah.

[TeaPotty]

We've passed the Annual peak so it's going down until august-september. Sheesh. Government propaganda, hah.

Oh, thats what you meant, lol. Now i feel silly. 

[DrTskoul]

May 2017 will be 1.90 - 2.10 above May 2016 and the annual difference will increase for the rest of the year.

[crandles]

June 01:  409.20 ppm
May 31:     409.30 ppm
May 30:     409.25 ppm
May 29:     409.91 ppm
May 28:     409.77 ppm

409.64 is my May 17 estimate. May 16 was 407.70 so up 1.94 give or take a little.

Well up from April's up 1.59 on a year earlier which remains lowest yearly increase in monthly record this year.

[Csnavywx]

June 01:  409.20 ppm
May 31:     409.30 ppm
May 30:     409.25 ppm
May 29:     409.91 ppm
May 28:     409.77 ppm

409.64 is my May 17 estimate. May 16 was 407.70 so up 1.94 give or take a little.

Well up from April's up 1.59 on a year earlier which remains lowest yearly increase in monthly record this year.

Gaining 2.0 ppm from a super nino to a weak nina is still bad news. ENSO adjustment is around 0.5-0.6ppm per 1C, so having a rebound year drop still showing up at 2.0 is a bit worrying. For reference, look at the 98-99 increases.

[AbruptSLR]

The linked article is entitled: "Carbon Dioxide Set an All-Time Monthly High", see the associate image:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/carbon-dioxide-all-time-monthly-high-21507

Extract: "Carbon dioxide peaked at 409.65 parts per million for the year, according to data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It’s not a surprise that it happened. Carbon dioxide levels at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii peak in May every year."

[oren]

Must agree, looking at this graph that following last year's spike this year's growth should have been lower, to allow for mean-reversion after El Nino has ended.

[crandles]

409.64 is my May 17 estimate. May 16 was 407.70 so up 1.94 give or take a little.

Well up from April's up 1.59 on a year earlier which remains lowest yearly increase in monthly record this year.

Never get it spot on. Now reported as 409.65

[rboyd]

The La Nina ended quite abruptly from about May last year and the SOI went up to about positive 15 in October, but then the SOI fell back and has been predominantly negative since then (with some jumps to positive, before falling back). Would this tend to reduce the "post-Nino" effect.

Would the positive PDO have any opposing effect as well?

[AbruptSLR]

The linked article indicates that scientists are concerned as to why atmospheric CO₂ concentrations are increasing as fast as they are:

"Carbon in Atmosphere Is Rising, Even as Emissions Stabilize"

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/climate/carbon-in-atmosphere-is-rising-even-as-emissions-stabilize.html

Extract: "The excess carbon dioxide scorching the planet rose at the highest rate on record in 2015 and 2016. A slightly slower but still unusual rate of increase has continued into 2017.

Scientists are concerned about the cause of the rapid rises because, in one of the most hopeful signs since the global climate crisis became widely understood in the 1980s, the amount of carbon dioxide that people are pumping into the air seems to have stabilized in recent years, at least judging from the data that countries compile on their own emissions.

That raises a conundrum: If the amount of the gas that people are putting out has stopped rising, how can the amount that stays in the air be going up faster than ever? Does it mean the natural sponges that have been absorbing carbon dioxide are now changing?"

[DrTskoul]

June 2017 will land around 2 ppm higher than June 201 (406.81 ppm).

[gerontocrat]

The linked article indicates that scientists are concerned as to why atmospheric CO₂ concentrations are increasing as fast as they are:

"Carbon in Atmosphere Is Rising, Even as Emissions Stabilize"

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/climate/carbon-in-atmosphere-is-rising-even-as-emissions-stabilize.html

Extract: "The excess carbon dioxide scorching the planet rose at the highest rate on record in 2015 and 2016. A slightly slower but still unusual rate of increase has continued into 2017.

Scientists are concerned about the cause of the rapid rises because, in one of the most hopeful signs since the global climate crisis became widely understood in the 1980s, the amount of carbon dioxide that people are pumping into the air seems to have stabilized in recent years, at least judging from the data that countries compile on their own emissions.

That raises a conundrum: If the amount of the gas that people are putting out has stopped rising, how can the amount that stays in the air be going up faster than ever? Does it mean the natural sponges that have been absorbing carbon dioxide are now changing?"

I guess one cannot degrade the environment continually without reducing the planet's ability to absorb co2. On the other hand, while direct man-made emissions may be flat, what else is going on?
An on-going data deficit situation?

[Csnavywx]

The linked article indicates that scientists are concerned as to why atmospheric CO₂ concentrations are increasing as fast as they are:

"Carbon in Atmosphere Is Rising, Even as Emissions Stabilize"

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/climate/carbon-in-atmosphere-is-rising-even-as-emissions-stabilize.html

Extract: "The excess carbon dioxide scorching the planet rose at the highest rate on record in 2015 and 2016. A slightly slower but still unusual rate of increase has continued into 2017.

Scientists are concerned about the cause of the rapid rises because, in one of the most hopeful signs since the global climate crisis became widely understood in the 1980s, the amount of carbon dioxide that people are pumping into the air seems to have stabilized in recent years, at least judging from the data that countries compile on their own emissions.

That raises a conundrum: If the amount of the gas that people are putting out has stopped rising, how can the amount that stays in the air be going up faster than ever? Does it mean the natural sponges that have been absorbing carbon dioxide are now changing?"

I guess one cannot degrade the environment continually without reducing the planet's ability to absorb co2. On the other hand, while direct man-made emissions may be flat, what else is going on?
An on-going data deficit situation?

Three possibilities over the past few years:

1) Sinks are weakening.
2) Bad accounting.
3) Some combination of both.

I'm leaning towards (2) or (3) as bad accounting is a simpler explanation atm.

[rboyd]

We didn't decrease the amount of carbon dioxide that humanity adds to the atmosphere each year, we just stabilized it. So shouldn't be confusing that the trend rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels is not decreasing.

The large El Nino plus the positive PDO may very well account for the extra increase in the past two years. This year, the La Nina was cancelled and the SOI is heading back to El Nino territory. So no sudden drop in the rate of increase in atmospheric emissions as in 1999 (after the last big El Nino).

I am worried about issues with the sinks, and questionable accounting (especially the revisions in China coal use every few years and the LULUF numbers), but doesn't look too worrying. For now, at least.

[crandles]

July 01:     407.24 ppm
June 30:     406.78 ppm
June 29:     406.20 ppm
June 28:     408.24 ppm
June 27:     408.09 ppm

June est is 408.59
wonder if it will be .01 different again.

June 2016 was 406.81 so this June looks to be up 1.78 on a year earlier.
April has been marginally adjusted down to 1.58 up on a year earlier so that remains lowest monthly increase.

[AbruptSLR]

July 01:     407.24 ppm
June 30:     406.78 ppm
June 29:     406.20 ppm
June 28:     408.24 ppm
June 27:     408.09 ppm

June est is 408.59
wonder if it will be .01 different again.

June 2016 was 406.81 so this June looks to be up 1.78 on a year earlier.
April has been marginally adjusted down to 1.58 up on a year earlier so that remains lowest monthly increase.

Using 2016 (with a Super El Nino) as a baseline of comparison can be misleading w.r.t. trend line behavior.

[rboyd]

The El Nino was weakening rapidly this time last year, with the SOI slightly positive against the current slightly negative readings.

[AbruptSLR]

The El Nino was weakening rapidly this time last year, with the SOI slightly positive against the current slightly negative readings.

The impacts of ENSO events are phase shifts by several months from their index metrics.

[rboyd]

So that would mean that the 2017 numbers may increase the year over year gap over the next few months due to the delayed phase shifts, all other things being equal?

[AbruptSLR]

So that would mean that the 2017 numbers may increase the year over year gap over the next few months due to the delayed phase shifts, all other things being equal?

Different feedbacks (GMSTA, precipitation patterns, CO2/CH4 emissions, etc.) phase shift by different amounts.  But one of the key CO2 feedbacks is the ENSO impact of tropical rainforests; which can lag by at least six months.

Edit, see:

"Rain Forests Release Carbon Dioxide in Response to Warmer Temperatures"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rain-forests-release-carb/

&

"Drought Weakens the Amazon’s Ability to Capture Carbon"

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/drought-amazon-carbon-capture-18733

[DrTskoul]

June 2017 will land around 2 ppm higher than June 2016 (406.81 ppm).

June 2017 : 408.84 , 2.03 ppm higher than June 2016... ( final? ). I thought I was going to be more off...

[TerryM]

It seems as though next year we'll have at least one 410 month. I wonder if the Paris Accords will do much at all even if they are lived up to.


Terry

[rboyd]

The global CO2 year over year change was 2.55 in April (global numbers come in with a 2 month lag from the Mauna Loa numbers), quite a bit higher than the Mauna Loa change of 1.59. Will be interesting to see if that gap stays through June. Will make for a very high June number if it does.

[Csnavywx]

Well, the delta rebounded to 2ppm in June at Mauna Loa and the weeklies are (and probably will be) closer to 2.5 given the sharper drop last year off the max than this year so far.

A global delta of 2.5 coming off a Nina is terrible -- even if it was a weak one, especially since the atmosphere has stayed in Nina mode as far as precip. and the Walker Cell response has gone.

[rboyd]

Now two weeks of 3+ ppm growth year over year, the July y-o-y change should be above 2.5 when it comes in. If this keeps on through August it does start to argue for some kind of feedbacks kicking in.

[crandles]

Plants will not heal the higher CO2 level. Never. But there will be life that loves the state we will get in.

Never is a long time. Certainly not for 100,000 years, but I wouldn't want to say it is impossible for plants and rock weathering to do it within a couple of million years. But perhaps you have better information to allow you to assert 'never'?

[crandles]

My estimate for July is 407.0 up 2.61 on July 2016's 404.39

[crandles]

My estimate for July is 407.0 up 2.61 on July 2016's 404.39

Actually 407.07 up 2.68

[AbruptSLR]

Here is a plot of weekly Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 concentrations thru the week ending August 12, 2017:

[rboyd]

Another weekly reading for August and the month is trending above a 2.8ppm y-o-y increase, higher than July. The y-o-y numbers have now been increasing for 3.5 months.

[crandles]

Hourly reading (or is that two?) below 400 on 31 Aug.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/monthly.html

Will that be the last time for decades and probably hundreds or/of thousands of years?

Saved here in case it is
https://web.archive.org/web/20170902130315/https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/monthly.html

[logicmanPatrick]

Hourly reading (or is that two?) below 400 on 31 Aug.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/monthly.html

Will that be the last time for decades and probably hundreds or/of thousands of years?

Saved here in case it is
https://web.archive.org/web/20170902130315/https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/monthly.html

I had a look at the Mauna Loa stats last night.  Those two downspikes stick out, but I'm expecting more.  Also expecting some statistically relevant data as was the case post 9/11 when the airlines shut down.

Oil fact box aka platts has details as of August 30 and a graphic, below, showing fossil fuel plant shutdowns.
Shutdowns in USA have had a knock-on effect globally due to efforts at controlling oil prices.
And it's not just fuels: knock-on effects mean that other parts of the petrochemicals industry will not be supplied with raw materials, so will also shut down.

"Roughly 40 percent of the U.S. petrochemicals market was offline as of Tuesday morning as Harvey continued to drench the region, according to Tamar Essner, director of energy and utilities at Nasdaq Corporate Solutions."
CNBC

[crandles]

Those two downspikes stick out, but I'm expecting more.  Also expecting some statistically relevant data as was the case post 9/11 when the airlines shut down.

What is the timeframe for shut down of refining in Houston to reach Mauna Loa? 

There is likely enough emergency stores of gasoline to cope with the outage? Some higher prices may reduce usage a little but significant enough to notice? Prevailing winds to Mauna Loa come from direction of mainland USA?

Seems unlikely to me but maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean.

[AbruptSLR]

"Roughly 40 percent of the U.S. petrochemicals market was offline as of Tuesday morning as Harvey continued to drench the region, according to Tamar Essner, director of energy and utilities at Nasdaq Corporate Solutions."

I do not think that the closures of petrochemical plants in Houston would result in one hourly drop in Mauna Loa readings below 400ppm and also to increases in daily values for August 31 and Sept 1, to above 404ppm.

[logicmanPatrick]

I could have made myself more clear*.
I'm saying that the two downspikes are interesting, but "expecting some statistically relevant data" to show a reduction in the rise, bearing in mind that the ups and downs of the CO2 zigzag are due to summer/winter CO2 uptake variation.  CO2 will now be rising due to natural reductions of uptake in the northern hemisphere.

* I don't like the idea of making myself perfectly clear.  That was the mistake made by the invisible man.   

[AbruptSLR]

The attached plot illustrates how we are rapidly approaching the CO2 minimum atmospheric concentration for this year:

[AbruptSLR]

The two attached plots issued today of Mauna Loa CO2 concentrations, indicate that it is likely that we have just passed the low point (possibly Sept 27 2017) for the year:

[Shared Humanity]

While meaningless, we are still getting some hourly measurements below 400ppm.

[gerontocrat]

This person wonders with co2 emissions flat but rainforests now a net co2 emitter + other environmental degradation continuing  what will happenn to CO2 concentration in the next few years.

[Shared Humanity]

This person wonders with co2 emissions flat but rainforests now a net co2 emitter + other environmental degradation continuing  what will happenn to CO2 concentration in the next few years.

Are CO2 emissions flat? I cannot speak to the accuracy of the attached chart but we have not yet decoupled the global economy from the consumption of fossil fuels and I have to believe that any near term slow down is temporary.

Couple this with the fact that the current level of emissions is sufficient to drive atmospheric CO2 levels up, we can only expect CO2 levels to continue to rise, regardless of whether specific biomes become net CO2 emitters.

[rboyd]

Emissions flat + sinks failing = faster increases in CO2 atmospheric concentrations.

P.S. Emissions are most probably not flat in 2017 as coal usage is going up in China, India and the USA.

[AbruptSLR]

Emissions flat + sinks failing = faster increases in CO2 atmospheric concentrations.

P.S. Emissions are most probably not flat in 2017 as coal usage is going up in China, India and the USA.

The first image from IEA shows that in their estimate the fossil fuel related CO2 emissions thru 2016 were 'flat' for 3 years in a row; however, fossil fuels are not the only source of GHG emissions.  Other sources of GHG emission besides sinks that are turning into sources that have increased include (see the second & third images thru 2016 and Reply #98): methane leaks from shale gas and agricultural sources.  Furthermore, their are indications that aerosols are being cleaned-up so the net effective radiative forcing (see the fourth image) is likely increasing faster than is CO2e.

[rboyd]

"Emissions" generally refer to carbon dioxide only, so leave out the CH4, N20, and F-gases. Even the CO2 number is questionable, as it is a derived one and open to statistical revisions later (e.g. Chinese coal use). Add to that land use changes, the military (not counted), etc.

Given the ongoing combination of anthropogenic emissions+increased natural emissions+decreasing sink capacity, we need to be making policy from the atmospheric concentrations. Otherwise, we may be celebrating reductions in anthropogenic emissions while the CO2e accelerates away.

[Shared Humanity]

A trend towards slightly lower anthropogenic CO2 emissions will not prevent a continued rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 levels as the current rate of emissions are sufficient to cause this, irregardless of any change in CO2 uptake.

[AbruptSLR]

Given the ongoing combination of anthropogenic emissions+increased natural emissions+decreasing sink capacity, we need to be making policy from the atmospheric concentrations. Otherwise, we may be celebrating reductions in anthropogenic emissions while the CO2e accelerates away.

I believe that in the curated modern world that we live in (with traditionally high factors of safety against major negative impacts), public opinion is easily manipulated by those currently in power who benefit the most from sustaining a BAU pathway for a long as feasible.  Such manipulations include both intellectual 'cheats' and 'othering', for instance:

1.  Hansen as for a longtime advised that a sustainable atmospheric CO2 concentration must be limited to 350ppm (with limited emissions of other GHGs including the short-lived GHGs).  However, policymakers cheat on this guidance by overshooting this limit and then implying that they will employ magical negative emissions technology to stay well below the 2C limit on GMSTA.  Overshooting, the 350ppm limit not only strengthens natural positive feedback, and weakens carbon sinks, but it also risks triggering Hansen's ice-climate feedback that is ignored by AR5.
2.  Claiming progress on CO2 emissions by promoting the use of shale gas to replace coal is a cheat because methane has a GWP100 of about 35 times that of CO2; so that if one includes ozone as a GHG then CO2e is above 530ppm.
3. Recent studies show that the ocean heat content is about 11% higher than assumed by AR5, and that the GMSTA referenced to 1750 is already (mid-2017) about 1.15C (per Hansen et al 2017).  This implies that the climate model projections that policymakers use are biased to favor low projections for GMSTA.
4. The current (AR5) climate model projections are also biased on the low side regarding the risk of ice sheet mass loss in Antarctica.
5.  Current (AR5) climate model projection do not adequately consider climate attractors like ENSO trends with global warming.
6.  Regarding 'othering', current tax codes subsidize the use of fossil fuels, the Trump Administration is reversing US climate policy to the disadvantage of others, and the advanced nations are transferring climate risks to developing nations.

I could go on, but my basic point is that the public is confused into believing that we can safely continue BAU behavior for some years to come; while in truth we are well beyond reasonable limits already.

See also:

Hansen et al (2017), "Young people’s burden: requirement of negative CO₂ emissions", Earth Syst. Dynam., 8, 577–616, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-8-577-2017

https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/577/2017/esd-8-577-2017.pdf