2018 Mauna Loa CO2 levels

[crandles]

It is intended that this thread can be used for general discussion of CO2 levels.

However may as well have a poll question while setting it up.

Airborne fraction is CO2 increase in atmosphere / emissions of CO2.

Data from
http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/17/data.htm
leading to
https://github.com/openclimatedata/global-carbon-budget/blob/master/data/global-carbon-budget.csv
is shown below and will continue to be used if available.


Year   Fossil-Fuel-And-Industry   Land-Use-Change-Emissions   Atmospheric-Growth   Ocean-Sink   Land-Sink   Budget-Imbalance   Airborne fraction

Code: [Select]

1959    2.454 1.774 2.035 0.772 0.982 0.439
1960 2.569 1.644 1.505 0.783 1.811 0.113
1961 2.58 1.574 1.654 0.65 1.024 0.827
1962 2.686 1.529 1.187 0.748 1.619 0.661
1963 2.833 1.473 1.208 0.878 1.029 1.19
1964 2.995 1.42 1.039 1.061 1.843 0.472
1965 3.13 1.373 2.332 1.181 0.49 0.499
1966 3.288 1.329 2.332 1.189 1.404 -0.308 0.367
1967 3.393 1.306 1.293 0.997 1.882 0.527
1968 3.566 1.303 2.099 1.038 2.587 -0.855
1969 3.78 1.31 2.798 1.072 0.67 0.55
1970 4.053 1.276 2.396 1.01 0.687 1.236
1971 4.208 1.24 1.548 1.088 2.648 0.165 0.398
1972 4.376 1.204 3.116 1.311 1.25 -0.097
1973 4.614 1.177 3.095 1.302 2.032 -0.638
1974 4.623 1.137 1.442 1.249 4.481 -1.411
1975 4.596 1.106 2.608 1.263 2.753 -0.923
1976 4.864 1.088 2.056 1.337 3.178 -0.619 0.428
1977 5.016 1.064 4.07 1.375 1.802 -1.167
1978 5.074 1.028 2.735 1.433 3.145 -1.211
1979 5.357 1.001 4.537 1.287 1.56 -1.026
1980 5.301 1.04 3.625 1.569 0.768 0.379
1981 5.138 1.05 2.438 1.6 2.696 -0.546 0.560
1982 5.094 1.062 2.12 1.655 1.603 0.778
1983 5.075 1.104 3.901 1.81 0.326 0.142
1984 5.258 1.14 2.629 1.719 2.902 -0.852
1985 5.417 1.158 3.456 1.714 2.728 -1.323
1986 5.583 1.195 2.205 1.749 2.27 0.554 0.446
1987 5.725 1.232 5.703 1.748 0.473 -0.966
1988 5.936 1.249 4.749 1.715 2.192 -1.47
1989 6.066 1.276 2.926 1.725 3.666 -0.976
1990 6.065 1.278 2.502 1.79 2.353 0.697
1991 6.133 1.292 1.526 1.869 2.095 1.935 0.480
1992 6.072 1.309 1.484 2.07 2.256 1.572
1993 6.063 1.311 2.586 2.017 3.08 -0.309
1994 6.168 1.308 3.562 1.904 1.566 0.444
1995 6.3 1.294 4.134 1.85 1.868 -0.257
1996 6.442 1.269 2.268 1.815 3.409 0.219 0.374
1997 6.549 1.744 4.198 1.869 3.018 -0.792
1998 6.568 1.192 5.936 2.056 1.654 -1.886
1999 6.554 1.166 2.841 1.957 3.577 -0.654
2000 6.725 1.28 2.629 1.866 3.986 -0.476
2001 6.886 1.147 3.901 1.731 2.354 0.047 0.490
2002 6.986 1.307 5.046 2.036 0.88 0.331
2003 7.368 1.357 4.791 2.124 2.491 -0.682
2004 7.734 1.297 3.286 2.039 3.755 -0.049
2005 8.033 1.181 5.173 2.083 2.037 -0.079
2006 8.324 1.225 3.752 2.191 3.362 0.243 0.492
2007 8.491 1.049 4.431 2.258 3.176 -0.325
2008 8.766 1.102 3.752 2.179 3.994 -0.057
2009 8.689 1.519 3.434 2.214 3.095 1.465
2010 9.121 1.373 5.173 2.165 3.043 0.113
2011 9.495 1.32 3.54 2.332 3.98 0.964 0.399
2012 9.667 1.379 5.067 2.382 2.083 1.514
2013 9.765 1.409 5.173 2.416 3.198 0.386
2014 9.848 1.379 4.219 2.51 3.658 0.84
2015 9.831 1.519 6.233 2.57 1.498 1.048
2016 9.875 1.27 6.127 2.61 2.727 -0.318 0.479
Probably could get better airborne fraction data by smoothing for ENSO effects but I am not sure I am up to doing that competently.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-set-to-rise-2-percent-in-2017-following-three-year-plateau

says

Over the past three years, global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels have remained relatively flat. However, early estimates from the Global Carbon Project (GCP) using preliminary data suggest that this is likely to change in 2017 with global emissions set to grow by around 2%, albeit with some uncertainties.

Hopes that global emissions had peaked during the past three years were likely premature. However, GCP researchers say that global emissions are unlikely to return to the high growth rates seen during the 2000s. They argue that it is more likely that emissions over the next few years will plateau or only grow slightly, as countries implement their commitments under the Paris Agreement.

[A-Team]

So this is a ratio of Mauna Loa observed vs honor system claims of progress and/or bottom-up model guesswork on emission sources and sinks? Many countries seemed incentivized to show progress when in fact they are stationary or regressing.

Mauna Loa is worsening faster and faster each year, but that's not quite the bottom line because rising methane, NOx and other greenhouse gases have pushed the real number today close to 500. That is the number that Arctic permafrost and other runaway feedbacks are seeing.

Where are livestock? They are huge sources when the whole ag production chain is figured in.

Where are non-revegatable forest wildfires (permanent loss of sinks), under land use change like conversion of rainforest to cow pasture and palm oil plantations?

[crandles]

Are those your only objections? 

Where are livestock?

Are they dealt with as 'land sink'? (I don't see photosynthesis either so presume land sink covers both these and more (decay etc))

[AbruptSLR]

Possibly the attached image is of only tangential relevance to this thread but it indicates that NASA believes that total instantaneous radiative forcing, IRF, used in the CMIP5 projections was over +3 W/sq-m


Title: "Forcings in GISS Climate Models"
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

Caption for image: "Fig. Instantaneous radiative forcing at the tropopause (W/m2) in the E2-R NINT ensemble. (a) Individual forcings and (b) Total forcing, along with the separate sums of natural (solar, volcanic and orbital) and anthropogenic forcings. (Updated: 3/12/2016)"

[gerontocrat]

I think the wording needs changing on options 3 & 4 from

- to rise at steady rate
to
- at existing levels

 Emissions continue to rise at increased rate, airborne fraction increases
 Emissions continue to rise at increased rate, airborne fraction no noticeable change
 Emissions continue to rise at steady rate , airborne fraction increases
 Emissions continue to rise at steady rate , airborne fraction no noticeable change
 Emissions continue but at declining rate, airborne fraction increases
 Emissions continue but at declining rate, airborne fraction no noticeable change

Then one has to decide what one means by emissions- one's directly from human activity only - i.e. excluding livestock, permafrost etc etc etc,
or everything ?

Going to extremes, if the sinks failed entirely, the rise in CO2 could only be a maximum of about 5 ppm per annum from direct human activities on existing levels of emissions.

If there is a real burp in release of carbon from other sources - e.g. Amazon forest fires, Indonesian peat fires, permafrost melt etc etc, the airborne fraction could be effectively negative, and even more likely to be negative if man-made emissions from fossil fuels were substantially reduced.

One can see a nice little doomsday model emerging, and CO2e from methane etc not even included.

ps My vote is for fossil fuel emissions to go down, but airborne fraction to increase substantially (decline in sinks plus release of carbon from other sources), but not Armageddon by 2028 (though closer than comfortable).

ps:- A nice article on how Australia fiddles its emissions data (x-ref to A-Team's comments on the honor system in emissions data).

https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2018/jan/09/australias-emissions-are-rising-its-time-for-this-government-to-quick-pretending

[crandles]

Changed options 3 and 4 to 'rise steadily at approx existing rate'

Hope that is OK.

[AbruptSLR]

As a follow-on about crandles' values about 'Budget-Imbalance', in addition to non-fossil fuel net carbon emissions (including agriculture, increasing natural carbon emissions and decreasing natural carbon sinks), we should all be aware that changes in cloud cover and non-carbon slow response feedback mechanisms mean that Effective Radiative Forcing is progressively increasing from what was assumed in AR5.  For example established 'budgets' typically assume that ECS is close to 3C, while Brown & Caldeira (2017) [see the first image] have shown that due to changes in cloud cover ECS is currently at least 3.7C which implies about 25% higher effective radiative forcing for a given values of CO2e (which per NOAA with the GWP100 of methane of about 25 is about 500ppm or if one uses a GWP100 for methane of about 38 this value is closer to 525ppm); so the effective CO2e should be between 620ppm and 650ppm.

However, Friedrich et al (2017) [see the second image] provides data that indicate that ECS may increase to about 4.5C with ice-climate feedback that might occur in coming decades that could increase the effective CO2e up to 750ppm to 790ppm as compared to established 'budgets'.

[Csnavywx]

Now that 2017's figures are in (although a first prelim estimate). +2.13 after a double dip Nina and full post-Super Nino recovery. Pretty damn bad. For instance, the Nina/post-Nino recovery/reabsorption after the '98 Nino lowered 1999's increase to just 0.98ppm. We saw nowhere near that kind of recovery this time.

2000-2009 averaged 1.97 ppmv/yr. 2010-2017 has managed 2.40 ppmv/yr. 21% increase so far this decade. We've got a couple more years to go, but I doubt it moves much from that figure.

I'm of the opinion that we'll see increased belching of CO2 from land sources with each successive Nino or even longer duration warm-neutral conditions due to baseline conditions now exceeding where we would historically be. The 6ppm we accumulated over those two Nino years along with the lackluster recovery is probably a warning sign. Future Ninos may very well follow that behavior and lead to an increased frequency of years where the net land sink is effectively zero or negative. We also have the Arctic that will likely soon turn from carbon sink into source (if it isn't getting close already).

Once that land sink is consistently removed, the problem becomes much worse, of course.

[AbruptSLR]

Csnavywx,

Thanks for the excellent post. 

Models indicate that the frequents of extreme El Nino events should double as we approach 1.5C (GMSTA above pre-industrial).

Best,
ASLR

[AbruptSLR]

People seem to enjoy the attached presentation of cumulative weekly NOAA atmospheric CO2 concentrations for Mauna Loa thru the week of Jan 14 to Jan 20, 2018:

[Pmt111500]

People seem to enjoy the attached presentation of cumulative weekly NOAA atmospheric CO2 concentrations for Mauna Loa thru the week of Jan 14 to Jan 20, 2018:

*considers taking a stock exchange chart of past 10 years and mutilating proportions of Mona Lisa according to that*

[crandles]

Not long to add your vote if you want to.

[AbruptSLR]

Not long to add your vote if you want to.

As time is running out to cast a vote, I provide the most recent weekly values for atmospheric CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa thru the week ending Jan 27, 2018:

[silkman]

The Keeling Curve just hit 410 ppm for the first time in 2018:

[Bernard]

Today back down (408.36).

One thing I've been wondering for a while is what causes such quite abrupt daily variations. Has it something to do with local meteorology, passage of fronts? It's quite obvious that different air masses have different CO2 concentrations, and passage of a front can show up in data. That said, I'm not very familiar with Hawaii meteorology.

[Pmt111500]

Today back down (408.36).

One thing I've been wondering for a while is what causes such quite abrupt daily variations. Has it something to do with local meteorology, passage of fronts? It's quite obvious that different air masses have different CO2 concentrations, and passage of a front can show up in data. That said, I'm not very familiar with Hawaii meteorology.

Neither am I. I remember reading the description of what is an acceptable record from the Mauna Loa instruments, long ago.

What they of course monitor is the volcano itself, any activity there may end the reliable measurements at the station. They track the wind to see where any volcanic plumes of co2 go and try to get only those measurents during which wind blows from the sea. Then there are the local traffic rush hours that can be seen in the record in some wind conditions. This, I believe is pretty much impossible to totally deduct from the background levels. It might be these 2ppm swings are solely because of traffic and unfavorable winds, but what you say of fronts is also true. Various air masses have various amounts of co2 in them. Could be the 410 ppm was from northern winds and 408 was of tropical origin (plant activity). In time ( half a year, I'd say) the air masses mix up so the difference in co2 levels in various air masses never exceeds certain boundaries.

[Wipneus]

UK's Met Office has released its annual forecast of the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration for the coming year.

https://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2018/03/22/la-nina-cools-2018-co%e2%82%82-forecast-but-it-will-remain-close-to-a-record-year/

(...)in 2018 the rise is predicted to be smaller than in the last two years due to the temporary effects of climate variability on natural carbon sinks – locations which can absorb more carbon than they release.

The La Niña event has involved a temporary cooling of ocean temperatures in the eastern Pacific Ocean and shifts in weather patterns around the globe, especially in the tropics. Generally cooler, wetter conditions in many places cause enhanced vegetation growth, drawing down more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than usual.

(...)

The monthly average concentration is forecast to reach 412.2±0.6 ppm in May before dropping back down to 405.8 ± 0.6 ppm in September.

Forecast CO₂ concentrations at Mauna Loa over 2018 (orange), along with previous forecast concentrations for 2016 (blue) and 2017 (green) and Scripps Institute measurements (black).

[AbruptSLR]

Per the attached plot, the atmospheric CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa at the end of March 2018, where essentially at the mid-May levels in 2017:

[TerryM]

Per the attached plot, the atmospheric CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa at the end of March 2018, where essentially at the mid-May levels in 2017:

Best graph ever to show the continuous increase year after year after year.
Terry

[Shared Humanity]

I'm so old I remember when we were talking about when we would break the 400 ppm barrier.

[oren]

For a (weak) La Nina year the CO2 YoY rise in that graph is quite ominous.

[Tor Bejnar]

Looking at the graph AbruptSLR posted, it appears that despite the (ominous) year-on-year (YOY) increase, all the previous years shown have the current date's value higher than (or about equal to) the previous year's peak.  This year's value is definitely not higher than last year's peak. 

For those who know more than what I know, does this mean anything?

[bosbas]

Not much news this week so far.

[Csnavywx]

Looking at the graph AbruptSLR posted, it appears that despite the (ominous) year-on-year (YOY) increase, all the previous years shown have the current date's value higher than (or about equal to) the previous year's peak.  This year's value is definitely not higher than last year's peak. 

For those who know more than what I know, does this mean anything?

That's to be expected with a moderate double dip Nina and post-Nino plant recovery, although the recovery has been rather anemic (see post 98 Nino drawdown for instance).

[gerontocrat]

Not much news this week so far.

I go to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography for the data at :-
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/

There is a range of graphs to look at.

Sometimes there is a few days delay.

[silkman]

Scripps CO2 moves into new record territory with a month or so to go to the 2018 peak

[AbruptSLR]

Scripps CO2 moves into new record territory with a month or so to go to the 2018 peak

For the week ending April 21 2018, the weekly Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 concentrations were 411.07ppm:

[Tor Bejnar]

Two years ago, the CO2 peak occurred this week.  Other years, it appears from the graph, had their peak during the next 6 weeks.

[gerontocrat]

Scripps CO2 moves into new record territory with a month or so to go to the 2018 peak

For the week ending April 21 2018, the weekly Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 concentrations were 411.07ppm:

Hullo AbruptSLR,

I love that graph.

What a gif that graph of yours would make. Imagine having it update month by month one second  at a time with a bell tolling in time at each second as a background for a talk on the reality of AGW.

I admit I liked even more the one with Mount Fiji in the background being gradually drowned in a sea of CO2.

[AbruptSLR]

I admit I liked even more the one with Mount Fiji in the background being gradually drowned in a sea of CO2.

Hopefully, this image is more to your liking

[Sigmetnow]

412.37 parts per million (ppm) #CO2 in the atmosphere on April 23, 2018  HIGHEST DAILY AVERAGE REPORTED SO FAR IN 2018 AT MAUNA LOA
https://twitter.com/CO2_earth/status/988811276242403329

https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2

[gerontocrat]

I admit I liked even more the one with Mount Fiji in the background being gradually drowned in a sea of CO2.

Hopefully, this image is more to your liking

2018 could be the last year with at least the peak of Mount Fuji above the waves.

[gerontocrat]

I admit I liked even more the one with Mount Fiji in the background being gradually drowned in a sea of CO2.

Hopefully, this image is more to your liking

Hullo AbruptSLR,

Remember I wrote how your graph would look so super as an animation?

Robertscribbler's latest offering includes Atmospheric CO2 accumulation since 2007 as depicted by this animation of Mauna Loa Observatory CO2 measurements by Robbie Andrew, of the CICERO Center for International Climate Research.

Coincidence? I still think the Mount Fuji one is the classiest.

[gerontocrat]

412.37 parts per million (ppm) #CO2 in the atmosphere on April 23, 2018  HIGHEST DAILY AVERAGE REPORTED SO FAR IN 2018 AT MAUNA LOA
https://twitter.com/CO2_earth/status/988811276242403329

https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2

It is quite a thing to look at that measurement knowing that it is the highest level of CO₂ ppm for at least 800,000 years.

[josh-j]

It is quite a thing to look at that measurement knowing that it is the highest level of CO₂ ppm for at least 800,000 years.

Very true - and it's no abstract thing either, being in each breath we take.

[AbruptSLR]

412.37 parts per million (ppm) #CO2 in the atmosphere on April 23, 2018  HIGHEST DAILY AVERAGE REPORTED SO FAR IN 2018 AT MAUNA LOA
https://twitter.com/CO2_earth/status/988811276242403329

https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2

It is quite a thing to look at that measurement knowing that it is the highest level of CO₂ ppm for at least 800,000 years.

Per the attached plot the last time we exceeding 412.37ppm CO₂ concentrations was over 3 million years ago; and the last time that we exceeded our current CO₂e level as about 20 million years ago

[crandles]

or about a year ago   



412.58412.63 26th April 2017

Yeah ok, 411.07 for a weekly number does look highest.

[Shared Humanity]

 

[AbruptSLR]

or about a year ago   
412.63 26th April 2017

Yeah ok, 411.07 for a weekly number does look highest.

While you are correct, you raise a distinction without a difference.  It will be interesting to see what the peak daily and weekly numbers are for the month of May

[Pmt111500]

Yeah yeah, betcha some eruption sequence with favourable winds have produced daily, maybe weekly values of higher irrelevance 

[Juan C. García]

Earth’s atmosphere just crossed another troubling climate change threshold

For the first time since humans have been monitoring, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have exceeded 410 parts per million averaged across an entire month, a threshold that pushes the planet ever closer to warming beyond levels that scientists and the international community have deemed “safe.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2018/05/03/earths-atmosphere-just-crossed-another-troubling-climate-change-threshold/?utm_term=.8a40d0ec6c0f&wpisrc=nl_green&wpmm=1

[crandles]

Week beginning on April 29, 2018:     409.71 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:     409.02 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     387.20 ppm

Low increase over year for the weekly value only up 0.69, and barely more than May 2017 record monthly value of 409.65, but a few missing values in the last week and I doubt this will last long if at all.

(Perhaps I should also say April 2017 will beat the monthly record when announced in next few days and the global data will show 3rd consecutive month of record values when Feb is announced, even if this is normal at this time of year.)

[crandles]

Something is clearly wrong with products at ESRL during the last month. Is there other co2 stations that produce recent 2018 data for CO2 readings for their stations with archived historical records for comparison like at  Mauna Loa on ESRL? I have searched already with no luck so far. thanks

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/
Provides a choice of sites

eg Tutuila, American Samoa


(bit further south than Mauna Loa probably altering the pattern a little)

April 2017 saw swings from under 407 to over 412.6 so I am not sure that last month isn't reasonably normal. (Err well 6 consecutive day gap without any values is not normal but swings in values don't seem untypical for time of year.)

[Pmt111500]

Let us remember the quake, 6,9 was it? No doubt this may have influenced the readings at least during the 6 omitted days. The pre-quake rise may have been partly due this, though, like cradles says, swings at this level are not unforeseen in previous years. Could be worth looking into other gases of volcanic origin, what I've heard the quake was due major rearrangement of lava/magma under Mauna Loa.

[crandles]

Quake was May 4th
Eruption: 2 May 2018 news was saying: "A Hawaiian volcano could be set to erupt after hundreds of earthquakes and the collapse of a crater floor."
Also presumably later "Hundreds of residents were told to flee as lava eruptions occurred at the Big Island volcano."

No readings on or since May 4th.

No idea if readings before quake and eruption might be affected. Nor if May 3rd reading of 409.23 might be affected. Seems quite low while volcanos' do give off CO2 so maybe not affected?

[NevB]

Something is clearly wrong with products at ESRL during the last month. Is there other co2 stations that produce recent 2018 data for CO2 readings for their stations with archived historical records for comparison like at  Mauna Loa on ESRL? I have searched already with no luck so far. thanks

There was cape grim in Tasmania Australia though the latest I see stops abruptly in 2016 as I believe we in Aus decided that this is of no particular importance (or could be an embarrassment to the people that direct funding) and it's better to focus our research on commercial opportunities. Please leave any replies in the swearing thread where I may reply after I have finished banging my head on the table.

https://agage.mit.edu/stations/cape-grim

[Pmt111500]

Oh, it was only three and five days days ago?  Anyway, it could be better to switch over to some other site for the duration of the eruption. No doubt the winds may clear the site of any extra co2, but nonetheless the quality of data isn't possibly as good as normal.
Besides the crew there is likely busy with the volcanic gas measurements so it may be a while the site is out of regular observations. They have some guards as to which measurements are acceptable wrt winds in these situations, but the size of the geological stuff going on there may render these obsolete.

[mitch]

Here is another site to get GHG time series:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/index.php?code=brw

Northern hemisphere has higher CO2 and methane because of the fossil fuel source. The southern hemisphere lags by about a year because of the time it takes air parcels to work across the equator. 

[JimD]

I've mentioned many times that to get emissions under control you have to shut down the global tourism industry.  Here is why...

Domestic and international tourism account for eight percent of greenhouse gas emissions, four times more than previously estimated, according to a study published Monday.
The multi-trillion dollar industry's carbon footprint is expanding rapidly, driven in large part by demand for energy-intensive air travel, researchers reported in the journal Nature Climate Change.

"Tourism is set to grow faster than many other economic sectors," with revenue projected to swell by four percent annually through 2025, noted lead-author Arunima Malik, a researcher at The University of Sydney's business school...

...As in decades past, the United States is the single largest emitter of tourism-related carbon emissions, with other wealthy nations -- Germany, Canada and Britain -- also in the top ten.

But emerging economies with burgeoning middle classes have moved up the ranking, with China in second place and India, Mexico and Brazil 4th, 5th and 6th, respectively....

...The total number of air passengers is expected to almost double by 2036 to 7.8 billion per year, according to the International Air Transport Association (IATA).

7.8 billion is a scary number. Those are not going to be electric planes.

http://www.spacedaily.com/afp/180507150126.yqljztgb.html

[JimD]

Forgot this part from the article above.

...Neither tourism nor aviation are currently covered by the 2015 Paris climate treaty, which calls for capping global warming at "well below" two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit),...

I have trouble thinking that was anything but great industry lobbying. I wonder what other business segments were conveniently left out?