2017 Mauna Loa CO2

[AbruptSLR]

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.

Note that unless at all times in the future we stay well below a GMSTA of 2.7C (per DeConto), we run the risk of pushing the WAIS past its tipping point & the use of negative emissions technology after that will not be able to stop the ice mass loss and/or the associated ice-climate feedback:

Title: "Climate science bedeviled by 'tipping points'"

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-climate-science-bedeviled.html

Extract: ""There are points-of-no-return where, for example, a certain amount of warming triggers unstoppable collapse of glaciers off of Antarctica, even if the planet cools again," explained Ben Strauss, vice president of the US research group Climate Central.
…
James Hansen, former head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has argued that West Antarctica could disintegrate rapidly, adding up to a couple of metres to ocean levels this century."

[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:

The attached weekly Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 concentration plot thru the week ending Oct 7 2017, supports the idea that Sept 27 2017 was likely the low point for 2017:

[morganism]

NASA Pinpoints Cause Of Earth’s Recent Record Carbon Dioxide Spike

http://www.coloradospacenews.com/nasa-pinpoints-cause-of-earths-recent-record-carbon-dioxide-spike/

"The last El Nino in 2015-16 impacted the amount of carbon dioxide that Earth’s tropical regions released into the atmosphere, leading to Earth’s recent record spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The effects of the El Nino were different in each region."

[Shared Humanity]

NASA Pinpoints Cause Of Earth’s Recent Record Carbon Dioxide Spike

http://www.coloradospacenews.com/nasa-pinpoints-cause-of-earths-recent-record-carbon-dioxide-spike/

"The last El Nino in 2015-16 impacted the amount of carbon dioxide that Earth’s tropical regions released into the atmosphere, leading to Earth’s recent record spike in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The effects of the El Nino were different in each region."

Nice article documenting the impact of natural variation on CO2 increases. Disturbing as well as it suggests that continued warming will reduce the carbon uptake by these regions that currently serve to capture a lot of atmospheric carbon.

[Hefaistos]

The WMO Greenhouse Gas Bulletin out today.
Since 1990, there has been a 40% increase in total radiative forcing – the warming effect on our climate - by all long-lived greenhouse gases, and a 2.5% increase from 2015 to 2016 alone, according to figures from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration quoted in the bulletin.

https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/greenhouse-gas-concentrations-surge-new-record

A separate Emissions Gap Report by UN Environment, to be released on 31 October, tracks the policy commitments made by countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and analyses how these policies will translate into emissions reductions through 2030

[CDN_dude]

New report confirms emissions haven't peaked after all. 2017 sees a 2% rise.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/11/13/fossil-fuel-emissions-projected-to-reach-an-all-time-high-in-2017-dashing-hopes-of-progress/

[crandles]

Think those two images show last hourly reading below 400ppm was Sep 27th 2017.

[AbruptSLR]

Think those two images show last hourly reading below 400ppm was Sep 27th 2017.

Nevertheless, it looks like we are about (maybe next year) to lose sight of Mt. Fuji, in this image of Mauna Loa CO2 concentration thru the week ending Nov 25 2017:

[werther]

Thanks for that beautiful use of Hokusai's art, ASLR!

As he was a keen observer of the natural world, he would sure have worried over what he would see nowadays.
I worry too. Still following the Keeling Curve. No sign that the actions taken to ween off fossil energy use has any impact on the Curve.
I fear, as I already did two years ago, that the carbon sinks are failing.
Found this:
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/2/11/e1501923.full
On climate sensitivity. Maybe published before?

[crandles]

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

Lowest rise so far remains April with rise from 407.42 to 409.00 is 1.58.

November got close: 403.53 to 405.14 is 1.61. (Perhaps even close enough that revisions could make November the month of lowest rise on a year earlier, but seems pretty unlikely)

Dec 16 was 404.42 and Dec 17 so far is already well over 2 higher so it seems pretty certain that the winning category is going to be 1.25-1.67.

[crandles]

Dec 17 406.82 up 2.4 from Dec 16 404.42

Lowest rise April 409.00 from 407.52 is 1.58

Time to think of a poll question to start a 2018 thread.

[Shared Humanity]

As we approached the magical 400 ppm number, this was a very popular thread on this site.

Now? Yawnnnnnn... 

When do we get to anticipate our approach to 500 ppm would be a good poll question.

[gerontocrat]

As we approached the magical 400 ppm number, this was a very popular thread on this site.

Now? Yawnnnnnn... 

When do we get to anticipate our approach to 500 ppm would be a good poll question.

Given my age, a vote from the grave seems not possible. Perhaps a poll on Mauna Loa monthly maximum 2018 ? Will 410 be breached ?

[crandles]

Given my age, a vote from the grave seems not possible. Perhaps a poll on Mauna Loa monthly maximum 2018 ? Will 410 be breached ?

Surely the vote is while you are still alive. 

Still settling outcome when dead probably isn't interesting.

I doubt highest monthly rise or lowest monthly rise is particularly interesting either.

May 2017 was 409.65 and annual average 406.53.

So would be surprising if 411 (let alone 410) wasn't breached in May. Possibly we are not terribly worried by whether monthly fluctuation in May is particularly large or small? So, Isn't it better to guess the 2018 annual average figure.

Last few years:
  2010   389.90
  2011   391.65
  2012   393.85
  2013   396.52
  2014   398.65
  2015   400.83
  2016   404.21
  2017   406.53

[oren]

So, Isn't it better to guess the 2018 annual average figure.

I agree this is the most interesting number to guess, as well as the most significant one physically.

[Juan C. García]

Maybe not completely a subject on this topic, but it is related.

It is interesting to see the 3.4 ppm jump from 2015 to 2016, that I attribute to El Niño. So, trying to forecast the next strong El Niño, could be interesting.

[Bernard]

The most interesting question I think is : when will this curve reach its inflection point? And even if I'm not that young, I wish I could see this happen in my lifetime.

[oren]

The most interesting question I think is : when will this curve reach its inflection point? And even if I'm not that young, I wish I could see this happen in my lifetime.

You probably meant inflection point such that the curve starts falling, but I was reading inflection point and thinking when will it start accelerating upward due to feedback kicking in...

[Bernard]

You probably meant inflection point such that the curve starts falling, but I was reading inflection point and thinking when will it start accelerating upward due to feedback kicking in...

Indeed, the growth has been accelerating quite steadily since 1958 (the beginning of the data). If it's not obvious from the curve, here it is in rounded figures, in ppm for ten years

1958-1967 +7
1968-1977 +13
1978-1987 +15
1988-1997 +15
1998-2007 +20
2008-2017 +22

So my question could be put otherwise. How much growth for the next ten years 2018-2027?
Will it stay under +20, meaning our efforts to curb atmospheric carbon begin to show in the figures, or will it be more like +25?

And I indeed mean inflection in the mathematical sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflection_point

[oren]

Thanks for clarifying Bernard. I am sadly in the +25 camp. Humanity is moving too slow to curb its carbon addiction, and feedbacks are kicking in.

[Shared Humanity]

Thanks for clarifying Bernard. I am sadly in the +25 camp. Humanity is moving too slow to curb its carbon addiction, and feedbacks are kicking in.

Sadly, I agree. If we were to see continued acceleration over the next several decades (say 25, 28, 31), we could be approaching 500 ppm in about 30 years.

[Pmt111500]

+25 ppm for me too, the lunacy of republicans ensures it and after 2017 it's completely out of our hands till 420ppm anyway as the death of veggies and other photosynthetic stuff becomes an issue. Funnily enough, +25 m asl is also what this means. The garbage republicans dump on shores shoul poison the extra algal growth resulting from the expanding surface area of oceans.

It looks like I'm again on a pessimistic mode. Maybe I'll drive the 5 miles to the nearest alpine skiing practise area to see if they've managed to artificially snow the mound. On the way I'll see if the shallow Baltic bays have started to freeze over like the lake over the other way. Photo: a shallow s.Finland lake 80% frozen c.20 min to sunrise

[Pmt111500]

Oh, please start a new thread for 2018, if you want. The poll of the year 2017 became uninteresting very quickly, so not trying to invent another one. As stated above, I'm currently on the belief republican policies prevent meaningful action on anything preserving the stability of earth systems. Thus there are more meaningful ways to contribute than reporting on inevitable (in republican minds) rise of Co2, which rises the humidity and in combo with water vapor warms the oceans the most wich melt the ice sheets year round which rises the sea levels which drowns the beaches.

[Sleepy]

Maybe not completely a subject on this topic, but it is related.

It is interesting to see the 3.4 ppm jump from 2015 to 2016, that I attribute to El Niño. So, trying to forecast the next strong El Niño, could be interesting.

I might post an animation of the ECMWF Nino plumes in the ENSO thread, beacuse they've been rubbish all year and I don't have their computer.
But we might be seeing a return of that little boy, real soon. This might be better suited in the anecdotal thread but I'm still thinking about the 82-83 El Nino. And it's aftermath in 86-88.

[crandles]

New thread at
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?topic=2231.0

Let me know if you think the question/data etc should be changed.

[gerontocrat]

With JAXA sea ice website still on holiday, I decided to drag into my computer the Mauna Loa data, and see if I could invent a plausible Armageddon story,

Lies, damned Lies and Statistics

The graph below shows CO2 ppm reaching 450 ppm by 2030 using a polynomial trend line at the 4th power.
y = 7E-06x4 - 0.0587x3 + 175.04x2 - 232014x + 1E+08
R² = 0.9936

Note the ridiculously high R² correlation. In other words, at first sight plausible. This would require CO2 concentration to increase by about 40 ppm in 13 years, i.e. just over 3 ppm per annum, as opposed to the current increase per annum of just over 2. Increase in human CO2 emissions on this sort of scale does not seem plausible. So such a marked increase in CO2 ppm per annum would require a significant collapse in the carbon sinks (possible?) and / or large CO2 emissions from new sources, e.g. cleared rainforest peatlands (possible?).

So to my surprise, 450 ppm by 2030 may be unlikely, but definitely possible?

[gerontocrat]

And just to add to the gaiety of nations, below is a graph comparing sea level rise in millimetres with CO2 concentrations in ppm. Another impressive correlation (and if the polynomial is increased to an x³ equation up goes the sea level increase)

[Pmt111500]

With JAXA sea ice website still on holiday, I decided to drag into my computer the Mauna Loa data, and see if I could invent a plausible Armageddon story,

Lies, damned Lies and Statistics

The graph below shows CO2 ppm reaching 450 ppm by 2030 using a polynomial trend line at the 4th power.
y = 7E-06x4 - 0.0587x3 + 175.04x2 - 232014x + 1E+08
R² = 0.9936

Note the ridiculously high R² correlation. In other words, at first sight plausible. This would require CO2 concentration to increase by about 40 ppm in 13 years, i.e. just over 3 ppm per annum, as opposed to the current increase per annum of just over 2. Increase in human CO2 emissions on this sort of scale does not seem plausible. So such a marked increase in CO2 ppm per annum would require a significant collapse in the carbon sinks (possible?) and / or large CO2 emissions from new sources, e.g. cleared rainforest peatlands (possible?).

So to my surprise, 450 ppm by 2030 may be unlikely, but definitely possible?

Well at least that should keep "the grand solar minimum new ice age" scares at bay. But yes I agree fossil fuel consumption alone cannot do that. The fit you got might suffer from the effect of last El Nino, there is a correlation (quite poor though) between ENSO and the speed of co2 rise. Ocean phytoplankton might fare better with La Nina conditions and cooler ocean surface absorps co2 more readily anyway. But yes, that looks somewhat familiar (I got something like 2070 some years back.) . I agree terrestrial sinks would need to participate, yes. But that is indeed a ridiculously high correlation.

The sea level graph is new to me.

[Shared Humanity]

With JAXA sea ice website still on holiday, I decided to drag into my computer the Mauna Loa data, and see if I could invent a plausible Armageddon story,

Lies, damned Lies and Statistics

The graph below shows CO2 ppm reaching 450 ppm by 2030 using a polynomial trend line at the 4th power.
y = 7E-06x4 - 0.0587x3 + 175.04x2 - 232014x + 1E+08
R² = 0.9936

Note the ridiculously high R² correlation. In other words, at first sight plausible. This would require CO2 concentration to increase by about 40 ppm in 13 years, i.e. just over 3 ppm per annum, as opposed to the current increase per annum of just over 2. Increase in human CO2 emissions on this sort of scale does not seem plausible. So such a marked increase in CO2 ppm per annum would require a significant collapse in the carbon sinks (possible?) and / or large CO2 emissions from new sources, e.g. cleared rainforest peatlands (possible?).

So to my surprise, 450 ppm by 2030 may be unlikely, but definitely possible?

"What feedbacks are contributing to this accelerating growth in CO2?"

"All of them Katie!" 

Rather than call out several major changes that would contribute to what is already clearly an accelerating growth in atmospheric CO2, we need to consider the possibility that a whole array of feedbacks, some understood and others not known and all too small to measure separately are already in play. If this is the case and I would argue that it must be given the existing data, we could logically assume that these emerging  feedbacks will continue to accelerate. This is even more likely when you consider the huge number of such feedbacks that likely exist.

Perhaps the growth rate will flatten in the following 5 years but I will be more surprised by this than if it continues to follow the polynomial trend line you've got there.

[Shared Humanity]

And just to add to the gaiety of nations, below is a graph comparing sea level rise in millimetres with CO2 concentrations in ppm. Another impressive correlation (and if the polynomial is increased to an x³ equation up goes the sea level increase)

This seems like a very odd correlation. Can't wrap my mind around it. 

Having said this, the acceleration we are seeing in sea level rise is real and likely to continue.

[Shared Humanity]

It is a mistake to look at existing data trends and then immediately jump to possible root causes to determine whether they are plausible and, if not, conclude the data trends are unlikely to continue.

First, simply look at the data. The 1st question is whether the data is accurate and a valid indicator of what is happening with atmospheric CO2. (I believe this data does accurately measure what is going on.)

Second, evaluate the behavior of the data which you have done and it clearly shows an accelerating growth in CO2.

Finally, we can spend a great deal of time to try to understand root cause or, in this case I believe, root causes. This is a time consuming effort and, because of this, we will always be behind the curve. 

[Shared Humanity]

We can safely say that human CO2 emissions cannot be the cause of this accelerating growth in atmospheric CO2. The correlation is using a data set that goes back 60 years! The only conclusion that can be arrived at (IMHO) is that positive feedbacks are coming into play.

This is a very scary thought!

[Shared Humanity]

An example of just one of those accelerating positive feedbacks.

https://twitter.com/Ketil_Isaksen/status/965662819827011584?ref_src=twcamp%5Eshare%7Ctwsrc%5Em5%7Ctwgr%5Eemail%7Ctwcon%5E7046%7Ctwterm%5E2

You can wander through hundreds of topics on this site and find the exact same acceleration of specific measurements everywhere.

[gerontocrat]

We can safely say that human CO2 emissions cannot be the cause of this accelerating growth in atmospheric CO2. The correlation is using a data set that goes back 60 years! The only conclusion that can be arrived at is that positive feedbacks are coming into play.

This is a very scary thought!

I did the graph because I could not find it done by a proper scientist. Maybe a problem of too much specialisation - connections with other strands of climate science not attended to ? (or I did not look hard enough)

It is a game of consequences:-

- CO2 ppm concentrations go up as emissions increase (or even stay flat or only reduce a little bit).
- More heat in the Atmosphere and perhaps more importantly, more global ocean heat content.
- Ice sheets start melting, warming oceans expand (coefficient of expansion)
- Sea level rises

Much is missing -
- deforestation reducing the effectiveness of carbon sinks,
- methane,
etc etc etc.

But from 1993 to 2017 the correlation between CO2 ppm and sea level rise is very strong.
It will be a few years before any change can be tested.

Perhaps I had better include the disposal of my data in my will.

[gerontocrat]

We can safely say that human CO2 emissions cannot be the cause of this accelerating growth in atmospheric CO2. The correlation is using a data set that goes back 60 years! The only conclusion that can be arrived at (IMHO) is that positive feedbacks are coming into play.

This is a very scary thought!

We can safely say that human CO2 emissions cannot be the cause of this accelerating growth in atmospheric CO2   Why ??

Herewith the correlation between CO2 emissions and CO2 ppm. I hope the projection is proved totally wrong. once again, years of "wait and see" await us.

I'm off to bed.

[Shared Humanity]

Actually, that makes me feel a whole lot better.

[oren]

Herewith the correlation between CO2 emissions and CO2 ppm. I hope the projection is proved totally wrong. once again, years of "wait and see" await us.

I think it would be interesting to chart the derivative, annual CO2 emissions vs. annual change in atmospheric ppm, with 5-year averaging. This would better show a possible decoupling through positive feedbacks.

[Hefaistos]

I don't see much value in trying to fit higher degree polynomials to historic data in order to forecast the stochastic future. Usually, you just fool yourself to see some pattern.
Bayesian inference is the way to go, as AbruptSLR has shown in numerous posts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference

[Pmt111500]

I don't see much value in trying to fit higher degree polynomials to historic data in order to forecast the stochastic future. Usually, you just fool yourself to see some pattern.
Bayesian inference is the way to go, as AbruptSLR has shown in numerous posts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference

Very much of the same opinion. But "co2 is life", said some denier and much of the economic growth has been historically tied to the fossil fuel usage so I'm not ruling out these extreme scenarios with the current administrations on many countries.

[gerontocrat]

I don't see much value in trying to fit higher degree polynomials to historic data in order to forecast the stochastic future. Usually, you just fool yourself to see some pattern.
Bayesian inference is the way to go, as AbruptSLR has shown in numerous posts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference

I agree, if the projections are used as predictions. I found them useful as it made me think about whether there was a plausible scenario - a series of events, that would make such extreme outcomes possible. And given what is going on, e.g. implementation of renewable energy still outweighed by growth in fossil fuel usage, degradation of the carbon sinks, India and China and Europe cleaning up their industrial aerosol emissions etc etc, I had to conclude that such extreme outcomes were possible, though not probable.

And so, I will wait and see what happens - it will be quite a long wait.