Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Poll

What will 2019's annual C02 concentration growth be over 2018?

≤ 2.0 ppm
0 (0%)
2.1 - 2.5 ppm
11 (33.3%)
2.5 - 2.9 ppm
17 (51.5%)
3.0 - 3.4 ppm
4 (12.1%)
≥ 3.5 ppm
1 (3%)

Total Members Voted: 33

Voting closed: February 02, 2019, 12:48:04 AM

Author Topic: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels  (Read 5447 times)

wolfpack513

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 5
2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: January 12, 2019, 12:48:04 AM »
Due to the shutdown 2018's numbers aren't down from NOAA.  Estimate put's 2018 at 408.50 ppm.  That's an increase of only 1.95 ppm over 2017.  Thanks to the super Niño, 2016's growth over 2015 was 3.4 ppm.

2019 will also be the first yearly average above 410 ppm.  August, September & October 2019 may be the last months to average below 410 ppm.

crandles

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2125
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2019, 12:28:41 AM »
new record daily value rather early in the year:
January 12:     413.45 ppm
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/monthly.html

ouch!

Viggy

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 7
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2019, 10:11:05 AM »
new record daily value rather early in the year:
January 12:     413.45 ppm

I have to believe that number will be corrected lower eventually!

It's 1 ppm higher than the high recorded in May and May averages are generally 4 ppm higher than January averages.

silkman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 286
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2019, 03:06:03 PM »
The Scripps hourly data for the 12th is too noisy for them to record a daily data point for the Keeling Curve. Let's see what tomorrow brings.


Darvince

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 236
    • View Profile
    • NSIDC Daily
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2019, 12:31:12 PM »
Has there been a more northerly airmass near Hawai'i that would cause the higher and more variable CO2 readings?

silkman

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 286
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #6 on: January 20, 2019, 09:20:09 AM »
The Keeling Curve has finally settled down after a noisy few days:

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4080
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 444
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2019, 02:31:21 PM »
Jan 19 412.51 ppm

A burp upwards and lots of variation in the last few days continues c.f. average. Will it last?
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

wolfpack513

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2019, 01:15:02 AM »
A convectively suppressed kelvin wave moved across the Pacific and over Hawaii around January 8th.  Below normal VP 200s have been there since.  Maybe this is limiting mixing?

Has there been a more northerly airmass near Hawai'i that would cause the higher and more variable CO2 readings?

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4080
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 444
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #9 on: January 23, 2019, 10:50:45 PM »
Jan 19 412.51 ppm

A burp upwards and lots of variation in the last few days continues c.f. average. Will it last?

Jan 22 - 413.96 ppm

Answer :- Yes (so far).
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

wolfpack513

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #10 on: January 24, 2019, 07:38:00 AM »
I've got the NOAA monthly average so far at 410.62 ppm through January 22.  We may see a year-over-year change of 3.0 ppm from January 2018's 407.96 ppm.  Who knows given the variability in the daily data. 

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4080
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 444
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #11 on: January 25, 2019, 09:20:22 AM »
For those who haven't voted yet in the poll about the 2019 rise in ppm c.f. 2018, here are the thoughts from the UK Met Office. (It is nice to see that they agree with me, he said modestly)

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/25/worrying-rise-in-global-co2-forecast-for-2019

Worrying’ rise in global CO2 forecast for 2019
Quote
Levels of the climate-warming gas are set to rise by near-record amounts, Met Office predicts[/b]
The Met Office has a good record of forecasting global CO2 levels and predicts that the average rise over 2019 will be 2.75 parts per million (ppm). That would put it among the highest annual rises in the 62 years since good records began.

Only years with strong El Niño events, 1998 and 2016, are likely to be higher. The rise in 2016 was 3.39ppm. In the decade after the first measurement on the Hawaiian volcano Mauna Loa in 1956, annual rises were less than 0.9ppm per year.

An El Niño event occurs when the tropical Pacific swings into a warm phase, causing many regions to have warmer and drier weather. Trees and plants are natural carbon sinks because they absorb CO2 as they grow, but this is reduced in El Niño years.

“This year we expect these carbon sinks to be relatively weak, so the impact of record high human-caused emissions will be larger than last year,” said Betts.

The Met Office forecasts an average CO2 level in 2019 of 411ppm. Monthly averages are expected to peak at 415ppm in May, before the growing season temporarily reduces levels to 408ppm in September, when CO2 will begin rising once again. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere before the industrial revolution sparked the large-scale burning of coal, oil and gas was 280ppm.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

wolfpack513

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #12 on: January 30, 2019, 05:23:54 AM »
NOAA’s numbers are down.   2018 came in at 408.52 ppm.  That’s a +1.97 ppm growth rate over 2017.  January is highly variable but will still be a big month.  Last week for example came in +3.68 ppm over same week in 2018. 

TerryM

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4268
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #13 on: February 01, 2019, 04:37:11 PM »
I'm not sure that there is any practical difference between Chris' 95% and Gavin's 80% as I don't believe achieving either is remotely possible - barring a massive die off that would leave no one alive to read the dials.


A hopeful, uplifting paragraph should follow the one above. Something to inspire the vegan cyclists  growing kale in their kitchen window that have voted Green since James Hansen addressed Congress in 1988, but nothing hopeful or inspiring comes to mind. :-\
Terry

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1297
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #14 on: February 01, 2019, 05:36:57 PM »
Terry, I used to post on the carbon cycle but I haven't kept up reporting. I agree the deep ocean sink of 2 Gt is the only long term carbon sink. It is dependent upon biological processes that are threatened by ocean acidification however. So all the efforts at soil carbon farming or forestation are only stopgap measures. All the terrestrial carbon , or a vast majority of it, moves back into the atmosphere where the ocean can then absorb ~ 25% of it. Of that current 2.5Gt ocean carbon sink only 2 Gt moves into the deep ocean particulate sink, the rest is labile and will over a thousand year timeframe re-enter the atmosphere . We are emitting about 10Gt carbon annually and most of it will cycle back into the atmosphere over the next thousand years whether it goes into terrestrial or oceans sinks.People just have a very hard time with thousand year timescales. If we keep emitting carbon at the current rate nobody will be here to witness what happens in a thousand years anyhow.
 I agree with Lurk that we need to get somewhere close to 100% reduction in carbon emissions. So electrical production, transportation, food production and land use All need to be included in the zero carbon plans. The Tesla /Glory thread is an indication of how most, even very bright people , can't seem to get their brains around zero.  You , Lurk and I are just misfits.
 Sorry to be such a bummer but I have been hanging around the Holocene Extinction thread too long. I realized I haven't even seen a single butterfly for a very long time . I have started to look into other people's automotive grills at their radiators looking for bugs. Not seeing them.
 I realize this is OT but really what point is there in counting numbers on CO2 if we can't admit we are going over the cliff ?

« Last Edit: February 02, 2019, 02:49:31 AM by Bruce Steele »

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4080
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 444
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #15 on: February 01, 2019, 05:52:10 PM »
...... but really what point is there in counting numbers on CO2 if we can't admit we are going over the cliff ?
To bear witness.
Every little nudge might push a decision-maker somewhere to push a renewable energy project a little bit harder, even if mitigation / delay, not solution, is the real name of the game.

Mauna Loa ppm 411.38 as at 30 Jan 2019

"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Bernard

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 86
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #16 on: February 01, 2019, 06:01:48 PM »
A hopeful, uplifting paragraph should follow the one above. Something to inspire the vegan cyclists  growing kale in their kitchen window that have voted Green since James Hansen addressed Congress in 1988, but nothing hopeful or inspiring comes to mind. :-\
Terry

La lutte elle-même vers les sommets suffit à remplir un coeur d'homme. Il faut imaginer Sisyphe heureux.
Albert Camus, Le Mythe de Sisyphe, 1942

Lurk

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 513
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #17 on: February 02, 2019, 02:32:24 AM »
Terry, I used to post on the carbon cycle but I haven't kept up reporting.

I did that too for a couple of years focusing on emissions. I gave up. GHG atmospheric levels are really the only yardstick that maters now. It's reliable. Plus it not only includes man-made driven emissions it captures natural biosphere emissions as well. The focus actually needs to be on both now the inaction train has already left the station. The best way to monitor the "yardstick" is global atmospheric ghg levels.

And more cutting edge observations and analysis like this by NASA
  https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-pinpoints-cause-of-earth-s-recent-record-carbon-dioxide-spike
Quote
A new NASA study provides space-based evidence that Earth’s tropical regions were the cause of the largest annual increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration seen in at least 2,000 years.

“These three tropical regions released 2.5 gigatons more carbon into the atmosphere than they did in 2011,” said Junjie Liu of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, who is lead author of the study. “Our analysis shows this extra carbon dioxide explains the difference in atmospheric carbon dioxide growth rates between 2011 and the peak years of 2015-16. OCO-2 data allowed us to quantify how the net exchange of carbon between land and atmosphere in individual regions is affected during El Nino years.” A gigaton is a billion tons."

That extra 2.5GtC in one summer equals an extra 25% of total annual man-made CO2 produced globally. How much will Tesla save in GtC between now and 2030? Or all the renewable electricity energy supply installed this year globally? A tiny drop in the bucket compared to that ONE instance of CO2 spiking from forests, that's how much

Once that naturally forced CO2 is in the atmosphere +80% of it is there for the duration. It is still affecting higher temperatures today than they otherwise would have been without that HEATWAVE low rainfall forced CO2 spike. It helped drive those forest wild fires last year across Europe and the US and Australia and Sth America.

All those fires combined have added even more CO2 to the atmosphere that otherwise would be the case, and it's there for the duration as well.

Quote
I agree the deep ocean sink of 2 Gt is the only long term carbon sink. It is dependent upon biological processes that are threatened by ocean acidification however. So all the efforts at soil carbon farming or forestation are only stopgap measures. All the terrestrial carbon , or a vast majority of it, moves back into the atmosphere where the ocean can then absorb ~ 25% of it. Of that current 10 Gt ocean carbon sink only 2 Gt moves into the deep ocean particulate sink, the rest is labile and will over a thousand year timeframe re-enter the atmosphere . We are emitting about 40 Gt carbon annually and 38Gt of it will cycle back into the atmosphere over the next thousand years.

A little heads up but those numbers seem a bit muddled. Maybe you switched to CO2 from C numbers at some point. Plus the current ocean carbon sink isn't 10GtC it's 2GtC (per Schimdt). Anthropogenic emissions are ~10GtC in total, almost 11GtC now annually. 
Solving Climate Change means changing 'The System' because nothing changes when nothing changes.
Each one of us must consider our deepest values, proceed to act from this standpoint alone, ignoring other voices of illusion, false hope, and distraction that might threaten to throw us off course.

Lurk

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 513
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #18 on: February 02, 2019, 03:15:59 AM »
I'm not sure that there is any practical difference between Chris' 95% and Gavin's 80% as I don't believe achieving either is remotely possible - barring a massive die off that would leave no one alive to read the dials.

At this point in time I believe you are correct. It is not remotely possible. That's obvious for some. But at least Gavin's number sets a more hopeful/gettable target to get to a little sooner. At least that is underpinned with the best climate science known to man, at this time.

But here's the rub. That number 80%, that truth is the second biggest AGW/CC 'secret' on Earth today. No one ever mentions it. It's not the major issue to be solved.

Compare that avoidance with all the verbiage that goes on about Tesla and the growth of renewable energy in the electricity markets (in some places but not all) as if these are significant long term "all or nothing" solutions. They are not. They only represent a very small % of the total energy use today and into the future past 2030.

Meanwhile all the geniuses of the world ... politicians and corporate financial shills ... keep on about the critical importance of economic growth everywhere in every nation. The facts are that at least ~80% of that economic growth is going to be based on additional Carbon Energy supply and therefore even more growth in GHG Emissions. This is how disconnected we all are from the "truth" of what's needed - Systemic Solutions Globally and Collectively for the Good of all future generations. That's the elephant in the room imho and in that regard absolutely nothing is changing for the better. I say nothing and I mean it!

Getting stitches on your leg because you suffered a bad cut will not save you from 4th stage cancer of your internal organs. This is an accurate analogy of what is happening across the world today bar a few exceptional locations.

And where great advances are being made, they could do even better if it wasn't for the rest of the world dragging them back to the pack in order to maintain the global economy ... and so those more enlightened nation's "rational" need to stay within it. 

But what is the biggest secret about AGW/CC today which keeps being ignored and/or distracted from in climate action discussions about solutions etc? The Global Carbon Budget that's left before 2C is totally blown and the Earth shifts into a new kind of global and regional Climate System even the scientists cannot predict how bad it will be. A world where the El Nino climate is the norm and not the exception. A world of out of control non-stop new tipping points being breached.

The only person to mention this at the WEF Davos was that little Swedish teenage girl Greta. Is she really the only one with any brains at Davos? Yes, apparently she is.

Things that look like this but all over the world every year some place somewhere.
Quote
“These three tropical regions released 2.5 gigatons more carbon into the atmosphere than they did in 2011,” said Junjie Liu of NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, who is lead author of the study. “Our analysis shows this extra carbon dioxide explains the difference in atmospheric carbon dioxide growth rates between 2011 and the peak years of 2015-16. OCO-2 data allowed us to quantify how the net exchange of carbon between land and atmosphere in individual regions is affected during El Nino years.” A gigaton is a billion tons.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-pinpoints-cause-of-earth-s-recent-record-carbon-dioxide-spike

Much more of that is what is coming. Exactly where, how often, and how much is the only unknowns. But coming it is.... until something really significant shifts in the current System of how human life goes on on this Planet.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2019, 03:30:33 AM by Lurk »
Solving Climate Change means changing 'The System' because nothing changes when nothing changes.
Each one of us must consider our deepest values, proceed to act from this standpoint alone, ignoring other voices of illusion, false hope, and distraction that might threaten to throw us off course.

Lurk

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 513
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #19 on: February 02, 2019, 04:35:00 AM »
To summarise what I am saying boils down to the fact that the UNFCCC pseudo-plans and targets of keeping temps below 2C or 1.5C is a crock of shit. It's the BIG LIE, a ponzi scheme, a pea and shell game of endless delusions and procrastination.

The only rational evidence based Goal the UNFCCC (ie all nations on Earth include the USA who have opted out) must agree to is stabilising atmospheric GHGs - all of them - from every source possible and not only Man-made generated emissions.

That would mean cutting all man-made GHG emissions to a maximum of 2GtC annually down form the present +10GtC (CO2 equivalent). The UNFCCC today is no where near achieving this in a generation (25 years) based on their current "goals" and the national "fake promises".

eg China's GHGs do not stabilize until 2028-2030. The USA doesn't even have a year set for such a thing (does it?). Australia doesn't , Canada doesn't, the EU doesn't collectively. Asia as a whole doesn't.

Once GHG emissions are stablized what does that mean? It means the atmospheric GHGs keeps on rising, keeps on growing higher and higher every year, because +10GtC is still being spewed into the atmosphere all over the world, plus whatever natural sources are net positive. Like Arctic permafrost which will keep rising as the temperature keeps rising and the ice keeps melting.

It should be clear as crystal the UNFCCC is not actually driving genuine System Wide Permanent Solutions at all. It is in fact adding to the problem every year from now out to 2040 at least. This makes the Paris Agreement and all the rhetoric surrounding 1.5C a lie of epic proportions. Doesn't it? Then one could think about the IPCC and how honest and genuine their prognostications are about "the solutions" and how bad it really is already?

Even if all the promises are kept Global CO2 will be near 439 ppmv in 2030. Near +460 ppmv by 2040. And touching on 480 ppmv in 2050. And still it will be rising then.

In 2018 global CO2 was above 408 ppmv. Can you even imagine what the global temps will be and the extreme weather be like, and crop failures like by the time it's 480 ppm? How is this a rational ethical or a moral "solution" to climate chnage and global warming by the UNFCCC and all those nations and all those Politicians to make said agreements?

No, it's not. It is human insanity writ large. It's lies and deceit all the way down. It's delusional clap trap.

The global goal must be to get man made emissions at the very least down to 2GtC from 10GtC.

The next question is by when? By 2050? That's far too late. A world nearing 460 ppm is also too late, so that excludes 2040. By 2030 is probably impractical. How does one cut GHGs by +80% in the next 12 years? I don't know. But a severe plan to serious cut emissions annually according to a long term plan to get them to 2GtC in the future means that 2030 may not hit 439 ppm.

So maybe a compromise Goal of by 2035 would be in order to get to a maximum 2GtC net emissions?

That would mean cutting GHGs by 0.47 GtC per year on average for 17 years 2019 to 2035. How that gets done is moot - it must be done. And it must be done collectively across every nation on Earth. Not by offering national determined plans/promises, but by an EDICT laid down by the collective demand of the entire body of the UNFCCC. 

That means that while some nations continue to increase their carbon emissions eg developing nations that others must cut theirs much more than 0.47 on average overall.

That emans that Chian doe snot get to keep increasing emissions to 2028-2030 but is forced to achive much better. It means people need to stop buying all the unnecessary junk being sold in Walmart etc. It means China needs to stop building ever more highrises and producing ever more ICE motor vehicles. The same applies ot the western world and the rich OECD nations.

It means that NordStream II doesn't get built. Not one new Gas Fracking well being drilled. Not one new cola mind or gas field or oil oilfields being opened or explored for. It means Canada abandoning it Oils sands. It means people with unnecessary GAS GUZZLERS from having their car or truck Re-Registered to drive on US roads next year. It means people losing their assets and their money.

It means that all Govt fleet cars in every nation must be EVs or Hydrogen powered. Because every nation in the UNFCCC voted for that and the majority decisions was that was what was going to happen. Any disagreement to abide by these decisions means the nation gets to be expelled from the global community and totally ostracized until they do agree - with no nation allowed to trade with them, export food to them, or medicines to them, or given them loans or to buy anything from them or allow their aircraft to land or thier ships to dock in any other nation.

It means that the $770 Billion the USA spends on it's ludicrously wasteful Defense Department gets cut to under $100 Billion almost overnight one year. It means national Govts like the USA needing to work out what to do with those people now unemployed. It means a global restructuring of the financial system and the stock markets and making them fit for Purpose instead of being wasteful junkets for the mega wealthy employing people to do anti-human anti-environmental destructive jobs.

Over a 17 year time frame it means starting off cutting global GHGs by around 0.25 GtC per year, to rathcing that up to over 0.75 GtC per year and then slowly reducing the cut back to 0.5GtC, then 0.25GtC to 0.15 GtC to 0.1 GtC per year in 2035.

It can be down but it requires a holistic systemic approach and a gloabl committment that this is the only rational moral option left. Every other thing that happens is to take second place to this Goal. The role of national Govts and Global Finance and Corporations then becomes how they respond to this new reality. It means Australia, Russia, Indonesia, Brazil, Venezuela, the Gulf States, Iran, the USA, Canada to totally rejigging their economies away from Fossil Fuel exports and reliance on them for "cheap" energy.

It means China adjusting its 5 year plans to peak Carbon emissions before 2025 and redirecting their massive development back into nuclear power faster, and more renewables and less ICE vehicles, and less wasteful export industries and dry land Rice production.

It would mean a lot of things.  Things no one is willing to embrace. So nothing will be done and the CO2 MLO readings will continue to rise exponentially here on in.

Because nothing significant is actually happening to solve this problem of rising Atmospheric GHG levels. Nothing.

Even the truth is not yet being told. The biggest majority people of the world are actually clueless about this catastrophic threat humanity and life on earth is facing. Even those who are aware AGW/CC is a serious issue still do not truly get it, do not as yet truly understand it or what must be done to stop it and how to go about it rationally, logically and morally collectively as a species cornered (and Cowered) into national boundaries.

(so much for a summary ... kind of long for a summary lol ;) )
Solving Climate Change means changing 'The System' because nothing changes when nothing changes.
Each one of us must consider our deepest values, proceed to act from this standpoint alone, ignoring other voices of illusion, false hope, and distraction that might threaten to throw us off course.

Lurk

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 513
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #20 on: February 02, 2019, 05:32:25 AM »
PS obviously actions to increase CO2 uptake in the biosphere would be a part of the Plan. Looking at Regenerative agriculture practices including a massive reduction of Nitrogen fertilizers, stopping land clearing, stopping Palm Oil plantations, creating natural re-vegetation and forest renewal schemes, protecting grasslands and improving their Carbon uptakes, and banning things like cattle feedlots and implementing best practices to reduce pastoral emissions overall of all food producing animals.

Those with the capacity (and the wealth) more is expected. A few years back Venezuela offered to lock up a major portion of their native rainforests from further exploitation or Oil exploration by declaring it an international "hands off forever" natural sanctuary and permanent CO2 Sink. It asked for support from wealthy nations to help them fund such a shift. They were told to get lost.

That kind of attitude and destructive human priorities is precisely why where are where we are.

But had Venezuela chosen to ignore the global agreements to eradicate Ozone eating chemicals it would have been labeled an pariah state who refuses to cooperate with the international community. The USA has only been a genuine cooperative nation with the UNFCCC system for a short 3 years under Obama when they agreed to the Paris Treaty - the rest of the time the US has been the Pariah State refusing to cooperate and ratify Treaties coming out of the UNFCCC since 1992.

Now the US is attacking Venezuela as being the obstinate recalcitrant one while the USA has totally rejected both the Paris Treaty and the Iranian Treaty and the International Courts and the World Trade Organization and the United Nations and UNSC on multiple issues that the majority totally agree upon  ... but such are the entrenched systemic delusions of our time.
Solving Climate Change means changing 'The System' because nothing changes when nothing changes.
Each one of us must consider our deepest values, proceed to act from this standpoint alone, ignoring other voices of illusion, false hope, and distraction that might threaten to throw us off course.

Lurk

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 513
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #21 on: February 02, 2019, 05:41:46 AM »
To put all that another:

This is an emergency situation – action is urgent.
Our Government(s) ARE NOT [small edit] acting in accordance with what science and history tells us.
Therefore our Government(s) are criminally negligent.
We have a moral duty to rebel, whatever our politics.
History shows us that peaceful civil disobedience is an effective way to bring about change.
Our lives have meaning when we follow our conscience and fight to protect what we love.
We ask others who feel the same way to join our peaceful Rebellion.
https://xrebellion.org/

Atmospheric GHGs will not even stabilise (at 440, 460, 480ppm or higher) until global human forced carbon emissions are reduced by 80% to no more than 2GtC per year.

Once they stabilize then further efforts need to be made to reduce that 2GtC to a net zero level; and then deploy massive Negative emissions that over decades can get the CO2 level back under 400 ppm and then as close to 350 ppm as is possible in the distant future.
Solving Climate Change means changing 'The System' because nothing changes when nothing changes.
Each one of us must consider our deepest values, proceed to act from this standpoint alone, ignoring other voices of illusion, false hope, and distraction that might threaten to throw us off course.

wolfpack513

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #22 on: February 02, 2019, 07:44:16 AM »
I calculated 410.80 ppm from NOAA's January numbers.  The variability makes it a hard month to gauge. We'll see when the NOAA releases the data.

This is a growth rate of 2.85 ppm over January 2018.  The running 12-month growth rate is back above 2ppm/year.  Should take less than a year to get above 2.5 ppm/year based on previous cycles. 

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1297
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #23 on: February 02, 2019, 04:19:28 PM »
Lurk, I read and reread your posts and I appreciate the effort. Yes I botched the numbers ,CO2 not C ,and tried to go fix them but I waited too long. I have a very hard time finding other people willing to look at our current situation  and education doesn't seem to make much difference in facing the facts.
Even honest individual efforts seem to fall short . That is I don't know anyone who has any idea about how we can get to zero or making much of any effort to do so.
 Yes we ( the US ) are a Pariah state and apparently we are proud to be idiots. Dangerous rich idiots.

Martin Gisser

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 994
  • alias Mars Joh. P. Florifulgurator
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 103
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #24 on: February 02, 2019, 05:51:26 PM »
Quote
[Response: To maintain CO2 concentrations at a stable level, you could only emit what was effectively being balanced by long-term sinks. On the hundred-year scale, that is basically only the deep ocean, and the current sequestration there is about 2 GtC/yr. Given we are putting out ~10 GtC/yr, that means you’d have to cut emissions by 80% to stabilise CO2 (which is not the same as stabilising temperature – that would continue to rise, though more slowly). – gavin]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/01/unforced-variations-jan-2019/comment-page-2/#comment-716751

Seems like mainstream climate scientists still haven't figured the role of soil. And soil organic carbon accumulation could vastly be sped up by using biochar. Switch soil destructive agri "culture" to soil building practises and that could make a huge dent. (Well, Gavin was also slow in accepting the now standard sea level rise estimates.)

According to my old armchair estimates 1000GtC could possibly be sequestered by nonstupid farming alone at a rate of 1-2GtC/y. (Math&references in comments at http://planet3.org/2016/12/04/well-always-have-paris/ )
« Last Edit: February 02, 2019, 05:57:05 PM by Martin Gisser »
"The universe is irrelevant for all practical purposes, so better forget about being thrown into it." --Florifulgurator

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1297
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #25 on: February 02, 2019, 06:17:48 PM »
Martin, I have been thinking of you . I am going to build a small bio char plant.
I am afraid I am polluting this thread . Suggest another and I will follow you there.

Martin Gisser

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 994
  • alias Mars Joh. P. Florifulgurator
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 103
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #26 on: February 02, 2019, 06:30:01 PM »
Martin, I have been thinking of you . I am going to build a small bio char plant.
I am afraid I am polluting this thread . Suggest another and I will follow you there.
Yes, time for such a thread. (First I need to fix my washing machine, having run out of clothes...) Best simple biochar oven: https://www.biochar-journal.org/en/ct/39
"The universe is irrelevant for all practical purposes, so better forget about being thrown into it." --Florifulgurator

Lurk

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 513
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #27 on: February 03, 2019, 12:31:55 AM »
Quote
[Response: To maintain CO2 concentrations at a stable level, you could only emit what was effectively being balanced by long-term sinks. On the hundred-year scale, that is basically only the deep ocean, and the current sequestration there is about 2 GtC/yr. Given we are putting out ~10 GtC/yr, that means you’d have to cut emissions by 80% to stabilise CO2 (which is not the same as stabilising temperature – that would continue to rise, though more slowly). – gavin]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/01/unforced-variations-jan-2019/comment-page-2/#comment-716751

Seems like mainstream climate scientists still haven't figured the role of soil. And soil organic carbon accumulation could vastly be sped up by using biochar. Switch soil destructive agri "culture" to soil building practises and that could make a huge dent. (Well, Gavin was also slow in accepting the now standard sea level rise estimates.)

According to my old armchair estimates 1000GtC could possibly be sequestered by nonstupid farming alone at a rate of 1-2GtC/y. (Math&references in comments at http://planet3.org/2016/12/04/well-always-have-paris/ )

Use of biochar and other regenerative practices need to be made the Law of the land. By all means encourage it with tax breaks or whatever but to do such practices is a no-brainer and should already been happening the last decade and some.
Solving Climate Change means changing 'The System' because nothing changes when nothing changes.
Each one of us must consider our deepest values, proceed to act from this standpoint alone, ignoring other voices of illusion, false hope, and distraction that might threaten to throw us off course.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • ASIF Royalty
  • *****
  • Posts: 6221
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 270
  • Likes Given: 187
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #28 on: February 03, 2019, 11:23:22 AM »
There already is a biochar thread. I've moved it to the Walking the Walk section where it'll be easier to find.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

Lurk

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 513
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #29 on: February 05, 2019, 03:00:14 PM »
Another spike at MLO February 04:  412.55 ppm
Solving Climate Change means changing 'The System' because nothing changes when nothing changes.
Each one of us must consider our deepest values, proceed to act from this standpoint alone, ignoring other voices of illusion, false hope, and distraction that might threaten to throw us off course.

wolfpack513

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #30 on: February 09, 2019, 07:48:10 AM »
BTW January officially came in at 410.83 ppm on NOAA.  That's a growth rate of 2.87 ppm over 2018.  The running 12-month growth rate is back up to ~2.10 ppm. 

dnem

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 177
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #31 on: February 09, 2019, 03:57:49 PM »
So the CO2 thread becomes the Extinction thread!  You are, of course, completely right, Lurk.  But, and I'm sure you know this, the global economy is completely unable to accommodate the changes that are required. The economy is structurally dependent on growth and would collapse if we did what you suggest, causing widespread chaos.  We are well and truly stuck.

crandles

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2125
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #32 on: February 10, 2019, 06:58:07 PM »
February 09:     414.27 ppm

Might be deleted, but that looks like a record high daily number.

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 729
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #33 on: February 11, 2019, 06:46:06 PM »
There is a lot of volatility recently in the Mauna Loa numbers, but the underlying trend is very worrying. With no significant difference in ENSO level year over year, we are seeing 3+ ppm changes year over year. Even looking at the global CO2 estimate for 2018 vs 2017, it is 2.63 (based on the November numbers, will be revised as December to February come in). When taking into account methane etc. the annual change is around 5ppm CO2e.

I remember reading that average annual numbers between 2.5 and 3 would be a symptom of increasing carbon cycle feedbacks (reduction in sinks and/or increase in natural sources). Seems we may be at the beginning of this, which would mean that the rate of increase in atmospheric concentrations will continue to increase, even if emissions stabilize.

If this is happening at just over 1 degree centigrade, once again Jim Hansen will have been prove correct. The rest of science will take its usual time to catch up.

wolfpack513

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #34 on: February 14, 2019, 08:56:42 AM »
Linear regression(see my chart) for the last 12 years is a growth rate to 2.5 ppm. We're not at 3ppm/year yet but on our way.  The running 12-month has only crossed 3ppm/year once in that period and that was due to the super 2015-2016 El Niño.
There is a lot of volatility recently in the Mauna Loa numbers, but the underlying trend is very worrying. With no significant difference in ENSO level year over year, we are seeing 3+ ppm changes year over year. Even looking at the global CO2 estimate for 2018 vs 2017, it is 2.63 (based on the November numbers, will be revised as December to February come in). When taking into account methane etc. the annual change is around 5ppm CO2e.

I remember reading that average annual numbers between 2.5 and 3 would be a symptom of increasing carbon cycle feedbacks (reduction in sinks and/or increase in natural sources). Seems we may be at the beginning of this, which would mean that the rate of increase in atmospheric concentrations will continue to increase, even if emissions stabilize.

If this is happening at just over 1 degree centigrade, once again Jim Hansen will have been prove correct. The rest of science will take its usual time to catch up.

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 729
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #35 on: February 15, 2019, 05:57:29 AM »
I was talking about the first 5 weeks of 2019 vs the first 5 weeks of 2018, as there is no significant difference in the ENSO between the two. The sixth week is starting to look the same as well. Could be noise, we will have to see.

Lurk

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 513
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #36 on: February 15, 2019, 09:19:47 AM »
I was talking about the first 5 weeks of 2019 vs the first 5 weeks of 2018, as there is no significant difference in the ENSO between the two. The sixth week is starting to look the same as well. Could be noise, we will have to see.

If it's noise then it is really loud. :)

January Mean  Growth    February

2014 1 397.85 +2.30   2 398.01
2015 1 399.98 +2.13   2 400.28
2016 1 402.56 +2.58    2 404.12
2017 1 406.17 +3.61   2 406.46
2018 1 407.96 +1.79       2 408.32
2019 1 410.83 +2.87       2 411.75 to +412 ... ?

Up-to-date weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa

Week beginning on January 20, 2019:   411.99 ppm = +3.68
Week beginning on January 27, 2019:   411.02 ppm = +3.07
Week beginning on February 3, 2019:      411.63 ppm = +3.82

Recent Daily Average Mauna Loa CO2

February 13:      412.10 ppm
February 11:      413.52 ppm
February 10:      411.97 ppm
which will probably/possibly be another week of +3.5 ppm growth

Of course everything could change tomorrow but those are the numbers as they sit now.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2019, 09:27:12 AM by Lurk »
Solving Climate Change means changing 'The System' because nothing changes when nothing changes.
Each one of us must consider our deepest values, proceed to act from this standpoint alone, ignoring other voices of illusion, false hope, and distraction that might threaten to throw us off course.

wolfpack513

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #37 on: February 15, 2019, 09:57:10 AM »
We were at the tail end of a moderate 2nd year La Niña in January 2018.  We’re currently in a weak El Niño that could very likely be a multi year Niño.  So I would hardly say “no significant difference in ENSO.”

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 729
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #38 on: February 15, 2019, 11:13:30 PM »
There is a lot of academic research that shows La Nina years create a spike in natural CO2 emissions (e.g. 1998 and 2016/2017), as well as global temperature (due to the warm spot in the Pacific and the knock-on effects). The Nino 3.4. number is the best measure of Nino/Nina. A fall in value from one year to the next should create a drag on CO2 emissions, and a rise the opposite. The article below covers this phenomena.

The 2019 ENSO thread in Consequences provides updated statuses on ENSO.

So with no significant different in the Nino 3.4 levels y-o-y it is surprising that y-o-y CO2 levels are rising so much, the levels we are seeing are more like during the last El Nino event. May be noise in the data, we will have to see if it sticks. If it does, in the absence of an El Nino, some other process/processes must be spiking CO2 emissions.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9c5b/pdf
« Last Edit: February 15, 2019, 11:21:25 PM by rboyd »

crandles

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2125
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #39 on: February 16, 2019, 12:25:13 AM »
We were at the tail end of a moderate 2nd year La Niña in January 2018.  We’re currently in a weak El Niño that could very likely be a multi year Niño.  So I would hardly say “no significant difference in ENSO.”

Depends what period you are looking at. If looking at May-Aug 2018 vs 2017 there is little difference perhaps even a fall in the index. If looking at Sept-Dec 2018 vs 2017 there is quite a rise. The correct period to look at depends on the lag.

from abstract of above study:

Quote
El Ninos originating in the central tropical Pacific (CP El Nino) and El Ninos originating in the eastern tropical Pacific (EP El Nino). We find significant differences between the two types of El Nino events with respect to time delay of the CO2 rise rate that follows the increase in tropical near surface air temperatures caused by El Nino events. The average time lag of the CP El Nino is 4.0 ±1.7 months, while the mean time lag of EP El Nino is found to be 8.5±2.3 months. The average lag of all considered 1960–2016 El Ninos is 5.2±2.7 months

given those differing lag periods, it is not quite clear which period we should be looking at. (sorry don't know if this El Nino is CP or EP.)

wolfpack513

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 115
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #40 on: February 16, 2019, 02:42:17 AM »
It's not an argument that we went from a moderate La Niña to a weak El Niño in the last year. This of course impacts CO2.  Why do you think we had 11 separate months with 3ppm growth rate & 2 above 4ppm/year during the 2015-2016 super Niño? Did that mean at the end of 2016 we were now growing over 3ppm? No. That was ENSO on top of our linear trend of 2.5 ppm.

Lurk

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 513
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #41 on: February 16, 2019, 04:50:59 AM »
It's not an argument that we went from a moderate La Niña to a weak El Niño in the last year. This of course impacts CO2.  Why do you think we had 11 separate months with 3ppm growth rate & 2 above 4ppm/year during the 2015-2016 super Niño? Did that mean at the end of 2016 we were now growing over 3ppm? No. That was ENSO on top of our linear trend of 2.5 ppm.

That's all well and good. Though doesn't that 2.5ppm also include the "noise/variations" from ENSO shifts too? What leads to to ask is given the table at https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2541.msg189044.html#msg189044 and the graph above I noticed 2013 which also spiked at +3 ppm yet the same consistencies do not seem to apply there.

While these 2 refs don't mention 2013 CO2 ppm they do make a point about the temps in relation to enso.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/2013-2nd-hottest-non-el-nino-year.html
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/feb/06/2013-second-hottest-year-without-el-nino

Looking at the enso numbers there doesn't seem to be much of "significant" shift from 2012-2013 even taking into consideration several months drag. Which was why asked about what "yardsticks" WP is using.

It's a curious issue. Because implying several months a drag before enso shifts would impact MLO CO2 growth rates, this would mean that the ENSO period that could be affecting the spike in present CO2 means it must falls in the period  AMJ through JAS. At that time the difference in numbers (2017v 2018) is marginal and the headline numbers very low @ 0.1. Then from 2018 SON thru NDJ 2019 the headline numbers are not strong either avg 0.8 versus other El Nino data.

Which make me wonder if there isn't something else going on that is unusual/different than simply ENSO affects. 
Solving Climate Change means changing 'The System' because nothing changes when nothing changes.
Each one of us must consider our deepest values, proceed to act from this standpoint alone, ignoring other voices of illusion, false hope, and distraction that might threaten to throw us off course.

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 4080
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 444
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #42 on: February 16, 2019, 11:14:49 AM »
CO2 ppm also depends on:-

- CO2 emissions, that stalled from 2014 to 2016 and rose again in 2017 and 2018 (and expected to rise again in 2019),
- The Carbon Sinks. The science tells us that about half of CO2 emissions are sunk, half of that in the oceans the rest land-based. The science is solid on the gradual reduction of the effectiveness of the ocean sinks. Science also tells us that some forests have become carbon emitters rather than sinks. If the sinks fail entirely, current CO2 emissions should increase CO2 ppm by 4 or 5 ppm per annum. If the sinks become emitters all bets are off & welcome to hothouse earth?

I attach a couple of pessimistic graphs
- CO2 emissions and ppm at Business as Usual,
- X-Y graph of CO2 emissions to ppm with an Armageddon projection if the sinks start to fail.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

crandles

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2125
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #43 on: February 16, 2019, 12:59:42 PM »
That's all well and good. Though doesn't that 2.5ppm also include the "noise/variations" from ENSO shifts too?

Huh? Do you mean the 1.5-2 values we have recently had 'also include the "noise/variations" from ENSO shifts'? The linear trend at 2.5 looks to level out both the peaks and the troughs.


Which make me wonder if there isn't something else going on that is unusual/different than simply ENSO affects.

Why would you think anyone was claiming there aren't other effects besides ENSO?

ENSO is largest known effect, that doesn't mean there aren't other effects. Besides emissions, natural uptake as mentioned, I would expect other oceanic oscillations to also have an impact.

Lurk

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 513
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #44 on: February 16, 2019, 02:21:13 PM »
That's all well and good. Though doesn't that 2.5ppm also include the "noise/variations" from ENSO shifts too?

Huh? Do you mean the 1.5-2 values we have recently had 'also include the "noise/variations" from ENSO shifts'? The linear trend at 2.5 looks to level out both the peaks and the troughs.

A statement couched as a rhetorical question. It made sense to me in the context of what was being said. Surely there is nothing wrong in checking my understanding was correct "out loud"?

Perhaps I need to explain it further?

Given you now say basically the same thing in: "The linear trend at 2.5 looks to level out both the peaks and the troughs." isn't that saying the underlying decadal trend is +2.5 ppm with ENSO removed? Maybe not exactly in a hard set 10 yr time frame but it's close enough especially if one expands it out further. And yet in the middle of that 2014-2016 human emissions slowed with 2015 actually falling. But in 2015-2017 CO2ppm went through the roof anyway. 
 
It's really quite interesting to me (ymmv) - "In 2015 and 2016, OCO-2 recorded atmospheric carbon dioxide increases that were 50 percent larger than the average increase seen in recent years preceding these observations. These measurements are consistent with those made by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). That increase was about 3 parts per million of carbon dioxide per year -- or 6.3 gigatons of carbon. In recent years, the average annual increase has been closer to 2 parts per million of carbon dioxide per year -- or 4 gigatons of carbon. These record increases occurred even though emissions from human activities in 2015-16 are estimated to have remained roughly the same as they were prior to the El Nino"
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-pinpoints-cause-of-earth-s-recent-record-carbon-dioxide-spike

What that nasa report says to me is the spike in 2015-2016 (carrying over to 2017) following on an actual decrease in 2015 human emissions was almost all driven by dry and heat (record temps in 2016 right?) from the super el nino. CO2 Growth jumped to 3 ppm per year. Since late last year to now CO2 growth is very close to an equivalent growth rate and yet that cannot have been all the result of the early/weak El Nino that is only just beginning this time around.

To me it just doesn't follow the usual "patterns" so I am looking to understand it better without making any wild claims or assumptions. I am not only speaking about yoy changes either. At MLO the Jan increase on Dec 2018 is at the upper bounds. The February increase on January number is  typically the smallest of the year ~0.3 ppm but this year it is currently tracking almost 3 times higher almost +0.9 ppm. On top of an already high gain in January, but of course that could change before the end of the month but gain "typically" February does keep rising through the month.

January numbers are usually about the mid-point between the year before of March and April. This year not only is January above April last year it is equal with June 2018 - I have never seen it that high before relative to other months/years. Nor in the 2015/2016 super el nino period specifically. There's obviously a reason for these variances however it is far from normal imo.

Nasa also adds this: “Understanding how the carbon cycle in these regions responded to El Nino will enable scientists to improve carbon cycle models, which should lead to improved predictions of how our planet may respond to similar conditions in the future,” said OCO-2 Deputy Project Scientist Annmarie Eldering of JPL. “The team’s findings imply that if future climate brings more or longer droughts, as the last El Nino did, more carbon dioxide may remain in the atmosphere, leading to a tendency to further warm Earth."

What that says to me is that the historical patterns of typical el nino effects may have already shifted. I don;t know but am certainly thinking about it and looking. That 2015/16 el nino has possibly left far more CO2 in the atmosphere than ever before. On top of that 2018 human emissions is back close to levels of the 2000s growing +2.7%. What else?   

Furthermore nasa says in that OCO report: "In eastern and southeastern tropical South America, including the Amazon rainforest, severe drought spurred by El Nino made 2015 the driest year in the past 30 years. Temperatures also were higher than normal. These drier and hotter conditions stressed vegetation and reduced photosynthesis, meaning trees and plants absorbed less carbon from the atmosphere. The effect was to increase the net amount of carbon released into the atmosphere."

How close were conditions in other parts of the world in 2018 in the nth hemi summer/fall with extreme droughts and wildfires, and now the very same thing occurring in the sth hemi recently in Australia, Africa and Sth America ... but all this is BEFORE there was any declared El Nino event happening.

I have not been able to keep up to date with every region in the world nor check every data point, but it looks to me that recently the "weather conditions" in Australia, Chile and Argentina as three examples is more like life in the middle of a Super El Nino already .. and yet it is not. Still CO2 levels are clearly spiking and totally out of the normal patterns right now as if we are in the middle of 2015-2016 again already (which is quite subjective at the moment ... so I am waiting to see what comes from here on in) and checking to see if I have perhaps missed something along the way.

Because if we are about to flip into an official major El Nino event now or in the next few months then I cannot imagine what that's is going to be like or what the numbers will look like this year and next if it lasts a year or more --- on top of human emissions going gang busters again versus the lower levels they were at during the last el nino phase.   


Which make me wonder if there isn't something else going on that is unusual/different than simply ENSO affects.

Why would you think anyone was claiming there aren't other effects besides ENSO?

ENSO is largest known effect, that doesn't mean there aren't other effects. Besides emissions, natural uptake as mentioned, I would expect other oceanic oscillations to also have an impact.

Who says I was thinking anyone was claiming there are not other effects? I wasn't.

Though I did wonder if something else was going on that is unusual/different than simply ENSO affects of late. That is why I am asking questions (in case anyone else is interested about my motivations.) I am certainly not looking for an argument.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2019, 04:47:58 PM by Lurk »
Solving Climate Change means changing 'The System' because nothing changes when nothing changes.
Each one of us must consider our deepest values, proceed to act from this standpoint alone, ignoring other voices of illusion, false hope, and distraction that might threaten to throw us off course.

rboyd

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 729
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #45 on: February 16, 2019, 11:46:44 PM »
I am not looking for an argument, but we are talking past each other - so will stop. The data will speak for itself.

Sublime_Rime

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #46 on: February 17, 2019, 06:45:13 PM »
Greetings all, first-time poster here. I'm wondering to what extent you think the cyclic variation we see in CO annual anomaly at Mauna Loa is location dependent, and if anyone has compared that with global CO2 annual anomalies as average between different latitudes (such as posted on NOAA's ESRL website). Since ENSO leads to regional increases in ocean SSTs, my question would be wherher this could be modifying CO2 sinks locally? My hypothesis might be that underlying accumulation of ocean heat is pushing the ocean sinks towards greater sensitivity to cyclic variability as produced by ENSO (or if 2013 produced higher than average non-ENSO related ocean temps). I was thinking that looking at the correlation between local SST anomalies and CO2 annual anomalies at similar locations might be one way to assess for such a relationship  (ie does a location relatively unaffected by ENSO, or with little SST variability, show reduced variability in CO2 anomalies from year to year, while areas, like perhaps Mauna loa, are more influenced by regional SST variability), and whether the regional variability in ocean temp is reducing the effectiveness of ocean sinks to a greater extent over time.

crandles

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 2125
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #47 on: February 17, 2019, 08:55:39 PM »
Hi and welcome.

Hope this helps:



clearly the cycle is location dependant, with opposite cycles in N vs S hemisphere.

The water temp does have effect on CO2 absorbtion/retention, however note the much larger cycle in N hemisphere vs S. There is more land in N and I doubt this is a co-incidence.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2019, 09:04:47 PM by crandles »

Bruce Steele

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1297
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #48 on: February 17, 2019, 09:24:34 PM »
Sublime, El Niño and ocean kelvin waves push warm , lower pCO2 waters from the western tropical Pacific to the east where they temporarily suppress Eastern  Equatorial Pacific upwelling. So the high pCO2 waters from upwelled waters are not in contact with the atmosphere and you might expect Mauna Loa rates of increase would slow if local ocean conditions were the primary driver. Instead El Niño tends to result in increased rates of atmospheric CO2 although the changes are somewhat a delayed reaction.
 So it is ostensibly drought and reduced uptake by terrestrial sources that are the cause of what we observe and that explains why the atmospheric CO2 increases are a delayed reaction. If we are looking for answers about current conditions we should probably be looking to drought conditions in Australia,South America, and elsewhere in the tropics over the last six months or so. On the other hand drought and potentially other feedback mechanisms are combined contributors.
 I used to be able to access TAO buoys for oceanic pCO2 levels at buoys stretched across the Equatorial Pacific but I can't seem to figure out how to do it anymore. If someone out there can access that data it might help us better understand what is happening right now.   
 I don't think SST is as important as ocean surface pCO2 levels  Surface waters at pCO2 of 410 -600 are going to move ocean CO2 into the atmosphere ( Henry's law ) no matter what the temperature is and ocean surface waters with 280-400 are going to absorb atmospheric CO2. Biological processes and the carbonate pump will help move surface water pCO2 to depth providing a mechanism to create a differential between surface waters and the atmosphere where their pCO2 levels are close to equal but I don't think temperature can overcome large differences. Yes cold water absorbs and holds CO2 better than warm water  but I believe it affects rates of exchange more than absolute levels.
 I can't address CO levels , no idea.
Welcome to the forum !

Stephan

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 291
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #49 on: February 17, 2019, 10:05:49 PM »
I am very worried.
Latest results from Keeling's lab:
Week beginning on February 10, 2019:     412.41 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:                     408.55 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:             387.17 ppm
If I calculate correctly, the average yearly rise was ~ 2.5 ppm between Feb 2009 and Feb 2019.
The actual yearly rise is higher for many weeks now. Last week the difference grew to almost 4 ppm, and we do not have an El Niño yet. Where will this end? Will a new El Niño year push up the yearly increase to 5 ppm CO2 or even more?
I am very worried.