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: 31

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

Author Topic: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels  (Read 40498 times)

wolfpack513

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 169
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 13
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

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2511
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 47
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

  • New ice
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 19
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

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 306
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 2
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

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 283
    • View Profile
    • NSIDC Daily
  • Liked: 18
  • Likes Given: 6
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

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 306
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 2
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

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6547
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1503
  • Likes Given: 21
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

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 169
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 13
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

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6547
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1503
  • Likes Given: 21
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

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 169
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 13
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

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6547
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1503
  • Likes Given: 21
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

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 169
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 13
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

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5225
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 406
  • 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

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1458
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 10
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

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6547
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1503
  • Likes Given: 21
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

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 104
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 10
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

ASILurker

  • Guest
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #17 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 ;) )

wolfpack513

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 169
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #18 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

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1458
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #19 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

  • Guest
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #20 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 »

Bruce Steele

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1458
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #21 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

  • Guest
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #22 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

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • *****
  • Posts: 7174
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 713
  • Likes Given: 467
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #23 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

wolfpack513

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 169
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #24 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

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 317
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 111
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #25 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

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2511
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #26 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

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1147
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 41
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #27 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

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 169
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #28 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

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1147
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 41
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #29 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.

wolfpack513

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 169
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #30 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

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1147
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 41
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #31 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

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2511
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #32 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

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 169
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #33 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.

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6547
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1503
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #34 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

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2511
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #35 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.

ASILurker

  • Guest
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #36 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 »

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1147
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 41
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #37 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

  • New ice
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #38 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

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2511
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #39 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

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1458
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 127
  • Likes Given: 10
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #40 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

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 758
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 230
  • Likes Given: 126
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #41 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.
It is too late just to be concerned about Climate Change

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2511
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #42 on: February 18, 2019, 12:22:10 AM »


Note the large variation of about 4ppm in last month compared to a year ago only having a range of around 2ppm.

Of course a 2.5ppm increase is something to be worried about. However, I suggest unusual increases of over 3ppm when the data is so variable is just unusually variable data and is quite likely to settle down. Yes, it might be suggestive of something bad, but if you are going to get extremely worried over this, then you are going to have to get used to being extremely worried about several different things at any one time.

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2511
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 94
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #43 on: February 18, 2019, 01:27:37 PM »
What do you think it is supposed to mean?

We have had wild daily swings before, typically? high readings (or is it almost always? or even always) and they have always settled down again. We have an unusually large number: 6 (maybe 8?) of them in the last month or so compared with 1 in Feb 2018. I don't think we should let a few odd readings cause us to panic. If it settles 'up' to give consistent readings above 4ppm above the previous year then that would be genuine cause for increased concern and/or investigation.

I am expecting upward drift due to El Nino to values higher than 2.5ppm per year. 2.5ppm per year +- a bit with ENSO clearly gives us a GW problem certainly cause for concern. However, suggesting it could go to 5ppm sounded like inappropriate panic, and some keep calm and don't get carried away with a few wildly variable data points words seemed appropriate.

Environmentalists screaming the end of the world is nigh then it turns out to be a bit of variable data just makes the general population react by saying those environmentalists are always crying wolf and are increasingly likely to dismiss environmentalist views. So it is a bad idea and doesn't help the cause.

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6547
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1503
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #44 on: February 18, 2019, 02:46:24 PM »
Given an expected increase in CO2 emissions this year and a continued gradual reduction in the effectiveness of carbon sinks, a 2019 over 2018 increase of 3 ppm seems very much a possibility, even with a very modest El Nino.

Given existing CO2 emissions, a rise of 5 ppm on one year would require the carbon sinks to completely fail just like that, (which sends us to Douglas Adams' territory of infinite possibilities). The 5 ppm limit is basic arithmetic, the carbon sinks thing is basic science, e.g.s Henry's Law (oceans), photosynthesis (Land and Oceans).

In the longer-term, if and when CO2 emissions fall then the rate of increase in CO2 ppm will fall, as long as the carbon sinks work OK. However, even if emissions drop to say, 25% of today's emissions, CO2 ppm will continue to increase a bit every year, albeit much more slowly.

Armageddon is much more likely to be death by a thousand cuts
« Last Edit: February 18, 2019, 02:56:13 PM by gerontocrat »
"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

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 169
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 44
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #45 on: February 21, 2019, 07:49:53 AM »
I agree with gerontocrat.  A little early to be talking some huge 2019 growth rates.  3ppm definitely  looks possible considering ENSO the next 10 months.

Through the first 19 days I got NOAA February at 411.8 ppm.  Of course it will change the next 9 days but that's a 3.5 ppm growth rate.  Running 12-months is still only 2.25 ppm including that data.

Pmt111500

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1880
  • Yes, I do not always bicycle
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 89
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #46 on: February 23, 2019, 09:51:23 AM »
*uses trailing average*
*millions of deniers say it's fraudulent.*
Cooling the outside by heat pump.

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1221
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 102
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #47 on: February 23, 2019, 07:33:09 PM »
Environmentalists screaming the end of the world is nigh then it turns out to be a bit of variable data just makes the general population react by saying those environmentalists are always crying wolf and are increasingly likely to dismiss environmentalist views. So it is a bad idea and doesn't help the cause.

Totally agree with that.  However the long term trend is up and continues up.  I talk about this on other threads but the point is we are a LONG way from Kyoto, yet the Global annual average continues to climb.

For the last 5 years the global average (based on ESRL NOOA growth stats), show an average of 2.5ppm.  OK 2018 will continue to adjust, the same site had 2015 at over 3ppm at this time of year and then adjusted it down to 2.91.

However the trend is very clear.  This is the first 5 years in the record where no year recorded less than 2ppm growth.  If it were not for 2011, we would be almost at a decade where no year recorded a growth value less than 2ppm.  As it is we'll probably have to wait till 2022 before we see that particular domino fall.  Probably around the time we see the first reported year with 3ppm.

Whilst caution is a very good stance to take, we have had accord and treaty after accord and treaty and the only result has been an acceleration in the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The trend alone is, for some scientists, enough to produce very dire warnings.  Not only is CO2 still growing in the atmosphere, it is growing at an increasing rate.

Just when do you shout fire?  When you smell the smoke or when the flames are licking around your legs?  It is a problem because the population at large doesn't care about smoke and if you wait till the fire has really taken hold, then it's half past too late and nothing truly viable you can do about it.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

Shared Humanity

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3960
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 416
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #48 on: March 04, 2019, 11:15:25 PM »
some nifty charts of atmospheric gases...

https://www.co2levels.org/

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1147
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 41
Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« Reply #49 on: March 05, 2019, 10:04:39 PM »
The annual (2018 versus 2017) numbers were updated for Mauna Loa and Global with the new months updates:

Mauna Loa: 2.86ppm
Global: 2.82ppm (based on November and December 2018, will be updated again when Jan and Feb numbers come in)

At the global level, the numbers so far this decade are now as below, with an average of 2.41 (vs. 2.02 the previous decade and 1.47 in the 1990s):

2011   1.70
2012   2.39
2013   2.41
2014   2.02
2015   2.91
2016   2.86
2017   2.13
2018   2.82

2018 was very close to the El Nino years of 2015 and 2016.