Arctic Sea Ice : Forum

AGW in general => Science => Topic started by: wolfpack513 on January 12, 2019, 12:48:04 AM

Title: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 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.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: crandles 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!
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Viggy 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.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: silkman 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.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: silkman on January 15, 2019, 09:35:10 AM
More of the same:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Keeling_curve/status/1084894256609689600?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Eembeddedtimeline%7Ctwterm%5Eprofile%3AKeeling_curve%7Ctwcon%5Etimelinechrome&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fscripps.ucsd.edu%2Fprograms%2Fkeelingcurve%2F



Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Darvince 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?
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: silkman on January 20, 2019, 09:20:09 AM
The Keeling Curve has finally settled down after a noisy few days:
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: gerontocrat 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?
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 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?
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: gerontocrat 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).
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 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. 
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: gerontocrat 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.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 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. 
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: TerryM 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
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Bruce Steele 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 ?

Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: gerontocrat 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

Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Bernard 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
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: ASILurker 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 ;) )
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 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. 
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Bruce Steele 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.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Martin Gisser 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/ )
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Bruce Steele 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.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Martin Gisser 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
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Neven on February 03, 2019, 11:23:22 AM
There already is a biochar thread (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,273.0.html). I've moved it to the Walking the Walk section where it'll be easier to find.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 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. 
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: dnem 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.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: crandles 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.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: rboyd 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.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 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.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: rboyd 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.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 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.”
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: rboyd 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 (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9c5b/pdf)
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: crandles 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.)
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 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.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: gerontocrat 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.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: crandles 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.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: ASILurker 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.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: rboyd 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.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Sublime_Rime 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.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: crandles on February 17, 2019, 08:55:39 PM
Hi and welcome.

Hope this helps:

(https://4k4oijnpiu3l4c3h-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/carpet_diagram-co2-color.jpg)

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.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Bruce Steele 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 !
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan 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.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: crandles on February 18, 2019, 12:22:10 AM
(https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_weekly_mlo.png)

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.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: crandles 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.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: gerontocrat 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
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 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.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Pmt111500 on February 23, 2019, 09:51:23 AM
*uses trailing average*
*millions of deniers say it's fraudulent.*
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: NeilT 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 (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gl_gr.html)), 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.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Shared Humanity on March 04, 2019, 11:15:25 PM
some nifty charts of atmospheric gases...

https://www.co2levels.org/
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: rboyd 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.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on March 06, 2019, 10:47:56 PM
...

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

And 2018 was not an El Niño Year...
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: dnem on March 07, 2019, 05:33:45 PM
some nifty charts of atmospheric gases...

https://www.co2levels.org/

The methane graph at that site shows a strong seasonal component but the annual rise is bimodal, peaking in the fall and spring after a small drop in winter.  I could make up some reasons why, but not sure.  Interesting.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: gerontocrat on March 07, 2019, 07:49:44 PM

The methane graph at that site shows a strong seasonal component but the annual rise is bimodal, peaking in the fall and spring after a small drop in winter.  I could make up some reasons why, but not sure.  Interesting.
I think it is because the Northern hemisphere land area & therefore vegetation is so much greater than the Southern hemisphere

If you wish to revert to your second childhood, as I do (often unwillingly) on many days, then this link is for you...

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange//kids/documents/carbon-through-the-seasons.pdf

CARBON THROUGH THE SEASONS
Introduction: 60–90 minutes
LEARNING OBJECTIVES:
Students will:
 Learn about the carbon cycle
 Understand how seasonal variations affect global atmospheric CO2 concentrations
 Understand how CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are changing overall in recent decades
ADAPTED FROM:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):
DESCRIPTION
In this lesson plan, students learn about the carbon cycle and understand how concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth’s atmosphere vary as the seasons change. Students also learn that even with these seasonal variations, the overall amount of CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere as a result of people’s activities, which are changing the natural carbon cycle.

ps: Those thicko trump commissars trying to wreck the EPA seem to have missed the education pages.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: dnem on March 08, 2019, 01:16:25 PM
No gerontocrat, that's why there is a seasonal up and down in the familiar Mauna Loa CO2 data.

If you look at the CH4 data, it also goes through a seasonal cycle, but it is quite different than the CO2 cycle.  It is lowest in the northern summer, generally bottoming out in July.  It then rises through the fall and hits a first peak in the early winter, then falls slightly during the northern midwinter, rises again in the late winter and early spring, then begins it bigger decent toward the next summer's minimum.  Almost every northern winter show this curious small mid-winter dip.

If I had to guess, it has something to with optimal temperatures for microbial metabolism.  Or maybe gas drilling and associated releases drops off during the cold mid-winter months? Or both? Or something else?
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: NeilT on March 08, 2019, 07:48:48 PM
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):

However if you take the 7 years starting in 2012, the average is 2.5ppm.  2011 was, I am sure, impacted by the 2010 Eyjafjallajökull eruption with its impact on the stratosphere and air traffic in some of the most heavily travelled routes in the world.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Ken Feldman on March 08, 2019, 08:12:25 PM
No gerontocrat, that's why there is a seasonal up and down in the familiar Mauna Loa CO2 data.

If you look at the CH4 data, it also goes through a seasonal cycle, but it is quite different than the CO2 cycle.  It is lowest in the northern summer, generally bottoming out in July.  It then rises through the fall and hits a first peak in the early winter, then falls slightly during the northern midwinter, rises again in the late winter and early spring, then begins it bigger decent toward the next summer's minimum.  Almost every northern winter show this curious small mid-winter dip.

If I had to guess, it has something to with optimal temperatures for microbial metabolism.  Or maybe gas drilling and associated releases drops off during the cold mid-winter months? Or both? Or something else?

It may be both.  The biggest natural component is wetlands, and tropical wetlands tend to dominate.  It may be tied to the Indian monsoon, rains in Indonesia, and other seasonal effects.

In the US, a large component of the fossil fuel extraction is fracking, and while the biggest fields are in Texas, there is a lot of oil drilling and fracking in the Bakken in Montana and North Dakota that goes through a slowdown due to severe weather in the winter.  There's also a lot of fracking for natural gas in Ohio, Pennsylvania and other northern states that may slow down in winter.  Russia has some large fields in Siberia, so those may also slow down when winter arrives.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: gerontocrat on March 08, 2019, 08:15:25 PM
No gerontocrat, that's why there is a seasonal up and down in the familiar Mauna Loa CO2 data.

If you look at the CH4 data, it also goes through a seasonal cycle, but it is quite different than the CO2 cycle.  It is lowest in the northern summer, generally bottoming out in July.  It then rises through the fall and hits a first peak in the early winter, then falls slightly during the northern midwinter, rises again in the late winter and early spring, then begins it bigger decent toward the next summer's minimum.  Almost every northern winter show this curious small mid-winter dip.

If I had to guess, it has something to with optimal temperatures for microbial metabolism.  Or maybe gas drilling and associated releases drops off during the cold mid-winter months? Or both? Or something else?
It does seem to be at least partly a N / S hemisphere thing. The "winter" dip is apparently a S Hemisphere summer thing (lost the link but found this one)

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsta.2010.0341
The seasonal cycle is a convolution of seasonal cycles from Northern and Southern
Hemisphere sites driven by seasonality in reaction rates of CH4 with OH and emissions from some
sources (wetlands, rice production and biomass burning), and impacts of meteorology
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Viggy on March 09, 2019, 06:26:28 AM

If I had to guess, it has something to with optimal temperatures for microbial metabolism.  Or maybe gas drilling and associated releases drops off during the cold mid-winter months? Or both? Or something else?

Throwing my guess in the hat, I would expect it would be related to the decomposition of organic matter in the NH that was buried under snow through fall and winter. This process would be happening over massive areas of land in extremely wet soils (as would be the case in spring) and drop off when summer ramps up.

Just quickly eyeballing it, 2014 spring seems to have one of the larger relative peaks in methane emissions - wouldn't that correlate to the year when NH snow cover had one of its largest extents?
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on March 17, 2019, 10:28:51 PM
Another week with an increase of more than 3 ppm:
Week beginning on March 10, 2019:     412.16 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:             409.02 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     388.71 ppm
The average increase of the last ten years is 2.35 ppm (which is already an awful lot if you go back 20 or 30 years)
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Sam on March 17, 2019, 10:54:31 PM
Another week with an increase of more than 3 ppm:
Week beginning on March 10, 2019:     412.16 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:             409.02 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     388.71 ppm
The average increase of the last ten years is 2.35 ppm (which is already an awful lot if you go back 20 or 30 years)

Remember as well that this does not consider the warming from the other warming gases. The total of those combined with global CO2 was estimated as being 526 ppm CO2(e) in 2016.

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

Add to that the ~6 ppm CO2 rise since then, and the ~2 ppm CO2(e) rise in other warming gases, plus the annual variation to peak from average, and we are approaching peak annual CO2(e) of 540 ppm with average annual CO2(e) of ~ 532 ppm .  We are far above anything environmentally sustainable without catastrophic change for even short time periods. Forget 450 ppm, or even 500 ppm as a cap. We are going to blow through 550 ppm within about 5 years. We will make no significant reductions in that period. To the contrary, based on current trends, we will significantly add to the current emissions through that period. We are now less than 25 years (and possibly less than two decades) from blowing through 600 ppm CO2(e). That appears likely to occur about the years 2040-2042, possibly a bit sooner.

And if the clathrate releases from the arctic ocean accelerate from their current release rates, and/or the tundra releases of CO2 and methane increase, it may be even sooner than that.

My calculations of the forcing's puts us at about 535 ppm CO2(e) global now, and projects crossing 550 and 600 ppm CO2(e) in about the years 2022 and 2032 respectively (without added clathrate or tundra increases).

Sam
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wdmn on March 18, 2019, 01:04:45 AM
Thanks for the reminder Sam.

I wonder is there a good figure for pre-industrial CO2eq?
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: rboyd on March 18, 2019, 08:01:07 PM
The calculation of CO2e assumes that the level of atmospheric methane will fall, as each methane molecule degrades in about 14 years. Our reality is that the level of atmospheric methane is increasing, as the degraded methane is being more than constantly replaced with new emissions. Therefore a better view of both current, and ongoing, warming would be the continuous CO2e for methane (about 100 times), rather than the 100 year one (the one used in official estimates - about 38 times) or even the 20 year one (about 86 times).

With this number for methane, the CO2e is well over 610ppm.Taking into account the offsetting effect of aerosols (the UN IPCC does this) we are over 550ppm.

In pre-industrial times there was very little of the non-CO2 gases, so the level of CO2 is a good proxy - about 280ppm. So we have already met the doubling of pre-industrial level of CO2e and are adding about another 5+ppm per year.

The level of aerosols is relatively constant as coal use growth has decelerated since mid decade and there is a lot more effort to scrub aerosols in China, while the atmospheric GHG levels (including methane) keep increasing. The result should be an acceleration in global average temperature increases.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on March 18, 2019, 10:37:35 PM
The calculation of CO2e assumes that the level of atmospheric methane will fall, as each methane molecule degrades in about 14 years. Our reality is that the level of atmospheric methane is increasing, as the degraded methane is being more than constantly replaced with new emissions. [...]
I think this is an important point.
Always scientists come around with the "factor 30", claiming that methane is much shorter-lived than carbon dioxide. But the development of new methane seems to be endless, independent where its sources are exactly.
If one imagines the big "methane time bomb" ticking in N Siberia, N Canada and Alaska in the permafrost soil (and, of course, in the shallow seas of the Arctic Ocean close to Siberia) waiting to be liberated, the total Greenhouse Gas effect on future temperatures is much higher than today. Unfortunately it does not look like mankind is starting to slow down and reverse its CO2 emissions, so this all adds up to a bigger and bigger number...
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wdmn on March 18, 2019, 11:11:47 PM
I don't quite follow you. CO2eq is a discrete measurement. IT shouldn't matter what value you assign to methane as long as you use the same value for both the baseline and current level.

This only matters if you reduce pre-industrial methane to zero, which I don't think should be done.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: mitch on March 18, 2019, 11:57:56 PM
pre-industrial CH4 was about 700 ppb vs about 1800 ppb today:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/MethaneMatters

One should be able to make a pre-industrial CO2e.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: rboyd on March 19, 2019, 02:37:21 AM
The only number I have found is 280ppm CO2 for pre-industrial (in the UN IPCC materials), I cannot find a preindustrial CO2e number anywhere. A calculation would also need assumptions on N2O, which was about 270 ppb in 1800.

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/atmospheric-concentration-of-carbon-dioxide-3#tab-chart_5_filters=%7B%22rowFilters%22%3A%7B%7D%3B%22columnFilters%22%3A%7B%22pre_config_polutant%22%3A%5B%22N2O%20(ppb)%22%5D%7D%7D (https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/atmospheric-concentration-of-carbon-dioxide-3#tab-chart_5_filters=%7B%22rowFilters%22%3A%7B%7D%3B%22columnFilters%22%3A%7B%22pre_config_polutant%22%3A%5B%22N2O%20(ppb)%22%5D%7D%7D)

Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Sam on March 19, 2019, 03:07:20 AM
The only number I have found is 280ppm CO2 for pre-industrial (in the UN IPCC materials), I cannot find a preindustrial CO2e number anywhere. A calculation would also need assumptions on N2O, which was about 270 ppb in 1800.

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/atmospheric-concentration-of-carbon-dioxide-3#tab-chart_5_filters=%7B%22rowFilters%22%3A%7B%7D%3B%22columnFilters%22%3A%7B%22pre_config_polutant%22%3A%5B%22N2O%20(ppb)%22%5D%7D%7D (https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/atmospheric-concentration-of-carbon-dioxide-3#tab-chart_5_filters=%7B%22rowFilters%22%3A%7B%7D%3B%22columnFilters%22%3A%7B%22pre_config_polutant%22%3A%5B%22N2O%20(ppb)%22%5D%7D%7D)

After a bit of digging, I found the following suggested values:

CO2: 278 ppm
CH4: 722 ppb
Stratospheric Water: ??
N20: 270 ppb
Tropospheric Ozone: 270 ppb
CF4: 10-7 ppt
C2F6: 3.47x10-6 ppt

Using Forcing factors (W/m2/ppb) of:
CO2: 0.014
CH4: 0.037
N2O: 0.12
H2O: 0.011
O3:   0.02
CF4: 0.25
C2F6: 0.09

This results in a total forcing of 3,956 and reverses to a CO2(e) of 282.56 ppm, or 4.56 ppm above the CO2 background level. Stratospheric water may change that a little.  So, about 4.5 ppm above the CO2 level.

The most commonly used methods use a logarithmic ratioing to the preindustrial levels. It is cleaner and likely better not to do it that way.

Worse though is that the reality is so much more complex than the simple methods suggest. The various gases exist in differing quantities at different altitudes, latitudes, and seasons, rather than as a homogeneous picture through the entire column. The IR reflections and refractions occur in differing frequency bands with very complex overlaps. Sun angles, latitude, seasonality, cloud decks and more all play roles. Etc... To actually model all of that would take an extremely sophisticated model and a supercomputer to evaluate. It isn't something we can easily do using computers at home.

Still, the simple models do seem to fairly accurately portray the situation as a smeared average. Do not take the number of digits in the result as significant. The result is only a likely central value, lacking any attempt at an error estimate.

Still, the calculation is instructive.  Where we were at CO2 of about 278 ppm and CO2(e) of about 282.5 ppm.  We are today at about 414 ppm (Mauna Loa today) CO2 and circa 540 ppm CO2(e). That represents increases since pre-industrial of about 136 ppm CO2 and 258 ppm CO2(e).

That is of course - assuming that I haven't blundered badly somewhere in the data or math.  Please check the results before using them. Assuming that I haven't seriously erred in the calculation, that suggests a starkly different consideration of the conditions using the CO2 versus CO2(e) numbers. Using the CO2(e) values, it suggests we will reach a doubling of the background in 8-9 years. Again, please check my math - especially if you have access to better models or approaches to perform the calculation.

Sam


Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: oren on March 19, 2019, 10:07:31 AM
After a bit of digging, I found the following suggested values:

CO2: 278 ppm
CH4: 722 ppb
Stratospheric Water: ??
N20: 270 ppb
Tropospheric Ozone: 270 ppb
CF4: 10-7 ppt
C2F6: 3.47x10-6 ppt

Using Forcing factors (W/m2/ppb) of:
CO2: 0.014
CH4: 0.037
N2O: 0.12
H2O: 0.011
O3:   0.02
CF4: 0.25
C2F6: 0.09

This results in a total forcing of 3,956 and reverses to a CO2(e) of 282.56 ppm, or 4.56 ppm above the CO2 background level. Stratospheric water may change that a little.  So, about 4.5 ppm above the CO2 level.

The most commonly used methods use a logarithmic ratioing to the preindustrial levels. It is cleaner and likely better not to do it that way.
Thanks for the calculation, however your end result does not settle with my intuition. The other gases can't be contributing so little, given that they were quite abundant in the pre-industrial atmosphere as well. If I am not mistaken (this is not my line of expertise, if such even exists) your w/m2/ppb numbers are ppm, not ppb, (or mW, not W) and the number for methane should be 10 times higher. I also have suspicions that the O3 and N2O numbers are much lower than they should be.
(I am looking at the table here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas#Natural_and_anthropogenic_sources) and making rough calculations.)
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: crandles on March 22, 2019, 07:45:32 PM
Wide range 4.66ppm in 3 days:

March 21:     410.18 ppm
March 20:     412.22 ppm
March 19:     412.97 ppm
March 18:     414.84 ppm
March 17:     411.64 ppm
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 on March 23, 2019, 03:24:17 PM
Updated NOAA monthly growth rates chart including February 2019. YoY February 2019 was the highest growth rate since January 2017.  12-month running average is quickly racing back to the linear trend. 

I chose January 2006 for the start of this data-set for 2 reasons. 2006-2007 ENSO was similar to our current conditions. The 2007 DJF ONI was +0.7°C.  2019 DJF ONI was +0.8°C.  2006-2007 was also the top of an economic cycle similar to recent global economic conditions.  Though not perfect this limits issues with start and end points.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on March 24, 2019, 09:55:38 PM
Very worrisome.
You just need to look at the long term linear trend which increased by about 0.8 ppm/month in the last 12 years. Where will this end??
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: gerontocrat on March 25, 2019, 07:15:34 PM
Very worrisome.
You just need to look at the long term linear trend which increased by about 0.8 ppm/month in the last 12 years. Where will this end??
The conventional wisdom has it that 55% of current CO2 emissions are trapped by the ocean (30%) and land (25%) carbon sinks.

For ease, assume current annual increase in CO2 ppm per annum  is 2.5.

So if the sinks totally collapsed, then at current rates of emissions the theoretical maximum annual increase in CO2 ppm per annum is 5.6, giving just over 7 years to 450 ppm.

A more realistic scenario is perhaps
-the ocean sink gradually reduces - warmth and acidification,
- land sinks decline perhaps more rapidly as desertification, deforestation and agriculture intensify.

In addition, there are large amounts of carbon sequestered as peatland in significant tropical forests being turned into plantations, pasture and arable farmland. There are already examples of tropical forests changing from carbon sinks to carbon emitters.

So even if CO2 emissions are turned around this may be partly offset or even overwhelmed by changes to the natural sinks. On pessimistic days I assume CO2 at 450 ppm in the early 2030s.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: crandles on March 26, 2019, 01:04:14 PM
Very worrisome.
You just need to look at the long term linear trend which increased by about 0.8 ppm/month in the last 12 years. Where will this end??
The conventional wisdom has it that 55% of current CO2 emissions are trapped by the ocean (30%) and land (25%) carbon sinks.

Not 55%?

Gavin Schmidt nasa has recently said the combined co2 sinks = 2GtC/year, therefore current emissions need to drop by 80% (of ~10Gtc/yr) for CO2 ppm growth to stabilse. That's not going to happen. Obviously. I doubt Gavin is out by 25%.

You are assuming that the sinks don't react to emissions. If we cut emissions by say 60% then the sinks don't take up anywhere near as much. To first order, the sinks still take up 55% of the reduced emissions. If that first order rule held completely then we would need to stop 100% of our emissions, but it is only to first order.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: gerontocrat on March 26, 2019, 01:16:01 PM
Very worrisome.
You just need to look at the long term linear trend which increased by about 0.8 ppm/month in the last 12 years. Where will this end??
The conventional wisdom has it that 55% of current CO2 emissions are trapped by the ocean (30%) and land (25%) carbon sinks.

Not 55%?

Gavin Schmidt nasa has recently said the combined co2 sinks = 2GtC/year, therefore current emissions need to drop by 80% (of ~10Gtc/yr) for CO2 ppm growth to stabilse. That's not going to happen. Obviously. I doubt Gavin is out by 25%.

You are assuming that the sinks don't react to emissions. If we cut emissions by say 60% then the sinks don't take up anywhere near as much. To first order, the sinks still take up 55% of the reduced emissions. If that first order rule held completely then we would need to stop 100% of our emissions, but it is only to first order.
NASA reckoned that 55% of CO2 emissions to date were sunk, but both the WMO and NASA are saying currently the sinks take up about 50% (25% land, 25% oceans). The effect on my back-of-envelope calculation is minor.

IPCC scenarios basically say that to reduce CO2 ppm will require CO2 capture and storage.

I can't find that 2GT of Carbon as the combined CO2 sinks quoted as from Gavin Schmidt.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on April 02, 2019, 10:21:36 PM
Week beginning on March 24, 2019:     411.32 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:       409.90 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     389.31 ppm
At least this week has settled down (+ 1.42 ppm/y), due to some lower daily values (they are very scattered, compared to last years) in that week and a relatively high weekly value one year ago. The following week has been lower last year, so one should expect a higher yearly increase next week...
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: gerontocrat on April 02, 2019, 10:55:16 PM

I can't find that 2GT of Carbon as the combined CO2 sinks quoted as from Gavin Schmidt.

Here's one quote with original ref - I slightly misquoted it but you'll notice where easy enough.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2541.msg187960.html#msg187960
Gavin Schmidt points out that the oceans are taking up 2gt of the total of circa 10gt of carbon emitted per annum (though this seems a little low compared with the 30% and 25% quoted elasewhere ).

He states that as the other land-based sinks are on a 100 year cycle then in the long-term that means the 2gt sunk in the oceans is all the carbon that will be sunk. I think he is not entirely correct. Some forests have a very thin organic layer on the forest floor..i.e. trees grow, then die and decay and their carbon released back to the atmosphere. Using an average tree life of 100 years gives a carbon cycle of 100 years.
BUT
In many tropical (and other) forests the damp and often flooded forest floor swallow and trap all the organic matter including dead trees, building up thick layers that turn into peat over thousands of years. Consider also organic matter built up over the holcocene in the tundra as vast deposits of peaty material.

In other words, much land sinks would continue to be effective in the long-term. Indeed, this makes it doubly scary when, e.g. Malaysia and Indonesia convert rainforest into palm-oil plantations. A carbon sink is converted into a carbon emitter. The same applies to the peat deposits under the rainforests of the Congo, and if the Amazon forest dries up..... and if the tundra.......

So, Mr. Schmidt, in my view you are wrong in both your statement on the potential of land-based carbon sinks, and on the potential of land-based sinks to become serious carbon emitters.

Apologies for getting so off-topic.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Bruce Steele on April 02, 2019, 11:52:05 PM
I don't think a discussion about the time Carbon spends in the various sinks is off topic.
Of the 25% to 30% that goes into the ocean carbon sink  only .2GT goes into the sediment sink where it can remain for millions of years. All the rest of the carbon that goes into the ocean will at some point return to the surface as DIC ( dissolved inorganic carbon ) where it can return to the atmosphere when gas partial pressure differences support ocean to atmosphere transfer.
 Terrestrial soil sinks vary in the amount of time they can sink carbon. Crop lands have lost much of their carbon because tillage and drying allow stored carbon to oxidize. Forests are better but even a hundred years isn't great . Peat formation and tundra offer long term sinks but how much of the terrestrial sink is taken up by peat each year is probably a small portion of the annual sink.
 A thorough understanding of the time Carbon spends in the various sinks is critical to any discussion of how me might engineer our way out of this mess. It is one of the reasons I have for doubting carbon farming plans that don't quantify the amount of time we can expect soil carbon to stay put. If trees are better at storing carbon in some locations but not others then replanting and protecting forests in some areas is more important than a plan to simply grow trees.
 
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wdmn on April 12, 2019, 07:43:17 AM

I wish people would look more carefully and see what's there, then they would stop using mystifications like "mother nature," particularly when discussing science.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Viggy on April 12, 2019, 12:28:20 PM
btw iirc, that single ≥ 3.5 ppm vote was by me. I might end up wrong on that obviously but we'll see huh?  :)

Sorry bud, that one >3.5 ppm vote was by my pessimistic ass!
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: FishOutofWater on April 12, 2019, 03:49:43 PM
It's a weak El Niño that started in the September, October, November period according to the U.S. CPC. This El Niño will probably be at Australian BoM minimum levels also but it's a close call by Australian rules. This El Niño has affected CO2 levels and not in a good way.

https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on April 12, 2019, 06:27:57 PM
Week beginning on March 24, 2019:     411.32 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:        409.90 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     389.31 ppm
At least this week has settled down (+ 1.42 ppm/y), due to some lower daily values (they are very scattered, compared to last years) in that week and a relatively high weekly value one year ago. The following week has been lower last year, so one should expect a higher yearly increase next week...
...and there it is:
Week beginning on March 31, 2019:      412.21 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:        409.15 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     389.13 ppm

Return to > 3 ppm/year last week.
Last year the next week was around 409.5. The latest values are again more than 3 ppm higher.
How long will this be going on?
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Tor Bejnar on April 12, 2019, 08:22:12 PM
btw iirc, that single ≥ 3.5 ppm vote was by me. I might end up wrong on that obviously but we'll see huh?  :)
Sorry bud, that one >3.5 ppm vote was by my pessimistic ass!
Apologies, thanks for clarification. It was what I was thinking maybe I missed the bus to vote on time.  Seems more credible an option now than it looked in January. :)
Has Lurk just admitted to lying?  I suppose a screen-shot image of the poll can be Photoshopped, but how one voted is pretty obvious, given that row is highlighted.
Edit:  see post below.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: b_lumenkraft on April 12, 2019, 08:35:25 PM
I read it as an admission of making a mistake.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Tor Bejnar on April 12, 2019, 09:08:22 PM
Thank you B_,
Lurk does write, "iirc" which frequently means (http://"Freedom wears a cap") 'If I Recall Correctly.'  Why one would base a post on recollection when the evidence is in the very thread (at the top) is beyond me!
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: b_lumenkraft on April 12, 2019, 09:21:00 PM
Easy to explain mate. :)

They didn't vote, so it's not highlighted for them as it is for us who voted.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: ASILurker on April 12, 2019, 11:45:18 PM
Easy to explain mate. :)

They didn't vote, so it's not highlighted for them as it is for us who voted.

I think not only is my memory going screwy, I'm going blind too!

My vote is highlighted as 3.0 - 3.4 ppm

Doh Homer~!

Do I need to post a screen shot to prove it, or could my word be good enough? Probably not by many accounts.  Oh well. Give a dog a bad name, and it sticks. (shrug)
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: gerontocrat on April 13, 2019, 11:50:31 AM

BOM has definitely not called an "el nino" so far, no atmospheric coupling at all. Moderate Oceans SSTs anomalies do meet a typical weak el nino thresholds, but nothing else does. The late very heavy flooding in Australia monsoon doesn't fit. western pacific doesn't fit, Indonesia seas weather doesn't fit and northern Australian weather doesn't fit in April either (yet) iirc the reports over the last 3 months at least.

It's now the 13th April and I am wondering where MLO data is for March.

The ENSO stuff is on the ENSO 2019 thread within the consequences topic. The US analysis for March came out on April 11th.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2539.msg195130.html#msg195130

I am sure I have seen references as to how global warming is weakening or breaking down what were regarded as the reliable relationships between weather and climate events, e.g. the impact of an El Nino (especially a weak one) might be being weakened or reversed by effects of climate change elsewhere on the planet. And no, I cannot quote chapter and verse on this.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: ASILurker on April 13, 2019, 04:50:01 PM
Thx G. but I was chasing the March CO2 numbers from MLO.

They finally came through today.

Recent Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2
March 2019:        411.97 ppm + 2.56 ppm
March 2018:        409.41 ppm
Last updated: April 12, 2019 (no they weren't?)

A quick monthly growth summary shows

Oct  2.37
Nov 2.90
Dec 2.26
Jan 2.87
Feb 3.43
Mar 2.56

A rough 6 months avg of +2.73 ppm - moderately above average by ~0.33 ppm (?).
YTD 2019 + 2.95 - well above recent 2010s avg. by ~0.55 ppm

But there has been some quite wild swings along the way. Like right now - the last 6 days for this coming week's avg for MLO CO2 is  + 3.50 ppm. Pushing April Growth to date close to being + 3.30 ppm YoY - back to February levels again.

The increase over February of March's avg CO2 is the smallest of the last several years.
See the graph here
 (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_mlo.png)

The annual peak in May is only 4 weeks away now.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on April 14, 2019, 10:09:44 PM
And once again, even higher:
Week beginning on April 7, 2019:     413.13 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:       409.46 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     389.50 ppm
This is an increase of more than 3.6 ppm/year.
Next week it will look a bit better because last year it was around 411 ppm. But the value of today (414.1 ppm) is even 3 ppm higher than that, and one of the highest CO2 concentrations ever recorded since measurements began more than 60 years ago. Where will this end?
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Shared Humanity on April 14, 2019, 10:59:11 PM
Where will this end?

This, of course, depends on whether we take effective actions to curb emissions. My guess? Between 600 and 800 ppm.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on April 15, 2019, 06:46:07 PM
Where will this end?

This, of course, depends on whether we take effective actions to curb emissions. My guess? Between 600 and 800 ppm.

+500 ppm by 2050 at least (imho)
which simply means an average increase of 3 ppm/year for the next 31 years [to reach 500 ppm]. This is probably too low/too optimistic if we follow the RCP 8.5 path...
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: rboyd on April 15, 2019, 10:45:19 PM
Its greenhouse gases as a whole that cause climate change, not just CO2. On that count using CO2e100 numbers we are already increasing at 4-5ppm/year (at about 498ppm in 2018 so we will hit the doubling of pre-industrial levels in about 12 years - 2030). If we use perhaps a more appropriate CO2e20 for methane, well above that (600ppm+ now and conservatively increasing by 100ppm every 15 years); unless we cut meat consumption and stop increasing the use of natural gas.

The other problem is increases in the carbon cycle kicking in as feedbacks (wetlands, peat bog fires, forest fires, permafrost, lakes ...), so that we could cut anthropogenic emissions and find that we are not reducing the trajectory of climate change. In addition of course we have Bolsonaro helping his buddies to clear the Amazon to grow soybeans and graze cattle, and Trump gutting any regulation related to combating climate change he can find (at last until 2020 if not beyond).

I will be stunned if we aren't into full discussions of implementing geoengineering by 2025 at the latest given the trajectory that we are on. That's without a "Blue Ocean Event" of course.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html)
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: rboyd on April 15, 2019, 10:58:40 PM
2018 increase in global atmospheric methane levels

NOAA's preliminary figures are for a rise of 10.99ppb in 2018, quite a jump from the 6.89ppb last year. Biggest jump since 2014. Will give the CO2e increase for the year quite a boost.

Anything to do with Trump watering down the fugitive methane regulations Obama put in place, together with the large jumps in US fracked oil production in 2018? There must be a lot of methane floating above Texas.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/ (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/)

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=38992 (https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=38992)

And US oil production is still surging....

US expects record domestic oil production in 2019, 2020

https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/us-expects-record-domestic-oil-production-2019-2020-61023486 (https://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/us-expects-record-domestic-oil-production-2019-2020-61023486)
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: rboyd on April 16, 2019, 04:45:08 AM
Probably, but do you recall or find which IPCC report iteration (esp. AR5) had the RCP 8.5 hitting 500 ppm CO2 by 2050? I don't recall one off hand.

AR5

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf (https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf)
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: rboyd on April 16, 2019, 09:20:37 PM
Its greenhouse gases as a whole that cause climate change, not just CO2.

Yes of course, that's correct. And also very relevant to overall warming especially going forward.

But as a much more closely monitored and therefore more consistent oft reported proxy for success/failure, CO2 is an excellent superior guide to monitor, and so this thread (I imagine)

CH4 emissions are tracked monthly by NOAA, and with the 20-year impact being 100 times that of CO2, the combination of tracking the two gives a much better view of whats happening. The acceleration in CO2 is bad enough, I absolutely agree, the addition of increasing levels of CH4 makes it go from bad to worse. Also matches better to the acceleration in temperature changes.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/ (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/)
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on April 16, 2019, 09:50:15 PM
Probably, but do you recall or find which IPCC report iteration (esp. AR5) had the RCP 8.5 hitting 500 ppm CO2 by 2050? I don't recall one off hand.

AR5

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf (https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf)
Could you please give a page number or a chapter title of this IPCC report where the projections of CO2 concentration from today until 2100 are plotted (or listed) under the different RCP scenarios?
Thanks Stephan
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on April 16, 2019, 10:40:22 PM
Probably, but do you recall or find which IPCC report iteration (esp. AR5) had the RCP 8.5 hitting 500 ppm CO2 by 2050? I don't recall one off hand.

AR5

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf (https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf)
Could you please give a page number or a chapter title of this IPCC report where the projections of CO2 concentration from today until 2100 are plotted (or listed) under the different RCP scenarios?
Thanks Stephan
I found it. It is on page 74. And 2050 will have around 500 ppm CO2 as expected with an annual growth of ca. 3 ppm from now on (see postings above).
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: rboyd on April 17, 2019, 10:06:39 PM
Lurk,

We certainly seem to share the same realistic/pessimistic view of things. As the shit truly starts to hit the fan I see increasingly desperate attempts at geo-engineering etc. but most probably too late as the Earth systems take back control from the humans. The Anthropocene may turn out to be a very short era.

At least the Mauna Loa numbers are taken directly from the atmosphere, rather than the anthropogenic emission numbers that are open to so much possible error and manipulation to be meaningless for identifying trends over a relevant time horizon. I have pretty much given up on those and just watch the atmospheric concentration numbers, the policy makers should be doing the same.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: rboyd on April 17, 2019, 11:54:50 PM
Thawing Permafrost Emitting Higher Levels of Potent Greenhouse Gas Than Previously Thought: Study

I had assumed that N20 atmospheric concentrations would stay on the same straight line increase that they have been on for decades, and certainly did not thinks permafrost thaw would change this. Seems every day I learn something new, and it tends not to be something good! N20 is 300 times worse than CO2 and lasts in the atmosphere for over 100 years.

Quote
N2O "has conventionally been assumed to have minimal emissions in permafrost regions," the report said, citing research published in the 1990s.

But the new study's findings challenge that assumption.

A team of researchers, led by Harvard University scientists, used a small plane to measure greenhouse gas levels over 120 square miles of thawing permafrost in the North Slope of Alaska. They found that in just one month of 2013, emissions of nitrous oxide in the region reached what was previously believed to be the yearly total.

"This revelation could mean that the Arctic—and our global climate—are in more danger than we thought," explained a statement from Harvard

Quote
What is clear, though, is that "much smaller increases in nitrous oxide would entail the same kind of climate change that a large plume of CO2 would cause," Wilkerson said.

The team's findings align with other recent studies that have relied on chambers—or "covered, pie plate-sized containers planted into tundra"—or the extraction of cylindrical "cores" from the permafrost to measure greenhouses gases, according to Harvard's statement.

The new study, said Wilkerson, "makes those findings quite a bit more serious."

The findings also bolster experts' previous warnings that policymakers around the world aren't adequately considering the impacts of permafrost thaw in their plans—based on the goals of the Paris climate agreement—to cut down planet-heating emissions and prevent climate catastrophe.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/04/16/thawing-permafrost-emitting-higher-levels-potent-greenhouse-gas-previously-thought (https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/04/16/thawing-permafrost-emitting-higher-levels-potent-greenhouse-gas-previously-thought)
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Bernard on April 18, 2019, 05:11:46 PM
Keeling Curve last value is Apr 5
Last tweet at https://twitter.com/Keeling_curve is Apr 12
"A cooling fan in the continuous measurement instrument has failed; it will be replaced soon."

Given the importance of those reference values, strange there is no backup instrument, and that a failed cooling fan put the measures on standstill for two weeks.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: gerontocrat on April 18, 2019, 08:15:16 PM
Keeling Curve last value is Apr 5
Last tweet at https://twitter.com/Keeling_curve is Apr 12
"A cooling fan in the continuous measurement instrument has failed; it will be replaced soon."

Given the importance of those reference values, strange there is no backup instrument, and that a failed cooling fan put the measures on standstill for two weeks.

I am somewhat confused as
- https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2 reports Mauna Loa data and has a reading of 413.09 as at 16 April,
- which in turn they get from https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/monthly.html which has a reading of 413.63 as at 17 April,
- which gets their data from the Mauna Loa observatory run by the Scripps Institute of Oceanography which has not updated since April 5..



Recent Daily Average Mauna Loa CO2
April 17:     413.63 ppm
April 16:     413.09 ppm
April 15:     412.67 ppm
April 14:     414.56 ppm
April 13:     414.10 ppm
Last Updated: April 18, 2019
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: crandles on April 18, 2019, 08:32:14 PM
Quote
Ongoing comparisons of independent measurements at the same site allow an estimate of the accuracy, which is generally better than 0.2 ppm.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html

So independent measurements going on at same site, so it appears that one but not all of these are affected. That makes sense if they are aiming to be independent measurements.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 on April 18, 2019, 10:25:53 PM
March 2019 growth over 2018 came in at 2.56 ppm.  Running 12-month average is climbing but still below the linear trend of ~2.60 ppm/year².  Still expect the running 12-month to be back above the linear trend soon. 

*Important to remember the linear trend on this chart is a rate change of a rate change.  A positive slope is acceleration.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: ASILurker on April 22, 2019, 06:38:57 AM
MLO growth dips a little this last week.

Week beginning on April 14, 2019:      413.59 ppm +2.60 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:      410.99 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:      388.66 ppm
Last updated: April 21, 2019

Prior 2 weeks +3.06 and +3.67.

Last 5 weeks avgs. 411.82, 411.32, 412.21, 413.13, 413.59

Post-Feb it seemed possible May's yearly high could breach 415.25 ppm if the short term growth trend continued. This looks unlikely now. My expectation that April would hit 413 ppm and/or +3.50 ppm wasn't far off though.

From here if the enso doesn't produce an el nino of substance later in the year then CO2 growth won't crack +3 ppm for 2019 (imo). While global temps may still be in the top 3 or 4 years ever anyway.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on April 25, 2019, 09:05:39 PM
Week beginning on April 14, 2019:     413.59 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:       410.99 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     388.66 ppm
Last updated: April 25, 2019
This week's increase (2.60 ppm/year) is almost matching the 10-year increase (24.93 ppm = 2.49 ppm/year). I wonder which value of the May maximum we will see before the CO2 content decreases again according to the natural annual cycle.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: rboyd on April 28, 2019, 11:46:44 PM
We are near the seasonal peak in Mauna Loa CO2 levels, and there can be quite a lot of volatility from week to week at this time. So the weekly numbers may be a bit misleading for a little while. The year over year increase fell to 2.07ppm for the latest week, but could jump quite significantly in the current week given last years weekly value (then the opposite the following week).

The April+May monthly values will probably be a better representation of the trend.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: gerontocrat on April 29, 2019, 08:54:34 PM
Here is a two year graph from Scripps.

The volatility of the daily readings this year seems a lot higher than the previous year.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: rboyd on April 29, 2019, 09:29:19 PM
I wonder if there is a correlation in increased statistical volatility and the start of El Nino's, otherwise an interesting new phenomena.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Pmt111500 on April 29, 2019, 10:41:53 PM
I wonder if there is a correlation in increased statistical volatility and the start of El Nino's, otherwise an interesting new phenomena.
Makes sense anyway, it's not like El Nino appears from a vacuum but hotter surface waters may be seen irregularly before on varoous patches of tropical Pacific.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: rboyd on April 30, 2019, 02:32:25 AM
The carbon cycle response to two El Nino types: an observational study

Interesting paper on the relationship between El Nino's and CO2 levels at Mauna Loa. From their time series, looks like the whole series is just very noisy.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9c5b/pdf (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9c5b/pdf)

Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Pmt111500 on April 30, 2019, 06:37:22 AM
The carbon cycle response to two El Nino types: an observational study

Interesting paper on the relationship between El Nino's and CO2 levels at Mauna Loa. From their time series, looks like the whole series is just very noisy.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9c5b/pdf (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9c5b/pdf)
Yes, interesting. They use the tropical troposphere temperature to calculate this which is better and allows for more detailed conclusions than using the whole globe average T. At the time scales involved, it might be prudent to do the same for a tropical Atlantic or Indian Ocean CO2 measurement station if there would be one with a long enough record, some might start on the 1980s, but not sure (st.Helens?). The differences between Modoki and the regular El Nino are becoming clearer, I guess. Detrending is an essential tool to make the analyses easier, if someone wonders why they do that, I guess the same might be done without but the maths involved would be too difficult to follow for many. This one, even I, with only a couple of professional statistics courses of the local university, could follow but would have to ask help to try to replicate.

As for the noisiness of the record, that's just what observation based science, in biology geography, meteorology, even traffic planning etc, possibly quickly changing subjects of study, is all about. I think the Mauna Loa record is notably clear dataset, but that's probably just a result of seeing friends dealing with data series on attributes of plants or animals. Most biologists i know would be deliriously happy to have such a long and consistently measured record. This is why biologists are promoting hobbyists to stay in one place, it's of more scientific value than twitching or chasing rare species all around...
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: crandles on May 04, 2019, 06:30:41 PM
Highest couple two of three highest days ever recorded:

Quote
May 03:     414.81 ppm
May 02:     Unavailable
May 01:     414.88 ppm
April 30:     414.52 ppm
April 29:     Unavailable

(other one is
March 18:     414.84 ppm)
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Sparkles on May 04, 2019, 08:10:44 PM
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/ 

(https://i.imgur.com/QxM7b0O.gif)

currently shows it as 415.09ppm for May 3rd, I've noticed that different sites https://twitter.com/CO2_earth and https://twitter.com/keeling_curve sometimes give slightly different values for each day's results
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on May 04, 2019, 08:54:29 PM
Last year the average value of the week End April/Beginning May was below 410 ppm. If you look at the latest available data the increase will be around or slightly higher than 4 ppm/year.
In contrast the week beginning thereafter was around 411 ppm, so this difference will decrease again.
Anyway, the big variations of daily values (clearly visible in the "Last Year Folder") since January are disturbing. I guess the apparatus and the evaluation methods are still excellent and no reason for these fluctuations. What bothers me is the possibility that we are moving towards a tipping point, into a new state, which could be "announced" by higher variability of values that had been stable/predictable/linear for years.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on May 05, 2019, 09:05:40 PM
Last year the average value of the week End April/Beginning May was below 410 ppm. If you look at the latest available data the increase will be around or slightly higher than 4 ppm/year.
In contrast the week beginning thereafter was around 411 ppm, so this difference will decrease again.
....
And here it is. The first (to my knowledge, please correct me if I'm wrong) yearly increase of more than 4 ppm:
Week beginning on April 28, 2019:     414.32 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:             409.84 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     390.36 ppm
Last updated: May 5, 2019

Next week this increase will be quite lower, due to a much higher value last year
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: bluice on May 06, 2019, 10:34:25 AM
A lurker signing in here

I've been watching co2 figures with amazement this year. Weekly figure is of course noisy but a 4,48 ppm jump is huge.

Is this only anthropocenic, or are we witnessing a new feedback loop kicking in? If yes, what could it be? This isn't yet the season for permafrost melting.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: ASILurker on May 06, 2019, 06:28:49 PM
A lurker signing in here

I've been watching co2 figures with amazement this year. Weekly figure is of course noisy but a 4,48 ppm jump is huge.

Is this only anthropocenic, or are we witnessing a new feedback loop kicking in? If yes, what could it be? This isn't yet the season for permafrost melting.

Hi. Good questions. Answers not so easy to come by. Some feel the ENSO maybe driving up the numbers - I am not sure. History has shown the exceptional eventually becomes the norm. Be it CO2 growth, ASI loss/extent, global temps growth, and on and on.

The immediate question could be: will MLO CO2 crack 415 ppm in May as a daily or a weekly figure?

MLO Month of April data in

April 2019:        413.32 ppm +3.08
April 2018:        410.24 ppm
Last updated: May 6, 2019
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html

May avg 414.50 ?
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on May 06, 2019, 07:15:19 PM
A lurker signing in here

I've been watching co2 figures with amazement this year. Weekly figure is of course noisy but a 4,48 ppm jump is huge.

Is this only anthropocenic, or are we witnessing a new feedback loop kicking in? If yes, what could it be? This isn't yet the season for permafrost melting.
You must take into account the very variable weekly averages this year and last year. Probably "by chance" a very low (compared to the neighbouring weeks) weekly average 2018 and a very high weekly average 2019 matched to produce this very high difference. Next week(s) this difference will be much smaller - if growth rates of around 2.5-3 ppm/year may be declared as "smaller" at all.
The great concern is the rapid, erratic up and down of daily changes, which can be a sign of a complete system change. Are we close to a tipping pont?
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Tor Bejnar on May 06, 2019, 07:43:18 PM
And welcome to the ASIB, bluice!
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Pmt111500 on May 06, 2019, 07:49:05 PM
A lurker signing in here

I've been watching co2 figures with amazement this year. Weekly figure is of course noisy but a 4,48 ppm jump is huge.

Is this only anthropocenic, or are we witnessing a new feedback loop kicking in? If yes, what could it be? This isn't yet the season for permafrost melting.

Don,t know how widespread the cold blast from the arctic was but at least here it essentially stopped the spring progress, and thus absorption of CO2 by plants. Ooops, this was about Mauna Loa numbers, might want to check the Pacific temperatures near Hawaijii and thereabouts. Large a rise but there have been also very small rises this time a year, maybe a batch of winter Arctic air has reached a warm spot in the ocean near Mauna Loa.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: dbarce on May 06, 2019, 11:29:47 PM
They just posted a correction on twitter:
Quote
The 415.09 ppm value that appeared as the daily baseline for 3-May-2019 on certain graphics over the weekend was based upon a partial days data and incorrectly released on the website. The correct value for that date based upon the full 24 hour period is 414.15 ppm
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: rboyd on May 06, 2019, 11:49:40 PM
MLO Month of April data in
April 2019:        413.32 ppm +3.08
April 2018:        410.24 ppm
Last updated: May 6, 2019
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html
May avg 414.50 ?

Quite possible I would think, and would give us a May y-o-y increase of over 3ppm. With the Jan-April numbers being 2.87ppm, 3.43ppm, 2.51ppm, and 3.08ppm that would probably make for a first five months average growth rate of over 3ppm. Given the rather muted ENSO, certainly some cause for concern.

The global CO2 growth number for February also came out - at 2.64ppm year over year, and the 2018 as a whole number was updated to 2.48 now that the February numbers are in. That should be pretty much the final global growth number (they use Nov-Dec-Jan-Feb to get the year over year growth rate).

Global methane concentrations grew by 10.77ppb in 2018 (highest since 2014), and were up by over 11ppb in January year-over-year. The jump in the CO2 equivalent numbers (all greenhouse gases) for 2018 that should be published in the next month or so should be quite a big one given the CO2 and methane increases.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gl_gr.html (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gl_gr.html)
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: ASILurker on May 07, 2019, 03:24:45 AM
MLO Month of April data in
April 2019:        413.32 ppm +3.08
April 2018:        410.24 ppm
Last updated: May 6, 2019
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html
May avg 414.50 ?

Quite possible I would think, and would give us a May y-o-y increase of over 3ppm. With the Jan-April numbers being 2.87ppm, 3.43ppm, 2.51ppm, and 3.08ppm that would probably make for a first five months average growth rate of over 3ppm. Given the rather muted ENSO, certainly some cause for concern.

Yes indeed.

MOST RECENT GLOBAL CO2 DATA
Nov-Feb Growth numbers are - 2.68, 2.83, 2.48 and 2.64 ... avg + 2.66 ppm

One can see the difference in the "lines/angles" between recent years and now already

(https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_gl.png)
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: swoozle on May 07, 2019, 04:52:56 AM
Y-o-y increase for last week (start April 28) was posted today as 4.48!

edit: ha, never mind, I see that last year the weekly average was oddly low
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wdmn on May 07, 2019, 08:18:26 AM
Y-o-y increase for last week (start April 28) was posted today as 4.48!

edit: ha, never mind, I see that last year the weekly average was oddly low


Sure 4.48 is high, but 2.07 the week before was quite low. It gets washed out in the rinse in the monthly numbers. Besides these up/down moves have been happening all the time where weekly numbers are concerned but they have never hit 4.48 before. It's still "remarkable" and a genuine "record" :)


See reply #122 from dbarce, their was a correction in the measurement, and 4.48 does not stand.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: crandles on May 07, 2019, 02:21:43 PM
See reply #122 from dbarce, their was a correction in the measurement, and 4.48 does not stand.

Actually it is Scripps (measure posted on CO2.earth) daily measure of 415.09 for May 3rd that does not stand. The 4.48 is the weekly difference shown on ESRL:
Quote
Week beginning on April 28, 2019:     414.32 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:     409.84 ppm

AFAIK that 4.48 still stands.

Definite up and down spikes in 2018 on ESRL whereas 2019 looks noisy over long period:

(https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_weekly_mlo.png)
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 on May 07, 2019, 10:36:06 PM
April 2019 came in at 413.32 ppm.  That's a 3.08 ppm increase over April 2018.  Running 12-month is now closing in on the linear trend which is around 2.60 ppm per year.

As mentioned before... the positive slope is a rate change of a rate change.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: silkman on May 08, 2019, 09:23:25 AM
I've posted this a couple of times before but the Keeling Curve full record clearly shows "a rate change of a rate change" throughout with no noticeable impact in the post Kyoto era. Acceleration of carbon emissions remains the order of the day. As Mr Trump might say (but won't!). Not good!



Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Pmt111500 on May 10, 2019, 11:51:49 AM
I've posted this a couple of times before but the Keeling Curve full record clearly shows "a rate change of a rate change" throughout with no noticeable impact in the post Kyoto era. Acceleration of carbon emissions remains the order of the day. As Mr Trump might say (but won't!). Not good!
Yep, the only dent in the parabolic (well sigmoidal might be better word) curve is when Soviet economy and manufacturing collapsed for the reorganization to the current system.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: ASILurker on May 12, 2019, 02:48:34 AM
For 2 weeks now readings are steady in the 414s - typically MLO CO2 peaks in middle of May

This week will still be above +3 ppm growth

May 10:      414.26 ppm
May 09:      414.23 ppm
May 08:      414.50 ppm
May 07:      414.24 ppm
May 06:      414.49 ppm
May 05:      414.10 ppm

2018   5   6  2018.3438    411.06

Saw interesting refs from sleepy this week, saying global GHG emissions need to be cut by 50% per decade for 3 decades straight to get down to zero net ghg emissions and stabilisation by 2050. 

This means that all the developed nations must cut their emissions by even more than 50% between now and 2030 ... like that's going to happen, not! 


Anyway I'm wondering if the recent rise to an average 2.5 ppm growth is in the process of shifting up to a +3 ppm growth rate as the new normal for the next decade - with el ninos pushing it even higher again? Not a claim only a thought bubble - the previous avg. +2ppm annual growth rate never lasted long that's for sure!

It's a sad state of affairs imho. Can't say I didn't see it coming though a long time ago. The long term rhetoric coming the body of climate scientists and the UNFCCC has really not cut it - they have not properly communicated the dire straits the world was in long ago and not been able to override the BS from politicians and the media etc.

Now with the community of nations at each others throats for all manner of reasons the short term opportunity for serious agreements on climate action, and GHG cuts is Zero or less.

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot - that's an understatement!
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Pmt111500 on May 12, 2019, 12:15:10 PM
10 year averages on CO2 growth shows the dent in the 1990s much clearer.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Sleepy on May 12, 2019, 02:39:37 PM
Now you will have to edit your post again Pmt, I simply forgot that it's bad practice to quote Lurk since he's obviously on many members ignore lists and that might disturb their online experience. Sorry.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Pmt111500 on May 12, 2019, 04:03:45 PM
Now you will have to edit your post again Pmt, I simply forgot that it's bad practice to quote Lurk since he's obviously on many members ignore lists and that might disturb their online experience. Sorry.
Done, should also lube my bike. And yes he is. I had a spree of ignoring sometime last winter, and this might result in odd communications between me and an ignored person.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on May 12, 2019, 04:32:09 PM
10 year averages on CO2 growth shows the dent in the 1990s much clearer.
You should keep in mind that 1991 and 1992 were those two years which saw the collapse of most of the Eastern European / Soviet economies (much of it was energy-intensive and not "green"). For this reason these two years should be somehow excluded from evaluation. And if you did that the 90s had almost the same CO2 increase rate than the 80s.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Pmt111500 on May 13, 2019, 11:04:32 AM
Kiwichick is on topic elsewhere, 415ppm topped, some denier may have to enlarge his graph on this.

not sure if this is the right place but.......CO2  has hit 415 ppm at Mauna Loa for the first time ever

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: gerontocrat on May 13, 2019, 11:07:10 AM
Kiwichick is on topic elsewhere, 415ppm topped, some denier may have to enlarge his graph on this.

not sure if this is the right place but.......CO2  has hit 415 ppm at Mauna Loa for the first time ever

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/
"CO2 is good for you!!" = denier spiel para 7.6.2(iv)
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on May 13, 2019, 10:15:54 PM
Another week with an increase of more than 3 ppm - this time with an average value one year ago:
Week beginning on May 5, 2019:     414.37 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:             410.77 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     389.79 ppm
Last updated: May 13, 2019
Next week it must look better (last year's weekly average was around 412 ppm - the maximum of 2018)
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: ASILurker on May 15, 2019, 07:34:50 AM
2 days in a row above 415
May 13:      415.40 ppm
May 12:      415.27 ppm

which is +1 ppm above the last 2 weeks avg. ... "we're cookin' with gas!"
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: b_lumenkraft on May 15, 2019, 07:57:00 AM
Quote
Atmospheric carbon dioxide sets a new record every year. This year’s cracked the ominous milestone of 415 parts per million (ppm) thanks to ever rising emissions from human activities. The sharp rise might seem like something nobody could’ve predicted but there’s at least one group of scientists that were on the money 37 years ago: Exxon’s ace team of scientists.

Link >> https://earther.gizmodo.com/exxon-predicted-2019-s-ominous-co2-milestone-in-1982-1834748763
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on May 16, 2019, 11:03:29 PM
2 days in a row above 415
May 13:      415.40 ppm
May 12:      415.27 ppm

which is +1 ppm above the last 2 weeks avg. ... "we're cookin' with gas!"
Edited May 16, 2019:
May 16:    415.58 ppm (almost as high as yesterday)
May 15:     415.64 ppm
May 14:     415.26 ppm
May 13:     415.40 ppm
May 12:     415.27 ppm
May 11:     414.75 ppm
Last Updated: May 1617, 2019
...which means that we will be above more than 3 ppm from last year's value, which was the highest value in 2018...
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on May 19, 2019, 09:19:31 PM
Another week with > 3 ppm yearly increase. Bad in fact, as it topped last year's maximum by more than 3.5 ppm:
Week beginning on May 12, 2019:     415.39 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:             411.84 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     390.12 ppm
Last updated: May 19, 2019
A chaotic day with high variability does not deliver a daily average today. From the hourly averages it might be concluded that 2019's maximum happened on May 15 with 415.64 ppm.
Last year's average the following week was around 411.5 ppm. To receive a difference below 3 ppm/year next week a decrease by about 1 ppm or more from this week's values is necessary.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Pmt111500 on May 20, 2019, 02:03:12 PM
Another week with > 3 ppm yearly increase. Bad in fact, as it topped last year's maximum by more than 3.5 ppm:
Week beginning on May 12, 2019:     415.39 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:             411.84 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     390.12 ppm
Last updated: May 19, 2019
A chaotic day with high variability does not deliver a daily average today. From the hourly averages it might be concluded that 2019's maximum happened on May 15 with 415.64 ppm.
Last year's average the following week was around 411.5 ppm. To receive a difference below 3 ppm/year next week a decrease by about 1 ppm or more from this week's values is necessary.
Someone said on ENSO-thread that a Modoki Nino is on. This would probably keep the central Pacific values of CO2 a bit higher than normal, as the surfacing hotter waters exhale gases.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Pmt111500 on May 20, 2019, 06:21:00 PM
It looks like some people may want some other people to possibly be more certain of the potential scientific issues relating to this thread, than they actually might be, at least without confirming several things concerning the state of the Pacific Ocean, concurrent and historical. This, would sadly require tracking, if I don't make a mistake, at least three scientific papers published during 2005-2009 on which the issue at hand was studied by observations and more or less clearly described. This I'm not going to do. Rather, I should continue to interpret science as I see fit to the readers here, even though it's likely it won't change deeply rooted certifiable opinions. 
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Pmt111500 on May 22, 2019, 09:22:09 PM
Stephan's message has the previous values https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2541.msg199594.html#msg199594
Currently esrl@noaa reports:
May 21:     Unavailable
May 20:     414.73 ppm
May 19:     414.75 ppm
May 18:     Unavailable
May 17:     415.22 ppm
Last Updated: May 22, 2019

Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Tor Bejnar on May 22, 2019, 09:38:47 PM
Reply #143  (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2541.msg200183.html#msg200183)("Posted by: ASILurker") was "last edited" by Lurk, and I note his handle is no longer in the Members List (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=mlist;sa=search).  I take it this means he has sought greener pastures.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Pmt111500 on May 22, 2019, 09:42:41 PM
Reply #143  (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2541.msg200183.html#msg200183)("Posted by: ASILurker") was "last edited" by Lurk, and I note his handle is no longer in the Members List (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=mlist;sa=search).  I take it this means he has sought greener pastures.

I noticed the post, yes and it's a bit sad if he done so, he brought some life to the political section here, that's been dominated by non-european discussion. I do not know what his political party is but I've known a couple of hard line european lefties with similar sort of passion. Maybe he gets offended of this too so I better stop. Politics and science do not mix well.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Pmt111500 on May 22, 2019, 10:40:38 PM
 :-\ :-[  :-X https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/certifiable
Words, always hard. Numbers, sometimes work.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Sleepy on May 23, 2019, 04:47:18 AM
Reply #143  (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2541.msg200183.html#msg200183)("Posted by: ASILurker") was "last edited" by Lurk, and I note his handle is no longer in the Members List (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=mlist;sa=search).  I take it this means he has sought greener pastures.
Yes, he obviously deleted his account. ASILurker was the one he registered with at first. Norwegians, Swedes and Finns are very similar, it's mostly the Finnish language that separates us. 
And oh, it's been a Modoki-like state since October according to Jamstec, I don't post in the ENSO thread anymore but here's an older crosspost from one in the 2018 thread. All the following updates are at the link.

Better late than never, Jamstec:
http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d1/iod/e/seasonal/outlook.html (http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d1/iod/e/seasonal/outlook.html)
Quote
Sep. 25, 2018
Prediction from 1st Sep., 2018

ENSO forecast:
The SINTEX-F continues to predict a moderate-to-strong El Niño event that may emerge in fall and reach its peak in winter. This El Niño is more or less of Modoki-type and we need to be careful of its impact that may be different from that of the canonical El Niño.
Indian Ocean forecast:
As predicted earlier, the positive Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) has actually emerged during July. In particular, we can see the cold sea surface temperature in the eastern pole clearly. The model predicts the positive IOD to continue during the boreal fall. In accord to the positive IOD evolution, sea level anomalies are expected to be negative (positive) in the eastern (western) tropical Indian Ocean. We may observe co-occurrence of a positive Indian Ocean Dipole and an El Niño/El Niño Modoki-like state in the boreal fall and winter seasons of 2018; this is as we observed in 1994 (with El Niño Modoki) or 1997 and 2015 (with El Niño).

Edit; may I also add that there were signs of an eventual modoki already back in June last year:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2228.msg158153.html#msg158153 (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2228.msg158153.html#msg158153)
&
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2228.msg167058.html#msg167058 (https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2228.msg167058.html#msg167058)

Edit2; on a second thought, I'd better not quote discussions with other members at all, just adding the links above.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on May 26, 2019, 09:57:21 PM
Another week with > 3 ppm yearly increase. Bad in fact, as it topped last year's maximum by more than 3.5 ppm:
Week beginning on May 12, 2019:     415.39 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:             411.84 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     390.12 ppm
Last updated: May 19, 2019
A chaotic day with high variability does not deliver a daily average today. From the hourly averages it might be concluded that 2019's maximum happened on May 15 with 415.64 ppm.
Last year's average the following week was around 411.5 ppm. To receive a difference below 3 ppm/year next week a decrease by about 1 ppm or more from this week's values is necessary.
A relevant reduction of the CO2 levels did not occur, therefore:
Another week with > 3 ppm yearly increase.
Week beginning on May 19, 2019:     414.74 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:             411.44 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     390.53 ppm
Last updated: May 26, 2019
When will this crazy development end?

Off-topic:
The green party has won more than 20% in the EU parliament elections today and became the 2nd biggest party in Germany. Together with two other ecological/animal protection parties more than 23% of the voters want a change in politics into more ecology and protection of our natural resources. Thanks to Greta Thunberg who helped a lot. In the age group of 18-24 the green party won 34% of the votes, and according to an analysis of ARD the greens were the biggest party in all age categories below 44 59 years (edited according to final results on May 27).  :D Guess what I voted for?
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: kassy on May 27, 2019, 02:27:43 PM
Same as me i guess. Now lets see what it does.

The upside of all this is that we only had one week over 415 this year...we really did blow by 400 and ever since then it is this crazy ride up.  :(

Thanks for the updates!
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 on June 01, 2019, 04:04:14 PM
I calculated 414.70 ppm for May 2019.  That is a year-over-year change of 3.46 ppm.  The running 12-month rate is back above 2.50 ppm and approaching the linear regression.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Tor Bejnar on June 01, 2019, 06:46:59 PM
Wolfpack's graph suggests the CO2 rate of change changes sinuously (albeit with much noise) on a ~3-4 year cycle since 2008, at least.  I didn't find anything with a quick internet search.  Am I missing something?
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: oren on June 01, 2019, 07:13:05 PM
ENSO?
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 on June 01, 2019, 09:46:32 PM
I’ve wondered the same thing.  We all know ENSO has a big impact on CO2 growth variability but this cycle seems to be something else in addition to ENSO.  Look at the peak prior to 2015-2016 El Niño.   The 12-month growth rate peaked in September of 2013.  Why?  2013 ENSO was cool neutral for 10 months leading up to that peak in September.   
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on June 02, 2019, 09:23:35 PM
Finally, there are (still some) weeks with a growth rate of CO2 below 3 ppm.
The last week showed an increase of 'only' 2.7 ppm:
Week beginning on May 26, 2019:     414.27 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:          411.58 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:       390.15 ppm
Last updated: June 2, 2019
June 1, 2019 was the first date since May 4, 2019 with a daily average value below 414 ppm. Its contribution set the increase below 3 ppm.
Next week should also stay below 3 ppm increase, if the daily values stay below 414 ppm.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: gerontocrat on June 04, 2019, 06:22:21 PM
May average 414.8, +3.5ppm from May 2018.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/04/latest-data-shows-steep-rises-in-co2-for-seventh-year
Latest data shows steep rises in CO2 for seventh year
Readings from Hawaii observatory bring threshold of 450ppm closer sooner than had been anticipated

Quote
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased by the second highest annual rise in the past six decades, according to new data.

Atmospheric concentrations of the greenhouse gas were 414.8 parts per million in May, which was 3.5ppm higher than the same time last year, according to readings from the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii, where carbon dioxide has been monitored continuously since 1958.
This is the seventh consecutive year in which steep increases in ppm have been recorded, well above the previous average, and the fifth year since the 400ppm threshold was breached in 2014. In 2016, the highest annual jump in the series so far was recorded, from 404.1 in 2015 to 407.66 in 2016.

As recently as the 1990s, the average annual growth rate was about 1.5ppm, but in the past decade that has accelerated to 2.2ppm, and is now even higher. This brings the threshold of 450ppm closer sooner than had been anticipated. Concentrations of the gas have increased every year, reflecting our burning of fossil fuels.

Ralph Keeling of the Scripps Institute, and the son of Charles, said: “The CO2 growth rate is still very high – the increase from last May was well above the average for the past decade.” He pointed to the mild El Niño conditions experienced this year as a possible factor.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Shared Humanity on June 04, 2019, 06:49:05 PM
Atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing and the rate of increase is increasing. This will continue for several decades, I fear.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on June 05, 2019, 05:32:02 PM
CO2 highest humanity has ever seen:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/06/04/carbon-dioxide-levels-hawaiis-mauna-loa-soar-record-peak/1337163001/

EDIT: Rising faster than ever:
https://news.yahoo.com/co2-just-hit-time-record-143515123.html
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: vox_mundi on June 07, 2019, 10:28:24 PM
(https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/2019/2-whytheresmor.jpg)
Cape Grim/Antarctic carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂-e) calculated from the long-lived greenhouse gas radiative forcing data shown in the figure below with CO₂ data shown for reference, annual data through to 2018. Inset panel shows the monthly mean CO₂-e data for Cape Grim from 2015 through to March 2019, showing CO₂-e surpassing 500ppm in July 2018. Credit: CSIRO 

(https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/2019/1-whytheresmor.jpg)
Southern Hemispheric radiative forcing relative to 1750 due to the long-lived greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and synthetic greenhouse gases), expressed as watts per square metre, from measurements in situ at Cape Grim, from the Cape Grim Air Archive, and Antarctic firn air. Credit: CSIRO

https://m.phys.org/news/2019-06-greenhouse-gas-atmosphere-realised.html
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wili on June 08, 2019, 05:25:59 AM
Thanks, as always, vox.

Note that a lot of that extra CO2e amount (beyond CO2) is from methane, and it turns out a lot more of that methane is from industry than we thought, like two orders of magnitude worth:

https://phys.org/news/2019-06-industrial-methane-emissions-higher.html
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on June 10, 2019, 10:30:32 PM
And, back again, to CO2 growth rates above 3 ppm:
Week beginning on June 2, 2019:     414.32 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:        410.86 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     390.06 ppm
Last updated: June 10, 2019
End of June the short CO2 decrease season until beginning of September will start.
If this period is shifted to later times, then the increase will stay well above average and vice versa. Time will tell. But when I sum up all the increases so far this year, we will end up with an annual growth rate above 3 ppm.
Isn't it time to slow down CO2 growth in order to have at least a chance to become a world below 2°C increase (if that is ever possible at all)?
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on June 10, 2019, 10:35:23 PM
The February 2019 numbers of methane were recently published:
February 2019:     1865.4 ppb
February 2018:     1856.2 ppb
Last updated: June 05, 2019
The growth rate is among the top three since 2000. As CH4 is a much more potent GHG than CO2, this increase is worrying.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on June 16, 2019, 10:56:30 PM
Two days without any measurement (does anyone know why?) deliver a "short week" with ups and downs and an average below 3 ppm increase compared to last year:
Week beginning on June 9, 2019:     413.98 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:             411.22 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     390.17 ppm
Last updated: June 16, 2019
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on June 23, 2019, 09:03:28 PM
Ups and downs continue, some "unavailable" days average up to another week with a yearly increase well above 3 ppm:
Week beginning on June 16, 2019:     414.03 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:             410.38 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     389.20 ppm
Last updated: June 23, 2019
The following week last year was a tiny little bit higher than this week. The increase in CO2 may fall again below 3 ppm.
After that the annual cycle will start again with a big drop to around 408 ppm in September. As written earlier, a tiny change in timing (two, three days of delay or advance are enough) of this decrease can shift the yearly increase by ± 0,5 ppm.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: bluice on June 27, 2019, 08:33:26 PM
I thought this fits well on the most important thread on the forum.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/climate-change-mauna-loa-carbon-dioxide-measurement-834627/

Quote
When you look at this curve, two things are obvious. First, it is a smooth upward curve, with no breaks or dips or plateaus. Despite the decline in the cost of solar power, despite all the climate marches in the streets, despite the wildfires and melting glaciers and increasing summer heat, it is very obvious that, by the only metric that really matters, we have done less than zero to reduce the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
[\quote]
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on June 30, 2019, 09:35:44 PM
The decline of CO2 levels has started on time. Therefore the yearly increase last week was below 3 ppm:
Week beginning on June 23, 2019:     413.35 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:       410.73 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     388.54 ppm
Last updated: June 30, 2019
Isn't it sad that we can be happy about an increase of "only" 2.6 ppm? Years ago this would have been a crazy high number!
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: kassy on July 01, 2019, 02:18:29 PM
Aiming for 400 ppm max seemed like such a sensible idea...yeah those days are long gone.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Shared Humanity on July 01, 2019, 04:54:01 PM
Aiming for 400 ppm max seemed like such a sensible idea...yeah those days are long gone.

We will be approaching 450 ppm by mid century.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: gerontocrat on July 01, 2019, 04:59:27 PM
Aiming for 400 ppm max seemed like such a sensible idea...yeah those days are long gone.

We will be approaching 450 ppm by mid century.
Optimist - 2040 or before given BAU
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: nanning on July 01, 2019, 06:06:57 PM
current 3 ppm/y * 12y =36 ppm + 415 ppm = 451 ppm. So in 12 years: The year 2031. Or maybe you think the slope of the Keeling curve will go down?
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: crandles on July 01, 2019, 07:24:45 PM
current 3 ppm/y * 12y =36 ppm + 415 ppm = 451 ppm. So in 12 years: The year 2031. Or maybe you think the slope of the Keeling curve will go down?

3ppm/y is almost certainly inflated a little by El Nino.

Week beginning on June 23, 2019:     413.35 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:     410.73 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     388.54 ppm

Averaging more like 2.5 ppm/y over last 10 years. So around 15 years i,e ~2034 for peak to reach 2050 with trough reaching 450 around 2037, if the rate of the last 10 years continues.

Renewables continue getting cheaper so there may be some reduction in the rate of rise so it might be a little later. Even if there are large rises in demand, the increase will mainly be done with renewables as will replacing closing power plants. This cheaper renewables has only been the situation for at most a few years so far and the gap in price is likely to grow.

Let's show some optimism  ;)
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Shared Humanity on July 01, 2019, 09:12:11 PM
Aiming for 400 ppm max seemed like such a sensible idea...yeah those days are long gone.

We will be approaching 450 ppm by mid century.
Optimist - 2040 or before given BAU

Brain cramp...don't know how I got to that.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 on July 02, 2019, 07:59:09 PM
Yea current CO2 growth rates are about 2.6 ppm per year.  That's why I use a 12-month smooth to pick out inter-seasonal variability like ENSO.  June 2019's growth rate came in just over 3.00 ppm.  That pulls the 12-month smooth up to the long term linear trend of ~2.6 ppm per year.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Shared Humanity on July 02, 2019, 09:38:59 PM
Yea current CO2 growth rates are about 2.6 ppm per year.  That's why I use a 12-month smooth to pick out inter-seasonal variability like ENSO.  June 2019's growth rate came in just over 3.00 ppm.  That pulls the 12-month smooth up to the long term linear trend of ~2.6 ppm per year.

So 450 ppm by 2034.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: werther on July 02, 2019, 11:36:15 PM
Probably earlier. The carbon sinks may be failing. That process will not proceed linear.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 on July 02, 2019, 11:54:04 PM
Yea current CO2 growth rates are about 2.6 ppm per year.  That's why I use a 12-month smooth to pick out inter-seasonal variability like ENSO.  June 2019's growth rate came in just over 3.00 ppm.  That pulls the 12-month smooth up to the long term linear trend of ~2.6 ppm per year.

So 450 ppm by 2034.

The growth rate is increasing therefore accelerating.  It will be 3 ppm/year in the next 5-10 years.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: oren on July 03, 2019, 12:01:26 AM
It should be 2031-2033 due to acceleration, depending on ENSO cycle and emission variability.
And then onward to 500ppm or collapse, whichever comes first. My bet is on collapse.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Pragma on July 03, 2019, 12:10:45 AM
It should be 2031-2033 due to acceleration, depending on ENSO cycle and emission variability.
And then onward to 500ppm or collapse, whichever comes first. My bet is on collapse.

I think you're about right for a date, but I disagree with 500 ppm or collapse. Regardless of the order, it will be both.

If civilization collapses, the aerosol masking effect will collapse, spiking the temperature and releasing much CO2e from forests and from permafrost that has become permamelt, and that is without any subsea methane release.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: petm on July 03, 2019, 12:29:15 AM
When civilization (or the economy) collapses, fossil fuel burning and CO2 emissions will decrease dramatically. But unfortunately that's not likely to be soon.

Meanwhile, stuff like this will add to the upward curve: https://www.ecowatch.com/amazon-rainforest-deforestation-2621547166.html .
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Pragma on July 03, 2019, 12:36:33 AM
When civilization (or the economy) collapses, fossil fuel burning and CO2 emissions will decrease dramatically. But unfortunately that's not likely to be soon.

Meanwhile, stuff like this will add to the upward curve: https://www.ecowatch.com/amazon-rainforest-deforestation-2621547166.html .

True, but what I was saying to Oren is that all the aerosols in the atmosphere will fall out quite quickly as the economy collapses, resulting in much higher insolation. A dramatic drop in fossil fuel burning will be of little benefit, short term or long term (in human reference).
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: petm on July 03, 2019, 12:49:13 AM
True, but what I was saying to Oren is that all the aerosols in the atmosphere will fall out quite quickly as the economy collapses, resulting in much higher insolation. A dramatic drop in fossil fuel burning will be of little benefit, short term or long term (in human reference).

Wasn't meaning to suggest disagreement -- I totally agree with this. Aerosol masking effect is troubling. A lot is troubling these days.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Pragma on July 03, 2019, 12:53:49 AM
Wasn't meaning to suggest disagreement -- I totally agree with this. Aerosol masking effect is troubling. A lot is troubling these days.

LOL! I think you might have just taken top prize for understatement, and I couldn't agree more.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: petm on July 03, 2019, 01:08:36 AM
Edit: Troubling even in the desensitized Age Of Trump. hahaha
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Bruce Steele on July 04, 2019, 04:34:19 AM
Apocalypse For Real has a posting about rate of CO2 increases on his blog. Well worth a look.

http://www.megiddo666.apocalypse4real-globalmethanetracking.com


"The change from 210 to 280 ppm (emerging from the last ice age to beginning of the Industrial Revolution) took 15,900 years.
The change from 280 ppm to 350 ppm (reached in 1987, when the international community and energy industry unequivocally knew that emissions were going to cause a problem for human society) took only 202 years.
The last 60 ppm increase (350 to 410 ppm) has only taken 32 years. This has never happened in 800,000 years. In fact, in the ice core data there is no record of a 10 ppm increase in 39 years - until human emissions impacts in the 1900's.
Global CO2 concentrations have never increased by 10 ppm in 47 months. There is no comparison in 800,000 years of ice core data. Nothing in paleo-climate proxies. Only in models with polynomial, or exponential, curves.

We are in uncharted "terror incognita" (pun intended)."
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Human Habitat Index on July 04, 2019, 05:12:05 AM
Apocalypse For Real has a posting about rate of CO2 increases on his blog. Well worth a look.

http://www.megiddo666.apocalypse4real-globalmethanetracking.com


"The change from 210 to 280 ppm (emerging from the last ice age to beginning of the Industrial Revolution) took 15,900 years.
The change from 280 ppm to 350 ppm (reached in 1987, when the international community and energy industry unequivocally knew that emissions were going to cause a problem for human society) took only 202 years.
The last 60 ppm increase (350 to 410 ppm) has only taken 32 years. This has never happened in 800,000 years. In fact, in the ice core data there is no record of a 10 ppm increase in 39 years - until human emissions impacts in the 1900's.
Global CO2 concentrations have never increased by 10 ppm in 47 months. There is no comparison in 800,000 years of ice core data. Nothing in paleo-climate proxies. Only in models with polynomial, or exponential, curves.

We are in uncharted "terror incognita" (pun intended)."

Terror Incognita - Die, die, die

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf5677y6ff0
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Pragma on July 04, 2019, 06:58:38 AM
On an earth system time scale, we are ringing a bell with a sledge hammer, and we are only hearing the very first vibrations. Most people do not realize that even the fact that there is a measurable temperature increase over the globe in a single year signals monumental changes. Petajoules and Exajoules are foreign concepts. I understand the numbers, but I doubt I grasp the significance. 

I have looked at everything from concentration-to-temperature-increase times, to feedbacks, to the sheer magnitude of what CCS or BECCS would involve, even if it were viable. And then there is CO2 persistence.

Granted, I am a cynical SOB, but I also have a fairly good handle on math, which means I don't shy away from reality.

Isn't it about time that we stop using seemingly obligatory phrases like:

"Imagine if we do not accelerate efforts to quickly drop emissions. "?
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Viggy on July 04, 2019, 07:33:41 AM
On an earth system time scale, we are ringing a bell with a sledge hammer, and we are only hearing the very first vibrations.

That is a very poetic and jarring analogy!

And yea, dropping emissions is not going to happen unless something forces it to do so. By that time, its already far too late.

Also, given that this melting season has made a pre-2030 BOE seem more likely, I would be more inclined to expect 450 ppm sometime in the upcoming decade. Ill try and put up a more detailed justification at a later date.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Tony Mcleod on July 04, 2019, 08:21:26 AM
Came across this disturbing factoid just now at https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-levels-just-hit-another-record-heres-why-it-matters/ (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-levels-just-hit-another-record-heres-why-it-matters/)

Even if today’s CO2 concentrations are similar to the levels seen millions of years ago, the rate at which they’re currently climbing probably “outstrips anything we’ve seen in the geological record for at least 65 million years,”

Gavin Foster of the University of Southampton http://www.thefosterlab.org/
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wdmn on July 04, 2019, 08:34:01 AM
Does the speed at which you increase the forcing change it's force? This is of course way beyond me to answer. I am inclined to think that yes, the consequence is that slow feedbacks will not be so slow, and that the possibility of getting into a runaway greenhouse warming situation is therefore greater... but what do I know?
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: kassy on July 04, 2019, 10:05:13 AM
It think it must be. If you look at the quote in #183 we are increasing it fast but we are also doing that by adding record amounts of buried historical carbon. If we had started transiting to a sustainable climate in the nineties we might not have seen the huge siberian/alaskan fires we are used to by now or much later in this century. Off course this is just one simple example among many.

https://skepticalscience.com/why-global-warming-can-accelerate.html
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on July 04, 2019, 09:09:42 PM
Looking at the actual data from Mauna Loa (ca. 413.5 this week up to today) we will easily be back at an increase rate of about 4 ppm compared to last year. The annual decrease seems to have stopped since June 30.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on July 07, 2019, 08:23:42 PM
The second half of this year begins with an almost 4 ppm increase:
Week beginning on June 30, 2019:     413.38 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:       409.57 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     388.63 ppm
Last updated: July 7, 2019
Another value of above 3 ppm increase in CO2 is to be expected next week.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: bosbas on July 07, 2019, 08:58:23 PM
It isn't that long ago that I thought a high 2 ppm increase was something noteworthy; now we're seeing 3.81 even without a strong el-nino or other natural cause that I am aware of; scary.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on July 07, 2019, 09:52:12 PM
I totally agree with your thoughts and fears. Maybe a 7 ppm yearly increase will make it into the news? Or is a 17 ppm increase needed?
- Joking aside; I have no clue how we can manage to get even close to an increase below 2 ppm; and in reality we should begin to head towards a zero growth to avoid the worst...
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 on July 10, 2019, 03:44:50 PM
Updated graphic with official June 2019 numbers: 413.92 ppm.  That's a growth rate of 3.13 ppm.
 The running 12-month mean is now back up to 2.6 ppm/year. 

A couple important things.  This is a chart of rates so a positive linear regression slope = acceleration.  I picked 2006 for the start of my data for 2 important reasons.  2006-2007 was a weak El Niño just like this year.  2006-2007 was also the peak of global economic growth before the 2008-2009 great recession.  That way you can't complain about endpoints.

Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: dnem on July 10, 2019, 03:57:21 PM
Nice chart. What's the slope of the line? Eyeballing suggests growth rate (of the annual increase) of about 0.7 ppm per decade. I.e. the regression would predict an annual growth rate of about 3.3 ppm in a decade (2.6 + 0.7).
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on July 10, 2019, 08:51:34 PM
Probably wolfpack can insert the formula for the regression line into the graph. With this it will be easy to estimate (not forecast!!) annual growth rates for CO2 in the coming decade(s).
I still hope that mankind (those living in the rich countries) will be able to turn that acceleration into a deceleration by changing their lifestyles.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on July 10, 2019, 10:02:34 PM
The February 2019 numbers of methane were recently published:
February 2019:     1865.4 ppb
February 2018:     1856.2 ppb
Last updated: June 05, 2019
The March 2019 numbers of methane were recently published:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_ch4/
March 2019:     1866.4 ppb
March 2018:     1857.5 ppb
(increase by almost 9 ppb)
Last updated: July 05, 2019
Eyeballing from the graph the increase was a little lower than March 2018, but bigger than March 2017.
______________
Neven: Shouldn't we make up a thread in CH4 trends, separate from the CO2 discussion? If you think so, please move this posting (and the referred posting from June 10) into the new thread.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: kassy on July 11, 2019, 09:02:37 PM
Just make a new thread for it. You can copy over the posts and then update it monthly. I appreciate these data threads.

Also this lessens the workload on our great leader. Ask not etc... 

Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on July 11, 2019, 10:06:23 PM
Done.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 on July 13, 2019, 07:30:19 PM
Nice chart. What's the slope of the line? Eyeballing suggests growth rate (of the annual increase) of about 0.7 ppm per decade. I.e. the regression would predict an annual growth rate of about 3.3 ppm in a decade (2.6 + 0.7).

Sorry for the delay.  Slope is roughly 0.07 ppm per year or as you estimated 0.70 ppm per decade.  Regardless of emissions I think the slope may drop a hair the next couple of years because the 2015-2016 spike was so large.  I'll include the slope on the chart next month.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Rod on July 13, 2019, 08:11:05 PM
Nice chart. What's the slope of the line? Eyeballing suggests growth rate (of the annual increase) of about 0.7 ppm per decade. I.e. the regression would predict an annual growth rate of about 3.3 ppm in a decade (2.6 + 0.7).

Sorry for the delay.  Slope is roughly 0.07 ppm per year or as you estimated 0.70 ppm per decade.  Regardless of emissions I think the slope may drop a hair the next couple of years because the 2015-2016 spike was so large.  I'll include the slope on the chart next month.

Below is an interesting chart that has been circulating on Twitter for a few weeks.  I think it does a nice job of showing the “rate of increase of the rate of increase.”   
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on July 14, 2019, 03:24:36 PM
Even though a massive drop occurred from July 7 to July 8, the weekly average is almost at 3 ppm increase vs. 2018:
Week beginning on July 7, 2019:     411.96 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:        409.07 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     388.48 ppm
Last updated: July 14, 2019
The drop was "corrected" today so next week the increase will be well above 3 ppm/year again (the following week last year saw an average of about 408.6 ppm)
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Bernard on July 15, 2019, 12:14:49 PM
@Stephan
Where do you get those July figures?
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/ has been stalled since July 1st.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: S.Pansa on July 15, 2019, 12:22:29 PM
@Stephan
Where do you get those July figures?
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/ has been stalled since July 1st.
My guess would be from here (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/monthly.html) (Global Monitoring Divison from NOAAs ESRL)
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Yuha on July 15, 2019, 03:54:10 PM
@Stephan
Where do you get those July figures?
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/ has been stalled since July 1st.
My guess would be from here (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/monthly.html) (Global Monitoring Divison from NOAAs ESRL)

And more specifically here:

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/mlo.html (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/mlo.html)

These are separate measurements from Scripps:

Quote
They were started by C. David Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in March of 1958 at a facility of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [Keeling, 1976]. NOAA started its own CO2 measurements in May of 1974, and they have run in parallel with those made by Scripps since then [Thoning, 1989].
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on July 15, 2019, 06:58:04 PM
@Stephan
Where do you get those July figures?
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/ has been stalled since July 1st.
This is the link I use to get to actual CO2 data:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Bernard on July 17, 2019, 12:50:42 AM
Thanks all! Bookmarks updated :)
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Ken Feldman on July 17, 2019, 01:55:23 AM
There's a tab on the Mauna Loa page that lets you see the global charts as well.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html)

Quote
April 2019:      411.50 ppm 
April 2018:      408.85 ppm 
Last updated: July 8, 2019 
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on July 19, 2019, 07:50:28 PM
Any idea what is going on (or what is not going on) at the Global Monitoring Division at Mauna Loa? Only two out of the seven last days showed measurement results!
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Pragma on July 19, 2019, 08:04:10 PM
Any idea what is going on (or what is not going on) at the Global Monitoring Division at Mauna Loa? Only two out of the seven last days showed measurement results!

The website https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/

Has been flaky, on and off for some time. There was an outage for about a week due to a bad fan, some months ago, but since then it appears to be a bookkeeping/updating problem.

The site I referenced shows a contiguous dataset, but does not include the daily averages for some reason.

Things tend to get filled in after a while.

Budget cuts?
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: interstitial on July 20, 2019, 07:31:08 AM
as I understand it readings can be highly variable due to local conditions. So they don't report data for times when the numbers are especially volatile. They have criteria set but I don't remember what they are precisely.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: DrTskoul on July 20, 2019, 07:04:55 PM
Standard QA/QC. Unreliable samples are tossed out.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on July 21, 2019, 05:29:10 PM
Even though a massive drop occurred from July 7 to July 8, the weekly average is almost at 3 ppm increase vs. 2018:
Week beginning on July 7, 2019:     411.96 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:        409.07 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     388.48 ppm
Last updated: July 14, 2019
The drop was "corrected" today so next week the increase will be well above 3 ppm/year again (the following week last year saw an average of about 408.6 ppm)
There it is, as forecasted. An increase of more than 3.5 ppm
Week beginning on July 14, 2019:     412.14 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:       408.58 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     388.20 ppm
Last updated: July 21, 2019
Please use these values with care, as to my knowledge there were only three days with data.

A value well below 411.5 ppm is needed next week to have an increase below 3 ppm.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Pmt111500 on July 21, 2019, 06:12:59 PM
Standard QA/QC. Unreliable samples are tossed out.
On the contrary, these are of course recorded, and the sources of interference are being tracked, if possible. These are sensitive measurements. If I understood this correctly, they check these against a sort of normal day cycle and deviations of over some level get checked against known possible sources of ghgs. On some measurement stations even a ship, motors on idle with winds towards, near enough the station may mess up the measurement of the background which is the important bit in global warming. The day cycle of course changes with activity of nearby vegetation, power stations etc. Volcanic activity on Mauna Loa is pretty well ruled out of the background measurements at least.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: DrTskoul on July 21, 2019, 06:59:00 PM
How we measure background CO2 levels on Mauna Loa. (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html)

I may have been too dramatic with the "tossed out" but they are flagged as possibly unreliable and not a "background" level. Ships are too far away to have an effect. Biggest effects are plants that remove CO2 in upsloping air and the volcano in down downsloping air..
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: kassy on July 22, 2019, 01:59:23 PM
That´s an interesting read. I always took this as a simple reliable background measurement so never looked into it but it is quite a bit more complicated then i thought.

The hourly data with error flags would be nice to have so we could muse about the reason we lost so much days in a certain week.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on July 29, 2019, 03:26:41 PM

A value well below 411.5 ppm is needed next week to have an increase below 3 ppm.

Please find here one week of a yearly increase rate at "only" 2.5 ppm:
Week beginning on July 21, 2019:     410.87 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:             408.36 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     387.66 ppm
Last updated: July 29, 2019
Again a week to "handle with care" - only four reliable values available. Something goes on at Mauna Loa Institute. Such a large number of days without measurements or with "unavailable" averages. Hope their support from Trumpistan's government was not cut...

Next week last year showed a remarkable drop to av. 407.5 ppm - an increase of > 3 ppm is likely!
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: interstitial on July 29, 2019, 05:24:39 PM
Something goes on at Mauna Loa Institute. Such a large number of days without measurements or with "unavailable" averages. Hope their support from Trumpistan's government was not cut...

The reason for data gaps has been explained stop stirring the pot for no reason.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 on July 31, 2019, 02:51:42 PM
An historically strong kelvin wave passed right over Hawaii(155°W) earlier this month.  Like the MJO these convectively active & inactive phases have major impacts on local tropical convection & changes in mixing/circulations.  There is no grand conspiracy, abnormal/volatile measurements of CO2 are processed through QC. The entire point of Mauna Loa is to measure a well mixed CO2 concentration that is representative of global levels.  Local contamination would make these useless. 
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on August 04, 2019, 10:08:02 PM

A value well below 411.5 ppm is needed next week to have an increase below 3 ppm.

The annual cycle with decreases in CO2 is on its way.
With the help of a low value last Monday this week saw a yearly increase of 2.65 ppm.
Week beginning on July 28, 2019:     410.20 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:       407.55 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     387.28 ppm
Last updated: August 4, 2019
All days showed values, no gaps anymore in the data set.

Forecast for next week: Last year had an average of about 407.3. If the daily values continue to drop, a yearly increase of below 3 ppm can be achieved again.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: blumenkraft on August 05, 2019, 06:17:20 PM
Some achievement though.  :(
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 on August 07, 2019, 09:13:45 PM
July came in at 411.77 ppm.  That's a growth rate of 3.06 ppm.  Running 12-month growth rate average is now ~2.80 ppm/year and above the trend.  The rate of the growth rate (acceleration) is about 0.70 ppm/decade². 
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: DrTskoul on August 08, 2019, 02:55:09 AM
July came in at 411.77 ppm.  That's a growth rate of 3.06 ppm.  Running 12-month growth rate average is now ~2.80 ppm/year and above the trend.  The rate of the growth rate (acceleration) is about 0.70 ppm/decade².

Without a real El Nino to speak about...
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 on August 08, 2019, 03:05:54 PM
Through July, 2019's growth rate is 3.10 ppm.  Only one year has finished above 3.00 ppm: 2016 at 3.01 ppm.   1998 & 2015 finished just below a 3 ppm growth rate.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Renerpho on August 08, 2019, 05:24:27 PM
Forecast for next week: Last year had an average of about 407.3. If the daily values continue to drop, a yearly increase of below 3 ppm can be achieved again.
Some achievement though.  :(

The last couple of days would give an average of 410.33, putting us almost exactly at 3 ppm above 2018. Of course the week isn't over yet...
August 4: 410.16
August 5: 410.86
August 6: 410.05
August 7: 410.25
What I find concerning is this: I know I will feel relieved when I see that we end up with 2.9 ppm rise this week. As blumenkraft said, it is quite an achievement to make <3 ppm something to look forward to.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on August 11, 2019, 05:14:02 PM

Forecast for next week: Last year had an average of about 407.3. If the daily values continue to drop, a yearly increase of below 3 ppm can be achieved again.
Just missed that forecast by 0.02 ppm:
Week beginning on August 4, 2019:     410.34 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:             407.33 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     387.07 ppm
Last updated: August 11, 2019
The decrease has stopped since July 27, therefore the yearly increase is a tiny little bit above 3 ppm.

Next week should be the same average value and a very comparable yearly increase of about 3 ppm.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Renerpho on August 11, 2019, 08:54:51 PM
CO2 concentration at NOAA and Scripps: 2019 vs. 2018

NOAA and Scripps each had a low value at the beginning of the week 28 July - 3 August 2019, and NOAA had a high value on 28 July 2018. Scripps had no data this week in 2018, and NOAA was a bit noisy. So, last week's increase was "only" 2.65 ppm.

The week 4 August - 10 August 2019 had more consistent values from both. In 2018, NOAA had a few low values. Using the daily averages, the increase came in at 3.15 ppm (NOAA) and 3.13 ppm (Scripps).

During the week 11 August - 17 August 2018, the values at NOAA and Scripps remained approximately constant at slightly above 407 ppm. Measurements in 2019 have to be below 410 ppm next week to avoid an increase of 3 ppm.

(https://i.imgur.com/x0dwBSO.png)
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: grixm on August 11, 2019, 09:33:07 PM
July came in at 411.77 ppm.  That's a growth rate of 3.06 ppm.  Running 12-month growth rate average is now ~2.80 ppm/year and above the trend.  The rate of the growth rate (acceleration) is about 0.70 ppm/decade².

It looks like a wave with a very regular period, but it's not seasonal as the period is longer than a year.. What's up with that?
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: DrTskoul on August 12, 2019, 01:15:34 AM
That is how noise around an average trend looks like....
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: TerryM on August 12, 2019, 02:31:43 PM
Haven't done any of the math, but is it possible that if we were to calculate the YoY increase as a % rather than as an absolute number we might find the increases more predictable?


ie an increase of 2, when the base is 200 gives an increase of 1%  - an increase of 4 when the base has moved to 400 also gives an increase of 1%


If this proves ~accurate over time, it might make prediction more accurate?
Terry
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on August 12, 2019, 10:24:06 PM
July came in at 411.77 ppm.  That's a growth rate of 3.06 ppm.  Running 12-month growth rate average is now ~2.80 ppm/year and above the trend.  The rate of the growth rate (acceleration) is about 0.70 ppm/decade².

It looks like a wave with a very regular period, but it's not seasonal as the period is longer than a year.. What's up with that?
At least part of the "bigger waves" in the 365d-running mean are caused by El Niño / La Niña phenomena. The big El Niño event from 2015/16 is clearly visible. This high increase is followed by a period of smaller increase in 2017/18, which was a weak La Niña period.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Renerpho on August 15, 2019, 08:32:42 AM
The first half of the week 11 August - 17 August 2019 came in at 410.50 (NOAA) and 410.65 (Scripps), higher than last week's values. If the week ended here, this would be an increase of 3.5 ppm over 2018's readings.

(https://i.ibb.co/9gxp4rW/CO2-concentration-Jul-7-Sep-15.png)
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 on August 15, 2019, 02:41:55 PM
July came in at 411.77 ppm.  That's a growth rate of 3.06 ppm.  Running 12-month growth rate average is now ~2.80 ppm/year and above the trend.  The rate of the growth rate (acceleration) is about 0.70 ppm/decade².

It looks like a wave with a very regular period, but it's not seasonal as the period is longer than a year.. What's up with that?

Yea I've thought about this a lot too.  Obviously ENSO plays a big role but ENSO doesn't following regular period like this chart shows/suggests.  What's behind the trough to peak growth from  2012-2013? ENSO warmed slightly out of the 2011 La Niña but it was still cool-neutral.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Shared Humanity on August 15, 2019, 03:26:14 PM
The first half of the week 11 August - 17 August 2019 came in at 410.50 (NOAA) and 410.65 (Scripps), higher than last week's values. If the week ended here, this would be an increase of 3.5 ppm over 2018's readings.

(https://i.ibb.co/9gxp4rW/CO2-concentration-Jul-7-Sep-15.png)

Hi Renerpho. Welcome to the party
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Renerpho on August 15, 2019, 04:59:33 PM
Hi Renerpho. Welcome to the party

Thanks, Shared Humanity!
I feel like I've missed the first two thirds of the film (the first few billion years), but I hope it gets exciting from here and not too confusing to watch. The plot is unfolding a bit too fast for my liking, but what can you do.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/CO2_40k.png)
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on August 18, 2019, 09:44:52 PM

Next week should be the same average value and a very comparable yearly increase of about 3 ppm.
The actual weekly values have been published:
Week beginning on August 11, 2019:     410.24 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:             407.07 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     385.95 ppm
Last updated: August 18, 2019
The yearly increase is slightly above 3 ppm.
Next week last year's weekly value was around 407 ppm, so an increase of around 3 ppm is likely.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Renerpho on August 21, 2019, 09:12:24 PM
The first half of the week 18 August - 24 August 2019 comes in at 409.66 ppm (NOAA) and 409.94 ppm (Scripps). If the week ended today, this would be an increase of 2.76 ppm/yr and 3.01 ppm/yr, respectively.

20 August 2019 was a low value, 409.1 ppm, over 1 ppm below the previous days. This is similar to what happened around 28 July 2019. In 2018, the measurements decreased during the second half of the week. If daily values in 2019 recover to above 409.8 ppm, a yearly increase of above 3 ppm is within reach.

We are about six weeks from the yearly minimum, which last year was around 405.5 ppm.

Enjoy the below-410 values while they last. After December, we will never seen those again.

(https://i.imgur.com/fQFZBbb.png)
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: TerryM on August 21, 2019, 09:36:10 PM
<snipped>

Enjoy the below-410 values while they last. After December, we will never seen those again.


<snipped>


Scary as hell isn't it.
Terry
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: RealityCheck on August 24, 2019, 09:42:56 AM
I wonder what the lag time is between big events like amazon fires, and the recorded impact on CO2 at Muana Loa? I figure the answer comes in at least 2 parts, the immediate increased Co2 released, and the longer term reduced sink effect from lost trees. But is weeks for the first, and years for the second?  Anyone got any guidance?
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: crandles on August 24, 2019, 12:44:50 PM
Think it can be less than 2 weeks for winds to take gases round globe at similar latitude. However communication between N and S hemisphere is poor so may take a month or two and maybe longer to fully disperse into Northern hemisphere.

I am not guaranteeing the effect is significant enough for 'recorded impact' to be noticeable at Mauna Loa.

Other site might be better. Nearest up to date site possibly Ragged Point
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=RPB&program=ccgg&type=ts

shows no sign yet.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: DrTskoul on August 24, 2019, 01:57:14 PM
There about 3 million gigatons of CO2 in our atmosphere ( multiplied weight of atmosphere by 400 ppm and corrected for MW very roughly ). The forest fires in amazon released 228 megatons so far this year (https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-latin-america-49433767 ), so roughly for a well mixed system and order of magnitude 30 micro ppm.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: dnem on August 24, 2019, 02:41:25 PM
There about 3 million gigatons of CO2 in our atmosphere ( multiplied weight of atmosphere by 400 ppm and corrected for MW very roughly ). The forest fires in amazon released 228 megatons so far this year (https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-latin-america-49433767 ), so roughly for a well mixed system and order of magnitude 30 micro ppm.

Not quite sure what you're saying Dr.  Giga is 109. Mega is 106. So the fires are contributing on the order of 1 in 103 of the total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere. That sounds like quite a bit, but I guess what matters is the additional CO2 flux to the atmosphere from anthropogenic fires in excess of "natural" ones.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: crandles on August 24, 2019, 03:39:56 PM
There about 3 million gigatons of CO2 in our atmosphere ( multiplied weight of atmosphere by 400 ppm and corrected for MW very roughly ). The forest fires in amazon released 228 megatons so far this year (https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-latin-america-49433767 ), so roughly for a well mixed system and order of magnitude 30 micro ppm.

Not quite sure what you're saying Dr.  Giga is 109. Mega is 106. So the fires are contributing on the order of 1 in 103 of the total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere. That sounds like quite a bit, but I guess what matters is the additional CO2 flux to the atmosphere from anthropogenic fires in excess of "natural" ones.

3*10^6*10^9 / 2.3*10^8 looks like more than 10^7 to me.

> what matters is the additional CO2 flux to the atmosphere from anthropogenic fires in excess of "natural" ones.

& perhaps compared to the noise in that signal
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: DrTskoul on August 24, 2019, 03:59:13 PM
Every year there about 40 gigatons of CO2 emitted.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: gerontocrat on August 24, 2019, 04:02:37 PM
Every year there about 40 gigatons of CO2 emitted.
Of which about half stays in the atmosphere.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: dnem on August 24, 2019, 05:19:28 PM
There about 3 million gigatons of CO2 in our atmosphere ( multiplied weight of atmosphere by 400 ppm and corrected for MW very roughly ). The forest fires in amazon released 228 megatons so far this year (https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-latin-america-49433767 ), so roughly for a well mixed system and order of magnitude 30 micro ppm.

Not quite sure what you're saying Dr.  Giga is 109. Mega is 106. So the fires are contributing on the order of 1 in 103 of the total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere. That sounds like quite a bit, but I guess what matters is the additional CO2 flux to the atmosphere from anthropogenic fires in excess of "natural" ones.

3*10^6*10^9 / 2.3*10^8 looks like more than 10^7 to me.

> what matters is the additional CO2 flux to the atmosphere from anthropogenic fires in excess of "natural" ones.

& perhaps compared to the noise in that signal

Yah, I bolluxed that! Read quickly and somehow thought he had said 400 gigatons of CO2 in atmosphere compared to 228 megatons released in fires. 1 in a couple of thousand sounded like way too much!
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: dnem on August 24, 2019, 06:45:29 PM
Every year there about 40 gigatons of CO2 emitted.
Of which about half stays in the atmosphere.

So these fires have released 0.23 GT so far compared to annual 40 GT total.  That's significant, and does not include Siberian (or other) fires.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: mitch on August 24, 2019, 07:57:18 PM
The change in annual atmospheric CO2 buildup depends strongly on the Amazon. If the Amazon is growing, CO2 is sucked into the forest but if it is not the terrestrial CO2 sequestration drops strongly. With a strong dry season and fires in the Amazon, as well as in the subarctic, we will probably see significant CO2 increases this fall.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: DrTskoul on August 24, 2019, 10:07:10 PM
Quote
Although the exact quantities are difficult to calculate, scientists estimate that wildfires emitted about 8 billion tons of CO2 per year for the past 20 years.

How Wildfires Can Affect Climate Change (and Vice Versa) | ... (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://insideclimatenews.org/news/23082018/extreme-wildfires-climate-change-global-warming-air-pollution-fire-management-black-carbon-co2%3Famp&ved=2ahUKEwjs7dz1ppzkAhXhUt8KHTfLC7EQFjAFegQIGxAK&usg=AOvVaw0ZnIr3WJG1wU-KomrGext2&ampcf=1)
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: RealityCheck on August 25, 2019, 12:32:31 AM
Right, so if we estimate 0.4GT CO2 from this season of Amazon fires (up from 0.23 now, i.e. adding a bit from now until end-of-season - and I admit based on absolutely no scientific basis whatsoever, but just to make the numbers easy); then the Amazon will contribute 1 percent of annual CO2 emissions this year.
Now, if we assume there is no additional 'magic' capacity to absorb CO2 created; and that the loss of forest diminishes absorption capacity, then the best case is that all that extra CO2 persists in the atmosphere. So if 'about half' of annual CO2 is now absorbed, then c. 20 GT per annum persists. So Amazon fires this year could add 2 percent not 1 percent to that. Unless ocean-absorption ramps up in line with increased CO2 emission, for example of a carbon sink response. I also note the article quoted by ASLR in Ice Apocalypse thread regarding VPD (vapour pressure deficit), indicating a reduction in plant uptake of CO2 due to atmospheric moisture conditions.
Putting this all together, and it seems to me that wildfires have the potential to cause disproportionate climate change impact, due to their scale and suddeness, compared to 'BAU' CO2 emissions.
Thoughts?
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: DrTskoul on August 25, 2019, 03:28:52 AM
Yeap.... planet on fire...another positive feedback loop... yay...
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: crandles on August 25, 2019, 01:15:49 PM
>assume there is no additional 'magic' capacity to absorb CO2 created

Perhaps a strange assumption. Ocean absorbs ~third of emissions each year because the higher CO2 level means higher partial pressures so more is absorbed. I think this is a fast response, weeks to months. So suggesting there is a hard limit to the amount absorbed each year doesn't really make sense to me. So for caution, I would prefer to stick to the 1% figure rather than 2%. That is of course 1% of anthropogenic emissions not of all natural emissions but it does look to be mainly anthropogenic rather than natural.

But yes there are more adverse effects like heat and moisture effects on nearby forest uptake of carbon.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Tor Bejnar on August 25, 2019, 02:24:17 PM
That "30%" number will noticeably decrease at some point, as temperatures rise, but won't reach "0" for a while, apparently (although the linked research isn't 'just off the shelf' - more like 'off a dusty shelf!').

Warmer oceans release CO2 faster than thought (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20413-warmer-oceans-release-co2-faster-than-thought/)
Earth 25 April 2011
By Wendy Zukerman

Quote
As the world’s oceans warm, their massive stores of dissolved carbon dioxide may be quick to bubble back out into the atmosphere and amplify the greenhouse effect, according to a new study.

The oceans capture around 30 per cent of human carbon dioxide emissions and hide it in their depths. This slows the march of global warming somewhat. But climate records from the end of the last ice age show that as temperatures climb, the trend reverses and the oceans emit CO2, which exacerbates warming.

Previous studies have suggested that it takes between 400 and 1300 years for this to happen. But now the most precise analysis to date has whittled that figure down.

Quick response
“We now think the delay is more like 200 years, possibly even less,” says Tas van Ommen from the Australian Antarctic Division, in Hobart, who led the study.
...

Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20413-warmer-oceans-release-co2-faster-than-thought/#ixzz5xcBDmY4Q
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: RealityCheck on August 25, 2019, 02:31:51 PM
All the above plus current Muana Loa data makes my vote in the 2019 poll look hopelessly optimistic... I chose the 2.0-2.5 band (!) Mind you, looks like we're overshooting the most popular band of 2.5-2.9 as well. 'Sic transit gloria mundi'
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on August 25, 2019, 03:15:29 PM
All the above plus current Muana Loa data makes my vote in the 2019 poll look hopelessly optimistic... I chose the 2.0-2.5 band (!) Mind you, looks like we're overshooting the most popular band of 2.5-2.9 as well. 'Sic transit gloria mundi'

And one person actually voted for over 3.5 ppm!
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on August 25, 2019, 09:56:48 PM
Here are the latest weekly values of CO2 concentration from Mauna Loa:
Week beginning on August 18, 2019:     409.57 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:       406.90 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     385.71 ppm
Last updated: August 25, 2019

The yearly increase is below 3 ppm.

Next week last year was just above 406 ppm. With the latest value from this week it is a challenge to keep the yearly increase below 3 ppm, but there may be a downhill trend for the next week to the yearly minimum in September.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Renerpho on August 26, 2019, 10:35:40 AM
The week 18 August - 24 August 2019 came in at 409.57 ppm (NOAA) and 409.72 ppm (Scripps). Compared to 2018, this is an increase of 2.67 ppm and 2.79 ppm, respectively. Next week's averages were 406.49 ppm (NOAA) and 406.46 ppm (Scripps). To keep the yearly increase below 3 ppm, 2019's values have to fall below 409.5 ppm.

If this year ended today, 2019 would have an increase of 3.06 ppm over 2018 (same for NOAA and Scripps).

(https://i.imgur.com/VWUWmvC.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/cef7gXG.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/qkTeTgH.png)
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on September 02, 2019, 10:31:13 PM

Next week last year was just above 406 ppm. With the latest value from this week it is a challenge to keep the yearly increase below 3 ppm, but there may be a downhill trend for the next week to the yearly minimum in September.
The last week almost matched an annual increase of 3 ppm:

Week beginning on August 25, 2019:     409.46 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:             406.48 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     385.78 ppm
Last updated: September 2, 2019

And, please, look at the value 10 years ago. It was 24 (and not 30) ppm lower than today. The increase rate is increasing (= acceleration), where it should decelerate to keep up with the 1.5°C or even the 2°C goal of IPCC.

Last year next week averaged at about 405.5 ppm. This is once again a challenge to keep the annual increase below 3 ppm.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 on September 06, 2019, 09:51:49 AM
August 2019 came in at 409.95 ppm.  That's a growth rate of 2.96 ppm over August 2018.  The running 12-month average is at ~2.8 ppm, the 2nd highest level in the last 14 years after the 2015-2016 super Niño. 
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on September 06, 2019, 07:38:57 PM
...and with 6 months (much) higher than the 12-months running-mean and two months close to this value the red curve will increase further until enough annual increase rates fall below 2.8 ppm.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on September 08, 2019, 08:47:45 PM
Last year next week averaged at about 405.5 ppm. This is once again a challenge to keep the annual increase below 3 ppm.
My Sunday evening posting job:
Week beginning on September 1, 2019:     408.80 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:               405.50 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:             385.11 ppm
Last updated: September 8, 2019

This is an annual increase of more than 3 ppm

Last year next week came in at around 405.4 ppm, the lowest value in its annual cycle. It will be challenging again this year to keep the increase below 3 ppm; an increase of 3.3-3.5 seems to be more likely, unfortunately.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: TerryM on September 08, 2019, 09:35:04 PM
^^
Thanks for the posts!
Terry
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on September 08, 2019, 10:21:16 PM
...you're welcome!  :)
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on September 15, 2019, 08:46:09 PM

Last year next week came in at around 405.4 ppm, the lowest value in its annual cycle. It will be challenging again this year to keep the increase below 3 ppm; an increase of 3.3-3.5 seems to be more likely, unfortunately.
My Sunday evening posting job - - - There are the actual values:
Week beginning on September 8, 2019:     408.59 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:                     405.31 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:             384.69 ppm
Last updated: September 15, 2019

The annual increase remains persistently above 3 ppm.

Last year next week was a bit higher than this week. With a further small and slow decline in the next days we will (hopefully) see an annual increase slightly below 3 ppm.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on September 22, 2019, 06:50:17 PM
Last year next week was a bit higher than this week. With a further small and slow decline in the next days we will (hopefully) see an annual increase slightly below 3 ppm.
There are the actual values, now showing an annual increase below 3 ppm:
Week beginning on September 15, 2019:     408.50 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:               405.67 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:            384.59 ppm
Last updated: September 22, 2019

Next week last year was a bit lower than this week. With slightly decreasing CO2 concentrations in the next days we will manage to keep the annual increase below 3 ppm again.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 on September 23, 2019, 06:43:50 PM
Last week was also the bottom in 2018.  I believe that's earlier than usual so 2019 will likely go slightly lower for a weekly average.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on September 24, 2019, 09:59:57 PM
Just assuming that we follow the 2.5-3.5 ppm annual increasing path in the next months we will soon reach the latest day with a CO2 concentration below 410 ppm. All further values will be above that level. :(
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 on September 29, 2019, 07:01:34 PM
Preliminary September NOAA CO2 growth rate.  Doesn't include today or the 30th but shouldn't change much.  September 2019 Average will be around 408.50 ppm.  Almost exactly 3 ppm growth rate over 2018.  The running 12-month average growth rate is also now almost exactly 3 ppm.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on September 29, 2019, 09:21:31 PM
Next week last year was a bit lower than this week. With slightly decreasing CO2 concentrations in the next days we will manage to keep the annual increase below 3 ppm again.
And here it is - my Sunday evening CO2 weekly value posting:
Week beginning on September 22, 2019:     408.32 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:               405.63 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:            384.73 ppm
Last updated: September 29, 2019

Annual increase again lower than 3 ppm, and not by a smidgeon.

Last year next week has been the same level as this week. At the moment there is no indication for a sudden uptick of CO2 levels, therefore first October week should rather see a 2.6-2.8 ppm annual increase.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: nanning on September 30, 2019, 06:16:12 AM
Thanks for these updates Stephan.

Everytime I look at the level from 10 years ago (only 10 years!) I 'feel' the acceleration.
(384ppm-280ppm) / (30ppm/decade) = ca. 3.5 decades = 2009-35 = 1974

[sarc]So happy that we have the 2015 Paris accord to keep it in check[/sarc]
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on October 06, 2019, 09:13:13 PM
Last year next week has been the same level as this week. At the moment there is no indication for a sudden uptick of CO2 levels, therefore first October week should rather see a 2.6-2.8 ppm annual increase.
My Sunday evening CO2 posting service:
Week beginning on September 29, 2019:     407.96 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:               405.49 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:            383.85 ppm
Last updated: October 6, 2019

This is one of the smallest annual increase I have ever reported, and a bit lower than I had expected last Sunday.
It looks as if we have reached the seasonal minimum on Oct 4 (407.5 ppm) and that from now on until May 2020 rising values will predominate.

Last year the next week had the same average than this week. Therefore any increase in value will also directly influence the annual increase. I expect an uptick to around 2.8 ppm.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on October 13, 2019, 11:54:45 AM
The monthly CO2 average for September 2019 has been published.
September 2019:       408.54 ppm
September 2018:       405.51 ppm
Last updated: October 7, 2019
This is an increase of 3.03 ppm  >:(
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on October 13, 2019, 09:28:29 PM
Last year the next week had the same average than this week. Therefore any increase in value will also directly influence the annual increase. I expect an uptick to around 2.8 ppm.
My Sunday evening Mauna Loa CO2 posting job.
Week beginning on October 6, 2019:     408.39 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:             405.50 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     384.06 ppm
Last updated: October 13, 2019

Annual increase almost at 2.9 ppm. The seasonal minimum clearly happened on Oct 3 and 4 with around 407.5 ppm. From now on it will go upwards.

Next week last year had an average of around 406 ppm. With a slow daily upward trend in the coming week the annual increase will keep well below 3 ppm. After that the daily increase will be steeper, but, of course, last year also showed an acceleration by 0.5 to 2 ppm per week into November.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on October 20, 2019, 08:34:37 PM
Next week last year had an average of around 406 ppm. With a slow daily upward trend in the coming week the annual increase will keep well below 3 ppm. After that the daily increase will be steeper, but, of course, last year also showed an acceleration by 0.5 to 2 ppm per week into November.
My Sunday evening posting about the actual Mauna Loa CO2 concentration:

Week beginning on October 13, 2019:     408.62 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:                405.99 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:             384.45 ppm
Last updated: October 20, 2019

This is an annual increase of 2.6 ppm, well below 3 ppm. Nevertheless, the 10 year average shows that since 2009 CO2 concentration annually rose by 'only' 2.4 ppm.

Next week last year averaged at 406.7 ppm. It is highly likely that the annual increase will be more towards 2.5 instead of 3 ppm. This should make October 2019 become one of the fewer months this year with an increase of well below 3.0 ppm.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on October 27, 2019, 06:54:12 PM
Next week last year averaged at 406.7 ppm. It is highly likely that the annual increase will be more towards 2.5 instead of 3 ppm. This should make October 2019 become one of the fewer months this year with an increase of well below 3.0 ppm.
My Sunday evening CO2 actualisation:
Week beginning on October 20, 2019:      408.78 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:                 406.61 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:             384.74 ppm
Last updated: October 27, 2019

This is an annual increase of less than 2.2 ppm, the lowest since I started this weekly service.

What about next week?
Last year next week averaged at 406.5. My guess is a slightly higher annual increase at about 2.5 ppm. We will have two weeks with CO2 below 410 ppm, after that the seasonal increase will speed up - and values below 410 ppm will be a thing of the past, although they may re-appear on a daily basis in October 2020.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: kassy on October 27, 2019, 11:51:55 PM
This week had data for all days?
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on October 28, 2019, 10:00:18 PM
No, October 25 had no average value, probably the ups and downs during that day failed the criteria that NOAA demands for their data.
Quote: "We require low variability within each hour and between successive hourly averages, as well as a degree of persistence of the likely valid "background" hours between successive days."
This was obviously not the case for Oct 25.
If I do the average of Oct 24 and 26 and if I average the hourly data points of that day Oct 25 would have been at 408.8 ppm, which is almost the weekly average (see my posting above). Therefore that missing day did not have any influence on the value of the annual increase.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on November 03, 2019, 04:26:04 PM
What about next week?
Last year next week averaged at 406.5. My guess is a slightly higher annual increase at about 2.5 ppm. We will have two weeks with CO2 below 410 ppm, after that the seasonal increase will speed up - and values below 410 ppm will be a thing of the past, although they may re-appear on a daily basis in October 2020.
My Sunday evening CO2 level posting:

Week beginning on October 27, 2019:     409.32 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:                406.43 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:            385.06 ppm
Last updated: November 3, 2019

This is an increase of almost 2.9 ppm, higher than I expected and higher than the last weeks. The reason for this is a much higher than "usual" value on Nov 1 (increase of 1.4 ppm vs. Oct 31). I wonder that it has passed the quality criteria of NOAA (Nov 02 was too noisy so there was no value available on that date).

Last year next week showed an average of 407 ppm. My "best guess" for the annual increase would be 2.8 ppm, but predictions are difficult at the moment because of the actual noisiness of the signal and the beginning rapid seasonal increase in November.

PS: It may well be that next week will be the last week ever recorded with an average below 410 ppm.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 on November 08, 2019, 01:28:45 AM
October 2019 came in at +2.53 ppm over October 2018.  Looks like 12-month rate running average is approaching the next peak: just under 3.0 ppm. 
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on November 10, 2019, 08:21:18 PM
Last year next week showed an average of 407 ppm. My "best guess" for the annual increase would be 2.8 ppm, but predictions are difficult at the moment because of the actual noisiness of the signal and the beginning rapid seasonal increase in November.

PS: It may well be that next week will be the last week ever recorded with an average below 410 ppm.

My Sunday evening Mauna Loa CO2 service.
Week beginning on November 3, 2019:     409.90 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:                 406.99 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:             385.42 ppm
Last updated: November 10, 2019

Tuesday Nov 5 was the last day with a value below 410 ppm.
The annual increase increased to 2.91 ppm.

Next week last year averaged at 408.8 ppm, a high jump compared to this week last year. Therefore it is very likely that the annual increase will be reduced to about 1.5 ppm.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 on November 13, 2019, 03:24:16 PM
NOAA's November 11 reading dropped below 410 ppm at Mauna Loa.  Last daily reading below 410 ppm?
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on November 17, 2019, 08:42:20 PM
Next week last year averaged at 408.8 ppm, a high jump compared to this week last year. Therefore it is very likely that the annual increase will be reduced to about 1.5 ppm.

It is time for my weekly update of Mauna Loa CO2 concentrations.
Week beginning on November 10, 2019:     410.25 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:                   408.91 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:                385.76 ppm
Last updated: November 17, 2019

The increase was even smaller than I expected. This is by far the lowest annual growing rate since I started posting it. But I have to disencourage those who think this is a change in trend. This week was extraordinary because of the high jump atmospheric CO2 made last year.

Last year next week came in at around 408.5 ppm. Extrapolating the actual values into the future the growth rate will increase back to 2.0 ppm.

Apart from Monday this week there was no further daily average below 410 ppm. But the last two days saw some hours with less than 410 ppm. In fact, the last two days were so noisy that no daily average was published.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: crandles on November 22, 2019, 08:15:21 PM
NOAA's November 11 reading dropped below 410 ppm at Mauna Loa.  Last daily reading below 410 ppm?

November 21:     410.49 ppm
November 20:     410.05 ppm
November 19:     410.17 ppm
November 18:     Unavailable
November 17:     409.81 ppm

Nov 17 reading under 410 has survived quality control so far.

Not impossible that we will get another reading under 410 in the next week or 2 or around Sep/Oct next year, but Nov 17 2019 could be last one below 410 for a long time.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on November 24, 2019, 08:27:25 PM
Last year next week came in at around 408.5 ppm. Extrapolating the actual values into the future the growth rate will increase back to 2.0 ppm.

My Sunday evening Mauna Loa CO2 service:
Week beginning on November 17, 2019:     410.19 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:                   408.52 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:                386.36 ppm
Last updated: November 24, 2019

That is an annual increase of almost 1.7 ppm, a little less than I had expected last Sunday.
The reason for this has been a very moderate increase with ups and downs, even daily averages below 410 ppm are possible next week.

Next week last year averaged at 408.4 ppm. Only if the daily values will start to increase more vigorously than this week, an annual increase of 2 ppm is possible. Otherwise the rate will stay at the moderate value it has been at this week.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: blumenkraft on November 25, 2019, 05:58:07 PM
Impressive video! But not the good way...  :-[

Carbon Dioxide Pumphandle 2019

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZQG59_z83I
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: TerryM on November 26, 2019, 05:30:16 AM
^^
Raman
Terry
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on November 26, 2019, 10:29:16 PM
I have seen it somewhere some time ago. Thanks for posting it here, blumenkraft!
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: blumenkraft on November 27, 2019, 08:24:29 PM
Welcome, Stephan. I guess this is the updated version.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Hefaistos on November 28, 2019, 03:54:04 AM
October 2019 came in at +2.53 ppm over October 2018.  Looks like 12-month rate running average is approaching the next peak: just under 3.0 ppm.

If we were on an exponential growth of CO2, we would have a growing rate of increase. As in the very long-term CO2 record.

The curve you fitted in the graph above actually shows a declining rate of increase.
Are we currently leaving the exponential growth of CO2?
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wili on November 28, 2019, 05:37:11 AM
?
Am I missing something?

None of the lines in his graph are pointing downward, so they do not indicate a decrease in the rate of growth.

Perhaps the rate of acceleration of increase is not increasing. If you want to squeeze some kind of comfort out of that, be my guest.

But maybe someone who has taken math more recently than 45 some years ago should chime in here before I embarrass myself further?? :)
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Hefaistos on November 28, 2019, 06:27:34 AM
?
Am I missing something?

None of the lines in his graph are pointing downward, so they do not indicate a decrease in the rate of growth.

Perhaps the rate of acceleration of increase is not increasing. If you want to squeeze some kind of comfort out of that, be my guest.

But maybe someone who has taken math more recently than 45 some years ago should chime in here before I embarrass myself further?? :)
:)
No big deal, the second derivative follows from the first derivate.
Following the curve fitted in the figure, both would be negative for that part of the curve we see.

Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: KiwiGriff on November 28, 2019, 06:52:50 AM

(https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.png)

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/01/20/is-co2-still-accelerating/
Quote
What might be the clearest illustration comes from computing annual average CO2 concentration and using it to estimate the year-on-year change, which is the velocity of CO2 concentration. Acceleration will show as a trend in the velocity. Here are the estimates, together with a trend line which illustrates the overall rise in velocity (i.e. acceleration of CO2):

(https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/co2rate.jpg)

Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: JMP on November 28, 2019, 07:05:45 AM
No big deal, the second derivative follows from the first derivate.
Following the curve fitted in the figure, both would be negative for that part of the curve we see.
Perhaps you aren't seeing enough? I can't tell exactly what you're looking at... but here's how the math is done by https://skepticalscience.com/exponential-increase-CO2-warming.htm

"In short, following the 'business as usual' approach without major steps to move away from fossil fuels and limit greenhouse gas emissions, we will likely reach 850 to 950 ppmv of atmospheric CO2 by the year 2100.  It will have taken approximately 200 years (from 1850 to 2050) for the first doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 560 ppmv, but it will only take another 70 years or so to double the levels again to 1120 ppmv."
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: KiwiGriff on November 28, 2019, 07:12:04 AM
Hefaistos Halitosis
To paraphrase David Lange.
I can smell the CO2 on your breath.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Hefaistos on November 28, 2019, 07:18:01 AM
No big deal, the second derivative follows from the first derivate.
Following the curve fitted in the figure, both would be negative for that part of the curve we see.
Perhaps you aren't seeing enough? I can't tell exactly what you're looking at... but here's how the math is done by https://skepticalscience.com/exponential-increase-CO2-warming.htm

"In short, following the 'business as usual' approach without major steps to move away from fossil fuels and limit greenhouse gas emissions, we will likely reach 850 to 950 ppmv of atmospheric CO2 by the year 2100.  It will have taken approximately 200 years (from 1850 to 2050) for the first doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 560 ppmv, but it will only take another 70 years or so to double the levels again to 1120 ppmv."

I'm just looking at wolfpack's figure in Reply #279.
He has a polynomial fitted to the data, and it's first derivative is negative, as well as its second derivative.
It means, if true, that we have left the time of acceleration, and now have deceleration.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Hefaistos on November 28, 2019, 07:21:25 AM
Hefaistos Halitosis
To paraphrase David Lange.
I can smell the CO2 on your breath.

 ;D ;D ;D
We should send you to Mauna Loa if you're so sensitive.
 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: JMP on November 28, 2019, 07:47:22 AM
No big deal, the second derivative follows from the first derivate.
Following the curve fitted in the figure, both would be negative for that part of the curve we see.
Perhaps you aren't seeing enough? I can't tell exactly what you're looking at... but here's how the math is done by https://skepticalscience.com/exponential-increase-CO2-warming.htm

"In short, following the 'business as usual' approach without major steps to move away from fossil fuels and limit greenhouse gas emissions, we will likely reach 850 to 950 ppmv of atmospheric CO2 by the year 2100.  It will have taken approximately 200 years (from 1850 to 2050) for the first doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 560 ppmv, but it will only take another 70 years or so to double the levels again to 1120 ppmv."

I'm just looking at wolfpack's figure in Reply #279.
He has a polynomial fitted to the data, and it's first derivative is negative, as well as its second derivative.
It means, if true, that we have left the time of acceleration, and now have deceleration.
Do you Actually believe the truth hangs on this post?
Can you not see your own folly?

No you cannot.

If you're not putting forth a good-faith effort to comprehend and understand beyond the level of nit picking!  then... frankly, you've crossed over to the point of unreasonable imho.     
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: KiwiGriff on November 28, 2019, 07:54:36 AM
You are a denier my friend.
You have posted some outright crap like wind speed in the trades as  a proxy for the southern ocean wind speed and SST's as a measurement of  ocean heat content .
If you think with such a noisy data series you can make a case for negative acceleration based on that short a time frame you are  deluded . No one with a clue would propose  a claim that is so far from statistical significance as to be  unsupportable .
You can put in as many smiley faces as you like being a denier  still makes you an extremely low form of life.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Hefaistos on November 28, 2019, 11:49:24 AM
No big deal, the second derivative follows from the first derivate.
Following the curve fitted in the figure, both would be negative for that part of the curve we see.
Perhaps you aren't seeing enough? I can't tell exactly what you're looking at... but here's how the math is done by https://skepticalscience.com/exponential-increase-CO2-warming.htm

"In short, following the 'business as usual' approach without major steps to move away from fossil fuels and limit greenhouse gas emissions, we will likely reach 850 to 950 ppmv of atmospheric CO2 by the year 2100.  It will have taken approximately 200 years (from 1850 to 2050) for the first doubling of atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 560 ppmv, but it will only take another 70 years or so to double the levels again to 1120 ppmv."

I'm just looking at wolfpack's figure in Reply #279.
He has a polynomial fitted to the data, and it's first derivative is negative, as well as its second derivative.
It means, if true, that we have left the time of acceleration, and now have deceleration.
Do you Actually believe the truth hangs on this post?
Can you not see your own folly?

No you cannot.

If you're not putting forth a good-faith effort to comprehend and understand beyond the level of nit picking!  then... frankly, you've crossed over to the point of unreasonable imho.   

This is pure mathematics.
That curve displays deceleration.
Nothing to dispute about that.
All have to obey to the rules of mathematics, even you JMP.
Then we can discuss if it's a realistic fit, which degree of polynomial. (I suppose wolfpack can tell us what degree the polynomial is that he fitted.)

JMP, this is not about various forecasts for the future, this is just what happened during the last 12 years of CO2 in the atmosphere. (the time scale is blurry, but seems to me to be the last 12 years).
And btw, we seem to have left the RCP 8.5 behind us already, as global coal emissions are now declining.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: crandles on November 28, 2019, 12:17:33 PM
This is pure mathematics.
That curve displays deceleration.
Nothing to dispute about that.

A very weird pure mathematics aka Rubbish

The graph you use in #279 (as other graphs used) shows the growth rate (i.e. already first derivative) increasing from under 2ppm per year to well over 2ppm per year.

I.e. The growth rate is trending upwards. That is acceleration.

How many people have to tell you this before you realise you are wrong?

(The third derivative shows decline, which means the rate of acceleration is slightly declining but it is still acceleration.

The graph is showing a growth rate, so acceleration is simply the first derivative.

If the graph showed CO2 levels then acceleration would be second derivative. If you look at this
(https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png)
perhaps you will see it is curving upwards, i.e. acceleration.)
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Hefaistos on November 28, 2019, 01:22:35 PM
This is pure mathematics.
That curve displays deceleration.
Nothing to dispute about that.

A very weird pure mathematics aka Rubbish

The graph you use in #279 (as other graphs used) shows the growth rate (i.e. already first derivative) increasing from under 2ppm per year to well over 2ppm per year.

I.e. The growth rate is trending upwards. That is acceleration.

How many people have to tell you this before you realise you are wrong?

(The third derivative shows decline, which means the rate of acceleration is slightly declining but it is still acceleration.

The graph is showing a growth rate, so acceleration is simply the first derivative.

If the graph showed CO2 levels then acceleration would be second derivative. If you look at this
(https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png)
perhaps you will see it is curving upwards, i.e. acceleration.)

I quote myself in my first post above, with some added emphasis:
Quote
If we were on an exponential growth of CO2, we would have a growing rate of increase. As in the very long-term CO2 record.

The curve you //wolfpack// fitted in the graph above actually shows a declining rate of increase.
Are we currently leaving the exponential growth of CO2?

My first statement refers to the long term curve, like the one you show, crandles.

The second statement refers to the rate of change that wolfpack has in his figure, with the polynomial.
We have a negative second derivative, meaning we have a deceleration of the rate of change.

If this is really so, we are now leaving the exponential growth of CO2, and what you say in your bolded statement would not be correct anymore. ("The growth rate is trending upwards. That is acceleration.")

If I'm right, we should rejoice, shouldn't we?

Also want to add, that I don't see that wolfpack has 'overfitted' this with his polynomial.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wdmn on November 28, 2019, 02:43:40 PM
Long term trend shows previous "hiatuses" to growth. Wouldn't jump to conclusions while emissions continue to rise.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: crandles on November 28, 2019, 03:21:53 PM

Quote
If we were on an exponential growth of CO2, we would have a growing rate of increase. As in the very long-term CO2 record.

The curve you //wolfpack// fitted in the graph above actually shows a declining rate of increase.
Are we currently leaving the exponential growth of CO2?

I am afraid you are still wrong. The first paragraph of above is correct. It doesn't prove we were ever on an exponential growth path there are lots of other accelerating growth patterns. (So the third paragraph doesn't follow.)

The second paragraph is wrong. The slope of the polynomial is positive throughout the length of the data. So it shows an increasing rate of increase. Towards the end it is getting very close to being horizontal at which point we would have constant rate of growth and not accelerating growth. However it would be quite easy to fit a different curve where the slope decreases but however much it is extrapolated it never quite becomes horizontal. That would be constantly accelerating. This wouldn't then be a polynomial fit but you haven't justified a polynomial rather than any other sort of fit.

I should have quoted the part you wrote which I was objecting to as clearly wrong, which was


Quote
I'm just looking at wolfpack's figure in Reply #279.
He has a polynomial fitted to the data, and it's is negative, as well as its second derivative.
It means, if true, that we have left the time of acceleration, and now have deceleration.

The first derivative is the slope and the slope is upwards so the first derivative is positive. The second derivative of this curve is negative but this is the third derivative of CO2 levels.

So I am happy for you to claim the third derivative appears to be negative. You can also claim that the acceleration appears close to coming to an end but this is far from guaranteed from the data on the graph you are using.

>If I'm right, we should rejoice, shouldn't we?
Well you are wrong in the ways indicated but if you want to rejoice about third derivative appearing to be negative or the acceleration appearing to reduce its rate such that we may be close to 'just' a constant rate of growth then fine, rejoice away.

Others may feel you are rejoicing at the start of the movement in the direction needed before it achieves anything and when there is a long way to go.... but each to their own over what they rejoice about.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Hefaistos on November 28, 2019, 04:15:19 PM
Quote
The first derivative is the slope and the slope is upwards so the first derivative is positive. The second derivative of this curve is negative but this is the third derivative of CO2 levels.

So I am happy for you to claim the third derivative appears to be negative.

Thanks Crandles, I stand corrected!
Sorry for the confusion! I started from the polynomial and looked at 1st and 2d derivative of that.
Which is the same as the 2d and 3d derivatives of the CO2 levels.

Quote
Towards the end it is getting very close to being horizontal at which point we would have constant rate of growth

As to the slight change indicated by the 3d derivate approaching zero (horizontal in the figure), would by itself be a reason to rejoice, as the climate effect - disregarding any feedback effects - of increasing CO2 is the log(CO2).
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: gerontocrat on November 28, 2019, 04:19:20 PM
I am reminded (from many years ago) of a politician in the UK saying "the rate of acceleration of the increase in unemployment has declined" - from which he justified seeing "the green shoots of growth".

We do not know
-  when / if the increase in renewable energy will be greater than the increase in energy demand,
-  if the decline in coal will be matched by increases in Natural Gas consumption,
-  how much CH4 fugitive emissions from Natural Gas production will increase,
-  the extent to which the carbon sinks will continue to decay,

We do not know many things, but we do know
- CO2 ppm will increase for at minimum for a few years more,
- if Governments and the industries that own them don't take action p.d.q. CO2 ppm will increase indefinitely,
- The carbon sinks will become less effective given current policies and trends,
- without major action and change it is likely increases in CO2 ppm will accelerate.



Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: blumenkraft on November 28, 2019, 05:30:20 PM
Thanks Crandles, I stand corrected!

Nothing you see every day. Kudos, Hefaistos.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Sam on November 28, 2019, 07:28:30 PM
More important even is that there is no sign at all that globally we will do anything meaningful to change this situation.

The fundamental basis of the current economic paradigm is growth.

The fundamental basis of all or nearly all religions is growth. Out populate those other heavens.

The basis so far for economies is fossil fuel based and that is proportional to population and compounded by economic output. As people everywhere demand a higher living standard and more stuff, energy use (fossil fuel use) rises per capita. Economic growth demands this.

At the same time, the major stories out now breathlessly talk about how CO2 levels now exceed any time in human history going back 3-5 million years. They utterly miss the fact that under current or even under vastly reduced growth rates, the “current” atmospheric CO2 levels will race above that short term blip in CO2 level 3 million years ago and rise to levels not seen in over 25 million years.

And still we blindly race off the cliff into an utterly changed environment, one that will catastrophically destroy the world we know.

Stories out today note that the current plans for reduction under the Paris accords need to be 5 times more aggressive. Instead the United States has decided to burn the Paris accords and slam their foot down on the accelerator instead.

Under the best of conditions, we now need to reduce fossil fuel use by 7.5% per year, year on year for a decade, to have even a mediocre chance of avoiding catastrophic climatic change. Personally, I doubt that we could stop that now even if we stopped all emissions today. But, let’s say we do try that.

No national government or economy has survived such rates of degrowth. Yes, we could convert to wind and solar. That might reach 3% a year. That isn’t enough to even fully offset the economic demands for growth, or separately population growth. So, to “succeed” under the best of circumstances requires overcoming every religion on Earth, and destroying every economy on Earth. Yeah, right. That is not going to happen.

The alternative of course is that we do not do this and we let the natural systems do it for us in a far more abrupt and vastly more catastrophic way. Or, we do it more gradually with a similar though slightly less severe rate of change, and a likely imperceptibly less catastrophic outcome.

If you are looking for magic answers, there are no answers here. We waited too long. We were and are far too slow to learn as a species

As a result, we are in for an evolutionary reset.

The chaos you see ahead is far closer than it appears. And we are racing toward it at breakneck and ever increasing speed.

All the while we are distracted by second and third order derivatives of curves, and fundamental misunderstandings of the most basic understandings of math, physics, and other fields if science.

Sam
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: TerryM on November 28, 2019, 11:09:08 PM
^^
And you Sam may be an optimist!


I love your term "evolutionary reset". So accurate, so precise - yet it doesn't scream with horror at where we're marching to. The wife did her dissertation on the poetry of WWI soldiers. Much of it felt like what you've written.


2nd & 3d derivatives may serve as diversions. I rail at Elon's presentations, pretending that it matters. A dear friend is gifted a carpet, & keeping his toes warm may be as important as anything that Trump, or Hansen, or Mann have said or done today.


Thanks for your message, I think.
Terry
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Bugalugs on November 29, 2019, 09:12:27 AM
Quote
The chaos you see ahead is far closer than it appears.

It appears so. Papua New Guinea is currently well and truly on fire. Is it not a country of rainforest?
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: KiwiGriff on November 29, 2019, 10:25:18 AM
Quote
At the same time, the major stories out now breathlessly talk about how CO2 levels now exceed any time in human history going back 3-5 million years. They utterly miss the fact that under current or even under vastly reduced growth rates, the “current” atmospheric CO2 levels will race above that short term blip in CO2 level 3 million years ago and rise to levels not seen in over 25 million years.
Think of a once in three million year weather event.
Then consider that as a new normal.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Hefaistos on November 29, 2019, 02:18:50 PM
I am reminded (from many years ago) of a politician in the UK saying "the rate of acceleration of the increase in unemployment has declined" - from which he justified seeing "the green shoots of growth".

We do not know
-  when / if the increase in renewable energy will be greater than the increase in energy demand,
-  if the decline in coal will be matched by increases in Natural Gas consumption,
-  how much CH4 fugitive emissions from Natural Gas production will increase,
-  the extent to which the carbon sinks will continue to decay,

We do not know many things, but we do know
- CO2 ppm will increase for at minimum for a few years more,
- if Governments and the industries that own them don't take action p.d.q. CO2 ppm will increase indefinitely,
- The carbon sinks will become less effective given current policies and trends,
- without major action and change it is likely increases in CO2 ppm will accelerate.

Capitalism now brings major action and change all by itself. Relative prices of coal and renewables for power generation have changed so that it's not economical to build for coal anymore. Coal usage already in decline.
Yes, CO2 will continue to increase, but even if we just change from exponential growth to linear growth, as indicated by Wolfpack's polynomial, it is great news.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: gerontocrat on November 29, 2019, 03:38:36 PM
Quote
The chaos you see ahead is far closer than it appears.

It appears so. Papua New Guinea is currently well and truly on fire. Is it not a country of rainforest?
PNG is the eastern half (plus some islands that were part of the German Empire until after WW1), and Indonesia has the Western half of New Guinea - Papua Province.

I did a contract in PNG many, many years ago. It was rough. If you want to end up dead go into the mountains and try to stop illegal logging. And that is neither a joke nor an exaggeration.
___________________________________________________________
Deforestation in Papua New Guinea has been extensive in recent decades and is continuing at an estimated rate of 1.4% of tropical forest being lost annually. Deforestation in Papua New Guinea is mainly a result of illegal logging, which contributed to 70-90% of all timber exports, one of the highest rates in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Deforestation_in_Papua_New_Guinea
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Lennart van der Linde on November 29, 2019, 07:51:26 PM
Capitalism now brings major action and change all by itself. Relative prices of coal and renewables for power generation have changed so that it's not economical to build for coal anymore. Coal usage already in decline.
Yes, CO2 will continue to increase, but even if we just change from exponential growth to linear growth, as indicated by Wolfpack's polynomial, it is great news.

If... That's a big if. So far the growth rate of CO2 concentration is still growing, as shown here and below: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html

One decade of a little slower growth doesn't mean an end of the acceleration, as shown. Whether the use of fossil fuels will decline and keep declining, remains to be seen. We have to do what we can to hasten their decline, as positive feedbacks can cause further increases in GHG-concentrations thru less uptake by and more release from natural carbon sinks. We can and should try desperately to remain optimistic, but without losing sight of reality. We have a lot of work to do before we can be confidently optimistic.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wili on November 29, 2019, 11:29:46 PM
Well, it only took like...what...ten posts basically repeating (more eloquently) my basic point before Hef finally conceded the point... :)

But in the midst, we got a nicely thought out and worded piece from Sam, which included centrally:

"...The fundamental basis of the current economic paradigm is growth.

The fundamental basis of all or nearly all religions is growth..."

This, I believe, is true.

But it's even more fundamental than that. The whole global culture (industrial, capitalist, consumerist...whatever combination you want to call it) is primarily geared to annihilation of life on the planet and destruction of the processes that have supported said life for millions to hundreds of millions of years.

There is pretty close to a one-to-one correspondence to who gets the most money and who is most centrally and powerfully involved in this destruction (with only a few exceptions that I am aware of).

High finance has always supported the fastest and biggest return for the buck, which nearly always has meant the fastest way to convert the natural integrity of the planet into local and/or global toxic waste. These are the folks that get some of the biggest pay on the planet.

Arms manufacturers are up there, too.

And so on down the line, with some getting good pay for just doing the very 'important' work of distracting us from the astonishing abyss we are throwing ourselves and the planet into so we don't stop consuming or start revolting....
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: TerryM on November 30, 2019, 01:20:08 AM
^^
Ramen!
Terry
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: KiwiGriff on November 30, 2019, 03:36:50 AM
Inside Climate News:
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/26112019/unep-emissions-gap-report-paris-climate-greenhouse-gas-peak-2030
Quote
To be on track for 2°C of warming, the report said, emissions in 2030 would need to be 25 percent lower than today.

To limit warming to 1.5°C, emissions would need to be slashed by 55 percent. Last year, global carbon dioxide emissions rose 1.7 percent.

“Every year that action is delayed, emissions reductions need to be steeper,” said Joeri Rogelj, climate change lecturer at Imperial College London and an author of the report. This is the 10th year in a row that the UN has released an emissions gap report. “It is really the accumulation of bad news every year.”

Confirmation that rising emissions are putting existing global goals further out of reach came on the eve of the COP 25 climate summit that begins in Madrid on Monday.

The meeting will be the first big climate gathering since President Donald Trump began the process of withdrawing the United States from the Paris Agreement. Brazil’s president has also questioned the deal’s relevance.

New data from the World Meteorological Organization published on Monday showed that global average concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rose to 407.8 parts per million in 2018, up from 405.5 parts per million in 2017.

The increase is the result of man-made carbon dioxide emissions, primarily from burning fossil fuels. Another UN report last week showed that if the world’s top fossil fuel-producing nations follow through on their current plans, they will produce about 50 percent more oil, gas and coal by 2030 than would be compatible with the international goal of keeping global warming under 2°C, and two times more than would be allowable to stay under 1.5°C.

Greenhouse gas emissions have risen 1.5 percent each year on average over the past decade, despite a slight levelling off during 2014-16.

“There is no sign of a slowdown, let alone a decline, in greenhouse gases concentration in the atmosphere despite all the commitments under the Paris agreement,” said Petteri Taalas, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization.

“It is worth recalling that the last time the Earth experienced a comparable concentration of CO2 was 3 to 5 million years ago,” he added. “Back then, the temperature was 2 to 3°C warmer, and sea level was 10 to 20 meters higher than now.”
(https://climatecrock.files.wordpress.com/2019/11/fossilfuelproductiongapchart.png)
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Lennart van der Linde on November 30, 2019, 10:13:02 AM
Greenhouse gas emissions have risen 1.5 percent each year on average over the past decade, despite a slight levelling off during 2014-16.

“There is no sign of a slowdown, let alone a decline, in greenhouse gases concentration in the atmosphere despite all the commitments under the Paris agreement,” said Petteri Taalas, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization.

“It is worth recalling that the last time the Earth experienced a comparable concentration of CO2 was 3 to 5 million years ago,” he added. “Back then, the temperature was 2 to 3°C warmer, and sea level was 10 to 20 meters higher than now.”

And GHG concentrations have risen quite exponentially by about 1.66% per year on average over the past four decades, while they have reached about 500 ppm CO2-eq by now, as shown here and below: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html

When was the last time GHG concentrations were this high? Maybe 20 million years ago?
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Sam on November 30, 2019, 05:18:43 PM
Excellent reminder Lennart.

It is all too easy to forget that in focusing solely or excessively on CO2 alone that we neglect a couple of fundamental truths, 1) that all global warming gases count, 2) that man is producing a lot of global warming gases that nature either never did produce, or that it did not emit as much as man has.

This then leads to false equivalencies in paleohistorical comparisons. The argument that 3-5 million years ago CO2 levels were as high as now is just one such fallacy, and the implied or sometimes stated argument that things aren’t so bad, that nature has done this before and hence that we shouldn’t worry about it. Just keep on keeping on.

When all warming gases are included we get a much better comparison and a more shocking answer. 

We are already at warming gas levels likely not seen since the Oligocene over 24 million years ago at just about the time the Hominoids branch developed and 7-10 million years before the great apes (including man) developed. That is about 20 million years before the first bipedal upright apes walked the Earth.

In our brief few thousand years of technological evolution, and our flash-in-the-pan brief period of fossil fuel use, we have altered Earth’s climate system in ways not seen since tens of millions of years before the first hominid stood upright.

The climate will need just a moment to respond to this massive and shockingly sudden insult before it stabilizes. Before that can fully happen we must first stop emitting warming gases.

We are at the beginning of a highly unstable ultra-rapid human caused climatic shift.

We will soon be at warming gas levels not seen at any time in all of primate history. Our whole group of species is not guaranteed to be adapted to the climate we are creating. We certainly have had no similar pressures during primate development to push whatever adaptations might be required. Now, it may well be that we don’t need any such adaptations. That would seem to be a rather dicey gamble.

The new or even transient conditions may well involve pH homeostasis conditions that we are not adapted for and not suited to. Or, it may take us to oxygen concentrations (low and/or high) that we are not easily suited for. Or ....  an “interesting” gamble indeed.

Given sufficient time, our and other species would likely easily adapt. However, the rate of change we are triggering may be far faster than most species can adapt to, especially considering the complex web of dependencies between species, and the dependence on fairly uniform seasons from year to year that most rely upon.

Sam
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Hefaistos on December 01, 2019, 01:14:09 AM
...
The climate will need just a moment to respond to this massive and shockingly sudden insult before it stabilizes. Before that can fully happen we must first stop emitting warming gases.

We are at the beginning of a highly unstable ultra-rapid human caused climatic shift.

...
Sam

I just want to remind readers that more than 99% of surface thermal energy on the Earth is in the oceans, wheras the dry atmosphere contains less than 0.1% of thermal energy.

The atmospere is not heating the oceans. Climate processes are OTOH dominated by the oceans.

Ocean surface waters have been warming at less than 0.5 degrees C per 100 years.
There is nothing "ultra rapid" about these processes, and the climate will certainly need more than "just a moment" to adapt to the forcings.
The figure attached is for the S.Hemisphere sea surface temperatures, where most of the ocean waters are.

Those statements by Sam I bolded are not vindicated by physical facts. There is little cause for such alarmism.

Some physics:
 "If the heat currently accumulating was distributed evenly throughout the oceans, the temperatures of the entire ocean, including the sea surface, would rise by a paltry 0.017 degrees Celsius each decade. Observations show that the Earth is heating at 0.6 Watts per square metre and since the global surface area is 5.1×1014square metres, the buildup of energy is about 3×1014Joules per second which is 9.5×1022Joules per decade. Making a rough approximation, assuming the specific heat capacity of sea water is about 3,900 Joules per kg per degrees Celsius and the total mass of the oceans is 1.4×1021kg this would mean that it would take 5.5×1024Joules (5.5 trillion trillion Joules) to heat the entire ocean by 1 degrees Celsius (1.8 degrees F). Then we simply divide the heating rate (9.5×1022Joules per decade) by 5.5×1024Joules per degrees Celsius to get 0.017 degrees Celsius per decade so it would take about 600 years to raise the temperature by 1 degrees Celsius. "

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/role-ocean-tempering-global-warming
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on December 01, 2019, 01:44:59 AM
Actually, Hefaistos, I suspect that that is, in the near and medium term, bad news.
The atmosphere and land surface will warm much more than the oceans. So oceans will, for a long time, not significantly increase their evaporation. This means precipitation will remain "normal" while land and air temperatures rise. This sounds like a formula for drought.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: KiwiGriff on December 01, 2019, 02:26:29 AM
I don't know why Hefaistos keeps posting sea surface temperature of the southern ocean for ocean heat content .
They are not the same thing.
The southern ocean is one of the most remote places on earth and only directly effects a few thousand hardy souls that live in the southern most tip of south america.
Here in NZ we get weather systems  from the southern ocean but they travel over a few thousand  kilometers of the Pacific first .
(https://cdn.imgbin.com/6/10/3/imgbin-arctic-ocean-pacific-ocean-atlantic-ocean-southern-ocean-earth-earth-6cN1wV1gbz6Cniw6b0G8A89jM.jpg)

(https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/styles/node_lightbox_display/public/key_figures/climate_data_set/figure%203.png)

The oceans are heated by the atmosphere.
Eli rabbit explains how much better than I can here.
 http://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/11/eli-explains-it-all-how-back-radiation.html

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-flG8JVZcgf4/W-MpRLGusTI/AAAAAAAAEgc/P5BCTogEdhQQkJYqEKjjp1i1WOwBdcEDQCLcBGAs/s1600/Ocean%2Bheating.png)

Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Tor Bejnar on December 01, 2019, 02:27:01 AM
Evaporation is a function of surface issues, and the global sea surface (average) is warming (https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-sea-surface-temperature) due to AGW.  Humidity is increasing (generally) due to AGW, therefore more intense atmospheric rivers are likely (https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2740/climate-change-may-lead-to-bigger-atmospheric-rivers/).
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: KiwiGriff on December 01, 2019, 02:40:42 AM
Indeed tor
We can expect both deeper droughts  combined with more extreme rainfall events when it does rain.

The Impact of Climate Change and Variability on Heavy Precipitation, Floods, and Droughts
KEVIN E TRENBERTH
Quote
There is a direct influence of global warming on changes in precipitation and heavy rains. Increased heating leads to greater evaporation and thus surface drying, thereby increasing intensity and duration of drought. However,the water-holding capacity of air increases by about 7% per 1 ◦C warming, which leads to increased water vapor in the atmosphere, and this probably provides the biggest influence on precipitation.
 Storms, whether individual thunderstorms, extratropical rain or snow storms, or tropical cyclones and hurricanes, supplied by increased moisture, produce more intense precipitation events that are widely observed to be occurring, even in places where total precipitation is decreasing. In turn, this increases the risk of flooding. Patterns of where it rains also have been observed to change, with dry areas becoming drier (generally throughout the subtropics) and wet areas becoming wetter, especially in mid to high latitudes. This pattern is simulated by climate models and is
projected to continue into the future. Since more precipitation occurs as rain instead of snow with warming, and snow melts earlier, there is increased runoff and risk of flooding in early spring, but increased risk of drought in deep summer, especially over continental areas.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/books/EHShsa211.pdf
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: blumenkraft on December 01, 2019, 05:24:56 AM
The atmospere is not heating the oceans. Climate processes are OTOH dominated by the oceans.


and

Quote
Ocean surface waters have been warming at less than 0.5 degrees C per 100 years.

is kind of contradictory, don't you think?
 
Quote
There is nothing "ultra rapid" about these processes

You really need to watch the NOAA video i shared upstream!

Impressive video! But not the good way...  :-[

Carbon Dioxide Pumphandle 2019

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZQG59_z83I
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Sam on December 01, 2019, 06:17:27 AM
...
The climate will need just a moment to respond to this massive and shockingly sudden insult before it stabilizes. Before that can fully happen we must first stop emitting warming gases.

We are at the beginning of a highly unstable ultra-rapid human caused climatic shift.

...
Sam
Those statements by Sam I bolded are not vindicated by physical facts. There is little cause for such alarmism.

Quite to the contrary. The CO2 in the atmosphere, along with several other key warming gases will take millennia to reduce to prior levels assuming current ecosystem functions. And that only happens if the climate doesn’t shift before that can occur. As the climate shifts, the ecosystems shift, and those basic functions are put at risk.

What should be amply clear (and is) even to young people, let alone to those of us with more life history behind us, is that we are already seeing an ultra rapid shift in progress.

We see that with the rapidly vanishing arctic ice. We see it with the methane boiling out of the clathrates on the arctic plains. We see it with the collapse of the tundra globally. We see it with the warming of the ocean surfaces sufficient to doom coral reefs within the next decade or two. We see it in the hyper rapid acidification of the oceans which doom most shelled creatures. We see it in the very rapid melt on both Greenland and the West Antarctic sheet. We see it in the rapid loss of mountain glaciers and ice all over the world, and with the quite soon loss of the glacial ice supporting a billion people in South Asia. We see it in the destabilization of the atmospheric circulation with massive swings in heat transport both north and south from and to the arctic resulting in climatic chaos in the northern hemisphere beginning. We see it in droughts, fires, deluges and worse. .... and in a thousand other ways ....

Hefaistos, that you apparently choose not see these and myriad indicators is only evidence of your own willful and reckless blindness.

Greta Thunberg is still a young person. Yet she sees clearly, where you do not. She sees the indicators and clearly and concisely called out the leaders of the world in Davos. She is right. You are wrong.

Yes the oceans will take time to equilibrate. And perhaps if we bend every effort, destroying civilization as we know it in the process, we might now barely be able to salvage something of the world we know. Personally, I doubt that is possible any longer. We waited too long. We were too slow to learn. We were and remain too blind to see. And the CO2 trends from Mauna Loa speak volumes to that at megaphone levels. We are not in any way doing what must be done. Instead we argue about slowing the rate of increase of the rate of increase. That is insane.

Worse leaders of major countries are already throwing out efforts to reduce emissions and are instead increasing the rate of burning of oil, coal and natural gas, while also slash burning the lungs of the world. That is beyond insane.

The CO2 already in the atmosphere is catastrophically high. Under the most optimistic business near usual trends, we don’t even slow the increase, let alone stop it, and reverse it. Under these conditions, we will release the 1,600 Gigatons of carbon in the permafrost. And we will boil out the clathrate on the arctic plains, both in the very near future. Either of those take the situation completely out of human control.

Yes the oceans will take time to equilibrate. The continued heat input caused by the warming gases will assure that there is heat enough and time enough to do that. But that is meaningless in the time scale of the catastrophe we face. The continued heating of the Earth from the gases in the atmosphere will assure it. And the changes in the surface biosphere and atmosphere will not wait for that equilibration to finish.

Our rate of change now makes the PETM look obscenely slow. And yet the PETM is the definition of rapid climate change. We are now in the early stages of an ultra rapid climate shift. And that is obvious for all to see except for the willfully blind.

In time, the Earth may shift back to this mostly precariously stable point between hot house and ice house conditions. These have been rare in Earth’s history. The orbital balances could bring us back to some stable place with ice remaining in the Antarctic. And perhaps in half a million years there may be ice in the arctic again. But it is also possible that we continue on a runaway to hot house conditions, having pushed over the climate and ruined the world we know.

I worry more about the highly unstable transition. Creatures can adapt to hundred millennia scale changes. Decade scale changes are another matter entirely. Worse, the impacts of the collapse of whole ecosystems may have dramatically more important transient impacts on O2, pressure, temperature, rainfall, circulation, CO2, methane and other parameters that may drive many species and even whole genera extinct.

Sam

Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Bruce Steele on December 01, 2019, 07:10:50 AM
Sam, I think there are plenty of examples of animal populations in trouble . Whether you react with alarmism , denial, or just profound sadness is somewhat dependent on what you have seen and what you are built out of. I agree with you about the speed of the changes taking place . I also agree that these changes will progress far into the future and I personally think it will take the typical 100,000
years for weathering processes to bring the surface oceans back into current pH levels . That for me is indicative of how long other earth processes will struggle with the carbon excursion we have triggered. 
 The calcite horizon is beginning to invade the shelf off Oregon and Washington. Twenty years ago the words “ ocean acidification “  weren’t coined yet. The aragonite horizon is now shoaling to surface waters in the Eastern boundary Calif. Current ecosystem and the numbers days that the surface waters will be under saturated will continue to increase. I don’t think animal extinctions are anywhere as common in the oceans as they are on land . They are coming.
 Insects, birds, ancient ocean species beginning to blink out of existence. Should my alarm bother me?
What physical evidence do we need ?   
 
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Wherestheice on December 01, 2019, 07:43:08 AM
...
The climate will need just a moment to respond to this massive and shockingly sudden insult before it stabilizes. Before that can fully happen we must first stop emitting warming gases.

We are at the beginning of a highly unstable ultra-rapid human caused climatic shift.

...
Sam
Those statements by Sam I bolded are not vindicated by physical facts. There is little cause for such alarmism.

Quite to the contrary. The CO2 in the atmosphere, along with several other key warming gases will take millennia to reduce to prior levels assuming current ecosystem functions. And that only happens if the climate doesn’t shift before that can occur. As the climate shifts, the ecosystems shift, and those basic functions are put at risk.

What should be amply clear (and is) even to young people, let alone to those of us with more life history behind us, is that we are already seeing an ultra rapid shift in progress.

We see that with the rapidly vanishing arctic ice. We see it with the methane boiling out of the clathrates on the arctic plains. We see it with the collapse of the tundra globally. We see it with the warming of the ocean surfaces sufficient to doom coral reefs within the next decade or two. We see it in the hyper rapid acidification of the oceans which doom most shelled creatures. We see it in the very rapid melt on both Greenland and the West Antarctic sheet. We see it in the rapid loss of mountain glaciers and ice all over the world, and with the quite soon loss of the glacial ice supporting a billion people in South Asia. We see it in the destabilization of the atmospheric circulation with massive swings in heat transport both north and south from and to the arctic resulting in climatic chaos in the northern hemisphere beginning. We see it in droughts, fires, deluges and worse. .... and in a thousand other ways ....

Hefaistos, that you apparently choose not see these and myriad indicators is only evidence of your own willful and reckless blindness.

Greta Thunberg is still a young person. Yet she sees clearly, where you do not. She sees the indicators and clearly and concisely called out the leaders of the world in Davos. She is right. You are wrong.

Yes the oceans will take time to equilibrate. And perhaps if we bend every effort, destroying civilization as we know it in the process, we might now barely be able to salvage something of the world we know. Personally, I doubt that is possible any longer. We waited too long. We were too slow to learn. We were and remain too blind to see. And the CO2 trends from Mauna Loa speak volumes to that at megaphone levels. We are not in any way doing what must be done. Instead we argue about slowing the rate of increase of the rate of increase. That is insane.

Worse leaders of major countries are already throwing out efforts to reduce emissions and are instead increasing the rate of burning of oil, coal and natural gas, while also slash burning the lungs of the world. That is beyond insane.

The CO2 already in the atmosphere is catastrophically high. Under the most optimistic business near usual trends, we don’t even slow the increase, let alone stop it, and reverse it. Under these conditions, we will release the 1,600 Gigatons of carbon in the permafrost. And we will boil out the clathrate on the arctic plains, both in the very near future. Either of those take the situation completely out of human control.

Yes the oceans will take time to equilibrate. The continued heat input caused by the warming gases will assure that there is heat enough and time enough to do that. But that is meaningless in the time scale of the catastrophe we face. The continued heating of the Earth from the gases in the atmosphere will assure it. And the changes in the surface biosphere and atmosphere will not wait for that equilibration to finish.

Our rate of change now makes the PETM look obscenely slow. And yet the PETM is the definition of rapid climate change. We are now in the early stages of an ultra rapid climate shift. And that is obvious for all to see except for the willfully blind.

In time, the Earth may shift back to this mostly precariously stable point between hot house and ice house conditions. These have been rare in Earth’s history. The orbital balances could bring us back to some stable place with ice remaining in the Antarctic. And perhaps in half a million years there may be ice in the arctic again. But it is also possible that we continue on a runaway to hot house conditions, having pushed over the climate and ruined the world we know.

I worry more about the highly unstable transition. Creatures can adapt to hundred millennia scale changes. Decade scale changes are another matter entirely. Worse, the impacts of the collapse of whole ecosystems may have dramatically more important transient impacts on O2, pressure, temperature, rainfall, circulation, CO2, methane and other parameters that may drive many species and even whole genera extinct.

Sam

I agree with you Sam, the world is in extremly dire straights now. Anyone who says otherwise isn't paying attention
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Tor Bejnar on December 01, 2019, 07:58:36 AM
Concerning the term "ocean acidification", using the Google Ngram (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=ocean+acidification&year_start=1955&year_end=2005&corpus=15&smoothing=0&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cocean%20acidification%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cocean%20acidification%3B%2Cc0) tool, we see the two words juxtaposed (possibly coincidentally*) a couple(?) times in books in 1980, then used once(?) each in 1998, 2000, 2001, 2003 and 2004, then 19 times (?) in 2005 and then lots of times thereafter (https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=ocean+acidification&year_start=1975&year_end=2020&corpus=15&smoothing=0&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Cocean%20acidification%3B%2Cc0).

This supports Bruce's declaration.

By the way, learn all about Ocean Acidification with the series of posts/lessons in Skeptical Science:  OA not OK (https://skepticalscience.com/Mackie_OA_not_OK_post_1.html)
___________
* - by "coincidentally", it could be something like, "Things reduce in the ocean.  Acidification doesn't happen there." [This is just an example to show juxtaposition, not intending to be scientific, real or anything else.]

Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Hefaistos on December 01, 2019, 11:41:18 AM
I don't know why Hefaistos keeps posting sea surface temperature of the southern ocean for ocean heat content .
They are not the same thing.


I didn't.
And no, they aren't.
That graph is for the Southern Hemispere, which shows no warming trend whatsoever of the surface waters. Some warming takes place in deeper waters.
Don't know how much percent of water mass is in SH, but could it be maybe 75% of the total ocean water? SH is 81% ocean and 19% land.
Anyway, it's a relevant graph.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Hefaistos on December 01, 2019, 11:53:38 AM
The atmospere is not heating the oceans. Climate processes are OTOH dominated by the oceans.


and

Quote
Ocean surface waters have been warming at less than 0.5 degrees C per 100 years.

is kind of contradictory, don't you think?
 

No. It's primarily the sun that heats the ocean, not the atmosphere. Everything else is pretty much secondary to the direct insolation effect.

Quote
There is nothing "ultra rapid" about these processes

Quote
You really need to watch the NOAA video i shared upstream!

That simulation shows what's going on in the atmosphere, which is much more sensitive to climate changes than the Ocean.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Hefaistos on December 01, 2019, 12:03:07 PM
Indeed tor
We can expect both deeper droughts  combined with more extreme rainfall events when it does rain.

The Impact of Climate Change and Variability on Heavy Precipitation, Floods, and Droughts
KEVIN E TRENBERTH
Quote
There is a direct influence of global warming on changes in precipitation and heavy rains. Increased heating leads to greater evaporation and thus surface drying, thereby increasing intensity and duration of drought. However,the water-holding capacity of air increases by about 7% per 1 ◦C warming, which leads to increased water vapor in the atmosphere, and this probably provides the biggest influence on precipitation.
 Storms, whether individual thunderstorms, extratropical rain or snow storms, or tropical cyclones and hurricanes, supplied by increased moisture, produce more intense precipitation events that are widely observed to be occurring, even in places where total precipitation is decreasing. In turn, this increases the risk of flooding. Patterns of where it rains also have been observed to change, with dry areas becoming drier (generally throughout the subtropics) and wet areas becoming wetter, especially in mid to high latitudes. This pattern is simulated by climate models and is
projected to continue into the future. Since more precipitation occurs as rain instead of snow with warming, and snow melts earlier, there is increased runoff and risk of flooding in early spring, but increased risk of drought in deep summer, especially over continental areas.
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/books/EHShsa211.pdf

Again, lot's of forecasts and dire warnings.
Climate reanalyzer shows no big trend for precipitation the last 40 years. About one percent up. And declining slightly during the last 10 years.
Agreed, this is the aggregate.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: blumenkraft on December 01, 2019, 12:07:55 PM
Quote from: Hefaistos
The atmospere is not heating the oceans

Ok, then please explain to me why you said that ^.

How i understand it, those are not decoupled systems. When something happens to one of both (i.e. warming), it will affect the other one eventually.

What's the mechanism behind the phenomenon you are referring to? Any kind of feedback that doesn't allow the ocean to warm while the air becomes warmer? I've never heard of something that magically separates them before.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Hefaistos on December 01, 2019, 12:10:50 PM
Quote from: Hefaistos
The atmospere is not heating the oceans

Ok, then please explain to me why you said that ^.

How i understand it, those are not decoupled systems. When something happens to one of both (i.e. warming), it will affect the other one eventually.

What's the mechanism behind the phenomenon you are referring to? Any kind of feedback that doesn't allow the ocean to warm while the air becomes warmer? I've never heard of something that magically separates them before.

My reply came in #330:
No. It's primarily the sun that heats the ocean, not the atmosphere.
Everything else is pretty much secondary to the direct insolation effect.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Lennart van der Linde on December 01, 2019, 12:33:24 PM
Again, lot's of forecasts and dire warnings.
Climate reanalyzer shows no big trend for precipitation the last 40 years. About one percent up. And declining slightly during the last 10 years.
Agreed, this is the aggregate.

More intense droughts and more intense precipitation will probably show no big trends in aggregate precipitation. And forecasts/projections matter, especially in inert systems. As Diffenbaugh & Field 2013 show the current and coming antropogenic warming may well be 10-100 times faster than any warming in the past 65 million years:
https://denning.atmos.colostate.edu/readings/Impacts/Ecosystems.Science-2013-Diffenbaugh-486-92.pdf

How hard will it be for life, including human civilization, to adapt to such an unprecedented rapid climate shift? Should we take the risk to find out? On paper thru the Paris Agreement humanity decided we should not take that risk. Our practical behaviour and policies do not conform to this agreement yet. This is troubling in light of the risk of crossing potential tipping points even below two degrees C. Your persistent downplaying of this risk seems quite irrational and irresponsible. Why are you apparently so unwilling to take the science pointing to this risk seriously?
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: blumenkraft on December 01, 2019, 12:49:00 PM
My reply came in #330:
No. It's primarily the sun that heats the ocean, not the atmosphere.
Everything else is pretty much secondary to the direct insolation effect.

Dude, you are bullshitting hard...  :-\
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: crandles on December 01, 2019, 01:15:08 PM

The atmospere is not heating the oceans. Climate processes are OTOH dominated by the oceans.

Ocean surface waters have been warming at less than 0.5 degrees C per 100 years.

https://skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

(https://skepticalscience.com//pics/TvsTSI.png)

Solar irradiance declining since about 1960 from circa 1361 W/m^2 to 1360.6 W/m^2 and you think that is able to explain the increase in ocean temps ?

Ocean temps increase slower than elsewhere because of huge heat capacity it takes a long time but the oceans are warming and this cannot be explained by "its the sun" myth.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Hefaistos on December 01, 2019, 01:15:43 PM
My reply came in #330:
No. It's primarily the sun that heats the ocean, not the atmosphere.
Everything else is pretty much secondary to the direct insolation effect.

Dude, you are bullshitting hard...  :-\
ok boomer  ;)
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: blumenkraft on December 01, 2019, 01:24:13 PM
Wrong use of meme!

#sad
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Hefaistos on December 01, 2019, 01:55:41 PM

The atmospere is not heating the oceans. Climate processes are OTOH dominated by the oceans.

Ocean surface waters have been warming at less than 0.5 degrees C per 100 years.


Ocean temps increase slower than elsewhere because of huge heat capacity it takes a long time but the oceans are warming and this cannot be explained by "its the sun" myth.

Thanks Crandles, really nice graph! But again, it shows the temperatures in the atmosphere, whereas more than 99 procent of surface thermal energy is stored in the oceans. Temperature is not thermal energy, and in the climate it's the thermal energy that is of primary importance.

Here is the Earth energy balance from Kevin Trenberth. There is only one arrow pointing down towards Earth into our atmosphere. Thats where the energy comes from. The net reaching surface is  161 watts/sq.m.

Then we have outgoing surface radiation minus back radiation, but the net of those isn't that big. 356-333 = 23 watts/sq.m.
That's secondary to the direct insolation, and even more so over the Ocean.

There is a big difference between how the sun warms the ocean, and how it warms land. There is more warming from direct insolation than over land.

But all this was not really my point. I bring this up, because 'alarmists' tend to forget about the incredible energy inertia we have with the Ocean.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Lennart van der Linde on December 01, 2019, 02:37:40 PM
But all this was not really my point. I bring this up, because 'alarmists' tend to forget about the incredible energy inertia we have with the Ocean.

Those of us who are alarmed by the risks the science indicates know about this inertia from the same science. So how come you're not alarmed, apparently?

Lenton et al 2019 raised the alarm on the risks of tipping points once again this week:
https://www.nature.com/magazine-assets/d41586-019-03595-0/d41586-019-03595-0.pdf

IPCC AR5 showed 93% of the extra heat is taken up by the oceans:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter03_FINAL.pdf

The point is this climate shift is one or more orders of magnitude faster that any in the past 65 million years after 10.000 years of relatively stable climate in which civilization developed. If you're not alarmed, you're still not paying attention to what the science shows.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: crandles on December 01, 2019, 02:55:26 PM
The net isn't that big:

Yes that is true:
161+333=494
356+40+80+17=493

That is a difference of 1 producing the heating. But doesn't say where it came from.

So we can look at gross figures and see 333 is a lot bigger than 161 so your assertion is wrong on that count. But this isn't really the appropriate way to do it.

Alternatively we can consider what has changed from a cooler system that was in balance. What would the figures have been in an 1000BC to 1850 average climate that was on average more or less in balance:

I believe the 161 would be almost unchanged, if anything marginally higher with less absorbed by atmosphere.

The 356+40 emitted depends on temperature so this would have been lower. To make it balance the 333 also has to be lower which makes sense for a cooler atmosphere.

So the change that is warming the oceans is the increase of the back radiation up to 333.

Therefore it is the atmosphere that is heating the oceans.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: kassy on December 01, 2019, 03:02:43 PM

No. It's primarily the sun that heats the ocean, not the atmosphere.
Everything else is pretty much secondary to the direct insolation effect.

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.png

Yes it is primarily the sun but we can easily tell something else is having an effect too because we know the sun is not driving the change since the 1990.

If you look at all the effects we are already seeing across the world then ocean inertia is not really relevant. It was always there, our added warming effect was not.

We have been slowly adding energy for some 10k years and we have been ramping it up lately.

The graph above in combination with arctic permafrost becoming a source since 2003 and the state of the arctic ice and the effects already seen in Antarctica (something which would be an after 2100 thing last century) clearly show that 1 C of warming was the best goal we could have used.

Quote
I bring this up, because 'alarmists' tend to forget about the incredible energy inertia we have with the Ocean.
Alarmists might acknowledge the fact that ocean energy inertia is not relevant.

Why do you think it might safe us? All recent trends are there despite ocean energy inertia not budging just because there is a lot of ocean and lots of it is rather isolated. Always was that way but that did not stop snowball earth or the PETM.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on December 01, 2019, 05:39:16 PM
Next week last year averaged at 408.4 ppm. Only if the daily values will start to increase more vigorously than this week, an annual increase of 2 ppm is possible. Otherwise the rate will stay at the moderate value it has been at this week.
Back to data - here is the weekly Sunday evening CO2 update from Mauna Loa

Week beginning on November 24, 2019:     410.71 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:                   408.42 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:                386.51 ppm
Last updated: December 1, 2019

The annual increase is back well above 2 ppm. There was no further daily average below 410 ppm, but some hourly values lay below this threshold.

Next week last year stayed around 408.5 ppm. At the moment the day-to-day changes are small, therefore an annual increase of slightly above 2 ppm is likely.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: oren on December 01, 2019, 05:57:28 PM
Hefaistos, beyond the nonsense of the atmosphere having no effect on ocean surface temps, you 0.017C per decade assume full mixing of the whole ocean volume down to the Mariana Trench. But the ocean is not fully mixed, and ita surface is warming much more than its depths (except in the Arctic and the Antarctic).
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Tor Bejnar on December 01, 2019, 07:35:39 PM
...
Here is the Earth energy balance from Kevin Trenberth.
...
Where is the contribution of human fossil fuel use, etc.?  Is it the "Thermal"?

Of course, it is the 'thickening' CO2e 'blanket' that is causing the lower atmosphere to heat up.  Pure and simple and 'settled science' for over 100 years.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Hefaistos on December 01, 2019, 10:43:41 PM
Why do you think it might safe us?

It gives us enough time to get off the fossile fuels without too much drama.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 01, 2019, 11:10:31 PM
Per the linked peer reviewed reference, GMSTA is currently increasing at a rate of 0.2C +/- 0.1C per decade:

O. Hoegh-Guldberg et al. (20 Sep 2019), "The human imperative of stabilizing global climate change at 1.5°C", Science, Vol. 365, Issue 6459, eaaw6974, DOI: 10.1126/science.aaw6974

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6459/eaaw6974

Extract: "Climate change is one of the greatest challenges for humanity. Global mean surface temperature (GMST) is increasing at the rate of 0.2° ± 0.1°C per decade, reaching 1.0°C above the pre-industrial period (reference period 1850–1900) in 2017."
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 01, 2019, 11:36:30 PM
Per the linked peer reviewed reference, GMSTA is currently increasing at a rate of 0.2C +/- 0.1C per decade:
...

Per the linked image James Hansen speculated that in 2018 GMSTA was increasing at a rate of about 0.38C per decade and is almost certainly still increasing.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: AbruptSLR on December 02, 2019, 12:53:28 AM
Obviously, the rate of increase of GMSTA per decade has been and is continuing to accelerate:

Title: "September Global Temperature Change"

https://www.co2.earth/global-warming-update

Extract: "Overall, the global annual temperature has increased at an average rate of 0.07°C (0.13°F) per decade since 1880 and at an average rate of 0.17°C (0.31°F) per decade since 1970.""
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 on December 02, 2019, 05:33:24 PM
I calculated 410.30 ppm for November 2019 from NOAA Mauna Loa data.  Official data will come down in a few days.

That's a growth rate of 2.28 ppm over November 2018.  Trailing 12-month average is now beginning to dip below the most recent peak.  Looks like 2019 will come in around ~2.90 ppm but of course that depends on the next 4 weeks.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Hefaistos on December 03, 2019, 12:19:35 PM
Wolfpack,
thanks for your posts on Mauna Loa CO2.
I have a question on how you make the polynomials in the latest figures
In Reply #279 on October CO2, you have fitted what seems to be a second degree polynomial.
In the November graph you have a polynomial of a higher degree, obviously.
How many months of data go into the polynomials?
Which data do you use, daily, weekly or monthly?
Is there any particular reason that you changed the degree of the polynomial?
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 on December 04, 2019, 02:04:24 AM
Nice catch Hefaistos.  Yea I was playing around with the polynomial and  forgot to make note of it.  I increased it to the 4th degree.  My understanding in this regression is limited and was concerned about overfitting but wanted something other than just linear. 

I use the monthly data from: ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt (ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt)

 November 2019 was just an estimate based on daily/weekly data until the monthly value comes down. 
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 on December 05, 2019, 04:46:57 AM
**Edit** chart is backwards.  Should say CO2 growth rate lags ENSO by 5 months.

Here's NOAA monthly CO2 growth rates vs Niño 3.4 ONIs.  I lagged CO2 Growth rate by 5 months and seemed to line up with NIÑO 3.4 ONI.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: kassy on December 05, 2019, 02:00:20 PM
But what does that mean? It tells us that the 3.4 region lags global CO2 by about 5 month?
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: nanning on December 05, 2019, 04:45:00 PM
I thought the lag is living nature emitting more CO2 because of changed weather.
Perhaps also increased fossil fuel burning through increased airco use? ;)
Perhaps I'm getting stupid.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 on December 05, 2019, 05:29:56 PM
But what does that mean? It tells us that the 3.4 region lags global CO2 by about 5 month?

Whoops brain fart.  I have it backwards.  The CO2 growth rate lags ENSO.  the peaks in CO2 growth rate lag Niño 3.4 by ~4-6 months. 
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Bruce Steele on December 05, 2019, 05:53:32 PM
Drought causes terrestrial carbon sinks to absorb less atmospheric CO2. Atmospheric CO2 rises as a result
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180829133214.htm

“Using these new satellite observations of water storage, Vincent Humphrey and his colleagues were able to measure the overall impact of droughts on photosynthesis and ecosystem respiration. They compared year-to-year changes in total water mass over all continents against global measurements of CO2 increase in the atmosphere. They found that during the driest years such as 2015, natural ecosystems removed about 30% percent less carbon from the atmosphere than during a normal year. As a result, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increased faster in 2015 compared to normal years. At the other end of the scale, during the wettest year on record in 2011, CO2 concentrations increased at a much slower rate due to healthy vegetation. These results help us understand why atmospheric CO2 growth can vary a lot from one year to the other, even though CO2 emissions from human activities are comparatively stable.”
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: KiwiGriff on December 05, 2019, 07:46:17 PM
Quote
  The CO2 growth rate lags ENSO.  the peaks in CO2 growth rate lag Niño 3.4 by ~4-6 months.
As does the  Atmospheric Response to ENSO.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442-16.9.1391
The Nature and Causes for the Delayed Atmospheric Response to El Niño
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Pmt111500 on December 06, 2019, 04:14:57 PM
Quote
  The CO2 growth rate lags ENSO.  the peaks in CO2 growth rate lag Niño 3.4 by ~4-6 months.
As does the  Atmospheric Response to ENSO.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442-16.9.1391
The Nature and Causes for the Delayed Atmospheric Response to El Niño
Yep, that's what happens when Nino dissipates over tropical/subtropical Pacific and warms up the surface widely so exchange to ocean becomes more difficult.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: KiwiGriff on December 06, 2019, 05:53:42 PM
Enso also effects temperatures on land and rainfall distribution influencing terrestrial uptake by the biosphere .
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on December 08, 2019, 08:32:02 PM
Next week last year stayed around 408.5 ppm. At the moment the day-to-day changes are small, therefore an annual increase of slightly above 2 ppm is likely.
My Sunday evening weekly (and in addition today, monthly) CO2 service.
Week beginning on December 1, 2019:     411.07 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:                 408.47 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:              387.08 ppm
Last updated: December 8, 2019.
This is an annual increase of 2.6 ppm, more than I had expected last Sunday.

The month has finished and here is the monthly average for November 2019:
November 2019:       410.27 ppm
November 2018:       408.02 ppm
Last updated: December 5, 2019
The annual increase of 2.25 ppm is at the lower edge of values we saw this year.

Outlook:
Next week last year averaged at 409.3 ppm, which is a jump from this week last year by about 1 ppm. The daily values are on the rise, therefore an annual increase slightly above 2 ppm should be expected.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on December 15, 2019, 06:08:15 PM
Outlook:
Next week last year averaged at 409.3 ppm, which is a jump from this week last year by about 1 ppm. The daily values are on the rise, therefore an annual increase slightly above 2 ppm should be expected.
My Sunday evening Mauna Loa CO2 service is ready:
Week beginning on December 8, 2019:     411.32 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:                 409.22 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:              386.90 ppm
Last updated: December 15, 2019

This time I got it right - 2.1 ppm is slightly above 2 ppm. There was no daily average below 410 last week, but some hourly averages lay below this threshold line.

Outlook:
Last year next week has averaged a little bit lower than this week (409.2 ppm). With actually rising CO2 concentrations I expect an annual increase of around 2.5 ppm.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on December 23, 2019, 01:30:13 PM
Outlook:
Last year next week has averaged a little bit lower than this week (409.2 ppm). With actually rising CO2 concentrations I expect an annual increase of around 2.5 ppm.

My Sunday evening Mauna Loa CO2 service (sorry about the delay - I forgot it last night  :() now on Monday noon CET:
Week beginning on December 15, 2019:     411.89 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:                   409.32 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:        -999.99 ppm (which obviously means "unavailable")
Last updated: December 22, 2019

The annual increase is as high as I expected last week.

Outlook:
Next week last year had an average of about 409.1 ppm. With the steady increase I expect this week the annual increase should rise to 2.8 ± 0.15 ppm. A bad sign for a further increase in 2020??
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on December 29, 2019, 05:54:45 PM
Outlook:
Next week last year had an average of about 409.1 ppm. With the steady increase I expect this week the annual increase should rise to 2.8 ± 0.15 ppm. A bad sign for a further increase in 2020??

My Sunday evening CO2 posting is ready now:

Week beginning on December 22, 2019:     412.21 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:                   409.24 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:                388.17 ppm
Last updated: December 29, 2019

The annual increase rose almost back to 3 ppm, a little bit beyond the corridor I saw it in. After two-three weeks of steady and regular slight increase the last week shows heavy ups and downs, mostly on a day-to-day basis, but some days also had a very high noise in the hourly means. But all days had average values, so these changes passed NOAA's quality standards.

Outlook:
Last year next week averaged at 409.6 ppm. The annual increase is hard to predict as this week has been so bumpy. My best guess would be at 2.7 ± 0.3 ppm.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 on January 01, 2020, 06:17:16 PM
I estimated 411.73 ppm for December 2019 using NOAA data.  That's a growth rate of 2.66 ppm over December 2018.  This puts 2019's annual average growth rate at 2.92 ppm. This will be close to 1998 and just under 2015 & 2016.  Those 3 years of course were associated with high end El Niños.

Official data should come down from NOAA in the next week.  Also, just noticed that technically I did the poll wrong: there's no choice for 2.91 to 3 ppm.  Whoops.   
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Tor Bejnar on January 01, 2020, 07:38:58 PM
I always presumed you were rounding to the nearest tenth.  Or else, 'no choice for 2.900...01 to 2.9999...9.'
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: blumenkraft on January 03, 2020, 09:30:19 AM
Mathematically you would round to match the target.

If the range is 2.5 to 2.9 the 2.91 is rounded to 2.9.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on January 05, 2020, 06:03:43 PM
Outlook:
Last year next week averaged at 409.6 ppm. The annual increase is hard to predict as this week has been so bumpy. My best guess would be at 2.7 ± 0.3 ppm.
The Sunday evening Mauna Loa CO2 information is available:
Week beginning on December 29, 2019:     413.09 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:                   409.55 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:                388.67 ppm
Last updated: January 5, 2020

This annual increase (3.5 ppm) is way higher than expected. The individual days show a very high variability with a lot of ups and downs. I have no idea whether the huge fires in Australia have had an influence. Anyway, this is bad news for the climate.

Outlook:
Last year next week had an average of 411.7 ppm. Extrapolating the actual values will result in a 2.3 ± 0.3 ppm increase. From mid January on the values generally rise much higher than in late autumn or December.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on January 06, 2020, 11:20:59 PM
https://www.co2.earth/
Quote
Daily CO2
Jan. 5, 2020:  413.99 ppm

Jan. 5, 2019:  409.05 ppm


Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: gerontocrat on January 06, 2020, 11:30:24 PM
Mathematically you would round to match the target.

If the range is 2.5 to 2.9 the 2.91 is rounded to 2.9.

Or perhaps to make each range clear >=2.5 to 3.0, then >3.0
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: crandles on January 08, 2020, 07:31:45 PM
Or perhaps to make each range clear >=2.5 to 3.0, then >3.0

This might seem clear but what if they announce it is 3.0, do you then get arguments over whether it might have been 2.98 rounded up to 3.0. So you want the rounding to be the same as for the announced result. So the poll error is probably the 2.5 that is in 2.1-2.5 and also in 2.5-2.9.


FWIW, Week beginning on December 29, 2019 has been amended to: 412.95 ppm
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: kassy on January 08, 2020, 08:24:07 PM
So 3,4  annual increase which still qualifies as way higher than expected.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: TerryM on January 08, 2020, 11:35:10 PM
Does anyone have access to the red graph that shows each year as a wavy horizontal line stacked above previous years?


A poor description for a marvelous graph. Particularly helpful in early January.


Thanks
Terry
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on January 09, 2020, 12:10:44 AM
Does anyone have access to the red graph that shows each year as a wavy horizontal line stacked above previous years?


A poor description for a marvelous graph. Particularly helpful in early January.


Thanks
Terry
I forget, is early January the peak CO2?
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Mozi on January 09, 2020, 12:35:23 AM
Does anyone have access to the red graph that shows each year as a wavy horizontal line stacked above previous years?


A poor description for a marvelous graph. Particularly helpful in early January.


Thanks
Terry

Hi Terry, were you thinking of these? From http://folk.uio.no/roberan

Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 on January 09, 2020, 01:12:17 AM
My estimate was right on the number from earlier post.   NOAA released 2019’s mean CO2 level: 411.44 ppm.  Up 2.92 ppm over 2018. 
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: TerryM on January 09, 2020, 06:09:20 AM
Does anyone have access to the red graph that shows each year as a wavy horizontal line stacked above previous years?


A poor description for a marvelous graph. Particularly helpful in early January.


Thanks
Terry

Hi Terry, were you thinking of these? From http://folk.uio.no/roberan (http://folk.uio.no/roberan)


Mozi


Thank you so much!
They provide a very easy to visualize picture of the increasing growth of CO2 in the atmosphere, as well as the fluxuations through the year.


Thanks again
Terry
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: gerontocrat on January 09, 2020, 01:45:26 PM
Does anyone have access to the red graph that shows each year as a wavy horizontal line stacked above previous years?
Thanks
Terry
Hi Terry, were you thinking of these? From http://folk.uio.no/roberan (http://folk.uio.no/roberan)
Mozi

Thank you so much!
They provide a very easy to visualize picture of the increasing growth of CO2 in the atmosphere, as well as the fluxuations through the year.

Thanks again
Terry
You can also download the movie at http://folk.uio.no/roberan/t/MLO_weekly.shtml
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: TerryM on January 09, 2020, 08:04:26 PM
Thanks gerontocrat!
Terry
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: oren on January 10, 2020, 03:43:16 AM
Watching the animation, 2016 was a real CO2 bomb, and 2019 looks like a serious contender.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: dnem on January 10, 2020, 12:47:52 PM
Watching the animation, 2016 was a real CO2 bomb, and 2019 looks like a serious contender.

2019 with no El Nino. Next EN year will not be pretty.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Tom_Mazanec on January 10, 2020, 01:29:38 PM
Watching the animation, 2016 was a real CO2 bomb, and 2019 looks like a serious contender.

2019 with no El Nino. Next EN year will not be pretty.
And there is a good chance that will be this year.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on January 10, 2020, 04:49:42 PM
The December 2019 average is available:

December 2019:       411.76 ppm
December 2018:       409.07 ppm
Last updated: January 7, 2020

The annual increase lies at 2.7 ppm
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Ken Feldman on January 10, 2020, 05:42:57 PM
The average annual growth rate has been posted at NOAA's website:

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html)

The growth rate is 2.22 ppm.  It may change in a few months as quality control on more recent months advances.

For the past five years, the annual average growth rates (in ppm) have been:

2015   2.98
2016   3.00
2017   1.89
2018   2.86
2019   2.22

Edit:  corrected the link to NOAA's website.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Tor Bejnar on January 10, 2020, 05:53:53 PM
Per Stephan's post:
Does this mean a majority of the voting public are 'winners'?  [see poll]
Or does it mean, collectively, we (the world's citizens) don't care too much about tomorrow (and, therefore, are 'losers')?


Separately, what is the relationship between the figures Ken posted (e.g., 2019 - 2.22) and the one Stephan posted (2019 - 2.7)?
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: oren on January 10, 2020, 05:59:13 PM
I fail to see how the animation showing 2019 over 2018 as mostly larger than 2018 over 2017, with Ken's figures showing 2.86 for 2018 over 2017, and only 2.22 for 2019 over 2018. One of these sources is wrong.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Tor Bejnar on January 10, 2020, 07:19:21 PM
I don't know any details, but a person on Weather Underground's Cat 6 blog just posted
Quote
Annual global CO2 increase

2018 408.52 ppm
2019 411.44 ppm

That's an annual increase of 2.92 ppm, the third highest annual increase in the record. The two higher figures were set in the record breaking El Nino years of 1998 and 2016. It's clear that it's just going to keep rising.
This clearly is not "Mauna Loa", but beyond that ...
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: crandles on January 10, 2020, 07:23:54 PM
I found Mauna loa data saying
2018   408.52     0.12
2019   411.44     0.12
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/data.html

2.92 increase.

Annual average is different from Dec to Dec increase
Dec 18 409.07
Dec 19 411.76
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: crandles on January 10, 2020, 07:32:34 PM
Wondered if Ken's 2.22 was a typo and meant to be 2.92 but would seem to be different data:

Year  ann avg     Unc   Increase
2014   398.65     0.12   2.13
2015   400.83     0.12   2.18
2016   404.24     0.12   3.41
2017   406.55     0.12   2.31
2018   408.52     0.12   1.97
2019   411.44     0.12   2.92

Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: gerontocrat on January 10, 2020, 07:33:45 PM
I found Mauna loa data saying
2018   408.52     0.12
2019   411.44     0.12
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/data.html

2.92 increase.

Annual average is different from Dec to Dec increase
Dec 18 409.07
Dec 19 411.76
On that link Global only updated to October 2019.
October 2019:       409.09 ppm
October 2018:       406.41 ppm
Last updated: January 7, 2020
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: crandles on January 10, 2020, 07:38:43 PM
Kens numbers are at
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html

Which says
"The annual mean rate of growth of CO2 in a given year is the difference in concentration between the end of December and the start of January of that year.
...
Therefore, we finalize our estimate for the annual mean growth rate of the previous year in March, by using the average of the most recent November-February months, corrected for the average seasonal cycle, as the trend value for January 1. Our estimate for the annual mean growth rate (based on the Mauna Loa data) is obtained by subtracting the same four-month average centered on the previous January 1. Preliminary values for the previous year are calculated in January and in February."

So this is different from annual average increase and also different to Dec avg  to Dec avg.

So which was the poll about?  :-\ ;) :o ???


Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Stephan on January 10, 2020, 08:06:43 PM
Per Stephan's post:
Does this mean a majority of the voting public are 'winners'?  [see poll]
Or does it mean, collectively, we (the world's citizens) don't care too much about tomorrow (and, therefore, are 'losers')?


Separately, what is the relationship between the figures Ken posted (e.g., 2019 - 2.22) and the one Stephan posted (2019 - 2.7)?
"My" number 2.70 ppm annual increase describes the difference between December 2018 and December 2019 and does not mean the annual increase for the whole year 2019, which composes  of 12 different annual increases, one per each month of the year.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Ken Feldman on January 11, 2020, 12:19:30 AM
Kens numbers are at
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html

Which says
"The annual mean rate of growth of CO2 in a given year is the difference in concentration between the end of December and the start of January of that year.
...
Therefore, we finalize our estimate for the annual mean growth rate of the previous year in March, by using the average of the most recent November-February months, corrected for the average seasonal cycle, as the trend value for January 1. Our estimate for the annual mean growth rate (based on the Mauna Loa data) is obtained by subtracting the same four-month average centered on the previous January 1. Preliminary values for the previous year are calculated in January and in February."

So this is different from annual average increase and also different to Dec avg  to Dec avg.

So which was the poll about?  :-\ ;) :o ???

Thanks.  I revised my post with the correct link.  Sorry for any confusion.

And as noted, the results are preliminary until quality control on the past few months of data are done.  We have to wait until March for the final results.
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Ken Feldman on January 11, 2020, 12:24:45 AM
Wondered if Ken's 2.22 was a typo and meant to be 2.92 but would seem to be different data:

Year  ann avg     Unc   Increase
2014   398.65     0.12   2.13
2015   400.83     0.12   2.18
2016   404.24     0.12   3.41
2017   406.55     0.12   2.31
2018   408.52     0.12   1.97
2019   411.44     0.12   2.92

Note that these numbers are subject to change based on quality control measures.

Quote
NOTE: In general, the data presented for the last year are subject to change,
# depending on recalibration of the reference gas mixtures used, and other quality
# control procedures. Occasionally, earlier years may also be changed for the same
# reasons.  Usually these changes are minor.
#
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: wolfpack513 on January 12, 2020, 01:52:25 AM
I started the thread/poll and it was for the annual average growth rate at Mauna Loa: January-December 2.92 ppm.  A centered 4-month average may be the technical but not what I had in mind.  I’ll specify next time. 
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: blumenkraft on April 02, 2020, 05:21:58 PM
Posting here because it's the main CO2 thread.

Flooding Stunted 2019 Cropland Growing Season, Resulting in More Atmospheric CO2

Link >> https://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2020/03/31/flooding-stunted-2019-cropland-growing-season-resulting-in-more-atmospheric-co2/
Title: Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
Post by: Ken Feldman on April 06, 2020, 06:43:49 PM
With the most recent update, the 2019 global growth rate is now listed as 2.62 ppm.  Here are the past five years:

2015   2.97
2016   2.86
2017   2.14
2018   2.38
2019   2.62

Link to the data:

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gl_data.html (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gl_data.html)

For comparison, the Mauna Loa growth rate is now listed as 2.47 ppm.  The last five years are:

2015   2.99
2016   2.99
2017   1.89
2018   2.86
2019   2.47