2020 Mauna Loa CO2 levels

[Stephan]

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.

I got the weekly value last year wrong (I took the average value of the week later and did not carefully look at the scale of the y-axis - sorry). Therefore my Sunday evening CO₂ posting begins with an excuse.

Week beginning on January 5, 2020:     413.37 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:             409.94 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:          388.21 ppm
Last updated: January 12, 2020

The annual increase stays above 3.4 ppm. This is no good news for this year. It has just begun - and unfortunately with this massive increase.
The high variability of the last weeks has disappeared. The values are much more in line, daily and hourly averages.
We have the same CO₂ level than in April last year. This means we are three months before schedule.

Outlook:
Last year next week had an average of 410.7 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.

[Rodius]

I am fairly sure the answer is not to this question but......

..... is it possible the fires in Australia are large enough to give a short uptick in CO2 levels for the beginning of this year?

[nanning]

Hi Rodius, good question.
I've read that some 600 MT of CO₂ has been emitted by the bushfires this season. Not a burst, so it has had time to mix into the atmosphere.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere
"Each part per million by volume of CO2 in the atmosphere represents approximately 2.13 gigatonnes of carbon, or 7.82 gigatonnes of CO2.[14]"

So the bushfires contributed 0.4/7.82= ca. 0.05 ppm.
Therefore I'd say it has had no discernible influence on the Mauna Loa reading.

[Rodius]

Thanks for the reply.
Maybe in three more months it will though..... 

[Stephan]

Outlook:
Last year next week had an average of 410.7 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.

My Sunday evening CO₂ information:
Week beginning on January 12, 2020:     412.82 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:               410.66 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:             388.41 ppm
Last updated: January 19, 2020

This week I got it right. The annual increase has shifted back to values we saw in December 2019. Nevertheless, an increase of "only" 2.16 ppm would have been unprecedented 30-40 years ago. So we got used to see these high values...

Outlook:
Next week last year averaged at 412 ppm with an extreme intra-day variability. This year it looks much smoother; I expect an annual increase around 1.75 ± 0.25 ppm.

[nanning]

Thank you Stephan. Since you are regularly updating several GHG readings, would it be possible to add a CO_2e figure?
In that way we'll have the cumulative GHG effect updated. I know it depends on assumptions but you can put those in.

[Hefaistos]

Outlook:
Last year next week had an average of 410.7 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.

 an increase of "only" 2.16 ppm ...
Outlook:
Next week last year averaged at 412 ppm with an extreme intra-day variability. This year it looks much smoother; I expect an annual increase around 1.75 ± 0.25 ppm.

We shouldn't over-interpret this, but these values indicate that we are on a linear patch of CO2 growth path. Not as expected, on an exponential growth path.
My long term forecast: Peak CO2 not later than 2030.

[oren]

Thank you for these regular updates Stephan.
Hefaistos I am astounded by your optimism, for which I find no basis in current reality. 10 years is a very short time to turn around the immense ship of the global fossil fuel economy. I estimate the turning time as at least 50 years, of which humanity has barely achieved maybe 10 net. Every year that passes with the wheel only partially turned means more time is lost. 2030 for peak CO2? No way.

[Stephan]

Hefaistos,
you cannot over-interprete a predicted lower increase value in the next week than in this week and speculate about a change in the overall growth pattern. The annual increase is depending on the actual value and the value last year. If - like in this case - there was a jump last year, then, of course, the annual increase is lower.
Please check out the Keeling curve at NOAA. Take a ruler to follow the increase of CO₂. You will find that this increase is not linear, but slowly accelerating. And so is it in 2020.

[Stephan]

Thank you Stephan. Since you are regularly updating several GHG readings, would it be possible to add a CO_2e figure?
In that way we'll have the cumulative GHG effect updated. I know it depends on assumptions but you can put those in.

nanning,
I will do it in the next time. I have the monthly reading of four gas concentrations (CO₂, CH₄, N₂O and SF₆) on my PC, in different files, and I can put them together. Before I do that I'd like to have widely accepted "exchange rates" [GHG factors] between the different gases. At least for methane there is a large variety of values - ranging from 20 to 160 - around. Maybe this forum can advice me which number to use?

[Hefaistos]

Hefaistos,
you cannot over-interprete a predicted lower increase value in the next week than in this week and speculate about a change in the overall growth pattern. The annual increase is depending on the actual value and the value last year. If - like in this case - there was a jump last year, then, of course, the annual increase is lower.
Please check out the Keeling curve at NOAA. Take a ruler to follow the increase of CO₂. You will find that this increase is not linear, but slowly accelerating. And so is it in 2020.

We had a discussion in one of the other CO2 threads about the sign of the third derivative of the Keeling curve. For some months now I see signs that we are not on a exponential growth, but linear growth.
2020 will tell.

[nanning]

Thanks Stephan, nice of you. You could put in both the low and high factors for 2 figures of CO_2e.
-

Re: Atmospheric CO₂ growth

Please don't forget the permafrost as an increasing source. Already at 1.6±0.5 GT/year which is (much) more than all of aviation. And set to increase exponentially with a warming atmosphere, especially high up north.

[wdmn]

Stephen,

Not sure if you're familiar with this thread:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2383.0.html

But I think we're unlikely to reach consensus on which number to use.


Edit:

Here's my thinking on the subject.

I limit my thoughts to CH4 because I don't really know anything about the other GHGs. Nevertheless reasoning would apply to those also.

The IPCC favours the lower multiplier because all of their modelling is over the ~100 year timeline (to 2100).

And because ECS as a measurement assumes that atmospheric levels of co2 are "sustained."

I am not sure for how long these atmospheric levels have to be "sustained," and the answer to that is KEY to determining which multiplier for CH4 to use when thinking in terms of ECS.

TCR does not require "sustained" levels as far as I can tell, because it tracks only the effect of fast responses to the change in forcing, and not the slower feedbacks. Therefore when thinking in terms of TCR, we should be using the high multiplier.*

Because CO2 basically persists for the timelines we're concerned with, unless we remove it from the atmosphere, we can talk of RF of our current CO2 as "locked in" for both short term warming and longer term feedbacks.

But CH4 doesn't persist in the atmosphere. Because we don't know how long CH4 emissions will either increase or be constant, we can't talk over longer time frames. If they decrease 5 years from now, then our calculations based on current RF will not be realized.

So another key question is: how long does it take for the maximum "fast" response to increase in CH4 RF to be realized? Is it like CO2 (10-40 years is the number usually given for CO2)?

*Based on the answer to the question just stated in this ^ paragraph, using the higher multiplier for TCR may not be justified (i.e. if response takes 40 years, and CO2e were to decline shortly after doubling due to reductions in CH4).

Certainly we should be using the higher multiplier to think about policy in relation to TCR. How close are we to doubling using the high multiplier (or have we already)?

Of course we also need the concentration of all these GHGs from the time when CO2 was 280ppm.

And you need to account for negative forcing from aerosols.

Honestly I don't see us ever doubling pre-industrial co2, which would be about 560ppm. We'd have to go at least at current rate of growth for another ~60 years. CO2e is a different story, but aerosol question is key. How much of the CO2e is masked, and how much will that be reduced before the CO2e starts to drop?

[SteveMDFP]

...But CH4 doesn't persist in the atmosphere. Because we don't know how long CH4 emissions will either increase or be constant, we can't talk over longer time frames. If they decrease 5 years from now, then our calculations based on current RF will not be realized...

It is, indeed, a nuanced question.  For purposes of weighing the cost of emitting a given amount of methane, the relatively rapid oxidation of that methane is highly relevant.

However, given the abundant positive feedbacks that promote natural emission sources of methane, one must conclude that future falls in methane levels seem improbable over the next several decades.  How much heating are these elevated levels causing today and over these next several decades?  A very different question, and one for which the oxidation of methane is an irrelevant factoid. 

That is, if we make the wildly optimistic assumption that current atmospheric levels are now at steady-state, that oxidation is perfectly balanced against total emissions, and that levels will cease rising (or falling), then the the pace of oxidation is irrelevant to any practical considerations.  It's only relevant that emissions balance this removal.  For these considerations, the instantaneous relative greenhouse warming potential is what's important.  I, too, have seen varying values, but 120 or higher seems the right ballpark.

[wdmn]

Thanks Steve,

Where did the 120 number come from? I always see the GWP20 number of 84-87.

[nanning]

I agree Steve, thanks for that clear argumentation.
So the high factor is the one giving the short-term (decades) GHG/forcing information.

[SteveMDFP]

Thanks Steve,

Where did the 120 number come from? I always see the GWP20 number of 84-87.

We're in the wrong thread for that, and you're not asking a genuine expert.  Extensive discussions have hashed, re-hashed, and re-re-hashed the arguments in the methane threads.

[gerontocrat]

A bit off-topic, posted to give some data about current calculations of CO2e of CH4 emissions

I have always just used what the NOAA does to calculate CO2e and their Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI) , that can be found at https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html

It is only updated annually, but from the attached table you can work out how to calculate the latest value of CO2e and the AGGI from monthly data

For CH4, the 2018 average ppb is equates to a CO2 of 82 ppm, so a CH4 increase of 10 ppb (around the current annual increase) has a CO2e of 0.44 ppm. You can do a similar calculation for N₂O ppb, in 2018 having a CO2e of 32 ppm.

Monthly & Annual data is available from  https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends_sf6/. The data available includes SF6, which I don't think is in NOAA's calculation of CO2e. Should it?

I will just wait for the 2019 update - but if CO2e comes in at less than 500, I will be amazed.

[wdmn]

Thanks Steve,

Where did the 120 number come from? I always see the GWP20 number of 84-87.

We're in the wrong thread for that, and you're not asking a genuine expert.  Extensive discussions have hashed, re-hashed, and re-re-hashed the arguments in the methane threads.

Was hoping for a link is all.

@gerotocrat.
They are clearly using a lower multiplier... it would be well over 500 otherwise.

[SteveMDFP]

Thanks Steve,

Where did the 120 number come from? I always see the GWP20 number of 84-87.

We're in the wrong thread for that, and you're not asking a genuine expert.  Extensive discussions have hashed, re-hashed, and re-re-hashed the arguments in the methane threads.

Was hoping for a link is all.
 ...

See this post:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2383.msg168852.html#msg168852

[AbruptSLR]

Thanks Steve,

Where did the 120 number come from? I always see the GWP20 number of 84-87.

We're in the wrong thread for that, and you're not asking a genuine expert.  Extensive discussions have hashed, re-hashed, and re-re-hashed the arguments in the methane threads.

Was hoping for a link is all.
 ...

See this post:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2383.msg168852.html#msg168852

Attached are Figures 8.29 & 8.32 from AR5 show information on the global warming potential (GWP) of methane.

Title: "Chapter 8:  Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing"

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL.pdf

Also, for the sake of clarity, I note that, the EPA uses a GWP100 value of 25 for methane for their GHG emissions account because they made a policy decision to stay with the AR4 values:

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html

Nevertheless, the EPA acknowledges that the GWP100 value for methane may be as high as 36 (when account for climate-carbon feedback and aerosol interaction).  As 36/25 = 1.44 this policy decision represents a significant under accounting for the significance of methane for global warming. This is almost certainly resulting in reduced efforts to reduce methane emissions as to what would be optimal policy.

Title: "Understanding Global Warming Potentials"

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials

Extract: "Methane (CH4) is estimated to have a GWP of 28–36 over 100 years"
…
What GWP estimates does EPA use for GHG emissions accounting, such as the Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (Inventory) and the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program?

The EPA considers the GWP estimates presented in the most recent IPCC scientific assessment to reflect the state of the science. In science communications, the EPA will refer to the most recent GWPs. The GWPs listed above are from the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report, published in 2014.

The EPA's Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks (Inventory) complies with international GHG reporting standards under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). UNFCCC guidelines now require the use of the GWP values for the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), published in 2007. The Inventory also presents emissions by mass, so that CO2 equivalents can be calculated using any GWPs, and emission totals using more recent IPCC values are presented in the annexes of the Inventory report for informational purposes.

Data collected by EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program is used in the Inventory, so the Reporting Program generally uses GWP values from the AR4. The Reporting Program collects data about some industrial gases that do not have GWPs listed in the AR4; for these gases, the Reporting Program uses GWP values from other sources, such as the Fifth Assessment Report.
EPA's CH4 reduction voluntary programs also use CH4 GWPs from the AR4 report for calculating CH4 emissions reductions through energy recovery projects, for consistency with the national emissions presented in the Inventory."

[Richard Rathbone]

GWP is a tool for comparing emissions, not atmospheric levels.

If what you want to to is monitor what the atmosphere is actually doing now, rather than what an emission will do in the future, you should be using something else such as radiative forcing.

e.g. see  https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html

for details on how the NOAA do it, and the annual averages they calculate (496 for 2018 is their latest value, its quite possible its hitting 500 round about now)

[wdmn]

@RR
But RF is a function of atmospheric levels...

Anyway, just found the attached image in James Hansen's latest communication, which is available here: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2020/20200115_Temperature2019.pdf

The image has growth in GHGs converted into RF, and also gives the equivalent temperature change (based on the assumption that an RF of 1 W/m^2 warms the earth 0.75C).

[Sciguy]

The radiative forcings for Methane were updated in 2016.  This is probably what will be used for AR6.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930

Radiative forcing of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide: A significant revision of the methane radiative forcing
M. Etminan, G. Myhre, E. J. Highwood, K. P. Shine
First published: 27 December 2016

Abstract

New calculations of the radiative forcing (RF) are presented for the three main well‐mixed greenhouse gases, methane, nitrous oxide, and carbon dioxide. Methane's RF is particularly impacted because of the inclusion of the shortwave forcing; the 1750–2011 RF is about 25% higher (increasing from 0.48 W m−2 to 0.61 W m−2) compared to the value in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2013 assessment; the 100 year global warming potential is 14% higher than the IPCC value. We present new simplified expressions to calculate RF. Unlike previous expressions used by IPCC, the new ones include the overlap between CO2 and N2O; for N2O forcing, the CO2 overlap can be as important as the CH4 overlap. The 1750–2011 CO2 RF is within 1% of IPCC's value but is about 10% higher when CO2 amounts reach 2000 ppm, a value projected to be possible under the extended RCP8.5 scenario.

Plain Language Summary

“Radiative forcing” is an important method to assess the importance of different climate change mechanisms, and is used, for example, by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, are the major component of the human activity that led the IPCC, in its 2013 Assessment, to conclude that “it is extremely likely that human influence is the dominant cause of warming since the mid‐20th century.” In this letter, we report new and detailed calculations that aimed to update the simpler methods of computing the radiative forcing that have been used in IPCC assessments, and elsewhere. The major result is that radiative forcing due to methane is around 20‐25% higher than that found using the previous simpler methods. The main reason for this is the inclusion of the absorption of solar radiation by methane, a mechanism that had not been included in earlier calculations. We examine the mechanisms by which this solar absorption causes this radiative forcing. The work has significance for assessments of the climate impacts of methane emissions due to human activity, and for the way methane is included in international climate agreements.

[AbruptSLR]

Effective radiative forcing is probably the most scientific way to value the importance of the various forcing components cited in the linked reference.  For comparison I provide the attached image showing NOAA's values of radiative forcing, CO2e and AGGI from 2014 thru 2018 (which assumes a GWP100 for methane of 25).

Smith, C. J., Kramer, R. J., Myhre, G., Alterskjær, K., Collins, W., Sima, A., Boucher, O., Dufresne, J.-L., Nabat, P., Michou, M., Yukimoto, S., Cole, J., Paynter, D., Shiogama, H., O'Connor, F. M., Robertson, E., Wiltshire, A., Andrews, T., Hannay, C., Miller, R., Nazarenko, L., Kirkevåg, A., Olivié, D., Fiedler, S., Pincus, R., and Forster, P. M.: Effective radiative forcing and adjustments in CMIP6 models, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2019-1212, in review, 2020.

https://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/acp-2019-1212/

Abstract. The effective radiative forcing, which includes the instantaneous forcing plus adjustments from the atmosphere and surface, has emerged as the key metric of evaluating human and natural influence on the climate. We evaluate effective radiative forcing and adjustments in 13 contemporary climate models that are participating in CMIP6 and have contributed to the Radiative Forcing Model Intercomparison Project (RFMIP). Present-day (2014) global mean anthropogenic forcing relative to pre-industrial (1850) from climate models stands at 1.97 (± 0.26) W m−2, comprised of 1.80 (± 0.11) W m−2 from CO2, 1.07 (± 0.21) W m−2 from other well-mixed greenhouse gases, −1.04 (± 0.23) W m−2 from aerosols and −0.08 (± 0.14) W m−2 from land use change. Quoted uncertainties are one standard deviation across model best estimates, and 90 % confidence in the reported forcings, due to internal variability, is typically within 0.1 W m−2. The majority of the remaining 0.17 W m−2 is likely to be from ozone. As determined in previous studies, cancellation of tropospheric and surface adjustments means that the traditional stratospherically adjusted radiative forcing is approximately equal to ERF for greenhouse gas forcing, but not for aerosols, and consequentially, not for the anthropogenic total. The spread of aerosol forcing ranges from −0.63 to −1.37 W m−2, exhibiting a less negative mean and narrower range compared to 10 CMIP5 models. The spread in 4 × CO2 forcing has also narrowed in CMIP6 compared to 13 CMIP5 models. Aerosol forcing is uncorrelated with equilibrium climate sensitivity. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest that the increasing spread in climate sensitivity in CMIP6 models, particularly related to high-sensitivity models, is a consequence of a stronger negative present-day aerosol forcing.

Edit: To make my point clearer, using NOAA's radiative forcing data for 2014 the ratio of other well mixed greenhouse gases to that for CO2 one gets: 1.027/1.908 = 0.538; while per the referenced effective radiative forcing data for 2014 the ratio is 1.07/1.80 = 0.594.  This implies that when considering effective radiative forcing vs radiative forcing, other well mixed greenhouse gases are 0.594/0.538 = 1.104 times more significant than NOAA is indicating to the general public and decision makers.

[Stephan]

Thank you Stephan. Since you are regularly updating several GHG readings, would it be possible to add a CO_2e figure?
In that way we'll have the cumulative GHG effect updated. I know it depends on assumptions but you can put those in.

nanning,
I will do it in the next time. I have the monthly reading of four gas concentrations (CO₂, CH₄, N₂O and SF₆) on my PC, in different files, and I can put them together.

I did it, but the sum differs from what I saw from gerontocrat's posting further upthread where he provides NOAA's annual table.
I took the monthly concentrations (beginning from 2000 on, before that date I do not have all the four gases) and multiplied CH₄ with the factors 85 (20 years) and 28 (100 years), N₂O with 264 (20 & 100 years), and finally SF₆ with 17500 (20 years) and 23500 (100 years), using the conversion factors from the later IPCC report. Then I looked up the definition of these CO₂ equivalents, which are not given in moles, but in kg and converted the numbers by taking their molecular weight.
I end up with the latest data (Sep 2019) with the following values (100 years equivalent):
CO₂: 408.54
CH₄:   19.05
N₂O:   87.65
SF₆:      0.78
sum: 516.01
This sum is higher than the CO₂ eq given further upthread. Also the proportions of the ratio CH₄ to N₂O differs completely from NOAA's table. Where is the error?

[gerontocrat]

Thank you Stephan. Since you are regularly updating several GHG readings, would it be possible to add a CO_2e figure?
In that way we'll have the cumulative GHG effect updated. I know it depends on assumptions but you can put those in.

nanning,
I will do it in the next time. I have the monthly reading of four gas concentrations (CO₂, CH₄, N₂O and SF₆) on my PC, in different files, and I can put them together.

I did it, but the sum differs from what I saw from gerontocrat's posting further upthread where he provides NOAA's annual table.
I took the monthly concentrations (beginning from 2000 on, before that date I do not have all the four gases) and multiplied CH₄ with the factors 85 (20 years) and 28 (100 years), N₂O with 264 (20 & 100 years), and finally SF₆ with 17500 (20 years) and 23500 (100 years), using the conversion factors from the later IPCC report. Then I looked up the definition of these CO₂ equivalents, which are not given in moles, but in kg and converted the numbers by taking their molecular weight.
I end up with the latest data (Sep 2019) with the following values (100 years equivalent):
CO₂: 408.54
CH₄:   19.05
N₂O:   87.65
SF₆:      0.78
sum: 516.01
This sum is higher than the CO₂ eq given further upthread. Also the proportions of the ratio CH₄ to N₂O differs completely from NOAA's table. Where is the error?

Everybody uses different GWP ratios. See attached table and https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2781.msg245877.html#msg245877

[Richard Rathbone]

Where is the error?

Using GWP rather than RF. GWP is for comparing emission, not concentrations.

[nanning]

Cross post from Science basics-thread:

It should be easy I think to add a column with the per-ghg CO2e figures if their atmospheric fractions are known.
For Stephan's CO2e reporting, I suggest using two factors: 30 and 90 for methane CO2e, or use above table.

Stephan, since we're most interested in the next decades in my opinion, you could just go with the high factor of 90. That'll give the best information of GHG concentrations for that period I think. It doesn't need to be exact, but just in the right ballpark.

[kassy]

I have been thinking that it would be nice to have a thread here which tracked where we are wrt several scenarios.

So maybe we can combine the CO2e data + The Carbon Clock data in a thread where we also compare the outcomes to the RCP scenarios?

This would leave the Mona Loa Thread for the ML numbers and collect CO2e in a thread where it is directly useful.

Lets call it something like:
Where are we now in CO2e and which pathway are we on/how much budget do we have left?

Feel free to improve that title.

[nanning]

"Remaining budget for catastrophy"

When it is apparent that the +1.5°C carbon budget is 0, will there be a new budget for +2°C? The economists require a budget and cost/benefit. What do you think will happen when the budget is gone?

I think budgets are insane: Civilisation on its death bed gasps with a last painful effort "there is still time....aarrgggh".

Were has all the drinking water gone? Is there no budget?
How much budget is there for severe weather catastrophies? Of course I mean the catastrophies for rich country white people.
How much budget left to further grow the economy?
How much pesticide-budget left before food cannot be grown because of loss of ecosystem 'services'.
How much deforestation-budget left before the loss of ROI?
How much species-budget left until complete or partial biosphere collapse? (if we're there not already)

How much budget until the rich countries have rendered the Earth unlivable/unsurvivable for large mammals?

Precautionary principle anyone? This is not sanity!

[Stephan]

I have been thinking that it would be nice to have a thread here which tracked where we are wrt several scenarios.

So maybe we can combine the CO2e data + The Carbon Clock data in a thread where we also compare the outcomes to the RCP scenarios?

This would leave the Mona Loa Thread for the ML numbers and collect CO2e in a thread where it is directly useful.

Lets call it something like:
Where are we now in CO2e and which pathway are we on/how much budget do we have left?

Feel free to improve that title.

Good idea, kassy. I'd also prefer to have the CO₂ / CH₄ / N₂O / SF₆ concentration threads (comparable to the ASI Extent thread - bookkeepuing type of thread) and a separate thread about CO₂ eq (how to calculate and evaluate with respect to carbon budgets and RCP scenarios).

[kassy]

I made the thread:

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2994.0.html

If you repost #25 there we can continue it there.

[Tom_Mazanec]

Good, kassy. CO2e is the "real" number.

[gerontocrat]

No good news for 2020 from the UK Met Office - unfortunately the Met has a good record for accurate forecast.s

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2020/2020-global-co2-forecast
Australian bushfires help push forecast 2020 CO₂ rise
A forecast of the atmospheric concentration of carbon-dioxide shows that 2020 will witness one of the largest annual rises in concentration since measurements began at Mauna Loa, in Hawaii, 1958.

During the year the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ is expected to peak above 417 parts per million in May, while the average for the year is forecast to be 414.2 ± 0.6ppm. This annual average represents a 2.74 ± 0.57 ppm rise on the average for 2019. While human-caused emissions cause the CO₂ rise in concentration, impacts of weather patterns on global ecosystems are predicted to increase the rise by 10% this year.  Emissions from the recent Australian bushfires contribute up to one-fifth of this increase.

Professor Richard Betts MBE, of the Met Office Hadley Centre and University of Exeter, said: “Although the series of annual levels of CO₂ have always seen a year-on-year increase since 1958, driven by fossil fuel burning and deforestation, the rate of rise isn’t perfectly even because there are fluctuations in the response of ecosystem carbon sinks, especially tropical forests. Overall these are expected to be weaker than normal for a second year running.”

The complete MetOffice forecast is at
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/forecasts/co2-forecast

[Stephan]

Outlook:
Next week last year averaged at 412 ppm with an extreme intra-day variability. This year it looks much smoother; I expect an annual increase around 1.75 ± 0.25 ppm.

The Sunday evening Mauna Loa CO₂ information is available:

Week beginning on January 19, 2020:     414.12 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:               412.19 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:            388.27 ppm
Last updated: January 26, 2020

The increase is at the upper end of my outlook. From Jan 21 on the data has left the smooth increase of the last weeks, but went up and down like a yo-yo. The last three days were "unavailable" because of a high intra-day fluctuation.

Outlook:
Last year next week averaged at 411 ppm. Therefore an annual increase of at or above 2.5 ppm is very likely. Even a 3 ppm increase is not impossible. Hard to give an exact number, because the last three days do not offer a predictable trend for the next days...

[crandles]

Revision:

Week beginning on January 19, 2020:     413.65 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:     412.19 ppm

this is because they have filled in data for last few days:

January 27:     413.51 ppm
January 26:     412.96 ppm
January 25:     412.40 ppm
January 24:     412.73 ppm
January 23:     413.91 ppm

[Stephan]

Thank you for that update. So the annual increase is only 1.5 ppm, now at the lower end of what I had expected the week before.

[Stephan]

Outlook:
Last year next week averaged at 411 ppm. Therefore an annual increase of at or above 2.5 ppm is very likely. Even a 3 ppm increase is not impossible. Hard to give an exact number, because the last three days do not offer a predictable trend for the next days...

It is time for my Sunday evening post about the NOAA CO₂ weekly average.

Week beginning on January 26, 2020:     414.09 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:                411.06 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:             389.37 ppm
Last updated: February 2, 2020

A big jump on Monday led to the upper limit of the estimation I made one week ago. The annual increase is back at 3 ppm. The intra-day and inter-day variabilities were comparably high, but all days passed NOAA's quality control.

Outlook:
Last year next week averaged at 411.7 ppm. Looking at the actual momentum of increasing values from day to day I expect another annual increase of around 3 ppm.

[wolfpack513]

I calculated 413.44 ppm for January 2020 with NOAA's Mauna Loa data.  That's a growth rate of 2.61 ppm over January 2019.  12-month moving average is still above the linear & polynomial but appears to be peaking in the growth cycle.

[rboyd]

The global CO2 numbers were updated for November 2019:
- Nov 2019 410.88 vs Nov 2018 407.99 (y-o-y difference of 2.99 ppm)

The first estimate of the 2019 global annual growth rate was also provided: 2.94 ppm.
- This will get updated when the December, January and February numbers are provided (the final number comes with the February number). Could change a lot, but the current 2019 annual increase is only 0.02 ppm below the 2015 ENSO-driven high.

I remember reading somewhere that a sustained yearly increase above 2.5ppm could mean increases in non-anthropogenic emissions/reduction in sinks are kicking in. The increase in anthropogenic emissions in the past few years is definitely not able to account for such a high number in a non-ENSO year.

Global CH4 was also provided for October: 1876.2 vs 1865.7 a year ago, an increase of 10.5ppb - running on the high end of the past few years.

[Stephan]

Outlook:
Last year next week averaged at 411.7 ppm. Looking at the actual momentum of increasing values from day to day I expect another annual increase of around 3 ppm.

My Sunday evening Mauna Loa CO₂ information is available:

Week beginning on February 2, 2020:     414.33 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:               411.11 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:            390.67 ppm
Last updated: February 9, 2020

The annual increase of 3.22 ppm is beyond my expectation of last week, and it seems that the "around 3 ppm annual increase" will accompany us for a while. All days had valid averages, and the pace of increase seems to accelerate.

Outlook:
Next week last year averaged at 412.3 ppm. Extrapolating the actual values into next week would lead to an annual increase of 2.75 ± 0.25 ppm.

[grixm]

Another record day: 416.08 ppm on February 11th

[nanning]

It was on 10 Februari. Here is a link: https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/monthly.html

[Stephan]

Outlook:
Next week last year averaged at 412.3 ppm. Extrapolating the actual values into next week would lead to an annual increase of 2.75 ± 0.25 ppm.

Surprise Surprise
This Sunday evening CO₂ message does not fit into my expectations.
After having reached a maximum of more than 416 ppm early this week the CO₂ concentration declined day by day.

Week beginning on February 9, 2020:     414.40 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:               412.70 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:           390.32 ppm
Last updated: February 16, 2020

This annual increase of only 1.7 ppm is much less than most of us expected. Yesterday that daily loss had ended.

Outlook:
Last year next week averaged at 411 ppm. Taking the actual values as a basis and expecting a slight re-increase I expect an annual increase of 2.25 ± 0.25 ppm. I hope that I am not completely wrong...

[Stephan]

Outlook:
Last year next week averaged at 411 ppm. Taking the actual values as a basis and expecting a slight re-increase I expect an annual increase of 2.25 ± 0.25 ppm. I hope that I am not completely wrong...

My Sunday evening Mauna Loa CO₂ posting is a little bit delayed tonight, because I watched the discussions and reactions after the elections in Hamburg.

Week beginning on February 16, 2020:     414.01 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:                 411.22 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:             390.45 ppm
Last updated: February 23, 2020

I was wrong again - the decrease of last week turned into an increase this week, and the annual increase has reached 2.8 ppm again and is higher than the average increase of the last 10 years (2.4 ppm).

Outlook:
Last year next week had an average of around 412.4 ppm. I expect an annual increase of 2.25 ± 0.25 ppm.

[TerryM]

With the shutdown of China I'd expected to see a much lower number.
The next weeks will be interesting.


Terry

[wolfpack513]

Mauna Loa is sampling well mixed air.  Impacts from the virus will be so small in the current carbon cycle that any signal will probably comes months-years later.  Daily ups & downs are noisy. This noise is on top of a seasonal cycle that shifts slightly from year to year. Tack on ENSO impacts & accelerating concentration growth and any small dip could lead to confirmation bias.

[nanning]

Great explanation wolfpack513

[Sciguy]

NOAA now reports the daily numbers for the Globally Average signal, which shows a lot less volatility than the Mauna Loa numbers.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gl_trend.html

February 25:      411.92 ppm
February 24:      411.92 ppm
February 23:      411.91 ppm
February 22:      411.90 ppm
February 21:      411.89 ppm