Mauna Loa CO2

[AbruptSLR]

LRC & ASLR

I don't see how anyone can rationally think that the 2C number is even a possibility anymore.  Theoretical perhaps (and maybe not even that) but the reality of human behavior and especially the drive for population growth and economic development are incompatible with the 2C limit.  Since the Paris 'agreement' results in numbers above 3C and that agreement is highly unlikely to be adhered to how can we even contemplate achieving a 2C limit.

Real action will not start until the first Black Swan arrives and stairsteps us down a civilizational notch or two.  Then panic will set in - I hope.

The current El Nino seems to be the perfect black swan event given the damage it is doing already and the damage that is to come. However, as much as I would like to see civilisation taken down a notch to allow for something more sustainable to come about, I just don't think it's possible because of the loss of aerosols from the death of industrial activity which would result in, what I have heard, the temperature rising to 4C, so we can't just parade collapse as though it's a silver bullet that fixes everything as it spawns worse problems.

The best we could probably muster is as ASLR says, to limit CO2 output within the current industrial civilisation.

My point in citing the CoP21 1.5 to 2C targets is not to say that they are achievable (even if they are not achievable they are still targets); but to say that modern society is responsible not only for anthropogenic forcing but also for any uncertainty in feedback mechanisms (like El Nino triggered wildfires, drought etc) and consequences (such as accelerated ice mass loss from the WAIS); as there is no one else to point the finger at (like saying that Mauna Loa's data might be in error so why not wait and see what happens).  There is nothing stopping nations from imposing carbon fee and dividend plans except ignorance, and the sooner that we start taking response action the less devastating the consequence will be; which means that what ever children survive the transition will be in better shape.

So my point is that if we recognize that the ENSO is not just an oscillation, but that it is itself a positive feedback and that it can trigger the acceleration of other positive feedbacks, then we do not need to wait for a big disaster to open our eyes.  If the politicians/policymakers cannot understand this logic, then perhaps when the results of the first phase of the ACME program are available in late 2017, then they can point at its findings as political cover for taking responsible action.

[werther]

Considering the discussion on some very high readings in the Dec 20-21 timeframe. I support ASLR’s view that the current very high SST readings/El Nino may influence the daily data to produce some awkward outliers.
Nevertheless, these do reflect what is possible on the atmospheric greenhouse-content at present conditions. They indicate that the system is entering dangerous feedback circumstances. Mother Nature doesn´t consider whatever is discussed cluelessly at a political Forum whatsoever (COP 21 FI).

[JimD]

....., so we can't just parade collapse as though it's a silver bullet that fixes everything as it spawns worse problems.

The best we could probably muster is as ASLR says, to limit CO2 output within the current industrial civilisation.

Collapse is not the end of the world - it is degrowth.  Civilization does not end - it reverts to a more sustainable model.  BAU (i.e maintaining the current civilization) drives us into the ditch at high speed whereas degrowth gives us a much better chance at preserving the parts of our current civilization which are worth saving.  The sooner we start down that path the better.  So the sooner collapse sets in in earnest the better off we will be.

[AbruptSLR]

The sooner we start down that path the better.  So the sooner collapse sets in in earnest the better off we will be.

I concur that the sooner we started on degrowth of non-sustainable consumption the better; however, I think that there is no need to wait for collapse to get started, as a progressive carbon fee & dividend (revenue neutral carbon tax) can be implemented much sooner that the collapse.

[Pmt111500]

And we crossed the year marker with a significant downfall of CO2 partial pressure at Mauna Loa. The Week beginning on December 27, 2015 had 402.07 ppm of CO2 in the measurements. This is a whole
0.53 ppm less than just a week ago. At this dropping speed the earth will turn into a snow and ice ball in about 7 years. Aargh! The Winter is coming!

However, the current value is about 2,67 ppm higher than that of the last year had during this numerical transition... the weekly value back in 2014-2015 crossover point was 399.40 ppm, this would in turn mean a quadrupling time (from 280 ppm) of a bit under 270 years. That's about the same amount of time that has passed since the Jacobite uprising, so it's not too long back. Even Game of Thrones happened further back in history. (a GoT  marathon aired here just)

[JimD]

The sooner we start down that path the better.  So the sooner collapse sets in in earnest the better off we will be.

I concur that the sooner we started on degrowth of non-sustainable consumption the better; however, I think that there is no need to wait for collapse to get started, as a progressive carbon fee & dividend (revenue neutral carbon tax) can be implemented much sooner that the collapse.

I highly doubt that we will see any working version of a carbon fee and dividend tax implemented until we have formally done away with what is left of democracy and instituted a command economy.  While I think that is certainly the road we are on I don't think we will get to the end of it until we are pretty deep into collapse.  Another generation perhaps...but that is so far past too late that carbon tax plans will not be relevant to the situation then.

I sympathize greatly with many of the views posted here at times.  In a perfect world where rational decisions were made some of them might be useful.  But the reason I get so forceful about these issues is that we have passed the point where any such solutions can work.  And people stick to them because they cannot imagine living without the riches of modern civilization.  So they come up with some version of Green BAU that they argue will let us keep the lifestyles we have now.  But they are just more lies we tell ourselves because we are afraid of the dark.

Any rational look at the numbers and an acceptance of how humans have always behaved will easily get one to the answer at the end of all the figuring.  We cannot get there from here.  Mathematical possibilities can only have a probability of happening within the constraints of the system.  Human behavior is the most significant factor in what we can accomplish and expecting us to be able to do something that we have never been able to do before is just wishing for luck.  And we need to keep in mind when the siren's of green BNAU sing that we have been here before many times and not once did we do the right thing.  Why do people think we are suddenly going to now?  There is no evidence we are about to change our nature that I can see.

The propagandists for greenness will have you believe that incremental change is going to eventually get us there.  But that is impossible since the time has long past where incremental change like carbon taxes could solve the problem - that is an idea that passed its sell date 10 years ago or 20.  Just like electric cars cannot solve the problem nor grid scale solar power.  We needed those implemented back in the 70's - like we started to do and then fell on our face.

I know you see the numbers well and where we are headed.  The changes favored by the green movement are a multidecadal process and if we had dedicated ourselves to them from the 1970's onward we would be sitting in a place where we could have a good chance of managing the situation we are in.  But we cannot run that process now as it is far too late.  We have billions more people now than we did then and we have dramatically reduced the global carrying capacity in the meantime.  We are certain at this point to add as many as 2+ billion more to the population and continue the destruction of the carrying capacity.  Trying to implement multidecadal processes in this situation cannot work and it will not work.  And then you can add the effects of climate change on top of it. 

Back to what you said above "I concur that the sooner we started on degrowth of non-sustainable consumption the better;.."

Almost all consumption is already non-sustainable since we are so far over the carrying capacity.  So we have to get rid of most of it even if we implement green solutions.  Fully green solutions cannot save us because there are far too many billions of us.  Green does not mean free and green does not mean no emissions.  It just means less than black does.  If we were fully green now we would still be screwed as co2 levels would still be rising.  The average African is responsible for emissions of about a tonne.  If we all lived like them that would be 7+ gigatonnes for all of us and heading for 9+.  That is not a solution.  And no one who lives above the African level is going to be willing to live like them.  And of course just about everyone is doing everything they can to increase the affluence of everyone which flies right into the face of the solution.  Degrowth means just that - we have to stop growing and shrink both in numbers and lifestyle.  Very quickly.

Do I think we will change our ways and implement policies which will prevent this catastrophe?  Not a chance.  I do not believe we are not capable of changing our nature.  So what will our nature dictate?  A version of survival of the fittest, the most ruthless and the luckiest....collapse.  Which gets back to my point - the sooner the better.

[Zythryn]

...
Do I think we will change our ways and implement policies which will prevent this catastrophe?  Not a chance.  I do not believe we are not capable of changing our nature.  So what will our nature dictate?  A version of survival of the fittest, the most ruthless and the luckiest....collapse.  Which gets back to my point - the sooner the better.

So why do you promote not using cars or being energy efficient?
Why aren't you a professional denialist?

If you truly believe the sooner, the better, why aren't you working to speed the demise?

I don't think anyone is saying changes in behavior will solve the issue.
What I believe is the sooner we make some changes, the less bad it will get.

I may be biased, as I would certainly be one of the first to die without society. 

[AbruptSLR]

I highly doubt that we will see any working version of a carbon fee and dividend tax implemented until we have formally done away with what is left of democracy and instituted a command economy.  While I think that is certainly the road we are on I don't think we will get to the end of it until we are pretty deep into collapse.  Another generation perhaps...but that is so far past too late that carbon tax plans will not be relevant to the situation then.

I sympathize greatly with many of the views posted here at times.  In a perfect world where rational decisions were made some of them might be useful.  But the reason I get so forceful about these issues is that we have passed the point where any such solutions can work.  And people stick to them because they cannot imagine living without the riches of modern civilization.  So they come up with some version of Green BAU that they argue will let us keep the lifestyles we have now.  But they are just more lies we tell ourselves because we are afraid of the dark.

While this is not the best thread to discuss such things, and as I do not have much time now, I will just say that:

1) A progressive revenue neutral carbon tax (carbon fee & dividend) plan is not Green BAU, and with a sufficiently high progressive tax/fee can lead to de-growth.
2) I appreciate your concern that human nature will not change and that the climate change contribution to the collapse will take many as a Black Swan (conveniently meaning that they are off-the-hook because they cannot be held responsible for what they could not see coming); nevertheless, I believe that with sufficient evidence (like clear ACME projections) that people can/will take more action than they currently are, and that the more action taken, and the sooner that it is taken, the better; because once activated most climate change feedback mechanisms will take hundreds to thousands to tens of thousands of years to return to current levels of activity.

[JimD]

...
Do I think we will change our ways and implement policies which will prevent this catastrophe?  Not a chance.  I do not believe we are not capable of changing our nature.  So what will our nature dictate?  A version of survival of the fittest, the most ruthless and the luckiest....collapse.  Which gets back to my point - the sooner the better.

So why do you promote not using cars or being energy efficient?
Why aren't you a professional denialist?

If you truly believe the sooner, the better, why aren't you working to speed the demise?

I don't think anyone is saying changes in behavior will solve the issue.
What I believe is the sooner we make some changes, the less bad it will get.

I may be biased, as I would certainly be one of the first to die without society.

I don't do the things you say and never have.  I do all those efficiency things myself and have for the last 45 years since I started learning about environmentalism and the problems we had and have.

Your missing the point of what I keep harping about - the typical human response to bad news.  You ignore it or deny it.  The black BAU'ers just deny and move on.  The green BAU'ers lie to themselves that what they are doing will solve this great problem or they say things like this "What I believe is the sooner we make some changes, the less bad it will get." when it is not going to make any meaningful difference on collapse.  We newed to focus on real solutions not BS solutions.

I am not the denier here..it is people like you and all the other black and green BAUers. 

While all the green things that we can maintain post collapse will be useful none of them are sufficient to prevent collapse in any way. 

This situation is not just climate change where we can try and dream up a bunch of technical fixes and then go on about the business of population growth and economic growth and endless consumption.  This is the green BAU dream but reality says otherwise. People need to get their heads out of theirs asses.

Even absent climate change we would be in the process of collapsing.  We are already there.  It is happening in dozens of ways which all interact with each other.  Climate change is not yet a meaningful factor in these early days of collapse.  The collapse which we are now experiencing is caused by our being way over the Earth's carrying capacity.  Vast overpopulation, extremely wasteful consumption, horrible pollution, rapidly rising population, etc are what is currently driving us into collapse.  This is what all the multiple Limit's To Growth studies were talking about starting over 40 years ago.  They were dead right and we are exactly on track with the scenarios they detailed in their studies - we have made no progress at all.  We are heading at a high rate towards disaster.  And climate change has nothing to do with it yet.

But climate change is going to hit us like a ton of bricks in the not to distant future.  Since we are making zero attempts to address the over population and carrying capacity problems and we are making no meaningful changes to address climate change issues there will come a point where these two trends intersect in a violent way.  And that point is not very far away.  Gradual changes, BAU approaches have no prospect of dealing with this situation.  Collapse is certain.  The time for gradual change was 30 years ago and the only way that was going to work was serious population control.  We did not do it and that is no longer an option.

If we want to avoid an unmanaged collapse (or managed degrowth to use a politically correct phrase) the only way to do that is to get a change in human behavior across the entire population which is completely contrary to any kind of behavior we have exhibited before.  Unlikely but it is our only chance.  We have to dramatically reduce population over the next 20 years while simultaneously shutting down the global growth dynamic and instituting meaningful sustainable practices and systems. 

If we do not do that, and I think there is little prospect we will, then we have a catastrophic crash with vast human suffering and population loss.  The reason I argue so forcefully is that I still retain some hope that the BAU folks can get the heads out of their butts and act with some courage. It is like I said to ASLR above.  It is technically possible that we can do this still, but highly improbable.  But I still try.

[TerryM]

Jim
I'm not sure it is "technically possible" to avert "a catastrophic collapse with vast human suffering and population loss". In fact those unfortunate enough to reside in the Mid-East have been experiencing this for some decades.
Climate change may have been responsible for the initial instability in Sudan and Syria, but most of the blame can be placed on one government's belief that so called fossil fuels were running out, and that the only way to assure continued world dominance was to control the sources of this dwindling, finite resource.
Kid gloves were removed to reveal the steel fist, diplomacy and good will were replaced with reckless displays of military might and the fearful acquiescence that ensued. France and Germany were expected to accept the gutting of major industries by foreign court decisions and trade rulings. Russia was driven from the playing field after Ukraine's sponsored coup, Crimea's homecoming, and NATO's inexorably tightening noose.
Europe suffers from both sanctions and counter sanctions as the flood of Syrian refugees is blamed on Putin and Assad rather than the Western armed and Saudi financed ISIS that drives them from their homes. The Saudi's pulled the plug on oil prices to break Russia, just as was done in the 80's to destroy USSR, however this time around Canadian tar sands, American frackers and South American oil producers are feeling the brunt of the pain.
Russia's unexpected military prowess and financial resilience are causing problems, but no one can long stand against The West.
The sad thing is that oil and gas are of abiotic origin, and as such are about 2 orders of magnitude more prevalent than TPTB believed when they began their quest for energy domination. Oil isn't running out and natural gas is so abundant that it's hardly worth the cost of transportation. Millions dead, tens of millions driven from their homes, all to secure access to forms of energy that are increasingly a glut on world markets.
Solar,wind, batteries and a decent distribution grid. If a tiny percentage of what is spent on armament was diverted to these, everyone would have their energy needs met, everyone would live in a cleaner, safer,world, and oil producing regions wouldn't fear bombing, assassinations and coups financed from across the globe.
Climate change is and will be an enormous, growing problem, but if we eliminated the military adventurism of those attempting to monopolise energy production, perhaps we could then work to mitigate the damage already done and end our continuing assault on Gaia.

[magnamentis]

Many agree that overpopulation is at least part of if not the problem. hence why is it considered bad per se if nature will use self-corrective mechanisms.

Just look what happens if a deer population becomes larger and larger due to good conditions until they eat away all their resources within reach. the population will be reduced to a level that nature (environment) can bear. i mean that's bad for the individual deer but it's not bad per se, it's even necessary and in the interest of survival of the kind even necessary. this sounds perhaps fatalistic to some but think, can we deal with 10 billion or 20 billion people, i think not, hence the correction is inevitable and it will always hurt some for the benefit of the whole.

[DrTskoul]

Recent Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2


December 2015:     401.85 ppm
December 2014:     398.85 ppm

[AbruptSLR]

Climate change may have been responsible for the initial instability in Sudan and Syria, but most of the blame can be placed on one government's belief that so called fossil fuels were running out, and that the only way to assure continued world dominance was to control the sources of this dwindling, finite resource.

The situation in Sudan and Ethiopia is deteriorating quickly, and while the death of Sub-Saharan African's may be something the world is willing to looking away from; when such food shortages expand to other regions, states will fail and chaos will be exported around the world:

http://www.latimes.com/world/africa/la-fg-south-sudan-starvation-20160105-story.html

Extract: "People are starving in East Africa -- again -- as the world looks away.
Humanitarian groups are growing increasingly concerned about two hunger emergencies unfolding in East Africa -- one caused by drought, the other by war.
Millions of people in Ethiopia and South Sudan are short on food, international agencies say, and in South Sudan, conflict has made it difficult for outside groups to help.
Ethiopia’s emergency unfolded swiftly, as the worst drought in around 60 years saw successive crop failures. Between August and October, the number of people in need of help doubled, and numbers have continued to rise sharply since, with the drought exacerbated by El Niño.
Now, 10.2 million Ethiopians are in critical need of food aid. International agencies are trying desperately to raise funds to prevent the food emergency from deteriorating into a full-fledged famine, but so far they say they have raised only a small portion of the cash they need to offer help.
…
For technical reasons, however, it hasn't formally been declared a famine, in part because humanitarian workers haven't been able to get to some of the worst-hit areas to count how many people are dying."

[Shared Humanity]

Many agree that overpopulation is at least part of if not the problem. hence why is it considered bad per se if nature will use self-corrective mechanisms.

Just look what happens if a deer population becomes larger and larger due to good conditions until they eat away all their resources within reach. the population will be reduced to a level that nature (environment) can bear. i mean that's bad for the individual deer but it's not bad per se, it's even necessary and in the interest of survival of the kind even necessary. this sounds perhaps fatalistic to some but think, can we deal with 10 billion or 20 billion people, i think not, hence the correction is inevitable and it will always hurt some for the benefit of the whole.

Your posts on various threads are growing tiresome. There are threads in the Consequences section that this post would be useful. This thread is about CO2 levels.

(Oooops. Sorry to have singled you out. It would appear we are all off topic.)

[Shared Humanity]

And we crossed the year marker with a significant downfall of CO2 partial pressure at Mauna Loa. The Week beginning on December 27, 2015 had 402.07 ppm of CO2 in the measurements. This is a whole
0.53 ppm less than just a week ago. At this dropping speed the earth will turn into a snow and ice ball in about 7 years. Aargh! The Winter is coming!

However, the current value is about 2,67 ppm higher than that of the last year had during this numerical transition... the weekly value back in 2014-2015 crossover point was 399.40 ppm, this would in turn mean a quadrupling time (from 280 ppm) of a bit under 270 years. That's about the same amount of time that has passed since the Jacobite uprising, so it's not too long back. Even Game of Thrones happened further back in history. (a GoT  marathon aired here just)

These are the kinds of comments I look for when I come to  this thread.

[DrTskoul]

And we crossed the year marker with a significant downfall of CO2 partial pressure at Mauna Loa. The Week beginning on December 27, 2015 had 402.07 ppm of CO2 in the measurements. This is a whole
0.53 ppm less than just a week ago. At this dropping speed the earth will turn into a snow and ice ball in about 7 years. Aargh! The Winter is coming!

However, the current value is about 2,67 ppm higher than that of the last year had during this numerical transition... the weekly value back in 2014-2015 crossover point was 399.40 ppm, this would in turn mean a quadrupling time (from 280 ppm) of a bit under 270 years. That's about the same amount of time that has passed since the Jacobite uprising, so it's not too long back. Even Game of Thrones happened further back in history. (a GoT  marathon aired here just)

These are the kinds of comments I look for when I come to  this thread.

According to the Starks Winter IS coming....

[crandles]

For week commencing 3 Jan 402.1, 2.23 above last year. A good bit less than the 3.62 rise two weeks ago.

I haven't seen any of GoT but am reading. Not really got a handle on their up to decades long seasons but have annual calendar. A more variable sun with normal annual cycle? (Not sure if there is an explanation somewhere or if you are supposed to speculate on scientific explanation.)

[DrTskoul]

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_one_week.png

Daily average above 404

[werther]

I think 404.81 could be the highest daily reading since the beginning of the readings at Mauna Loa. It's a pity that ESRL has stopped publishing the daily readings on it's page. Remains the Keeling Curve to 'enjoy' the daily dose of excitement.

[pikaia]

It's a pity that ESRL has stopped publishing the daily readings on it's page. Remains the Keeling Curve to 'enjoy' the daily dose of excitement.

Daily readings are now published under the "Last Month" tab.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/monthly.html

[Shared Humanity]

It's a pity that ESRL has stopped publishing the daily readings on it's page. Remains the Keeling Curve to 'enjoy' the daily dose of excitement.

Daily readings are now published under the "Last Month" tab.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/monthly.html

That graph is pretty disturbing. Washington needs to cut NOAA's budget so we don't have to see  such things.

[Pmt111500]

Last Week, January 17 - 23, 2016, had  402.56 ppm of CO₂ in the atmosphere at Mauna Loa observatory. This is 3.08 ppm more than Last Year, when the week of January 17 - 23, 2015 had 399.48 ppm of CO₂ in the atmosphere at Mauna Loa observatory, and 21,09 ppm more than 10 Years Ago, when the week of January 17 - 23, 2006 had 381.47 ppm of CO₂ in the atmosphere at Mauna Loa observatory.

No, the above text was not generated automatically.

[Pmt111500]

Mauna Loa record of atmospheric CO2 was 403,11 ppm for the week of 24-30.January, 2016. This was 3.08 ppm more than last year and 21.49 more than the same weeks had last year and ten years ago, 24-30 January 2015 and 24-30 January 2006, when the Mauna Loa record of atmospheric CO2 were 400.03 ppm and 381.62 ppm , respectively.

No, this message was not generated automatically.

[AbruptSLR]

The linked article & the attached plot shows that yesterday (Feb 4 2016) the daily Mauna Loa atmospheric CO₂ concentration rose to 405.66 ppm.  Which is a level not seen in 15 million years:

http://robertscribbler.com/2016/02/05/co2-rockets-to-405-6-ppm-a-level-not-seen-in-15-million-years/

Extract: "Atmospheric CO2 Rocketed to 405.6 ppm Yesterday — A Level not Seen in 15 Million Years
As CO2 levels hit a new record global high of 405.66 ppm yesterday…"

[Steven]

The linked article & the attached plot shows that yesterday (Feb 4 2016) the daily Mauna Loa atmospheric CO₂ concentration rose to 405.66 ppm.  Which is a level not seen in 15 million years:

http://robertscribbler.com/2016/02/05/co2-rockets-to-405-6-ppm-a-level-not-seen-in-15-million-years/

I'm not sure if that "not seen in 15 million years" statement is completely true.  See e.g. the following recent paper:

Stap et al. (2016),  "CO₂ over the past 5 million years: Continuous simulation and new δ¹¹B-based proxy data"

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X16000388

(full text here)

[AbruptSLR]

I'm not sure if that "not seen in 15 million years" statement is completely true.  See e.g. the following recent paper:

It is possible/probable that "not seen in 15 million years" may not be completely true as stated by Robert Scribbler; on the other hand I guesstimate that currently CO2e is around 490ppm, which might make Scribbler's statement to being closer to the truth for practical (rather than theoretical) purposes.

[Pmt111500]

Still solidly in pliocene range. At this speed of the rise we'll leave the pliocene range shortly, in about 10 years. More rapidly if there's an incrased response due natural carbon cycle. Then we'll be solidly in miocene range. The spring top value is of some interest. The spring 2017 more so. How will the vegetation that is more evolved to neutral enso conditions respond to the changes in weather attributes by the El Nino. Scribbler is imho a bit prone to highlighting this kind of records. I kind of like that. Why should the deniers be the only ones to cherrypick? He's also usually careful enough not to overstate his case, something the deniers are not. On the cited article he may have slightly overstepped the limit of science, but still the numbers may be found on the literature, and he maybe has not been aware of the slight discrepancy between boron and other proxy records.

[Laurent]

Depends what kind of data your looking at and if your are talking of the max or the mean. If I check the only one I have in store, the mean says 400 ppm at around 16 million years and that is not even equivalent to the trend we are in. If I do take into account the trend (meaning we are on our way for 800 ppm at the end of the century) it is more 24 million years. But we are taking the history in reverse witch is not the way the time is moving, meaning the closer equivalent to our present day is near the last extinction 54 million years ago.

[Pmt111500]

Depends what kind of data your looking at and if your are talking of the max or the mean. If I check the only one I have in store, the mean says 400 ppm at around 16 million years and that is not even equivalent to the trend we are in. If I do take into account the trend (meaning we are on our way for 800 ppm at the end of the century) it is more 24 million years.

Yea, a daily value at Mauna Loa Miocene doesn't make, I don't remember how long a time period is one data point on that image during Miocene, but I'm pretty sure it isn't a daily one.

[Laurent]

Yes, sure the point is longer than the  day, my point is CO2 is not alone with it comes the temperature and the sea level. I am pretty sure the data I have of temps and sea levels are related to CO2 mean not CO2 max. That mean if we want to compare the CO2 max, we need very precise measurement of temps and sea levels that I do not have. For example there is a spike around 16 million years ago, that would be interesting to see the details of what happened at that moment, since we will either follow the PETM path or this one, a short moment toward the "hell".

[Pmt111500]

For example there is a spike around 16 million years ago, that would be interesting to see the details of what happened at that moment, since we will either follow the PETM path or this one, a short moment toward the "hell".

Pretty good point, PETM though cannot be a perfect analogy to our situation, since it happened on an already hothouse climate. But ok, humans likely have the means to bypass the cooling effect of slowly melting EAIS, and reproduce whatever PETM was about even with glaciers still on board...

[werther]

So you miss just the three latest Mauna Loa measurements for mostly personal reasons…  And getting back to business you find a very different playfield. A 4.3 ppm difference with the past year for a weeks’ median seems to me quite uncomfortably out of order.
Meanwhile, NCEP/NCAR anomalies remain at the upper limits of what can be expected about Arctic Amplification. Seems like 2016 will present some intriguing evidence…

[Pmt111500]

Indeed, Werther. The atmospheric portion of CO2 measured at Mauna Loa observatory for the week of Jan 31 - Feb 6, 2016 was 404,55 ppm. This was 4,35 ppm more than that the last year had, on the same calendar dates, and 22,83 ppm more than that of the same calendar dates 10 years ago.

[crandles]

February 08:     406.27 ppm

The jump from 402-403 up to 405.5 to 406 seemed rather sudden but there are now 4 such high values. Could drop down again but this seems less and less likely as we accumulate more such 406 level measurements.

Looking to Jan 1998:
1998   1   4  1998.0096    365.26  7           362.91   
  1998   1  11  1998.0288    365.19  7           362.85
  1998   1  18  1998.0479    365.04  7           363.41
  1998   1  25  1998.0671    365.24  6           363.16
  1998   2   1  1998.0863    365.83  7           363.42
  1998   2   8  1998.1055    365.52  7           364.24
  1998   2  15  1998.1247    365.71  7           363.75

The one year differences were from under 2 up to 2.4 more than the previous year. So it doesn't look like the current big one year rises should be considered normal for this stage in a strong El Nino.

[Shared Humanity]

Hansen has argued that atmospheric CO2 levels above 350 will lead to disastrous effects. Given his 30 plus year track record of being far more accurate than others, including the bulk of the scientific community, I have a couple of disturbing question.

First, let's assume we all wake up from our delusional dream and recognize that CO2 emissions must cease as quickly as possible. Collectively, we eliminate all CO2 emissions by 2050. (I know...a ridiculous assumption.)

1. What methods would/could we employ to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere in order to get to 350?

2. Assuming we have methods, how long would this take?

[Tor Bejnar]

When you write "eliminate all CO2 emissions by 2050", I hope you mean something like "eliminate all fossil fuel sourced CO2 emissions by 2050".  Getting rid of all of us CO₂ exhaling creatures might slow down, then reverse climate change, but I'd sure miss the excitement!

[crandles]

It is difficult to see at this time how a market for carbon nanofibres could develop to these levels. One exception might be if the price of nanofibres became so low we could start using it to cost-effectively strengthen building materials.

https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/nr/climate-change-co2-1.497945

[Shared Humanity]

When you write "eliminate all CO2 emissions by 2050", I hope you mean something like "eliminate all fossil fuel sourced CO2 emissions by 2050".  Getting rid of all of us CO₂ exhaling creatures might slow down, then reverse climate change, but I'd sure miss the excitement!

 

[Richard Rathbone]

1. What methods would/could we employ to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere in order to get to 350?

2. Assuming we have methods, how long would this take?

1. Wait.
2. 400 years.

Deep ocean turnover is on the order of 1000 years so there's plenty of space down there still unaffected by industrial era CO2 and available to soak it up.

1. Slash and char.
2. 100 years

Turning vegetation into char and burying it. The atmosphere has annual swings of the order of a few ppm from vegetation growth and decay. Taking vegetation that would have decayed and turning it into char to be buried should be able to knock 0.5 ppm off the increase part of the annual cycle. (except that the char is valuable biofuel and not burning it may be too much to ask)

1. Industrial CCS processes
2. As fast as you are prepared to pay for. Seeing as CCS from fossil power generation is actually rather cheaper than from the general atmosphere, and no one is prepared to pay for it (the only commercial CCS is from Norwegian gas wells) this is likely the slowest option.

[crandles]

1. Wait.
2. 400 years.

Deep ocean turnover is on the order of 1000 years so there's plenty of space down there still unaffected by industrial era CO2 and available to soak it up.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/how-long-will-global-warming-last/

When you release a slug of new CO2 into the atmosphere, dissolution in the ocean gets rid of about three quarters of it, more or less, depending on how much is released. The rest has to await neutralization by reaction with CaCO3 or igneous rocks on land and in the ocean [2-6]. These rock reactions also restore the pH of the ocean from the CO2 acid spike. My model indicates that about 7% of carbon released today will still be in the atmosphere in 100,000 years

280 to 350 is a 70ppm increase. Today CO2 is at 406 which is a 126 ppm increase but the ocean and land have already absorbed ~ half of it so more like 250ppm* released. Thus if we emit very little before stopping completely oceans and atmosphere may absorb 75% and return levels to 350ppm without having to wait for 100,000 year long processes.

So maybe 400 to 1000 years may be long enough. However if we emit much more before ceasing then the wait period becomes much longer.

(* not sure about that 250ppm released figure maybe it is already higher than 280ppm?)

[AbruptSLR]

The linked reference (with a free access pdf) reviews different Negative Emission Technologies, NETs, and concluded that until 2050 afforestation is our best geoengineering option (see attached image of NET costs & readiness), but that all NET options will be insufficient to increase our carbon budget significantly; and that control of GHG emissions is the most important step in fighting climate change:

http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/research-programmes/stranded-assets/Stranded%20Carbon%20Assets%20and%20NETs%20-%2006.02.15.pdf

Edit: Extract: "... characterising possible NET deployment scenarios up to 2050 and 2100 based
on the latest literature on technical potentials and limiting constraints on NET deployment. We find that between now and 2050, there may be the technical potential to attain negative emissions of the order of 120 GtCO2 cumulatively (~15 ppm reduction), with the vast majority of this potential coming from afforestation, soil carbon improvements, and some biochar deployed in the near term.

This potential represents an extension of the 2050 carbon budget by 11-13% for a 50-80% probability of meeting a 2-degree warming target. More industrial technologies (DAC, Ocean Liming, and BECCS) that rely on CCS are likely to have very limited potential by 2050, largely due to limits imposed by CCS development and more significant technical and policy challenges."

See also:
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,363.0.html

[DoomInTheUK]

...

1. What methods would/could we employ to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere in order to get to 350?

2. Assuming we have methods, how long would this take?

1. There's no scalable process currently to extract CO2 from the atmosphere. CCS works on the higher concentrations found in industrial process emissions, and requires quite a lot of power to operate. That power will itself have a CO2 footprint. Phrases about genies and bottles spring to mind.

2. A lot more time than we have.

All we can do realistically is to try to stop making it any worse and start preparing for change. This is one problem we can't produce some pixie dust to cure. Re-icing the Arctic would be easier in comparison.

[Richard Rathbone]

1. Wait.
2. 400 years.

Deep ocean turnover is on the order of 1000 years so there's plenty of space down there still unaffected by industrial era CO2 and available to soak it up.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/how-long-will-global-warming-last/

When you release a slug of new CO2 into the atmosphere, dissolution in the ocean gets rid of about three quarters of it, more or less, depending on how much is released. The rest has to await neutralization by reaction with CaCO3 or igneous rocks on land and in the ocean [2-6]. These rock reactions also restore the pH of the ocean from the CO2 acid spike. My model indicates that about 7% of carbon released today will still be in the atmosphere in 100,000 years

280 to 350 is a 70ppm increase. Today CO2 is at 406 which is a 126 ppm increase but the ocean and land have already absorbed ~ half of it so more like 250ppm* released. Thus if we emit very little before stopping completely oceans and atmosphere may absorb 75% and return levels to 350ppm without having to wait for 100,000 year long processes.

So maybe 400 to 1000 years may be long enough. However if we emit much more before ceasing then the wait period becomes much longer.

(* not sure about that 250ppm released figure maybe it is already higher than 280ppm?)

CO2 partitions fast into the top layers of the ocean, but slowly into the deep ocean. The wait period will go up, but it won't go up massively until the excess over 350ppm in the atmosphere/top ocean becomes of a similar magnitude to the capacity of the deep ocean to equilibrate with a 350ppm atmosphere. At that point the wait time does shoot up by a factor of 10 or so as equilibration with carbonates starts to become required.

I think Archer's 75% is based off atmosphere not emissions, i.e. its already taken into account the immediate fast partition and you need to use it on 126, not 250/280ppm. Its not completely clear in his paper http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/97GL00168/epdf and I'd need to see the internal workings of his model to be sure but thats the way I read it and the way that the magnitudes make sense to me. 75% seems far too small if it has to account for the fast 50% within it.

[crandles]

I think Archer's 75% is based off atmosphere not emissions

Ok Thank you. My misunderstanding.

[Pmt111500]

And the week of 7th-13th of February, 2016 in the years of our Lord and savior, the Mauna Loa station of atmospheric observations measured the CO2 content of the local atmosphere be 3,71 ppm higher than last year. The exact amount on this year was 403,76 ppm, and last year 400,05 ppm. They are both a whole lot above the measurement made 10 or 9 years ago, and as is customary for the people, praise the Lord, I'll report the difference between the measurements 10 years apart, from 2006 to 2016, or the other way, and that is 21,33 ppm, for the number 10 years ago in the CO2 measuring apparatus was threehundred and eightytwo point fortythree! Praise the arabs for the numbers!

The above message was not produced automatically.

[Pmt111500]

The spring push of numbers towards the yearly top value, due ground microbes activating as the soil starts to warm up hasn't yet started properly at least here. Let's see how early the peak is this temporary 'new normal' year.

[Pmt111500]

Last Week, that is February 14 - 20, 2016, the Mauna Loa substation of Global atmospheric carbon measurement system reported the value of atmospheric carbon dioxide near the ground level to be 403.61 ppm. This is 3,79 ppm more than in the measurement made 1 Year Ago in 2015, when the value of atmospheric carbon dioxide near the ground level was 399.82 ppm. Further, the value of this year (2016) is 21.25 ppm higher than in the measurement made 10 Years Ago, that is February 14 - 20, 2006 , when the value of atmospheric carbon dioxide near the ground level at the Mauna Loa substation of Global atmospheric carbon measurement system was 382.36 ppm. This ends this sporadical report of the development of weekly averages of atmospheric carbon dioxide near the ground level at the Mauna Loa substation of Global atmospheric carbon measurement system today 2016.02.22 (time undisclosed)

And yes, I used copy/paste on that.

[silkman]

Keeling Curve kicks on up.......

[Adam Ash]

CCS is never going to help.  IIRC every kg of fuel burned creates about 2.5 kg of CO2.  So to have any effect at all on anthropogenic climate change we would have to create a CO2 transport and disposal system with somewhere between 100% to 250% capacity of the present fuel transport system, and find somewhere at the end of the pipe to hide the output of the capture system.

It has taken us 150 years to establish the present coal and oil networks, so while maintaining that network we would need to find the money and resources to create a duplicate system to get rid of the CO2.  The overall energy balance and emissions involved in that effort will never get across the starting line, let alone get the necessary budget allocations.

If we really want to halt atmospheric CO2 increase our options are pretty limited, and unattractive.  And these options do not include persistence of the 'Western Way of Life' or anything remotely resembling it.

[Tor Bejnar]

I'm curious why the hourly averages on Feb. 18 nearly all soar above the daily average on the 18th.  Other dates on the graph (2 posts above, and reproduced below) have daily averages 'looking like' averages.

(Maybe it's just because I'm home sick )