CO2 Watch

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 12 Apr 2016, 09:31

The latest data from Mauna Loa are pretty remarkable - the last three days' data points showing an outlier about 5ppm higher than the maximum reached in May 2015. This graph, a close proxy to actual climate physics, shows how successful we are being at mitigating global warming. Not very!

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

Post by **clv101** » 12 Apr 2016, 18:38

Emissions may be stalling - but are sitting at record highs. Simplistically, we'd expect concentrations to continue to rise as fast as they ever have. However...

Increased forest and peatland fires, as well as melting permafrost are increasing natural sources. Warmer sea surface temperatures reduce sink.

Also note El Nino, 1998 also had massive annual increase, plants don't grow as much in El Nino years.

Until the Earth system is in equilibrium with the current CO2 concentration (we're very far from that), I think it's right to say that flat anthropogenic emissions will lead to atmospheric concentrations increasing at increasing rates.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 12 Apr 2016, 19:51

clv101 wrote: Also note El Nino, 1998 also had massive annual increase, plants don't grow as much in El Nino years.

That's what I thought but it doesn't seem to show up around 1998 on the Keeling Curve. Even if the last three days turn out to be an aberrant outlier, this year's curve will show a distinct jump.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 12 Apr 2016, 20:23

Those graphs are deceitful, with a huge offset. Get rid of the offset and the variations wouldn't look so dramatic.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 12 Apr 2016, 20:40

You wouldn't see much if the y-axis started at zero and what we're interested in is the annual change and the change from ~1800 so I think the axes are justifiably chosen. Atmospheric physics determines that these apparently small changes are vital.

Post by **clv101** » 12 Apr 2016, 20:56

woodburner wrote:Those graphs are deceitful, with a huge offset. Get rid of the offset and the variations wouldn't look so dramatic.

Non-zero scales axes are not 'deceitful'!!

Post by **clv101** » 12 Apr 2016, 21:02

biffvernon wrote:
clv101 wrote: Also note El Nino, 1998 also had massive annual increase, plants don't grow as much in El Nino years.
That's what I thought but it doesn't seem to show up around 1998 on the Keeling Curve. Even if the last three days turn out to be an aberrant outlier, this year's curve will show a distinct jump.

You need to look at the airborne fraction graph:

Post by **clv101** » 14 Apr 2016, 22:09

This is a good summary:

Humans and El Niño Team Up to Create a Record Jump in CO2 Pollution
The world may have seen the last of air with CO2 levels below 400 parts per million

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... pollution/

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 14 Apr 2016, 22:44

woodburner wrote:Those graphs are deceitful, with a huge offset. Get rid of the offset and the variations wouldn't look so dramatic.

I don't think you are right. The graphs have the scale on the graphs. Hence it is quite clear what they mean. This is supposed to be a reasonably well studied audience with a few exceptions who don't believe in reading things.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 24 Apr 2016, 21:39

Ralph Keeling has added his thoughts:
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keeli ... ntrations/

And Bob Henson:
https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffM ... ry-408-ppm

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 24 Apr 2016, 23:41

Can you guys sort the pictures out so I don't have to get a magnifying glass to read the words?

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 24 Apr 2016, 23:42

clv101 wrote:
woodburner wrote:Those graphs are deceitful, with a huge offset. Get rid of the offset and the variations wouldn't look so dramatic.
Non-zero scales axes are not 'deceitful'!!

Yes they are when the figures referred to represent 1% or 2% of the total, and there is no confidence level quoted. What is the tolerance on those figures as a %age the total?

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 25 Apr 2016, 07:20

The Mauna Loa CO2 measurements are so accurate that error bars are not appropriate on the graphs displayed. I don't understand what your problem with them is.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 25 Apr 2016, 14:52

Woodburner, The increase might be only a small proportion of the total amount but a small proportion of the total amount is all it takes to increase the warming. In some cases non zero axes might confuse and are used to confuse but in this one they don't and aren't.

BritDownUnder · Post by **BritDownUnder** » 11 May 2016, 21:04

The 400ppm level is about to be passed at a monitoring station in Tasmania. The location is called Cape Grim.

Headline from Sydney Morning Herald.
Global warming milestone about to be passed and there's no going back
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/clima ... z48NZb02BL

Carbon dioxide levels continue to rise in cleanest air in world in north-west Tasmania
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-11/c ... ir/7403474