From the Oh noes, we’re almost doomed department:
For the first time in roughly 5 million years, the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere could top 400 parts per million in the Northern Hemisphere next month.
What Doyle Rice is writing about is this Tweet from Scripps:
399.72 parts per million CO2 in air
April 25, 2013http://t.co/5Q2FLbb4ix— Keeling_Curve (@Keeling_curve) April 26, 2013
Interesting how a single Tweet can become an entire news story, especially since Mauna Loa data still has a ways to go. It’s almost as if Doyle can’t wait for this to happen.
Expect a plethora of gloom and doom stories next month or maybe the month after when MLO hits 400.
Note that the seasonally corrected trend number has a ways to go and Doyle in his article cites the unofficial number, not yet released, and often corrected later:
As of Tuesday, the reading was 398.44 ppm as measured at Mauna Loa.
At Scripps, they are already gearing up for the announcement, trying to visualize what 400 PPM looks like. Apparently, it looks like a fossil skull (see their story below). For the average person, they won’t notice anything, pre 400 CO2 will look exactly to them like post 400 CO2, and just like the Y2K bug, it is nothing more than a number, and nothing will happen when that threshold is crossed. Though, if there is any severe weather anywhere in the world within that month, you can bet some fool (like Joe Romm) will try to link the two events.
From Scripps:
What Does 400 ppm Look Like?

As atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rise, scientists look back four million years for answers on what to expect from climate
The Pliocene is the geologic era between five million and three million years ago. Scientists have come to regard it as the most recent period in history when the atmosphere’s heat-trapping ability was as it is now and thus as our guide for things to come.
Recent estimates suggest CO2 levels reached as much as 415 parts per million (ppm) during the Pliocene. With that came global average temperatures that eventually reached 3 or 4 degrees C (5.4-7.2 degrees F) higher than today’s and as much as 10 degrees C (18 degrees F) warmer at the poles. Sea level ranged between five and 40 meters (16 to 131 feet) higher than today.
As for what life was like then, scientists rely on fossil records to recreate where plants and animals lived and in what quantity. Pliocene fossil records show that the climate was generally warmer and wetter than today. Maps of Pliocene vegetation record forests growing on Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic, and savannas and woodlands spreading over what is now North African desert. Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets were smaller than today during the warmest parts of the Pliocene.
In the oceans, fossils mark the spread of tropical and subtropical marine life northward along the U.S. Eastern Seaboard. Both observations and models of the Pliocene Pacific Ocean show the existence of frequent, intense El Niño cycles—a climatic oscillation that today delivers heavy rainfall to the western U.S. causing both intense flooding but also increasing the river flows needed to sustain salmon runs. The absence of significant ocean upwelling in the warmest part of the Pliocene would have suppressed fisheries along the west coasts of the Americas, and deprived seabirds and marine mammals of food supplies. Reef corals suffered a major extinction during the peak of Pliocene warmth but reefs themselves did not disappear.
Richard Norris, a geologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, said the concentration of CO2 is one means of comparison, but what is not comparable, and more significant, is the speed at which 400 ppm is being surpassed today.
“I think it is likely that all these ecosystem changes could recur, even though the time scales for the Pliocene warmth are different than the present,” Norris said. “The main lagging indicator is likely to be sea level just because it takes a long time to heat the ocean and a long time to melt ice. But our dumping of heat and CO2 into the ocean is like making investments in a pollution ‘bank,’ since we can put heat and CO2 in the ocean, but we will only extract the results (more sea-level rise from thermal expansion and more acidification) over the next several thousand years. And we cannot easily withdraw either the heat or the CO2 from the ocean if we actually get our act together and try to limit our industrial pollution–the ocean keeps what we put in it.”
Scientists can analyze the gases trapped in ice to reconstruct with high accuracy what climate was like in prehistory, but that record only goes back 800,000 years. It is trickier to estimate carbon dioxide levels before then, but in 2009, one research team reported finding evidence of carbon dioxide levels ranging between 365 and 415 ppm roughly 4.5 million years ago. They based their finding on the analysis of carbon isotopes present in compounds made by tiny marine phytoplankton preserved in ancient ocean sediments.
That estimate made Earth’s last experience of 400 ppm a much more recent event than scientists have commonly thought. There has been broader consensus that carbon dioxide concentrations have been much higher than today’s but not for tens of millions of years. The assertion that Earth passed the 400 ppm mark a mere 4.5 million years ago has been supported by other analyses, many of which also concluded that the temperatures at that time were higher than previously estimated. These studies suggest that the traditional way scientists currently rate Earth’s long-term sensitivity to extra doses of CO2 might not sufficiently take into account the slower effects of climate change on the sunlight-absorbing properties of the planet, such as ice sheet melt and changes in plant cover on land.
What that means is that Earth might react even more strongly to the increases in CO2 measured by the Keeling Curve. Several prominent questions remain to be answered, though, before accurate scenarios can be created. The extreme speed at which carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing is unprecedented. An increase of 10 parts per million might have needed 1,000 years or more to come to pass during ancient climate change events. Now the planet is poised to reach the 1,000 ppm level in only 100 years if emissions trajectories remain at their present level.
“Our grandchildren will inhabit a radically altered planet, as the ocean gradually warms up in response to the buildup of heat-trapping gases,” said Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego geoscientist Jeff Severinghaus.
– Robert Monroe

When it comes to runaway temperature rise, that damn CO2 isn’t reading the Scripps!
(Pardon my French and lame attempt at humor, but it IS meant to get people’s attention; besides I’ve always been a scofflaw in cases of runaway idiocy.)
Not so fast-
New paper finds CO2 spiked to levels higher than the present during termination of last ice age
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/03/new-paper-finds-co2-levels-were-higher.html
A new paper published in Quaternary Science Reviews reconstructs CO2 levels during the termination of the last ice age and finds CO2 spiked to levels near or even exceeding those of the present, obviously without any human influence. According to the authors, “The record clearly demonstrates that [CO2 levels were] significantly higher than usually reported for the Last [Glacial] Termination,” with levels of up to ~425 ppm about 12,750 years ago, which exceeds the present CO2 concentration of 395 ppm.
Alejandro says:
April 30, 2013 at 8:10 am
Sunday morning, Oviedo Spain (about 20 km from the north coast) it also snowed. Its has rained every day but 3 since 22 March.
“Reef corals suffered a major extinction during the peak of Pliocene warmth but reefs themselves did not disappear.”
####
GRRRR! The referenced work contains papers that posits the changes in ocean circulation caused by geographic changes such as the closure of the isthmus of Panama as responsible for the faunal changeover. NOT global warming!
johnmarshall says:
April 30, 2013 at 7:39 am
The oceans will only adsorb CO2 up to the limit imposed by temperature not partial pressure, at least not in this case since the partial pressure increase is so very small compared to the overall atmospheric pressure. Temperature is the most important criteria.
Something goes wrong here: the equilibrium between absorption and desorption of CO2 from (sea)water is governed by Henry’s Law: for every temperature there is a fixed ratio between pCO2 in water and in the atmosphere above it at equilibrium. If the pCO2 (~ppmv) in the atmosphere is higher, then CO2 will move from the atmosphere into the water and reverse. The limiting factor in this case is the transfer speed, which mainly depends of wind speed for mixing air and water at the surface and movements in the oceans surface layer.
The pCO2 difference between equatorial waters and the atmosphere is about +350 microatm, while the pCO2 difference near the poles is about -250 microatm. That gives a near continuous flow of CO2 from the warm equatorial upwelling places mainly in the Pacific to the cold sink places mainly of the THC in the NE Atlantic. See further:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/exchange.shtml
and following pages.
They can keep that story handy and repeat it again next spring when we again hit 400.
There’s just one problem with all the fear mongering about atmospheric CO2. CO2 levels continue to rise (mostly from natural sources), but global temperatures have leveled off over the past 17 to 23 years (depending on which data is used) and are now on a slight decline. Where’s the correlation between CO2 and temperature? It isn’t there. Nor is it found in early geologic periods. During the late Ordovician period, for example, CO2 levels were 10 times today’s, and the planet was in the middle of a major glaciation.
We need to cut off research funding to the charlatans who continue to feed off of taxpayer subsidies and are now desperate to prop up the now-collapsing AGW scare story.
ralfellis says:
April 30, 2013 at 7:26 am
” there won’t be any kittens, puppies, or seals, because all the drought and flooding
will cause all the starving refugees to eat them all. Poor little things ;^)
“just like the Y2K bug, it is nothing more than a number, and nothing will happen when that threshold is crossed”
I’d just like to point out that this is not the best analogy, and not exactly true. While it may be true for CO2 that going from 399 to 400 isn’t going to really change anything at all, there were some legitimate issues faced with Y2K, and the reason people didn’t really feel any negative effects when we rolled over to 2000 was due to the efforts of teams of people all over the world updating things and putting procedures in order to prevent any possible glitches. Plenty of things did still go wrong, but nothing major or harmful to my knowledge (for example, a date & time sign displaying that it was January 1 1900).
Really though, the whole thing is a bit silly looking back at it… for a bunch of tech invented and code written in the 80’s and 90’s to not be ready for an event mere years in the future is pretty short-sighted.
The appropriate comparison to climate science and current policies would IMO be this:
With Y2K we knew exactly what was coming, and exactly when it was coming, so we could prepare in advance and take preventive measures.
With climate science and climate change, we have no such knowledge or security. Taking any sort of preventive measure (like abandoning fossil fuel in favor of renewables to lower CO2 output) is not only premature and rash, but could have unforeseen consequences (some have already developed, like fuel poverty in the UK and elsewhere). Also, economic studies have shown that the costs of trying to prevent disaster, rather than adapt and react, are grossly more expensive than simply dealing with whatever changes may come, as they come.
Y2K would be a sudden, instantaneous change, and there was a veritable countdown to catastrophe. Climate change is very slow and gradual – the oceans are not going to boil away when CO2 hits 400 ppm, nor will we see a “Day After Tomorrow” style ice storm with possible upcoming cooling.
I hope anyone not already on the skeptic side of things will find my analogy and argument both persuasive and reasonable. The data to support my claims is all over this site and supporting sites linked on the sidebar.
I think the Pliocene sounds rather nice!
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
I do not intend this thread to be side-tracked onto the carbon cycle but I cannot allow you to mislead johnmarshall.
At April 30, 2013 at 8:28 am you say
That may – or may not – be true. But you build an edifice on the assumption that it is true.
As you say, “The limiting factor in this case is the transfer speed” but that speed may depend on biological activity near the surface: nobody knows if it is or not.
Hence, it is not possible to know if johnmarshall is right or not when he says
But you claim he is wrong because you only consider chemistry to be important and biology to be insignificant. That is an assumption; i.e. your belief.
If you had said to him that he may be wrong then I would have agreed. I think he is right.
But neither you nor me can show he is right or wrong.
Richard
Hockey Schtick says:
April 30, 2013 at 8:24 am
Not so fast-
New paper finds CO2 spiked to levels higher than the present during termination of last ice age
Sorry, but stomata (index) data are not that reliable. By definition stomata data are obtained from land plants, where the stomata index (SI – stomata density divided by total cell density) of a given year is based on the average CO2 levels in the growing season of the previous year. But CO2 over land is highly variable and in average somewhat higher (40-50 ppmv) than background. That is taken into account by calibrating the SI data over the past century with direct measurements and CO2 levels in firn and ice cores. So far no problem.
The main problem is that nobody can tell you what the local/regional bias was 500 or 1,000 or 10,000 years ago, with lots of changes in landscape over the centuries in the main wind direction. Even the main wind direction may have been changed in certain periods like between the MWP and the LIA or between glacials and interglacials.
The main problem of ice cores is the averaging over a long(er) period, depending of the accumulation speed of snow at the origin of the core in the periods of interest. The Epica Dome C as used in the paper seems to have a resolution of ~150 years. That means that any sustained increase of 2 ppmv over 150 years or a 15-year peak of 20 ppmv would be detected. The stomata peak is about 150 ppmv up and down in about 50 years. That surely should show up in the ice core data if real. Because it doesn’t show up, it must be a change in the local/regional CO2 levels where the stomata data were taken…
BTW, Beck’s data suffer from the same problem: local, highly variable CO2 levels taken over land. Moreover, the stomata data over the past century refute the 1942 “peak” in Beck’s compilation, as good as other proxies do.
It’s time for Bill McKibben to think ahead a few years and register 400.org
What an incredible piece of inconsistent nonsense. The associated picture is stupidly irrelevant for a start: are we all going to find saber-toothed cats (smilodons – hat tip to ‘Pull My Finger’) in our yards?
As for the ‘pollution bank’ – what an incredibly useful notion. Nothing happening at the moment; the pollution is going into the bank. Something bad happens; it must be down to a withdrawal from the pollution bank.
I’m wondering from whose a** they pulled this nonsense.
“A new paper published in Quaternary Science Reviews reconstructs CO2 levels during the termination of the last ice age and finds CO2 spiked to levels near or even exceeding those of the present, obviously without any human influence.”
But humans were around at the end of the last ice age. If CO2 spiked to over 400 ppm back then, it had to be because of humans. Everything is the fault of humans and its all bad. Didn’t you people get the memo?
Why are they making a big deal out of co2 readings at an active volcanoe?
“But our dumping of heat and CO2 into the ocean is like making investments in a pollution ‘bank,’ since we can put heat and CO2 in the ocean, but we will only extract the results (more sea-level rise from thermal expansion and more acidification) over the next several thousand years. And we cannot easily withdraw either the heat or the CO2 from the ocean if we actually get our act together and try to limit our industrial pollution–the ocean keeps what we put in it.”
Remarkable. Just when you think they can’t possibly say anything dumber about climate, they do.
“Now the planet is poised to reach the 1,000 ppm level in only 100 years if emissions trajectories remain at their present level.”
Given the ratio (50:1) of CO2 in water to atmosphere we would have to burn all the coal, oil and most of the natural gas in the world to get there. And that ain’t gonna happen in 100 years.
Too late for McKibben? It’s here, today.
http://400.org/
http://400ppm.org/
richardscourtney says:
April 30, 2013 at 8:53 am
but that speed may depend on biological activity near the surface: nobody knows if it is or not.
The local partial pressure of CO2 in seawater depends of temperature, salt content, pH and biological activity, but that doesn’t make a difference for what johnmarshal wrote:
The oceans will only adsorb CO2 up to the limit imposed by temperature not partial pressure
while it is the partial pressure difference which is the driving factor. Without such a difference, there wouldn’t be any net transfer (both ins and outs are equal).
The main point is that temperature gives only a relative small change in pCO2: about 16 microatm/°C. Thus with ~16 ppmv more CO2 in the atmosphere, oceans and atmosphere are again in dynamic equilibrium, if the average ocean temperature surface temperature increases with 1°C, all other things being equal.
But things are not equal: we are currently some 100 ppmv above the temperature dictated equilibrium. Thus there must be a net CO2 flux from the atmosphere into the oceans. That flux depends of the partial pressure differences between the atmosphere and the local ocean surface and wind speed.
johnmarshall says:
April 30, 2013 at 7:39 am
The oceans will only adsorb CO2 up to the limit imposed by temperature not partial pressure, at least not in this case since the partial pressure increase is so very small compared to the overall atmospheric pressure. Temperature is the most important criteria.
Temperature is important but the relationship between pCO2 and pAtm is not relevant. The ratio between [CO2] in the water and pCO2 in the atmosphere is governed by Henry’s Law, at any given temperature an increase in pCO2 will cause an increase in [CO2] until equilibrium is reached. The Henry’s Law coefficient is dependent on T.
Here it is in equation form:
Henry’s law (at constant temperature) is given by:
p=kH*c
where p is the partial pressure of the solute in the gas above the solution, c is the concentration of the solute in solution and kH is a constant with the dimensions of pressure/concentration. The constant, which is known as the Henry’s law constant, depends on the solute, the solvent and the temperature. Note that atmospheric pressure has no effect.
kH for CO2 dissolved in water at 298 K is:
carbon dioxide (CO2) : 29.41 L·atm/mol
The temperature dependance of kH is given by:
kH(T)=kH(298)*(2400(1/T-1/298)) =29.41*(2400(1/T-1/298))
For CO2 in sea water there is the further complication that dissolved CO2 also reacts reversibly with water to form H2CO3 which is in equilibrium with HCO3- which is in turn in equilibrium with CO3–. However, if there’s an increase in pCO2 then [CO2] will change and the other equilibria will adjust to compensate. Ultimately absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere is governed by Henry’s law and is directly proportional to pCO2.
dp says:
Well 400ppm.org is there but I saw 400.org and it’s just a placeholder. Still up for grabs.
http://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/co2_400/mlo_one_month.png
The above graph shows we’ve already passed 400 several times. Nothing happened.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
April 30, 2013 at 7:19 am
“What the researchers have wrong is that they interpretate the historical data in reverse order: the higher temperatures caused the increase of CO2. The reverse may give a little help to a temperature increase, but that effect is obviously not huge…”
Thanks Ferd for reminding us of the glaring mis-representation in ALGore”s Crockumentary.
The correlation he showed between Temps and atmospheric CO2 was a lie.
In fact, CO2 rise lagged temperature rise because as ocean water warms it out-gasses CO2(releases it to the atmosphere).
Warm ocean water can’t hold as much CO2 as cold ocean water.( a fact obscured by charlatan warmistas.)
Gore tried to say the CO2 rise came first, implying causation.
Gore knew he was lying.
Ferdinand Engelbeen:
re the answer to me you provide at April 30, 2013 at 9:28 am. NO!
You said
And I replied
You now say
And you do not address the “transfer speed”.
So, which is most important? The “transfer speed” or the “change in pCO2”?
I don’t see how one can be “the main point” when the other is “the limiting factor”.
Or does it depend on how the wind blows?
Richard