USA Today's breathless CO2 announcement – not quite there yet

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.

Full story at USA Today.

What Doyle Rice is writing about is this Tweet from Scripps:

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.

MLO_Data_head MLO_CO2_3-2013

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?

April 25, 2013

Richard Norris holds a cast of a Pliocene-era walrus skull found in San Diego, Calif.

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

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
230 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 30, 2013 2:15 pm

What that means is that Earth might react even more strongly to the increases in CO2 measured by the Keeling Curve. ……..Now the planet is poised to reach the 1,000 ppm level in only 100 years if emissions trajectories remain at their present level.
In the last 16 or 17 years when temperatures have flattened on several data sets, the rise in CO2 is no longer accelerating. So the “Keeling Curve” is no longer a “Curve”. See the slopes below. They are virtually identical over the last 17 years as over the last 9 years.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:2004/trend
In addition, the slopes are just under 2 ppm/year. At that rate, if it stays that way, it will take about 300 years to go from 400 ppm to 1000 ppm.

DirkH
April 30, 2013 2:18 pm

JP says:
April 30, 2013 at 1:02 pm
“And we should also be cognizant of the fact that the global population is aging; it’s rate of increases is decreasing; and that as a conseuence, the consumption of food, energy, and consumer goods will begin to steadily decrease.”
Why? Even when the number of humans plateaus or starts to decline slightly I would expect resource consumption per capita to go up, as automation makes products ever cheaper. I know the Malthusians must hate this and will do their very best to stop us from having it, but they control only the broke nations of the West.

April 30, 2013 2:19 pm

Science fantasy at its best.

April 30, 2013 2:21 pm

I’m pretty sure that’s a walrus skull rather than a smilodon.

April 30, 2013 2:30 pm

I was very afraid and constipated when it reached the perilous 350ppm and found myself loosing bowel control. Now it is about to hit 400ppm I am no longer afraid as I have flushed my bowels and have no **** left. Despite this and profuse flushing/use of Fabreze all I can smell is….
/sarc

Janice Moore
April 30, 2013 2:42 pm

One note of hope: “… that damn CO2 isn’t reading the Scripps!” [Rocky Road @0819]
And 97% of voters will not be reading that article or any “scientific” articles. They’ll read about basketball players and Hollywood and the like. The school teachers and other water carriers for the Cult of Climatology may use it, but, they have already reached (and often exceeded) their audience’s max brainwashing saturation point.
Thus, net effect of article: ZERO.
No, we are not there, yet. But, the tide has turned. It is only a matter of time until the S.S. AGW will be lying high and dry, a barnacle-encrusted relic. Flying from her mast will be a tattered and faded pennant that reads: “Sc==ps”.
In the meantime, continue to engage the enemy with all the devastating artillery so masterfully argued by all you TRUE SCIENTISTS above, and try not too pay too much attention to the propaganda piling up; baloney isn’t a sturdy barricade. Baghdad Bob can holler “We are weeeening!” as many times as he likes, but the truth is marching on. You wonderful scientist-warriors have the enemies of truth on the defensive. VICTORY IS ASSURED (in the AGW Battle).
GO WUWT Team!
Child to parent as they walk up the beach: “I wonder what “S – c – something -something – p – s” meant.”
Parent: Dunno. “Scamps”?

April 30, 2013 2:59 pm

richardscourtney says:
April 30, 2013 at 9:51 am
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?

It starts with the pCO2 difference between the atmosphere and the oceans. If both are equal, then there is no force to push more CO2 either side, no matter how windy it is. pCO2 in air is simply the CO2 level corrected for water vapor presence. pCO2 in water is temperature, salinity, pH and total carbon dependent and the latter is influenced by biolife.
If there is a (huge) pCO2 difference, like at the equator and near the poles, wind is the dominant factor, as diffusion is very slow for CO2 transfer from the surface to the rest of the “mixed layer”, that is the upper few hundred meters of the oceans. That layer is mixed by wind, waves and convection.
Thus it is a mix of pCO2 difference and wind speed which dominates the transfer of CO2 in/out the oceans, hardly influenced by changes in global temperature, which plays a minor role. Which was the reason I reacted on johnmarshall.
Further:
A change of average pH of only 0.1 would be more than sufficient to have caused more than all of the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution. And such a change is far, far too small for it to be discernible.
Agreed, but there is a simple way to know which way out it is: If you add a strong(er) acid to a (bi)carbonate solution, CO2 is set free, but that is at the cost of the total quantity of carbon in the solution. That is measurable as DIC (dissolved inorganic carbon, that is CO2 + bicarbonate + carbonate) in seawater. A few million samples taken by regular ship surveys + a few continuous sampling series at Bermuda and Hawaii all show that DIC is increasing everywhere in all oceans. Thus the CO2 flux is from the atmosphere into the oceans not reverse.

April 30, 2013 3:12 pm

Ferdinand,
Thank you for that explanation. My follow-up question: do you think there is a problem due to the recent rise in CO2? Please keep in mind that CO2 has been up to twenty times higher in the geologic past — during times when the biosphere teemed with life and diversity.

Hot under the collar
April 30, 2013 3:15 pm

Just as well Hansen and Mann were around during the Pliocene age to stop all the humans burning fossil fuels otherwise we may have been toast!

April 30, 2013 3:17 pm

Around here, CO2 hits =>425ppm every day. When the sun goes down.
I know what 400ppm looks like.
Flora growing faster than I can keep up with.
Mowers needing attention. Back-ache.
And this year, the ‘wet’ season has been a bit drier than usual …

Jimbo
April 30, 2013 3:19 pm

Werner Brozek says:
April 30, 2013 at 2:15 pm
……………….
In addition, the slopes are just under 2 ppm/year. At that rate, if it stays that way, it will take about 300 years to go from 400 ppm to 1000 ppm.

1,000 years might be too near. I am no peak oiler but reserves might be very low in 500 years time. Apart from that fertility rates are falling…..fast. Finally, I very much doubt we will be using much in the way of fossil fuels at the end of this century. Co2 this century will not be a problem. Just my 2¢.

Tom J
April 30, 2013 3:24 pm

‘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).’
Um, is there some sort of ‘scientist competition?’ Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not talking about, or even considering, a competition regarding professional achievement. In the deadly carbon, catastrophe, science, whatever department a competition regarding professional achievement would be…How do I put this?…really, rather…ok, my stomach’s starting to hurt.
No, I’m talking about a scientist competition for, say, the scientist you’d most like to spend the rest of your life with. Or, maybe, the scientist you think would be the best husband material. Or, better yet, the scientist you’d most like to father your children.
I mean, look at that guy in the picture. He’d leave the competitors hoping to even get close to last place. I mean, is he photogenic or what? And look at that perfect science fashion sense; the oh so subtle, virtually disappearing (but a scientist’s gotta have em), frameless glasses; the obligatory, but oh so well trimmed, beard; the rolled up sleeves; and, most of all, that absolutely killer, Indiana Jones style expedition hat. He’s got it down! Now, look at the way he holds that scientificky looking double Sabre Toothed Plasticosaurus. You’d think it was his own damn child. The loving, thoughtful gaze. The proper tooth support hold. The tenderness. And, if that’s not enough, look at that meticulous laboratory; the friendly, inviting, wood framed wall cabinets; the obligatory homey photo on the wall. Geez, there’s even flowers for chrissake! Is this guy long term mate material or what? Damn, he’s got his moves down.
I mean, there’s gotta be some sorta scientist as husband material contest going on here because I cannot see any other purpose for such a staged, vapid picture.

Jimbo
April 30, 2013 3:26 pm

By the way after 11 years of stagnant temps they have started to fall in the last 4 years. That 400ppm is doing wonders for global warming. Imagine the red faces if we go into continued cooling? How dumb will the Scripps authors look like? Time will tell I suppose.
http://notrickszone.com/2013/04/26/joe-bastardi-on-global-temperature-the-fall-is-very-very-plain-to-see-youll-see-this-trend-continue/

April 30, 2013 3:30 pm

Gosh. It used to be 300ppm, now it’s 400ppm. So 1 in 10,000 parts of our atmosphere changed form something? to CO2. All the while, H20 vapor, the dominant greenhouse gas, is about 20,000 ppm averaged around the globe.

richardscourtney
April 30, 2013 3:46 pm

Ferdinand Engelbeen:
Thanks for your post at April 30, 2013 at 2:59 pm.
That is a good answer.
Unfortunately, or fortunately (depending on one’s view), and as usual, we disagree.
There are two issues; viz. the pCO2 issue and the pH issue.
I address each in turn.
I return to my point which I first made and you have not mentioned. You are considering only the equilibrium dissolution rate of CO2 in the water. As I said, that ignores effects of biota in the ocean surface layer. And nobody knows how that affects the exchange rate across the surface layer. Make an assumption as one wants and one gets the result one wants. You are assuming the biota have no affect. I am assuming nothing and so I say I don’t know because nobody can know in the absence of information.
So, I repeat what I said in my first comment on this matter

Hence, it is not possible to know if johnmarshall is right or not when he says

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.

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.

Then there is the matter of the effect of possibly varying pH of the ocean surface layer resulting from additional sulphur ions.
You say

A few million samples taken by regular ship surveys + a few continuous sampling series at Bermuda and Hawaii all show that DIC is increasing everywhere in all oceans. Thus the CO2 flux is from the atmosphere into the oceans not reverse.

Again, you assume what is not known can be ignored.
Let us assume the wholly inadequate sampling of the ocean surface layer is correctly indicating that dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) is increasing in the ocean surface layer. Then that indicates the layer is net acquiring DIC. But that does NOT indicate “the CO2 flux is from the atmosphere into the oceans not reverse”.
The CO2 flux is either in or out of the oceans depending on the time of year. The net flux between the two over a year probably is into the ocean, but so what? If the equilibrium is being set by the changing pH then the annual net flux would be into the ocean because the anthropogenic CO2 is added to the atmosphere. But, importantly,
the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration would be THE SAME whether or not the anthropogenic emission existed because that concentration is set by the changed equilibrium between the atmosphere and ocean CO2 concentrations which results from the altered pH.
Almost all the CO2 is in the ocean.
In other words, you cite dubious DIC data, but if that data does indicate an increase in DIC in the ocean surface layer then that does NOT reject the possibility of altered ocean surface layer pH having caused the change to atmospheric CO2.
Please note that I am not saying the altered pH is the cause of the rise to atmospheric CO2 concentration. I am saying it is an example of a possible natural reason for the rise.
I do not know if the rise is anthropogenic or natural in part or in whole. And anyone who thinks they know is mistaken.
Richard

Latitude
April 30, 2013 3:47 pm

who cares?…..
I hope everyone realizes how small 400 ppm is….
…and realizes how it got that low in the first place

April 30, 2013 3:54 pm

dbstealey says:
April 30, 2013 at 3:12 pm
Ferdinand,
Thank you for that explanation. My follow-up question: do you think there is a problem due to the recent rise in CO2? Please keep in mind that CO2 has been up to twenty times higher in the geologic past — during times when the biosphere teemed with life and diversity.

Certainly not in the foreseeable future. If the sensitivity for 2xCO2 is low, as it seems more and more to be, then up to a CO2 doubling, most effects would be beneficial for plant growth in general, and more areas set free for agriculture. Beyond that is an open question, as that depends on many factors like real (cheap) alternatives for fossil fuels. Little we know what the inventivity of humans will bring in the future…
I always remember a very old book in the library of the small village I lived, called something like “new inventions”, from around 1900, that described a lot of things that weren’t yet on the market that moment, but were ready to be commercialised. Things like a “dust sucking broom”, nowadays common known as a vacuum cleaner… If you look at the (r)evolution since 1900 or since 1950 or since 2000 on all sectors of life and technique, not to be forgotten what computers/chips have made possible, I am quite optimistic about the future of my children…

Janice Moore
April 30, 2013 4:14 pm

Tom J @1534 on 4/30/13 – I mean, look at that guy in the picture. … is he photogenic or what? … well trimmed, beard … look at the way he holds that scientificky looking double Sabre Toothed Plasticosaurus. … look at that meticulous laboratory .. obligatory homey photo on the wall. …
I mean, there’s gotta be some sorta scientist as husband material contest going on here … .”
LOL, Tom! Heh, heh.
Well, maybe you’re right. Given how MIXED UP climastrologists are about correlations and cause and effect and the like, he just may BE aiming to be the prize in the Scripps Win a Husband Raffle. They’ll have to find some atypical women to buy raffle tickets, though. Oh, sure, there are women who LIKE beards and who would be delighted to hang one of the cattle skulls they found in the lower 40 on the wall… but, they had better make those raffle tickets pretty pricey or Scripps won’t even break even, given the cost of renting the back room at Joe’s Eats.
************* or, maybe…. he’s on the set of his new Cooking with Mike (stage name only, of course) show: “Today I’ll be showing you how you can make a fine soup by just using this skull and a pound of Galapagos lizard. (his signature exclamation) We’ll season it with … you’ll find all my recipes in the East Anglia Cookbook!”

Robert A. Taylor
April 30, 2013 4:16 pm

A bit off topic, and just for fun:
Fat Global Warming (HD) : Foamy The Squirrel http://www.youtube.com/jimathers

Janice Moore
April 30, 2013 4:22 pm

Huh? just before “(his signature exclamation)” I attempted a little joke based on Emer — il (in case this name is Spam material, too) and typed: BAAA N NG ! with on either side of it. I have got to get the manual for HOW TO POST (including how to bold and do lots of neat stuff others are able to do!). I’m in that Spam bin a lot. My apologies, moderators. THANK YOU for your patience while I try to figure out what’s okay and what is not okay to write here.

Tom J
April 30, 2013 4:25 pm

Janice Moore on April 30, 2013 at 4:14 pm
************* or, maybe…. he’s on the set of his new Cooking with Mike (stage name only, of course) show: “Today I’ll be showing you how you can make a fine soup by just using this skull and a pound of Galapagos lizard. (his signature exclamation) We’ll season it with … you’ll find all my recipes in the East Anglia Cookbook!”
Oh my god! Climate Change is even affecting gourmet cooking! What next!

April 30, 2013 4:29 pm

richardscourtney says:
April 30, 2013 at 3:46 pm
You are considering only the equilibrium dissolution rate of CO2 in the water. As I said, that ignores effects of biota in the ocean surface layer.
As I said, biological life influences the total (inorganic) carbon in the waters, that is by turning inorganic carbon into organic carbon and vv. when they die or are eaten. What is net removed from the inorganic carbon molecules, changes the pCO2 of the ocean water. Thus the pCO2 takes into account the effect of biological life in the oceans surface.
The pCO2 of ocean waters is measured repeatedly by regular ship surveys and the results are used to estimate the regional fluxes in/out the oceans based on pCO2 differences and average wind speed. See:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/outstand/feel2331/maps.shtml
the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration would be THE SAME whether or not the anthropogenic emission existed because that concentration is set by the changed equilibrium between the atmosphere and ocean CO2 concentrations which results from the altered pH.
Richard, that is impossible: you can’t increase CO2 in the atmosphere and reduce DIC by a reduced pH in the oceans and at the same time increase DIC in the oceans from the increase in the atmosphere. It is either of the two, not both at the same time.

Chuck Nolan
April 30, 2013 4:29 pm

What confuses me is that CO2 is a heat trapping gas.
Okay, I’ll buy that.
CO2 is evenly distributed where ever they measure it.
Okay, why not? But….
Why is trapping heat in Florida different from trapping heat in Europe.
Why isn’t the earth heating up the same all over?
If CO2 holds heat shouldn’t it do it everywhere?
Or are my assumptions wrong?
cn

Janice Moore
April 30, 2013 4:30 pm

Robert A. Taylor — “… I’m going to go eat a doughnut and kill the planet.” LOVED IT! That was SO FUNNY!!

Stan W.
April 30, 2013 4:52 pm

richardscourtney says:
But the global temperature rise stalled at least 16 years ago. Funny that.
funny that…you’re wrong — the oceans have warmed strongly in that time.
that doesn’t occur without an energy imbalance.