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
Stan W.
April 30, 2013 4:54 pm

Chuck Nolan says:
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?

yes, your assumptions are wrong.
there are still regional and geographical influences on climate.
really — you didn’t know this??

Janice Moore
April 30, 2013 5:03 pm

Re: Stan W. @1642 “… the oceans have warmed strongly in that time.
that doesn’t occur without an energy imbalance.”
So, that means the Sun must have more energy than the Earth. Thanks for that, Mr. W..

Stan W.
April 30, 2013 5:15 pm

@Janice Moore
data on solar irradiance is readily available:
http://lasp.colorado.edu/sorce/tsi_data/TSI_TIM_Reconstruction.txt
please avail yourself of it, and adjust your beliefs accordingly.

Bob Diaz
April 30, 2013 5:23 pm

… and ????
To put this in perspective, 10,000 PPM CO2 is %1 CO2. According to indoor air levels, 5,000 PPM CO2 is OK, you could survive at 10,000 PPM, but many complain of headache and don’t feel well, so 5,000 PPM is given as the upper limit for indoor CO2.
So to reach the indoor limit of 5,000 PPM, the CO2 would have to increase 12.5 times from what it is now. Given that plants like more CO2, we’d be better of if the level were around 1,000 to 2,000 PPM.
If CO2 were dropping to under 150 PPM, I’d worry OR if it was going above 5,000 PPM, I’d worry, but our great great great great great great great grandchildren won’t even be close to that point.

April 30, 2013 5:30 pm

I am shocked, shocked, that none of you has suggested one obvious solution to the CO2 problem: the immediate banning of all carbonated beverages. Why, every time you pop the top on a ginger ale, CO2 levels in your home must zoom! No doubt thousands of tons of CO2 are liberated each year from drinks that we certainly have no need of. All sodas, beers and sparkling wines need to be banished from the earth, with the possible exception of one bottle of Dom Perignon for Al Gore to celebrate his next billion.

Werner Brozek
April 30, 2013 5:52 pm

Stan W. says:
April 30, 2013 at 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.

The surface temperatures have not changed since March, 1997. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.1/trend
So since the surface did not warm in over 16 years, are you suggesting the deep ocean warmed without the surface warming? And if so, how many degrees are we talking about? And I would like degrees C or K but not billions and billions of joules that sound like a lot but are not even measurable. I would like a temperature change to be able to judge whether “ warmed strongly” is accurate.

Niff
April 30, 2013 6:17 pm

My grandchildren are here now. They enjoyed a very nice autumn day out yesterday at the beach. What is the radically different bit that we missed?

Retired Engineer John
April 30, 2013 6:30 pm

richardscourtney says April 30, 2013 at 12:33 pm
Please check the Feely paper. Despite all the talk of temperature being a driver for the absorption of CO2, it says ” The average partial pressure CO2 of the global ocean is about 7 micro atm lower than the atmosphere, which is the driving force for uptake by the ocean”. Note the word average. If the temperature of the Ocean’s surface were the determing factor – the surface temperature has been close to constant greater than ten years – the absorption of CO2 by the ocean would have stopped and we would be seeing much greater CO2 increases in the atmosphere.

Stan W.
April 30, 2013 6:42 pm

@werner — why do you think delta(T) is the relevant parameter, and not the change in heat content?
liquid is not the same as gas, i’m sure you will agree.

Stan W.
April 30, 2013 6:44 pm

werner:
“So since the surface did not warm in over 16 years, are you suggesting the deep ocean warmed without the surface warming?”
yes, i am. that’s what the data clearly shows.
do you not accept the data?

April 30, 2013 6:46 pm

Stan W says:
“that’s what the data clearly shows.”
Post your data here.

Stan W.
April 30, 2013 6:50 pm

diaz —
are you honestly suggesting the greenhouse warming is of no threat until humans actually keel over dead from CO2 poisoning?
please confirm. thx.

Stan W.
April 30, 2013 6:58 pm

:
any intelligent reader here should know of this data — why don’t you?:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

Steven Hales
April 30, 2013 7:14 pm

Werner, the joules required to heat a liter of air one degree centigrade is less than the joules required to heat a liter of water one degree centigrade. The missing heat if transferred to the atmosphere is actually quite large. I believe the difference is about 4,000 joules for water and about 50 joules for air. If Ternberth is correct then the transmission of this stored energy to the atmosphere is the climate inertia to which others refer. It is not a trivial question. Increased temp gradients come to mind. Enso seems to be one of the mechanisms through which “excess” heat is shed. The other possibility is that the measured increase is quite small and I haven’t seen error bars for the estimates (and not all the data are actual measurements but instead are estimates). As far as I can see there are legitimate questions to be answered and one of them is “Is there any missing heat or is it a measurement artifact?”

April 30, 2013 7:27 pm

elmer [April 30, 2013 at 11:01 am] says:
“Wouldn’t adding more CO2 to the atmosphere cause global cooling? CO2 is not as an effective greenhouse gas as other gasses such as water vapor or methane. If you’re replacing a methane molecule for instance with a CO2 molecule wouldn’t this have a cooling effect? You can’t have more than one million parts per million in the atmosphere. If you add 1PPM of one element 1PPM of another element gets bumped off the list, if the molecule that gets knocked out is a more effective greenhouse gas… just sayin”.”

That is a great point! Quite a problem you point out for the AGW kooks using a proportional measurement like PPM. So it begs the question, and I sure hope that Steve Mosher will step in here and address it – this 100 PPM of C02 that humans have allegedly added since the Little Ice Age, what gases were replaced or diluted? It’s a killer question because almost everything else is a more potent “greenhouse gas” particularly the most likely candidate, water vapor. Good job Elmer! And BTW, how’s that extra 100 PPM treating you in Minnesota?
Other random thoughts, if we allegedly have witnessed a CO2 rise since humans began keeping themselves warm without clear-cutting entire forests, well, has anyone looked back to determine what may have been happening oh say, ~800 years ago? You know, that ~800 year lag of rising temps to rising CO2?
Wikipedia says we were in the Medieval Warm Period, running from AD 950 to 1250. So if that ~800 years was a solid estimate, CO2 increase might slow down or even reverse by mid-century. But here’s the rub, naturally the AGW kooks will step in and state that the slowdown is because of their tireless mitigation through Windmills and Solar Cells and Kyoto protocols. They always got an excuse.
Finally, how many others feel like I do in anticipating an “oops” moment when Scientists discover they have been counting CO2 PPM incorrectly, both from Hawaii and in the ice cores? Just a gut feeling so far, nothing I would call rock solid evidence. It has more to do with the utter sloppiness and unprofessionality that the AGW pseudo-Scientists have inflicted upon the rest of the world. Exhibit-A is the “Warmlist”, a true testimony to their insanity.

Steven Hales
April 30, 2013 7:34 pm

“are you honestly suggesting the greenhouse warming is of no threat until humans actually keel over dead from CO2 poisoning?” I believe the keel over level is around 70,000 ppm or a concentration of about 7%. .05% might make some people drowsy but is not life threatening. At 5,000 ppm most of the GWP of the trace gas would be gone as the CO2 window would be shut. I think Bob was referring to its potential as a pollutant at those levels.

Stan W.
April 30, 2013 7:40 pm

@steven_hales:
care to prove that 5000 ppm of CO2 closes the CO2 window?
real math, real science — i bet you can’t do it.
in fact, i bet you can’t even come close.

Werner Brozek
April 30, 2013 7:44 pm

Stan W. says:
April 30, 2013 at 6:42 pm
@werner — why do you think delta(T) is the relevant parameter, and not the change in heat content?
Stan W. says:
April 30, 2013 at 6:44 pm
werner:
“So since the surface did not warm in over 16 years, are you suggesting the deep ocean warmed without the surface warming?”
yes, i am. that’s what the data clearly shows.
do you not accept the data?

Sigh! I specifically asked for “And I would like degrees C or K but not billions and billions of joules”. And what do I get from four responses? I get references that talk about 10^22 Joules!
Since you did not give me a temperature change, I will quote Dr. Spencer: “Because of the immense heat capacity of the deep ocean, the magnitude of deep warming in Scenario 3 might only be thousandths of a degree.” This is from:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/more-on-trenberths-missing-heat/
If you have a different temperature change, please let me know. For argument sake, I will accept the data and agree that the deep ocean warmed from 3.000 C to 3.003 C. My reaction is: “So what?” That extra 0.003 C cannot somehow accumulate and be taken out of the deep ocean and drive our atmospheric temperature through the roof. Heat goes from where the temperature is highest to where it is lowest. That is why “delta(T) is the relevant parameter“. You said “the oceans have warmed strongly in that time”. If the oceans continue warming at this pace, it will take 64,000 years to reach 15 C and be able to impact the atmospheric temperature.
(For the math, I equated 0.003/16 = 12/x since the 0.003 is over 16 years and the 12 is what has to be added to 3 to get 15. If you do not agree with my assumptions and have different numbers, let me know what your number of years is for a rise of the deep ocean to 15 C.)

April 30, 2013 7:47 pm

Stan W.,
Got something current? Because your source says: “…we present the time evolution of the global ocean heat content for 1958 through 2009…”
That is flatly contradicted by the actual ARGO data.
And your second source only reports on 0 – 700 metres. That is not the deep ocean.
The data you posted does not show deep ocean heating. Want to try again? Or are you ready to admit that you don’t have deep ocean heating data? Because you haven’t posted any yet.

Stan W.
April 30, 2013 7:47 pm

@werner —
it’s been said elsewhere that you are a “professor”
if so, then you should certainly understand that the ocean is huge, and the relevant parameter for energy imbalance is heat content, not delta(T).
do you really not understand the difference?

Stan W.
April 30, 2013 7:50 pm

#:
do you really not understand that the ARGO data is only of recent origin?
tsk tsk….

April 30, 2013 7:55 pm

Stan W,
All you have done so far is make baseless assertions. Your last comment is intended to obfuscate the fact that you have no data showing deep ocean heating. All you have is a religious belief system. That is not good enough for the internet’s “Best Science” site.
I posted actual ARGO data showing ocean cooling. “Recent origin” means nothing. It is actual ARGO data. You have no testable data showing deep ocean heating. If I am wrong, post your data here.

Werner Brozek
April 30, 2013 7:57 pm

Steven Hales says:
April 30, 2013 at 7:14 pm
The missing heat if transferred to the atmosphere is actually quite large.
I agree that it is huge. Applying mct for air and the ocean, the oceans have 1100 times as much heat for each degree. So if the 0.003 C from my previous post went to the air, the air temperature would go up by 0.003 x 1100 = 3.3 C. But as I mentioned, this cannot happen. While El Ninos do warm the air, they do not take heat from all the oceans in the world but only from a small portion.

April 30, 2013 8:03 pm

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
“What the researchers have wrong is that they interpret 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…”
=========================================
Exactly right. The warmer global temperatures caused the rise in CO2, just like today.

Steven Hales
April 30, 2013 8:04 pm

Infrared out decreases at a decreasing rate as concentrations increase once 5000 ppm is reached the net effect of the next doubling is less than 2 deg K ceteris paribus. I would say the window is effectively shut at 5000 ppm.

1 3 4 5 6 7 10