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

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

230 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 30, 2013 8:14 pm

Stan W. says:
April 30, 2013 at 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?

We clarified the first point in the previous article. In case you missed it, I have an engineering degree from over 40 years ago and taught high school physics and chemistry for over 40 years.
As for your other points, my previous post was published 7:44 and you posted something at 7:47 so I am not sure if you read my 7:44 post.
But to answer your question above, I know exactly what the difference is. And in my opinion, warmists want to use 10^22 Joules to make it sound scary and hide the 0.003 C increase that no one would bat an eye at.

April 30, 2013 8:19 pm

Werner Brozek,
IMHO you are a professor of physics, whether that is your official title or not. Anyone who teaches physics for 40 years has a thorough understanding of the subject.
I would be interested in Stan W’s C.V. Post it for us here, Stan. For the sake of credibility. ☺

Stan W.
April 30, 2013 8:19 pm

so, werner, you’re saying that you DON’T understand the difference between heat content and delta(T)?
that right?
i don’t see how a professor of physics cannot understand the difference, and how the heat content number leads to an energy imbalance. it’s simple math….

Steven Hales
April 30, 2013 8:27 pm

Stan the dense didn’t notice that Werner translated the increase in ocean heat content into potential atmospheric warming which indicates he understands the difference between joules and deltaT.

April 30, 2013 8:30 pm

Stan W says:
“so, werner, you’re saying that you DON’T understand the difference between heat content and delta(T)? that right?”
Stan, cut ‘n’ paste Werner’s words. That way we will know that you’re not erecting your usual strawan argument.
And post your C.V. while you’re at it…
…IF you even have one.

Stan W.
April 30, 2013 9:08 pm


i am on to you.
when you can’t counter the science, you get personal.
so post your own c.v. first.
i know you won’t.
you make it too easy.

onlyme
April 30, 2013 9:09 pm

As of Apr 9, CER carbon credits per Bloomberg were 3 cents per ton. As of Apr 23, the price has fallen to a penny. LONDON, April 24 (Reuters Point Carbon) – The price of Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) hit 1 euro cent on Wednesday morning, rendering near worthless U.N.-backed carbon credits that were once valued at more than 20 euros. http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2322100
This is a carbon announcement that leaves me somewhat breathless.

Stan W.
April 30, 2013 9:12 pm

onlyme, sweetie:
the price is 3 EUROS/t, not 3 cents per tonne.
do you understand the difference?
do you understand that the price is completely dependent on government policies?
you’d have to be an idiot to invest in such a controlled market… especially for you, who is off by a factor of about 100… ever hear of trading bait?

onlyme
April 30, 2013 9:17 pm

Perhaps, Stan W, you might follow the link and read the quotation from the pointcarbon website. Seems to me that 1 euro cent on Wednesday means one cent but then i bow to your superior knowledge.
“CERs for delivery this month were unchanged at 4 cents a ton after dropping to record-low 3 cents on April 4, according ICE data. ” from the link at:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-09/un-emission-credits-surge-as-developers-delay-carbon-cut-claims.html

April 30, 2013 9:22 pm

Stan w,
I am happy to post my C.V., which I have posted numerous times before:
I worked for 30 years in a large Metrology Lab, designing, calibrating, and repairing weather-related instruments for the federal government. We were provided with all the latest peer-reviewed data from relevant soruces, and we watched as the scare du jour changed from global cooling, to global warming.
I am 65 now and retired, but I see the current scare in perspective — which you probably do not. So that is my personal Curriculum Vitae.
What is yours?

Stan W.
April 30, 2013 9:22 pm

@onlyme —
you are off by a factor of 100.
please correct, and get back in the game….

Stan W.
April 30, 2013 9:23 pm


and the link to your c.v. is?

Stan W.
April 30, 2013 9:26 pm

@onlyme —
you are off by a factor of 100.
this disqualifies you from being taken seriously.
goodbye.

onlyme
April 30, 2013 9:28 pm

Stan W,, perhaps you would report the errors to ICE, as well as to Bloomberg and Reuters which are the ones issuing the news reports on this. Personally I will stick to the Reuters and Bloomberg reports.
I presume clicking the links provided, given your responses, is beyond your capability, but certainly a person of your evident skills and immense fund of knowledge surpassing that of the collective manpower at both Reuters and Bloomberg will be able to locate a way of contacting the relevant desk at each, and make sure they issue corrections to their reports.

Stan W.
April 30, 2013 9:31 pm

@onlyme —
just answer the questions put to you here.
i don’t know who “ICE” or “Bloombert” or “Reuters” is.
i do know when someone is avoiding a question.
and you’re doing it now.

Janice Moore
April 30, 2013 9:40 pm

“… rendering near worthless U.N.-backed carbon credits that were once valued at more than 20 euros… .” [on Lyme 4/30/13 9:09PM]
THAT is evidence!
AGW is sooooo OVER!
(except for a few of the increasingly irrational, diehard, “Tora, tora, tora” gang, holed up in a cave somewhere in the South Pacific…….. still broadcasting propaganda via their walkie talkies…………. —- let’s listen in: … shhhgreeegghhkwwaawk…. “Neanderthals!”……. wrehhhhggggrrrrsshheeee….. I am on to you…. sweetie….. ewirjiwwhgaaassshhhhrrk….”Neanderthals!”…… )

onlyme
April 30, 2013 9:45 pm

Nor do you know how to spell Bloomberg, as in Bloomberg News, http://www.bloomberg.com
Reuters is Reuters news service at http://www.reuters.com/
For your information, ICE is https://www.theice.com/‎ which is an international futures trading exchange aka Intercontinental Exchange, where the UN backed CER’s are traded. Now you know.

philincalifornia
April 30, 2013 9:48 pm

Ladies and Gentlemen. Listen up.
Ssssssh, please, listen up.
Tonight we have a special guest, an expert on global warming …. eh?
Sorry an expert on climate change …. eh, capitals ?
An Expert on Climate Change … that better ?
An Expert on Anthropogenic Climate Change …. eh, catastrophic ? OK gotcha
An Expert on Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change
Ladies and Gentlemen, please put your hands together and welcome tonight’s special guest …. the one and only:
Stan W,

Janice Moore
April 30, 2013 9:54 pm

(clap, clap, clap, clap, clap) LOL, Phil. This show has been SO entertaining.

philincalifornia
April 30, 2013 9:58 pm

I can’t wait for the encore

Pete
April 30, 2013 10:03 pm

400ppm, eh. Let’s see… that means that 99.96% of the atmosphere is NOT carbon dioxide.

John F. Hultquist
April 30, 2013 10:07 pm

DirkH says:
April 30, 2013 at 2:18 pm
JP says:
April 30, 2013 at 1:02 pm

RE: decreasing/increasing consumption
Products do become smaller and more efficient – take as a single example the microwave oven . . .
http://microwavelegend.com/
. . . now smaller, better, less costly, more useful. But the World’s population is not yet falling and where it is not, the demographic transition still has a long way to go and will involve a lot of young people, a lot of consumption, and new things (products) yet to be thought of. As a near term practical matter anyway, a lot of widespread cheap energy would be most helpful and that the Malthusians do hate.

onlyme
April 30, 2013 10:07 pm

Answers for Stan W:
Yes, I understand the difference between 3 cents and 3 euros. Given that the euro is a decimal based currency, 3 cents is 3% of one euro, while 3 euros is 300% of one euro.
No, I do not, however, understand that “… the price is completely dependent on government policies?” Given that these CER are traded on a free market exchange, governmental policy is but one of many factors in the pricing of any commodity including these certificates, with supply and demand factoring in all the variables and WAG’s of the traders being the final determinants of the price.

Janice Moore
April 30, 2013 10:20 pm

You know, and I am NOT being sarcastic, I just realized that I actually feel bad, now, about laughing at Mr. W.. I don’t think all is well with him.
Dear Stan W.,
You could have a lot of neat blogger friends on this site if you wanted to. They won’t always respond to all you write, but, you could be a part of the WUWT camaraderie instead of the butt of jokes … . That any of these scientists and, truly, they are “giants”, who have been patiently explaining would take the time to respond to you, is a wonderful privilege.
That’s it, isn’t it? You get the attention of some world class scientists by tossing out obviously mistaken, sometimes even ridiculous, assertions that they graciously attempt to answer. Then, they have fun with you. And you let them. Stan! You are worth more than that. Don’t make a fool out of yourself to get the attention you crave. You don’t need to be a clown to have friends. Your perseverance and the fact that you keep coming back here shows that you like these guys (and, perhaps, some women, too, but I think mostly men have been responding to you — I don’t count, I’m not a scientist at all).
How about it? Why not try to just humbly and happily enjoy learning from all these fine minds? Ask a genuine, thoughtful, question or two and you will get both attention and keep your self-respect.
You deserve better.
Sincerely,
Janice Moore

Stan W.
April 30, 2013 10:22 pm

@onlyme —
i will not waste my time on someone who can’t understand how they are off by a factor of 100.
who is next?

1 4 5 6 7 8 10