400 ppm and rising
35 views
Skip to first unread message
Rau, Greg
Jun 2, 2012, 12:41:18 PM6/2/12
to geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Greenhouse gas levels pass symbolic 400ppm CO2 milestone
Monitoring stations in the Arctic detect record levels of carbon dioxide, higher than ever above 'safe' 350ppm mark
Associated Press
guardian.co.uk, Friday 1 June 2012 07.50 EDT
The Arctic Ocean with leads and cracks in the ice cover of north of Alaska. Photograph: Courtesy Eric Kort/Jet Propulsion Laboratory/NASA
The world's air has reached what scientists call a troubling new milestone for carbon dioxide, the main global warming pollutant.
Monitoring stations across the Arctic this spring are measuring more than 400 parts per million of the heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. The number isn't quite a surprise, because it's been rising at an accelerating pace.
Years ago, it passed the 350ppm mark that many scientists say is the highest safe level for carbon dioxide. It now stands globally at 395.
So far, only the Arctic has reached that 400 level, but the rest of the world will follow soon.
"The fact that it's 400 is significant," said Jim Butler, the global monitoring director at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Lab. "It's just a reminder to everybody that we haven't fixed this, and we're still in trouble."
"The news today, that some stations have measured concentrations above 400ppm in the atmosphere, is further evidence that the world's political leaders – with a few honourable exceptions – are failing catastrophically to address the climate crisis," former vice president Al Gore, the highest-profile campaigner against global warming, said in an email. "History will not understand or forgive them."
Carbon dioxide is the chief greenhouse gas and stays in the atmosphere for 100 years. Some carbon dioxide is natural, mainly from decomposing dead plants and animals. Before the industrial age, levels were around 275 parts per million.
For more than 60 years, readings have been in the 300s, except in urban areas, where levels are skewed. The burning of fossil fuels, such as coal for electricity and oil for gasoline, has caused the overwhelming bulk of the man-made increase in carbon in the air, scientists say.
It's been at least 800,000 years – probably more – since Earth saw carbon dioxide levels in the 400s, Butler and other climate scientists said.
Readings are coming in at 400 and higher all over the Arctic. They've been recorded in Alaska, Greenland, Norway, Iceland and even Mongolia. But levels change with the seasons and will drop a bit in the summer, when plants suck up carbon dioxide, NOAA scientists said.
So the yearly average for those northern stations likely will be lower and so will the global number.
"It's an important threshold," said the Carnegie Institution ecologist Chris Field, a scientist who helps lead the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "It is an indication that we're in a different world."
Ronald Prinn, an atmospheric sciences professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said 400 is more a psychological milestone than a scientific one. We think in hundreds, and "we're poking our heads above 400," he said.
Tans said the readings show how much the Earth's atmosphere and its climate are being affected by humans. Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels hit a record high of 34.8 billion tonnes in 2011, up 3.2%, the International Energy Agency announced last week.
The agency said it's becoming unlikely that the world can achieve the European goal of limiting global warming to just 2 degrees based on increasing pollution and greenhouse gas levels.
Monitoring stations in the Arctic detect record levels of carbon dioxide, higher than ever above 'safe' 350ppm mark
Associated Press
guardian.co.uk, Friday 1 June 2012 07.50 EDT
The Arctic Ocean with leads and cracks in the ice cover of north of Alaska. Photograph: Courtesy Eric Kort/Jet Propulsion Laboratory/NASA
The world's air has reached what scientists call a troubling new milestone for carbon dioxide, the main global warming pollutant.
Monitoring stations across the Arctic this spring are measuring more than 400 parts per million of the heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. The number isn't quite a surprise, because it's been rising at an accelerating pace.
Years ago, it passed the 350ppm mark that many scientists say is the highest safe level for carbon dioxide. It now stands globally at 395.
So far, only the Arctic has reached that 400 level, but the rest of the world will follow soon.
"The fact that it's 400 is significant," said Jim Butler, the global monitoring director at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Lab. "It's just a reminder to everybody that we haven't fixed this, and we're still in trouble."
"The news today, that some stations have measured concentrations above 400ppm in the atmosphere, is further evidence that the world's political leaders – with a few honourable exceptions – are failing catastrophically to address the climate crisis," former vice president Al Gore, the highest-profile campaigner against global warming, said in an email. "History will not understand or forgive them."
Carbon dioxide is the chief greenhouse gas and stays in the atmosphere for 100 years. Some carbon dioxide is natural, mainly from decomposing dead plants and animals. Before the industrial age, levels were around 275 parts per million.
For more than 60 years, readings have been in the 300s, except in urban areas, where levels are skewed. The burning of fossil fuels, such as coal for electricity and oil for gasoline, has caused the overwhelming bulk of the man-made increase in carbon in the air, scientists say.
It's been at least 800,000 years – probably more – since Earth saw carbon dioxide levels in the 400s, Butler and other climate scientists said.
Readings are coming in at 400 and higher all over the Arctic. They've been recorded in Alaska, Greenland, Norway, Iceland and even Mongolia. But levels change with the seasons and will drop a bit in the summer, when plants suck up carbon dioxide, NOAA scientists said.
So the yearly average for those northern stations likely will be lower and so will the global number.
"It's an important threshold," said the Carnegie Institution ecologist Chris Field, a scientist who helps lead the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "It is an indication that we're in a different world."
Ronald Prinn, an atmospheric sciences professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said 400 is more a psychological milestone than a scientific one. We think in hundreds, and "we're poking our heads above 400," he said.
Tans said the readings show how much the Earth's atmosphere and its climate are being affected by humans. Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels hit a record high of 34.8 billion tonnes in 2011, up 3.2%, the International Energy Agency announced last week.
The agency said it's becoming unlikely that the world can achieve the European goal of limiting global warming to just 2 degrees based on increasing pollution and greenhouse gas levels.
Stephen Salter
Jun 4, 2012, 6:30:09 AM6/4/12
to geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Hi All
There are not many large coal-fired power stations in the Arctic and so
the question arises about where this extra CO2 in the Arctic has come
from. One possibility is that it is the product of methane
decomposition and would be in line with the report to this group from
Greg Rau of 22 May.
We know that the atmosphere weighs about 5 E18 kilograms. If we know
the plan area represented by the observing stations and the decay rate
of methane to CO2 we could get an approximate figure for the mass of
methane causing the rise in CO2. We could then compare this with the
scary rate of methane increase reported by Semiletov and Shakhova.
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
Institute for Energy Systems
School of Engineering
Mayfield Road
University of Edinburgh EH9 3JL
Scotland
Tel +44 131 650 5704
Mobile 07795 203 195
www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
On 02/06/2012 17:41, Rau, Greg wrote:
> Greenhouse gas levels pass symbolic 400ppm CO2 milestone
> Monitoring stations in the Arctic detect record levels of carbon dioxide, higher than ever above 'safe' 350ppm mark
> Associated Press
> guardian.co.uk, Friday 1 June 2012 07.50 EDT
>
> The Arctic Ocean with leads and cracks in the ice cover of north of Alaska. Photograph: Courtesy Eric Kort/Jet Propulsion Laboratory/NASA
> The world's air has reached what scientists call a troubling new milestone for carbon dioxide, the main global warming pollutant.
>
> Monitoring stations across the Arctic this spring are measuring more than 400 parts per million of the heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. The number isn't quite a surprise, because it's been rising at an accelerating pace.
>
> Years ago, it passed the 350ppm mark that many scientists say is the highest safe level for carbon dioxide. It now stands globally at 395.
>
> So far, only the Arctic has reached that 400 level, but the rest of the world will follow soon.
>
> "The fact that it's 400 is significant," said Jim Butler, the global monitoring director at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Lab. "It's just a reminder to everybody that we haven't fixed this, and we're still in trouble."
>
> "The news today, that some stations have measured concentrations above 400ppm in the atmosphere, is further evidence that the world's political leaders � with a few honourable exceptions � are failing catastrophically to address the climate crisis," former vice president Al Gore, the highest-profile campaigner against global warming, said in an email. "History will not understand or forgive them."
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
There are not many large coal-fired power stations in the Arctic and so
the question arises about where this extra CO2 in the Arctic has come
from. One possibility is that it is the product of methane
decomposition and would be in line with the report to this group from
Greg Rau of 22 May.
We know that the atmosphere weighs about 5 E18 kilograms. If we know
the plan area represented by the observing stations and the decay rate
of methane to CO2 we could get an approximate figure for the mass of
methane causing the rise in CO2. We could then compare this with the
scary rate of methane increase reported by Semiletov and Shakhova.
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
Institute for Energy Systems
School of Engineering
Mayfield Road
University of Edinburgh EH9 3JL
Scotland
Tel +44 131 650 5704
Mobile 07795 203 195
www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
On 02/06/2012 17:41, Rau, Greg wrote:
> Greenhouse gas levels pass symbolic 400ppm CO2 milestone
> Monitoring stations in the Arctic detect record levels of carbon dioxide, higher than ever above 'safe' 350ppm mark
> Associated Press
> guardian.co.uk, Friday 1 June 2012 07.50 EDT
>
> The Arctic Ocean with leads and cracks in the ice cover of north of Alaska. Photograph: Courtesy Eric Kort/Jet Propulsion Laboratory/NASA
> The world's air has reached what scientists call a troubling new milestone for carbon dioxide, the main global warming pollutant.
>
> Monitoring stations across the Arctic this spring are measuring more than 400 parts per million of the heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. The number isn't quite a surprise, because it's been rising at an accelerating pace.
>
> Years ago, it passed the 350ppm mark that many scientists say is the highest safe level for carbon dioxide. It now stands globally at 395.
>
> So far, only the Arctic has reached that 400 level, but the rest of the world will follow soon.
>
> "The fact that it's 400 is significant," said Jim Butler, the global monitoring director at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Lab. "It's just a reminder to everybody that we haven't fixed this, and we're still in trouble."
>
>
> Carbon dioxide is the chief greenhouse gas and stays in the atmosphere for 100 years. Some carbon dioxide is natural, mainly from decomposing dead plants and animals. Before the industrial age, levels were around 275 parts per million.
>
> For more than 60 years, readings have been in the 300s, except in urban areas, where levels are skewed. The burning of fossil fuels, such as coal for electricity and oil for gasoline, has caused the overwhelming bulk of the man-made increase in carbon in the air, scientists say.
>
> It's been at least 800,000 years � probably more � since Earth saw carbon dioxide levels in the 400s, Butler and other climate scientists said.
> Carbon dioxide is the chief greenhouse gas and stays in the atmosphere for 100 years. Some carbon dioxide is natural, mainly from decomposing dead plants and animals. Before the industrial age, levels were around 275 parts per million.
>
> For more than 60 years, readings have been in the 300s, except in urban areas, where levels are skewed. The burning of fossil fuels, such as coal for electricity and oil for gasoline, has caused the overwhelming bulk of the man-made increase in carbon in the air, scientists say.
>
>
> Readings are coming in at 400 and higher all over the Arctic. They've been recorded in Alaska, Greenland, Norway, Iceland and even Mongolia. But levels change with the seasons and will drop a bit in the summer, when plants suck up carbon dioxide, NOAA scientists said.
>
> So the yearly average for those northern stations likely will be lower and so will the global number.
>
> "It's an important threshold," said the Carnegie Institution ecologist Chris Field, a scientist who helps lead the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "It is an indication that we're in a different world."
>
> Ronald Prinn, an atmospheric sciences professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said 400 is more a psychological milestone than a scientific one. We think in hundreds, and "we're poking our heads above 400," he said.
>
> Tans said the readings show how much the Earth's atmosphere and its climate are being affected by humans. Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels hit a record high of 34.8 billion tonnes in 2011, up 3.2%, the International Energy Agency announced last week.
>
> The agency said it's becoming unlikely that the world can achieve the European goal of limiting global warming to just 2 degrees based on increasing pollution and greenhouse gas levels.
>
--
> Readings are coming in at 400 and higher all over the Arctic. They've been recorded in Alaska, Greenland, Norway, Iceland and even Mongolia. But levels change with the seasons and will drop a bit in the summer, when plants suck up carbon dioxide, NOAA scientists said.
>
> So the yearly average for those northern stations likely will be lower and so will the global number.
>
> "It's an important threshold," said the Carnegie Institution ecologist Chris Field, a scientist who helps lead the Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "It is an indication that we're in a different world."
>
> Ronald Prinn, an atmospheric sciences professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said 400 is more a psychological milestone than a scientific one. We think in hundreds, and "we're poking our heads above 400," he said.
>
> Tans said the readings show how much the Earth's atmosphere and its climate are being affected by humans. Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels hit a record high of 34.8 billion tonnes in 2011, up 3.2%, the International Energy Agency announced last week.
>
> The agency said it's becoming unlikely that the world can achieve the European goal of limiting global warming to just 2 degrees based on increasing pollution and greenhouse gas levels.
>
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
Mike MacCracken
Jun 4, 2012, 9:46:25 AM6/4/12
to Stephen Salter, Geoengineering
Hi Stephen--I think there is a simpler explanation, and that is that the
planetary boundary layer is shallow due to the typical inversion, so CO2
tends to build up near the ground during the non-growing season. My guess is
that the late summer values also tend to be a bit lower than Mauna Loa due
to the CO2 being pulled out from a thinner layer (you see a much larger
seasonal variation in high latitude CO2 than at Mauna Loa).
Mike
>> in the atmosphere, is further evidence that the world's political leaders
>> with a few honourable exceptions are failing catastrophically to address
planetary boundary layer is shallow due to the typical inversion, so CO2
tends to build up near the ground during the non-growing season. My guess is
that the late summer values also tend to be a bit lower than Mauna Loa due
to the CO2 being pulled out from a thinner layer (you see a much larger
seasonal variation in high latitude CO2 than at Mauna Loa).
Mike
>> with a few honourable exceptions are failing catastrophically to address
>> the climate crisis," former vice president Al Gore, the highest-profile
>> campaigner against global warming, said in an email. "History will not
>> understand or forgive them."
>>
>> Carbon dioxide is the chief greenhouse gas and stays in the atmosphere for
>> 100 years. Some carbon dioxide is natural, mainly from decomposing dead
>> plants and animals. Before the industrial age, levels were around 275 parts
>> per million.
>>
>> For more than 60 years, readings have been in the 300s, except in urban
>> areas, where levels are skewed. The burning of fossil fuels, such as coal for
>> electricity and oil for gasoline, has caused the overwhelming bulk of the
>> man-made increase in carbon in the air, scientists say.
>>
>> It's been at least 800,000 years probably more since Earth saw carbon
>> campaigner against global warming, said in an email. "History will not
>> understand or forgive them."
>>
>> Carbon dioxide is the chief greenhouse gas and stays in the atmosphere for
>> 100 years. Some carbon dioxide is natural, mainly from decomposing dead
>> plants and animals. Before the industrial age, levels were around 275 parts
>> per million.
>>
>> For more than 60 years, readings have been in the 300s, except in urban
>> areas, where levels are skewed. The burning of fossil fuels, such as coal for
>> electricity and oil for gasoline, has caused the overwhelming bulk of the
>> man-made increase in carbon in the air, scientists say.
>>
Mike MacCracken
Jun 4, 2012, 11:48:44 AM6/4/12
to Veli Albert Kallio, Stephen Salter, Geoengineering
Hi Albert—Sorry, but I don’t know about all the isotope issues you raise—interesting to ponder, however.
Mike
Mike
On 6/4/12 11:36 AM, "Veli Albert Kallio" <albert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"I think there is a simpler explanation, and that is that the planetary boundary layer is shallow due to the typical inversion, so CO2
tends to build up near the ground during the non-growing season. My guess is that the late summer values also tend to be a bit lower than Mauna Loa due to the CO2 being pulled out from a thinner layer."
If the planetary boundary layer is shallower during winters and consequently CO2 builds up near the ground during the non-growing season, and the drop in CO2 concentrations follow the summer vegetation plus the CO2 being "pulled out from a thinner layer", how does this interfere with:
(1) the isotopic composition between carbon 12, 13 and 14 isotopes in the Arctic
(2) the ventilation rates of the Arctic air mass with the global air mass. (As I understand the "panning" of Polar air mass by the jet streams reduces ventilation: if the cold air escapes south, the replacement air will bring in globally more balanced or mixed air masses). The global air mass should contain a balaced (or higher) proportion of carbon 14 than permafrost / methane clathrate released (ancient) carbon discharges.
(3) the strong panning of polar vortex induces, or helps, the Arctic ozone hole to form: can this influence methane oxidation rate by ozone? Can hydroxyl reduction be compensated with the higher ozone levels to oxidise the Arctic methane from seabed or permafrost?
Importantly, the entire Eurasian carbon stock may have been diluted 50% by ancient carbon from permafrost, earlier during Holocene. This is because unusually high carbon-14 outliers are found with up to 5,000 extra carbon-14 years in writing materials in China. In air concentration this rate of dilution amounts to one carbon-14 half life, from it hence can be derived that 50% of carbon in the air came out of the ancient permafrost.
To zoom into these processes accurately, if the rising of planetary boundary layer and the panning of air by the polar vortex alter CO2 presence it would be prudent if there were any estimates how much carbon was lost or gained in the ground level as result of these processes and what kind of noise these could produce to the overall carbon-14 dilution process by the permafrost, as well as ozone driven Arctic methane losses.
The situation is very bad: Since 2006 the Arctic warming has been 17 times faster than the stated rate of the observable warming that was recently published in Nature. I will raise this as objection directly to the Prime Minister David Cameron that UK Met Office is totally mistaken in its advices. This is yet another reason why the sea ice disappearance is to be expected 2015 rather than between years 2030 to 2099 and methane follows it.
Regards,
Albert
> Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 09:46:25 -0400
> Subject: Re: [geo] 400 ppm and rising
> From: mmac...@comcast.net
> To: S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk; Geoengi...@googlegroups.com
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>
Stephen Salter
Jun 5, 2012, 6:10:24 AM6/5/12
to Mike MacCracken, Geoengineering
Mike
Both diffusion and oxidation are involved. Are you saying that methane
released from the Arctic does not get oxidised?
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
Institute for Energy Systems
School of Engineering
Mayfield Road
University of Edinburgh EH9 3JL
Scotland
Tel +44 131 650 5704
Mobile 07795 203 195
www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
Both diffusion and oxidation are involved. Are you saying that methane
released from the Arctic does not get oxidised?
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design
Institute for Energy Systems
School of Engineering
Mayfield Road
University of Edinburgh EH9 3JL
Scotland
Tel +44 131 650 5704
Mobile 07795 203 195
www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
Veli Albert Kallio
Jun 5, 2012, 8:08:15 AM6/5/12
to s.sa...@ed.ac.uk, mmac...@comcast.net, Geoengineering FIPC
Dear Stephen,
I think that the metamorphosis of ice covered Arctic Ocean to open water plays the decisive role in the hydroxyl-driven methane oxidation:
Lets just take a relatively moderate storm surge with the crest between 2-3 metres along Yakutian coast. While the wind propelled storm surge current advances, the reverse current on the bottom of storm surge (which drains the water back into ocean) pulls loose sediments and silt away along the water. This rapidly excavates and exposes methane clathrates to warm water.
Furthermore, as East Siberian Sea is so shallow, storm surges can form on sideway directions as well which might be strong enough to disturb bottom mud. This explains entirely the observed rapid methane clathrate losses on East Siberian Sea seabed last autumn. The sea bed responds to warming far faster than terrestrial permafrost due to higher thermal inertia of sea water to air above land. The hydrodynamical factors played key role in excavating those 22,000 methane craters along Siberian sea bed, many of which are one kilometre wide, largest ones 750 km2.
As storm surges and rising bottom currents excavate methane clathrates rapidly, the hydroxyl supply is unlikely to keep up with these. Temperatures surge, winds rise and erosion grows. As a result the hydroxyl radical disappears due to large surges of methane, just the same way carbon-14 isotope will get increasingly diluted the more CH4 and CO2 come from Eurasian and Arctic frozen soils and seabed.
Stephen, thus the answer to your question must necessarily be: Yes, methane from the Arctic does not get oxidised as warming and storm surges driven supply of methane quickly overwhelms the supply of methane oxidising OH-. It is crucial to understand that wind driven storm surges drive the loss of methane clathrates, unlike a steady loss of methane ice, this occurs rather rapidly in pulses thus encapsulating most of methane in a hydroxyl-protected enviroment.
Regards,
Albert
I think that the metamorphosis of ice covered Arctic Ocean to open water plays the decisive role in the hydroxyl-driven methane oxidation:
Lets just take a relatively moderate storm surge with the crest between 2-3 metres along Yakutian coast. While the wind propelled storm surge current advances, the reverse current on the bottom of storm surge (which drains the water back into ocean) pulls loose sediments and silt away along the water. This rapidly excavates and exposes methane clathrates to warm water.
Furthermore, as East Siberian Sea is so shallow, storm surges can form on sideway directions as well which might be strong enough to disturb bottom mud. This explains entirely the observed rapid methane clathrate losses on East Siberian Sea seabed last autumn. The sea bed responds to warming far faster than terrestrial permafrost due to higher thermal inertia of sea water to air above land. The hydrodynamical factors played key role in excavating those 22,000 methane craters along Siberian sea bed, many of which are one kilometre wide, largest ones 750 km2.
As storm surges and rising bottom currents excavate methane clathrates rapidly, the hydroxyl supply is unlikely to keep up with these. Temperatures surge, winds rise and erosion grows. As a result the hydroxyl radical disappears due to large surges of methane, just the same way carbon-14 isotope will get increasingly diluted the more CH4 and CO2 come from Eurasian and Arctic frozen soils and seabed.
Stephen, thus the answer to your question must necessarily be: Yes, methane from the Arctic does not get oxidised as warming and storm surges driven supply of methane quickly overwhelms the supply of methane oxidising OH-. It is crucial to understand that wind driven storm surges drive the loss of methane clathrates, unlike a steady loss of methane ice, this occurs rather rapidly in pulses thus encapsulating most of methane in a hydroxyl-protected enviroment.
Regards,
Albert
> Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 11:10:24 +0100
> From: S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk
> To: mmac...@comcast.net
> CC: Geoengi...@googlegroups.com
> From: S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk
> To: mmac...@comcast.net
> CC: Geoengi...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: [geo] 400 ppm and rising
>
Mike MacCracken
Jun 5, 2012, 9:29:33 AM6/5/12
to Stephen Salter, Geoengineering
Hi Stephen--Not at all--I am just saying that the meteorological situation
is also a very important factor to consider.
Mike
is also a very important factor to consider.
Mike
Robert H. Socolow
Jun 5, 2012, 12:12:14 PM6/5/12
to mmac...@comcast.net, Stephen Salter, Geoengineering
Mike, Stephen, and others:
Evidently, regarding the new 400 ppm arctic readings, this group (including me) needs help. Here's what I think I understand, followed by what I don't understand.
Every year for several decades, in April and May, the concentration of CO2 at Point Barrows, Alaska, has exceeded the concentration of CO2 at Mauna Loa. It seems that the highest concentrations on the planet for the whole year are these spring-time arctic readings -- if one excludes readings where there is a local fossil-fuel source (as in a city) or a local biogenic source (as in the interior of a forest). The world's first readings above 400 ppm in the past million or more years were the April readings this year at arctic stations -- once one requires 1) readings from the marine boundary layer, where a local anthropogenic or biological signature is nearly absent, and 2) monthly averages to remove outliers.
The large peak-to-valley annual oscillation in Arctic CO2 concentration is the reason 400 ppm happens first in the arctic. The peak to valley oscillation at Point Barrows is about 18 ppm, and at Mauna Loa it is about 7 ppm, with the peak around May and the bottom of the valley around November. The large arctic oscillation allows an annual average at Mauna Loa to exceed that at Point Barrows (by about 2 ppm) while the April-May readings at Point Barrows are higher than at Mauna Loa (by about 4 ppm).
I think the main reason the annual average is higher at Mauna Loa than at Point Barrows is because the Mauna Loa latitude is closer to the anthropogenic fossil-energy source, which is centered at mid-latitudes in the northern hemisphere. Perhaps this isn't the main reason. I hope someone knowledgeable will comment.
As for the 18 ppm swing at Point Barrows, and the higher April-May values in the Arctic than at lower latitudes, I hope someone in this group can clarify the underlying science. Many existing models must contain the answers: they must quantify zonal photosynthesis and respiration, superimposed on freezing and thawing and accompanied by importing to and exporting from lower latitudes. What does a zeroth order model look like, with just the most important terms? (My guess is that the methane terms are small.) What fraction of that 18 ppm swing has anything to do with people?
One way of asking the question is to ask what the CO2 pattern looked like in pre-industrial times. My guess is that the large arctic amplitude has very little to do with anthropogenic sources, and that the highest concentration of CO2 in the Year 1600 would have been in the Arctic in April-May.
Who can set us straight?
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike MacCracken
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 9:30 AM
To: Stephen Salter
Cc: Geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] 400 ppm and rising
Evidently, regarding the new 400 ppm arctic readings, this group (including me) needs help. Here's what I think I understand, followed by what I don't understand.
Every year for several decades, in April and May, the concentration of CO2 at Point Barrows, Alaska, has exceeded the concentration of CO2 at Mauna Loa. It seems that the highest concentrations on the planet for the whole year are these spring-time arctic readings -- if one excludes readings where there is a local fossil-fuel source (as in a city) or a local biogenic source (as in the interior of a forest). The world's first readings above 400 ppm in the past million or more years were the April readings this year at arctic stations -- once one requires 1) readings from the marine boundary layer, where a local anthropogenic or biological signature is nearly absent, and 2) monthly averages to remove outliers.
The large peak-to-valley annual oscillation in Arctic CO2 concentration is the reason 400 ppm happens first in the arctic. The peak to valley oscillation at Point Barrows is about 18 ppm, and at Mauna Loa it is about 7 ppm, with the peak around May and the bottom of the valley around November. The large arctic oscillation allows an annual average at Mauna Loa to exceed that at Point Barrows (by about 2 ppm) while the April-May readings at Point Barrows are higher than at Mauna Loa (by about 4 ppm).
I think the main reason the annual average is higher at Mauna Loa than at Point Barrows is because the Mauna Loa latitude is closer to the anthropogenic fossil-energy source, which is centered at mid-latitudes in the northern hemisphere. Perhaps this isn't the main reason. I hope someone knowledgeable will comment.
As for the 18 ppm swing at Point Barrows, and the higher April-May values in the Arctic than at lower latitudes, I hope someone in this group can clarify the underlying science. Many existing models must contain the answers: they must quantify zonal photosynthesis and respiration, superimposed on freezing and thawing and accompanied by importing to and exporting from lower latitudes. What does a zeroth order model look like, with just the most important terms? (My guess is that the methane terms are small.) What fraction of that 18 ppm swing has anything to do with people?
One way of asking the question is to ask what the CO2 pattern looked like in pre-industrial times. My guess is that the large arctic amplitude has very little to do with anthropogenic sources, and that the highest concentration of CO2 in the Year 1600 would have been in the Arctic in April-May.
Who can set us straight?
Rob
-----Original Message-----
From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Mike MacCracken
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 9:30 AM
To: Stephen Salter
Cc: Geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] 400 ppm and rising
Sebastian Carney
Jun 5, 2012, 12:31:54 PM6/5/12
to soc...@princeton.edu, mmac...@comcast.net, Stephen Salter, Geoengineering
Sorry if I am being naïve, but is there an additional question of which
one of these figures it is that 'we' use in our communications with the
policy making community and how we may loosely link these to existing
atmospheric concentration/stabilisation/temp figures?
So for instance, the Arctic figure below if remained set, 'we' would be in
the AR4 'Scenario Set' II and 2.4-2.8C. Or else we are still within the
2-2.4C set. I realise the differences are small in ppm.
Seb Carney
one of these figures it is that 'we' use in our communications with the
policy making community and how we may loosely link these to existing
atmospheric concentration/stabilisation/temp figures?
So for instance, the Arctic figure below if remained set, 'we' would be in
the AR4 'Scenario Set' II and 2.4-2.8C. Or else we are still within the
2-2.4C set. I realise the differences are small in ppm.
Seb Carney
Veli Albert Kallio
Jun 5, 2012, 1:58:24 PM6/5/12
to sebastia...@manchester.ac.uk, soc...@princeton.edu, mmac...@comcast.net, s.sa...@ed.ac.uk, Geoengineering FIPC
Sorry, I am not madman looking my binoculars at −78.5 °C, but −32.5 °C. Sorry for my typo, but can assure rest of figures accurate.
From: albert...@hotmail.com
To: sebastia...@manchester.ac.uk; soc...@princeton.edu; mmac...@comcast.net; s.sa...@ed.ac.uk
CC: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [geo] 400 ppm and rising
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 17:53:20 +0000
From: albert...@hotmail.com
To: sebastia...@manchester.ac.uk; soc...@princeton.edu; mmac...@comcast.net; s.sa...@ed.ac.uk
CC: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [geo] 400 ppm and rising
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 17:53:20 +0000
"It seems that the highest concentrations on the planet for the whole year are these spring-time arctic readings -- if one excludes readings where there is a local fossil-fuel source (as in a city) or a local biogenic source (as in the interior of a forest)."
It is true that carbon dioxide appears in the polar measurement stations in the Arctic highest during spring. But this only applies when temperatures remain above −78.5 °C. Once this tipping point is reached like in places of Antarctica or the record colds of Siberia, the carbon dioxide chrystallises and rains in small microscopic dry ice flakes. The polar regions will never see carbon dioxide rain as a liquid as the gas properties are such that it can only exist in a liquid form under pressures of 5.1 athmospheric pressures, which are only achievable in permafrost pockets.
Normally carbon dioxide's density is around 1.98 kg/m3, about 1.5 times that of air, and in very cold polar regions the kinetic energies of carbon dioxide particles (molecules) drop rapidly. Their slow motion helps them to filter down and saturate in lower atmospheric regions. During the winters the kinetic energy of carbon dioxide is at its lowest and by the spring time there is a tendency for the carbon and other similarly behaving things filter down. But when temperatures approach −78.5 °C this comes rapid, and chrystallised carbon dioxide can make it even drop.
When carbon dioxide flakes reverse their solidification, they go easily unnoticed as they are dry ice and sublime directly back to the gas. The carbon dioxide frosts are very small because of its much lower proportion in the athmospheric mix than water ice. But I hope that this would answer some of your questions why there are so much carbon seen after the cold winter.
Sadly, the southerners seldom think about all the weird phenomena in the ultra-cold polar regions, me included. My closest to disater came when I peered through binoculars at −78.5 °C and my eyes immediately froze into eyepieces and had I pulled my binoculars off, so would have my eyeballs gone as well. Sea ice phenomena are equally poorly understood by the southerners. My view is that we will shortly loose all sea ice due to: (1) the increased capability of sea ice to migrate between sun light warmed waters and ice covered areas due to sea ice area reduction and more open space being around ice floes, (2) the thinned sea ice having a reduced resistance against wave penetration, as winds make larger waves and ice keeps thinning, water splashes through the gaps in ice speeding up the melting and breaking up the ice to small units which winds scatter around, (3) the increase in vertical overturning of ocean when winds push water high on the winward sides of ice floes and ice packs, this higher water column being in constant sinking, while the deep water re-surfaces nearby and hence extracting ocean's thermal inertia, (4) conversion of Arctic Ocean into recently frozen ice that contains some salt residues, making the ice to melt away now lot easier just like it does in areas like Hudson Bay which melt every year.
Unfortunately, I do not have pictures of natural dry ice snow flakes from Antarctica when carbon dioxide filters out and forms carbon dioxide frost at below −78.5 °C.
Regards,
Albert
Normally carbon dioxide's density is around 1.98 kg/m3, about 1.5 times that of air, and in very cold polar regions the kinetic energies of carbon dioxide particles (molecules) drop rapidly. Their slow motion helps them to filter down and saturate in lower atmospheric regions. During the winters the kinetic energy of carbon dioxide is at its lowest and by the spring time there is a tendency for the carbon and other similarly behaving things filter down. But when temperatures approach −78.5 °C this comes rapid, and chrystallised carbon dioxide can make it even drop.
When carbon dioxide flakes reverse their solidification, they go easily unnoticed as they are dry ice and sublime directly back to the gas. The carbon dioxide frosts are very small because of its much lower proportion in the athmospheric mix than water ice. But I hope that this would answer some of your questions why there are so much carbon seen after the cold winter.
Sadly, the southerners seldom think about all the weird phenomena in the ultra-cold polar regions, me included. My closest to disater came when I peered through binoculars at −78.5 °C and my eyes immediately froze into eyepieces and had I pulled my binoculars off, so would have my eyeballs gone as well. Sea ice phenomena are equally poorly understood by the southerners. My view is that we will shortly loose all sea ice due to: (1) the increased capability of sea ice to migrate between sun light warmed waters and ice covered areas due to sea ice area reduction and more open space being around ice floes, (2) the thinned sea ice having a reduced resistance against wave penetration, as winds make larger waves and ice keeps thinning, water splashes through the gaps in ice speeding up the melting and breaking up the ice to small units which winds scatter around, (3) the increase in vertical overturning of ocean when winds push water high on the winward sides of ice floes and ice packs, this higher water column being in constant sinking, while the deep water re-surfaces nearby and hence extracting ocean's thermal inertia, (4) conversion of Arctic Ocean into recently frozen ice that contains some salt residues, making the ice to melt away now lot easier just like it does in areas like Hudson Bay which melt every year.
Unfortunately, I do not have pictures of natural dry ice snow flakes from Antarctica when carbon dioxide filters out and forms carbon dioxide frost at below −78.5 °C.
Regards,
Albert
John Nissen
Jun 5, 2012, 2:17:35 PM6/5/12
to albert...@hotmail.com, s.sa...@ed.ac.uk, mmac...@comcast.net, geoengineering, P. Wadhams, Gary Houser, Sam Carana
Hi Albert,
You make an interesting point about the storm surges mixing the water.
This will take warmer surface water down to the seabed - adding to other mixing phenomena that
Shakhova and Semiletov have been observing. They believe it is this
warming that is causing rapid release of methane, whether it is from hydrates
or from free gas previously trapped below subsea permafrost. This is
a mechanism for rapid methane release that David Archer says
does not and cannot exist, see extract from [1]. The Russians estimated that, if one could
imagine the methane release that they were observing from one part of the ESAS
happening continuously over the whole of the ESAS, it would amount to several
gigatonnes of methane per annum [2]. The global warming from that would
quickly dwarf global warming from CO2, and we'd be liable to experience
run-away global warming. One does not need hundreds of Gigatonnes of
methane over a few years to obtain a catastrophe, as Archer maintains, see extract from [1].
A gigaton of methane release per year for a few years could build up to several
Watts per square metre of global climate forcing, compared to under one W/m2 for
the current net climate forcing [3].
(BTW, I think you are wrong about the OH. It is bacterial action by methanotrophs [4]
that oxidises the methane as it ascends through a water column. In
shallow seabed, such as ESAS where it is less than 50 metres deep, most of the
methane reaches the atmosphere without oxidation. As Stephen points out,
this methane digestion produces significant warming of the water column.)
So what can we reduce the risk of such a catastrophe? One absolutely requirement is to cool the Arctic using geoengineering and other means. As well as cooling the Arctic, we need to develop methods to capture (or flare) methane from the ocean seabed, preferably before (or as) it reaches the atmosphere.
The Arctic emergency situation, and measures to deal with it, will be
considered by the Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG) at the conference organised by the Campaign against
Climate Change, in London,
on the weekend June 16-17th. Details are available
on the AMEG web site here [5]. All are welcome.
Cheers from Chiswick,
John
[1] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/much-ado-about-methane/
[extract] Archer: "The methane bubbles coming from the Siberian shelf are
part of a system that takes centuries to respond to changes in temperature. The
methane from the Arctic lakes is also potentially part of a new, enhanced,
chronic methane release to the atmosphere. Neither of them could release a
catastrophic amount of methane (hundreds of Gtons) within a short time frame (a
few years or less). There isn’t some huge bubble of methane waiting to erupt as
soon as its roof melts."
[2] http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5970/1246.abstract
[3] http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110415_EnergyImbalancePaper.pdf
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanotroph
[5] http://ameg.me/
--
Nathan Currier
Jun 5, 2012, 6:46:01 PM6/5/12
to geoengi...@googlegroups.com, arctic...@googlegroups.com
Hi, all -
Going back to Stephen's suggestion, re arctic methane escape, elevated arctic CO2, and then the subsequent comments on OH, etc.: first, if there were a chronic release of CH4 to the arctic atmosphere, I don't think you would expect to see any elevated CO2 there at all, since the atmospheric mixing and CH4 lifetime are so different. On the other hand, the one case in which you would see this is that suggested by John Nissen's comment. I had written something once to AMEG suggesting there be a search for a small perturbation in CO2, as a test against just the same data he mentions from Shakhova et al. What John is discussing comes from sonar data, and if the observed seabed release rates were extrapolated over estimated ESAS taliks, it would give a few Gt/CH4 yr. But John then says that the water is too shallow there for much oxidation. Clearly those sonar readings, though, could only be meaningful if there were almost 100% oxidation of the methane in the water, since the growth in the atmosphere has been nothing on that scale. There is, surely, much about arctic microbial communities we don't know, so, just to speculate, if there really were such gigantic releases getting methanotrophically oxidized to CO2, how much of a CO2 anomaly might you expect to see locally? Crudely, if ~30Gt CO2 =+2ppm/yr, then you might expect that over ~3% of the atmosphere (arctic), 1 Gt/yr CO2 might equal ~2ppm. Microbes would be using some proportion of the carbon for biomass, but on the other hand 1Gt CH4 oxidizes >1Gt CO2, since the molecular weights are different, so if you imagine those factors roughly canceling each other out, then 1Gt methane oxidized in the water crudely gives ~1Gt CO2, and so you might expect a few Gt /yr could +~4-6ppm, which is about what you're seeing.
All that being said, given that these readings are all over the place, in Mongolia, Finland, Iceland, etc., I agree with Mike and transport is the easier explanation. At least let's hope so, because it would take an awful lot of methane, in other words, to make that small CO2 anomaly. One could test Stephen's suggestion, in any case, by looking locally at CO2 around hotspots of seabed release.
In terms of what Robert Socolow asks, which one also needs to know, I remember reading some years ago speculation on whether the annual (globally averaged) Mona Loa oscillation might be growing, perhaps as a signature of the fertilization effect. Could the arctic amplitude be increasing in this way, from things like the "pop up forests" that I just saw mentioned in the news yesterday, where tundra is rapidly changing in response to warming?
Cheers,
Nathan
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
Rau, Greg
Jun 5, 2012, 6:50:02 PM6/5/12
to natcu...@gmail.com, geoengi...@googlegroups.com, arctic...@googlegroups.com
I think that this paper:
will go some distance in reducing the possibilities.
-Greg
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/-t202WlkxxgJ.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages