Weatherdem's Weblog

Bridging climate science, citizens, and policy

January 2013 CO2 Concentrations: 395.55ppm

2 Comments

Up and up the value goes.  The Scripps Institution of Oceanography measured an average of 395.55ppm CO2 concentration at their Mauna Loa, Hawai’i’s Observatory during January 2013.

395.55ppm is the highest value for January concentrations in recorded history. Last year’s 393.14ppm was the previous highest value ever recorded.  This January’s reading is 2.41ppm higher than last year’s.  This increase is significant.  Of course, more significant is the unending trend toward higher concentrations with time, no matter the month or specific year-over-year value, as seen in the graphs below.

The yearly maximum monthly value normally occurs during May. Last year was no different: the 396.78ppm concentration in May 2012 was the highest value reported last year and in recorded history (neglecting proxy data).  Note that January’s value is only 1.23ppm less than May 2012′s.  If we extrapolate last year’s maximum value out in time, it will only be 2 years until Scripps reports 400ppm average concentration for a singular month (likely May 2014; I expect May 2013′s value will be ~398ppm).  Note that I previously wrote that this wouldn’t occur until 2015 – this means CO2 concentrations are another climate variable that is increasing faster than experts predicted just a short couple of years ago.

It is worth noting here that stations measured 400ppm CO2 concentration for the first time in the Arctic last year.  The Mauna Loa observations are usually closer to globally averaged values than other sites, such as in the Arctic.  That is why scientists and media reference the Mauna Loa observations most often.

 photo co2_widget_brundtland_600_graph_201301_zps47426643.gif

Figure 1 – Time series of CO2 concentrations measured at Scripp’s Mauna Loa Observatory in January: from 1959 through 2012.

This time series chart shows concentrations for the month of January in the Scripps dataset going back to 1959. As I wrote above, concentrations are persistently and inexorably moving upward.  How do concentration measurements change in calendar years?  The following two graphs demonstrate this.

 photo CO2_concentration_5y_trend_NOAA_201302_zpsf91fb45e.png

Figure 2 – Monthly CO2 concentration values from 2009 through 2013 (NOAA).  Note the yearly minimum observation is now in the past and we are three months removed from the yearly maximum value.  NOAA is likely to measure this year’s maximum value at ~398ppm.

 photo CO2_concentration_50y_trend_NOAA_201302_zpsd23ef3f0.png

Figure 3 50 year time series of CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa Observatory.  The red curve represents the seasonal cycle.  The black curve represents the data with the seasonal cycle removed to show the long-term trend.  This graph shows the recent and ongoing increase in CO2 concentrations.  Remember that as a greenhouse gas, CO2 increases the radiative forcing toward the Earth, which eventually increases lower tropospheric temperatures.

We could instead take a 10,000 year view of CO2 concentrations from ice cores and compare that to the recent Mauna Loa observations.  This allows us to determine how today’s concentrations compare to geologic conditions:

Photobucket

Figure 4 – Historical (10,000 year) CO2 concentrations from ice core proxies (blue and green curves) and direct observations made at Mauna Loa, Hawai’i (red curve) through the early 2000s.

Or we could take a really, really long view into the past:

Photobucket

Figure 5 – Historical record of CO2 concentrations from ice core proxy data, 2008 observed CO2 concentration value, and 2 potential future concentration values resulting from lower and higher emissions scenarios used in the IPCC’s AR4.

Note that this last graph includes values from the past 800,000 years, 2008 observed values (~8-10ppm less than this year’s average value will be) as well as the projected concentrations for 2100 derived from a lower emissions and higher emissions scenarios used by the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report from 2007.  Has CO2 varied naturally in this time period?  Of course it has.  But you can easily see that previous variations were between 180 and 280ppm and took thousands of years to move between the two.  In contrast, the concentration has, at no time during the past 800,000 years, risen to the level at which it currently exists; nor has the concentration changed so quickly (287ppm to 395ppm in less than two hundred years!).  That is important because of the additional radiative forcing that increased CO2 concentrations impart on our climate system.  You or I may not detect that warming on any particular day, but we are just starting to feel their long-term impacts.

Moreover, if our current emissions rate continues unabated, it looks like a tripling of average pre-industrial concentrations will be our reality by 2100 (278 *3 = 834).  Figure 5 clearly demonstrates how anomalous today’s CO2 concentration values are (much higher than the average, or even the maximum, recorded over the past 800,000 years).  It further shows how significant the projected emission pathways are.  I will point out that our actual emissions to date are greater than the higher emissions pathway shown above.  That means that if we continue to emit CO2 at an increasing rate, end-of-century concentration values would exceed the value shown in Figure 5 (~1100ppm instead of 800).  This reality will be partially addressed in the upcoming 5th Assessment Report (AR5), currently scheduled for public release in 2013-14.

Given our historical emissions to date and the likelihood that they will continue to grow at an increasing rate for at least the next 25 years, we will pass a number of “safe” thresholds – for all intents and purposes permanently as far as concerns our species. It is time to start seriously investigating and discussing what kind of world will exist after CO2 concentrations peak at 850 or 1200ppm. No knowledgeable body, including the IPCC, has done this to date. To remain relevant, I think institutions who want a credible seat at the climate science-policy table will have to do so moving forward.  The work leading up to AR5 will begin to fill in some of this knowledge gap.  I expect most of that work has recently started and will be available to the public around the same time as the AR5 release.  This could potentially cause some confusion in the public since the AR5 will tell one storyline while more recent research might tell a different storyline.

The fourth and fifth graphs imply that efforts to pin any future concentration goal to a number like 350ppm or even 450ppm will be incredibly difficult – 350ppm more so than 450ppm, obviously. Beyond an education tool, I don’t see the utility in using 350ppm – we simply will not achieve it, or anything close to it, given our history and likelihood that economic growth goals will trump any effort to address CO2 concentrations in the near future (as President Obama himself stated in 2012).  That is not to say that we should abandon hope or efforts to do something.  On the contrary, this series informs those who are most interested in action.  With a solid basis in the science, we become equipped to discuss policy options.  I join those who encourage efforts to tie emissions reductions to economic growth through scientific and technological research and innovation.  This path is the only credible one moving forward.

About these ads

2 thoughts on “January 2013 CO2 Concentrations: 395.55ppm

  1. Weatherdem. I am pretty pessimist, but I still don’t think the new normal is to assume concentrations of 850 ppm to 1,100 per end century through emissions trajectories alone. For A1FI or whatever, you need to assume that growth is exogenous. That is, there are no negative feedback loops between climate change and growth.

    Growth is struggling now. Take the case of the U.S. where a comprehensive carbon mitigation strategy has been noticeable for its absence. If you look at Bloomberg’s sustainable energy factbook, you can see considerable progress has been made with respect to carbon intensity and emissions (the EIA numbers tell the same story):

    http://about.bnef.com/2013/01/31/sustainable-energy-in-america-2013-factbook/

    Now some of this is increased renewables, a lot of it is the switch from coal to natural gas, but even more is due to the trend rate in U.S. growth falling substantially.

    Globally, things don’t look so good because China, and to a lesser extent India, are growing like gangbusters and showing minimal improvements in carbon intensity. But Chinese growth is fixed capital intensive Soviet Union style growth. It is not sustainable. China’s growth rates are, and will, come down substantially. I think A1FI is a mirage.

    And this is all before climate change damage has had the chance to materially bash down growth by itself. I can’t image what the impact of climate change to growth could be in the year 2050. I suspect that if we come in at the high sensitivity levels, climate change will have taken GDP growth down to around zero.

    That is the good news. The bad news is that the A1FI scenario says nothing about changes in the carbon airborne faction or permafrost CO2 release. So we could still get to those terrifying 850 ppm to 1,100 ppm states. It’s just that this will not happen through ‘infinity and beyond’ exponential growth in GDP.

    • Rational Pessimist-
      Thanks for sharing a very good comment.
      I think of the issue this way. Until historical emissions and implemented policy dictate otherwise, we remain on a business-as-usual emissions and concentrations pathway. While the eventual specific number is unknown at this time, 850-1100ppm CO2 seems to me to be a useful range off which to base discussion. It is certainly more realistic than 350-450ppm. Yes, carbon intensity is down in the US. I think it is great that our energy consumption looks more like it did in 1995 than 2005. That said, I would wait a few more years before characterizing it as considerable progress. If energy consumption rebounds to 2005 levels, even with more natural gas and renewables, our emissions will increase again. I would, of course, hope that they continue to decline.
      One significant problem with emission/concentration scenarios is their assumption of automatic decarbonization (outside of A1FI or RCP8.5). Again, absent implemented pathway, I think it is foolish to assume declining emissions/concentrations. Perhaps emissions will peak at 500ppm (or something substantially less than my 850-1000pppm range) or radiative forcing to peak at 4.5 or 6Wm-2 due to reasons of stalled growth or collapsing industrial economies. I have yet to see peer-reviewed literature on those scenarios and so don’t feel comfortable basing projections off of them. Since I have done calculations on historical decarbonization rates as well as those rates required to achieve Kyoto Protocol and SRES pathway goals, I am convinced rapid decarbonization is a monumental challenge. It is a challenge we can achieve, but efforts to date were not up to the task. Japan’s low growth rate in the past two decades hasn’t caused a commensurate decarbonization. In fact, post-Fukushima, their emissions will likely explode in the next two decades as they keep nuclear plants off-line.
      The BRIC economies have slowed recently, that is true. But billions of people remain in “undeveloped” economies and they want to develop. In so doing, they are currently more likely to more than offset any decarbonization in developed nations for some time. I would support many policies that seeks to address these upcoming emissions if and when they are implemented.
      I agree that climate change effects are likely to impact future growth and emissions. As with many other aspects of this topic, the real-world impacts are currently not well known or quantified. This might be another case where we’ll have to wait for more data to properly assess additional impacts.
      As to your last point, I agree that climate feedbacks will likely include nonlinear effects. Perhaps I should be more careful and say I expect 850-1100ppm CO2-eq forcing because the problem isn’t just CO2 but all GHGs.
      I do hope that you’re more correct in this regard than I. Until I see observational evidence that we are not on a high emissions/concentration pathway however, I’ll continue to use RCP8.5/A1FI projections.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 248 other followers