CO2 spike in Mauna Loa

[vampares]

Boulder scientists report record-early high CO2 readings at key site

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Boulder scientists report record-early high CO2 readings at key site

400 parts per million at Mauna Loa reached two months ahead of 2013

By Charlie Brennan, Camera Staff Writer

Posted: 03/22/2014 11:58:50 AM MDT | Updated: about 12 hours ago

Carbon dioxide readings at Mauna Loa Observatory

 

Sunday: 400.13 ppm

Monday: 401.12 ppm

Tuesday: 401.18 ppm

Wednesday: 401.28 ppm

Thursday: 400.87 ppm

More info: esrl.noaa.gov/gmd

 

Carbon dioxide levels at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii and analyzed in Boulder have reached a disturbing benchmark earlier than last year and have done so for several days running, scientists said.

 

The readings hit 400 parts per million for CO2 every day from Sunday through Thursday. That is a level recorded at that observatory for the first time only last year — and in 2013, it was not reached until May 19.

 

The levels of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere move in seasonal swings, typically peaking in May and hitting their low point in September.

this

This graph is like smooth-smooth-smooth-SteveO riding downhill in a grocery cart.

 

 

Weeeee!

 

Graphs from The Keeling Curve

 

The current CO2 at the site is 398.88 ppm, for the record, which appears to be about on the blue graph curve.

 

Anyone want to propose an idea as to where the "spring board" in the data is coming from?

Edited March 24, 2014 by vampares

[swansont]

 

Anyone want to propose an idea as to where the "spring board" in the data is coming from?

 

At this point, any answer but a statistical fluctuation would probably be premature. The very last data point on the first curve is below the trend line.

 

Is there any explanation given for the two bumps in January, or the one in November? Or the dips in February?

[vampares]

It's probably of some importance to determine what causes the 'predictable' fluctuation over the course of a year.

 

Perhaps something to do with temperature or any other meteorological event?

It comes up, takes a hard determined cut downward and pops up again.

 

We can rule out direct human caused CO2.

[swansont]

It's probably of some importance to determine what causes the 'predictable' fluctuation over the course of a year.

 

Perhaps something to do with temperature or any other meteorological event?

It comes up, takes a hard determined cut downward and pops up again.

 

We can rule out direct human caused CO2.

 

The last sentence does not follow from anything.

[vampares]

The station is located well in the Pacific Ocean. I believe station itself is also remotely located from a Hawaiian standpoint. I believe it was the deliberate intention of the stations design to be as isolated from point sources as possible. There may be a heavy breathing Spanish fisherman off the coast, but traffic should be about as infrequent as to glance a monthly data point. Airline traffic is a concern. Hawaii is not a fly-over-state. There is the possibility. For a million dollars a year you expect WAH?

 

OK so barring a fat guy eating a ham sandwich and talking on phone while taking data points...

 

The human generated CO2 is consistent. It may vary on Sundays, globally everyone is on the same 7 day per week calender. Today is Monday.

 

The consistency is only icing on the fact that decreases up or down, or no? would have a small if not negligible data variance?

 

At any rate, substantial CO2 reduction/increase would have been news worthy enough for me to have heard about it.

Airline traffic usually has a down time of about 7 hours or so in the evenings. If winds were blowing from an airport towards the data collection point, human sources may have contaminated the air specimen.

 

Unfortunately that same time period also correlates with diurnal fluctuation.

Strange thing about this last graph, however is that the data not only goes up -- it also goes down.

Edited March 24, 2014 by vampares

[swansont]

You will have to clarify which fluctuation you were referring to. In my experience, an annual cycle doesn't get called a fluctuation, but upon rereading you might have been referring to that.

 

 

The human generated CO2 is consistent. It may vary on Sundays, globally everyone is on the same 7 day per week calender. Today is Monday.

 

 

Assumed, not demonstrated. I would expect CO2 generation to fluctuate if there were a cold or warm snap in a highly industrialized nation(s), for example, and the heating and electrical use varied. Or if there was a crippling snowstorm that kept several millions of cars off the road for a day or two, preventing many tens of millions of gallons of gasoline from being burned. It's a matter of determining how much variation there is, not that there is no variation.

[vampares]

Google maps "Mauna Loa co2 site"

Not completely remote. By the shadow cast by the aerial structure it appears to be >100 feet tall.

I've considered the possibilities of cold snaps local to the location, and the consequent use of combustion sourced heating. On the google map I did see one vehicle, so the perimeter roadway is traveled. Relatively few vehicles though.

 

The majority of delta in the graph is not demonstrating characteristic of diffusion. This is especially true given the sharp drop in the evening.

 

If I were to complain about anything it's that the site is surrounded by vegetation. There may be more collection points other than the one I am assuming is on top of the aerial. I saw a picture of a white tube on the coast on one of the CO2 sites.

The deforestation on the western side of the island looks unprofessional, left a scattering of downed trees and while there is a fence of some sort, I haven't located livestock or livestock facilities.

Given the electrification, a wood burning stove is real hassle.

On the East side the community of Hawaiian Paradise Park demonstrates that the Majority actually likes trees.

Edited March 24, 2014 by vampares

[swansont]

I'm not talking about a local effect.

[vampares]

I'm fairly certain that an increase of global CO2 would not have an effect on this location for at least 12 hours if not for months. CO2 will diffuse rather quickly (especially in the wind) but the location is very, very remote. Therefore we would see only a steady increase. It's sort of like the question what if everyone in the world jumped up in the air all at once. It's possible but it's not happening right now and it stands to reason that it would not continue ad nauseam.

Perhaps what I am getting at is that there are "contributors" and "consumers" of CO2. The human population does factor in at this site but to an extent that, by design, is minimal. There is data collection done in Antarctica, California and other remote sites. The data, if you watch the video, is measured with a high degree of precision.

But the data site in this instance certianly could be in a "sea" of "contributors" and "consumers". I'd hate to shatter any preconceptions of a "perfect gas law" world but it is actually a far more plausible theory. This location is in all likelihood (given the lack of ruminants) untouched by mankind.

You will have to clarify which fluctuation you were referring to. In my experience, an annual cycle doesn't get called a fluctuation, but upon rereading you might have been referring to that.


Assumed, not demonstrated. I would expect CO2 generation to fluctuate if there were a cold or warm snap in a highly industrialized nation(s), for example, and the heating and electrical use varied. Or if there was a crippling snowstorm that kept several millions of cars off the road for a day or two, preventing many tens of millions of gallons of gasoline from being burned. It's a matter of determining how much variation there is, not that there is no variation.

Now there may well be just this much pressure on the CO2 situation, I don't know. I heard that CO2 released into the environment persists, as an individual molecule, on average: 100 years.

Have you heard this? Maybe we would think of it as the greater storage from which there is a little input, a little output -- we tend to takeout less than we put in.

0.0397% atmospheric CO2.

If that were the sales tax, you would have to pay $100.04 for every $100 purchase. Total tax 4 cents.

In Pennsylvania, where I live, the sales tax is 6%. Total tax $6.00.

A physicist with an engineering eye could tell you the exact number of people you can fit into a phone booth. Between 30 and 50. Space is expansive. Just wrap your mind around it. So the volume of air is very great, especially considering gravity confines our perspective to the 2 dimensional domain.

I kind of liked the possibility of temperature influence on the CO2. That only works with water AFAIK.

At this point I think we need calculations.

The Earth's Atmosphere

The total mass is 5.3 x 1018 km which is about 1 millionth of the total mass of the planet (5.97 x 1024 kg).

The km looks like a typo. (_shit) a millionth is a good size eh? Maybe it's not enough barium.

World Watch

These folks out of Washington DC say global carbon emissions are (by extrapolation) 8G tons. 16×10¹² lbs convert metric 7.27×10¹² Kg.

Right off, looking at these numbers I can say that human fossil fuel consumption is amongst the least of our concerns.

I'm calculating 0.0001372% total CO2 increase after a given year. Based upon the questionable number I a working with.

We were talking about local sources. I think don't the human source could have an effect even if it was traveling on the coaxial from those numbers.

 

Anyways, let us burn gasoline up wind of the governments unrecognized precision. . .idle a caravan of buses in the close proximity.

Edited March 25, 2014 by vampares

[Essay]

Boulder scientists report record-early high CO2 readings at key site

 

This graph is like smooth-smooth-smooth-SteveO riding downhill in a grocery cart.

....[graph]...

Weeeee!

 

Graphs from The Keeling Curve

...

Anyone want to propose an idea as to where the "spring board" in the data is coming from?

Any bumps, within the overall rising (or uphill) “saw-tooth” pattern, are fairly meaningless, aren’t they?

The point is the steady (anthropogenic) uphill change, which is acidifying our oceans, and melting the cryosphere and the mountain glaciers in the temperate and tropical zones.

We are putting much more “change” into the earth system (and much more quickly) than the change between the MWP & LIA.

But that change, which caused great difficulty for civilization over those centuries, was miniscule when compared to what we are now pushing the planet to do ...within decades.

Unless we undo this change....

Civilization’s remnants (the powerful parts) might adapt well enough, but the rest of biodiversity will dwindle into a composition of the victors from whatever extinction level event this punctuation to the equilibrium will bring.

It looks to be a "fun" ride: "...like smooth-smooth-smooth-SteveO riding downhill in a grocery cart... weeeee!"

Though civilization’s ride “downhill” has historically tended to be more bumpity-bump-bump than smooth.

~

[swansont]

I'm fairly certain that an increase of global CO2 would not have an effect on this location for at least 12 hours if not for months. CO2 will diffuse rather quickly (especially in the wind) but the location is very, very remote. Therefore we would see only a steady increase. It's sort of like the question what if everyone in the world jumped up in the air all at once. It's possible but it's not happening right now and it stands to reason that it would not continue ad nauseam.

 

Perhaps what I am getting at is that there are "contributors" and "consumers" of CO2. The human population does factor in at this site but to an extent that, by design, is minimal. There is data collection done in Antarctica, California and other remote sites. The data, if you watch the video, is measured with a high degree of precision.

By design?

 

Now there may well be just this much pressure on the CO2 situation, I don't know. I heard that CO2 released into the environment persists, as an individual molecule, on average: 100 years.

 

Have you heard this? Maybe we would think of it as the greater storage from which there is a little input, a little output -- we tend to takeout less than we put in.

Yes. The long time constant is one reason that it's a problem.

 

0.0397% atmospheric CO2.

 

If that were the sales tax, you would have to pay $100.04 for every $100 purchase. Total tax 4 cents.

 

In Pennsylvania, where I live, the sales tax is 6%. Total tax $6.00.

Saying that it's a small fraction and therefore can be ignored is incorrect. The problem is that the "purchase" is on the 1.3 kW/m^2 of sunlight we get, and CO2 punches above its weight in terms of trapping that heat. The earth presents a surface of about 1.3 x 10^14 m^2 to the sun. You don't need increase the fraction of trapped energy very much to see a temperature increase.

 

 

These folks out of Washington DC say global carbon emissions are (by extrapolation) 8G tons. 16×10¹² lbs convert metric 7.27×10¹² Kg.

 

Right off, looking at these numbers I can say that human fossil fuel consumption is amongst the least of our concerns.

8 Gtons of C means 29Gtons of CO2. If that stayed in the atmosphere, it would be a 5 ppm increase.

 

[vampares]

The sad thing is, the graphs looks as though they are 'leveling' on the 400 ppm line. It's almost as if the climate were a silly drunk which was willing to play along with our games.

 

 

what we are now pushing the planet to do ...within decades.

 

Although change does not come easy, the climate may just be far more willing to go along with schemes of apocalypse than we would have thought. When the head is underwater, will Gods hand hold it down?

 

We are far too intelligent to allow the earth to be martyred.

Edited March 31, 2014 by vampares