Monthly CO2 Levels Above 400ppm

For the first time since modern records began, monthly mean carbon dioxide levels were above 400 parts per million (ppm), as illustrated by the NOAA image below. NOAA just released the mean global carbon dioxide level for March 2015, which was 400.83 ppm.

Arctic Ocean hit hard

Carbon dioxide concentrations can be especially high, i.e. well over 410 ppm, at higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, as illustrated by the NOAA image below. This can contribute to very high temperature anomalies over the Arctic Ocean and thus increase the risk of huge amounts of methane erupting from the Arctic Ocean seafloor. 

Image contributed by Harold Hensel

Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide levels have risen non-linearly, as illustrated by the image below.

Need for Comprehensive and Effective Action

As many posts at this blog have warned, emissions by people and the numerous feedbacks are threatening to push Earth into runaway global warming.

This calls for comprehensive and effective action to - among other things - reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels back to 280 ppm, as illustrated by the image below and as further discussed at the policies proposed as part of the Climate Plan.

How best to get back to 280 ppm? 

The Climate Plan calls for restoration of greenhouse gas levels in oceans and atmosphere to their long term average by 2100. In the Climate Plan, multiple lines of action are proposed to work simultaneously, in parallel and separately in their implementation, yet complementary in their impact.


One line of action is to cut emissions by 80% by the year 2020. To achieve this, the Climate Plan advocates implementation of local feebates. Especially important are fees on sales of fuel, while the resulting revenues are best used to fund rebates on products sold locally that further help speed up the shift to clean energy.

Without further action, much of the carbon dioxide that has been emitted will stay in the atmosphere for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Therefore, further lines of action are needed, including removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and oceans, with the carbon being safely stored.

For the long term average of 280 ppm to be achieved in 2100, large amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide must also be removed and safely stored annually. How much must be removed? The period from 2015 to 2100 has 85 years, so bringing down carbon dioxide from 400 ppm to 280 ppm over that period works out to an annual removal of 1.41 ppm. By comparison, this is slightly less than the annual growth in carbon dioxide levels as caused by people since 1959, which is on average 1.47 ppm. Assuming that emissions will not be cut quickly enough to avoid further build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in the near future, annual removal will need to be somewhat more, so 1.47 ppm looks like a good target for now, precisely because it equals past emissions.

The Climate Plan thus proposes that each nation will contribute to the necessary annual 1.47 ppm removal with a share that reflects its past emissions. The image below gives an idea of past emissions. Note that the image only shows emissions up to the year 2011 and that they exclude land use change and forestry emissions. Furthermore, the image shows emissions based on where products were produced. Much of the rise in emissions is the result of products that were produced in Asia, yet many of these products were consumed in Europe and North America. Therefore, graphs based on emissions where products were consumed would paint a somewhat different picture. The Climate Plan proposes that a nation's contributions to carbon dioxide removal (from oceans and atmosphere) will reflect its past emissions based on where products were consumed.

The Climate Plan advocates separate lines of action, i.e. greenhouse gas removal next to emission cuts and further action. Keeping action on different types of pollution separate and calling for local action in each nation further helps avoid that progress elsewhere is pointed at by a nation as an excuse to delay the necessary action on a specific type of pollution in that nation.

As said, the Climate Plan therefore calls for fees to be added on sales of polluting products where they are consumed (as opposed to where they are produced). Each nation is further expected to take steps to contribute its share to the 1.47 ppm carbon dioxide that needs to be removed from the atmosphere annually. Additionally, carbon dioxide needs to be removed from the oceans.

The most important thing each nation can do in the lead-up to the upcoming U.N. climate conference in Paris is to accept these commitments. How each nation and local community does achieve targets is best decided locally, provided that each nation and each local community does indeed reach its targets, and this follows from this commitment.

One reason why local feebates are recommended is that they can focus on achieving local targets for a specific pollutant. Local feebates allow communities to quickly adjust the height of the fees, where a local community threatens to fail reaching a target. Such a local focus does not preclude action being beneficial elsewhere as well. Indeed, the same feebate can work for multiple pollutants and on multiple lines of action. In this sense, locally implemented feebates often work complementary. As an example, the feebates pictured below will help remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and oceans, while they will also help cut emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, soot and nitrous oxide.

Further background

- Climate Plan
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/plan.html

- Feebates
http://feebates.blogspot.com/p/feebates.html

- Policies
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/policies.html

- Action
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/action.html

The Climate Plan calls for: - 80% emission cuts by 2020, for each type of pollutant, in each location and best managed...
Posted by Sam Carana on Saturday, May 9, 2015

It's time to 'Do the math' again

By David Spratt

Have we gone mad? A new report released today explains why contemporary climate change policy-making should be characterised as increasingly delusional.

As the deadline approaches for submissions to the Australian government's climate targets process, there is a flurry of submissions and reports from advocacy groups and the Climate Change Authority.

Most of these reports are based on the twin propositions that two degrees Celsius (2°C) of global warming is an appropriate policy target, and that there is a significant carbon budget and an amount of "burnable carbon" for this target, and hence a scientifically-based escalating ladder of emission-reduction targets stretching to mid-century and beyond.

A survey of the relevant scientific literature by David Spratt, "Recount: It's time to 'Do the math' again", published today by Breakthrough concludes that the evidence does not support either of these propositions.

The catastrophic and irreversible consequences of 2°C of warming demand a strong risk-management approach, with a low rate of failure. We should not take risks with the climate that we would not take with civil infrastructure.

There is no carbon budget available if 2°C is considered a cap or upper boundary as per the Copenhagen Accord, rather than a hit-or-miss target which can be significantly exceeded; or if a low risk of exceeding 2°C is required; or if positive feedbacks such as permafrost and other carbon store losses are taken into account.

Effective policy making can only be based on recognising that climate change is already dangerous, and we have no carbon budget left to divide up. Big tipping-point events irreversible on human time scales such as in West Antarctica and large-scale positive feedbacks are already occurring at less than 1°C of warming. It is clear that 2°C of climate warming is not a safe cap.

In reality, 2°C is the boundary between dangerous and very dangerous climate change and 1°C warmer than human civilisation has ever experienced.

In the lead up to the forthcoming Paris talks, policy makers through their willful neglect of the evidence are in effect normalising a 2.5–3°C global warming target.

This evidence in "Recount: It's time to 'Do the math' again" demonstrates that action is necessary at a faster pace than most policy makers conceive is possible.

Related

- It's time to 'Do the math' again
http://www.climatecodered.org/2015/04/its-time-to-do-math-again.html

- RECOUNT - It's time to 'Do the math' again
http://media.wix.com/ugd/148cb0_938b5512abfa4d4e965ec8cc292893f7.pdf

- Two degrees of warming closer than you may think
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2015/02/two-degrees-of-warming-closer-than-you-may-think.html

- The real budgetary emergency and the myth of "burnable carbon"
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-real-budgetary-emergency-and-the-myth-of-burnable-carbon.html

It's time to 'Do the math' again | by David Spratt http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2015/04/its-time-to-do-math-again.html

Posted by Sam Carana on Thursday, April 23, 2015

350,000 Marchers = 50 Parts Per Million

People's Climate March, New York, September 21, 2014, photo by Cindy Snodgrass

by Nathan Currier

How big a deal was the march in Manhattan yesterday? One of the organizers was 350.org, a group started by Bill McKibben based on a paper by climate scientist James Hansen which stated that we should aim for about 350 parts per million (ppm) CO2. We are currently at about 400ppm, so we need to move "only" about 50ppm in the opposite direction from our rapid growth, which hit a frightening 3ppm clip last year.

It will take a huge effort, and few alive today will live to see it (short of large-scale engineering), but it is interesting to ponder the minute change this represents in the air -- a shift of just 5 one-thousandths of one percent (.005 percent) of the atmosphere! That is one of the fascinating things in climate science, how such a minute change in our atmosphere could potentially have such an impact on the energy balance of our whole planet.

Keep this in mind if you are trying to contemplate how big a deal it is that some 350,000 people came out into the streets of Manhattan, the capital of capitalism, the cultural heart of the nation where manufactured denial has most stymied action. That's because this happens to be exactly the same proportion of the 7 billion members of humanity, 5 one-thousandths of one percent, as that 50ppm is a shift in the composition of the air. Further, some have estimated the real number of marchers as 400,000, and if the global estimates swell equally, then globally about the same proportion were marching as the CO2 growth since industrialization is a shift in atmospheric composition. In a way, all those marching were just a trace, and as soon as we dissipated into streets and subways afterwards, quickly outnumbered by people going about their everyday lives, that seemed obvious, but in another way, how monumental the right little trace can become!

And speaking of powerful little traces, methane is even far less concentrated in the air than CO2, about 220 times less so, but there was really some methane floating around the Manhattan air yesterday! No, I don't mean all those leaky pipes in the city that have led local tests to sometimes register incredibly high ambient readings of the greenhouse gas. I mean that among the marchers anti-fracking signs often seemed to outnumber all other "sub-theme" signs. This is a fascinating phenomenon, as some of us have felt that, since we all ultimately must live in the here and now, and since one cannot impact the climate we have here and now very effectively through CO2 mitigation, yet one can only gain practical political traction by dealing with that here and now, so one of the best ways to gauge seriousness in getting movement going on climate would be to watch for meaningful action on methane. In a sense, if you want people to start climbing up a very steep ladder, you need to give them a nice low first step, and that first climate step would be methane. As Robert Watson, the previous Chair of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change put it succinctly, rapidly cutting methane, "would demonstrate to the world that we can do something to quickly slow climate change. We need to get moving to cool the planet's temperature. Methane is the most effective place for us to start."

The Manhattan climate march also provided a fitting example of how getting the big slow march of change rolling can be frustrating: for those in the back it took two hours to start any movement at all, and then another two hours to reach Columbus Circle, its ostensible starting point. Similarly inevitable drags on climate mitigation are making rapid methane action all the more important. And uncertainties in near-term climate change, with a rising potential for high-impact lower-probability events to cause abrupt heating (like non-human methane emissions in the arctic taking off more quickly than models predict), means that ignoring the near-term climate for too long could ultimately prove fatal to all our best intentions. So it's fascinating to see an interest in methane growing from the grass roots, even if it is still largely (and erroneously) confined to the fracking issue at this point. Let's hope that the interest in this merest little trace gas of our air -- since industrialization it has risen by about 1.1 ppm, a shift of about 1.1 ten-thousandth of 1 percent of the atmosphere! -- sparks soon. The group 1250 was initially intended to provide a kind of autonomous offshoot to McKibben's 350, in order to help generate that spark, but McKibben himself soon said that he "had his hands full with CO2" and did not at the time send along to his followers the group's initial petition drive, which then quickly languished. But if methane interest does reach that critical concentration, and that spark is provided, you know what happens next: that's when climate action goes boom.

Above text was earlier posted by Nathan Currier at the HuffingtonPost 

Below follow further photos by Cindy Snowgrass of the People's Climate March.

Post by Sam Carana.

Climate Plan

This image sums up the lines of action, to be implemented in parallel and as soon as possible, and targets of the Climate Plan, in order to avoid climate catastrophe.

The Climate Plan and its various parts have been discussed in many post at Arctic-news blog over the years.

Now is the time to support the Climate Plan and to make sure that it will be considered at many forums, such as the Climate Summit, to be held September 23, 2014, at the U.N. Headquarters in New York, and preparations for the UNFCCC Climate Change Conference in Paris in 2015.

Please show your support by sharing this text and the image widely!


Emission cuts

In nations with both federal and state governments such as the U.S., the President (or Head of State or Cabinet, basically where executive powers are held) can direct:

• federal departments and agencies to reduce their emissions for each type of pollutant annually by a set percentage, say, CO2 and CH4 by 10%, and HFCs, N2O and soot by higher percentages.
• the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to make states each achieve those same reductions. 



Target: 80% cut everywhere for each type of pollutant
by 2020 (to be managed locally provided targets are met)

• the EPA to monitor progress by states and to step in with more effective action in case a state looks set to miss one or more targets.
  (More effective action in such a case would be to impose (federal) fees on applicable polluting products sold in the respective state, with revenues used for federal benefits. Such federal benefits could include building interstate High-Speed Rail tracks, adaptation and conservation measures, management of national parks, R&D into batteries, ways to vegetate deserts and other land use measurements, all at the discretion of the EPA. Fees can be roughly calculated as the average of fees that other states impose in successful efforts to meet their targets.)

Similar policies could be adopted elsewhere in the world, and each nation could similarly delegate responsibilities to states, provinces and further down to local communities.

Carbon dioxide removal and storage

Target: restore atmosphere and ocean to long term average
by 2100 (with each nation's annual contributions to reflect
its past emissions)

Energy feebates can best clean up energy, while other feebates (such as pictured in the above diagram) can best raise revenue for carbon dioxide removal. Energy feebates can phase themselves out, completing the necessary shift to clean energy within a decade. Carbon dioxide removal will need to continue for much longer, so funding will need to be raised from other sources, such as sales of livestock products, nitrogen fertilizers and Portland cement.

A range of methods to remove carbon dioxide would be eligible for funding under such feebates. To be eligible for rebates, methods merely need to be safe and remove carbon dioxide.

There are methods to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and/or from the oceans. Rebates favor methods that also have commercial viability. In case of enhanced weathering, this will favor production of building materials, road pavement, etc. Such methods could include water desalination and pumping of water into deserts, in efforts to achieve more vegetation growth. Selling a forest where once was a desert could similarly attract rebates.

Some methods will be immediately viable, such as afforestation and biochar. It may take some time for methods such as enhanced weathering to become economically viable, but when they do, they can take over where afforestation has exhausted its potential to get carbon dioxide back to 280ppm.

Additionally, conservation and land use measures could help increase carbon storage in ecosystems.

Solar radiation management

Target: prevent Arctic Ocean from warming by more
than 1°C above long term average (U.N. supervised)

Apart from action to move to a more sustainable economy, additional lines of action are necessary to reduce the danger of runaway global warming.

Extra fees on international commercial aviation could provide funding for ways to avoid that the temperature of the atmosphere or the oceans will rise by more than 1°C above long term average.

Due to their potential impact across borders, these additional lines of action will need ongoing research, international agreement and cooperation.

Land, clouds, wind, water, snow and ice management

Target: increase Arctic snow and ice cover (U.N.
supervised) and restore it to its long term average 

Apart from action to move to a more sustainable economy, additional lines of action are necessary to reduce the danger of runaway global warming.

Extra fees on international commercial aviation could also provide funding for ways to cool the Arctic and restore the snow and ice cover to its long term average extent.

As said, due to their potential impact across borders, these additional lines of action will need ongoing research, international agreement and cooperation.

Methane management and further action

Target: relocate vulnerable Arctic clathrates (U.N. supervised)
and restore mean atmospheric CH4 level to long term average
by 2100 (with each nation's annual contributions to reflect its
past emissions.

Further action is needed to avoid that huge quantities of methane will abruptly erupt from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean.

Vulnerable hydrates should be considered to be relocated under U.N. supervision.

Besides this, local action can be taken to reduce methane levels in the atmosphere with each nation's annual contributions to reflect its past emissions.

Adaptation, conservation and land use measures could further improve the situation.

The comprehensive and effective action of the Climate Plan will reduce the threat of runaway warming, and this will have obvious benefits for the environment and for species threatened with extiction. Besides this, this will also save people money, will improve people's health and safety, will increase security of food and fresh water supply, will make energy supply and the electric grid more efficient, safe, robust and reliable, will reduce perceived needs for military forces to police fuel supply lines globally, and will create numerous local job and investment opportunities. Please support, follow and discuss the Climate Plan at facebook.com/ClimatePlan and at ClimatePlan.blogspot.com

Post by Sam Carana.

Obama's Power Plant Rules: Too Little, Too Late, Too Ineffective

On June 2, 2014, the Obama administration through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that states must lower carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted for each unit (MWh) of electricity they produce.

1. Too Little

Under the EPA rules, the nationwide goal is to reduce CO2 emissions from the power sector by 30% from 2005 levels. This will also reduce other pollutants.

Sam Carana: The goal should be an 80% cut in emissions. Reductions should not be averaged out over different types of emissions, but instead the 80% reduction target should apply to each type of emission, i.e. 80% cuts in CO2 and 80% cuts in CH4 and 80% cuts in black carbon, etc.

2. Too late

Under the EPA rules, states must meet interim targets during the 2020s, but they can delay making emission cuts provided they will on average comply with targets by 2030. Moreover, the EPA suggests that they can from then on maintain that level subsequently.

Sam Carana: For over six years, I have been calling for an 80% cut in emissions by 2020. When people now ask if I still believe such reductions are feasible given the lack of action over the years, I respond that, precisely because so little has been achieved over the years, it now is even more imperative to set a target of 80% emissions cuts by 2020. If we start cutting 13.4% off this year's emissions, and keep cutting emissions by the same amount each subsequent year, we'll be under 20% (i.e. at 19.6%) by 2020. 

3. Too ineffective

Under the EPA rules, states could comply by either reducing CO2 emissions from their power plants or buying credits or offsets from elsewehere, e.g. through cap-and-trade programs. States can choose to use existing multi-state programs or create new ones.

Sam Carana: The goal should be a genuine 80% cut in emissions in each and every state. It is good to delegate decisions to states regarding what works best locally to achieve such reductions. However, schemes such as cap-and-trade, carbon credits and offsetting keep local polluters dirty by allowing them to claim credit for progress made elsewhere. A state buying credits from beyond its borders does not genuinely reduce its own emissions, making it even harder for it to reach its next targets (which should be even tighter), while also making it harder for targets to be reached elsewhere.  

The bigger such schemes grow, the more they become fraught with difficulties, twisted with irregularities and riddled with political chicanery, making them prone to fraud and bribery, often beyond the administrative scope and legal reach of local regulators. 

Such schemes are inherently counter-productive in that they seek to create ever more demand for polluting activities; they will continue doing dirty business until the last possible 'credit' has been sold, burning the last bit of fossil fuel from irrealistic carbon budgets that are fabricated inside the dark politics of compromise, campaign-funding and complacency. 

Such schemes are designed to profit from keeping the dirtiest power plants going and prolonging their lifetime beyond any reasonable purpose, in efforts to perpetuate the scheme itself and extract further money that, instead of being used to benefit the cleaner solutions, is then often used to finance further pollution elsewhere and spread the reach of such schemes. Such dreadful conduct is typically hidden away in a web of deceit custom-made to avoid the scrutiny of public accountibility.

And what if states fail to reach targets? The EPA suggestion to use such schemes effectively delays much local action, while encouraging states to negotiate with each other. This opens up the prospect of states blaming each other and taking legal action rather than genuine action. If the trappings of such schemes make states fail to reach targets, penalties could be imposed, but that still does not guarantee that targets will be reached; furthermore, given the complexities of such schemes, policing them poses additional burdens on administrators, police, courts and lawyers. Huge amounts of money and time have already been spent on court cases to postpone action, rather than on building genuine solutions.  

The best way to cater for non-compliance is to prepare federally-administered fees, to be levied on sales of polluting products, and with the revenues used to fund federal projects that do reduce emissions. As said, it's good for the EPA to encourage states to each work out how best to reduce their respective emissions, provided that each state does indeed reach set targets. Where a state fails to take the necessary action, the EPA should resume control and call for federal fees to be imposed in the respective state. 

The Clean Air Act calls for the 'best system of emissions reduction' to reduce emissions from power plants. The best system is one that levies fees on pollution and then uses the revenues to fund rebates on the cleaner products sold locally.  

Such combinations of fees and rebates (feebates) are the most effective way to make our economy sustainable, as part of the comprehensive action that is needed to avoid climate catastrophe. For more details on comprehensive and effective action, see the ClimatePlan blog. 

Related

- Methane Man
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2014/01/methane-man.html

- Climate Plan
http://climateplan.blogspot.com

CO2 growth highest on record

Despite many promises, global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO₂) continue to grow.

NOAA figures show that 2013 CO₂ level growth was the highest ever recorded, i.e. 2.95 ppm.

The EPA expects U.S. 2013 energy-related CO₂ emissions to be 2% higher than in 2012.

The UC San Diego image below shows CO₂ levels in the atmosphere over the past two years.

Back in September 2013, John Davies warned: “The world is probably at the start of a Runaway Greenhouse Event which will end most human life on Earth before 2040. This will occur because of a massive and rapid increase in the carbon dioxide concentration in the air which has just accelerated significantly. The increasing Greenhouse Gas concentration, the gases which cause Global Warming, will very soon cause a rapid warming of the global climate and a chaotic climate.”

The post featured a graph with a 4th-order polynomial trendline pointing at some 7.5 ppm CO₂ annual growth by 2040. While many welcomed the warning contained in the graph, some argued against using higher-order polynomial trendlines. So, for those who don't feel comfortable with a 4th-order polynomial trendline, the graph below adds both a linear trendline and a 3rd-order polynomial trendline.

The 3rd-order polynomial trendline, based on the recent data, points at CO₂ annual growth of some 7 ppm by 2040, justifying the warning sounded by the 2013 graph.

And what do the recent data say, when a 4th-order polynomial trendline is applied? As the image below shows, they show an even steeper rise, reaching 7 ppm growth per year as early as 2030.

As many posts at this blog have warned, rapid growth in greenhouse gases and numerous feedbacks are threatening to push Earth into runaway global warming. This calls for comprehensive and effective action to - among other things - reduce atmospheric CO₂ levels back to 280 ppm, as illustrated by the image below and as further discussed at the Climate Plan blog.

Post by Sam Carana.

A RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE EVENT

by John Davies

A linear trendline shows steady growth in the annual increase in CO2 levels, despite promises to reduce emissions.
Furthermore, recent increases show a worrying trend illustrated in the graph by a 4th order polynomial trendline. 

GROWTH RATE OF CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE

The world is probably at the start of a runaway Greenhouse Event which will end most human life on Earth before 2040. This will occur because of a massive and rapid increase in the carbon dioxide concentration in the air which has just accelerated significantly. The increasing Greenhouse Gas concentration, the gases which cause Global Warming, will very soon cause a rapid warming of the global climate and a chaotic climate.

Immediately before the Industrial Revolution, in 1750, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air which had been stable for millennia, the main Greenhouse gas, was 280 parts per million, but in 2013 it is likely to average 395 parts per million. It has been increasing at an increasing rate since 1750.

In 1960 the carbon dioxide concentration was 315 parts per million and in the 1960’s the concentration was increasing at 0.8 parts per million per year, in the 1980’s at 1.6 parts per million and from 2003 until 2011 inclusive it rose at 2 .0 parts per year.

In 2012 it rose 2.39 parts. Between July 2012 and July 2013 atmospheric carbon dioxide increased in concentration by 3.35 parts, by far the largest 12 month increase ever.

THIS HUGE INCREASE SHOULD BE PUBLISHED EVERYWHERE WORLDWIDE NOW

ASSESSMENT

When there have been large anomalous increases in the past, though nothing like this, there has been a rapid return to near normal but this is probably slightly different. The most likely growth in the calendar year 2013 is likely to be about 2.85 parts per million, a calendar year record , but much below the growth from July 2012 until July 2013. The growth for 2012 and 2013 is likely to average out at about 2.62 parts per million, a record for a two year period.

Again, looking to the past, when there has been a rise in concentration like we will have had in 2012 and 2013 the rate of increase in concentration diminishes for a couple of years before rising again. I would expect the rise in concentration in 2014 and 2015 to average 2.55 parts per million before rising at an increasing rate thereafter assuming the world carries on with business as usual. Nevertheless this average rate is faster than we have yet witnessed except for the 2012 and 2013 period. This rate of increase is much faster than that which preceded the greatest ever wipe out of life on earth 249 million years ago.

There is a significant uncertainty about the above growth rate in the near term, with a chance of a higher and lower growth rate though the above forecast is the most likely outcome.

There must be a small chance that this is really the start of a very fast runaway event. Should the growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide in 2013 be greater than about 3.1 parts per million then the world will probably have entered a very fast runaway event.

It is even more absolutely critical that carbon dioxide concentrations from August 2013 onwards are rising at a slower rate than between July 2012 and July 2013 otherwise the world will have entered a very fast runaway Greenhouse Event. Carbon Dioxide concentrations will almost certainly be rising at a slower rate from August 2013 onwards.

The runaway greenhouse event, or a very fast runaway Greenhouse Event is probably just starting, and can only be stopped by an immediate response. The danger is that it will very rapidly run out of our control. I think the net negative feedback to greenhouse gas emissions is just starting to diminish. It is not clear whether this is because the sinks are absorbing less carbon dioxide or a form of positive feedback is starting probably a bit of both.

The rising carbon dioxide levels will probably lead to rising global temperatures from about 2015 onwards which will cause more climatic disruption, especially severe droughts, and thus more carbon emissions almost certainly before 2020.

This is going to occur at a time when the Arctic Ocean will probably become free of sea ice leading to a different set of runaway events which will coalesce with the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

This will lead to societal collapse after rising global temperatures have caused severe droughts and a global famine at some time prior to 2040, but probably much sooner in about 2020 or in the 2020’s.

IMMEDIATE ACTION IS CRUCIAL

The absolute priority is that the world’s public and politicians are told about the rapidly increasing rate of carbon dioxide concentrations in the air which will cause a runaway Greenhouse Event, both in the media and in social media. The gravity of the situation needs to be accepted and all nations agree to co-operate to solve the problem.

There needs to be a world conference at which all nations agree the grave situation that the world is facing and that urgent and drastic action is essential. They need to accept and agree that all nations will cut greenhouse gas emissions to an accepted and equal low level of emissions per person. This will mean that only nations with very small emissions per person like the Central African Republic will not need to make any emission cuts. The rate of increase in Carbon Dioxide needs to be cut to 2 parts per million per annum by 2015 onwards. The arctic needs to be cooled so that the sea ice does not all melt before the end of the Arctic Summer.

Reducing the rate of carbon dioxide build-up in the atmosphere will be astoundingly difficult. Emissions must be cut drastically, but this will lead to a reduction of Sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, which might cause temperatures to rise and more carbon to be emitted from biomass as droughts become more severe. The solution is to try the relatively easy route and then use geo-engineering as necessary. This involves huge societal changes, a more egalitarian society and a smaller global economy, but if it is not done almost everybody will die.

Secondly, a group of scientists needs to be formed under the authority of the United Nations to formulate geo-engineering technologies, to go together with cuts in emissions, to reduce the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere, such as planting forests, and to cool the arctic to save the arctic sea ice.

The immediate priority is to accept the gravity of the situation and that all nations and peoples will co-operate to solve the problem.

These measures will give humanity a chance of saving civilization.

Post by Sam Carana.

Mean Methane Levels reach 1800 ppb

On May 9, the daily mean concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Mauna Loa, Hawaii, surpassed 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time since measurements began in 1958. This is 120 ppm higher than pre-industrial peak levels. This unfortunate milestone was widely reported in the media.

There's another milestone that looks even more threatening than the above one. On the morning of June 16, 2013, methane levels reached an average mean of 1800 parts per billion (ppb). This is more than 1100 ppb higher than levels reached in pre-industrial times (see graph further below).

NOAA image

Vostok ice core analysis shows that temperatures and levels of carbon dioxide and methane have all moved within narrow bands while remaining in sync with each other over the past 400,000 years. Carbon dioxide moved within a band with lower and upper boundaries of respectively 200 and 280 ppm. Methane moved within lower and upper boundaries of respectively 400 and 800 ppb.
Temperatures moved within lower and upper boundaries of respectively -8 and 2 degrees Celsius.

From a historic perspective, greenhouse gas levels have risen abruptly to unprecedented levels. While already at a historic peak, humans have caused emissions of additional greenhouse gases. There's no doubt that such greenhouse gas levels will lead to huge rises in temperatures. The question is how long it will take for temperatures to catch up and rise.

Below is another way of looking at the hockey stick. And of course, further emissions could be added as well, such as nitrous oxide and soot.

Large releases of methane must have taken place numerous times in history, as evidenced by numerous pockmarks, as large as 11 km (6.8 mi) wide.

Importantly, large methane releases in the past did not result in runaway global warming for a number of reasons:

• methane release typically took place gradually over many years, each time allowing a large release of methane to be broken down naturally over the years before another one occurred. 
• Where high levels of methane in the atmosphere persisted and caused a lot of heat to be trapped, this heat could still be coped with due to greater presence of ice acting as a buffer and consuming the heat before it could escalate into runaway temperature rises.

Wikipedia image

Veli Albert Kallio comments:

The problem with ice cores is that if there is too sudden methane surge, then the climate warms very rapidly. This then results the glacier surfaces melting away and the ice core begins to loose regressively surface data if there is too much methane in the air.

Because of this, there has been previous occurrences of high methane, and these were instrumental to bring the ice ages ice sheets to end (Euan Nisbet's Royal Society paper). The key to this is to look at some key anomalies and devise the right experiments to test the hypothesis for methane eruptions as the period to ice ages.

Thus, the current methane melting and 1800 ppm rise is nothing new except that there are no huge Pleistocene glaciers to cool the Arctic Ocean if methane goes to overdrive this time. In fact methane may have been many times higher than that but all surface ice kept melting away and staying regressive until cold water and ice from destabilised ice sheets stopped the supply of methane (it decays fast if supply is cut and temperatures fall back rapidly when seas rose).

The Laurentide Ice Sheet alone was equivalent of 25 Greenland Ice Sheets and the Weischelian and other sheets on top of that. So, the glaciers do not act the same way as fireman to extinguish methane. Runaway global warming is now possibility if the Arctic loses its methane holding capability due to warming.

Further discussion is invited on the following points:

• The large carbon-12 emission anomalies in East Asian historical objects that are dateable by historical knowledge. Discussion about the explanations concocted and why methane emission from permafrost soils and sea beds must be the answer; 

• the much overlooked fact that if there were ever very highly elevated concentrations of air in the Arctic, this would induce strong melting of glaciers which then lack those surface depositions where the air were most CH4 and CO2 laden. Even moderate levels of temperature rise damaged Larsen A, Larsen B, Petermann and Ellesmere glaciers. If huge runaway outgassing came out when Beringia flipped into soil warming, then methane came out really large amounts with CO2.

• Discussion of the experiments how to compensate for the possible lack of "time" in methane elevated periods in the ice cores by alternative experiments to obtain daily, weekly, monthly and yearly emission rates of CH4 and CO2 from the Last Glacial Maximum to the Holocene Thermal Maximum (as daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly sampling of air).

Editor's update: Methane levels go up and down with the seasons, and differ by altitude. As above post shows, mean levels reached 1800 ppb in May 2013 at 586 mb, according to MetOp-2 data. Note that IPCC AR5 gives levels of 1798 ppb in 2010 and 1803 ppb in 2011, as further discussed in later posts such as this one. Also, see historic data as supplied by NOAA below.

Post by Sam Carana.

Glaciers cracking in the presence of carbon dioxide

Northern Hemisphere snow and ice map , October 14, 2012 (credit: NSIDC, NOAA)

Snow covers more than 33% of lands north of the equator from November to April, reaching 49% coverage in January. The role of snow in the climate system includes strong positive feedbacks related to albedo and other, weaker feedbacks related to moisture storage, latent heat and insulation of the underlying surface, which vary with latitude and season (IPCC, 2007a⁸).

Albedo or reflectivity of surfaces
wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo

Ice caps and glaciers cover 7% of the Earth—more than Europe and North America combined—and are responsible for reflecting 80–90% of the Sun’s light rays that enter our atmosphere and maintain the Earth’s temperature⁷. They are also a natural carbon sink, capturing a large amount of carbon dioxide⁷.

Snow and ice on the Northern Hemisphere has a cooling effect of 3.3 watts per square meter, peaking in May at ~ 9 watts per square meter. Snow and ice on the Northern Hemisphere has declined over the years and is now reflecting 0.45 watts less energy per square meter than it did in 1979 (Flanner, 2011). As discussed in Albedo change in the Arctic, this compares to warming of 1.66 watts per square meter for the net emission by people (IPCC, 2007b⁹).

A recent press release⁷ announced that researchers from the Massachusetts Institute for Technology have shown that the material strength and fracture toughness of ice are decreased significantly under increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide molecules, making ice more fragile and making ice caps and glaciers more vulnerable to cracking and splitting into pieces.

“If ice caps and glaciers were to continue to crack and break into pieces, their surface area that is exposed to air would be significantly increased, which could lead to accelerated melting and much reduced coverage area on the Earth,” said lead author of the study Professor Markus Buehler.

Buehler, along with his student and co-author of the paper, Zhao Qin, used a series of atomisticlevel computer simulations to analyse the dynamics of molecules to investigate the role of carbon dioxide molecules in ice fracturing, and found that carbon dioxide exposure causes ice to break more easily.

Notably, the decreased ice strength is not merely caused by material defects induced by carbon dioxide bubbles, but rather by the fact that the strength of hydrogen bonds—the chemical bonds between water molecules in an ice crystal—is decreased under increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide. This is because the added carbon dioxide competes with the water molecules connected in the ice crystal.

It was shown that carbon dioxide molecules first adhere to the crack boundary of ice by forming a bond with the hydrogen atoms and then migrate through the ice in a flipping motion along the crack boundary towards the crack tip.

The carbon dioxide molecules accumulate at the crack tip and constantly attack the water molecules by trying to bond to them. This leaves broken bonds behind and increases the brittleness of the ice on a macroscopic scale⁷.

A drop of as little as 1% in Earth’s albedo corresponds with a warming roughly equal to the effect of doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which would cause Earth to retain an additional 3.4 watts of energy for every square meter of surface area (NASA, 2005¹⁰; Flanner et al., 2011b⁶).

Below, a video by Dr. Peter Carter⁴, showing loss of snow and ice albedo on the Northern Hemisphere from 1997 to 2009, using NOAA images, and also showing the relationship to global food security and Arctic methane.

Sources:

1. Albedo - Wikipedia
   wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
2. Albedo change in the Arctic
   arctic-news.blogspot.com/2012/07/albedo-change-in-arctic.html
3. Carbon dioxide enhances fragility of ice crystals
   by Zhao Qin and Markus J Buehler 2012
   Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics Volume 45 Number 44
   iopscience.iop.org/0022-3727/45/44/445302
4. Carter, P., Northern hemisphere loss of snow and ice albedo cooling
   youtube.com/watch?v=-18xi1hQXNc
5. Flanner et al. (2011a), Radiative forcing and albedo feedback from the Northern Hemisphere cryosphere between 1979 and 2008, Flanner et al.
   nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n3/full/ngeo1062.html
6. Flanner et al. (2011b), Presentation October 27, 2011, WCRP Open Science Conference
   wcrp-climate.org/conference2011/orals/B11/Flanner_B11.pdf
7. Glaciers Cracking - Press Release
   cms.iopscience.iop.org/alfresco/d/d/workspace/SpacesStore/bf99f6c7-1386-11e2-bc48-4d5160a0f0b4/Glaciers_cracking_press_release
8. IPCC 2007a, Climate Change 2007: Working Group I: The Physical Science Basis
   ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch4s4-1.html
   ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch4s4-2.html
9. IPCC 2007b, Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing, IPCC (2007)
   ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf
10. NASA, 2005 (at Archive.org)
    archive.org/details/albedo_ceres_mar05
11. NSIDC, NOAA - Northern Hemisphere snow and ice map
    nsidc.org/data/g02156.html