Keeling Confirms - Rate Of Atmospheric CO2 Increase Rising Rapidly

[hatrack]

"The rate at which global warming gases are accumulating in the atmosphere has taken a sharp leap upwards, leading to fears that the devastating effects of climate change may hit the world even sooner than has been predicted.

Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2 ), the principal greenhouse gas, have made a sudden jump that cannot be explained by any corresponding jump in terrestrial emissions of CO2 from power stations and motor vehicles - because there has been none. Some scientists think instead that the abrupt speed-up may be evidence of the long-feared climate change "feedback" mechanism, by which global warming causes alterations to the earth's natural systems and then, in turn, causes the warming to increase even more rapidly than before.

EDIT

But the worry now is not merely the swelling volume of CO2 but the sudden leap in its increase rate. Across all 46 years of Dr Keeling's measurements, the average annual CO2 rise has been 1.3ppm, although in recent decades it has gone up to about 1.6ppm. There have been several peaks, all associated with El Niño, the disruption of the atmosphere-ocean system in the tropical Pacific Ocean that causes changes to global weather patterns. In 1988, for example, the annual increase was 2.45ppm; in 1998, 2.74ppm; both were El Niño years. Throughout the series those peaks have been followed by troughs, and there has been no annual increase in CO2 above 2ppm that has been sustained for more than a year. Until now.

From 2001 to 2002, the increase was 2.08ppm (from 371.02 to 373.10); and from 2002 to 2003 the increase was 2.54ppm (from 373.10 to 375.64). Neither of these were El Niño years, and there has been no sudden leap in emissions. The greater-than-two rise is also visible in two separate sets of CO2 measurements made by America's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, at Mauna Loa and other stations around the world. At the weekend, Dr Keeling told The Independent the rise was real and worrying as it might indeed represent the beginnings of a feedback. He said it might be associated with the Southern Oscillation, a pattern of high and low atmospheric pressure previously always associated with El Niños, or it might be something new.

"The rise in the annual rate of CO2 increase to above two parts per million for two consecutive years is a real phenomenon," Dr Keeling said."

EDIT

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=570734

[are_we_united_yet]

1. Two words come to mind regards this article:

Oh shit!

:scared:

[ochazuke]

2. Have you ever seen a chart of historical CO-2 & temperature?

It shows a very strong correlation. In the present, atmospheric carbon dioxide is as high as any point in the past several thousand years. We can be nearly certain that world-wide temperature will rise dramatically.

But people don't want to hear Debbie Downer stuff. Just like they didn't listen to Hart and Rudman, criticized Clinton for trying to kill Bin Laden, focusing instead on "I did not have sex with that woman..."

[punpirate]

3. There was an article two or three weeks ago...

... about trying to do biological reverse feedback in the Arctic tundra. Planting new species to absorb CO2, and the reseachers discovered that the tundra, when it warmed up enough to support plant life, also warmed up to support the growth of microbes which released relatively large quantities of CO2 during their life cycle.

Also, one need not have an increase in emissions, just lose a source of absorption. The destruction of forests is going on willy-nilly and every tree is a CO2 sink.

Ultimately, this is likely to be a combination of variables. Does sound like things are going to get worse before they get better.

[Dogmudgeon]

4. The death of the rainforests will release a LOT of CO2

The carbon dioxide that the vegetation sank into its cells will be liberated by the death of those biomes. And since a lot of this vegetation is burned for fuel, that release will be quicker than it would in the absence of human activity.

The tundra is releasing huge amounts of methane and carbon dioxide now, as you said, from microbial processes. Plus, as the oceans warm up, increasing amounts of methane gas are released as the molecular methane bound in methane clathrate ices is freed by melting. Just to give an idea of how this is changing the atmosphere now, Summer temperatures at the North Pole were 15F warmer than normal -- just a few weeks ago.

Right now, these newly-active natural sources of GHGs (Greenhouse Gasses) may exceed the amount of industrial GHGs being produced. The process is certainly self-reinforcing, and the feedback loop is now fully established.

It's no longer a matter of turning off lights and buying hybrid cars. Global Warming will not stop until the natural mechanisms now producing it stop. We should manage the energy sources we have as best we can, but there's nothing we can do about climate any time soon.

Since the time that the Earth formed a crust, the planet has been bi-stable in terms of climate: either hot or cold, stadial or glacial. The balance has been seriously threatened about half a dozen times, AFAIK: During the early Proterozoic "Iceball Earth" episode 2.3 BYA; during the pre-Cambrian Vendian period, 900-600 MYA, 4 glacial epochs; and during the Permian extinction (251 MYA). Why the climate recovered, I don't know, but it did. But this time, if we keep pushing the atmosphere with increasing amounts of waste heat and heat-trapping GHGs, we could push it beyond its ability to recover at all. No one knows what that point is, but within a few centuries of it starting, the surface of the Earth would be too hot to support life.

We started the ball rolling, but now it's gotten beyond our control. If we survive this era, I hope our decendants learn not to do what we have done.

--bkl

[Donkeyboy75]

5. I think the earth will always be able to recover.

Humans just might not survive long enough to see it.

[phantom power]

6. This was only a matter of "when"

Any buffered system will do this, when the buffer reaches capacity. I don't see why they are surprised.

[hatrack]

7. Agree - this was inevitable, especially given current political response

It always was pretty much out of our hands. If this is the official kickoff of the positive feedback loop, then it's a matter of ameliorating the worst impacts. We can't talk about "prevention" any more.

[Dogmudgeon]

8. Next puzzle -- when will the feedback loop collapse?

I recently read that during the Miocene (about 50-65 MYA), the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was around 1000 ppm. I had been under the impression it never exceeded 400 ppm, not since the Archaean era ended (2.5 BYA). So it seems that a carbon dioxide level of 1000 ppm is not high enough to trigger a runaway greenhouse. (We could be at 1000 ppm by the end of the century, or maybe early in the 22nd century.)

So the question becomes two-fold:

1. At what point would the feedback loop collapse? Between the cloud-increased terrestrial albedo, direct heat losses to space from monster temperature inversions at the tropopause, and more energetic weather systems redistributing the heat, it makes sense that a runaway greenhouse effect would not be easy to attain. When does the collapse come?

2. Is it possible to create a feedback loop robust enough to lead to a runaway greenhouse effect? How much heat and GHG compounds would have to be added, and how fast? More to the point -- when would we recognize it, and how much time would we have to move to Mars or Europa?

I'm actually not looking for answers right now. As far as I know, these issues have not been widely explored by climate scientists. But we've kick-started something that's bigger than we thought and is now out of our control.

--bkl

[phantom power]

9. themohaline switch-off appears to be the most likely scenario

That's been the thermostat for the last several cycles, and there's evidence to suggest it's beginning to happen again.

My quasi-educated opinion: it's theoretically possible for us to release so much CO2, methane, etc, that we could bypass the cutoff switches and turn earth into another venus. But I think that climate disaster would end our civilization long before that could happen.

[midnight armadillo]

10. If we get stuck in a postive feedback loop there is a solution

It's called 'nuclear winter'.

I'm only partly kidding.