Showing posts with label CO2. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CO2. Show all posts

Saturday, February 8, 2025

CO2 growing at record

 From Prof Eliot Jacobson


And that's right -- the annualized mean growth rate for CO2 is now at a record high 3.55 ppm as of January, 2025. Atmospheric CO2 is growing at the fastest rate in recorded history. This is not going to end well for global industrial civilization, children and other living things.

To stop temperatures rising, we need to cut emissions to zero (green line in chart).  To have emissions, we need to cut emissions to the yellow line.  Neither is happening.

click to see enlarged chart

 

Thursday, October 31, 2024

Greenhouse gas levels reach new records

 From The Guardian


The concentration of planet-heating pollutants clogging the atmosphere hit record levels in 2023, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has said.

It found carbon dioxide is accumulating faster than at any time in human history, with concentrations having risen by more than 10% in just two decades.

“Another year, another record,” said Celeste Saulo, secretary-general of the WMO. “This should set alarm bells ringing among decision makers.”

The increase was driven by humanity’s “stubbornly high” burning of fossil fuels, the WMO found, and made worse by big wildfires and a possible drop in the ability of trees to absorb carbon.

The concentration of CO2 reached 420 parts per million (ppm) in 2023, the scientists observed. The level of pollution is 51% greater than before the Industrial Revolution, when people [first] began to burn large amounts of coal, oil and fossil gas.






Concentrations of strong but short-lived pollutants also surged. Methane concentrations hit 1,934 parts per billion (ppb), a rise of 165% from preindustrial levels, and nitrous oxide hit 336.9 parts per billion (ppb), a rise of 25%, it said.

Saulo said: “We are clearly off track to meet the Paris Agreement goal of limiting global warming to well below 2C and aiming for 1.5C above preindustrial levels. These are more than just statistics. Every part per million and every fraction of a degree temperature increase has a real impact on our lives and our planet.”

Burning fossil fuels – such as the petrol to power a car or the coal to feed a thermal power plant – releases gases that trap sunlight and heat the planet.

The WMO warned that this heating can lead to climate feedbacks that are “critical concerns” to society, such as stronger wildfires that pump out more carbon and hotter oceans that suck up less CO2.

There has been a slight slowdown in the growth of global emissions over the last decade but continued strong growth in atmospheric concentrations, said Glen Peters, a climate scientist at the Cicero in Norway, who was not involved in the study. “[That] should give us cause for thought on how strong carbon sinks will remain in a changing climate.”

The Earth last experienced a comparable concentration of CO2 a few million years ago, when the planet was 2-3C hotter and the sea level 10-20 metres higher.


 

Sunday, September 11, 2022

And nothing is being done!

 From a tweet by Zack Labe


Time to share another month of greenhouse gas data - what a mess

Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases



Nothing is being done.  We are racing towards catastrophe.

Monday, June 20, 2022

CO2 now 50% higher than pre-industrial levels


From New Atlas




Climate scientists have reported the highest levels of carbon dioxide ever recorded in the atmosphere. The latest in a long line of record-breaking years saw the world hit a grim new milestone of 50 percent higher than pre-industrial levels, a concentration not seen in over 4 million years.

Measurements made by the Mauna Loa Atmospheric Baseline Observatory in Hawaii revealed that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere peaked at 420.99 parts per million (ppm) in May. An independent team of scientists at the Scripps Institute was in close agreement, recording a monthly average of 420.78 ppm.

This is the highest CO2 concentration ever recorded in human history – and if that statement sounds familiar, it’s because we’ve been consistently breaking that record over the last few years. In May 2021 the record was set at 419.13 ppm, up from 416.21 ppm in May 2020, and 415.26 ppm in May 2019. For reference, scientists consider 350 ppm a safe level, as reflected in the name of the climate-focused non-profit organization 350.org.

Having breached the 420 ppm milestone for the first time, atmospheric CO2 levels are now 50 percent higher than pre-industrial levels, which consistently hovered around 280 ppm for the almost 6,000 years of human civilization. In fact, Earth hasn’t seen CO2 levels this high for over 4 million years, during a period known as the Pliocene Climatic Optimum.

At that point, average temperatures were 3.9 °C (7 °F) higher than the pre-industrial baseline, and sea levels were between 5 and 25 m (16 and 82 ft) higher than today. And since it looks like our record-breaking won’t be slowing down any time soon, we might be headed that way again, with disastrous consequences.

“The science is irrefutable: humans are altering our climate in ways that our economy and our infrastructure must adapt to,” said NOAA Administrator Rick Spinrad. “We can see the impacts of climate change around us every day. The relentless increase of carbon dioxide measured at Mauna Loa is a stark reminder that we need to take urgent, serious steps to become a more Climate Ready Nation.”

Source: NOAA


A graph illustrating the mean monthly carbon dioxide measured at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii since the 1950s


Saturday, May 7, 2022

The big emitters

 From a tweet by Neil Kaye



Note:

  1.  The petro-states have the highest emissions per capita. (dark brown)
  2. There are lots of small countries in the top right-hand corner which together emit less than, say, Canada, even though some of them are high emitters per capita
  3. India, Indonesia and Brazil are low per capita emitters, but because they have such large populations, they make up big chunks of total global emissions.
  4. Apart from the small emitters in the top right corner, every country needs to cut its emissions by 50% over the next 10 years.  This applies especially to the US, China, India,Russia and Japan.
  5. But this isn't going to happen fast enough.  India and China are still growing fast, the US is massively dysfunctional, Russia a huge petro-state unwilling to move away from fossil fuels, and Japan still seems not to accept the urgency of the need to slash emissions.
  6. That means that global temperatures will rise 0.2 degrees this decade and 0.2 next.  We can kiss 1.5 degrees goodbye.


Friday, May 6, 2022

Correlation between CO2 forcing and temperature

 From Open Mind (Tamino)

There are certain claims (some false) about the correlation (or not) between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature. Several folks have pointed out that we shouldn’t really be looking at the correlation between temperature and CO2, but between temperature and CO2 forcing.

This is the climate forcing due to a given concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and it turns out to be a logarithmic function of the CO2 concentration. It can be put in many (equivalent) forms, but the one I will choose is:

F = log₂(CO₂/280),

where CO2 is in units of parts per million (ppm) and the climate forcing is in units of doublings of CO2 (that’s why the logarithm is taken to base-2). Note that if the CO2 concentration is 280 (its pre-industrial value) then the climate forcing is zero, so this is the climate forcing due to CO2 concentration relative to pre-industrial.

For CO2 data, I used the yearly averages since 1958 of measurements at the Mauna Loa atmospheric observatory, and from 1880 to 1958 an interpolated dataset from the Law Dome ice core in Antarctica. The CO2 data looks like this:


I started with 1880 because I’m using the global temperature data from NASA:


Here’s CO2 climate forcing .vs. global temperature:


The correlation coefficient between the two variables is a whopping 0.9467, but what really counts is its statistical significance (which is not guaranteed by a large coefficient). In this case the significance is undeniable (with a p-value < 10-15).

Perhaps most notable is the slope of the correlation. That’s why I chose units of “doublings of CO2” for the climate forcing: because this slope is an estimate of the climate sensitivity, the amount of global warming (relative to pre-industrial) we expect from a doubling of CO2 (relative to pre-industrial).

That value (2.4 deg.C per doubling) is close to the mean of what the climate models have to say.

Saturday, April 16, 2022

Hydrogen 11 times worse than CO2 for climate



 From New Atlas


Hydrogen will be one of humanity's key weapons in the war against carbon dioxide emissions, but it must be treated with care. New reports show how fugitive hydrogen emissions can indirectly produce warming effects 11 times worse than those of CO2.

Hydrogen can be used as a clean energy carrier, and running it through a fuel cell to produce electricity produces nothing but water as a by-product. It carries far more energy for a given weight than lithium batteries, and it's faster to refill a tank than to charge a battery, so hydrogen is viewed as a very promising green option in several hard-to-decarbonize applications where batteries won't cut the mustard – for example, aviation, shipping and long-haul trucking.

But when it's released directly into the atmosphere, hydrogen itself can interact with other gases and vapors in the air to produce powerful warming effects. Indeed, a new UK Government study has put these interactions under the microscope and determined that hydrogen's Global Warming Potential (GWP) is about twice as bad as previously understood; over a 100-year time period, a tonne of hydrogen in the atmosphere will warm the Earth some 11 times more than a tonne of CO2, with an uncertainty of ± 5.

How does hydrogen act like a greenhouse gas?

One way is by extending the lifetime of atmospheric methane. Hydrogen reacts with the same tropospheric oxidants that "clean up" methane emissions. Methane is an incredibly potent greenhouse gas, causing some 80 times more warming than an equivalent weight of CO2 over the first 20 years. But hydroxyl radicals in the atmosphere clean it up relatively quickly, while CO2 remains in the air for thousands of years, so CO2 is worse in the long run.

When hydrogen is present, however, those hydroxyl radicals react with the hydrogen instead. There are fewer cleanup agents to go around, so there's a direct rise in methane concentrations, and the methane stays in the atmosphere longer.

What's more, the presence of hydrogen increases the concentration of both tropospheric ozone and stratospheric water vapor, boosting a "radiative forcing" effect that also pushes temperatures higher.

How does hydrogen escape into the atmosphere?

A lot of it is leakage, according to a second report from Frazer-Nash Consultancy. Store hydrogen in a compressed gas cylinder, and you can assume you'll lose between 0.12 percent and 0.24 percent of it every day. It'll leak out of pipes and valves if you distribute it that way, losing some 20 percent more volume than the methane gas that's now running through municipal pipelines – although since hydrogen is so much lighter than methane, this larger volume equates to just 15 percent of the weight.

Where hydrogen is transported as a cryogenic liquid, boil-off is unavoidable, and you can expect to lose an average of about 1 percent of it per day. Currently, this is vented to the atmosphere.

Indeed, venting and purging operations are currently common across the hydrogen life cycle. They occur during electrolysis, during compression, during refueling, and during the process of conversion back into electricity through a fuel cell.

Where there is venting or purging, the percentages tend to dwarf what's lost through simple leakage – for example, current electrolysis procedures using venting and purging are assumed to lose between 3.3-9.2 percent of all hydrogen produced, depending largely on how often the process starts up and shuts down – this is a bit of a worry in situations where hydrogen production is seen as a way to store excess renewable energy that's not being snapped up by immediate demand.

Purging and venting emissions can be cleaned up significantly by adding systems to recombine the vented or purged hydrogen back into water and feed it back into the process – but it'll be a while before these kinds of operations are economically viable.

In all, the Frazer-Nash report expects that between 1-1.5 percent of all hydrogen in its central modeling scenario will be emitted into the atmosphere, with transport emissions responsible for around half of that, and emissions at the production and consumption ends taking up roughly a quarter each.

Meanwhile, operating under different assumptions, the first report linked expects somewhere between 1 percent and 10 percent of all hydrogen in its global scenario will be emitted into the atmosphere.

Does this mean "green hydrogen" should be avoided in the race to zero emissions?

No. The UK Government report explains that "the increase in equivalent CO2 emissions based on 1 percent and 10 percent H2 leakage rate offsets approximately 0.4 and 4 percent of the total equivalent CO2 emission reductions, respectively," so even assuming the worst leakage scenario, it's still an enormous improvement.

"Whilst the benefits from equivalent CO2 emission reductions significantly outweigh the disbenefits arising from H2 leakage," it continues, "they clearly demonstrate the importance of controlling H2 leakage within a hydrogen economy."

Sources: Atmospheric Implications of Increased Hydrogen UseFugitive Hydrogen Emissions in a Future Hydrogen Economy via Recharge News

One huge advantage of green methane is that it is much easier to store and transport than hydrogen.  The hydrogen atom is very small and passes easily through metal/plastic pipes.