Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Methane levels threaten to skyrocket


The World Meteorological Organization’s annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin shows that between 1990 and 2013 there was a 34% increase in radiative forcing – the warming effect on our climate – because of long-lived greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide.

In 2013, concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was 142% of the pre-industrial era (1750), and of methane and nitrous oxide 253% and 121% respectively.

The ocean cushions the increase in CO2 that would otherwise occur in the atmosphere, but with far-reaching impacts. The current rate of ocean acidification appears unprecedented at least over the last 300 million years, according to an analysis in the report.

“We know without any doubt that our climate is changing and our weather is becoming more extreme due to human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels,” said WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud.

“The Greenhouse Gas Bulletin shows that, far from falling, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere actually increased last year at the fastest rate for nearly 30 years. We must reverse this trend by cutting emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases across the board,” he said. “We are running out of time.”

The observations from WMO’s Global Atmosphere Watch network showed that CO2 levels increased more between 2012 and 2013 than during any other year since 1984.


NOAA data give a slightly lower CO2 growth figure for 2013, but even when extrapolating NOAA's data, some frightening trendlines appear, as illustrated by above image. 

The WMO concludes that a reduction in RF (radiative forcing) from its current level (2.92 W·m–2 in 2013) will require huge cuts in a number of emissions, not just in CO2. 

In the figure on the right, the RF of the long-lived greenhouse gases (LLGHG) is plotted along with different emission reduction scenarios: (a) emissions held constant at 2013 levels, (b) constant CO2 emissions and 80% reduction in anthropogenic non-CO2 GHG emissions, (c) 80% reduction in CO2 emissions while non-CO2 GHG emissions are held constant, and (d) 80% reductions in all LLGHG emissions.



A recent study shows that the world not only continues to build new coal-fired power plants, but built more new coal plants in the past decade than in any previous decade. Worldwide, an average of 89 gigawatts per year (GW yr–1) of new coal generating capacity was added between 2010 and 2012, 23 GW yr–1 more than in the 2000–2009 time period and 56 GW yr–1 more than in the 1990–1999 time period. Natural gas plants show a similar pattern.


Assuming these plants operate for 40 years, the fossil-fuel burning plants built in 2012 will emit approximately 19 billion tons of CO2 (Gt CO2) over their lifetimes, versus 14 Gt CO2 actually emitted by all operating fossil fuel power plants in 2012.

The study concludes that total committed emissions related to the power sector are growing at a rate of about 4% per year.

“Bringing down carbon emissions means retiring more fossil fuel-burning facilities than we build,” said Steven Davis, assistant professor of Earth system science at UCI and the study’s lead author. “But worldwide, we’ve built more coal-burning power plants in the past decade than in any previous decade, and closures of old plants aren’t keeping pace with this expansion.”

“Far from solving the climate change problem, we’re investing heavily in technologies that make the problem worse,” he added.

“We’ve been hiding what’s going on from ourselves: A high-carbon future is being locked in by the world’s capital investments,” said Socolow, professor emeritus of mechanical & aerospace engineering.

The IPCC in AR5 suggests there was a carbon budget to divide between nations (above image left), while largely ignoring potentially huge feedbacks such as albedo changes resulting from decline of snow and ice in the Arctic and methane eruptions from the seafloor of the Arctic Ocean.

These two feedbacks alone could each soon cause more warming than the warming directly caused by people's emissions since the start of the industrial revolution.

Sam Carana says: “There is no carbon budget to divide between nations, instead there is just a huge debt of CO2 to be removed from the atmosphere and the oceans. Comprehensive and effective action must be taken to stop run-away warming.”

Sam Carana continues: “No time before in human history has such a huge amount of ocean heat accumulated in the North Atlantic and the North Pacific.”

“This heat is now threatening to invade the Arctic Ocean and trigger huge temperature rises due to methane eruptions from the seafloor.”

“The heat is also melting Arctic sea ice from below, as the image below right shows, there now is hardly any sea ice left that is more than 3 meters (nearly 10 ft) thick.”

“Last year, this heat started to cause large methane eruptions from the Arctic Ocean's seafloor in early October, and this year temperatures in the Arctic Ocean are even higher.”

Meanwhile, mean global methane levels of 1839 ppb were recorded at several altitudes by the MetOp-1 satellite on the morning of September 7, 2014.

And ocean heat continues to invade the Arctic, as illustrated by the NOAA image below.



References

- Record Greenhouse Gas Levels Impact Atmosphere and Oceans - WMO Press Release No. 1002
https://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_1002_en.html

- WMO Greenhouse Gas Bulletin No. 10 | 9 September 2014
https://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/documents/1002_GHG_Bulletin.pdf

- NOAA Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Annual Mean Global CO2 Growth Rates
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html#global_growth

- Commitment accounting of CO2 emissions, by Steven J Davis and Robert H Socolow
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/8/084018

- Existing power plants will spew 300 billion more tons of carbon dioxide during use - News Release
http://news.uci.edu/press-releases/existing-power-plants-will-spew-300-billion-more-tons-of-carbon-dioxide-during-use



6 comments:

  1. Mr. Carana; Thank you so much for all of the research and your willingness to educate others. I enjoy reading your articles and hope our leaders can find the political will to address these dire issues. But if they don't, and you were to chose a place on the planet to take your family so they could have the best possible future, where would that be? Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Kent, I fear that without dramatic action, there won't be any safe place left on Earth at all.

      Delete
    2. When i explain to people and its clear whats going on, people are stunned. Its too big for some. This is Civ ending stuff.

      Delete
  2. Invisible gasses rising in concentration and polluting the atmosphere ...

    Trapped heat disappearing (temporily) into the deep oceans ...

    Remote ice disappearing on satellite observations ...

    Incremental and nearly unnoticable sea level rise increasing globally ...

    An indifferent public that doesn't believe anything science reports ...

    A complicit media that refuses to publish anything controversial re: climate ...

    Unaccountable politicians receiving anonymous "donations" from the energy sector ...

    Faceless corporations and mega-nationals writing the laws ...

    An anonymous blog depicting the coming destruction ...

    Do I detect a pattern here?

    a) Suggest you come out of the closet and stand on your credentials and experience, all of "you" lending weight to the science and conclusions reached here ...

    b) Form a global organization, gathering together the best science researchers and publish peer-reviewed papers on the coming firestorm ...

    c) Members refuse any further assignments and projects that do not deal with the escalating atmospheric disaster and how to cool the planet immediately ...

    d) Gain global support from the media and public by publishing the most realistic scenarios most likely to come to pass ...

    e) Partner with participating industry and business to power down civilization and transition away from carbon-emitting industries ...

    f) Demand Congressional hearings, or attendance of similiar scope nationally and globally ...

    g) Sue Energy corporations and large-emitting producers of carbon for crimes against humanity and the biosphere ...

    It's either all this and much, much more, or we can all simply kiss our ass goodbye.

    The idiots over on Real Climate refused to listen - it is science that is "expert" in the research, analysis and investigation on the climate. And it is science that needs to take the global lead (activism and voice) by uniting all climate scientist and researchers. You guys are the only ones on the planet with the credentials and credibility and therefore, the only ones qualified to sound the alarm.

    But - it is the opinion of some like myself and others that this has been too little, too late and needs to be immediately rectified. Nobody else can do this. It MUST come from the research and investigation side of humanity.

    They may never listen, but nobody knows the future. Moreover, if you or others DON'T do this or something similar - the outcome is definitely predictable (and utterly disastrous for humanity and the biosphere).

    If it is really as bad as this blog predicts and assesses (and many others, including my own) - then why the hesitation to go balls to the walls and finally get things addressed? Scientific reticence no longer is a credible answer. Nor is "career" or "funding". Either it is a REAL planetary emergency - or it is not. Which is it?

    That was a rhetorical question utilized to make the point - it's TIME.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good call, I'm keen to support all organizations that want to help reduce the dangers, and I encourage everyone to support the Climate Plan.

      Delete
    2. I think it's time for change to the monetary system so keeping Earth habitable is the goal.
      Quite simply this would end war and focus on retooling the way we live in a good adventure.

      Delete