« Researchers Modify Microbe to Produce Non-Crystalline Cellulose for Use in Biofuel Production | Main | Mitsui Mining and Smelting Develops New Silicon-Based Anode for Li-Ion Batteries »
NOAA: CO2, Methane Concentrations Rise Sharply in 2007
23 April 2008
Global levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, the primary driver of global climate change, increased by 0.6%, or 19 billion tons, during 2007, and methane rose 27 million tons after nearly a decade with little or no increase, according to data released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
|
| The 2007 rise in global CO2 concentrations is tied with 2005 as the third highest since atmospheric measurements began in 1958. The red line shows the trend together with seasonal variations. The black line indicates the trend that emerges when the seasonal cycle has been removed. Click to enlarge. Credit: NOAA |
Last year’s carbon dioxide increase was 2.4 parts per million (ppm), boosting the global concentration to nearly 385 ppm. Pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels hovered around 280 ppm until 1850. Human activities pushed those levels up to 380 ppm by early 2006.
The rate of increase in carbon dioxide concentrations accelerated over recent decades along with fossil fuel emissions. Since 2000, annual increases of 2 ppm or more have been common, compared with 1.5 ppm per year in the 1980s and less than 1 ppm per year during the 1960s.
Methane levels rose last year for the first time since 1998. Methane has a global warming potential 25 times that as CO2, but there’s far less of it in the atmosphere—about 1,800 parts per billion. When related climate affects are taken into account, methane’s overall climate impact is nearly half that of carbon dioxide.
 |
| Global methane (CH4) concentrations rose in 2007. The red line shows the trend together with seasonal variations. The black line indicates the trend that emerges when the seasonal cycle has been removed. Click to enlarge. Credit: NOAA |
Rapidly growing industrialization in Asia and rising wetland emissions in the Arctic and tropics are the most likely causes of the recent methane increase, said scientist Ed Dlugokencky from NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory.
We’re on the lookout for the first sign of a methane release from thawing Arctic permafrost. It’s too soon to tell whether last year’s spike in emissions includes the start of such a trend.
—Ed Dlugokencky
Scientists are concerned that as the Arctic continues to warm and permafrost thaws, carbon could seep into the atmosphere in the form of methane, possibly fueling a cycle of carbon release and temperature rise.
NOAA scientists released these and other preliminary findings today as part of an annual update to the agency’s greenhouse gas index, which tracks data from 60 sites around the world.
April 23, 2008 in Brief | Permalink | Comments (29) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/28419132
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference NOAA: CO2, Methane Concentrations Rise Sharply in 2007:
Comments
"We’re on the lookout for the first sign of a methane release from thawing Arctic permafrost."
This is serious stuff folks. It is one of the tipping points that scientists talk about. If this happens, it can be a run away process. The Russians like GW, they can run ships in the northern seas. For the rest of us...not so much.
Posted by: sjc | Apr 23, 2008 12:29:05 PM
Our fate is ALREADY sealed by human habits. We love our energy supported life style(go to sleep in Paris, wake up in Tokyo...). It will be way too late before enough people are scared and correct it.
So just don't worry about it. Enjoy our remaining good years.
Posted by: tonychill | Apr 23, 2008 12:50:04 PM
With Peak Oil, CO2 emissions may have peaked as well. Of course, this also means we won't be able to feed ourselves due to lack of diesel and fertilizers, but who's quibbling?
Posted by: Cervus | Apr 23, 2008 12:57:33 PM
I think we will be OK. Things may get a bit stressful, but the human species has been through tougher times than this. This is something we have created and something we can fix. The test is whether we are smart enough to do so.
Posted by: SJC | Apr 23, 2008 1:00:42 PM
Not good. Methane from permafrost melts is bad news for green house warming.
Posted by: Lulu | Apr 23, 2008 1:00:54 PM
Let's see. The headlines are a litany of bad news lately, so why don't we look for something good for a change?
Geothermal for baseload.
Polywell Fusion if it's verified also.
Major advances in batteries.
Wind and solar continue their exponential expansion.
Oil demand in the US is falling.
Hybrid sales are up 40% over last year, even as the rest of the auto market shrinks.
$4 gas changes everything, I think. Bad in some ways, better in others because of how it'll change consumption habits.
On a personal level, I'm cutting my gasoline use in half via carpooling two days a week and riding my 65mpg scooter the other three, and then using it on the weekend also.
Anyone? Anyone?
Posted by: Cervus | Apr 23, 2008 1:09:08 PM
Cervus, It is the regenative nature of GHG. We are already past the tipping point. Gore keeps moving it so he can continue to have a job. He should just announce we are already past it and retire.
Posted by: Tonychill | Apr 23, 2008 1:32:24 PM
Nice list Cervus!
Posted by: Neil | Apr 23, 2008 1:55:44 PM
Futurist Ray Kurzweil thinks solar will provide for all our power needs inside 20 years.
Posted by: Cervus | Apr 23, 2008 2:32:47 PM
"With Peak Oil, CO2 emissions may have peaked as well. Of course, this also means we won't be able to feed ourselves due to lack of diesel and fertilizers, but who's quibbling?"
1) Peak oil is not here yet and may not occur until 2100 at the latest.
2) transport fuels are not the only, or even the major, source of CO2 emissions. the huge amounts of coal and natural gas still to be exploited mean CO2 emissions will continue to rise.
3) both fertilizers and diesel can be made from non-fossil feedstocks.
so I make that 0 for 3.
Posted by: eric | Apr 23, 2008 2:32:49 PM
Oilman T Boone Pickens is gearing for a truly massive wind farm. 2,700 turbines, roughly 1,000 MW. And he wants solar on an east-west corridor from Texas to California.
Posted by: Cervus | Apr 23, 2008 2:53:35 PM
I like Cervus' list and expect it will take a portfolio of long-odds and short-odds innovations and adoptions to change our energy mix.
I would add:
Quantum dot PV may yeild 40-50% conversion efficiency at reasonable cost for rooftops.
Solar Thermal is one thing made better by global warming.
SJC is right that we're looking at substantial changes any way we slice it, and we will have to make major adjustments.
My biggest concern is not flooded coastal cities (that'll take a century), but sudden and persistent drops in rainfall. That can mess up a metroplex's day in a hurry.
Even technologies that
Posted by: Healthy Breaze | Apr 23, 2008 4:04:50 PM
We could combine solar thermal with desalinization and make the coasts power and water centers for the inland areas.
Posted by: SJC | Apr 23, 2008 5:15:41 PM
We have how many thousands of acres of commercial roof space for solar panels?
But it doesn't help our liquid fuel situation. In the short term we need something carbon neutral, and more fuel-efficient vehicles to boot.
But if we really are past the climate tipping point, then I guess the whole point is moot, right? Eat, drink, and be merry. For tomorrow we die.
Posted by: Cervus | Apr 23, 2008 5:18:47 PM
Tipping point just means it goes into a positive feedback loop. There is only so much methane under the permafrost that can vent. It would be bad, but not extinction time for the human race. This would drive home the point that there are consequences. Again, people do not do something that they do not want to do unless they have to.
Posted by: SJC | Apr 23, 2008 6:14:21 PM
Another battery advance I just saw on Autoblog Green:
What's new is their breakthrough with silicon-based negative electrode (SILX®) for lithium ion batteries. It seems they've been able to achieve double the energy capacity of a carbon-based negative electrode, boost the energy density 30 to 50 percent and dramatically improve cycle life. What's that mean in English? Their battery could help your electric car accelerate faster, go further and last longer.
Posted by: Cervus | Apr 23, 2008 7:31:50 PM
@Healthy Breeze:
Solar Thermal is one thing made better by global warming.
Please explain.
As far as my knowledge goes, the opposite might be true. Solar thermal does not depend on atmospheric temperature, but on solar radiation. How is global warming going to increase solar radiation? Some models predict more clouds, thus less solar radiation, less energy for solar thermal.
Posted by: Anne | Apr 24, 2008 12:13:31 AM
Cervus, thanks for the positive input. Check out eSolar's claim that they will have solar power cheaper than coal. Link.
Posted by: JN2 | Apr 24, 2008 5:10:21 AM
"a truly massive wind farm. 2,700 turbines, roughly 1,000 MW"! That's equivalent to nearly one whole nuke plant! Actually I'll bet it will be closer to 6,000 MW. Still and all it means that the US would need roughly three million such turbines to meet all of its energy needs with wind, and maybe 10 or 20 times that many to serve the entire world. We have to get crackin'. Each of us can help by contracting with our local electric utilities for 100% wind power.
Posted by: richard schumacher | Apr 24, 2008 6:53:56 AM
richard:
Wind power is not a practical source for baseload requirements. While I'm sure it'll make up a significant portion of our energy needs, geothermal has a far greater potential for that application. And we shouldn't discount solar, either.
Posted by: Cervus | Apr 24, 2008 9:16:59 AM
i hate global wrming
Posted by: | Apr 24, 2008 11:21:56 AM
Cervus...Yeeee haaaawwwww to your Happy Horses! Let Tonychill be morose, but I'll go with your 'work for the good, till we can't' attitude. Actually, our first work is easy, which you already pointed out. Carpool...maybe you'll find someone you like. I geared up my motorcycle & it got 75MPG...& it wasn't a tinker toy. My cars have been getting 42 & 45MPG for 28 years. My electric bicycle puts out 1/700th the pollution of an internal combustion engine.
Posted by: litesong | Apr 24, 2008 5:28:29 PM
litesong:
I'm currently looking at an electric retrofit for my bicycle from Alien Scooters. I'd buy an Ohm Sport XS 700 if I could afford it. The two Bion-X retrofit systems listed there are in the realm of affordability, though.
Posted by: Cervus | Apr 24, 2008 6:09:48 PM
I saw an ad for a 2006 Honda Civic that gets 40 mpg on the highway with 140 hp engine. That is better mileage than some motorcycles. It had only 15k miles and the asking price was $11k. I wish more of the commuters around here would drive those and not the big SUVs.
Posted by: SJC | Apr 25, 2008 9:04:49 AM
SJC:
The way SUV sales are collapsing (-27%) and small-car sales are growing (+30%), I think people are getting the message.
Posted by: Cervus | Apr 25, 2008 7:28:36 PM
"Solar Thermal is one thing made better by global warming."
What is this??
Posted by: sulleny | Apr 26, 2008 7:36:26 AM
Concentrated solar thermal would not like the clouds brought on by global warming. However, there are not a lot of clouds in the Mojave desert most of the time, so no worries.
One thing that did occur to me is the heat reflected from the earth that is trapped by GHG. If you collect it using concentrated solar thermal and convert it to energy, there is less to be trapped. But it represents such a small percentage of the whole earth's surface it pretty much rounds to zero anyway.
Posted by: SJC | Apr 26, 2008 9:02:57 AM
I was reading on MSNBC that some car dealers will not take big SUVs in trade. One car dealer said "there is no sense letting them sit on the lot".
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24314649/
Posted by: SJC | Apr 27, 2008 9:06:41 PM
thanks, sjc - great article about used SUV's...
particularly how some are then shipped to Russia & China...
Posted by: erica | May 1, 2008 5:28:52 AM
