Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BBC: 50 years on: The Keeling Curve legacy - ( CO2 -- Global Warming?)
BBC ^ | Sunday, 2 December 2007, 20:13 GMT | Helen Briggs Science reporter, BBC News

Posted on 12/02/2007 5:53:04 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach

50 years on: The Keeling Curve legacy

By Helen Briggs


Science reporter, BBC News


Mauna Loa Curve (BBC)

It is a scientific icon, which belongs, some claim, alongside E=mc2 and the double helix.

Its name - the Keeling Curve - may be scarcely known outside scientific circles, but the jagged upward slope showing rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in the atmosphere has become one of the most famous graphs in science, and a potent symbol of our times.

It was 50 years ago that a young American scientist, Charles David Keeling, began tracking CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere at two of the world's last wildernesses - the South Pole and the summit of the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii.

His very precise measurements produced a remarkable data set, which first sounded alarm bells over the build-up of the gas in the atmosphere, and eventually led to the tracking of greenhouse gases worldwide.

The curve set the scene for the debate over climate change, and policies, sometimes controversial, that address the human contribution to the greenhouse effect.

Without this curve, and Professor Keeling's tireless work, there is no question that our understanding and acceptance of human-induced global warming would be 10-20 years less advanced than it is today

Dr Andrew Manning, UEA

"It wasn't until Keeling came along and started measuring CO2 that we got the evidence that CO2 was increasing from human activities," says Professor Andrew Watkinson, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK.

"The graph is iconic from a climate perspective."

Dr Alistair Manning of the UK Met Office agrees. "It was the first real indication that CO2 levels were rising," he says. "That therefore started scientists thinking about the impact such a change would have on the climate."

'Tireless work'

Back in the 1950s, when Keeling began his experiments, no-one knew whether the CO2 released from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil/petroleum and natural gas) would end up in the atmosphere or be fully absorbed by oceans and forests.

Charles David Keeling at the Scripps in the 1990s (SPL)
Keeling had to work hard to justify his work

"The goal behind starting the measurements was to see if it was possible to track what at that time was only a suspicion: that atmospheric CO2 levels might be increasing owing to the burning of fossil fuels," explains biogeochemist Dr Andrew Manning, also from the UEA, who worked with Professor Keeling in the 1990s.

"To do this, a location was needed very far removed from the contamination and pollution of local emissions from cities; therefore Mauna Loa, high on a volcano in the middle of the Pacific Ocean was chosen.

"Without this curve, and Professor Keeling's tireless work, there is no question that our understanding and acceptance of human-induced global warming would be 10-20 years less advanced than it is today," adds Dr Manning.

Sleepless nights

Professor Keeling discovered that carbon dioxide was rising continuously and that there were annual fluctuations in carbon in the atmosphere (the little squiggles on the line), caused by seasonal variations in plant growth and decay.

When he started his measurements in 1958, CO2 levels were around 315 ppmv (parts per million by volume - that is 315 molecules of CO2 for every one million molecules in the air); by the year 2005 they had risen to about 378 ppmv.

Yet despite the importance we place on climate change research today, Professor Keeling, known as Dave to friends and colleagues, struggled to secure funding for his monitoring efforts.

Artist's rendition of greenhouse gases (SPL)
The work focussed attention on the impact of greenhouse emissions

"Dave Keeling suffered many sleepless nights, even as late as in the 1990s, being forced again and again to justify continued funding of his programme," recalls Dr Manning.

"The fact that we are celebrating 50 years now is due purely to his incredible perseverance, courage and optimism."

He says the technical, analytical and logistical challenges of the work are enormous.

"To measure such tiny changes in the composition of the air, high on a remote mountain top in the middle of the Pacific Ocean is extremely challenging even today in the 21st Century," he explains.

"That Dave Keeling was able to successfully begin and continue such highly demanding measurements in the 1950s is a tribute to his brilliance."

Detailed monitoring

Today, carbon dioxide levels are sampled weekly at about 100 sites around the world.

Flasks filled with air are taken to a laboratory, where they are analysed for carbon dioxide, other greenhouse gases and pollutants.

Aircraft collect similar samples at higher altitude, while space-borne sensors detect some gases remotely throughout the atmosphere.

Mauna Loa (Noaa)

Monitoring efforts continue atop the Mauna Loa volcano

"Without the fifty-year carbon dioxide record, we wouldn't understand the cause of the climate change we are observing today," says James Butler, deputy director of The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) Earth System Research Laboratory.

"The carbon dioxide record has allowed us to connect the dots between increasing fossil fuel emissions and a warmer world."

Charles Keeling died in 2005, aged 77. He continued his research into carbon dioxide at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, US, until his final day.

By then he had authored nearly 100 research articles and had received the National Medal of Science - the US's highest award for lifetime achievement in scientific research.

His son, Professor Ralph Keeling, also a geochemist at Scripps, continues his work.

TIMELINE: carbon monitoring

1957: Charles David Keeling starts work monitoring CO2 at the South Pole and Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii

1958: Keeling starts first direct continuous atmospheric measurements of CO2

Early 1970s: Noaa, the US federal agency, starts monitoring CO2 worldwide

1995-2003: Noaa's Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) at Boulder, Colorado, develops and maintains the world's standard references for CO2 and other greenhouse gases



TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: agw; climatechange; globalwarming
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 last
To: cogitator

The numbers are slightly different at Mauna Loa so I’m not sure where that 2005 would fit on the graph I posted

But I did find the exact #’s for Mauna Loa

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Here are the numbers
1970 0.98
1971 0.88
1972 1.72
1973 1.17
1974 0.82
1975 1.10
1976 0.90
1977 2.08
1978 1.33
1979 1.61
1980 1.84
1981 1.41
1982 0.71
1983 2.18
1984 1.39
1985 1.23
1986 1.51
1987 2.30
1988 2.14
1989 1.24
1990 1.32
1991 1.00
1992 0.49
1993 1.26
1994 1.96
1995 1.98
1996 1.19
1997 1.93
1998 3.00
1999 0.88
2000 1.73
2001 1.63
2002 2.55
2003 2.31
2004 1.58
2005 2.54
2006 1.72

Notice 2005 is less than 2002 with a big dip in between and 2005 is much lower than 1998, so it’s not the highest ever as that press report claims.

If you were to graph them it would look the same as the one I posted and with the same result: NO TREND

Again, if man was causing the CO2 every year the rise in CO2 should be greater than the last.

If you are going to Cherrypick 2005, I’ll do the same and Cherry pick 2006.

How do explain even though Human’s release of CO2 in 2006 was higher than in any previous year, the 2006 rise was less than 1972, 1977, 1980, 1983, 1987, 1988, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2005?


41 posted on 12/03/2007 3:18:52 PM PST by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: qam1
The statement I responded to was this:

"For example, if pumping out 4000 million tons of CO2 1970 caused the rise of 1.5 ppmv atmospheric CO2, then you would expect that in the year 2000 when we pumped out 7000 million tons of CO2, the atmospheric level should have rose about 26 ppmv that year. But they didn't, it's been holding steady at +1.5ppmv".

The article may have been from 2005, but note that the statement was (paraphrased) that recent years have shown a rate ~double the increase which was observed 30 years ago (which at that time was +1.5 ppmv).

Plus, the reference to a new record is the for concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the growth rate of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Again, if man was causing the CO2 every year the rise in CO2 should be greater than the last.

I think you're confusing the growth rate numbers with the concentration numbers. The growth rate numbers are going to be influenced by both natural and anthropogenic factors, and that's why the variability is high. 1998 has a high growth rate because the warm El Nino waters in the Pacific degassed a lot of CO2. The big La Nina in 1999 had a reverse effect. Economic activity year-to-year influences anthropogenic CO2 output (though the Chinese are sure working hard to keep this going up).

But with regard to concentration, the effect is cumulative and so the concentration keeps increasing -- some years more than others.

How do explain even though Human’s release of CO2 in 2006 was higher than in any previous year, the 2006 rise was less than 1972, 1977, 1980, 1983, 1987, 1988, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2005?

Hard to tell. 2006 started with a weak La Nina condition, switched to a mild (and shorter than expected) El Nino from about May-September, and ended just about in a normal condition. Globally, it was a wetter year than normal:

which according to the report corresponds to "Global precipitation in 2006 was much above the 1961-1990 average, the largest value in five years." (Unfortunately not in the U.S. Southeast, among other places.) More rain means more growth of terrestrial plants -- look at what happened in Texas this spring. As you have correctly pointed out, natural fluxes are bigger than the anthropogenic flux, so slight variations in them will affect the atmospheric CO2 growth rate year-to-year. So with the ENSO phase less important, this might have been a factor.

42 posted on 12/03/2007 4:31:08 PM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Hard to tell. 2006 started with a weak La Nina condition, switched to a mild (and shorter than expected) El Nino from about May-September, and ended just about in a normal condition.

Your assessment of the most recent El Nino is a little off in your dates. There was no El Nino activity in the May-September time frame. It didn't start cranking up until about October, and lasted until around February of this year. See Operational SST Anomaly Charts for the year 2006 for yourself.
43 posted on 12/04/2007 8:51:36 AM PST by AaronInCarolina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: AaronInCarolina
You're right, I misread my source. This is what I was reading, from the NCDC climate of 2006 summary.

"The year began with ENSO in a weak cold phase (La Niña) which had developed during late 2005, and the presence of these La Niña conditions in the equatorial Pacific contributed to the lower global average temperature this year. By April and May 2006, the near-equatorial SST anomalies had warmed to near-normal in the central Pacific region as the ENSO transitioned to a neutral phase. El Niño conditions developed in September, and by the end of December, sea surface temperatures in most of the central and eastern equatorial Pacific were more than 1.0°C (1.8°F) above average."

Thank you for the correction.

44 posted on 12/04/2007 10:51:09 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

CO2 is one of the three major volcanic gasses. (the others are SO2 and H2O)
Pu`u O`o, located on the Big Island (about 30 miles from CO2 observatory) has been “degassing” constantly since January, 1983. That is 24 years of nonstop eruption. The VOG (volcanic smog) is very similar to the air in Los Angeles, CA. People Kona side complain about VOG all the time, the trade winds carry it to Kona and then from Kona upslope to...Mauna Loa.
Today 12-4-07 the Kona winds are blowing and the VOG is all over the Hilo side covering Hilo town with a thick haze.
Take a look at the list of CO2 increase measurements and compare those before 1983 to those after 1983. There is a clear difference.
The Mauna Loa observatory claims that they are far from a pollution source are nonsense.
Alos CO2 constantly seeps upward through the rocks of volcanic cones such as Mauna Loa. This kills root systems keeping the upper slopes barren.


45 posted on 12/04/2007 12:22:10 PM PST by AndrewWalden (America is the greatest force for human progress in the world today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: chipengineer

What I find curious...is that he starts the graph in 1960. One has to assume that this has never leveled off...and scientific logic would declare that there must be a zero-point...where the trend started up....so when? Was it in the 1940s? Was it in the 1920s? Was it in the 1800s? Was it even in the past 3,000 years? He doesn’t seem to want to take on this question.


46 posted on 12/04/2007 12:33:29 PM PST by pepsionice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: AndrewWalden
Mauna Loa Volcanic Emissions 1958-Present

"Down slope winds sometimes transport these emissions to the observatory, where they are detected as a "noisy" increase above smooth baseline levels for some gases. A volcanic component can be estimated by taking the difference in concentration between periods when the plume is present and periods immediately before and after that exhibit baseline conditions."

and

"The CO2 emission rate follows a very predictable exponentially decreasing trend which is established after each eruption. The slope of these trends have been different for each eruption. Current concentrations of volcanic CO2 (2006) are at their lowest levels since the record began in 1958."

47 posted on 12/04/2007 1:11:26 PM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: pepsionice
One has to assume that this has never leveled off...and scientific logic would declare that there must be a zero-point...where the trend started up....so when?

The image above is small, but it's in color. All of the measurements except the red (Mauna Loa) are for CO2 concentrations in ice core bubbles.

48 posted on 12/04/2007 1:40:13 PM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: All

Pity all the scientifically illiterate actors and politicians, for they know only what they read in the NYT and have no capacity to think for themselves.


49 posted on 12/04/2007 8:43:33 PM PST by NDNBill (Now, why is CO2 increasing and the temperature decreasing? It's a 'Duh' movement.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

“Current concentrations of volcanic CO2 (2006) are at their lowest levels since the record began in 1958.”

This is tricky because Mauna Loa hasn’t erupted since 1984.
Pu`u O`o is on Kilauea and has erupted non-stop since 1983. They are playing games here.

Here are some details of the Pu`u O`o eruption:
Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year of CO2
concentrations as high as 48.9% CO2 have been measured at Kilauea summit

Good read:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html#reference


50 posted on 12/05/2007 2:33:44 AM PST by AndrewWalden (America is the greatest force for human progress in the world today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: AndrewWalden
Pu`u O`o is on Kilauea and has erupted non-stop since 1983. They are playing games here.

I don't think they are. Yes, Pu'u O'o is active (I enjoy monitoring its activity). The MLO system is constantly monitoring CO2, and there are recognized conditions when they detect volcanic gases. The constant monitoring establishes a baseline, and volcanic gas "spikes", which are likely short-lived, will be significantly above the baseline.

Also remember MLO is at 11,135 feet. The Kilauea caldera is at 4,000 feet, and Pu'u O'o is below that. You would need some interesting weather to push the Kilauea emissions up to the MLO. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but I'd be willing to stand behind the statement that it doesn't happen very often.

For more information, I'd ask the experts. As an aside, we're due for an eruption of Mauna Loa.

51 posted on 12/05/2007 8:45:11 AM PST by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

Warning: Well in Antarctica may pop like a can of Coke
Knight-Ridder Tribune News | August 14, 2003 | Joshua L. Kwan
Posted on 08/14/2003 11:46:58 AM EDT by Dog Gone
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/964070/posts

Cold And Deep: Antarctica’s Lake Vostok Has Two Big Neighbors
Science News Online | 2-8-2006 | Sid Perkins
Posted on 02/08/2006 6:52:36 PM EST by blam
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1574694/posts


52 posted on 12/19/2007 8:18:16 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Profile updated Tuesday, December 18, 2007___________________https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-52 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson