Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
Yesterday, in the press release Greenhouse gas benchmark reached, NOAA announced:
Global carbon dioxide concentrations surpass 400 parts per million for the first month since measurements began.
The press release begins:
For the first time since we began tracking carbon dioxide in the global atmosphere, the monthly global average concentration of this greenhouse gas surpassed 400 parts per million in March 2015, according to NOAA’s latest results.
“It was only a matter of time that we would average 400 parts per million globally,” said Pieter Tans, lead scientist of NOAA’s Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network. “We first reported 400 ppm when all of our Arctic sites reached that value in the spring of 2012. In 2013 the record at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory first crossed the 400 ppm threshold. Reaching 400 parts per million as a global average is a significant milestone.
After a few general discussions, the press release ends:
James Butler, director of NOAA’s Global Monitoring Division, added that it would be difficult to reverse the increases of greenhouse gases which are driving increased atmospheric temperatures. “Elimination of about 80 percent of fossil fuel emissions would essentially stop the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but concentrations of carbon dioxide would not start decreasing until even further reductions are made and then it would only do so slowly.”
“…difficult to reverse…”? I’ll let you comment on that.
Time to crack open a beer!
No No No, the carbonation will escape into the atmosphere! 😉
Had to start a new oxygen bottle this morning, with all of this CO2 I’m suffering from diminished O2 in the brain. Maybe that’s what the warmist need: a new bottle of O2!
No more CO2 in Beer only O2, that’s de-carbonizing isn’t it??
Why ?? I haven’t noticed anything at all happen.
No thunder; no lightning, no category five hurricanes hitting the USA .
Not even close to a doubling yet since ML started recording.
Maybe I’ll wait till the weekend to have that beer.
Rule for Beer : If it is still the same color, after you drink it, then it wasn’t beer !!
g
My garden is very happy to hear this news.
Where is your garden? ;>)
If your garden is in California, it may not be so happy.
Everything in California is turning brown. If only we could get rid of the clown.
Or it might be unseasonalyy cold and wet..
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2015/05/07/raining-in-san-jose-in-the-drought/
Our brain dead doofus Governor Brown moonbeam, says that all Californians should let their lawns die, and replace them with sand and stones, that don’t need watering.
Seems like my browning lawn always has dew on it in the mornings; but I never ever have seen dew on my driveway, which is concrete.
I believe it is the lack of vegetation around the base of Mt Kilimanjaro, that is the reason why the ice cap sublimes. The natives cut down what forestry there used to be there.
For the record, it is now Ocho de Mayo, and my front lawn sprinkler system has not seen any electric currents in its coils at any time in 2015, and yet the lawn hasn’t ever looked better.
Well getting rid of the tree that kept sun and rain off the lawn and didn’t suck everything out of the ground, has made my lawn into a bowling green. Yes tree fell down due to getting too heavy in the foliage department, for its own good.
Earth to moonbeam Brown. Hey Jerry, we already have deserts in California; so why build new ones, when we are still watering the old ones.
Why not just stop watering the old deserts that we already have. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer fought tooth and nail to try and keep those California deserts in their pristine bone dry condition.
The Earth is a lot greener with so much fertilizer!
Co2 = life on earth….event at well over 1000ppm. I live at 45N in USA….I want warmer weather but this hasn’t seemed to help much.
CO2 plus sufficient water = life on earth.
Chris, increased CO2 content reduces a plant’s water need. So another reason to increase CO2. More life=more hope.
When it reaches 800ppm the global temperature will rise by 1.1C according to some estimates. At 2ppm per year increase (which incidentally does not depend linearly on anthropogenic CO2), this should take about 200 years.
It’s going to be a long time before they grow grapes in Siberia.
When it reaches 800ppm it may be warmer, colder, or the same temperature. We will all be long dead from old age by then so it will be up to our decendents to laugh at history’s supertistions and quackery
Bill Gray identified a wrong assumption in the models: intense storms dry the upper troposphere, not humidify it. ECS is consequently about 0.3K. CO2 won’t help much in warming the planet.
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Includes/Documents/Publications/gray2012.pdf
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10207073747150995&l=4a7ea74d00
Reverse what? Remove 80% of 4% that of course would make a difference especially to BA, EasyJet and Rynair, that’s 200,000 UK jobs gone at a stroke. No doubt Obama will finally admit that the world just cannot afford AirForce 1? Oil is 95% of our lives and allows us to feed 7.5 billion people how does this klutz imagine we can deliver food to Tesco in 42 ton trucks without having access to diesel what planet do these guys live on?
In the UK we are being inundated with wind turbines to save the planet but those who advocate this idiocy don’t appear to understand that you cannot have turbines without fossil fuel because as funny as it may seem we don’t have any residual iron ore in the UK and exactly how do you service maintain and repair offshore turbines without kerosene for the helicopters or do these Muppets believe you just attach a long lead to a turbine?
We have an election today and if Labour manage to stitch a deal with libdems then Siemens automatically get more orders to destroy our environment but save the planet as though our environment is not the planet.
They really do have their heads where the sun don’t shine.
Doesn’t matter which of the main parties in the UK win, they all have the same energy policy and all voted for the ridiculous Climate Change Act! Only one party has shown common sense on the issue, and that’s UKIP, who, unfortunately will be lucky if they get more than a couple of MP’s elected.
Exactly true but UKIP wont have much of a say unfortunately but Miliband Cleggy and Davey will so prepare for inundation!
And the people who are making a fortune from the wind farm subsidies are all staunch Labour supporters, aren’t they?
Update: in yesterday’s election Clegg, Davey and Milliband all lost their seats.
Or: Global carbon dioxide concentrations surpass 0.0004 for the first month since measurements began.
Or: If the atmosphere was made up of oranges and CO2 was an apple then for every 2,500 oranges you would find 1 apple. It takes 18 oranges to make 1 carton of a well known brand of orange juice, hence you’d have to buy 139 cartons on average to get yourself the juice of 1 apple. But that 1/18th of a carton will cause the other 138 cartons to heat up to catastrophic temperatures.
We’re all doomed
Don’t forget that it’s CO2, = 1 x C atom + 2 x O atoms, so we’re effectively enriching the oxygen content of the atmosphere too!
Err, is this a joke?
You obviously dont realise that the production of one CO2 molecule takes 2 O2 atoms from the atmosphere.
It does not create O2!!
Not quite correct in your analysis. Remember that the 400 ppm figure for CO2 is in “Dry Air”.
Still have only one atmosphere, so it is not 0.0004 percent, but 400 / 1,040,000 = 0.000385 , considering 4% water vapor.
That makes it closer to 2,600 oranges per apple and not 2,500.
CO2 Concentration Surpasses 400ppm , temperatures done nothing and yet the totally failure of underpinning of the claimed cause and effect behind CAGW , has made no difference to the ‘faithful
which shows what ever it is , it certainly is not science we are seeing in action.
I wondered how long it would be until someone pointed out the material point.
And the ‘pause’ continues WUWT?,
Previous WUWT headline:
“Global Temperature down in April, just 7/100ths of a degree above normal”
When gore, decaprio, and all the other alarmists give up their beach front mansions, private jets, and fleets of autos, then i may start to worry.
Don’t forget prince chucky – and remember, if you follow the clowns you will only end up at the main flap at the circus…
This is how it will end I think – as the climate worriers become ever more detached from reality, their lunacy will become irrefutably obvious.
NOAA’s announcement lacked the final comment – “And we are all going to die!”
That omission is a shame. There’s a lot of observational evidence for that – for a change.
All Flesh is Biomass. 🙂
Besides c02 going from 270 to 400 ppm and the observation of the greenhouse effect in a laboratory what else do warmists have to prove their case? I’m under the impression that most people that believe in this cause are under the impression that greenhouse effect is what the propaganda and the IPCC are claiming causes all this catastrophe. They have no idea what the amplification of warming is from the positive feedbacks plugged into the computer models is. They also believe from propaganda that the computer models are generally accurate which we all know is a joke. I’m not wiling to accept that direct heating from the greenhouse effect in a laboratory is interchangeable to our atmosphere but that would be a more reasonable amount of warming to consider. Most regular people like me actually think the greenhouse effect is interchangeable with CAGW and that it is a well demonstrated theory. This is what i thought many years ago. Maybe if more people would just understand this basic point we could finally cut into this nonsense hysterical propaganda.
The problem is two-fold. First, in sunlight, CO2 is saturated, absorbing and emitting IR, and converting a small fraction of IR energy into atmospheric heat and also in reverse. Basically, it’s a wash. But, at night, water vapor and CO2 are radiative gases and, unopposed by sunlight, convert atmospheric heat to IR which is lost to space. The global climate models are daytime 24//7 and do not include this constant darkside heat loss.
The above is the fall back position for the warmists and is NOT the greenhouse effect they claim. The second problem is that the greenhouse effect they claim involves the tropical upper troposphere. This region, according to their claims, HAS to be warming Earth’s surface and itself must be warming faster than the surface. Not only is this region or “hotspot” not warming, it has been found to be gently cooling for over 30 years. Furthermore, this region is -17 deg C and the surface is 15 deg C. It is patently impossible for a cold body to warm a hot body. Their trash science (not even good enough to be junk science) has so failed that they fall back and, by misdirection, pretend that CO2 in general simply heats the atmosphere directly, which it does not.
The night time effects of these radiative goes is apparent when you notice how quickly the air chills after sunset and how rapidly when little breezes kick up in the shadows of moving clouds on a sunny day. If anything, more CO2 means we will be cooler.
Yes it is not possible directly for colder body to heat warmer body. But if you have external heat source for warmer body and colder body is part of insulation of warmer body than temperature of warmer body directly depends on temperature of colder body. If temperature of colder body increases temperature of warmer body increases proportionally too due to lower heat loss.
It is same case as with insulation of house. Inside you have 20C, outside you have -20C. If temperature outside rises to -15 and if you not turn lower your heater inside temperature will go to 25C. This is exactly same case with Earth atmosphere. It works like insulation and any change in gradient of temperature in atmosphere has direct (not immediate) effect on surface temperature.
It is because Earth is source of heat too.
“The global climate models are daytime 24//7 and do not include this constant darkside heat loss.”
I find this very difficult to believe. What I WOULD believe is that there is a 24/7 “daytime” model, but which is applied to only about half-the Earth’s surface. Not doubting you, but do you have a reference for your claim? Thanks.
This is terrible! Within 100 years we’re all going to die! Well, almost all of us. Maybe we’ll die a tenth of a degree warmer, if even that much.
Steady CO2 increase, but no temperature increase in 18+ years! The sun activity, clouds, cosmic particles and ocean heat capasity controls the temperature, in cycles, that controls the CO2.
Pls look at Dr Salby’s latest april presentation on co2, its causes and its effect on temperature and also how ling it stays in the atmosphere
You lost me at its effect on temperature. Increasing CO2 with no change in lower trophoshereic temperatures in 18 years. That’s simple enough for anybody to grasp except you. Also, how long CO2 lingers in the atmosphere is a subject for lots of debate still.
As a true environmentalist and lover of life, I favor longer growing seasons and more plant food in the atmosphere.
+1
I have just taken a look outside.You will be pleased to know the world hasn’t ended./sarc
Well had I know 400 PPM was the apocalypse as Pieter Tans argues I’d have worked harder to get us there sooner….
#ClimateApolalypts
I’m sure I had seen reports this record broken before, widely reported in the Independent and the Guardian as prophesying the end of the world (but then all their headlines say that).
But when I read the first paragraph of the press release that Bob puts up, I see it has been reported before. First in 2012 from an Arctic site, again in 2013 at Mauna Loa and now again somewhere unspecified. Since CO2 is supposedly a well-mixed gas in the atmosphere how come these reports are 3 years apart? I suppose it keeps the fear-factor going.
Next we James Butler saying “it would be difficult to reverse the increases of greenhouse gases which are driving increased atmospheric temperatures”. What increased temperatures. Where has he been?
The preceding article on Global Temperatures makes it clear that there has been no warming for over 18 years. But the band wagon rolls on oblivious to reality (but I think the wheels are starting to fall off now).
MikeB,
As human emissions are 90% in the NH and the Arctic sites have the largest seasonal amplitude, they were the first to reach the 400 ppmv benchmark: big fanfare and press release.
Mauna Loa at 3,400 m height and Passat winds has a smaller seasonal amplitude, thus reached the 400 ppmv one year later: big fanfare and press release.
As the global average is calculated from a lot of sea level stations in the NH and SH, the latter lags the NH with 1-2 years, the 400 ppmv is reached this year: big fanfare and press release.
Maybe next year the last site on earth where the 400 ppmv will be reached: the South Pole at 3,000 meter height: last big fanfare and press release.
Repeat that every year for 410, 420, 430, 440 and extra festivities at 450 ppmv,… 500 ppmv festivities at the end of this century (with frost fairs on the Thames) are already in preparation…
Or how a non-news can be repeated again and again to keep people aware that the end is nigh…
Some at NOAA hasn’t made the calculations:
Humans emit about 4.5 ppmv/year.
The atmosphere increases with about 2.3 ppmv/year.
Net sinks are around 2.2 ppmv/year.
Thus if we lower human emissions to 2.2 ppmv/year, there is a break-even between human emissions and sink rate.
Seems more like a 50% reduction, not 80%, for an end of the increase and below that the start of a reduction in atmospheric CO2 levels. Even not so slowly: a half life time of ~40 years is not that slow…
And indeed: a new record CO2 level, but no significant temperature increase? I suppose that most plants, especially those in dry areas, are quite happy with all that extra CO2…
Ferdinand, don’t forget that the sink rate is increasing, which means that in about 20 to 40 years, mankind will need to increase their rate of CO2 emissions just to maintain the CO2 level.
I don’t think that the sink rate is increasing beyond what the increase in the atmosphere is pushing as extra pressure into the oceans: Pieter Tans said that three consecutive years show over 2.3 ppmv/year increase in the atmosphere. But one never knows what the future will bring…
Ferdinand,
The net sink of 2.2 ppmv/year is largely the flux difference between the atmosphere and the ocean. It is a function of the partial pressure difference at the interface so the net sink will not be a constant 2.2 ppmv/year if human emissions change significantly. I can’t say for certain that NOAA has done the calculation correctly, but your simple argument is not correct.
MarkB,
Sorry Mark: if the net sink is 2.2 ppmv/year caused by the 110 ppmv difference between the atmospheric CO2 and the equilibrium pressure for the current ocean temperature, then adding 2.2 ppmv/year would maintain the 110 ppmv difference and thus the 2.2 ppmv/year sink rate…
At the current 4.5 ppmv/year human emissions, the levels still go up, so does the sink rate…
Hello Ferdinand.
I am very interested to learn how the anthropogenic CO2 emissions are actually converted in ppm/year.
I never have come across of any such information,,,,,,, this does not mean that there is no any.
Can you point me where I can learn such a “magic” please.
Who else apart from you says that humans emit about 4.5ppmv/year?
Since when emissions are measured in ppm!
I will appreciate a lot your reply to this and any direction to some information in this particular issue.
Thank you.
Cheers
Whiten,
From a long time ago:
Humans emit CO2, which is counted as “carbon” (factor 44:12), because CO2 in the atmosphere is indeed CO2, but it is only 1% CO2 in the oceans, the rest is bicarbonate (~90%) and carbonate (~9%). In vegetation it is sugars, cellulose and hundreds of carbon containing chemicals… Carbon is the base for them all and it is the carbon balance that must fit.
In the atmosphere, CO2 is measured as ppmv: parts per million by volume. The volume of CO2 compared to the volume of air is in a molar ratio: one mole CO2 has the same volume as one mole O2 or N2.
Thus 44 g CO2 has the same volume as (0.8 * 14 + 0.2 * 16) = 14.4 g air.
If you have the total weight of all air in the atmosphere (app. 5.3 E15 ton), you can calculate the total weight of carbon (from CO2) in the atmosphere for a volume ratio CO2/air of 400 ppm: that is about 850 GtC (nowadays more and more written as PgC, which is of the same order), a factor 2.13.
There is some discussion about the total weight of the atmosphere, as water vapor adds to the weight, but that makes that the factor is between 2.11 and 2.13, no big deal.
Too hasty…
Molar weight of O2 is of course 32 and N2 is 28…
Thus 44 g CO2 has the same volume as 28.8 g air.
Didn’t make the calculations myself, the factor 2.13 was calculated by Willis some time ago…
…and what does that say about their little theory
More like .035 percent of the atmosphere.
“Many people don’t realize that over geological time, we’re really in a CO2 famine now. Almost never has CO2 levels been as low as it has been in the Holocene (geologic epoch) – 280 (parts per million – ppm) – that’s unheard of. Most of the time [CO2 levels] have been at least 1000 (ppm) and it’s been quite higher than that,” Happer told the Senate Committee. “Earth was just fine in those times,” Happer added. “The oceans were fine, plants grew, animals grew fine. So it’s baffling to me that we’re so frightened of getting nowhere close to where we started,” Happer explained.
Dr. Will Happer’s Testimony Before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming – May 20, 2010
“My name is William Happer, and I am the Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics at Princeton University. I have spent my professional life studying the interactions of visible and infrared radiation with gases – one of the main physical phenomena behind the greenhouse effect. I have published over 200 papers in peer reviewed scientific journals. I am a member of a number of professional organizations, including the American Physical Society and the National Academy of Sciences. I have done extensive consulting work for the US Government and Industry. I also served as the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy (DOE) from 1990 to 1993, where I supervised all of DOE’s work on climate change”.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/14/co2-nears-400-ppm-relax-its-not-global-warming-end-times-but-only-a-big-yawn-climate-depot-special-report/ and
http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/05/21/prominent-princeton-scientist-dr-happer-testifies-to-congress-warming-and-increased-co2-will-be-good-for-mankind/
+1
Sadly, Dr. Happer was testifying to elitists who don’t listen to genuine science but love to tell us what we must do.
Bubba – you are right the Earth has been several millenia with CO2 levels considerably higher than this with only positive effects. But you will note the weasel words in NOAA’s release: ” since we began tracking carbon dioxide in the global atmosphere”
As demonstrated by the cessation of ‘warming’, there is zero proof that CO2 is actually doing anything in the real world other than increase the greening of the planet and the global crop yields. But NOAA has to please its paymaster.
FYI the CO2 measurements began in 1958. So “since we began tracking” means over the last 57 years. Notice how the press release very studiously avoided giving the proper time frame.
http://www.climatecentral.org/library/climopedia/the_longest-running_project_for_measuring_carbon_dioxide_in_the_atmosphere
Agreed Bubba.
I wrote the following on this subject, posted on Icecap.us circa December 2014:
On Climate Science, Global Cooling, Ice Ages and Geo-Engineering:
[excerpt]
Furthermore, increased atmospheric CO2 from whatever cause is clearly beneficial to humanity and the environment. Earth’s atmosphere is clearly CO2 deficient and continues to decline over geological time. In fact, atmospheric CO2 at this time is too low, dangerously low for the longer term survival of carbon-based life on Earth.
More Ice Ages, which are inevitable unless geo-engineering can prevent them, will cause atmospheric CO2 concentrations on Earth to decline to the point where photosynthesis slows and ultimately ceases. This would devastate the descendants of most current [terrestrial] life on Earth, which is carbon-based and to which, I suggest, we have a significant moral obligation.
Atmospheric and dissolved oceanic CO2 is the feedstock for all carbon-based life on Earth. More CO2 is better. Within reasonable limits, a lot more CO2 is a lot better.
As a devoted fan of carbon-based life on Earth, I feel it is my duty to advocate on our behalf. To be clear, I am not prejudiced against non-carbon-based life forms, but I really do not know any of them well enough to form an opinion. They could be very nice. 🙂
Best, Allan
Few know what 400 ppm even means, or how it can be compared to other gases, case in point my 6th year old who is a pretty good science student was listening to the radio yeaterday in the car and during a window commercial he heard them mention argon, he said “That’s the gas they put in windows right dad”? I said “Yup” then I explained “It’s pretty common stuff, making it cheap to make, it’s even in the air we breathe, what do you think is more common in the air, CO2 or Argon?”. He quickly said said CO2 and didn’t believe me when I said Argon, the forgotten gas, is actually about 25 times more common than CO2. I was thinking the “what has a higher % in the atmosphere, CO2 or Argon” would be a quick way to discredit the typical science-illiterate warmist.
Correction 6th grader not 6 year old.
I still think the best way to express CO2 concentration to the average Joe is to say that it’s 4 molecules of carbon dioxide for every 10,000 molecules of nitrogen, oxygen, argon and other trace gases. Big deal, we’ve gone from around 3 to 4 and only about 3% of that increase is caused by man. In other words, with no temperature rise of significance this invalidates the theory that increased CO2 means drastic warming. Ain’t happening. Just a fart in a windstorm.
But, but, but…going from 3 to 4 is like, what, 33%!!! That’s a HUGE percentage!!!
Oooo Kay! So why are we not now roasting in Hell?
May it keep on rising and temperatures keep on pausing
It’s May in California and I’m still running the furnace. I want more warming!
Wow!
350 ppm was a tipping point from which we could not recover,
so at 400 ppm I would surmise we are all dead?
Pity too – I actually like some of us.
At the state school I retired from I can think of several employees who might add this to their list of excuses to be on disability. Sick leave exhausted due to “Low Carbon Tolerance”.
I posted this on the Guardian earlier today.
“So CO2 concentration keeps rising and temperatures do not. Further evidence that climate sensitivity to CO2 is very low. As we sceptics have been arguing.
So this is good news.”
But it’s now been deleted (even from my comment history).
M Courtney, that’s because your thoughts, words and opinions are dangerous.
What did you think the Guardian guards against? Yes, thoughts. Especially evil, contrarian thoughts like yours, you wicked person! Eftsoon the Guardian in its zeal will stamp out all thought, by order of the congoscenti (sic), witch doctors who wish to protect us from de heap big warmy.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/seanthomas/100222487/when-it-comes-to-climate-change-we-have-to-trust-our-scientists-because-they-know-lots-of-big-scary-words/
“…difficult to reverse…”? ……
Since no one seems to be stating the obvious….
That means that very little of it is man made.
The planet has had much higher concentrations of CO2 than now—-1,500 ppm to 2,000 ppm—-as recently as during the Triassic, Jurassic, and Cretaceous ages, when much of the biosphere as we know it evolved and thrived (and the oceanic biosphere wasn’t “acidified”). This is documented in college textbooks (see below link, for example).
http://hyzercreek.com/co2.jpg
And why is it that the Arctic was, for example, about 5.0 C warmer than now during the last interglacial (~125,000 years ago), when CO2 levels only reached 290 ppm to 300 ppm…if CO2 concentration is the primary determinant of climate?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bor.12085/full
Shells of the blue mussel Mytilus edulis have been dated to occur between 9500 and 5400 cal. a BP in central East Greenland; this warmth-loving species does not live in the region anymore and indicates higher sea surface temperatures than at present and more extensive fjord water (Bennike & Wagner 2013). … According to studies of the Greenland NEEM ice-core, mean annual temperatures during the warmest part of the Eemian were as much as 8°C higher than during the last millennium, and from 127 000 to 118 300 years ago the mean annual temperature was ∼5°C higher (NEEM community members 2013). In central East Greenland, the mean summer temperature was ∼5°C higher than today (Bennike & Böcher 1994).
http://www.clim-past.net/9/1589/2013/cp-9-1589-2013.html
The previous interglacial (Eemian, 130–114 kyr BP) had a mean sea level highstand 4 to 7 meters above the current level, and, according to climate proxies, a 2 to 6 K warmer Arctic summer climate.
http://helheim-glacier.org/xpdf/abstracts-helheim.pdf
Recent results from the DYE 3 ice core and other sources indicate that the dome melted away, and gave way to forested mountains for the last time during marine isotope stage 11, c. 400,000 years ago. The southern dome, and of course the northern also, persisted in a reduced form during the warm Eemian interglacial (c. 125,000 years ago), when annual mean temperatures over Greenland were 5°C warmer than now for some millenia. During the last ice age the southeast coast of Greenland was one of the areas of major ice sheet growth, reaching the shelf edge at the last glacial maximum, c. 20,000 years ago, as shown by bathymetric studies. During the Holocene thermal maximum, c. 8,000 years ago, when annual mean temperatures were 2°C warmer than now for some thousands of years, modelling and GPS altimetry show that the southern dome was the most sensitive part of the ice sheet, retreating as much as 80 km behind its present front in some areas.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v493/n7433/full/nature11789.html
Efforts to extract a Greenland ice core with a complete record of the Eemian interglacial (130,000 to 115,000 years ago) have until now been unsuccessful. The response of the Greenland ice sheet to the warmer-than-present climate of the Eemian has thus remained unclear. Here we present the new North Greenland Eemian Ice Drilling (‘NEEM’) ice core and show only a modest ice-sheet response to the strong warming in the early Eemian. We reconstructed the Eemian record from folded ice using globally homogeneous parameters known from dated Greenland and Antarctic ice-core records. On the basis of water stable isotopes, NEEM surface temperatures after the onset of the Eemian (126,000 years ago) peaked at 8 ± 4 degrees Celsius above the mean of the past millennium, followed by a gradual cooling that was probably driven by the decreasing summer insolation. Between 128,000 and 122,000 years ago, the thickness of the northwest Greenland ice sheet decreased by 400 ± 250 metres, reaching surface elevations 122,000 years ago of 130 ± 300 metres lower than the present.
http://www.micropress.org/stratigraphy/papers/Stratigraphy_6_4_265-275.pdf
Pollen from three subarctic sites in the Norwegian Sea, northern Iceland and Labrador Sea indicate that mid-Pliocene January temperatures in Norway, Iceland and southeastern Canada were 4 to 10°C warmer than today (Willard 1994). Many researchers documented Pliocene warmth recorded in the Beaufort Formation of Arctic Canada (Matthews 1987; Fyles 1990; Matthews and Ovenden 1990; Vincent 1990; Fyles et al. 1991; Brigham-Grette and Carter 1992; Fyles et al. 1994). Evidence of both mixed deciduous/coniferous and coniferous forests places mean July temperatures 10°C warmer than today (Vincent 1990). In addition, northwestern Alaska air and sea temperatures during peak Pliocene interglacials were considerably warmer than present, by 7 to 8°C, with no permafrost, and absent or severely limited sea ice (Carter et al. 1986; Kaufman and Brigham-Grette 1993).
Well, yeah, if you want to get all sciency on us. But this is NOAA, who have a higher truth, the orders of the Great One, from whom all blessings flow. {all genuflect}
When asked to comment on the 400 ppm milestone, Gaia was cautiously optimistic. “It has taken a long time to reverse the dangerous drop in atmospheric carbon dioxide,” she said, “and we’re still well below optimal levels. But the trend is encouraging.”
In response to a question from Fox News, she took full responsibility for the crisis, but also claimed her unorthodox solution was working. “It’s true,” she admitted, “I made a serious mistake in allowing all that carbon to be chemically ‘sequestered’, so to speak, or simply buried with no access to the atmosphere. I failed to foresee the problem or its horrific consequences. I didn’t give up, however, and came up with a rather clever response, if I do say so myself. Despite the predictions of failure from certain naysayers, my semi-evolved simians are slowly but surely greening the earth. More importantly, they’re making good progress in protecting my children from those nasty asteroids and comets, which as you know have done catastrophic damage in the past. If present trends continue, they may even recreate that glorious ‘paradise lost’ of 65 million years ago.”
Gaia’s most vocal critic, who calls himself “The Ehrlich”, scoffed at her remarks, saying, “If she had given those upright monkeys true intelligence, she might have grounds for her optimism. But as it is, they’re slaves to their short term cravings, think nothing of the future, and worst of all pay no attention to my warnings. I predict their current ‘golden age’ will be short-lived. Any day now they’ll begin their inevitable descent back to the level of subsistence their stupidity has earned.” When reminded that he’s been predicting this for the last 45 years, he would say only, “This time for sure!”
Anyone who is not utterly terrified by the plot you’ve posted is a true denialist. I think most reasonable interpretations suggest that the plot will lead to the death of the biosphere. One wonders why so many other planets are devoid of a biosphere, this plot is suggestive. We should be racing to achieve interstellar travel.
Welcome to 400 ppm Groundhog Day! It seems to be turning into an annual event.
May 9 2013, Scientific American:
400 PPM: What’s Next for a Warming Planet
Concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have reached this level for the first time in millions of years. What does this portend?
May 14 2013 Guardian:
Record 400ppm CO2 milestone ‘feels like we’re moving into another era’
Then a year later,
June 30, 2014, Climate Central
New CO2 Milestone: 3 Months Above 400 PPM
July 2 2014 Scientific American:
CO2 Levels above 400 PPM Threshold for Third Month in a Row
And now another year on,
May 6 2015, Guardian
Global carbon dioxide levels break 400ppm milestone
May 7 2015, Climatewire
Global CO2 levels surge past 400-ppm mark for first time in millions of years
Not only that, but in even more shocking news, the universe is the oldest has ever been this morning.
400 ppm? Big deal.
Somebody wake me up when it gets warm enough to grow palm trees in my back yard here in Wisconsin…..all year round. Yawn……zzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Meaningless milestone
Fake precision
Oh how climate ‘scientists’
Earn my derision
A look at NOAA’s tall tower data sites shows ppm back and forth through 400 at some sites many times over the past several past years.
But what to do about the pause/hiatus?
Did I not see a prediction of the ‘mix’ of energy producers for the next century which wonderfully, marvellously, optimistically, sees developing nations consuming simply enormous amounts of fossil fuels to their enormous benefit. Nuclear was there. Wind – eh? Nowhere.
I am curious if there is data on other common CO2 sources aside from just fuel. For instance, how much CO2 is released via the soft drink/beer industry in total? How many billions of cans, bottles, cups or pitchers are opened or poured a day? Better yet, how many cans of soft drink = a tonne of fuel coal burned or gallon of gasoline used from a CO2 standpoint?
Somebody had to do a study on that since CO2 is such a perceived problem. Perhaps that was the underlying reason Bloomberg wanted to ban the large “Big Gulp” soft drinks in New York?
No, Bloomberg is just a progressive that knows the right answer…for everything.
Some of the CO2 used in soft drinks is the result of beer making, some is made from fossil fuels. The first doesn’t add to the total CO2 in that atmosphere, as that was captured out of the atmosphere a few months to a few years before to make the starch in grains that is converted in glucose and alcohol. The latter is adding to total CO2, but I doubt that it is significant compared to fuel use for heat, power and transport…
It’s neither here nor there where CO2 comes from. Any effect it might have on the atmosphere is undetectable. They talk about the amount of warming with CO2 doubling but, if we burned every scrap of carbon we have, we could not raise it more than 20% because 50 parts out of 51 parts will go into the oceans, a la Henry’s Law.
As CO2 is only 5% of the supposed greenhouse effect and we only emit 3 to 5% of the CO2 budget every year, the 1.4 deg C estimated from doubling COs becomes 0.0028 deg C by man, which is seriously undetectable and meaningless for us.
Remember, the IPCC assumes that water vapor would augment CO2’s effects, but they lie by ignoring the water cycle. This hydrologic cycle is a huge global heat engine that serves as a huge negative feedback mechanism, which ramps up with warming to bring it back down.
7.2.1.2 Effects of Clouds on the Earth’s Radiation Budget
The effect of clouds on the Earth’s present-day top of the atmosphere (TOA) radiation budget, or cloud radiative effect (CRE), can be inferred from satellite data by comparing upwelling radiation in cloudy and non-cloudy conditions (Ramanathan et al., 1989). By enhancing the planetary albedo, cloudy conditions exert a global and annual short¬wave cloud radiative effect (SWCRE) of approximately –50 W m–2 and, by contributing to the greenhouse effect, exert a mean longwave effect (LWCRE) of approximately +30 W m–2, with a range of 10% or less between published satellite estimates (Loeb et al., 2009). Some of the apparent LWCRE comes from the enhanced water vapour coinciding with the natural cloud fluctuations used to measure the effect, so the true cloud LWCRE is about 10% smaller (Sohn et al., 2010).
The net global mean CRE of approximately –20 W m–2 implies a net cooling
RF for CO2 = <2.0 W/m^2.
The Cult of CAGW needs a back-up plan. Planetary temperature has started to fall. The drop in planetary temperature is very soon going to appear as if the warming switch has been turned off. The mechanisms which were inhibiting the solar cycle modulation of planetary cloud cover have started to abate. While the inhibiting mechanisms were doing their thing, solar activity has dropping year by year, so when the inhibiting mechanism abate, bingo, the planet cools significantly due to increased cloud cover.
Atmospheric CO2 will also start to fall lagging temperature change by roughly 1 year.
From a temperature standpoint, the astonishing number of coronal holes on the surface of the sun in low latitude position during solar cycle 24 is one of the reasons why the warming switch has stayed on.
The coronal holes are now starting to dissipate and/or to move the poles of the sun where they no longer affect cloud cover on the earth. The long lasting coronal holes (a coronal hole can last many months and in some cases multiple years) create solar wind bursts which in turn creata a space charge movement in the earth’s ionosphere.
The charge movement in the ionosphere causes a change ions in the high latitude regions of the planet and in the tropics. In the tropics this phenomena electroscavening is a key fundamental driver and modulator of the magnitude of the El Niño and La Niña events.
The following is a 5000 foot explanation of why atmospheric CO2 will fall when planetary temperature falls.
Carbon sinks and sources
Observational evidence that supports Sably’s assertion that no less than 66% of the recent rise in atmospheric.
1) Detailed piecewise analysis (same result as phase analysis however easier to see what is going on for a general audience) supports the assertion that the rise in atmospheric CO tracks planetary temperature not the anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
2) Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have increased by 80% from 5 GtC/yr to 9 GtC/yr yet the rise in atmospheric CO2 has only increased by 40% from 1.4 GctC/year to 2 GctC/year. What we would have expected if the IPCC CO2 sink and source model were correct is a gradually increasing year by year increase in atmospheric CO2 as the anthropogenic CO2 is increasing gradually year by year.
3) The increase in atmospheric CO2 is tracking the integral of the planetary temperature anomaly with a roughly 1 year lag rather than the anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
Why?
The Cult of CAGW’s scientific team IPCC speak with forked tongue.
They have told us again, again, and end again that the ocean to 750 m is warming, yet they assume that the only mixing of surface ocean is the first 100m for their CO2 source and sink model.
Obviously as the first 750m of the ocean is slowly warming there is most definitely mixing of surface water down to 750m. That mixing increases the total net equalization mixing sink for the ocean for CO2 from 1000 Gct to 7500 Gct, seven times the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The anthropogenic emissions of 9 Gct/year are lost in the 7500 Gct sink. This also explains why the step increase in C14 from atomic bomb testing completely disappeared in 20 years, as opposed to a 1000 years if base on the IPCC Bern model. The Bern model was created to push the cult of CAWG.
We live in very interesting times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_layer#/media/File:MixedLayerTempDepthMonth.png
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.png
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_April_2015_v61.png
http://scienceprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/carbon_cycle_591.jpg
Why was annual CO2 growth so low in 1992 and 3?
There are quite large swings in variability which do not mirror manmade emissions, so what is the reason?
Richard,
1992-1993 was the result of the 1991 Pinatubo eruption: at one side that blocked and reflected some sunlight on the SO2/SO3 drops high in the stratosphere, which reduced earth temperatures somewhat, but the interesting point is that the scattering of sunlight in all directions also increased photosynthesis, as leaves which were in the shadow of other leaves for part of the day did receive more light than before the Pinatubo eruption…
The main variability is from the influence of temperature (and precipitation) on (tropical) vegetation, as the opposite CO2 and δ13C show. But that is not more than +/- 1 ppmv around the trend and levels off to zero within 1-3 years. The trend of 110 ppmv is almost completely from the over 200 ppmv human emissions…
In the monthly Mauna Loa Co2 graphs – especially shorter ones showing 10 or fewer years – one can see a slight “hitch” in the middle of the seasonal increase during the (approximate) months of February – March. It’s a slight slow-down in the rate of increase lasting about a month before the normal climb continues for another two or three months. I think someone raised the question here on WUWT – must have blinked during the answer.
What causes the hitch?
@ Ferdinand Engelbeen May 7, 2015 at 11:10 am
Ferdinand, I done told you to ….. leave the Biology up to the Biologists (and Botanists) …. and cease with the above posting of such silly and asinine statements.
You can be, …..but you shouldn’t be, …. thinking up new “junk science” claims of factuality for the sole intent of them providing “credibility and truth” that supports your other “junk science” claims.
Leaf foliage, … the same as Solar Panels, ….. likes direct Sunlight, … but the leaf foliage likes direct Sunlight for maximum photosynthesis “sugar” production … and iffen the 1991 Pinatubo eruption blocked and/or scattered some of that direct Sunlight … then there is no way in hell that your above said “increase in scattered sunlight to the in-shadow foliage” could make up the difference in lost sugar production due to the loss of direct Sunlight.
Besides, sensible thinking people know that it doesn’t get lighter or brighter underneath a forest canopy whenever a thin lay of Cirrus clouds scatters the incoming Sunlight.
Samuel,
I have no stake in the discussion about the sink rate after the Pinatubo: that only was what I have read. Seems that later work, based on models (!) refute that hypothesis. See:
http://www.citeulike.org/user/ahuesler/article/5757605
Fact is that the small cooling after the Pinatubo eruption doesn’t fully explain the drop in CO2 increase rate in the atmosphere. Thus some other mechanism caused the extra uptake of CO2…
William,
Sorry, but you only repeat a bunch of nonsense which was discussed more than one time here at WUWT.
1) the variability tracks the temperature variability, as an effect on vegetation, but that is only +/- 1 ppmv around the trend. The trend of 110 ppmv is NOT caused by the same process that causes the variability, as vegetation is a net, growing sink for CO2.
2) Human emissions increased a fourfold over the past 55 years, so did the increase in the atmosphere and so did the net sink rate. Any natural cause MUST have increased a fourfold in the same time span to have a possibility of a natural cause. For which is not a shred of evidence.
3) Your integral gets completely wrong at several parts of the curve: 1976-1996 shows an decreasing growth rate with increasing temperatures and increasing emissions, and after 2000: no temperature increase, still slightly increasing CO2…
The anthropogenic emissions of 9 Gct/year are lost in the 7500 Gct sink.
Yes and the increase in the atmosphere comes from the same oceans? Seems what they call “creative bookkeeping”. More than one sits in prison for that…
@ Ferdinand Engelbeen May 7, 2015 at 11:26 am
Ferdinand, that is really AMAZING that your guesstimated human emissions and your fanaticized net sink rate ….. just happened to be the right numerical values for explaining the past 55 years of atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities.
I still have to wonder why I can not see a ….. human CO2 emission “signature” anywhere within the 56+ years of the Mauna Loa Monthly Average CO2 ppm Record as stipulated @ ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
Maybe you could “point out” the signature of that fourfold increase … so that I tell all my friends where it is.
@ William Astley May 7, 2015 at 8:18 am
Here is the above graph ….. but with the atmospheric CO2 plotted on it.
http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/1979-2013UAHsatelliteglobalaveragetemperatures.png
Samuel,
Here the plot of human emissions, increase in the atmosphere and net sink rate over the past 55 years:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em2.jpg
Yearly human emissions, increase rate and sink rate all increased a 4-fold in the past 55 years.
If some natural flux was the cause, that should have increased a 4-fold too, or the increase in the atmosphere couldn’t have been a 4-fold. But there is not the slightest indication that the natural cycle increased or that the residence time decreased (as result of more cycling), to the contrary…
Your plot of the increase in the atmosphere gives a nice impression of the influence of the temperature variations on the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere: a 60 ppmv increase and the “huge” variability in rate of change around the trend caused by temperature variability is hardly visible…
Even more clear if you plot the full 55 years, assuming an 8 ppmv/K CO2 response on temperature changes… Add to that human emissions which were double the measured increase in the atmosphere…
Even if you enlarge the period 1990-2001, where we had the largest disturbances of the past century:
1991-1993 Pinatubo influence, 1998-2000 El Niño – La Niña, hardly any influence on the trend…
@ Ferdinand Engelbeen May 8, 2015 at 3:10 am
Ferdinand, if that is what you are seeing on your graph ….. then you are literally hallucinating. Of course that doesn’t surprise me any given the fact that all of the “data” you used for plotting is nothing more than useless garbage that you created yourself via your “fuzzy math” statistical calculations using highly questionable numerical quantities that you derived from wild arsed guesses and estimations ….. and which you kept adjusting and massaging until you got the “correct fit” that would give credence to your “pet” junk science claims.
It is imbecilic for anyone to assume that “human activities” are …. steady and consistent, ….year in, year out, …… for 55+ years in succession.
Ferdinand, did you include these “emissions” in with your other asinine estimations of “human emissions” …. that you claimed were based in/on … “fossil fuel Sales Records? To wit:
—————-
I literally detest scientific fraud …. as well as the “fraudsters” that perpetuate it.
OK Samuel, how did you choose the relative scaling of the two parameters and why didn’t you plot ln(CO2)?
Consequently your graph is meaningless junk.
Samuel,
All what you have proven is that the human emissions are probably underestimated by under the counter sales, uncontrolled flares, etc…
That only increases the case for human emissions as the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere…
Phil, I am not the author of the above graph. And secondly, the scaling of all the parameters on that graph looks fine to me with temp to the left, ppm to the right and year on the bottom.
And just what the ell are asking when you asked ….. “why didn’t you plot ln(CO2)?”
And if you think the …. “graph is meaningless junk ….. then best you learn some Science fore you get “branded” as being a disillusioned CAGW’er.
@ Ferdinand Engelbeen May 8, 2015 at 9:09 am
Ferdinand,
What I have proven is …… you are a purveyor of “junk science” …… and the fact that you have estimated all of your numerical quantities that you include in your posted commentary and graphics for the sole reason that, in your mind, ….. “THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS”.
Ferdinand, I have known for the past 10+ years that all you “experts” started with the actual measurement of the ….. “yearly increase in atmospheric CO2 ppm as per Mauna Loa data” ….. and then ya’ll started your estimations and guesstimations of all the known CO2 source and sink quantities, ….. and then via reverse math calculations and the massaging of your estimated source and sink quantities …… your “junk science” calculations then, …. and only then, ….. implied that the human emissions were responsible for said …. “yearly average increase in CO2 ppm”.
The root source of your “data” is 100% wrong …. and any where you cite or reference that “data” then your commentary and/or claims are also 100% wrong.
Including your above posted graph. It’s purdy, ….. but it’s trash.
Okay, I’ll plant my garden this weekend.
My son gave me an old book, Man and Climate, published during WW II (1942) by the USDA.
They list all the frost dates for counties in each state.
I live 50 miles west of Chicago, and based on the old book and current U of Illinois extension maps, I still can’t plant tomatoes before memorial day. This is despite all the alleged “warming” we have had in the past 70 years !
We had temperatures in the 40s last night here in San Francisco. Winter Weather advisory today in the high country east of here.
Thanks, Bob.
400 out of 1,000,000 molecules are now CO2, and it’s extra warming power is very small, if you don’t invent a positive feedback from water vapor.
Reaching 400 parts per million as a global average is a significant milestone. 🙂
Yes, all the green plants are thankful, the warmunistas should be climbing up trees.
What’s not to like about this?
Or was it vehicle emissions at the the telescope construction sites?
Spring of 2012?
Once upon a time in 2013?
The warmist wet dream.
It took three years for NOAA to achieve 400ppmv average for a whole month.
It’s ok if they have measured since the climate started once to appear, but this is important:
“For the first time since we began tracking carbon dioxide in the global atmosphere …”
That leaves out most of (atmospheric) history and from a scientific point of view, that’s not science …
Is it the usual lack of time concept …?
400 ppm, what part is natural, what part anthropogenic? Seems people get their shorts in a knot over c02 rise but conveniently leave out the overwhelming natural contribution.
Volcanoes are contributing 90-95% of the total carbon cycle (they all emit CO2 always, it varies with status …). Man contributes ~1-2% (some “optimists” will claim up to 3%) Also, the nature don’t give a cr@p about how it was generated. The more the merrier!
This has been taught in mandatory school for many years or at least was once …
Then it shouldn’t be difficult to realize that the measurements on Hawaii are contaminated, due to number of volcanoes on the main island. Measurements done at volcanoes slopes shows basically one thing: Any gases emitted increases just before an outbreak. The measuring station on Hawaii like all similar was built for that purpose only! Later the AGW crowd hijacked it and all of the rest around the world … Unevenly spread and low number of monitoring stations causes large margins of error. These errors will not disappear despite tricks in computer software later on. One has to understand that the atmosphere is also constantly changing, causing any measurement to be basically valid only for the moment it is performed.
@ SasjaL May 7, 2015 at 12:35 pm
The AGW crowd also hijacked all of the Interglacial “warming” from 1880 to present.
Volcanoes are contributing 90-95% of the total carbon cycle (they all emit CO2 always, it varies with status …). Man contributes ~1-2% (some “optimists” will claim up to 3%) Also, the nature don’t give a cr@p about how it was generated. The more the merrier!
This has been taught in mandatory school for many years or at least was once …
Then it shouldn’t be difficult to realize that the measurements on Hawaii are contaminated, due to number of volcanoes on the main island. Measurements done at volcanoes slopes shows basically one thing: Any gases emitted increases just before an outbreak. The measuring station on Hawaii like all similar was built for that purpose only! Later the AGW crowd hijacked it and all of the rest around the world … Unevenly spread and low number of monitoring stations causes large margins of error. These errors will not disappear despite tricks in computer software later on. One has to understand that the atmosphere is also constantly changing, causing any measurement to be basically valid only for the moment it is performed. (The stuff in the atmosphere are not stuck in fixed positions, but are constantly moving …)
SasjaL,
Sorry, but CO2 is rather easily distributed all over the earth, with a lag between altitudes and between the hemispheres. Mauna Loa indeed is on a volcano, but when the winds come downslope, the data are not used for averaging. But it hardly matters: you can use the data from near the North Pole (Barrow) or from the South Pole: they show the same trends. All stations show CO2 measurements within 2% of full scale, including huge swings in seasonal CO2 changes…
There is no vegetation or volcano for thousands of km around the South Pole station…
See: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/
Human emissions btw are estimated 100 times larger than all land volcanoes and vents together…
More myths … You’ll need to get back to what you should have learned already in mandatory school! CO2 levels varies during the year and even during the 24h cycle! Human emission are not even close to what Mt Etna produce alone. You don’t even understand basic requirements for measuring … Then you don’t make the correct conclusion as a result. If I would have used their method when I was at secondary school in the early 1980’s, it would have been classified as a complete failure …
SasjaL,
Wow, I didn’t know that my math is that bad that I have to go back to school…
Have a look at my page about where to measure CO2:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html
Mount Etna emits 13±3 Tg CO2 per year, humans emit ~9 Pg carbon per year, or 3-4 orders of magnitude more…
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v351/n6325/abs/351387a0.html
We have heard for decades how the recent and rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 was caused entirely by industrialized man. So let’s run the numbers.
Atmospheric mass: 5.14E18 kg
Atmospheric mass CO2 @ 390.5 ppm (2011): 3.05E15 kg
Per IPCC AR5:
CO2 increase 1750 (278 ppm) to 2011 (390.5 ppm): 8.78E14 kg
Global fossil fuel CO2 1750 to 2011 w/ 45% residual: 3.67E14 * 0.45=1.65E14 kg
Global fossil fuel share 1750 to 2011: 1.65/8.78 = 18.9% Not even close to “entirely.”
Global FF share of atmospheric CO2: 1.65/30.5=5.4% Natural sources fluctuate more than this.
Seems to me man is trying to solve a problem that is 95% not his.
(ppm mole basis)
nickreality65,
That is creative bookkeeping… Nobody says that the 45% residual is mandatory for human CO2 alone, it is the net result of the increase in the atmosphere, whatever the source. Nature doesn’t select between natural and human CO2…
Humans have added some 380 GtC as CO2 directly into the atmosphere since 1750.
The increase in the atmosphere was (395 – 280) * 2.13 = 245 GtC since 1750.
Seems to me that there is a high probability that humans are the cause of the increase…
Human emissions today are 9 GtC/year or ~4.5 ppmv/year. Half of that amount (not the same molecules…) gets into sinks, 2.2 ppmv/year remains in the atmosphere. Natural year by year variability is +/- 1 ppmv, half of human emissions…
3.67E14 ? Looks like the kg C burnt, not CO2 produced. All your later numbers should be *3.666. Your 18.9% is 69.3%.
But 45% is low ball. Its actually about 56% re fossil fuel. 45% applies to all CO2, incl land use.
@ Ferdinand Engelbeen May 8, 2015 at 3:35 am
Ferdinand,
This is creative bookkeeping… to wit:
But Ferdinand, most sane people would call it ….. “the height of silliness”. … whereas learned persons would call it “idiotic ”…. and that’s because, to wit:
Algebraically added “estimations“, … “(1 Wrong) + (1 Wrong) = (1 Right)”, …. only applies to Religious or Political Science issues.
Is not that Amazon forest expanding causing more CO2 in atmosphere? What is the % of anthropogenic CO2 to natural one.
Two thoughts here:
1. After serving on a submarine, who gives a rip about 400ppm???
2. Can we make recommendations for the one-way-trip to Mars???? I can think of a few….
I’ve been wondering how long it would take them to make this announcement, since every time I’ve checked for the last two years it’s always been on the verge. If the level starts going down it’s going to be hilarious listening to all the excuses!
In my fictional world, atmospheric CO2 concentration pauses for about 15 years, and then declines, despite increasing fossil fuel usage. I amuse myself by imagining the scramble to explain it.
NO, no, no. Over 400 ppm for the first time since they started measurements as Mauna Loa, Hawaii. There have been measurements, direct chemical bottle CO2 measurements since 1810. Isn’t it great how you can slant a statement just by LEAVING OUT THE MOST SALIENT FACTS?
highley7,
Many of the historical measurements were taken at the wrong places: middle of towns, forests, agriculture,… completely worthless to know the real “background” CO2 levels of that time. Measurements taken over the oceans are around the ice core levels… See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
The accelerated modeled warming is incredible with 400ppmv, can’t you feel the incredible physical 7/100th of a degree acceleration ?
It snowed in Montana last night at several locations.
Global warming is therefore falsified.
Well “DUH”, …. I could have, ….at this time last year, …. told those brilliant people at NOAA that the above was going to happen.
And I can tell them something else, too, …. to wit:
The 2014 Maximum Atmospheric CO2 occurred in late May 2014 @ 401.78 ppm …. after which it began it bi-yearly decrease.
The 2014 Minimum Atmospheric CO2 occurred at the end of September @ 395.26 ppm …. after which it began it bi-yearly increase. ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
The Maximum Atmospheric CO2 for April 2015 was 403.26 ppm, … an 8 ppm ytd increase and still increasing.
The Maximum Atmospheric CO2 on May 02, 2015 was 403.78 ppm, … an 8.52 ppm ytd increase and still increasing.
The Maximum Atmospheric CO2 on May 05, 2015 was 403.95 ppm, … an 8.69 ppm ytd increase and still increasing. http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/weekly-data-atmospheric-co2.html
Now, given the above, … plus the historical Mauna Loa Data Record, ….. I will make the prediction that …..
the 2015 Maximum Atmospheric CO2 will occur on May 19, 2015 @ 404.35 ppm …. after which it will began it bi-yearly decrease. And will continue decreasing until the end of September 2015 ….. with a total decrease of approximately 6+- ppm.
Now, …. everyone is free to make their own prediction ……. or place their “bets” that my prediction is totally FUBAR, … whichever.
In reply to:
Ferdinand Engelbeen May 7, 2015 at 11:26 am
William,
I see what the problem is. I am assuming you are capable of solving scientific problems. Perhaps if you asked questions rather than provide your own incorrect answers we might make progress.
Salby analyzed to independent data sources. Salby’s two independent analysis support the same result, the same conclusion.
No less than 66% of the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to natural sources. Salby’s calculation is correct.
You do not understand phase analysis which is the mathematical technique that Sably used to solve the problem.
The planet has started to cool in high latitude regions, due to abrupt change in the solar cycle.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly.global.png
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
When the lower latitude regions of the planet and the oceans in particular start to cool atmospheric CO2 will fall, lagging the drop in temperature by roughly a year.
The Bern model’s sinks and sources are not correct. Why is that so?
The Bern model assumes there is no mixing of the top 100 meters of the ocean with the deep ocean.
Accepting the fact that the top 750 meters of the ocean is currently warming (or do you dispute the heat is hiding in the ocean data?) we know the Bern model is not correct.
Your comment ignored the fact that heat is hiding in the ocean which invalidates the Bern model. You instead appeal to name calling to make up for your inability to use logic to support your attempt to cling to the cult of CAGW.
P.S. A scientific cult is the name Feynman gave to groups of scientists that cling to a theory/model that has been disproved by observations.
The anthropogenic 9 GctC/year are moving into a 7500 Gct sink rather into a 1000 Gct sink. That changes the calculation by a factor of 7.5. This explains why the nuclear testing C14 disappeared in 20 years rather than 1000 years if the Bern model was correct.
The concentration of CO2 in the top highly mixed 1000 Gct (100 meters of ocean) is replenished with deep water CO2.
Equilibrium when there is an increase or decrease in temperature of the 100 meter water column is reached when the CO2 content of the entire 750 meter column is reduced or increased for the new temperature.
Do you understand the practical implication of equilibrium for very, very, large reservoirs?
William,
Salby analyzed to independent data sources. Salby’s two independent analysis support the same result, the same conclusion.
You can’t deduce the cause of a trend by looking at the variability around the trend, if one input variable has a lot of variability and little trend and the other causes no detectable variability and has a huge trend.
And the 14C decay rate has nothing to do with the depth of the surface layer: it is the deep oceans which return after ~1000 years which makes that the 14C peak levels are dropping much faster than for a 12CO2 peak.
Dr. Salby used data which doesn’t reflect the cause of the increase in the atmosphere…
The anthropogenic 9 GctC/year are moving into a 7500 Gct sink rather into a 1000 Gct sink. That changes the calculation by a factor of 7.5.
Not at all, it doesn’t matter where the sinks are: the ocean surface, the deep oceans, vegetation, rock weathering. All what matters is that the sink rate per year, every year in the past 55 years is less than human emissions: currently 9 GtC in, 4.5 GtC out, 4.5 GtC increase in the atmosphere (as mass, not original molecules). I have not the slightest problem with not exactly knowing in what reservoirs the 4.5 GtC out will go and how that will be distributed over the different sinks. On the long term most will go into the deep oceans I suppose. That needs time…
You have a problem: can you explain to me what the source of the increase is if not human, and how that fulfills all known observations…
Do you understand the practical implication of equilibrium for very, very, large reservoirs?
William, the equilibrium is between the atmosphere and the surface and the surface only: the upper fraction of a mm of the ocean. Not the 100 meter or 700 meter. Of course the upper fraction of a mm is readily in equilibrium, while the rest of the surface isn’t. CO2 diffusion in water is a very slow process: you need wind speed to mix the water masses and air to have some speed of mixing of the air and skin layer with the upper few hundred meters of water. That makes that only the upper few hundred meters is in fast (1-3 years)equilibrium with the atmosphere, not 700 meter. The deeper layers need much more time to exchange CO2 with the atmosphere as there is hardly any mixing between the two.
If ” CO2 diffusion in water is a very slow process”, and “the deeper layers need much more time to exchange CO2 with the atmosphere as there is hardly any mixing between the two.”
Then why the claim that the “missing heat” is “hidden” in the deep ocean? How does the heat dive into deep oceans while somehow leaving behind the water with the CO2 dissolved in it?
Anna Keppa,
I doubt that much heat is hiding in the deep oceans, but even so (warming by 0.0001 K/year?), heat dissipation may go faster than CO2 migration in relative stagnant waters.
Most CO2 migration between the ocean surface and the deeper waters is from sinking organic and inorganic (shells) debris from bio-life. That is estimated at around 6 GtC/year, based on a few spots where sinking matter is measured.
“Not at all, it doesn’t matter where the sinks are: the ocean surface, the deep oceans, vegetation, rock weathering. All what matters is that the sink rate per year, every year in the past 55 years is less than human emissions.”
Trivially wrong.
At least they acknowledged that there is no chance of halting the CO2 increase. There is no plan to reduce emissions 80% ever until we run out of things to burn. We will just have to live with the consequences if there are any at all. It’s all a grab for more government power with no chance of having any impact on the climate.
If only it were true. Here’s my worry. After peaking at some value (say, 450 or 500PPM) it crashes. Maybe even down to nearly zero. Granted such a crash would take thousands of years. In any case, it may be the end.
400 PPM and accelerating, is that part of the reason why our Clematis plant is exploding with growth? I swear we cut the thing all the way to the ground last year and now it’s completely overwhelming the trellis again. It also has enough buds starting it to perhaps last all the way into June.
Wait a few decades and garden companies will have to start breeding smaller versions of popular varieties because they’ll be getting too big to fit in the usual spots.
Keep the flow of CO2 going 🙂
HAH!! On Aussie MSM, channel 7, a “ticker tape” newsbite at the bottom of the screen says “Pope made honorary globetrotter”!!!
400PPM !!!! We need …………..superObama to the rescue , better warm AF1, AF2 and maybe AF3, which way is Paris ?
What does this mean for 350.org?
They’ll “change” the name to 450.org!
This is excellent news. It will help me save water during this horrendous California drought. Also, this may help mitigate the long term overall decline in CO2 – at least it buys some time. No one really knows where the long term decline is leading. A certain point could be reached, where things move past a certain point of no return. For example, if CO2 were to ultimately dip below 200PPM, would we enter into a death spiral? The longer we can stave that off and study the system, the greater the chance we can anticipate risks and worst case start to craft an exit strategy to the extent one could be created while we still lack credible interstellar travel options.
William,
The above comment is nonsense. Phase analysis is a standard analysis technique to determine cause and effect. To determine what is and what is not forcing.
The rise in atmospheric CO2 does not correlate with anthropogenic CO2 emission. Salby analyzed two independent data sources 1) change in total CO2 Vs change in anthropogenic CO2 and 2) change in C13 and change in C13 from anthropogenic emissions. The results of the two independent analyses support the assertion that not less than 66% of the recent rise in anthropogenic CO2 is due to natural sources, rather than anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
The anthropogenic 9 GctC/year are moving into a 7500 Gct sink rather into a 1000 Gct sink. That changes the calculation by a factor of 7.5.
William:
4.5 GtC is not moving into the atmosphere. Based on the actual rise, 2.5 GtC to 3 GtC in entering the atmosphere. The paradox is anthropogenic CO2 increases year by year, yet the increase in atmospheric CO2 does not. The increase in atmospheric CO2 tracks planetary temperature not anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
.
Do you need glasses? Do you have any training in data analysis? Or is the problem you belong to the cult of CAGW and hence ignore observations that disprove the IPCC hypothesis.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.png
William,
What Salby has found is the steady increasing anthropogenic CO2 emissions is not the source that is causing atmospheric CO2 to increase.
I know what the source is, however, we need a deep core CH4 presentation in this forum to provide a basis for discussion.
The deep CH4 theory was promoted by the late Nobel Prize winning astrophysics Thomas Gold. The deep CH4 theory is that the source of the earth’s atmosphere and ocean is liquid super high pressure CH4 that extruded from the core as it is solidifies. The theory explains why the earth’s atmosphere has six times less heavy noble gases than comets or meteoroids. The competing theory is the late veneer theory where a late bombardment of comets and/or meteoroids created a Venus like atmosphere on the early earth. The late veneer theory fails in multiple ways such at the old continental crust does not exhibit evidence of chemical reactions that occur due to a Venus like atmosphere.
People have no idea that late veneer theory fails to launch. There are new and massive CH4 discoveries such the CH4 is more than twice as much as all oil reserves. The actual amount of commercial CH4 is practically limitless as the CH4 continues to come up from the core so the reservoirs are refilling. This explains why there is massive CH4 movement up through the Australian coal deposits. There should be no connection between black coal and massive CH4 based on the fossil theory. The deep core CH4 theory explains all of the anomalies and paradoxes.
The super high pressure CH4 is the force the moves the ocean floor and the continents. Gold includes 50 observations that confirm that theory is correct. There are another 20 observations from more recent analysis that supports deep CH4 theory.)
Duh.
Do you understand the practical implication of equilibrium for a very, very, large reservoirs?
William,
You are clueless. You do not understand why the fact that there is mixing well past 750 meters invalidates the Bern model.
There is constant movement and exchange of the surface water and the deeper water. The Bern model assume, I repeat assumed that the mixing of ocean water was limited to the top 100 meters.
Obviously as heat is hiding in the ocean down to well past 750 meters, the Bern model’s 100 meter mixing assumption is bogus, incorrect, wrong.
William:
The rise in atmospheric CO2 does not correlate with anthropogenic CO2 emission
You think?
Anthro emissions and rise in the atmosphere:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1960_cur.jpg
Temperature and rise in the atmosphere:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_1960_cur.jpg
Temperature is responsible for the +/- 1 ppmv (2 GtC) variability, human emissions for the 70+ ppmv rise since 1960. Thus looking at the variability says next to nothing about the cause of the rise in the atmosphere.
4.5 GtC is not moving into the atmosphere. Based on the actual rise, 2.5 GtC to 3 GtC in entering the atmosphere.
Human emissions are 9 GtC/year all moving directly in the atmosphere. Because of 110 ppmv extra CO2 pressure above equilibrium, some 1 GtC/year is pressed extra in vegetation, 0.5 GtC/year is pressed into the ocean surface and 3 GtC/year in the deep oceans. That is measured via the oxygen balance (vegetation) and DIC (ocean surface). Remains 4.5 GtC/year increase in the atmosphere. That is about 2.3 ppmv/year.
Do you need glasses?
I wear glasses, but even without glasses I know to look at ALL the available data, not only the variability which is caused by a process which even is opposite to the long term trend:
– Near all the variability is caused by the temporary influence of temperature on (tropical) vegetation: higher temperatures give more decay/less uptake including by drought.
– The long term trend is opposite to the short term variation: higher temperatures give more uptake by vegetation.
Thus short term variability and long term trend are caused by different processes.
I know what the source is, however, we need a deep core CH4 presentation in this forum to provide a basis for discussion.
Pure nonsense: the CH4 levels in the atmosphere more than tripled in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution (and before, due to increased rice culture for an increasing population). That still is less than 1% of the rise of CO2 if that is completely oxidized in the atmosphere with a half life time of ~10 years. No matter the cause of the tripling.
4.5 GtC is not moving into the atmosphere. Based on the actual rise, 2.5 GtC to 3 GtC in entering the atmosphere.
William, I do not defend the Bern model, never did and never will do. I do look at all the available data: even if there is a temperature increase (of 0.0001°C/year?) in the layer between 200 and 700 m depth, that says nothing about the mixing of CO2 below the upper 200 m “mixed layer”. The clue is in the word “mixed”. CO2 diffusion in water is extremely slow. You need mixing by wind and waves or it will take centuries to reach the depth.
Measurements, that is real observations, not models, show a rapid mixing of the ocean surface layer, down to a few hundred meters (depending of wind speed) with the atmosphere and virtually no mixing of the surface layer with the deep oceans. The exchange rate with the deep oceans is at the edges: cold polar waters sink into the deep and come back some 1,000 years later at the upwelling places near the equator. That is a much slower process…
You do your case no good at all by awarding a fake Nobel Prize to Thomas Gold, as you’ve been told before it didn’t happen and will not.
I went outside and told the good news to all my shrubs
Rounded decimal numbers are as meaningless in science as they are in economics. Even astrologers do not pay special attention to round numbers.
Significant numbers in astrology: e.g. 9, 11 and 22; also 13, 14, 16, 19. In science: Euler’s constant, Euler’s number, Omega, pi, c, 4.6692, the Golden Mean, etc.
Round numbers only matter if artificially imposed. E.g. a century in cricket.
If one can not provide a reasonable, sensible, logical explanation for the “bi-yearly” cycling “signature” associated with the Mauna Loa Data Record (Keeling Curve graph) ….. then one is just “spinning their wheels” and “clouding up” the issue concerning the truth or falsity of CAGW.
http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/keelingcurve.gif
The reason……
http://www.co2science.org/subject/other/co2amp.php
@ Toneb May 8, 2015 at 10:23 am
Toneb,
The above quoted commentary excerpted from your cited reference is little more than “junk science” garbage ….. simply because it is CONTRARY to the biological science of the natural world.
And besides that, it is in direct VIOLATION of my personally stated …. Refrigerator-Freezer Law of Microbial Decomposition of Dead Biomass ….. which is attested to, confirmed and legally demanded …. by the US Department of Agriculture, every Public Health Agency in the US and various other entities. To wit:
Toneb, the dead plant biomass does not decompose and/or emit humongous amounts of CO2 during the Fall and Winter months in the Northern Hemisphere simply because said biomass is either too dry (no moisture) and/or the surface and sub-surface temperatures are below 60 °F, which greatly retards microbial decomposition …. and below 40 °F which puts a halt to all microbial decomposition.
But on the contrary, that microbial decomposition begins emitting humongous amounts of CO2 when the Springtime temperatures warm up to and/or above 60 °F, …. which is usually always 2 to 3 weeks before the new growth in green foliage starts “sucking” any CO2 out of the air.
And that is scientific fact(s) ….. whether you like it or not.
Samuel,
Nothing mysterious with the bi-yearly cycling: it is the recurrent influence of temperature on vegetation in the NH, as the opposite movements of CO2 and δ13C show:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_CO2_d13C_MLO_BRW.jpg
Over the full year, organic debris is decaying, more in summer than in winter, but the growth of new leaves in spring and photosynthesis in summer overwhelms the decay rate. The leaves turn to debris in fall and is broken down to CO2 again by bacteria, molds and insects…
@ Ferdinand Engelbeen May 8, 2015 at 10:35 am
Ferdinand,
The only reason you persist in MIMICKING the above crapolla …. is that your “junk science” claims are 100% dependent upon your viewing audience believing that the above is scientifically legitimate. If you can keep them “believing in the above”…. then they will likely BELIEVE all of your other garbage.
Well tah de dah, ….. at least you are now obfuscating that claim, …… instead of out-right denying it as you have always done before.
Oh my my, …. so you thought up some new garbage, … HUH?
Ferdinand, how is it possible for those “leafless” tree limbs to be sucking-up the atmospheric CO2 that those “leafless” limbs need for the growth of new leaves in spring?
I guess you will be mimicking that “magic growth moment”, ….. along with your “wintertime insects”, ….. for the next few months, … right?
Are there new data from CO2 satellite?
Just wondering if the concentration is still the highest above Amazon forest…
So atmospheric CO2 fluctuates between 8 ppm to 6 ppm.
Ppm moles to kg. Atmospheric mass = 5.14E18, CO2 44.01 gr/mole, air 28.97 gr/mole.
Atmospheric CO2: 3.05E15 kg
6 ppm = 4.68E13 kg 8 ppm = 6.24E13 kg Difference = 1.56E13 kg
(1.5% of Atmos CO2) (2.0% of Atmos CO2)
Per IPCC AR5 Figure 6.1 fossil fuel, cement, and land use add 8.9 PgC annually.
8.9 PgC = 8.9E12 kg * 3.67 (convert to CO2) * 0.45 (residual in atmosphere) = 1.47E13kg.
FF & Cement = 31% of 6 ppm & 24% of 8 ppm & 94% of difference.
Is the difference due to man’s activities? 1.88 ppm per year? 188 ppm per century?
That’s mid-range RCP 4.5 with low to medium climate impacts. GHG RF of 4.5 W/m^2, just 1.5 times the current GHG RF of 3.0 W/m^2.
Solar ToA is 340 W/m^2, Solar reflected is 100 W/m^2, Solar absorbed is 79 W/m^2, Solar absorbed is 161 W/m^2. Clouds produce -20 W/m^2.
How is it 3.0 & 4.5 W/m^2 have any significance, warrant any concern?
That’s just noise in the data. An afternoon hail storm wipes that right out.
“So atmospheric CO2 fluctuates between 8 ppm to 6 ppm.”
————-
Actually, … “NO”.
Atmospheric CO2 fluctuates 6+/- ppm on a bi-yearly cycle. Up (increase) 6+/- ppm from October to May …. and down (decrease) 6+/- ppm from May to October.
But there is also a 2+/- ppm yearly increase in atmospheric CO2 (due to the long term warming of the ocean waters), ….. and when that is added to the bi-yearly increase of 6+/- ppm the per se YTD (year to date) total increase is 8+/- ppm.
There are two (2) temperatures associated with the surface waters of the oceans. The bi-yearly seasonal change due to summer/winter temperatures of the Northern/Southern Hemispheres …. and the long-term average temperature (global warming/cooling) of all the surfaces waters.
The long-term average temperature of the ocean waters has been slowly increasing for the past 200 years, …. a per se “recovery mode” from the extreme cold of the Little Ice Age.
So where does the anthropogenic 2 ppm per year fit in?
Anyone that believes that there has been or is an “anthropogenic 2 ppm per year increase in atmospheric CO2” …… is highly likely to be taking things back that they never took in the first place.
Here is the yearly increase (column 4) in CO2 for the years 1979 thru 2013
Maximum to Minimum yearly CO2 ppm data – 1979 thru 2013
Source: NOAA’s Mauna Loa Monthly Mean CO2 data base
@ ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
CO2 “Max” ppm Fiscal Year – mid-May to mid-May
year mth “Max” _ yearly increase ____ mth “Min” ppm ___ Bi-yearly ppm cycle
1979 6 339.20 + _________ 9 333.93 _____ 79/80 = -5.27 — +7.54
1980 5 341.47 +2.27 __________ 10 336.05 _____ 80/81 = -5.42 — +6.96
1981 5 343.01 +1.54 __________ 9 336.92 _____ 81/82 = -6.09 — +7.75
1982 5 344.67 +1.66 __________ 9 338.32
1983 5 345.96 +1.29 __________ 9 340.17
1984 5 347.55 +1.59 __________ 9 341.35
1985 5 348.92 +1.37 __________ 10 343.08
1986 5 350.53 +1.61 __________ 10 344.47
1987 5 352.14 +1.61 __________ 9 346.52
1988 5 354.18 +2.04 __________ 9 349.03
1989 5 355.89 +1.71 __________ 9 350.02
1990 5 357.29 +1.40 __________ 9 351.28
1991 5 359.09 +1.80 __________ 9 352.30
1992 5 359.55 +0.46 Pinatubo __ 9 352.93
1993 5 360.19 +0.64 __________ 9 354.10
1994 5 361.68 +1.49 __________ 9 355.63
1995 5 363.77 +2.09 _________ 10 357.97
1996 5 365.16 +1.39 _________ 10 359.54
1997 5 366.69 +1.53 __________ 9 360.31
1998 5 369.49 +2.80 El Niño ____ 9 364.01
1999 4 370.96 +1.47 __________ 9 364.94
2000 4 371.82 +0.86 __________ 9 366.91
2001 5 373.82 +2.00 __________ 9 368.16
2002 5 375.65 +1.83 _________ 10 370.51
2003 5 378.50 +2.85 _________ 10 373.10
2004 5 380.63 +2.13 _________ 9 374.11
2005 5 382.47 +1.84 __________ 9 376.66
2006 5 384.98 +2.51 __________ 9 378.92
2007 5 386.58 +1.60 __________ 9 380.90
2008 5 388.50 +1.92 _________ 10 382.99
2009 5 390.19 +1.65 _________ 10 384.39
2010 5 393.04 +2.85 _________ 9 386.83
2011 5 394.21 +1.17 _________ 10 388.96
2012 5 396.78 +2.58 _________ 10 391.01
2013 5 399.76 +2.98 __________ 9 393.51
The “Max” CO2 occurred at mid-May (5) of each year … with the exception of three (3) outliers, one (1) being in June 79’ and the other two (2) being in April 99’ and 2000.
The “Min” CO2 occurred at the very end of September (9) of each year … with the exception of eleven (11) outliers, all of which occurred within the first 7 days of October.
ps: Iffen you squint one (1) eye …. and close your mind …. then I’m sure one can see an “anthropogenic signature” in the above yearly CO2 ppm increases.
“Anyone that believes that there has been or is an “anthropogenic 2 ppm per year increase in atmospheric CO2” …… is highly likely to be taking things back that they never took in the first place.”
IPCC AR 5 is the referenced believer.
Iffen I squint I can see 2 ppm/yr, but where do I see the gas of man? Is this like one of those third eye pictures?
“but where do I see the gas of man?”
————————-
Well now, in actuality, …. to be seeing it you will have to be looking at or into Ferdinand E’s imagination.