Source: NOAA http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
In the graph above, the black line is the seasonally adjusted value while the red is the monthly mean. This is based on data through March. May is normally the peak month. Here we see how Mauna Loa CO2 has lagged in its annual rise. The likely culprit: Pacific ocean cooling due to La Nina and increased solubility of CO2 in water.
This graph certainly supports the notion of the ocean’s importance in CO2 trends, something Roy Spencer did a guest post on CO2 and oceans here on this blog and was roundly criticized for it in some circles.
Given that May is normally the peak month for CO2, and because we still see a strong La Nina, the result could be a lower CO2 max in 2008 than 2007 for Mauna Loa. This has happened before in the 60s and 70s in the last cool PDO phase (lasting til 1977). Even if it stays even with last year’s level, this tells us a lot and sheds doubt on these ideas:
1. Anthropogenic accumulation (civilization is still producing CO2)
2. A CO2 residence time of several hundred years seems unlikely now
3. Giegengack’s thesis that if man stopped emitting CO2, the earth would emit more to compensate, the premise being that since man has for the first time “upset the balance” and is pressing CO2 into the earth, then once the balance is restored the earth will resume emitting it instead.
The global data plot below doesn’t show the same trend as Mauna Loa, so it appears that this CO2 dropoff at Mauna Loa is a regional effect due to Hawaii’s proximity to cooler ocean temperatures.
It will be interesting to see in the coming months what happens globally, should we see a drop-off or leveling of global CO2 in response to our quiet sun and La Nina, it will be difficult for AGW proponents to explain. Nature will indeed be the final arbiter of this debate.
We live in interesting times. Hat tips to Joe D’Aleo and Alan Siddon for portions of this post.
UPDATE: Lucia at the Blackboard has posted an interesting rebuttal to criticisms of this simple presentation above. It is worth a read.
Can someone tell me how the fact that Mauna Loa has active volcanoes on windward flank is accounted for in the CO2 record? It’s my understanding that volcanoes spew CO2 at prodigious rates.
I’ll slink back to the sidelines now.
And we have been. Air quality is better in the US than it was only 20 years ago. Rivers and streams are cleaner, etc.
Well, well, why am I not surprised? It’ll be interesting to check how the recent changes agree with my model .
What happens when it gets cooler is that net primary production by phytoplankton actually gets bigger, so it draws more CO2 from the atmosphere. That is called the “biological pump”. Once transformed into organic matter, it falls to the bottom in the form of fecal material, or dead bodies.
Gore Minimum. I like it.
What I do not understand about the Mauna Loa C02 is this – why do we not see the same decrease in the CO2 measuring stations around the Arctic and Antarctic when the Sea Ice melts? 32 degree water is going to love that C02 compared to tropical pacific waters.
As for a “balanced C02” system – the Oceans and land can only absorb or emit the CO2 present at the boundary layer between the ocean/plant surface and the air according to the osmotic pressure differences across that boundary. The surface area of that boundary will have a large impact as well.
On land, precip patterns drive C02 fixation. Plants will stop photosynthesis if it gets dry or too hot or too cold. A wet, cool summer over a hot, dry one will see 10 times more biomass accumulated.
What is critical is the rates of absorption and emission, not the total amounts themselves.
Regardless of any reality, the Pogies are mounting a full court press, complete with scary headlines, to augment Goofy Gore’s $300 million advertising campaign. Today’s garbage from Reuters included “Iceland: Life on global warming’s front line.” As usual with Reuters, the article is filled with hyperbole, inaccuracies, and possibilities.
Like Anthony always says, Nature will be the final arbiter. But until that happens, truth from all our great scientits must continue to keep the Poghies, politicans, Lamestream Media, and other parasites in check.
Jack Koenig, Editor
The Mysterious Climate Project
http://www.climateclinic.com
“I don’t know how to make double Y-axises in excel so the temperature scale is missing.”
Right click on the trace, select “format data series”, select the “axis” tab and click “secondary axis”.
“That being said I think that we should be trying to clean up our environment.”
“And we have been. Air quality is better in the US than it was only 20 years ago. Rivers and streams are cleaner, etc.”
Absolutely true. As someone who grew up in Southern California in the 1970’s I can state with certainty that the air is much cleaner here now. All the metrics over time show it (number of smog alerts, pollutant levels, etc.) in addition to anecdotal observations like easier breathing and visibility levels. If you watch old TV reruns filmed back in the 70’s, you can see a brownish haze in the outdoor shots. It is much better now despite Southern California adding millions of new residents.
One of the big problems with the climate alarmism is that all the gloom and doom detracts from many of the truly commendable accomplishments.
“I don’t know how to make double Y-axises in excel so the temperature scale is missing.”
Right click on the trace, select “format data series”, select the “axis” tab and click “secondary axis”.
“That being said I think that we should be trying to clean up our environment.”
“And we have been. Air quality is better in the US than it was only 20 years ago. Rivers and streams are cleaner, etc.”
Absolutely true. As someone who grew up in Southern California in the 1970’s I can state with certainty that the air is much cleaner here now. All the metrics over time show it (number of smog alerts, pollutant levels, etc.) in addition to anecdotal observations like easier breathing and visibility levels. If you watch old TV reruns filmed back in the 70’s, you can see a brownish haze in the outdoor shots. It is much better now despite Southern California adding millions of new residents.
One of the big problems with the climate alarmism is that all the gloom and doom detracts from many of the truly commendable accomplishments.
Help! Lib Arts major, but avid follower of AGW hype. I know someone here can give me (and maybe other lay observers) a reference to a base point. Is there a reliable pre-fossil-fuel expansion, 1930s, CO2 ppm? It would also be good to know the generally accepted non-anthropogenic percentage of CO2. What do cows and birds and fish produce?
My liberal friends drive me nuts with, “It’s going up! IT’S GOING UP!!!” From what, and how much?
Thanks.
ATTTN: A. Fucalore.
RE: CO2 Solubility Graph.
The graph is the solubility of CO2 in g/ 100g of pure water as a function temperature at a constant pressure of 1 atm of pure CO2.
Can anyone explain why the CO2 plot of Mauna Loa data shows what could be reasonably modelled as sine function superimposed on a slope, whereas the Global equivalent shows something much more like a sine^2 function on a similar trend?
Solubility alone cannot explain the temperature dependence of uptake.
It is estimated that, without the biological pump, atmospheric CO2 would be 200 ppm higher.
Francois: Interesting paper. I read it right now.
The over the years quite steady (constant) increase of CO2 concentration may be something that indicate that an equilibrium model is right, and in that case I guess it has to be temperatures at least as low as in the 60th and 70th to make the concentration start falling…
I guess there may be things as biological feedback when the concentration begin to fall. Some chemists say they measured more than 400 ppm in the 1940s, but the temperature started to fall and the concentration falled a lot according to these measurements (Beck and Jaworowski). This may end abruptly, but I wonder when? Above 400 ppm again? The sooner the better. 😉
Will read it all now. I like the electronics analogy!
Absolutely true. As someone who grew up in Southern California in the 1970’s I can state with certainty that the air is much cleaner here now. All the metrics over time show it (number of smog alerts, pollutant levels, etc.) in addition to anecdotal observations like easier breathing and visibility levels.
Before the Clean air act, the sunsets over the Hudson River were the of a spectacular beauty which defies description. The refineries and other heavy industry of the Jersey flats created a multicolored sky show every night.
By 1976 it was fading fast. Today it’s just the usual reds, yellow, oranges and the –occasional–tinge of pink (yawn). If I had known, I would have taken pictures before it was too late.
The buildings are no longer a ubiquitous gray. They were sandblasted during the ’80s and ’90s. There would have been no point in a cleanup before that. And the pigeons have evolved to match the buildings. We have a great many more birds now. (I HATE the starlings, but I love the crows, hawks, gulls, herons, and the rest.)
But, ah, those sunsets! I still miss them in spite of it all.
jim (15:34:43) : The prehistorical CO2 concentration (and temperature) here (figures published in Science):
http://biocab.org/Geological_Timescale_op_927x695.jpg
…and here:
http://www.junkscience.com/images/paleocarbon.gif
The CO2 concentration was at least 5 times higher than the present level 55 to 65 million years ago. Almost 200 million years ago there temperature falled when CO2 concentration rised and then the CO2 falled and temperature rised. No obvious CO2-connections through ice ages etc in this timescale.
Tell your friend CO2 concentratoin was 5 times higher 55 million years ago, a few degrees warmer but no visible temperature change due to CO2. Tell him the concentration was lower than today, 230 million years ago, but then it was more warmth than 55 million years ago. Tell him it has ben great ice ages when the CO2 concentration was a great lot higher than today.
The rate of fossile CO2 is measured with isotope fingerprint. Roy Spencer described it and an argument why “fossile CO2” seems to be low here:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/01/28/spencer-pt2-more-co2-peculiarities-the-c13c12-isotope-ratio/
…also but chemists say it can’t be above about 5 percent, due to Henry’s Law. In a book on nuclear chemistry at a university in Sweden they mention it’s quite low. Due to the paper linked by Francois above about 30-40 times more CO2 is released from the oceans and the biosphere than from humans. The oceans and the biosphere also absorb about that much, but also some of the additional fossile CO2 which shall not exceed 6 % only due to Henry’s Law.
Cows emitts about as much as human transportation, I’ve heard. About 20 percent of that from human fossile emission in Europe.
But there are so many good arguments against AGW even if humans should have caused the CO2 to rise, so check them out too! Lomborgs book “Cool it” (only about 140 pages) is also very good reading! Good luck!
Help! Lib Arts major, but avid follower of AGW hype. I know someone here can give me (and maybe other lay observers) a reference to a base point. Is there a reliable pre-fossil-fuel expansion, 1930s, CO2 ppm? It would also be good to know the generally accepted non-anthropogenic percentage of CO2. What do cows and birds and fish produce?
My liberal friends drive me nuts with, “It’s going up! IT’S GOING UP!!!” From what, and how much?
Thanks.
THE CARBON CYCLE
Amounts in Bil. Metric Tons Carbon (BMTC)
Total Sinks:
Atmosphere: 730
Vegetation/Soil: 2000
Ocean: 38,000
Input to Atmosphere/Output from Atmosphere:
Ocean: To Atm.: 88, From Atm.: 90, Difference: -2
Vegetation/Soil (Natural): To Atm.:119, From Atm.: 120, Difference: -1
Vegetation/Soil (Man): To Atm.:1.7, From Atm.: 1.9, Difference: -0.2
Industry: To Atm.: 6.3, From Atm.: 0, Difference: +6.3
Total: To Atm.: 215, From Atm.: 211.9, Difference: +3.1
–Source: DoE
So, from what I can tell, yes, mankind is the factor that is “overflowing the bathtub” by somewhat less than half a percent a year.
On the other hand, CO2 has a limited persistence. So , assuming the output levels off (which it will as a result of natural economic forces, i.e., sans regulations), CO2 “sink” will catch up with input and there will be stability (at a higher level than today) without any emergency legislation whatever.
Also, the term ‘overflow” has inaccurate connotations. It seems quite doubtful that the impact is what the IPCC says it is: The IPCC claims all sorts of positive feedbacks, but the new Aqua Satellite (2002) seems to indicate negative feedbacks and homeostasis.
As the “tipping point” issue relies entirely on seemingly faulty positive feedback calculations, I would actually say that the “CO2 bathtub” is much larger than the IPCC imagines and that long before it “overflows”, it will have stabilized because CO2 does eventually sink out of the atmosphere and eventually the input will equal the outflow.
Thanks, Magnus A. I knew the info was floating around here. I know the multitude of anti-AGW arguments. I just felt these few more data points might help.
Remember — be very careful what you believe. It will limit what you can learn.
Some chemists say they measured more than 400 ppm in the 1940s,
To those who dispute Beck and say nothing could have caused a 100ppm bump, I think WWII needs a good mention. When c. 100 cities are raided including several utter firestorms and with all the Great powers at full war production there is a lot of CO2 going on whatever else isn’t. (Plus nukes.)
I’d like to calculate it, but how does one go about figuring out how much CO2 a Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, or Osaka emits when they disappear from the map?
The concept of an “stable” CO2 pre-industrial concentration seems to be a myth. Already ice cores show that CO2 has varied a lot, but stomatal index reconstructions show that CO2 can change by tens of ppms within decades, and that it follows temperatures. If you accept the validity of the stomatal index reconstructions, then there is something wrong with the ice cores, which would be in accord with Jarowoski’s criticisms.
I’m not sure about Beck’s findings, however. The measurements he reports may have been made carefully, but may have been subject to local conditions that we don’t know about (upwind or downwind, etc.).
Keep in mind also that there is still a “missing sink”. Half of anthropogenic CO2 is uptaken. That’s what has been bugging me. How does the carbon cycle “know” that we emit CO2? And why does it decide to take only half, year after year? That’s very strange. Recently, I realized that, if my model is right, then it’s not 50% that is uptaken, it might as well be 100%. In other words, if 50% is possible, and we don’t know why, then 100% is just as likely to be true. That’s why the fluctuations are only a function of temperatures. But for this, you need a part of the system that reacts to CO2 concentration as well. All I can see is the CO2 fertilization effect, the extent of which we don’t really know. Furthermore, it also seems to work in the oceans: some phytoplankton species grow faster with more CO2, and could thus help regulate it. Yet those who found this did not realize this simple fact of biology: if there is more CO2 and one species is favored because it grows faster, then that species will come to dominate the population. Nobody measured the phytoplankton species distribution early last century, so we have no idea what it was like. So there could very well be a large sink there that wasn’t there 100 years ago.
There is so much that is still poorly known about the biological processes that involve CO2 that it’s probable that our current carbon cycle models are all just plain wrong.
Magnus A – you are quite obnoxious. Now that I’ve got that out of the way … you have me figured all wrong. You are obviously a newbie here, if you think I am in the AGW hysteric camp. Think again. You have failed to grasp my meaning. It is a complex problem. There are both human and natural components. It is not one or the other, it is both. I think you will find that Pielke Sr. and many other folks agree with this position. Good bye troll.
Francois, not only that – but the “hidden” sink is INCREASING how much of human CO2 it absorbs. Human CO2 is growing at an exponential rate (CO2 emissions are NOT reducing as someone here has said). Human CO2 output is 300% what it was 30-40 years ago. If for example we output 10 units of CO2 in the 1960s, today we are outputting 30 units. This “hidden sink” was abosbing 5 units back then, but is absorbing 25 units now – since the MLO CO2 readings show a linear increase over the past 3 decades.
How is it that this sink keeps increasing how much CO2 it absorbs ?
RE temperature leading CO2:
Please see:
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
Best, Allan
It looks to me that if you draw a line of best fit through the annual max or min points of either either Mauna Loa or Global, the upper and lower envlopes are convex, ie. rate of increase is slowing, at least for the last 4 years.
Same applies to just about any month year by year
Hi, Anthony. Great site which I visit most days.
I have a question. I know Mauna Loa was chosen as a CO2 monitoring site because it is far from industrial centres. But it also an active volcano with quiescent outgassing of CO2. My question is do these outgassings in any way affect the CO2 measurements?
I went to the Mauna Loa Observatory site which says CO2 emissions from Mauna Loa are an insignificantly small part of the global carbon cycle and do not play a role in climate change. But the two links they give to papers on the Outgassing of CO2 and Volcanic CO2 emissions don’t work.
REPLY: Dave here is how I see it. The altitude of the observatory is 13680 ft. At that altitude, any CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere and probably not from local sources, though with the latest down-tick it suggests regional representivity. CO2 emitted by the mountain (Kilauea and fumaroles) tend to be much closer to sea level, and would tend to stay there given CO2’s heavier than air nature. It would take a long time for local CO2 to get mixed to that altitude.
Termites produce 20 times the amount of CO2 as humans. Someone has an extra 300 million dollars. Why not put a bounty on termites? Problem solved.
Bill Illis:
Sorry, I probably knew your equations’ provenance and instead meant to question your confidence in their utility.
Note that the chemical reaction equations they are meant to resemble make a number of simplifying assumptions that are extended, even strained to breaking, when applied to fluences: Constant temperature and pressure, constant quantities of solvent and solute, etc.
One in particular causes an illusion of stasis. The reactants are represented by scalar quantities; in the case of fluences they should really be vector quantities. Scalar arithmetic is inadequate except when presenting a snapshot of the Carbon Cycle.
I would contend that “we are adding Carbon to a system which was pretty close to being balanced before” is just such an illusion created by your simplifying assumptions.
You probably know already what follows next but just humor me.
Keeping in mind Harold Pierce’s graph of CO2 solubility in H2O as dependent on temperature and pressure, as the partial pressure of CO2 rises (atmospheric ppm >>) more CO2 dissolves, instantly for your purpose.
As the temperature of the solvent rises, more CO2 exits solution. Consider also that at constant pressure in the presence of Mg and Ca ions, more CO2 precipitates out of solution. For your purpose there is no limit on Mg and Ca.
At the bottom of the water column, as temperature drops and pressure rises CO2 again dissolves.
Now, with this in the background, return to my Pinatubo query. If a pulse of CO2 larger than that which your balanced system can instantly accomodate, which is reliably observed and of the same order as that causing a linear increase in CO2 partial pressure, and that pulse is instantaneously inserted shouldn’t you see its presence?