Mauna Loa CO2 January to July trend goes negative first time in history

UPDATE5: MLO responds with improvements to the CO2 data reporting

UPDATE4 August 4th 11:45PST the Mauna Loa graph (but not data) has changed, see this new post

Back on April 6th of this year I made an observation about the trend in the CO2 data from the Mauna Loa Observatory dropping and possibly “leveling off”.

For that I was roundly criticized by those “in the know” and given the full Bulldog treatment.

[ UPDATE: Lucia has an interesting take on such criticisms ]

Well, it’s happened again. With the release of the July data from Mauna Loa Observatory, a new twist has occurred; this time there’s been a first ever trend reversal of the monthly mean CO2 levels from January to July. Here is the familiar Mauna Loa graph:

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

In the NOAA graph above, note the drop in the first few months of 2008, and the slightly muted rebound afterwards. Clearly something changed and the uncharacteristic drop in CO2 levels has been recorded by the world’s premiere CO2 monitoring station.

By itself, that blip isn’t much news, as there have been similar blips in the past, such as in 2004. But where it really gets interesting and unique is when you compare the seasonal difference, between, January 2008 to July 2008 levels against the rest of the Mauna Loa CO2 going back to 1958.

First let’s look at this year and last year in a magnified portion of the Mauna Loa CO2 monthly mean data:

Source data via FTP: Mauna Loa CO2 monthly mean data

Note that the January 2007 to July 2007 Delta was a positive 1.41 PPM, but this year, the January 2008 to July 2008 Delta value was negative at -0.42.

Going back through the data to compare previous January to July values, it has become clear that this is a unique event in the history of the data set. A value lower in July than January has never happened before. Prior to 2008, there has always been a gain from January to July.  This is a 6 month “seasonal”period from January 30th to July 31st, when the end of month data is released.

UPDATE 2: to see how far off the recent trendline the July value is, see this scatterplot from Lucia. Lucia has an interesting take

Residual from OLSClick for larger.

Below is the data table with the January and July values highlighted for your inspection.

What this means I cannot say. It may be noise, it could be a fault in the data gathering or in the measurement instrumentation. It may be an effect of increased ocean CO2 solubility due to the La Nina and global cold snap we’ve been having the past few months. Or it may be related to the biosphere respiration changing in some way we don’t know about.

This may signal a change,  or this one time event may in fact be that, one time. It may not happen again next year, we simply don’t know. But, it is unique and thought provoking.

UPDATE: Paul Clark of Woodfortrees.org where you can interactively graph a variety of datasets, offered this plot of rate of change:

Click for interactive graph

And Dee Norris offered up this graph from the same graph generator comparing rate of changes against the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and the UAH Satellite Temperature data set. It would seem that the ocean solubility could be the largest factor.

It would seem to be a regional effect, which is probably driven by La Nina in the Pacific. The global CO2 trend continues:

The global data above is only plotted to April 2008, so it will interesting to see what happens when the new data comes in.

Data table below:


Data Table:

January and July values shown in bold.

# Mauna Loa Observatory CO2 data
#   decimal mean
#   date  
1958 3 1958.208 315.71
1958 4 1958.292 317.45
1958 5 1958.375 317.5
1958 6 1958.458 -99.99
1958 7 1958.542 315.86
1958 8 1958.625 314.93
1958 9 1958.708 313.2
1958 10 1958.792 -99.99
1958 11 1958.875 313.33
1958 12 1958.958 314.67
1959 1 1959.042 315.62
1959 2 1959.125 316.38
1959 3 1959.208 316.71
1959 4 1959.292 317.72
1959 5 1959.375 318.29
1959 6 1959.458 318.16
1959 7 1959.542 316.55
1959 8 1959.625 314.8
1959 9 1959.708 313.84
1959 10 1959.792 313.26
1959 11 1959.875 314.8
1959 12 1959.958 315.59
1960 1 1960.042 316.43
1960 2 1960.125 316.97
1960 3 1960.208 317.58
1960 4 1960.292 319.02
1960 5 1960.375 320.02
1960 6 1960.458 319.59
1960 7 1960.542 318.18
1960 8 1960.625 315.91
1960 9 1960.708 314.16
1960 10 1960.792 313.83
1960 11 1960.875 315
1960 12 1960.958 316.19
1961 1 1961.042 316.93
1961 2 1961.125 317.7
1961 3 1961.208 318.54
1961 4 1961.292 319.48
1961 5 1961.375 320.58
1961 6 1961.458 319.77
1961 7 1961.542 318.58
1961 8 1961.625 316.79
1961 9 1961.708 314.8
1961 10 1961.792 315.38
1961 11 1961.875 316.1
1961 12 1961.958 317.01
1962 1 1962.042 317.94
1962 2 1962.125 318.55
1962 3 1962.208 319.68
1962 4 1962.292 320.63
1962 5 1962.375 321.01
1962 6 1962.458 320.55
1962 7 1962.542 319.58
1962 8 1962.625 317.4
1962 9 1962.708 316.26
1962 10 1962.792 315.42
1962 11 1962.875 316.69
1962 12 1962.958 317.7
1963 1 1963.042 318.74
1963 2 1963.125 319.08
1963 3 1963.208 319.86
1963 4 1963.292 321.39
1963 5 1963.375 322.24
1963 6 1963.458 321.47
1963 7 1963.542 319.74
1963 8 1963.625 317.77
1963 9 1963.708 316.21
1963 10 1963.792 315.99
1963 11 1963.875 317.12
1963 12 1963.958 318.31
1964 1 1964.042 319.57
1964 2 1964.125 -99.99
1964 3 1964.208 -99.99
1964 4 1964.292 -99.99
1964 5 1964.375 322.24
1964 6 1964.458 321.89
1964 7 1964.542 320.44
1964 8 1964.625 318.7
1964 9 1964.708 316.7
1964 10 1964.792 316.79
1964 11 1964.875 317.79
1964 12 1964.958 318.71
1965 1 1965.042 319.44
1965 2 1965.125 320.44
1965 3 1965.208 320.89
1965 4 1965.292 322.13
1965 5 1965.375 322.16
1965 6 1965.458 321.87
1965 7 1965.542 321.39
1965 8 1965.625 318.8
1965 9 1965.708 317.81
1965 10 1965.792 317.3
1965 11 1965.875 318.87
1965 12 1965.958 319.42
1966 1 1966.042 320.62
1966 2 1966.125 321.59
1966 3 1966.208 322.39
1966 4 1966.292 323.87
1966 5 1966.375 324.01
1966 6 1966.458 323.75
1966 7 1966.542 322.4
1966 8 1966.625 320.37
1966 9 1966.708 318.64
1966 10 1966.792 318.1
1966 11 1966.875 319.78
1966 12 1966.958 321.08
1967 1 1967.042 322.06
1967 2 1967.125 322.5
1967 3 1967.208 323.04
1967 4 1967.292 324.42
1967 5 1967.375 325
1967 6 1967.458 324.09
1967 7 1967.542 322.55
1967 8 1967.625 320.92
1967 9 1967.708 319.31
1967 10 1967.792 319.31
1967 11 1967.875 320.72
1967 12 1967.958 321.96
1968 1 1968.042 322.57
1968 2 1968.125 323.15
1968 3 1968.208 323.89
1968 4 1968.292 325.02
1968 5 1968.375 325.57
1968 6 1968.458 325.36
1968 7 1968.542 324.14
1968 8 1968.625 322.03
1968 9 1968.708 320.41
1968 10 1968.792 320.25
1968 11 1968.875 321.31
1968 12 1968.958 322.84
1969 1 1969.042 324
1969 2 1969.125 324.42
1969 3 1969.208 325.64
1969 4 1969.292 326.66
1969 5 1969.375 327.34
1969 6 1969.458 326.76
1969 7 1969.542 325.88
1969 8 1969.625 323.67
1969 9 1969.708 322.38
1969 10 1969.792 321.78
1969 11 1969.875 322.85
1969 12 1969.958 324.12
1970 1 1970.042 325.03
1970 2 1970.125 325.99
1970 3 1970.208 326.87
1970 4 1970.292 328.14
1970 5 1970.375 328.07
1970 6 1970.458 327.66
1970 7 1970.542 326.35
1970 8 1970.625 324.69
1970 9 1970.708 323.1
1970 10 1970.792 323.16
1970 11 1970.875 323.98
1970 12 1970.958 325.13
1971 1 1971.042 326.17
1971 2 1971.125 326.68
1971 3 1971.208 327.18
1971 4 1971.292 327.78
1971 5 1971.375 328.92
1971 6 1971.458 328.57
1971 7 1971.542 327.34
1971 8 1971.625 325.46
1971 9 1971.708 323.36
1971 10 1971.792 323.56
1971 11 1971.875 324.8
1971 12 1971.958 326.01
1972 1 1972.042 326.77
1972 2 1972.125 327.63
1972 3 1972.208 327.75
1972 4 1972.292 329.72
1972 5 1972.375 330.07
1972 6 1972.458 329.09
1972 7 1972.542 328.05
1972 8 1972.625 326.32
1972 9 1972.708 324.93
1972 10 1972.792 325.06
1972 11 1972.875 326.5
1972 12 1972.958 327.55
1973 1 1973.042 328.55
1973 2 1973.125 329.56
1973 3 1973.208 330.3
1973 4 1973.292 331.5
1973 5 1973.375 332.48
1973 6 1973.458 332.07
1973 7 1973.542 330.87
1973 8 1973.625 329.31
1973 9 1973.708 327.51
1973 10 1973.792 327.18
1973 11 1973.875 328.16
1973 12 1973.958 328.64
1974 1 1974.042 329.35
1974 2 1974.125 330.71
1974 3 1974.208 331.48
1974 4 1974.292 332.65
1974 5 1974.375 333.16
1974 6 1974.458 332.06
1974 7 1974.542 330.99
1974 8 1974.625 329.17
1974 9 1974.708 327.41
1974 10 1974.792 327.2
1974 11 1974.875 328.33
1974 12 1974.958 329.5
1975 1 1975.042 330.68
1975 2 1975.125 331.41
1975 3 1975.208 331.85
1975 4 1975.292 333.29
1975 5 1975.375 333.91
1975 6 1975.458 333.4
1975 7 1975.542 331.78
1975 8 1975.625 329.88
1975 9 1975.708 328.57
1975 10 1975.792 328.46
1975 11 1975.875 329.26
1975 12 1975.958 -99.99
1976 1 1976.042 331.71
1976 2 1976.125 332.76
1976 3 1976.208 333.48
1976 4 1976.292 334.78
1976 5 1976.375 334.79
1976 6 1976.458 334.17
1976 7 1976.542 332.78
1976 8 1976.625 330.64
1976 9 1976.708 328.95
1976 10 1976.792 328.77
1976 11 1976.875 330.23
1976 12 1976.958 331.69
1977 1 1977.042 332.7
1977 2 1977.125 333.24
1977 3 1977.208 334.96
1977 4 1977.292 336.04
1977 5 1977.375 336.82
1977 6 1977.458 336.13
1977 7 1977.542 334.73
1977 8 1977.625 332.52
1977 9 1977.708 331.19
1977 10 1977.792 331.19
1977 11 1977.875 332.35
1977 12 1977.958 333.47
1978 1 1978.042 335.11
1978 2 1978.125 335.26
1978 3 1978.208 336.6
1978 4 1978.292 337.77
1978 5 1978.375 338
1978 6 1978.458 337.99
1978 7 1978.542 336.48
1978 8 1978.625 334.37
1978 9 1978.708 332.27
1978 10 1978.792 332.4
1978 11 1978.875 333.76
1978 12 1978.958 334.83
1979 1 1979.042 336.21
1979 2 1979.125 336.64
1979 3 1979.208 338.12
1979 4 1979.292 339.02
1979 5 1979.375 339.02
1979 6 1979.458 339.2
1979 7 1979.542 337.58
1979 8 1979.625 335.55
1979 9 1979.708 333.89
1979 10 1979.792 334.14
1979 11 1979.875 335.26
1979 12 1979.958 336.71
1980 1 1980.042 337.8
1980 2 1980.125 338.29
1980 3 1980.208 340.04
1980 4 1980.292 340.86
1980 5 1980.375 341.47
1980 6 1980.458 341.26
1980 7 1980.542 339.29
1980 8 1980.625 337.6
1980 9 1980.708 336.12
1980 10 1980.792 336.08
1980 11 1980.875 337.22
1980 12 1980.958 338.34
1981 1 1981.042 339.36
1981 2 1981.125 340.51
1981 3 1981.208 341.57
1981 4 1981.292 342.56
1981 5 1981.375 343.01
1981 6 1981.458 342.47
1981 7 1981.542 340.71
1981 8 1981.625 338.52
1981 9 1981.708 336.96
1981 10 1981.792 337.13
1981 11 1981.875 338.58
1981 12 1981.958 339.89
1982 1 1982.042 340.93
1982 2 1982.125 341.69
1982 3 1982.208 342.69
1982 4 1982.292 343.79
1982 5 1982.375 344.3
1982 6 1982.458 343.43
1982 7 1982.542 341.88
1982 8 1982.625 339.89
1982 9 1982.708 337.96
1982 10 1982.792 338.1
1982 11 1982.875 339.26
1982 12 1982.958 340.67
1983 1 1983.042 341.42
1983 2 1983.125 342.68
1983 3 1983.208 343.45
1983 4 1983.292 345.1
1983 5 1983.375 345.76
1983 6 1983.458 345.36
1983 7 1983.542 343.91
1983 8 1983.625 342.05
1983 9 1983.708 340
1983 10 1983.792 340.12
1983 11 1983.875 341.33
1983 12 1983.958 342.94
1984 1 1984.042 343.87
1984 2 1984.125 344.6
1984 3 1984.208 345.2
1984 4 1984.292 -99.99
1984 5 1984.375 347.36
1984 6 1984.458 346.74
1984 7 1984.542 345.41
1984 8 1984.625 343.01
1984 9 1984.708 341.23
1984 10 1984.792 341.52
1984 11 1984.875 342.86
1984 12 1984.958 344.41
1985 1 1985.042 345.09
1985 2 1985.125 345.89
1985 3 1985.208 347.5
1985 4 1985.292 348
1985 5 1985.375 348.75
1985 6 1985.458 348.19
1985 7 1985.542 346.54
1985 8 1985.625 344.63
1985 9 1985.708 343.03
1985 10 1985.792 342.92
1985 11 1985.875 344.24
1985 12 1985.958 345.62
1986 1 1986.042 346.43
1986 2 1986.125 346.94
1986 3 1986.208 347.88
1986 4 1986.292 349.57
1986 5 1986.375 350.35
1986 6 1986.458 349.72
1986 7 1986.542 347.78
1986 8 1986.625 345.86
1986 9 1986.708 344.84
1986 10 1986.792 344.32
1986 11 1986.875 345.67
1986 12 1986.958 346.88
1987 1 1987.042 348.19
1987 2 1987.125 348.55
1987 3 1987.208 349.52
1987 4 1987.292 351.12
1987 5 1987.375 351.84
1987 6 1987.458 351.49
1987 7 1987.542 349.82
1987 8 1987.625 347.63
1987 9 1987.708 346.38
1987 10 1987.792 346.49
1987 11 1987.875 347.75
1987 12 1987.958 349.03
1988 1 1988.042 350.2
1988 2 1988.125 351.61
1988 3 1988.208 352.22
1988 4 1988.292 353.53
1988 5 1988.375 354.14
1988 6 1988.458 353.62
1988 7 1988.542 352.53
1988 8 1988.625 350.41
1988 9 1988.708 348.84
1988 10 1988.792 348.94
1988 11 1988.875 350.04
1988 12 1988.958 351.29
1989 1 1989.042 352.72
1989 2 1989.125 353.1
1989 3 1989.208 353.65
1989 4 1989.292 355.43
1989 5 1989.375 355.7
1989 6 1989.458 355.11
1989 7 1989.542 353.79
1989 8 1989.625 351.42
1989 9 1989.708 349.81
1989 10 1989.792 350.11
1989 11 1989.875 351.26
1989 12 1989.958 352.63
1990 1 1990.042 353.64
1990 2 1990.125 354.72
1990 3 1990.208 355.49
1990 4 1990.292 356.09
1990 5 1990.375 357.08
1990 6 1990.458 356.11
1990 7 1990.542 354.7
1990 8 1990.625 352.68
1990 9 1990.708 351.05
1990 10 1990.792 351.36
1990 11 1990.875 352.81
1990 12 1990.958 354.22
1991 1 1991.042 354.85
1991 2 1991.125 355.67
1991 3 1991.208 357.04
1991 4 1991.292 358.4
1991 5 1991.375 359
1991 6 1991.458 357.99
1991 7 1991.542 356
1991 8 1991.625 353.78
1991 9 1991.708 352.2
1991 10 1991.792 352.22
1991 11 1991.875 353.7
1991 12 1991.958 354.98
1992 1 1992.042 356.09
1992 2 1992.125 356.85
1992 3 1992.208 357.73
1992 4 1992.292 358.91
1992 5 1992.375 359.45
1992 6 1992.458 359.19
1992 7 1992.542 356.72
1992 8 1992.625 354.79
1992 9 1992.708 352.79
1992 10 1992.792 353.2
1992 11 1992.875 354.15
1992 12 1992.958 355.39
1993 1 1993.042 356.77
1993 2 1993.125 357.17
1993 3 1993.208 358.26
1993 4 1993.292 359.17
1993 5 1993.375 360.07
1993 6 1993.458 359.41
1993 7 1993.542 357.44
1993 8 1993.625 355.3
1993 9 1993.708 353.87
1993 10 1993.792 354.04
1993 11 1993.875 355.27
1993 12 1993.958 356.7
1994 1 1994.042 357.99
1994 2 1994.125 358.81
1994 3 1994.208 359.68
1994 4 1994.292 361.13
1994 5 1994.375 361.48
1994 6 1994.458 360.6
1994 7 1994.542 359.2
1994 8 1994.625 357.23
1994 9 1994.708 355.42
1994 10 1994.792 355.89
1994 11 1994.875 357.41
1994 12 1994.958 358.74
1995 1 1995.042 359.73
1995 2 1995.125 360.61
1995 3 1995.208 361.58
1995 4 1995.292 363.05
1995 5 1995.375 363.62
1995 6 1995.458 363.03
1995 7 1995.542 361.55
1995 8 1995.625 358.94
1995 9 1995.708 357.93
1995 10 1995.792 357.8
1995 11 1995.875 359.22
1995 12 1995.958 360.44
1996 1 1996.042 361.83
1996 2 1996.125 362.95
1996 3 1996.208 363.91
1996 4 1996.292 364.28
1996 5 1996.375 364.93
1996 6 1996.458 364.7
1996 7 1996.542 363.31
1996 8 1996.625 361.15
1996 9 1996.708 359.39
1996 10 1996.792 359.34
1996 11 1996.875 360.62
1996 12 1996.958 361.96
1997 1 1997.042 362.81
1997 2 1997.125 363.87
1997 3 1997.208 364.25
1997 4 1997.292 366.02
1997 5 1997.375 366.46
1997 6 1997.458 365.32
1997 7 1997.542 364.08
1997 8 1997.625 361.95
1997 9 1997.708 360.06
1997 10 1997.792 360.49
1997 11 1997.875 362.19
1997 12 1997.958 364.12
1998 1 1998.042 364.99
1998 2 1998.125 365.82
1998 3 1998.208 366.95
1998 4 1998.292 368.42
1998 5 1998.375 369.33
1998 6 1998.458 368.78
1998 7 1998.542 367.59
1998 8 1998.625 365.84
1998 9 1998.708 363.83
1998 10 1998.792 364.18
1998 11 1998.875 365.34
1998 12 1998.958 366.93
1999 1 1999.042 367.94
1999 2 1999.125 368.82
1999 3 1999.208 369.46
1999 4 1999.292 370.77
1999 5 1999.375 370.66
1999 6 1999.458 370.1
1999 7 1999.542 369.08
1999 8 1999.625 366.66
1999 9 1999.708 364.6
1999 10 1999.792 365.17
1999 11 1999.875 366.51
1999 12 1999.958 367.89
2000 1 2000.042 369.04
2000 2 2000.125 369.35
2000 3 2000.208 370.38
2000 4 2000.292 371.63
2000 5 2000.375 371.32
2000 6 2000.458 371.53
2000 7 2000.542 369.75
2000 8 2000.625 368.23
2000 9 2000.708 366.87
2000 10 2000.792 366.94
2000 11 2000.875 368.27
2000 12 2000.958 369.64
2001 1 2001.042 370.46
2001 2 2001.125 371.44
2001 3 2001.208 372.37
2001 4 2001.292 373.32
2001 5 2001.375 373.77
2001 6 2001.458 373.09
2001 7 2001.542 371.51
2001 8 2001.625 369.55
2001 9 2001.708 368.12
2001 10 2001.792 368.38
2001 11 2001.875 369.66
2001 12 2001.958 371.11
2002 1 2002.042 372.36
2002 2 2002.125 373.09
2002 3 2002.208 373.81
2002 4 2002.292 374.93
2002 5 2002.375 375.58
2002 6 2002.458 375.44
2002 7 2002.542 373.86
2002 8 2002.625 371.77
2002 9 2002.708 370.73
2002 10 2002.792 370.5
2002 11 2002.875 372.19
2002 12 2002.958 373.7
2003 1 2003.042 374.92
2003 2 2003.125 375.62
2003 3 2003.208 376.51
2003 4 2003.292 377.75
2003 5 2003.375 378.54
2003 6 2003.458 378.2
2003 7 2003.542 376.68
2003 8 2003.625 374.43
2003 9 2003.708 373.11
2003 10 2003.792 373.1
2003 11 2003.875 374.77
2003 12 2003.958 375.97
2004 1 2004.042 377.03
2004 2 2004.125 377.87
2004 3 2004.208 378.88
2004 4 2004.292 380.42
2004 5 2004.375 380.62
2004 6 2004.458 379.71
2004 7 2004.542 377.43
2004 8 2004.625 376.32
2004 9 2004.708 374.19
2004 10 2004.792 374.47
2004 11 2004.875 376.15
2004 12 2004.958 377.51
2005 1 2005.042 378.43
2005 2 2005.125 379.7
2005 3 2005.208 380.92
2005 4 2005.292 382.18
2005 5 2005.375 382.45
2005 6 2005.458 382.14
2005 7 2005.542 380.6
2005 8 2005.625 378.64
2005 9 2005.708 376.73
2005 10 2005.792 376.84
2005 11 2005.875 378.29
2005 12 2005.958 380.06
2006 1 2006.042 381.4
2006 2 2006.125 382.2
2006 3 2006.208 382.66
2006 4 2006.292 384.69
2006 5 2006.375 384.94
2006 6 2006.458 384.01
2006 7 2006.542 382.14
2006 8 2006.625 380.31
2006 9 2006.708 378.81
2006 10 2006.792 379.03
2006 11 2006.875 380.17
2006 12 2006.958 381.85
2007 1 2007.042 382.94
2007 2 2007.125 383.86
2007 3 2007.208 384.49
2007 4 2007.292 386.37
2007 5 2007.375 386.54
2007 6 2007.458 385.98
2007 7 2007.542 384.35
2007 8 2007.625 381.85
2007 9 2007.708 380.74
2007 10 2007.792 381.15
2007 11 2007.875 382.38
2007 12 2007.958 383.94
2008 1 2008.042 385.35
2008 2 2008.125 385.7
2008 3 2008.208 385.92
2008 4 2008.292 387.21
2008 5 2008.375 388.48
2008 6 2008.458 387.99
2008 7 2008.542 384.93
Advertisements

149 thoughts on “Mauna Loa CO2 January to July trend goes negative first time in history

  1. Pingback: STAY WARM, WORLD… Roger Carr « Stay Warm, World…

  2. Could this paper from 1994 be relevant? http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=4033707

    Abstract
    The relationship between the anomalies in the sea-surface temperature of the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean region and the first derivative of the atmospheric CO2 concentration has been investigated by using cross-correlation and cross-spectral analysis. Data of the Barrow, Mauna Loa, Samoa and South Pole stations have been used in this study. The mature stage of the El Nino events usually leads the maxima of the CO2 growth rate, especially in the Mauna Loa and South Pole records. A significant time variability of the cross-correlation and cross-spectral patterns has been observed. ***GENERALLY, THE SEA-SURFACE TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES PRECEDE THE CHANGES IN ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GROWTH RATES BY ABOUT 5-7 MONTHS AT MAUNA LOA, 7-9 MONTHS AT SAMOA AND THE SOUTH POLE AND 8-13 MONTHS AT BARROW***

    The emphasis is mine. Basically, it agrees with chemistry 101, that cold water can hold more gases than warm water. The La Nina of the past several months that has sent global temperatures downwards looks like the cause here. This has caused the CO2-holding capacity of water to increse. This correlation is probably considered “inconvenient” by Al Gore for his movie, but when did he ever let facts get in the way?

  3. It will be interesting to see if it drops below the Sept 2007 annual low (380.74) in a couple of months.

    It if turns out that this is driven by the colder SST, it will help establish that the horse goes before the cart and that rising SST of the warm PDO phase drove the CO2 increase of the latter 20th Century.

  4. Of course, it would be utterly absurd to think this is the start of a trend, but, if I could, someday, uh, be allowed to say, ahem: HOLY S***!!! Time for Ali G to give back the Nobel!!! Time for SCRIPPS to become The SCRIPPS Institute of Oceanography instead of Institute of Propaganda!!! Time for Jimmy H to get fired at NASA!!! Time for the IPCC to fall apart!!! Oh, the list goes on in this fantasy world! Oh yeah, in case you don’t know, those propagandists at SCRIPPS will find a way to uh, “correct” the data, trust me. Because we all know it is a bug that can’t be legit, because it does not follow the impossible to be wrong computer models.

  5. We have:
    1. Measured lower ocean temps,
    2. stagnating sea level rise,
    3. sudden global atmospheric temperature drop,
    4. stagnating CO2 levels.

    These are 4 major metrics that are going AGAINST model predictions. Over the last few months, Anthony and others have been publicizing data that clearly indicate the probable start of a climate trend reversal.

    Concerning ocean cooling and stagnant sea level, this has to translate into an increase in the earth’s rotational speed.
    Is there daily data available on the earth’s rotational speed?

    Lastly, where are the media on this historic event?
    Think of the implications of sinking CO2 levels!

  6. One of the first things freshman Geology students learn (or at least did 40 years ago,) is that ocean CO2 solubility decreases as the temperature of the water increases. If the ocean is warming, it outgases CO2. Conversely, a cooling ocean absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere.

    It has been somewhat stunning watching supposedly educated scientists claiming that the Vostok cores are proof of CO2 driving the climate. There should be a huge uproar from scientists about dis-informational school textbooks like Laurie David’s – but all we hear is silence from a dumbed down scientific community.
    http://www.amazon.com/Down-Earth-Guide-Global-Warming/dp/0439024943/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/103-7751873-4216629?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188408824&sr=8-2
    Laurie David took the nonsense one step further in her textbook – she reversed the Vostok x-axis to make it appear that atmospheric CO2 leads temperature.

    This story about scientists on drugs started out as an April Fool’s joke, but turned out to be not so funny after readers confirmed it’s accuracy.
    http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/news/2008/04/smart_drugs.

  7. “Basically, it agrees with chemistry 101, that cold water can hold more gases than warm water. The La Nina of the past several months that has sent global temperatures downwards looks like the cause here.” Walter Dnes

    If the cooler Pacific is absorbing more CO2 might not this cause further cooling i.e. a positive feedback in the direction of cooling? If so, shouldn’t we make sure we have a surplus of CO2 in the atmosphere to prevent runaway cooling?

  8. “Concerning ocean cooling and stagnant sea level, this has to translate into an increase in the earth’s rotational speed.” Pierre Gosselin

    Like an ice skater pulling in her arms while spinning? But wouldn’t this require sea level to drop via thermal contraction? What a clever way to measure overall ocean temperature! (if it works.)

    I have a pain between my ears. Time for bed.

  9. Temps are going up now. They will continue to go up until the next La Nina, and they will become more noticibly above average. However, what this data shows us (until SCRIPPS “adjusts” it of course) is that not every single molecule of CO2 increase was due to nasty, gluttonous, and sinful apes. I will come back to this in the afternoon.

  10. It may be to that arctic ice is levelling out (see cryosphere today) we should wait for another 4-6 weeks to come to any conclusions but it seems so….

  11. There is no equivalent drop in the global data, which suggests that this is a short term local variation due to La Nina (Mauna Loa being in the Pacific), so it is no big deal AFAICS.

    The theory says that CO2 solubility depends on ocean temperatures, so it would be odd if ENSO has no effect on the Mauna Loa data. However, IIRC the exchange is also governed by differences in partial pressure, so the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more is taken up by the oceans.

    Ferdinand Englebean’s mass balance argument shows that man is responsible for the long term increase in atmoshperic CO2, natural variation, especially ENSO has a only a modulating effect.

    I don’t see any reason to make a big deal out of any of this, it is a local effect not replicated in the global data, and the dataset is only 50 years old, so the fact that it is the first observation of this type doens’t mean it is *that* unusual. It looks to me that this is also the six month trend most likely to vary between positive and negative as it coincides with the steepest point of the annual cycle.

  12. Following is the annual increase for the last six years, to the month of July:
    ppm
    2008 0.58
    2007 2.21
    2006 1.54
    2005 3.17
    2004 0.75
    2003 2.82
    2002 2.35

    The annual average is 1.91. Looking at Pual’s second graph in #7, the rate of increase is about the same as it was 28 years ago. The jump up in the rate occurred at the great Pacific climate shift of 1976.

    There is between 50 and 70 times as much carbon dioxide in the oceans as in the atmosphere. So taking the upper figure, 1.9% of the carbon dioxide of the system is in the atmosphere. The oceans and the atmosphere will maintain partial pressure equilibrium, so only 1.9% of Mankind’s CO2 emissions will remain in the atmosphere. The oceans will take the rest down into the Davy Deep.

    Back to Anthony’s post on a well-mixed atmosphere, from memory there is a 10 ppm gradient between the tropics and the south pole. The atmosphere is well mixed, the gradient is simply a consequence of the great rate of turnover between the oceans and the atmosphere re CO2 – taking it at the poles and giving it up at the equator.

    A large proportion of the CO2 rise since 1976 may be due to the oceans warming. Cooling may overwhelm the anthropogenic contribution and we might get a run of years of negative CO2 increment. If someone is really good, they could calculate what those numbers will be.

  13. Pingback: Mauna Loa Observatory Records First Reversal of CO2 from January to July | Skeptics Global Warming

  14. Gasoline useage in the US has dropped sharply as higher prices start changing people’s behavior.

    Assuming the same thing is happening in the rest of the world, and that could be part of the answer.

  15. “Pierre
    We have:
    1. Measured lower ocean temps,
    2. stagnating sea level rise,
    3. sudden global atmospheric temperature drop,
    4. stagnating CO2 levels.”

    It’s happening again. A perfectly good theory is getting ruined by facts.
    Mike Bryant

  16. I’m sorry to be a damper on the fun, but you are all misinterpreting this data. It is clear evidence that Kyoto is working :-)

    Seriously, I will await further data, such as AIRS as recently mentioned. It is fun though, egg, face, anyone?

  17. Woodfortress.
    Higher than last July by less than one part per million. I know you were “just sayin”, but so am I. At that rate, doubling would occur when, exactly? Oh yeah, in four hundred years or so. Not that I am one of those mindless Gorebot extrapolators, like I said, I am just saying.

    It could have to do with the record sea ice extent in Antarctica. Models show that as sea ice increases, the southern ocean cools, lowering atmospheric CO2, and it the world of the warmies, this is one way ice ages get tripped. So it may well be, as Ruddiman(sp?) says, that we are dodging an ice age right now with our high CO2 levels.

  18. woodfortrees (Paul Clark) (01:58:56) :

    > However, the rate of increase is lower than it has been for a while:

    > http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960.5/every:12/derivative

    That’s certainly a wonderful tool, has anyone told you that? :-)

    After the April stumble, data recovered for the next couple of months. I noticed last night that there are several similar stumbles in summertime (e.g. 2004 at the top of this page).

    May I suggest patience for now? We’ll have the cool PDO with us for the next few decades, no rush. Heck, here in the US, the congresscritters take August off and I assume their counterparts on the olde continent are not working hard either.

    Besides, within a week I expect to hear that the drop is due to people driving less or to Beijing’s detox regimen for the Olympics.

    Demesure (01:29:13) :

    “Expect some revisionism “adjustment” of the data.”

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ says that the most recent year of data is preliminary. Give them credit for adjustment rules that don’t affect the entire history ala GISS. Scratch that – it’s just scientific common sense not to abuse data that badly.

  19. By the way, the global view of CO2 distribution backs up that the southern ocean might be absorbing now.

  20. statePoet1775 (01:28:02) :

    “Concerning ocean cooling and stagnant sea level, this has to translate into an increase in the earth’s rotational speed.” Pierre Gosselin

    Like an ice skater pulling in her arms while spinning? But wouldn’t this require sea level to drop via thermal contraction? What a clever way to measure overall ocean temperature! (if it works.)

    See http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/IanwilsonForum2008.pdf for a PowerPoint (sigh) presentation that talks about exactly that. Actually, it talks about the converse – that changes in length of day are behind changes in the NAO and PDO. I don’t think the .ppt says anything about the conventional Length of Day changes such as build up of ice and snow near the Earth’s axis (i.e. high latitudes) so set your skepticism sense to stun.

  21. RSS and UAH data for August comes out in the next day or so…it will be interesting to see if there is another drop. If the temp continues to fall, then this could be the begining of the end of AGW hoax.

    An interesting note – imagine how much the CO2 level has ACTUALLY fallen – considering that human CO2 emissions are adding quite a bit of CO2 – the real decline of that natural background level must be quite significant.

  22. Me no like.

    Temperature changes PRECEDE atmospheric CO2 changes.

    Anthony’s point…

    “It may be an effect of increased ocean CO2 solubility due to the global cold snap we’ve been having the past few months”

    is worrisome. If the recent “Failure to Warm,” i.e. cooling trend, is large enough affect mean atmospheric CO2 concentrations, the oceans may indeed have switched to their longer term cool phases, e.g. cold PDO & AMO.

    At the same time, Solar Cycle 24 continues to sputter – that is, when it does ANYTHING at all.

    Yesterday a BMR (bipolar magnetic region) emerged on the sun, with a Cycle 24 signature (leading negative polarity in the northern hemisphere).

    It was fairly large and looked as though it had the potential to produce a sunspot.

    Once again, within 24 hours, that potential had faded away, and the BMR continues to weaken without having produced a spot.

    This same pattern seems to happen about every 2 to 3 weeks. Solar Cycle 24 just can’t seem to get ‘er done.

    So whether cause and effect or coincidence, we seem to be already in a period of cold oceans and deep solar minimum, simultaneously.

    This is not good.

  23. Hmmmm… CO2 drop due to people driving less?

    Is that an off the cuff assumption? Does anyone have hard data on the decrease in CO2 emission due to a reduction in oil consumption?

    Since it is almost predictable someone is going to claim that this is a man-made reduction, why not have crunched the numbers beforehand?

  24. Dee Norris (00:47:00) :

    “It will be interesting to see if it drops below the Sept 2007 annual low (380.74) in a couple of months.

    It if turns out that this is driven by the colder SST, it will help establish that the horse goes before the cart and that rising SST of the warm PDO phase drove the CO2 increase of the latter 20th Century.”

    I wouldn’t expect it to actually drop below last years value. If you compare SST with growth rate of CO2 each year it correlate pretty ok. If you then make a diagram with SST on Y-axis and CO2 growth rate on X-axis it and make a linear trendline it will cross Y-axis at -0.3C roughly. That means IF the temperature is causing the whole CO2 raise, CO2 will stop raising when we reach a global temperature anomaly of rouglhy -0.3C, give or take some. I do not claim this is some peer reviewed sience but the correlation strikes you when you see it in a diagram.

    When this year ends, if global temperatures stays at it’s current levels, I predict the CO2 raise for 2008 will be 1.4 +/-0.4 ppm.

  25. Well, the data must be wrong.

    Either the instruments need recalibration or the data needs to be analyzed or adjusted differently. Global warming theory insists that CO2 must be going up and the computer climate models prove this.

    Therefore, you’re wrong.

  26. This is OT sorta.

    If anyone wants to visit my myspace page and read my latest blog called The Slow Demise of Science. You can leave comments there if you wish. Basically, there are a lot of intelligent people here I see, and I want to see if my thoughts register with you on that posting. Any critiques are welcome too. I edited it a lot and tried make it flow well. I’m not trying to steal thunder or space from Anthony here. Just asking for a fair review from fellow intelligent minds.

    http://www.myspace.com/storms_shadows_starlight

    The Slow Demise of Science

  27. @Patrick Henery
    100% correct.
    It says a lot about society when science textbooks are written by Hollywood producers.

  28. This shows two things:

    First, CO2 growth rate does depend on temperature, as is becoming more and more well known. If temps continue to fall, we might indeed see a negative growth rate, despite human emissions. BTW, Paul Clark is right in pointing out that it’s best to compare the annual growth rates (jan to jan, july to july). Given the seasonal fluctuations, it’s the best approximation to a true derivative that one can get, IMO. The only other way would be to assume some seasonal dependency (say a sine function), and substract it, but this is likely to lead to a larger error. Taking the derivative of raw, noisy data is one of the most difficult things to do when you analyze data.

    Second point: global temps are now similar to what they were 20 years ago. Yet, 20 years ago, the growth rate would have been largely positive. What does that mean? It means that the global CO2 sink is now much larger than it was. The sink grows and grows with the CO2 concentration. The biosphere adapts rapidly and strongly to an increased CO2. CO2 is food. Put more food, and more will come to eat it (we feed cats in our backyard and see the same effect…) So a combination of lower temps and larger sink could rapidly get rid of the surplus CO2, if temps do get lower for a long period of time.

    Final word: yes, solubility goes up when temps go down, but mostly this is the work of the biological pump. Phytoplankton works better when it’s cool. The solubility effect is rather small in the end.

  29. @Jerker

    Possibly.

    The PDO only shifted to positive with in the last couple of months. If CO2 lags by 7-9 months, then there is still the residual cooling SST to absorb additional CO2 over and above the seasonal variation.

    The interesting part would be the reaction of the AGW converts.

  30. Lest anyone forget, the warming folks aren’t buying into the satellite data at all these days. They stick to the adjusted data. After all, appearance is everything.

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

    Annual Mean Growth Rate – seems to follow global temperatures. With zero lag. Closely. Year on year.

    BTW – there are three “main” planetary/climactic harmonic periods (via orbital mechanics) and two are still running “hot”, so even if the “cold” one was the most influential (it aint) we would not be going into a new ice age as that is another 1300 years away.
    We are due for a cold spell, followed by a cold spell, followed by a colder spell. Expect some years (such as 2010) to be “warm” again, but the future trend is down. Our children will face a colder world.

    The truly ironically funny thing? 2013, the year the warming “begins again” (according to some) is going to be the start of an extended cold period. I hope I live to see it even though my old bones like it how it is right now (how it has been all my life).

  32. Re statePoet1775 (01:28:02) :

    According to sat data sea level has been flat or falling for the last couple of years
    link

    Francois Ouellette (07:11:39) :

    I believe the sat data is showing a “greening” which one would expect from an increase in CO2

  33. Dee,

    Are you suggesting that there is CO2 reduction already ‘in the pipeline’ and there’s nothing we can do about it? :)

  34. Besides the oceans, the big CO2 sinks are plants.

    The usual seasonal drop from May-June to September-October is the response of growing vegetation in the more-land-weighted northern hemisphere.

    Maybe we are starting to see increased plant growth responding to more CO2. In fact, if we extend the trends, maybe plants will help start to stablize CO2 levels.

    With these latest number, humans are adding about 8.0 billion tons of Carbon to the Carbon cycle each year right now and oceans and plants are sinking 6.0 to 8.0 billion tons of it.

    Note: CO2 levels should increasing by about 4 ppm per year with the amount of CO2 we are adding each year. Plants and oceans were previously absorbing about half of that. Maybe it is higher now, enough to almost stabilize CO2 levels. Ahh, the negative feedbacks that are not supposed to exist.

  35. There were a couple of additional anomalies in 2008 that may be related.

    (1) Compared to previous years, CO2 was almost flat in the January- February- March span of 2008, increasing only 0.57 ppm in 2 months. That flat period stands out in the graph.

    (2) CO2 fell by more than 3 ppm in just one month, from June to July of 2008, which is also unusual.

  36. I have never read such twadle. To add the measurment of one site for what is effectively one time (month) and draw any conclusion at all is as unscientific as one can get. There are all kinds of things that can be surmized from this, not the least of which is a change in the output of local volcanoes…

    To put this information against significantly longer trends is nothing less than stupid.

  37. John Galt is a male protagonist in ‘Atlas Shrugged’. “Who is John Galt?”, is an often poised question in the story.

  38. Steve Keohane,

    Bingo! I guess i failed some kind of temptation test by asking that question. But I resisted doing so at least twice before.

  39. Nick,

    Exactly what ‘conclusion’ are you talking about? As far as I can tell Anthony draws no conclusion whatsoever in this post, in fact, he goes to great lengths to do the opposite. The only thing he does is note some differences in patterns. It certainly is interesting to speculate as to the cause and potential meaning, but that certainly isn’t ‘drawing a conclusion’, unless his statement, “What this means I cannot say. ” is interpreted as ‘drawing a conclusion’.

  40. Ahem, this is obviously all caused by China reducing their emissions in just one area for the Olympics!!

  41. Hmmm. May is the peak month for CO2, and May 2008 was exactly on trend, even though the other months around it were all lower. Whatever else is happening, the May peak argues that the long-term increasing trend is probably unchanged. Otherwise one would have to argue that May was a coincidental blip on an otherwise flattening trend. I guess we’ll know more when the September-October low arrives.

  42. Nick Burman,

    this is only twaddle if you ignore the drum beat of tipping points, steady rise of CO2 due to anthropogenic sources killing our world, sensitive climate driven by positive feedbacks…

    Taken in the context of the IPCC scenarios and other touted research this is still exceptional. Of course, since CO2 has never been officially measured over most of the earth, we don’t really know what is happening, do we!!! In other words, since we don’t have official measurements for the inhabited areas, we do not know the gradient between high CO2 areas and the so-called BACKGROUND CO2 levels far from major CO2 sources.

    Basically I find it very interesting that we have been hammered with the FACT that the CO2 warming loop is going to kill us if we don’t make ENORMOUS sacrifices such as reducing our CO2 output back to 1990 levels. Of course, even under that scenario it was not expected to have noticeable effects for decades!!

    Thanks for reminding us that Warmers work off of RELIGIOUS BELIEF and not scientific method!!

    General question,

    Has any one approximated the amount of CO2 fixed by the increase of the biomass of the earth found by satellite measurement in the last few years? Also, how much extra CO2 fixing will continue in the future due to this extra mass? As usual, I don’t think we can point the finger at any one cause for this interesting development, although, decreasing temp would SEEM to be the biggest factor.

  43. PLEASE. There are three kinds of readers reading the skeptic literature now: scientifically trained professionals, knowledgeable educated amateurs, and people who are just beginning to get educated about the topic. The latter are very important readers. The proliferation of undefined acronyms and other references can make for pretty tough going. Maybe authors could remember that as the debate broadens there will be more and more new readers trying to learn the arguments.

  44. Bobby Lane,

    I went to your site, but the background was so bad I couldn’t read your post. IMHO, if you want to be serious about this, then I would start with presenting your material in a much more readable format.

  45. I just thought of another point worth considering – While the emphasis is on the magnitude of the July drop, note that the January rise was 1.41 ppm. In 2007 it was only 1.09 ppm, so the thrust of this blog topic could be as much about anomalously big climb in January as the analously big fall in July.

    ———

    James (09:26:23) :

    PLEASE. There are three kinds of readers reading the skeptic literature now: … and people who are just beginning to get educated about the topic.

    I haven’t plugged it for a while, but the web page I link to from my name, http://wermenh.com/climate/science.html , is something I wrote as an introduction to climate science. It doesn’t help with getting up to speed with the acronyms and all that, but it does discuss that CO2’s impact on the greenhouse effect may not be all that it’s hyped up to be now. It’s the sort of page that the people who should read it won’t find it while poking around the web.

  46. It’d be nice if that mauna loa CO2 site broke down the CO2 so that we could track the natural CO2 levels AND the human CO2 levels.

    I

  47. The amount of CO2 impact in the global atmosphere due to changes in American driving habits would be, I believe, too small to be measured. If you shut down every single car in the US, I don’t believe the change would amount to 1ppm in the global atmosphere CO2 content. People tend to exaggerate their own impact, and project that exaggeration onto their city, state, country, etc. People don’t like to feel that they are insignificant and that is basically the root of the curly light bulb craze.

  48. This may be a useless thought but I’ve often wondered if a component of solar activity can affect CO2 levels in some unknown way.

  49. Regarding changes in Earth’s rotational speed:
    variations of atmospheric angular momentum
    seem greatly to exceed changes of oceanic
    angular momentum in causing length of day
    (LOD) changes.

    Daily LOD data may be found from links at
    http://maia.usno.navy.mil/
    finals.all being the most complete. However,
    day to day changes are dominated by lunar
    tidal effects.

    Plots at

    and

    indicate recent LOD since 1973, and
    for the recent two years, with tidal
    effects removed. The zero points of
    each graph is 24 hours, and the variations
    are in units of milliseconds.

  50. Is it possible for a mathematical guru to calulate the CO2 released by the oceans for a given temperature rise and relate this to say, a number of SUVs. i.e. one degree C rise per square mile of ocean equals X number of extra SUVs on the road. Conversely, one degree cooling equates to removal of X number of SUVs from the roads.
    Might interest the MSM.

  51. Bobby Lane (07:04:30) :

    If anyone wants to visit my myspace page and read my latest blog called The Slow Demise of Science.

    http://www.myspace.com/storms_shadows_starlight

    I just skimmed through it, I’ll try to read it better tonight. Besides the “fashionable” background (I typed Ctrl/A to highlight the text in Firefox and it became fairly readable), one bug is at the end. “IPR” is most likely not International Public Relations, but Intellectual Property Rights.

    Oh – how/why did you make the screen so wide? I had to shrink the font one size to get things to fit on the screen. Just because you can do something in HTML doesn’t mean that you should.

  52. Nick Burman

    Fact: The fall from January 08 to July 08 is UNIQUE from all measurements back to 1958!
    It COULD be “noise” but the uniqueness of this development obviously should not be ignored like you want us to!

    And the fact that this unpreceded fall of CO2 concentration just “happends” to appear at the same time that the global temperatures are falling?

    Its possible, but not as likely as you want us to believe.

  53. It is quite possible that we are just beginning to reach CO2 concentrations that will allow much of the plant kingdom to photosynthesize much more efficiently. During the last galcial advance, with CO2 levels between 180 and 200 ppm, there is evidence that many plant species were bordering on “CO2 starvation”. Most the fruit and vegetables produced in commercial hothouses are done under CO2 concentrations of 1000 to 1500 ppm to maximize growth and product quality. http://www.co2science.org/ documents many studies of the benefits of higher CO2 levels on numerous plant species. For the plant community …Let the good times roll !!!!

  54. i have been following your blogs ever since.
    good keep it up.
    it sounds ridiculous for me to have imagine that the world is getting lesser CO2. I had this whatever phobia on this. I had once press-alarm stopped the tube train and rushed out the door as I can breath due to CO2 dropped in the coach, once, and another one was when i got into the plane but just befor i put on the seatbelt, i rushed out just in time before they closed the door, before the flight take off. i made them stranded for almost 20 minutes. living in near south near the belt of heat, i can’t stand teh weather. i kept looking at the sun rise, and waited for the first dawn light rays. i was hoping really for the claer bright lights daily. i enjoyed the stem at the wales mountains even they said it is thinner up there. things are getting weird. i do have this minor athma maybe, but to be trapped in the building on fire at the staircase is one hell of experience, i remembered that i clocked 5 minutes to ran gush down from 42nd floor tower and never i envy anyone on tall building working and facing those hazards. Gosh : as much as i am so sensitive with the wind, our old parents taught us to feel the first wind that blew on our face every dawn 430am when, they said, when the pillar of the earth starts rotating and the slips caused the wind moves. Honestly, there was none since the last two years, instead, either it is calm, or strong winds..no more whispering winds..the heat of the sun are also darn smelly and swampy feels. Ah, i am not a scientist, but enough to inherit a DNA from an old father who was born in 1879, and up to me, i am only the seventh male in the row of family since year 895..lucky i have two male boys, so precious to us in the family, inherit the names of the family great ancestors, yet i knew the movement of the sun and air is not good enough as i keep on buying to spare the medicine box with those de-phlegm from mild cough..weather up there north should be better than here the down south..unfortunately, the quality of people and politics donot care or worry about all these factors..keep us updates..wish god with two ears and can speak thsi language may arrive at the garden and start doing something, instead of yearning for war and ethnic cleansing..political but sun is there to judge..CO2, now we prefer to enjoy in house stay rather than going outside and start throwing all aspects of life that involve outside activities..the world is dirty..am i wrong to say that..?

  55. Dee Norris’ note prompted me to diddle around on WFT a bit.

    If two quantities are correlated, as CO2 and temperature are, it can be difficult to determine which causes which. But if there’s a strong correlation between absolute level of quantity A and the derivative of B, it’s an indication that A is causing B to change. There are exceptions, but if the mechanisms are known — and they are for CO2 and temperature — it can be a useful test.

    Let’s try to match CO2 as cause to temperature (HADCRUT3VSH, for example) as effect. We detrend, offset, and scale to find the best match:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1970/mean:12/offset:-325/detrend:58/scale:0.4/plot/hadcrut3vsh/from:1970/mean:12/derivative/mean:12/scale:-80

    There are some hints of correlation, but the weird thing is that the scale for dT/dt is negative — locally, higher levels of CO2 match decreases of temperature. But not very well, so why worry over it.

    Now try temperature as cause vs CO2 as effect:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vsh/from:1970/mean:12/detrend:0.35/offset:0.3/plot/esrl-co2/from:1970/mean:12/derivative/mean:12/scale:2

    This is a considerably better match. Given these data and nothing else, I’d have to conclude that temperature is causing the variations in CO2 rather than vice versa.

    REPLY: Nicely done, thanks – Anthony

  56. Before we get all excited about us Americans driving our cars less — news outlets do like to put their own spin on stories — remember that oil is still coming out of the ground and is still being refined. It’s all going somewhere and is still being burned by someone, so all that CO2 is still being produced and still entering the atmosphere. Let’s see what the next few decades show.

  57. Pingback: CO2 Down: I suspect calibration error. | The Blackboard

  58. @Bill

    Yes, I am wondering how much CO2 reduction is still in the pipeline.

    A lot of CO2 was dumped in the atmosphere from the west coast wild fires, but I don’t think this would be directly detectable in the level of CO2.

    @crosspatch

    Agreed. I doubt the decrease in the sum of all human activity due to the high price of oil would show.

    @Mark

    How would you propose to determine if a molecule of C02 is either man-made or natural?

    Nick Burman:

    If you look at the blog’s subtitle, it speaks of being a ‘commentary’ not a peer-reviewed journal. Many of us banter about ideas, testing them and discarding them if necessary. Sometimes an idea has legs and needs to watched for confirming or more importantly, disproving data.

    Despite the ‘first time in history’ in the title of this blog (which is no different that an AGWer claiming 2007 is the warmest year in history), most of understand the difference between a possible data blip and a trend. What we are hypothesizing about is ‘if it is a trend, what might be the causes’, Several of us, including myself, have indicated they want to see if the trend continues. The trend I am observing is the rate of increase or decrease in CO2, not the change itself.

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960.5/every:12/derivative

    This graph plots the rate of change for CO2 since 1960 for the May CO2 peak. It is very clearly seen that subsequent to the 1998 (Super?) El Nino that the rate of change now is showing greater variability then the prior 20 years.

    There also may be a similar phase change in the CO2 rate of change in 1974, but unfortunately the data for Mauna Loa does not extend back further than that date.

    Interestingly, 1974 and 1998 were phase shifts in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) from cool to warm to cool respectively.

    Even more telling is this plot:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960.5/every:12/derivative/derivative

    This is a plot of the change in the rate of change for CO2. The PDO phase shift really stands out now. During a cool PDO phase, the change in the rate of change in CO2 is much more variable. I will allow other eyes to draw any additional conclusions as they see fit.

    I would hope you don’t consider trying to understand real world events (as opposed to computer-modeled) to be twaddle and nonsense?

  59. @Josh

    I just saw your post. I think we are moving in the same direction. Look at the plots I just posted.

  60. Who is John Galt?

    You got me there. I hope it’s not a copyright violation to use that name as my moniker. I don’t like hiding behind an alias, but frankly I’d like to not be stalked by some lunatic because I don’t agree with their pet theory.

  61. Pingback: Celebrity Paycut - Encouraging celebrities all over the world to save us from global warming by taking a paycut.

  62. Mr. Galt,

    I just couldn’t avoid the tease and the double (triple?) meaning. It’s been years since I read that book but that question can still give me goosebumps.

  63. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979.375/every:12/derivative/offset:-2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1979.375/every:12/derivative/scale:4
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979.375/every:12/derivative/offset:-1.5/plot/uah/from:1979.375/every:12/derivative/scale:2

    These are May to May plots of the rate of change of CO2 and rate of change in temperature anomaly . The first is HADCrut and the second is UAH. Note that the offset and scaling is different in the two plots.

    In both, we can clearly see in many instances that the difference in the rate of change for temperature precedes that of CO2 or at least coincides with CO2. In no case do we see it following CO2.

    This would seem to say that temperature is initially forced and then temperature forces CO2.

  64. – According to Becks assembly of data, after the warm period in the 1940´ies we saw a huge fast drop in CO2 after declining temperatures.

    A drop so enorm that his findings have been ignorred by AGW simply because RESULTS does not match the human view of things. (certainly d not adabt knowledge to results!)

    Francois Ouellette in this blog wrote a very interesting text, describing how the CO2 increase certainly leads to explosion in plant (and plankton) growth.
    Here in this very fine article
    http://www.eoearth.org/article/Greening_of_the_Sahel
    we find tha sahel is MASSIVELY getting smaller. Take a look at the graphic!

    So!

    As Francois Ouellette writes warm periods builds up a larger CO2 sink.
    Return to Becks data. We see here a rather smooth curve of CO2 rise from year 1900 up to around 1930 and then quite speedy raise in the 1940´ies.
    But just after 1945-50 it just free-falls so fast that data was ignored.

    This is just to say: If Becks data is correct… And if the world is cooling like in after the 1940… oh dear! This CO2 fall is going to be interesting.

    But thats a lot of “ifs” i know. Just speculating :-)

  65. Dee Norris & Ric Werme: Sorry to jump in so late. I was out of touch for a few days.

    The PDO is not North Pacific SST.

    The PDO is not SST around Hawaii.

    PDO data is extracted from North Pacific SST data, which is why a component of it appears in the comparative graphs above. It is not an SST residual like the AMO. IMO, and that’s based on a number of papers, the PDO is a function of ENSO.

    Dee, I like how the annual difference in CO2 appears dependent in part on the PDO. Great find. Those graphs may turn out better for you with smoothed NINO3.4 data. Maybe not. Only one way to find out. I’ll play with SSTs and see what I can come up with. If I find something I’ll let you know.

    Rick: The 50- to 60-year cycle of the PDO does not extend back in time very far. There’s really no reason to believe it will repeat that cycle in the future.

  66. @Bob

    Right… PDO is a function of ENSO. PDO was the only thing on WFT that would provide an SST-related value.

    I have been using WFT simply because I have a MAJOR migraine and the though of using a more complex application makes my head throb even more. Perhaps we can provide Paul Clark with some of these datasets so he can add them to WFT? I have already emailed him to see if he can add in SST, so perhaps NINO3.4 can be added as well. Also the pre-Mauna Loa CO2 Data would be nice!

    Feel free to run with NINO3.4 and my starting point. If there is something there, we can take the time to test it further.

    I think I am in need of signing off the PC before the throbbing turns for the worse (if that is possible).

  67. John Galt,

    John Galt is the name of a character in the novel “Atlas Shrugs” by Pamela Geller Ayn Rand.

    Ocassionally, I am confused with Robin Hood. But hey, I can take the turf :-)

  68. One thing I know for sure.

    Here in Ottawa, Canada, it usually hits +30C in the summer, to zoom down to -30C in the winter. It hasn’t got above +28C this summer.

    What is all this fuss about? Out temperatures vary 60C each year; what is 0.6C per century??

  69. Frank Lansner,

    We should open up a second front in this (unfortunately) ideological war.

    We are fighting the “CO2 doesn’t cause catastrophic global warming” front, but now let’s open up the “CO2 is beneficial for life on this planet” front.

    CO2science has valuable ammunition in this war.

  70. @Dee Norris:

    “The PDO only shifted to positive with in the last couple of months”

    Didn’t it just shift to negative?

  71. Ric Werme (05:14:54) wrote: “…May I suggest patience for now? We’ll have the cool PDO with us for the next few decades, no rush. Heck, here in the US, the congresscritters take August off and I assume their counterparts on the olde continent are not working hard either.”

    That explains it! With no bloviating going on in Foggy Bottom, the CO2 level has naturally dropped!

    Jack Koenig, Editor
    The Mysterious Climate Project
    http://www.climateclinic.com

  72. Josh, Dee, Frank, everyone, great posts, very informative, breaking new ground. Could someone do a statistical probability analysis of the two theses, temp follows CO2 and CO2 follows temp? This has the potential to be another clincher surely.

    James “PLEASE”: online acronym dictionaries always sorted me out. These abbreviations seem generally useful here. This could start a glossary page:
    GHG green house gas
    ENSO el nino southern oscillation
    AGW anthropogenic global warming
    GCM global climate model
    AMO Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation
    TSI total solar irradiation
    PDO Pacific decadal oscillation
    RC RealClimate.org
    AIT An Inconvenient Truth
    MBH99 (hockey stick) MannBradleyHughes 1999
    SST sea surface temperature
    FFT frequency filter technique(?)
    MOC Meridional Overturning Circulation
    RSS remote sensing systems
    UAH Univ. of Alabama Huntsville
    CA Climate Audit
    GCM global climate modelling

  73. @Josh

    Other than my graduating High School in 1980, I can’t off-hand think of anything that changed. Perhaps this is an insignificant artifact of the processing?

    I will sleep on it however and see what the hindbrain comes up with.

  74. @neilo

    Whoops! I meant to say the la Nina shifted to a possible el Nino.

    Thanks for the catch!

  75. Mr James (09:26:23) made a point I have wanted to make for weeks but felt it would expose my ignorance:
    “The proliferation of undefined acronyms and other references can make for pretty tough going.”

    Although I am very grateful for Mr James’s comment, I have to observe that a collection of initial letters is only an acronym if it forms a word or is pronounced as a word (such as NASA), if it is a collection of letters pronounced as letters (such as IPCC) it is an initialism not an acronym. Some dispute that even NASA is an acronym because it is not a recognised word in itself (compare The Man from UNCLE); but usage seems to be changing such that it is sufficient to pronounce it as a word in order for a collection of initials to be classified an acronym; this change is probably due to some initalisms (such as scuba and radar) describe objects or processes which do not have an existing single-word description.

    What would you scientific chaps do without a pedant like me to keep you on your toes?

  76. @Dee — it’s the 1976 Pacific climate shift, moved over by the averaging.

    Nice work with the UAH-leads-CO2-in-time graph, btw. I’ll bet we’d get an even (slightly) better correlation if we had data localized to the Pacific.

  77. Pingback: Top Posts « WordPress.com

  78. Miss Dee asks Mr Mark: “How would you propose to determine if a molecule of C02 is either man-made or natural?” That’s simple, the man-made ones have the oxygen atoms shaped like little horns and the carbon atom has fangs.

    On a less serious point, but raising an issue that troubles me, where does the supposed 800 to 1000 year time-lag between increased temperatures and increased CO2 fit into today’s discussion? This time-lag was one of the most striking things in the Swindle telly programme but I see little mention of it these days. Obviously it is a valuable rebuttal to Saint Al’s assertion that plotting historical temperature and CO2 shows CO2 rising and then temperature rising, but aside from rebutting that argument does it have any relevance to anything?

  79. @Josh

    I think Bob Tinsdale is going to do a ENSO (SST) / CO2 Velocity graph. That should make the relationship even clearer as we see the the same leading in PDO/CO2 Velocity. My use of PDO and UAH was an attempt to compensate for the lack of ENSO SST data at WFT.

    In order to determine if the effect is localized, we should look at Atlantic SST and CO2 Velocity.

    I did diddle with UAH Velocity and CO2 Velocity. I get a similar leading correlation until the 1998 El Nino. This plot is Annual May to May (peak CO2)

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979.35/every:12/derivative/offset:-1.5/detrend:0.5/plot/uah/from:1979.35/every:12/derivative/scale:2

    Note: I did detrend the CO2 Velocity. This may be due to anthropogenic CO2 or the broader warming ocean trend (which may have recently stopped).

  80. @FatBigot

    We are dealing with very small changes in CO2 in this discussion. Those sort of changes will take centuries to accumulate into the changes that Swindle and Gore are talking about.

    I don’t see a conflict here.

  81. Hmmm… I guess I should say CO2 Acceleration, not CO2 Velocity as velocity would describe the change in CO2 level over time and what I am plotting is the rate of change in CO2 level over time.

  82. Lucy,

    FFT = Fast Fourier Transform – a technique that’s often used to decompose a complicated series of numbers into the sum of several simple series of numbers. For example you could use an FFT to decompose a spoken word into a sum of several sin waves.

  83. @ FatBigot (17:10:45),

    Miss Dee, supposedly there is a difference in the isotopes of man made CO2 vs natural CO2. If this is true, I don’t know why both of them aren’t tracked…

  84. Anthony, I’ve got a bunch of questions about CO2 measurement accuracy.

    To accurately measure anything a fixed standard must be compared to the measured material.

    What is the fixed standard in CO2 measurement?
    What is the material of the CO2 sensor?
    How often is the CO2 sensor calibrated against the standard?
    What is the drift coefficient of the CO2 sensor?
    What is the linearity of the CO2 sensor with electronics?
    What is the drift of the linearity of the CO2 sensor with electronics – is this calibrated as well?
    How old is the electronics used to measurement the CO2 sensor?
    How often is the electronics calibrated against known electronic standards?
    How much random noise is in their measurement?
    How specific is the sensor to only CO2?
    Does the sensor react with any other gas?
    Is the sensor calibrated over temperature?
    Is the data adjusted for temperature?
    What is the sensor accuracy vs. temperature?
    How long does the sensor temperature soak before measurement?
    Is the sensor calibrated over atmospheric pressure?
    What is the sensor accuracy vs. atmospheric pressure?

    While these questions may be nitpicking … 1 ppm is a tiny difference and even a tiny difference in temp, pressure, mechanical strain, electrical interference, material aging, moisture, etc. can ruin a measurement.

    In other words, the Hawaii data looks a little “too clean”. In fact, now that we know that large patches of air can vary by 3 or 4 ppm — how come we don’t see that in the Hawaii data.

  85. I have inquired of NOAA as to the reason for the adjustment. Lets not all harass them for an explanation just yet. I will post any reply I receive.

    ———————————————————–

    From: Denise Norris [mailto:xxxxx@xxxx.xxx]
    Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 9:34 PM
    To: ‘pieter.tans@noaa.gov’
    Subject: Re: Mauna Loa CO2 trend

    Dear Dr Tans,

    I just noticed NOAA upward adjusted the Mauna Loa CO2 for July 2008, but I could not find a explanation on the website. As CO2 is of great interest to a number of people, is there a specific reason for the adjustment? The original value of 384.93 created a little bit of a stir amongst the skeptics.

    Thank you,

    Denise Norris

  86. John McDonald

    The National Institute of Standards and Technology is a federal technology agency that develops and promotes measurement, standards, and technology.

    http://www.nist.gov

    These are the guys with the reference standards. Start there.

  87. Dee — “How would you propose to determine if a molecule of C02 is either man-made or natural? ”

    Isotope ratios of c12/c13 are different for natural CO2 and that which comes from burning fossil fuels. You take a bottle full of air, reckon the count of CO2 molecules, and then count up the prevalance of the isotopes. This is roughly how it’s done.

    According to what I’ve seen the fossil fuel burning accounts for roughly 3% of the CO2.

  88. It looks like a sweeping adjustment has occurred. Some months up, some down.

    I will do a comparison of the numbers posted here and the adjusted mean and post shortly.

  89. This does not surprise me in the least. Nevertheless it is a revolting development.
    Wondering if AIRS is untouchable,
    Mike Bryant

  90. it would seem, contrary to earlier claims that NOAA only adjusted the recent year, that the dataset back to mid-1974 has been adjusted. I will resist using the term Hansenized until I hear back from Dr Tans.

    Here is a comparison of the new and old mean values:

    Mauna Loa CO2 Adjustments on Aug 4th 2008
    # decimal new old
    Year Month date mean mean Change
    1958 3 1958.208 315.71 315.71 0
    1958 4 1958.292 317.45 317.45 0
    1958 5 1958.375 317.5 317.5 0
    1958 6 1958.458 -99.99 -99.99 0
    1958 7 1958.542 315.86 315.86 0
    1958 8 1958.625 314.93 314.93 0
    1958 9 1958.708 313.2 313.2 0
    1958 10 1958.792 -99.99 -99.99 0
    1958 11 1958.875 313.33 313.33 0
    1958 12 1958.958 314.67 314.67 0
    1959 1 1959.042 315.62 315.62 0
    1959 2 1959.125 316.38 316.38 0
    1959 3 1959.208 316.71 316.71 0
    1959 4 1959.292 317.72 317.72 0
    1959 5 1959.375 318.29 318.29 0
    1959 6 1959.458 318.16 318.16 0
    1959 7 1959.542 316.55 316.55 0
    1959 8 1959.625 314.8 314.8 0
    1959 9 1959.708 313.84 313.84 0
    1959 10 1959.792 313.26 313.26 0
    1959 11 1959.875 314.8 314.8 0
    1959 12 1959.958 315.59 315.59 0
    1960 1 1960.042 316.43 316.43 0
    1960 2 1960.125 316.97 316.97 0
    1960 3 1960.208 317.58 317.58 0
    1960 4 1960.292 319.02 319.02 0
    1960 5 1960.375 320.02 320.02 0
    1960 6 1960.458 319.59 319.59 0
    1960 7 1960.542 318.18 318.18 0
    1960 8 1960.625 315.91 315.91 0
    1960 9 1960.708 314.16 314.16 0
    1960 10 1960.792 313.83 313.83 0
    1960 11 1960.875 315 315 0
    1960 12 1960.958 316.19 316.19 0
    1961 1 1961.042 316.93 316.93 0
    1961 2 1961.125 317.7 317.7 0
    1961 3 1961.208 318.54 318.54 0
    1961 4 1961.292 319.48 319.48 0
    1961 5 1961.375 320.58 320.58 0
    1961 6 1961.458 319.77 319.77 0
    1961 7 1961.542 318.58 318.58 0
    1961 8 1961.625 316.79 316.79 0
    1961 9 1961.708 314.8 314.8 0
    1961 10 1961.792 315.38 315.38 0
    1961 11 1961.875 316.1 316.1 0
    1961 12 1961.958 317.01 317.01 0
    1962 1 1962.042 317.94 317.94 0
    1962 2 1962.125 318.55 318.55 0
    1962 3 1962.208 319.68 319.68 0
    1962 4 1962.292 320.63 320.63 0
    1962 5 1962.375 321.01 321.01 0
    1962 6 1962.458 320.55 320.55 0
    1962 7 1962.542 319.58 319.58 0
    1962 8 1962.625 317.4 317.4 0
    1962 9 1962.708 316.26 316.26 0
    1962 10 1962.792 315.42 315.42 0
    1962 11 1962.875 316.69 316.69 0
    1962 12 1962.958 317.7 317.7 0
    1963 1 1963.042 318.74 318.74 0
    1963 2 1963.125 319.08 319.08 0
    1963 3 1963.208 319.86 319.86 0
    1963 4 1963.292 321.39 321.39 0
    1963 5 1963.375 322.24 322.24 0
    1963 6 1963.458 321.47 321.47 0
    1963 7 1963.542 319.74 319.74 0
    1963 8 1963.625 317.77 317.77 0
    1963 9 1963.708 316.21 316.21 0
    1963 10 1963.792 315.99 315.99 0
    1963 11 1963.875 317.12 317.12 0
    1963 12 1963.958 318.31 318.31 0
    1964 1 1964.042 319.57 319.57 0
    1964 2 1964.125 -99.99 -99.99 0
    1964 3 1964.208 -99.99 -99.99 0
    1964 4 1964.292 -99.99 -99.99 0
    1964 5 1964.375 322.24 322.24 0
    1964 6 1964.458 321.89 321.89 0
    1964 7 1964.542 320.44 320.44 0
    1964 8 1964.625 318.7 318.7 0
    1964 9 1964.708 316.7 316.7 0
    1964 10 1964.792 316.79 316.79 0
    1964 11 1964.875 317.79 317.79 0
    1964 12 1964.958 318.71 318.71 0
    1965 1 1965.042 319.44 319.44 0
    1965 2 1965.125 320.44 320.44 0
    1965 3 1965.208 320.89 320.89 0
    1965 4 1965.292 322.13 322.13 0
    1965 5 1965.375 322.16 322.16 0
    1965 6 1965.458 321.87 321.87 0
    1965 7 1965.542 321.39 321.39 0
    1965 8 1965.625 318.8 318.8 0
    1965 9 1965.708 317.81 317.81 0
    1965 10 1965.792 317.3 317.3 0
    1965 11 1965.875 318.87 318.87 0
    1965 12 1965.958 319.42 319.42 0
    1966 1 1966.042 320.62 320.62 0
    1966 2 1966.125 321.59 321.59 0
    1966 3 1966.208 322.39 322.39 0
    1966 4 1966.292 323.87 323.87 0
    1966 5 1966.375 324.01 324.01 0
    1966 6 1966.458 323.75 323.75 0
    1966 7 1966.542 322.4 322.4 0
    1966 8 1966.625 320.37 320.37 0
    1966 9 1966.708 318.64 318.64 0
    1966 10 1966.792 318.1 318.1 0
    1966 11 1966.875 319.78 319.78 0
    1966 12 1966.958 321.08 321.08 0
    1967 1 1967.042 322.06 322.06 0
    1967 2 1967.125 322.5 322.5 0
    1967 3 1967.208 323.04 323.04 0
    1967 4 1967.292 324.42 324.42 0
    1967 5 1967.375 325 325 0
    1967 6 1967.458 324.09 324.09 0
    1967 7 1967.542 322.55 322.55 0
    1967 8 1967.625 320.92 320.92 0
    1967 9 1967.708 319.31 319.31 0
    1967 10 1967.792 319.31 319.31 0
    1967 11 1967.875 320.72 320.72 0
    1967 12 1967.958 321.96 321.96 0
    1968 1 1968.042 322.57 322.57 0
    1968 2 1968.125 323.15 323.15 0
    1968 3 1968.208 323.89 323.89 0
    1968 4 1968.292 325.02 325.02 0
    1968 5 1968.375 325.57 325.57 0
    1968 6 1968.458 325.36 325.36 0
    1968 7 1968.542 324.14 324.14 0
    1968 8 1968.625 322.03 322.03 0
    1968 9 1968.708 320.41 320.41 0
    1968 10 1968.792 320.25 320.25 0
    1968 11 1968.875 321.31 321.31 0
    1968 12 1968.958 322.84 322.84 0
    1969 1 1969.042 324 324 0
    1969 2 1969.125 324.42 324.42 0
    1969 3 1969.208 325.64 325.64 0
    1969 4 1969.292 326.66 326.66 0
    1969 5 1969.375 327.34 327.34 0
    1969 6 1969.458 326.76 326.76 0
    1969 7 1969.542 325.88 325.88 0
    1969 8 1969.625 323.67 323.67 0
    1969 9 1969.708 322.38 322.38 0
    1969 10 1969.792 321.78 321.78 0
    1969 11 1969.875 322.85 322.85 0
    1969 12 1969.958 324.12 324.12 0
    1970 1 1970.042 325.03 325.03 0
    1970 2 1970.125 325.99 325.99 0
    1970 3 1970.208 326.87 326.87 0
    1970 4 1970.292 328.14 328.14 0
    1970 5 1970.375 328.07 328.07 0
    1970 6 1970.458 327.66 327.66 0
    1970 7 1970.542 326.35 326.35 0
    1970 8 1970.625 324.69 324.69 0
    1970 9 1970.708 323.1 323.1 0
    1970 10 1970.792 323.16 323.16 0
    1970 11 1970.875 323.98 323.98 0
    1970 12 1970.958 325.13 325.13 0
    1971 1 1971.042 326.17 326.17 0
    1971 2 1971.125 326.68 326.68 0
    1971 3 1971.208 327.18 327.18 0
    1971 4 1971.292 327.78 327.78 0
    1971 5 1971.375 328.92 328.92 0
    1971 6 1971.458 328.57 328.57 0
    1971 7 1971.542 327.34 327.34 0
    1971 8 1971.625 325.46 325.46 0
    1971 9 1971.708 323.36 323.36 0
    1971 10 1971.792 323.56 323.56 0
    1971 11 1971.875 324.8 324.8 0
    1971 12 1971.958 326.01 326.01 0
    1972 1 1972.042 326.77 326.77 0
    1972 2 1972.125 327.63 327.63 0
    1972 3 1972.208 327.75 327.75 0
    1972 4 1972.292 329.72 329.72 0
    1972 5 1972.375 330.07 330.07 0
    1972 6 1972.458 329.09 329.09 0
    1972 7 1972.542 328.05 328.05 0
    1972 8 1972.625 326.32 326.32 0
    1972 9 1972.708 324.93 324.93 0
    1972 10 1972.792 325.06 325.06 0
    1972 11 1972.875 326.5 326.5 0
    1972 12 1972.958 327.55 327.55 0
    1973 1 1973.042 328.55 328.55 0
    1973 2 1973.125 329.56 329.56 0
    1973 3 1973.208 330.3 330.3 0
    1973 4 1973.292 331.5 331.5 0
    1973 5 1973.375 332.48 332.48 0
    1973 6 1973.458 332.07 332.07 0
    1973 7 1973.542 330.87 330.87 0
    1973 8 1973.625 329.31 329.31 0
    1973 9 1973.708 327.51 327.51 0
    1973 10 1973.792 327.18 327.18 0
    1973 11 1973.875 328.16 328.16 0
    1973 12 1973.958 328.64 328.64 0
    1974 1 1974.042 329.35 329.35 0
    1974 2 1974.125 330.71 330.71 0
    1974 3 1974.208 331.48 331.48 0
    1974 4 1974.292 332.65 332.65 0
    1974 5 1974.375 333.15 333.16 0.01
    1974 6 1974.458 332.13 332.06 -0.07
    1974 7 1974.542 330.99 330.99 0
    1974 8 1974.625 329.17 329.17 0
    1974 9 1974.708 327.41 327.41 0
    1974 10 1974.792 327.21 327.2 -0.01
    1974 11 1974.875 328.34 328.33 -0.01
    1974 12 1974.958 329.5 329.5 0
    1975 1 1975.042 330.68 330.68 0
    1975 2 1975.125 331.41 331.41 0
    1975 3 1975.208 331.85 331.85 0
    1975 4 1975.292 333.29 333.29 0
    1975 5 1975.375 333.91 333.91 0
    1975 6 1975.458 333.4 333.4 0
    1975 7 1975.542 331.74 331.78 0.04
    1975 8 1975.625 329.88 329.88 0
    1975 9 1975.708 328.57 328.57 0
    1975 10 1975.792 328.35 328.46 0.11
    1975 11 1975.875 329.33 329.26 -0.07
    1975 12 1975.958 -99.99 -99.99 0
    1976 1 1976.042 331.66 331.71 0.05
    1976 2 1976.125 332.75 332.76 0.01
    1976 3 1976.208 333.46 333.48 0.02
    1976 4 1976.292 334.78 334.78 0
    1976 5 1976.375 334.79 334.79 0
    1976 6 1976.458 334.05 334.17 0.12
    1976 7 1976.542 332.95 332.78 -0.17
    1976 8 1976.625 330.64 330.64 0
    1976 9 1976.708 328.96 328.95 -0.01
    1976 10 1976.792 328.77 328.77 0
    1976 11 1976.875 330.18 330.23 0.05
    1976 12 1976.958 331.65 331.69 0.04
    1977 1 1977.042 332.69 332.7 0.01
    1977 2 1977.125 333.23 333.24 0.01
    1977 3 1977.208 334.97 334.96 -0.01
    1977 4 1977.292 336.03 336.04 0.01
    1977 5 1977.375 336.82 336.82 0
    1977 6 1977.458 336.1 336.13 0.03
    1977 7 1977.542 334.79 334.73 -0.06
    1977 8 1977.625 332.53 332.52 -0.01
    1977 9 1977.708 331.19 331.19 0
    1977 10 1977.792 331.21 331.19 -0.02
    1977 11 1977.875 332.35 332.35 0
    1977 12 1977.958 333.47 333.47 0
    1978 1 1978.042 335.09 335.11 0.02
    1978 2 1978.125 335.26 335.26 0
    1978 3 1978.208 336.62 336.6 -0.02
    1978 4 1978.292 337.77 337.77 0
    1978 5 1978.375 338 338 0
    1978 6 1978.458 337.98 337.99 0.01
    1978 7 1978.542 336.48 336.48 0
    1978 8 1978.625 334.37 334.37 0
    1978 9 1978.708 332.33 332.27 -0.06
    1978 10 1978.792 332.4 332.4 0
    1978 11 1978.875 333.76 333.76 0
    1978 12 1978.958 334.83 334.83 0
    1979 1 1979.042 336.21 336.21 0
    1979 2 1979.125 336.64 336.64 0
    1979 3 1979.208 338.13 338.12 -0.01
    1979 4 1979.292 338.96 339.02 0.06
    1979 5 1979.375 339.02 339.02 0
    1979 6 1979.458 339.2 339.2 0
    1979 7 1979.542 337.6 337.58 -0.02
    1979 8 1979.625 335.56 335.55 -0.01
    1979 9 1979.708 333.93 333.89 -0.04
    1979 10 1979.792 334.12 334.14 0.02
    1979 11 1979.875 335.26 335.26 0
    1979 12 1979.958 336.78 336.71 -0.07
    1980 1 1980.042 337.8 337.8 0
    1980 2 1980.125 338.28 338.29 0.01
    1980 3 1980.208 340.04 340.04 0
    1980 4 1980.292 340.86 340.86 0
    1980 5 1980.375 341.47 341.47 0
    1980 6 1980.458 341.26 341.26 0
    1980 7 1980.542 339.34 339.29 -0.05
    1980 8 1980.625 337.45 337.6 0.15
    1980 9 1980.708 336.1 336.12 0.02
    1980 10 1980.792 336.05 336.08 0.03
    1980 11 1980.875 337.21 337.22 0.01
    1980 12 1980.958 338.29 338.34 0.05
    1981 1 1981.042 339.36 339.36 0
    1981 2 1981.125 340.51 340.51 0
    1981 3 1981.208 341.57 341.57 0
    1981 4 1981.292 342.56 342.56 0
    1981 5 1981.375 343.01 343.01 0
    1981 6 1981.458 342.51 342.47 -0.04
    1981 7 1981.542 340.71 340.71 0
    1981 8 1981.625 338.51 338.52 0.01
    1981 9 1981.708 336.96 336.96 0
    1981 10 1981.792 337.13 337.13 0
    1981 11 1981.875 338.58 338.58 0
    1981 12 1981.958 339.91 339.89 -0.02
    1982 1 1982.042 340.92 340.93 0.01
    1982 2 1982.125 341.69 341.69 0
    1982 3 1982.208 342.88 342.69 -0.19
    1982 4 1982.292 343.83 343.79 -0.04
    1982 5 1982.375 344.3 344.3 0
    1982 6 1982.458 343.42 343.43 0.01
    1982 7 1982.542 341.85 341.88 0.03
    1982 8 1982.625 339.82 339.89 0.07
    1982 9 1982.708 337.98 337.96 -0.02
    1982 10 1982.792 338.09 338.1 0.01
    1982 11 1982.875 339.24 339.26 0.02
    1982 12 1982.958 340.67 340.67 0
    1983 1 1983.042 341.42 341.42 0
    1983 2 1983.125 342.67 342.68 0.01
    1983 3 1983.208 343.45 343.45 0
    1983 4 1983.292 345.08 345.1 0.02
    1983 5 1983.375 345.76 345.76 0
    1983 6 1983.458 345.33 345.36 0.03
    1983 7 1983.542 343.93 343.91 -0.02
    1983 8 1983.625 342.08 342.05 -0.03
    1983 9 1983.708 340 340 0
    1983 10 1983.792 340.12 340.12 0
    1983 11 1983.875 341.35 341.33 -0.02
    1983 12 1983.958 342.89 342.94 0.05
    1984 1 1984.042 343.87 343.87 0
    1984 2 1984.125 344.59 344.6 0.01
    1984 3 1984.208 345.29 345.2 -0.09
    1984 4 1984.292 -99.99 -99.99 0
    1984 5 1984.375 347.36 347.36 0
    1984 6 1984.458 346.8 346.74 -0.06
    1984 7 1984.542 345.37 345.41 0.04
    1984 8 1984.625 343.06 343.01 -0.05
    1984 9 1984.708 341.24 341.23 -0.01
    1984 10 1984.792 341.54 341.52 -0.02
    1984 11 1984.875 342.9 342.86 -0.04
    1984 12 1984.958 344.36 344.41 0.05
    1985 1 1985.042 345.08 345.09 0.01
    1985 2 1985.125 345.89 345.89 0
    1985 3 1985.208 347.49 347.5 0.01
    1985 4 1985.292 348.02 348 -0.02
    1985 5 1985.375 348.75 348.75 0
    1985 6 1985.458 348.19 348.19 0
    1985 7 1985.542 346.49 346.54 0.05
    1985 8 1985.625 344.7 344.63 -0.07
    1985 9 1985.708 343.04 343.03 -0.01
    1985 10 1985.792 342.92 342.92 0
    1985 11 1985.875 344.22 344.24 0.02
    1985 12 1985.958 345.61 345.62 0.01
    1986 1 1986.042 346.42 346.43 0.01
    1986 2 1986.125 346.95 346.94 -0.01
    1986 3 1986.208 347.88 347.88 0
    1986 4 1986.292 349.57 349.57 0
    1986 5 1986.375 350.35 350.35 0
    1986 6 1986.458 349.7 349.72 0.02
    1986 7 1986.542 347.78 347.78 0
    1986 8 1986.625 345.89 345.86 -0.03
    1986 9 1986.708 344.88 344.84 -0.04
    1986 10 1986.792 344.34 344.32 -0.02
    1986 11 1986.875 345.67 345.67 0
    1986 12 1986.958 346.89 346.88 -0.01
    1987 1 1987.042 348.2 348.19 -0.01
    1987 2 1987.125 348.55 348.55 0
    1987 3 1987.208 349.56 349.52 -0.04
    1987 4 1987.292 351.12 351.12 0
    1987 5 1987.375 351.84 351.84 0
    1987 6 1987.458 351.45 351.49 0.04
    1987 7 1987.542 349.77 349.82 0.05
    1987 8 1987.625 347.62 347.63 0.01
    1987 9 1987.708 346.37 346.38 0.01
    1987 10 1987.792 346.48 346.49 0.01
    1987 11 1987.875 347.8 347.75 -0.05
    1987 12 1987.958 349.03 349.03 0
    1988 1 1988.042 350.23 350.2 -0.03
    1988 2 1988.125 351.58 351.61 0.03
    1988 3 1988.208 352.22 352.22 0
    1988 4 1988.292 353.53 353.53 0
    1988 5 1988.375 354.14 354.14 0
    1988 6 1988.458 353.64 353.62 -0.02
    1988 7 1988.542 352.53 352.53 0
    1988 8 1988.625 350.42 350.41 -0.01
    1988 9 1988.708 348.84 348.84 0
    1988 10 1988.792 348.94 348.94 0
    1988 11 1988.875 349.99 350.04 0.05
    1988 12 1988.958 351.29 351.29 0
    1989 1 1989.042 352.72 352.72 0
    1989 2 1989.125 353.1 353.1 0
    1989 3 1989.208 353.64 353.65 0.01
    1989 4 1989.292 355.43 355.43 0
    1989 5 1989.375 355.7 355.7 0
    1989 6 1989.458 355.11 355.11 0
    1989 7 1989.542 353.79 353.79 0
    1989 8 1989.625 351.42 351.42 0
    1989 9 1989.708 349.83 349.81 -0.02
    1989 10 1989.792 350.1 350.11 0.01
    1989 11 1989.875 351.26 351.26 0
    1989 12 1989.958 352.66 352.63 -0.03
    1990 1 1990.042 353.63 353.64 0.01
    1990 2 1990.125 354.72 354.72 0
    1990 3 1990.208 355.49 355.49 0
    1990 4 1990.292 356.1 356.09 -0.01
    1990 5 1990.375 357.08 357.08 0
    1990 6 1990.458 356.11 356.11 0
    1990 7 1990.542 354.67 354.7 0.03
    1990 8 1990.625 352.67 352.68 0.01
    1990 9 1990.708 351.05 351.05 0
    1990 10 1990.792 351.36 351.36 0
    1990 11 1990.875 352.81 352.81 0
    1990 12 1990.958 354.21 354.22 0.01
    1991 1 1991.042 354.87 354.85 -0.02
    1991 2 1991.125 355.67 355.67 0
    1991 3 1991.208 357 357.04 0.04
    1991 4 1991.292 358.4 358.4 0
    1991 5 1991.375 359 359 0
    1991 6 1991.458 357.99 357.99 0
    1991 7 1991.542 355.96 356 0.04
    1991 8 1991.625 353.78 353.78 0
    1991 9 1991.708 352.2 352.2 0
    1991 10 1991.792 352.22 352.22 0
    1991 11 1991.875 353.7 353.7 0
    1991 12 1991.958 354.98 354.98 0
    1992 1 1992.042 356.08 356.09 0.01
    1992 2 1992.125 356.84 356.85 0.01
    1992 3 1992.208 357.73 357.73 0
    1992 4 1992.292 358.91 358.91 0
    1992 5 1992.375 359.45 359.45 0
    1992 6 1992.458 359.19 359.19 0
    1992 7 1992.542 356.72 356.72 0
    1992 8 1992.625 354.77 354.79 0.02
    1992 9 1992.708 352.8 352.79 -0.01
    1992 10 1992.792 353.21 353.2 -0.01
    1992 11 1992.875 354.15 354.15 0
    1992 12 1992.958 355.39 355.39 0
    1993 1 1993.042 356.76 356.77 0.01
    1993 2 1993.125 357.17 357.17 0
    1993 3 1993.208 358.26 358.26 0
    1993 4 1993.292 359.17 359.17 0
    1993 5 1993.375 360.07 360.07 0
    1993 6 1993.458 359.41 359.41 0
    1993 7 1993.542 357.36 357.44 0.08
    1993 8 1993.625 355.29 355.3 0.01
    1993 9 1993.708 353.96 353.87 -0.09
    1993 10 1993.792 354.03 354.04 0.01
    1993 11 1993.875 355.27 355.27 0
    1993 12 1993.958 356.7 356.7 0
    1994 1 1994.042 358.05 357.99 -0.06
    1994 2 1994.125 358.8 358.81 0.01
    1994 3 1994.208 359.67 359.68 0.01
    1994 4 1994.292 361.13 361.13 0
    1994 5 1994.375 361.48 361.48 0
    1994 6 1994.458 360.6 360.6 0
    1994 7 1994.542 359.2 359.2 0
    1994 8 1994.625 357.23 357.23 0
    1994 9 1994.708 355.42 355.42 0
    1994 10 1994.792 355.89 355.89 0
    1994 11 1994.875 357.41 357.41 0
    1994 12 1994.958 358.74 358.74 0
    1995 1 1995.042 359.73 359.73 0
    1995 2 1995.125 360.61 360.61 0
    1995 3 1995.208 361.6 361.58 -0.02
    1995 4 1995.292 363.05 363.05 0
    1995 5 1995.375 363.62 363.62 0
    1995 6 1995.458 363.03 363.03 0
    1995 7 1995.542 361.55 361.55 0
    1995 8 1995.625 358.94 358.94 0
    1995 9 1995.708 357.93 357.93 0
    1995 10 1995.792 357.8 357.8 0
    1995 11 1995.875 359.22 359.22 0
    1995 12 1995.958 360.42 360.44 0.02
    1996 1 1996.042 361.83 361.83 0
    1996 2 1996.125 362.94 362.95 0.01
    1996 3 1996.208 363.91 363.91 0
    1996 4 1996.292 364.28 364.28 0
    1996 5 1996.375 364.93 364.93 0
    1996 6 1996.458 364.7 364.7 0
    1996 7 1996.542 363.31 363.31 0
    1996 8 1996.625 361.15 361.15 0
    1996 9 1996.708 359.41 359.39 -0.02
    1996 10 1996.792 359.34 359.34 0
    1996 11 1996.875 360.62 360.62 0
    1996 12 1996.958 361.96 361.96 0
    1997 1 1997.042 362.81 362.81 0
    1997 2 1997.125 363.87 363.87 0
    1997 3 1997.208 364.25 364.25 0
    1997 4 1997.292 366.02 366.02 0
    1997 5 1997.375 366.47 366.46 -0.01
    1997 6 1997.458 365.36 365.32 -0.04
    1997 7 1997.542 364.1 364.08 -0.02
    1997 8 1997.625 361.89 361.95 0.06
    1997 9 1997.708 360.05 360.06 0.01
    1997 10 1997.792 360.49 360.49 0
    1997 11 1997.875 362.21 362.19 -0.02
    1997 12 1997.958 364.12 364.12 0
    1998 1 1998.042 365 364.99 -0.01
    1998 2 1998.125 365.82 365.82 0
    1998 3 1998.208 366.95 366.95 0
    1998 4 1998.292 368.42 368.42 0
    1998 5 1998.375 369.33 369.33 0
    1998 6 1998.458 368.78 368.78 0
    1998 7 1998.542 367.59 367.59 0
    1998 8 1998.625 365.81 365.84 0.03
    1998 9 1998.708 363.83 363.83 0
    1998 10 1998.792 364.18 364.18 0
    1998 11 1998.875 365.36 365.34 -0.02
    1998 12 1998.958 366.87 366.93 0.06
    1999 1 1999.042 367.97 367.94 -0.03
    1999 2 1999.125 368.83 368.82 -0.01
    1999 3 1999.208 369.46 369.46 0
    1999 4 1999.292 370.77 370.77 0
    1999 5 1999.375 370.66 370.66 0
    1999 6 1999.458 370.1 370.1 0
    1999 7 1999.542 369.1 369.08 -0.02
    1999 8 1999.625 366.7 366.66 -0.04
    1999 9 1999.708 364.61 364.6 -0.01
    1999 10 1999.792 365.17 365.17 0
    1999 11 1999.875 366.51 366.51 0
    1999 12 1999.958 367.86 367.89 0.03
    2000 1 2000.042 369.07 369.04 -0.03
    2000 2 2000.125 369.32 369.35 0.03
    2000 3 2000.208 370.38 370.38 0
    2000 4 2000.292 371.63 371.63 0
    2000 5 2000.375 371.32 371.32 0
    2000 6 2000.458 371.51 371.53 0.02
    2000 7 2000.542 369.69 369.75 0.06
    2000 8 2000.625 368.18 368.23 0.05
    2000 9 2000.708 366.87 366.87 0
    2000 10 2000.792 366.94 366.94 0
    2000 11 2000.875 368.27 368.27 0
    2000 12 2000.958 369.62 369.64 0.02
    2001 1 2001.042 370.47 370.46 -0.01
    2001 2 2001.125 371.44 371.44 0
    2001 3 2001.208 372.39 372.37 -0.02
    2001 4 2001.292 373.32 373.32 0
    2001 5 2001.375 373.77 373.77 0
    2001 6 2001.458 373.13 373.09 -0.04
    2001 7 2001.542 371.51 371.51 0
    2001 8 2001.625 369.59 369.55 -0.04
    2001 9 2001.708 368.12 368.12 0
    2001 10 2001.792 368.38 368.38 0
    2001 11 2001.875 369.64 369.66 0.02
    2001 12 2001.958 371.11 371.11 0
    2002 1 2002.042 372.38 372.36 -0.02
    2002 2 2002.125 373.08 373.09 0.01
    2002 3 2002.208 373.87 373.81 -0.06
    2002 4 2002.292 374.93 374.93 0
    2002 5 2002.375 375.58 375.58 0
    2002 6 2002.458 375.44 375.44 0
    2002 7 2002.542 373.91 373.86 -0.05
    2002 8 2002.625 371.77 371.77 0
    2002 9 2002.708 370.72 370.73 0.01
    2002 10 2002.792 370.5 370.5 0
    2002 11 2002.875 372.19 372.19 0
    2002 12 2002.958 373.71 373.7 -0.01
    2003 1 2003.042 374.92 374.92 0
    2003 2 2003.125 375.63 375.62 -0.01
    2003 3 2003.208 376.51 376.51 0
    2003 4 2003.292 377.75 377.75 0
    2003 5 2003.375 378.54 378.54 0
    2003 6 2003.458 378.21 378.2 -0.01
    2003 7 2003.542 376.65 376.68 0.03
    2003 8 2003.625 374.28 374.43 0.15
    2003 9 2003.708 373.12 373.11 -0.01
    2003 10 2003.792 373.1 373.1 0
    2003 11 2003.875 374.67 374.77 0.1
    2003 12 2003.958 375.97 375.97 0
    2004 1 2004.042 377.03 377.03 0
    2004 2 2004.125 377.87 377.87 0
    2004 3 2004.208 378.88 378.88 0
    2004 4 2004.292 380.42 380.42 0
    2004 5 2004.375 380.62 380.62 0
    2004 6 2004.458 379.66 379.71 0.05
    2004 7 2004.542 377.48 377.43 -0.05
    2004 8 2004.625 376.07 376.32 0.25
    2004 9 2004.708 374.1 374.19 0.09
    2004 10 2004.792 374.47 374.47 0
    2004 11 2004.875 376.15 376.15 0
    2004 12 2004.958 377.51 377.51 0
    2005 1 2005.042 378.43 378.43 0
    2005 2 2005.125 379.7 379.7 0
    2005 3 2005.208 380.91 380.92 0.01
    2005 4 2005.292 382.2 382.18 -0.02
    2005 5 2005.375 382.45 382.45 0
    2005 6 2005.458 382.14 382.14 0
    2005 7 2005.542 380.6 380.6 0
    2005 8 2005.625 378.6 378.64 0.04
    2005 9 2005.708 376.72 376.73 0.01
    2005 10 2005.792 376.98 376.84 -0.14
    2005 11 2005.875 378.29 378.29 0
    2005 12 2005.958 380.07 380.06 -0.01
    2006 1 2006.042 381.36 381.4 0.04
    2006 2 2006.125 382.19 382.2 0.01
    2006 3 2006.208 382.65 382.66 0.01
    2006 4 2006.292 384.65 384.69 0.04
    2006 5 2006.375 384.94 384.94 0
    2006 6 2006.458 384.01 384.01 0
    2006 7 2006.542 382.15 382.14 -0.01
    2006 8 2006.625 380.33 380.31 -0.02
    2006 9 2006.708 378.81 378.81 0
    2006 10 2006.792 379.06 379.03 -0.03
    2006 11 2006.875 380.17 380.17 0
    2006 12 2006.958 381.85 381.85 0
    2007 1 2007.042 382.91 382.94 0.03
    2007 2 2007.125 383.87 383.86 -0.01
    2007 3 2007.208 384.51 384.49 -0.02
    2007 4 2007.292 386.38 386.37 -0.01
    2007 5 2007.375 386.54 386.54 0
    2007 6 2007.458 385.98 385.98 0
    2007 7 2007.542 384.35 384.35 0
    2007 8 2007.625 381.85 381.85 0
    2007 9 2007.708 380.73 380.74 0.01
    2007 10 2007.792 381.15 381.15 0
    2007 11 2007.875 382.38 382.38 0
    2007 12 2007.958 383.9 383.94 0.04
    2008 1 2008.042 385.37 385.35 -0.02
    2008 2 2008.125 385.69 385.7 0.01
    2008 3 2008.208 385.94 385.92 -0.02
    2008 4 2008.292 387.21 387.21 0
    2008 5 2008.375 388.47 388.48 0.01
    2008 6 2008.458 387.87 387.99 0.12
    2008 7 2008.542 385.6 384.93 -0.67

  91. Dee Norris & Walter Dnes:

    Great find, you two. First, what that annual change in CO2 doesn’t correlate well with:

    The annual change in CO2 does NOT correlate well with the SST anomalies of the Pacific surrounding Mauna Loa, but it’s not terrible:

    The annual change in CO2 does NOT correlate well with the North Pacific SST anomalies:

    But the annual change in CO2 does correlate well with the NINO3.4 SST anomalies:

    It diverges between 1988 and 1994, but other than that, the correlation is great. I’ll try some other NINO3.4 data sets to see if it’s that version, but I’ll to it tomorrow.

  92. @randomengineer

    Fossil fuel combustion is just one part of the total human CO2 contribution. There is also land use and cement manufacturing to consider. My understanding is that cement manufacturing is the largest contributor.

  93. The first number adjusted is May 1974. I’m wondering what possible reason these months are being adjusted to parts per hundred million? Can anyone understand the effect of these adjustments? Other than the July 2008, of course.
    So much for adjustments only going back one year. I wonder if there is a record somewhere of every time these wholesale adjustments have been made?
    I guess that these adjustments are made to smooth and lend credence to the well-mixed story.
    Thirty-four years… hmmm…
    The hansenization of every record imaginable. The internet, the new tool of thi brave new climate gulag.
    Mike Bryant

  94. Come on, everyone knows that the reduced driving since gas has went to $4 a gallon has turned this CO2 level and global warming has reversed! “rolling eyes”

  95. I did a quick plot of the differences between the old and new means.

    http://tinyurl.com/6qb3sg

    Other than July 2008, the change seems to radiate out from 1994, each oscillation growing larger as time progresses in either direction.

    I look forward to NOAA explaining the justification for this sort of adjustment.

  96. “Who is John Galt?”

    (Statepoet gets the ref. I’m sure it would light up google.)

    I might add:

    “Brother, you asked for it!”

    from the same ref.

  97. If CO2 is down because people are driving less does that mean were done, no more carbon mitigation needed? And as a side note do we get to skip paying for our carbon footprint in future reincarnations?

  98. Lucy: Check out the glossary page on the top row of the blog. Lots of acronyms.

    While you’re at it, check out the resource page (to which I contributed heavily).

  99. Question for those in the know: How exactly does rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere lead to greater oceanic acidification? This would seem to be a negative effect of higher CO2 levels even though land-based plants benefit. The AGW crowd is always harping on the acidification of the oceans angle but I’ve never heard it discussed here.

  100. “Concerning ocean cooling and stagnant sea level, this has to translate into an increase in the earth’s rotational speed.” “Concerning ocean cooling and stagnant sea level, this has to translate into an increase in the earth’s rotational speed.”

    That’s great like we need the days to pass any faster.

  101. Bob Tisdale, Is it just late or does the chart that shows CO2 does correlate with NINO3.4 SST anomalies also show that CO2 change follows temp. change? It looks so to me.

  102. Dee Norris (18:26:45) :

    LOL… The July CO2 was just adjusted upwards! It is now 385.60.

    Urch!?

    I hereby retract a comment I made this morning:

    Give them credit for adjustment rules that don’t affect the entire history ala GISS.

    I think I’ll go count sunspots. I might be able to come up with a number everyone can agree with.

  103. James Hansen as Dr. Robert Stadler?

    Pity the Angelina Jolie (Dagny Taggart) movie (Atlas Shrugged) has no room for him; could keep the boy busy and not out getting into mischief.

  104. I just took another look at the Mauna Loa site and the graph has clearly been changed to match the “new” data, while the montly data at the ftp site is still the “old” data. This is as of 12:33 am Tuesday August 5th. Can anyone explain what is going on?

    REPLY: see new post on main page of the blog – Anthony

  105. Pingback: Mauna Loa CO2 January to July Trend Goes Negative First Time in History « Damon Tucker’s Weblog

  106. James Hansen as Dr. Robert Stadler?

    Heh!

    (Stadler was Einstein, of course.)

    There are other parallels one might draw, of course . . .

  107. Dave Gresh, when CO2 dissolves in water it forms a weak acid – carbonic acid. More CO2 in the atmosphere results in more dissolved in water and the oceans and hence ‘acidification’.

    While the term acidification is technically correct for the process, it leads people to think the oceans are getting more acidic, which isn’t true. Oceans are alkaline and increases in CO2 and hence carbonic acid results in the oceans getting a little less alkaline, but still a long way from being acidic.

    It’s a bit more complex than that when you consider ocean temperatures. Warmer temperatures cause less dissolved CO2/carbonic acid and more alkaline ocean.

    As with temperatures and CO2, it’s far from clear that more CO2 AND warmer temperatures result in ocean acidification. The claimed effect to date is tiny and isn’t based on actual measurements (despite what wikipedia says).

  108. “How exactly does rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere lead to greater oceanic acidification?”

    When CO2 dissolves in water it forms carbonic acid.

    “This would seem to be a negative effect of higher CO2 levels even though land-based plants benefit.”

    Why would it be a negative? How do you know that? Most sea animals evolved when CO2 was much higher than it is now. Corals, for example, evolved when there was about 7000ppm CO2 in the atmosphere compared to less than 400ppm now. The CO2 levels we are talking about now were seen before relatively recently in the geological past and the seas were teaming with life.

    “The AGW crowd is always harping on the acidification of the oceans angle”

    Yup, they grab for any lever they can find to scare people into adopting their agenda with absolutely no proof whatsoever that it will hurt a thing. People hear “acidic” and think battery acid or something. That is why they say it, to scare people into adopting their agenda. And then when you ask for proof, they hand you some computer model that someone made up in a lab. Well, I can probably model a perpetual motion weapon that scares away three-headed dinosaurs but that doesn’t mean it will ever come to pass.

    Ask them to show you proof that there was any negative impact to sea life when the atmospheric CO2 levels were double today’s levels in the past. Their answer is generally along the lines of asking for proof that increased CO2 won’t do harm. But it is impossible to prove a negative. You can’t prove that something can’t happen, you can only prove what does happen. The answer to their question is in the geological record.

  109. Pingback: One day later: Mauna Loa CO2 graph changes, data doesn’t « Watts Up With That?

  110. Josh,

    Nice work… Glad it’s WFT has been useful for you. The temperature/CO2 relationship was one of the first things I used it for myself – see one of the examples:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/isolate:60/mean:12/scale:0.2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/isolate:60/mean:12/from:1958

    You can do the same thing with FFT:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/detrend:70/fourier/high-pass:10/low-pass:25/inverse-fourier/scale:0.2/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1958/fourier/high-pass:10/low-pass:25/inverse-fourier

    But please note – both in this and yours – that the magnitude of the temperature-related change is pretty tiny compared to the overall increase and even the annual variation. This is evidence of a positive feedback, but it’s a weak one.

    I posted some more thoughts about this back in June:

    https://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/warming-on-11-year-hiatus/#comment-20296

    Dee: I got your mail, sorry I’ve been a bit busy with my Real Job lately, and I can’t promise to add anything new in the short term.

  111. My model states that it’s very likely the response of Peter Tans to big oil shills who dare to question the “adjustments” would be “piss off” (some simulations lead to “likely” outcomes like the-dog-ate-my-last-month-files and have been rejected by the BS Kalman filter).

    Trust my model, yesterday, it correctly predicted some CO2 revisionism “adjustments”.

  112. I provide these comments in hope of producing clarity and interest.

    Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration changes are observed to follow global temperature changes at all time scales. But the CO2 and the temperature do not correlate. And people often confuse coherence and correlation.

    Coherence indicates that when one thing changes the other also changes (i.e. in this case each time that temperature rises then the atmospheric CO2 increases later, and each time that global temperature falls then the atmospheric CO2 reduces later).

    Correlation indicates that there is a statistical relationship between parameters (i.e. in this case a concentration of CO2 would indicate a global temperature according to the AGW hypothesis).

    There are several time scales that can be considered for assessment of coherence. At millennial time scales the CO2 changes follow temperature changes by ~800 years (as is indicated by the Vostock ice cores).

    Annual and monthly time scales are mentioned in postings of this discussion. Since 1990 it has been known that changes to atmospheric CO2 concentration follow changes to mean global temperature by months (the original study was Kuo, Lindberg & Thompson, Nature (1990)) and several other studies have since confirmed this (e.g. Callendar, Nature (1992)).

    The finding that global temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration cohere such that atmospheric CO2 concentration follows temperature by months indicates
    (a) that a change to the temperature induces a change to the CO2
    or
    (b) that changes to the temperature and CO2 are both induced by some other (unknown) parameter.

    But global temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration do not correlate and, therefore, the level of one is not determinate of the level of the other.

    Many things cohere but do not correlate. For example, leaves fall off trees soon after school children end their summer break each year. This is clear coherence. But the number of leaves that fall does not correlate to the number of school children who return to school.

    Coherence with absence of correlation is very suggestive of causation by some other (unknown) parameter. In the case of the children and the leaves, the time of year is the causative ‘other parameter’.

    The decadal time scale is not considered in the above discussion (although it is mentioned with reference to Beck’s data). In our 2005 paper
    (ref Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005)).

    I presented information from that paper at the Heartland Institute climate conference in New York, and an audio recording of that presentation can be found at the following URL as follows:
    http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/audio.cfm
    At the above URL scroll down to Tuesday 4 March, Session 8.45 – 10.15 am, Track 2 then clicking on Audio below my name. Also, my responses to questions can be heard by clicking on Audio after “Panel Q&A” at the bottom of that Session.

    I said then conclusions from our qualitative analysis of the carbon cycle (that induced our model studies) included:
    “The above qualitative considerations suggest the carbon cycle cannot be very sensitive to relatively small disturbances such as the present anthropogenic emissions of CO2. However, the system could be quite sensitive to temperature. So, our paper considered how the carbon cycle would be disturbed if – for some reason – the temperature of the atmosphere were to rise, as it almost certainly did between 1880 and 1940.”
    and
    “In the light of all the above considerations it would appear that the relatively large increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the twentieth century (some 30%) is likely to have been caused by the increased mean temperature that preceded it. The main cause may be desorption from the oceans. The observed time lag of half a century is not surprising. Assessment of this conclusion requires a quantitative model of the carbon cycle, but – as previously explained – such a model cannot be constructed because the rate constants are not known for mechanisms operating in the carbon cycle.”

    A valid criticism of this conclusion is that – if the conclusion is correct – then it suggests the fall in global temperature from ~1940 to 1970 should induce a fall in atmospheric CO2 concentration in the coming decade. The conclusion would be disproved if such a fall were not to occur.

    ‘One swallow does not make a Spring’ and the single data point that has caused this discussion may be an aberration. However, I think everybody will understand that I eagerly await future data to observe if this is – or is not – the start of a trend reversal in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

    Richard S Courtney

  113. Crosspatch,

    Thanks for the info. A recent Nat. Geographic special ‘Earth – The History’ detailed the imminent death of the world’s coral reafs due to higher acidic levels. I’ve been watching this very well produced special, but without exception there’s always part of each hour that is dedicated to some global warming fear.

  114. @Paul:
    It’s fairly easy to correlate ocean temp to the annual CO2 variation derivative, using (inverse) southern sea ice as a proxy:

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-s/from:1978/to:1983/offset:-12/scale:-1.3/mean:3/plot/esrl-co2/from:1978/to:1983/mean:3/derivative/scale:5

    (and of course this also coincides with the NH growing season, so you can’t say either necessarily dominates)

    @anybody:

    Is there a commonly-accepted explanation for the truncated peaks of the CO2 derivative?

  115. Many thanks to Mr Courtney (03:57:43). As the old saying goes I am none the wiser, but much better informed.

  116. I believe that inspecting monthly CO2 data will give us no reliable information on the upcoming CO2 drop down.
    In my presentation held at Bayreuth I have presented new data out of my historical CO2 data base concerning precise CO2 measurements on the Atlantic ocean (southern and northern since 1925 -1936 inclusive detailed investigation of the oceanographic parameters at that time ( temperature, salinity, pH, CO2 etc.)
    http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/bayreuth/Summary-bayreuth.pdf
    http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/bayreuth/bayreuth1e.htm

    Result: the Atlantic ocean was in a very similar state as today. The Arctic warming at that times was stronger than today showing 4 °C since 1918 to 1936 (60-80N) in average.
    Polyakov in 2004

    POLYAKOV, I. V. et al. Variability of the Intermediate Atlantic Water of the Arctic Ocean over the Last 100 Years, J O U R N A L O F C L I M A T E, VOL. 17, NO. 23, 2004

    http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~igor/research/pdf/polyakov.etal.2004.pdf
    brought evidence for a approx. 65 years (50-80) cycle of ocean currents ( and climate) with warm phases during the 20s and 30s (20th century) and today.
    My data show clearly that the high CO2 at that times (20s/30s) came from the atlantic ocean, especially from the area Greeland/Iceland/Spitsbergen. This is one of two global netto CO2 absorption areas. Mauna Loa lies near the pacific netto CO2 outgassing area. Therefore the going down of the CO2 curve will be seen later than at measuring sites more northern.
    The arctic warming in the 20s and 30s (20th century) was most extreme during winter times at Spitsbergen with >12°C heating (1918-1936). This has led to >364 ppm CO2 over sea surface at Spitsbergen in 1936 and the CO2 came from the sea showing for 1°C air temperature 25,25 ppm CO2 have degassed.
    The consequence is clear: the cause of high CO2 ist the sea in the 20s/302 and today by a strong heating of the CO2 absorption area in the polar sea. This hold more CO2 in the atmosphere. In the cold phases of this ocean current/climate cycle (~1900 and ~1965) more CO2 had been absorbed in the colder ocean.

    So my conclusion is: we have 65 year climate cycle (50-80 years according to Polyakov) showing warm ocean currents, high temperature and high CO2 in the warmer phase (1920-1940 and today) and cold ocean currents/temperature/ CO2 during its colder phase.
    CO2 lags temperature within a short time (<5 years according to my historical data) and we will see a CO2 dropping soon.
    As turned out in the Wilson paper the NAO and PDO clearly show the influence of the oceans .

    The ~800 years phase lag CO2/ Temperature ( as Richard Courtney mentioned) is the result of the erroneous methods in ice core analysis. Oceans react slowly but within years not centuries.

    Ernst Beck

  117. Mike Bryant, SteveK, Evan, thanks, my stupid not looking at the top of the blog before I wrote!

    More interesting and excellent posts here … thank you everyone…

  118. “If we drink good water, we can remove all of diseases over %80 (WHO)”. Alkaline water can sucsess this. Alkaline water flushes acidic metabolites and toxins from cellular level. Supplies health sustaining minerals such as Ca, K, Mg, Na to the body. Contains smaller water clusters (51KHz) that hydrates the body up to 3 times more effective than normal water. Facilitate nutrients and mineral absorptions efficiently. Promotes general well-bing by restoring the body.

  119. Pingback: Mauna Loa CO2 Record posts smallest yearly gain in its history « Watts Up With That?

Comments are closed.