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
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 |
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.


Click for larger.

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.
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’.
Ahem, this is obviously all caused by China reducing their emissions in just one area for the Olympics!!
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.
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.
Here is the globally averaged CO2 numbers up to March-April, 2008. Not quite the trendline as Mauna Loa.
(Chart up to April, 2008)
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html#global
(Data up to March, 2008)
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_gl.txt
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.
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.
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) :
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.
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
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.
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.
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
http://maia.usno.navy.mil/lplot1.gif
and
http://maia.usno.navy.mil/lplot2.gif
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.
Oh, and any word yet on July satellite temperature data?
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.
Bobby Lane (07:04:30) :
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.
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.
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 !!!!
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..?
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
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.
May did pop right up there, didn’t it? Wasn’t there a Volcano in Peru along about May?
Holy cow, Josh.
I’d like to see the same graph in 6 months.
[…] commented on Anthony Watt’s Anthony Watt’s post discussing July CO2 measured at Mauna Loa. True to form, Tamino modified the […]
@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?