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
0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

149 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
statePoet1775
August 4, 2008 8:42 am

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.

Bill Marsh
August 4, 2008 8:46 am

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’.

KuhnKat
August 4, 2008 8:51 am

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

August 4, 2008 8:54 am

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.

KuhnKat
August 4, 2008 9:16 am

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.

Bill Illis
August 4, 2008 9:25 am

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

James
August 4, 2008 9:26 am

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.

EJ
August 4, 2008 10:35 am

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.

Editor
August 4, 2008 10:40 am

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.

Mark
August 4, 2008 10:44 am

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

crosspatch
August 4, 2008 10:46 am

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.

Mark
August 4, 2008 10:47 am

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.

JerryB
August 4, 2008 10:48 am

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.

crosspatch
August 4, 2008 10:48 am

Oh, and any word yet on July satellite temperature data?

richard111
August 4, 2008 10:54 am

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.

Editor
August 4, 2008 10:55 am

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.

Frank L/ Denmark
August 4, 2008 10:59 am

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.

Don Healy
August 4, 2008 11:00 am

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 !!!!

August 4, 2008 11:19 am

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..?

August 4, 2008 11:38 am

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

Leon Brozyna
August 4, 2008 11:45 am

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.

kum dollison
August 4, 2008 12:15 pm

May did pop right up there, didn’t it? Wasn’t there a Volcano in Peru along about May?

Robert Wood
August 4, 2008 12:23 pm

Holy cow, Josh.
I’d like to see the same graph in 6 months.

August 4, 2008 12:40 pm

[…] commented on Anthony Watt’s Anthony Watt’s post discussing July CO2 measured at Mauna Loa. True to form, Tamino modified the […]

August 4, 2008 12:47 pm


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.

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

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?