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

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.

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.

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

“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.

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:
http://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.

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”.

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.

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

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

“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.