UPDATE: 08/07 2:PM PST MLO responds with improvements to the CO2 data reporting
Approximately 24 hours after I published my story on the January to July trend reversal of CO2 at Mauna Loa, the monthly mean graph that is displayed on the NOAA web page for Mauna Loa Observatory has changed. I’ve setup a blink comparator to show what has occurred:
For those who don’t know, a blink comparator is an animated GIF image with a 1 second delay consisting only of the two original images from NOAA MLO. Individual image URLS for: August 3rd ML CO2 graph | August 4th CO2 Graph
Now the there is no longer the dip I saw yesterday. Oddly the MLO CO2 dataset available by FTP still shows the timestamp from yesterday: File Creation: Sun Aug 3 02:55:42 2008, and the July monthly mean value is unchanged in it to reflect the change on the graph.
[UPDATE: a few minutes after I posted this entry, the data changed at the FTP site] here is the new data for 2008:
# decimal mean interpolated trend
# date (season corr)
2008 1 2008.042 385.37 385.37 385.18
2008 2 2008.125 385.69 385.69 384.77
2008 3 2008.208 385.94 385.94 384.50
2008 4 2008.292 387.21 387.21 384.46
2008 5 2008.375 388.47 388.47 385.46
2008 6 2008.458 387.87 387.87 385.51
2008 7 2008.542 385.60 385.60 385.25
and here is the 2008 data from Sunday, August 3rd:
2008 1 2008.042 385.35 385.35 385.11
2008 2 2008.125 385.70 385.70 384.85
2008 3 2008.208 385.92 385.92 384.38
2008 4 2008.292 387.21 387.21 384.59
2008 5 2008.375 388.48 388.48 385.33
2008 6 2008.458 387.99 387.99 385.76
2008 7 2008.542 384.93 384.93 384.54
Here is the MLO data file I saved yesterday (text converted to PDF) from their FTP site.
Here is the URL for the current data FTP:
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
I have put in a query to Pieter Tans, the contact listed in the data file, asking for an explanation and change log if one exists.
UPDATE 08/05 8:55AM PST I have received a response from MLO:
Anthony,
We appreciate your interest in the CO2 data. The reason was simply that
we had a problem with the equipment for the first half of July, with the
result that the earlier monthly average consisted of only the last 10
days. Since CO2 always goes down fast during July the monthly average
came out low. I have now changed the program to take this effect into
account, and adjusting back to the middle of the month using the
multi-year average seasonal cycle. This change also affected the entire
record because there are missing days here and there. The other
adjustments were minor, typically less than 0.1 ppm.
Best regards,
Pieter Tans
UPDATE 08/05 4:03PM PST
I have been in dialog with Dr. Tans at MLO through the day and I’m now satisfied as to what has occurred and why. Look for a follow-up post on the subject. – Anthony
UPDATE 08/06 3:00PM PST
A post-mortem of the Mauna Loa issue has been posted here:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/post-mortem-on-the-mauna-loa-co2-data-eruption/
– Anthony
A post-mortem of the Mauna Loa issue has been posted here:
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/08/06/post-mortem-on-the-mauna-loa-co2-data-eruption/
– Anthony
Peter and Mike,
Over the Mauna Loa (and South Pole and other stations) period of 50 years, we see a rather constant ratio of 56% of the emissions which accumulate in the atmosphere. The correlation is a near fit (0.99, R^2 0.9988). If we extend that with the period 1900-1960 (based on ice cores and firn CO2-in-air levels) the ratio doesn’t change much (53%) and the correlation is slightly less. See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/emissions.gif and
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1900_2004.jpg
That means that with zero emissions we have zero increase in the atmosphere too.
If we may calculate the trend (55% of the emissions) back into time, we end at about 290 ppmv, quite near the 280 ppmv measured in ice cores and firn (Law Dome) around 150 years ago. The increase of about 1°C since the Little Ice Age may be responsible for the 10 ppmv increase difference…
In the pre-industrial times there was a dynamic equilibrium between CO2 releases (mainly near the equator and rotting vegetation in fall-winter-spring) and CO2 absorption (mainly near the poles and from growing vegetation in spring-summer-fall). This equilibrium changed only with temperature: warmer means higher CO2 levels and opposite for cooling. The long-time ratio is about 8-10 ppmv/°C. If this equilibrium is disturbed by an extra source, then the equilibrium reacts in such a way that the disturbance – to a certain extent – is countered. The type of reaction we see (increased absorbance with increasing emissions) is typical for a simple first order process (like absorption of CO2 in the oceans probably is).
Niteowl and Ken,
The lag of 800 years is for large temperature events like an ice age – interglacial transition, it is several thousands of years for the interglacial to glacial transition. On very short time scales (seasonal, year-by-year) CO2 variability (around the trend) nowadays is about 3 ppmv/°C and lags only one to a few months.
Some time ago, there was a graph on the net (from AGW supporters) which showed the Law Dome CO2 data along some temperature data series of unknown origin. This showed a lag of about 50 years for CO2 after temperature. The temperature data and that graph disappeared from the Internet, but the Law Dome data still are available. A lag of 50 years for (relative) small changes of about 1°C (and 8 ppmv) between the MWP and the LIA seems not unreasonable.
Stan,
The Law Dome ice core CO2 data show a small increase (1 ppmv) around 1942, which may hide some larger differences (Law Dome has a 5 years average resolution). But 1 ppmv is within the error margin of the ice core measurements… Other ice cores have less resolution and don’t show such an increase. But I have no knowledge of a CO2 dip in atmospheric CO2 levels in 1940-1945, there were not much reliable direct measurements at that time, and most (land based, with local sources) measurements with chemical methods give a peak of even around 100 ppmv in 1942.
“There are a lot of arguments which point to humans as the source of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere (and the upper ocean layer), see …”:
I think you completely glossed over the point I made.
If human CO2 is x per year and atmospheric CO2 climbs at rate y, then if I add 7x CO2, and the rate of increase remains unchanged, I believe it would be a safe bet that the human added CO2 is a negligible contributor overall.
Imagine I have a swimming pool that is filling at a rate of one inch per hour from a fire hose and a garden hose. Now I add 6 more garden hoses and the water is still rising at one inch per hour. It is safe to conclude that the amount being added by the garden hoses is negligible compared to the fire hose. Now, if when I added the other 6 garden hoses the rate of increase went up measurably, I would conclude that my garden hoses were a significant impact to the total.
In the case of CO2, a 7 times increase in human emissions has not changed the rate of atmospheric increase one iota.
You may go on and on all you wish about sources of human emission and I will agree that human emissions have gone up but what nobody has shown is that human emissions have a significant impact in the total CO2 increase (how do you tell the difference between CO2 from coal burned in a power plant vs coal burned in a natural underground coal fire?) or that the increase in CO2 is the cause of anything detrimental. There is more sound evidence that CO2 increase is a result of warming than there is that CO2 is a cause of warming.
According to this article in The Smithsonian, the coal fires in China alone are equal to 1% of all fossil fuel emissions on the planet.
Another article in New Scientist from 2003 says:
“Estimates for the carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere from underground fires in China are equivalent to the emissions from all motor vehicles in the US,”
There are absolutely huge coal fires burning in India, Indonesia, and the US. If putting them out would save the equivalent of all the cars in the entire US, then lets do it! THAT is a CO2 reduction investment I can get behind. It not only reduces CO2 but it conserves energy resources for the future.
Crosspatch,
I don’t know where you have found the data which show that there is a constant increase of CO2. The increase is not linear, in average it is 56% of the accumulated emissions, that means that over the years, there is an increasing increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, in ratio with the emissions, which are increasing year by year too.
In 1960 (start of the Mauna Loa measurements), the emissions were around 2.5 GtC/yr the increase of CO2 was about 0.8 ppmv that year. In 2003 we had emissions around 7.3 GtC/yr, the increase in CO2 was 2.5 ppmv…
Of course, there are variations around the increase, caused by temperature variations (and precipitation), but in general, these level out after a few years, except if there is a permanent warming or a permanent cooling. From the long-term past we know that the increase/decrease of CO2 follows temperature changes with 8-10 ppmv/°C. Current, short-term variations (El Niño, Pinatubo) show about 3 ppmv/°C around the trend. Thus if you want to explain the 70 ppmv increase of the past 50 years, you need to warm the oceans with 7 to 23 °C…
That underground coal fires may be a huge source of CO2 is possible, should be stopped (if anyway possible). If that is only 1% of the total fossil fuel use, then the ratio of human CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere reduces to 55.5% of the emissions. Not a big deal. Again, if that has an important influence on temperature, that is an entire different question than the origin of the increase in the atmosphere.
But I have no knowledge of a CO2 dip in atmospheric CO2 levels in 1940-1945, there were not much reliable direct measurements at that time, and most (land based, with local sources) measurements with chemical methods give a peak of even around 100 ppmv in 1942.
Ferdinand,
Beck’s paper, based on chemical methods, contains the only graph I could find that shows a well-defined dip in the mid 40’s. Evan Jones and I did a considerable amount of research about the historical CO2 record earlier this year after reading the Beck paper. I thought I had all the graphs I came across showing the dip in the mid-40’s archived, but all I could find was this from an email to Evan in March:
Perhaps if Evan is monitoring this thread he has some active links archived.
I do concur with your earlier statement:
About the use of the Mauna Loa data: even if it is quite sure that humans are responsible for the increase in CO2, that doesn’t tell anything about the influence of the extra CO2 on temperature. That is where we differ from the AGW folks…
The Mauna Loa CO2 graps going back to 1960 show a steady increase in CO2 that does not at all match the change in human emissions at that time.
Here is a link to the graph from NOAA. The rate of increase has been basically stable over that time even though human created CO2 emissions have increased seven fold over that timeframe.
In other words, in 2007 we were emitting 7 times what we were emitting in 1960 and the annual increase now is just about the same as it was then. We have added seven garden hoses and the rate of water rise in the pool is unchanged.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo.png
“The rate of increase has been basically stable over that time even though human created CO2 emissions have increased seven fold over that timeframe.”
Yet the “global temperature” has fluctuated over periods longer than a year, the 60s -70s stands out. Would this not affect the level of “well mixed” CO2 enough to register on this graph? Or is it just a coincidence that fluctuating CO2 levels affected by varying temperature happen to match changes in emissions.
crosspatch,
a very powerful point you make. Thanks for patiently explaining it. Not everyone has steel trap minds.
“If putting them out would save the equivalent of all the cars in the entire US, then lets do it! THAT is a CO2 reduction investment I can get behind.” crosspatch
Maybe use CO2, that would be fighting CO2 with CO2. It is heavier than air. It might effectively sequester itself too and also would prevent future fires unless it leaked away. A lot of weasel words, to be sure.
Crosspatch,
Even the graph of Mauna Loa trends shows that the rate of increase in the 1960’s was smaller than in current times. It is not a straight line! If you go to the data themselves (see http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html#mlo ), you will see that the yearly increase in the 2000’s is about a threefold of the increase in the 1960’s. The same for the emissions: there is about a threefold increase of emissions between the 1960’s and the 2000’s.
In fact the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere follows the accumulated emissions in such a lockstep (56% of the emissions remain – as mass – in the atmosphere), that it is near impossible that this is due to any natural process. A natural process that follows the emissions with such an accuracy simply doesn’t exist. And temperature has a much worse correlation with increasing CO2 levels.
For the graphs see:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_acc_1900_2004.jpg
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1900_2004.jpg
Stan,
I had a lot of discussion with Beck about his historical data. Besides the accuracy, the main problem is that most measurements were taken at places with huge local sources/sinks. And there is not one series which continues (or repeated) measurements at the same place over a longer period. Thus his “trend” is the result of a mix of places with completely different local circumstances at different times.
Some better indication of pre-Mauna Loa CO2 data is from ice cores and firn. Law Dome has a quite high resolution (5 year averages) and even more interesting, there is an overlap of about 20 years between the ice core gas age and atmospheric CO2 data from the South Pole. This shows that the South Pole CO2 data and the ice core are in line with each other within the accuracy of the ice core measurements (+/- 1.2 ppmv). See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_sp_co2.jpg
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_co2.jpg
Two out of three Law Dome ice cores show a 1 ppmv peak around 1938 (sorry, remembered that it was around 1942). This may give a false impression of a dip around 1945, but it is within the error margin of the measurements…
Ferdinand Engelbeen
Flagging outliers is a part of quality control, as we are interested in more or less global averages and trends, not in local volcanic outgassing, local sugarcane field CO2 use or data from failing equipment. Local CO2 in vegetation (or volcanoes) may be of interest for biologists and scientists who want to study the carbon cycle in more detail, but there are better places to do that: midst the fields and/or forests, where some 400+ stations over the world are at work, or at the mouth of fumaroles…
Are there better places to measure atmospheric CO2 than the top of a large volcano? maybe the top of an “Alp”? Or a” rocky”? That’s like choosing to measure pollution near a motorway and claiming this measure is the norm for the rest of the countryside simply because the wind was blowing in the right direction for a safe measurement. Whilst we all understand the need for meaningful statistics and pristine curves question the validity of the data before it even reaches the QC stage. My guess is that measuring from ML is an exercise in proving that CO2is well mixed when comparisons are made with other stations in other regions.
To paraphrase Crosspatch, and quote Piers Corbin,
“if you “P” in a lake, does the level go up? The accurate answer is “yes” but can we measure it?“
Let alone the question of whether it is responsible for modern day warming.
Two out of three Law Dome ice cores show a 1 ppmv peak around 1938 (sorry, remembered that it was around 1942). This may give a false impression of a dip around 1945, but it is within the error margin of the measurements…
Thanks, Ferdinand.
Joy,
There are no ideal places to measure “global” CO2, but there are several places which may be deemed good. The best place in fact is the South Pole, far from vegetation and far above and far away from the only volcano in the (wide) neighbourhood. If it only was not so cold there… You may imagine the technical/personal difficulities one encounters in the Austral winter to take samples there.
So every place has its own specific problems. Barrow has low readings in summer when the wind is from land side (tundra), La Jolla also if the wind is from land side. Mauna Loa sometimes from fumaroles but more frequently in the afternoon from upwind conditions. Despite that, from the 8600 measurements per year (Mauna Loa), some 60% are good enough to give a profile of what happens with CO2 in the atmosphere.
The 10 base stations in use all are situated in or at the edge of oceans and/or at high altitude, where there is little variation due to vegetation and/or other local sources/sinks. After quality control, the remaining trends all are identical and all within 5 ppmv of each other. The difference is mainly from near surface to altitude and between the NH and SH. Maybe the highest parts of the Alps (Jungfraujoch) or one of the Rockies can be better, but the question is if it is necessary, because the existing stations do work good enough.
Since the Mauna Loa measurements started, CO2 levels increased with 20%, which is a little more than “P” in a lake. If all emissions should have remained in the atmosphere, the increase would have been 35%. Maybe there are other causes of the increase, but where have the emissions gone if not partly into the atmosphere, the rest into oceans and vegetation?
Again, admitting that we are the cause of the increase has nothing to do with admitting that CO2 has a huge influence on temperature, that are totally separated items.
Engelbeen (09:28:45) :
“So every place has its own specific problems. Barrow has low readings in summer when the wind is from land side (tundra), La Jolla also if the wind is from land side. Mauna Loa sometimes from fumaroles but more frequently in the afternoon from upwind conditions. Despite that, from the 8600 measurements per year (Mauna Loa), some 60% are good enough to give a profile of what happens with CO2 in the atmosphere.”
Its that part “good enough to produce a profile of what happens with CO2…” with which I have a problem. I still do not understand why 60 percent is good enough, but more importantly why are the other 40 percent not good enough. Why can we not have nearer 100 or 90 percent. The Alps and Rockies aren’t inaccessible. Since when was 40% failure rate good enough? How about the middle of the Sahara? More importantly, how does one know a good sample when one sees one? What are the criteria for rejection?
“The 10 base stations in use all are situated in or at the edge of oceans and/or at high altitude, where there is little variation due to vegetation and/or other local sources/sinks. After quality control, the remaining trends all are identical and all within 5 ppmv of each other.”
So the samples are chosen (by QC) that are within 5ppmv of each other? And this difference is 3 times the quantity that the CO2 has been said to rise on an annual basis? It sounds to me like the difference is far greater than 5ppmv if one allows all the data to be included. Hence my question as to why 60% is good enough.
The difference is mainly from near surface to altitude and between the NH and SH. Maybe the highest parts of the Alps (Jungfraujoch) or one of the Rockies can be better, but the question is if it is necessary, because the existing stations do work good enough.”
Again, “do work good enough” on whose authority? Who decided that this was good enough?
“Since the Mauna Loa measurements started, CO2 levels increased with 20%, which is a little more than “P” in a lake.”
But who determines that the 20% is from humans?
“If all emissions should have remained in the atmosphere, the increase would have been 35%. Maybe there are other causes of the increase, but where have the emissions gone if not partly into the atmosphere, the rest into oceans and vegetation?”
Why could not all of the emissions have gone into the oceans and the vegetation?
“Again, admitting that we are the cause of the…” it should be a matter of proof, not admission. I have never confused the issue of accuracy of atmospheric CO2 data with human accountability for the twentieth century’s modest warming trend. It is obvious that the latter statement can be falsified without the data accuracy being questioned. This is not an excuse to ignore the data accuracy.
I am grateful that you took the time to reply to my questions.
This graphic gives a clearer picture of what I believe is really going on. The change in atmospheric CO2 tracks in near lockstep with with the change in sea surface temperatures over that period.
Over this period we had positive PDO, ENSO, and NAO. As water warms, it outgasses CO2. As surface water warms up, it will dump excess CO2 into the atmosphere meaning that the resulting increase in CO2 is caused by the ocean warming and not the other way around. The rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 looks *nothing* like the rate of increase in human CO2 emissions but does look identical to the rate of increase of global SST.
To test that idea, lets have a look over the next few years as temperatures cool. We currently have a cold PDO, neutral ENSO, and cold NAO. Global SST should drop or possibly go negative. And as we have seen, the rate of CO2 increase has, in fact, declined even with the adjustment. As we watch it over the next 12 to 24 months, I fully expect it to continue to track with global SST anomaly.
Joy,
You should definitively read my page about several reasons why the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is largely from the emissions (there is a small addition due to the temperature increase 1900-2000, but that is reversing now):
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html
The mass balance is the ultimate proof of the contribution of humans to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. As long as more is emitted than there is increase, there is no net addition from nature. That not all emissions are absorbed by the oceans/vegetation is a matter of process equilibrium: one need a driving force to push CO2 from the atmosphere into the oceans(/vegetation), which is only possible if the pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere (pCO2atm) is higher than the average pCO2 of the oceans. Thus levels in the atmosphere must go up first. The higher the pressure difference, the more CO2 is absorbed.
With increasing emissions, the pressure difference will go up, but never will reach a level where all emissions are absorbed. If we should stop the increase and the emissions should stay at a certain level, then after some time, the pressure difference may increase to a value where as much CO2 is absorbed by the oceans as is emitted by humans. Thus a new equilibrium is reached. This is typical for a simple first order (physical absorption) process.
Another quite solid indication is the decline of 13C in the atmosphere and upper oceans. Vegetation can’t be the source of extra CO2 (and the cause of the decline), as the oxygen deficit points to more vegetation uptake than decay. The oceans can’t be the source of extra CO2, as that has a zero to positive impact on 13C levels, while we see a decline. Moreover, CO2 levels in the upper oceans increase too and the pH is declining.
Thus there is only one known source of the increase: human emissions…
My impression is that several skeptics don’t like the idea that we are responsible for the increase in the atmosphere, just because if that weren’t true, that would falsify the whole AGW theory…
The different stations all have QC for their own data, which rejects data for daily, monthly and yearly averages, based on objective criteria. Some are general: large spikes to either side (values outside 3 sigma of the previous series of values) and instrument malfunction (calibration with standard mixture outside the tolerance). Others are site specific: land side wind (Barrow, La Jolla), upslope wind (Mauna Loa), etc… Daily and monthly averages in the NH may differ 10-15 ppmv from SH averages, due to seasonal influences, yearly averages are all within 5 ppmv of each other.
Differences between subsequent measurements usually are within tenths of a ppmv, there is no QC adjustment or comparison with measurements of other stations other than that all use calibration mixtures which are calibrated to the same central standard. Thus while all stations show the same trends (and nearly the same increase each year compared to each other), there is a bias in the trends, where the SH stations lag the NH stations. This points to a CO2 source in the NH. The ITCZ forms a barrier which hinders the tranport of CO2 between the hemispheres. That is the reason that there is a current (and slightly growing) difference of about 5 ppmv in the SH trends vs. the NH trends.
Even if one includes all outliers, that doesn’t change the trend with more than a tenth of a ppmv. In fact, it is a luxury problem: there are so many good data that we may choose the best available. One can afford to reject any suspect data (for whatever reason), as that doesn’t affect the only thing we are interested in: the trend of CO2 in the atmosphere on longer term.
For the South Pole, we don’t have that luxury, as besides a brief continuous period, only biweekly flask samples are taken, which is enough to measure the trend. Even there one sees sometimes one flask from a triple with spikes of +50 ppmv, unexplainable…
Crosspatch,
Endersbee compares 12 month averages of CO2 with a moving 21 year average of SST. Sorry, but you can enhance any spurious correlation with techniques like that…
Further the graph shows a good correlation, because it compares temperature and CO2 levels where both go up in the period 1985-2008. If you include the period 1900-1985 (ocean cooling 1945-1975, CO2 up) the correlation is far worse…
See: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_emiss_increase.jpg
One need to compare yearly averages with yearly averages. The correlation then is far less, the causation in part right, but limited: some 3 ppmv/°C. That is based on the influence of temperature on the variation around the trend during the 1992 cooling (Pinatubo) and the 1998 warming (El Niño).
I’ve not read this entire thread, but it occurs to me that taking CO2 measurements on an active volcano that releases CO2 gas from various vents isn’t exactly the best place to take these readings, is it? Sort of like taking temperature measurements next to man made things like buildings that can influence the results.
[…] to be seen. As we’ve learned previously, the Mauna Loa record is not infallible and can be adjusted post facto. To MLO’s credit, they have been responsive to queries from myself and others, and have […]