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
[…] incredible (counter-)discovery by Anthony Watts on CO2 measurements getting corrected upwards after having gone downwards “for the first time in … provides an opportunity for a non-exhaustive list (I may add links to each point next week) of all […]
Given the speed and complexity of the adjustments made to so much data the idea of a log of the changes made and how and why seems at the very least reasonable (prerequisite more like).
The importance of the Mauna Loa data to everyone makes the fact this is not already the case almost unbelievably “sloppy”….
As far as I’m aware the FULL Mauna Loa data is not avaliable, maybe, just maybe this episode, if it gets the attention it so rightly deserves, might just make this data set full release become a more realistic proposition.
Nirvana you might say, or should that be “contaminated with Vostock”…
Ahh well, I can dream.
Whatever happens in the longer term, (if the present trends continue) further changes are a racing certainty,
so I’d suggest this WILL run and run…..
“Hockey sticks”..
@Lucia
Commotions such this are often positive. I know the drop spurred me to investigate the rate of change in CO2 levels trying to check the validity of the July 2008 value. In doing so, I stumbled across the signals in the change in the rate of change (acceleration) CO2 level that seem to occur when the PDO is about to shift.
In my experience, that is how science really works. Someone discovers something and a bunch of people investigate it. During the investigation, new stuff is discovered. Repeat as needed.
@radar
I would take your bet. I think we are attributing Hansen-like behavior to a scientist who has given us no cause to do so. It is like there is a need to shoot the messenger cause we don’t like the message.
CO2 is going up. The Mauna Loa data is agnostic to the source of the CO2. Suppose CO2 does start decreasing and some shadowy figures diddle with the data to show a steady increase. That would be WONDERFUL! Think about it for a moment. Putting aside seasonal or other changing vegetative sinks, temperature leads CO2. So, temperature goes down before a CO2 decrease. Now if they fudge the CO2 data to show it high, but there is clear cooling, what does that do to AGWers’ notion that CO2 is driving Temperature?
If there is any fudging done, I would watch for changes that show a drop in CO2 preceding a drop in global temperature.
Or, fudge the GIS to mask any cooling trend while CO2 is still rising.
Minor nit but a pet peeve of mine … “dampening” … it should be “damping”. To dampen is to make something wet. To damp something (like a chimney damper) is to smooth out change.
“Damping:
Damping is dissipation of energy in an oscillating system. Limits maximum amplitude at isolator natural frequency.”
I can see how one would lurve a date
perhaps some hot tomato.
But Pam has throw me for a spin
she says she lurves raw data.
Jesus, what a madness around. The GW skepticism now also turned fanatic religion ?
RE: “…this measurement program is a bit informal. But that happens sometimes.”
A rather interesting discussion of climate science went on at CA a couple of months back. A charming, unflappable climate scientist argued that the whole field was much maligned by the martinets demanding rigid adherence to protocols and results. He said something similar, that the science was simply more “informal” than that. What he said resonated, but when I see something like this, with alterations being made ad hoc, it sure gives the impression of a bunch of people, shall we say, hopping around, looking for their lost shakers of salt?
With respect, Lucia, the argument is a seduction. There are too many policy makers now depending on such data, ready to throw money at something that may or may not be a problem.
I have been waiting patiently for this issue to resolve, and now much of it seems to be on the table.
At the moment what surprises me is that:
1) The methodology for processsing the raw data from Muana Loa does not seem to be well known/published. I had always assumed that the output WAS raw data.
2) The post-processing algorithm to ‘insert missing data’ does not seem to be well known/published either. I would have naively guessed that such missing data must be a common issue in long-term measurements of all kinds, and there would be a standard statistical technique available for dealing with it.
Having said that, the modifications do seem to bring the data closer to a straight line, so the aim does seem to be smoothing of some kind, rather than the introduction of bias. Whether or not the alteration of the data is valid, only a statistics specialist will be able to pronounce on.
This seems to be yet another justification for AW to go back to the base data and check that…
“…harmonics (sine, cosine with frequencies 1/year through 4/year) to describe the average seasonal cycle…”
Is this cycle used to decide what data is out of range and should not be accepted, thus different measurements over 30 years are now being accepted or rejected? Has anyone found other patterns or influences in the raw data?
Isn’t it more likely that the correction is to compensate for the changing wind patterns rather than a calibration of the equipment?
Based on the new seasonal adjusted Mauna Loa data for the first 7 months the yearly growth rate will fall dramatically this year to 1ppm/year.
This correlate rather well with the idea that the temperature is controlling the rate at which CO2 is added to the atmosphere.
Based on the last 30 years of satellite temperature anomaly data I estimate this years growrate of CO2 will be 1.2 +/-0.4ppm/year if the temperature stays around 0C anomaly for the rest of the year.
There is a pretty good chance that this year will have one of the 5-10 lowest growth rates in the last 30 years. At same time we burn coal and oil at a faster rate each year.
If am convinced that if the global temperature would drop another 0.3-0.5C the CO2 level would stop raising.
Well I hope to wake-up someday and just find out I have been dreaming.
Read this link It’s from a great site, and it put’s this whole issue I.E.
the state of science and research in the world today, were doomed!
I think I am just going to drink the kool-aid and jump on the bandwagon.
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=321&Itemid=1
BillP–
I think the point you are trying to make is this particular data collection assignment shouldn’t be informal. Given its importance and wide circulation, that may well be true.
I’m just observing that everything we are reading suggest some informality exists. That’s not the same as saying the informality is ideal under the circumstances.
@Jerker
A 1.0 ppm increase would also be the smallest January annual increase since 1997 (0.98 ppm increase). However it would still be within the variation of the annual change. Compare 1989/1990, 1996/1997, 1999/2000, 2004/2005 & 2006/2007 with 2008/Prediction.
Year CO2 Delta
1989 352.72 2.49
1990 353.63 0.91
1991 354.87 1.24
1992 356.08 1.21
1993 356.76 0.68
1994 358.05 1.29
1995 359.73 1.68
1996 361.83 2.1
1997 362.81 0.98
1998 365.00 2.19
1999 367.97 2.97
2000 369.07 1.1
2001 370.47 1.4
2002 372.38 1.91
2003 374.92 2.54
2004 377.03 2.11
2005 378.43 1.4
2006 381.36 2.93
2007 382.91 1.55
2008 385.37 2.46
Also see: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960./every:12/derivative
Swings of this size are not uncommon and appear to have a coherence to ENSO SST data.
IceFree: Based on the origin of the phrases, I think you have to jump on the bandwagon first.
You don’t need conspiracies or malicious intent to explain adjustments favouring one hypothesis. The phenomenon is called confirmation bias and is well known in the social sciences.
Also, scientists often claim to be engaged in “value-free” dispassionate enquiry, giving their prognostications special status as knowledge. Yet, you can see Dr Tan’s values sticking out like a, er, sore thumb.
The only solution to value-laded research and confirmation bias is to have competing hypotheses and falsifiable empirical tests. This is my big concern with climate science – the growing number of post-hoc explanations as to why the predictions were wrong. Just what is the predictive ability of the AGW hypothesis? What scientific puzzles has it solved?
If your theory is immune to data, it is not science.
Slightly off thread, but in Googling for Pieter Trans, I came across this article (in which he is mentioned):
http://www.ecostudies.org/press/Schlesinger_Science_13_June_2008.pdf
It is entitled: “Have Desert Researchers Discovered a Hidden Loop in the Carbon Cycle?”
I haven’t read about this anywhere else. Any comments?
I agree with Frank L. It’s like a “mistake” in a restaurant bill — 90% of the time the mistake favors the restaurant.
So.. we hear that all these data way back has been changed because of missing days being adjusted fore.
ok
And aerm..
1) it just happends, that the july 2008 for some reason has far bigger change than all other months?
2) So just when we see this huge decrease of CO2 rise, they had been working on an new adjustment procedure that covered all years back to 1974?
It must have been a surprice for themm that just when they had laid last hand on a procedure concerning missing days, WUPTI then by chance just came a month with more missing days than ever seen? Thats a coinsidence.
3) And so the story is also, that well funded Mauna Loa whos only challenge is to drive a CO2 meassurement device… in july 2008 they have been sitting watching their device not working without fixing it for 20 days??
Or is it realistic that they could not get a new one or fix the problem in 20 days?
ANYWAY: If Co2 levels are slowing down/decreasing and we are getting a colder wolrd, well, now Mauna Loa Has used the story of missing days, and they cant adjust the whole tendensy away in the coming years.
And YES it sounds fanatic to even considder if some alarmists are not laying all cards on the table. But who has created this enormous miscredit to alarmist data? They have certainly created this situation of low trust them selves.
I do not see how a conspiracy, but as a stupid move.
Until yesterday I thought that a large part of the increased CO2 concentration was anthropogenic.
Today I have doubts. And the only way to eliminate this would know the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere Mauna Loa (with the same equipment and two days of work, I have the problem). You will get the following result of the increased concentration of CO2 and increase the concentration of O2.
C + O2 > CO2 ( Imagine O2 up and CO2 up)
Ecotretas- um abraço em português.
best site = http://www.surfacestations.org
AnonyMoose: Thanks get the point, lol
lucia:
//That other changes were made suggests that this measurement program is a bit informal. But that happens sometimes. The degree of formality associated with measurements varies from program to program, and will often depend on the use of the data.//
This ends up being one of the central issues in the whole climate change discussion for me. The problem is that the degree of formality around the data is dependent largely on the originally intended use of the data, which in many cases now differs greatly from the actual use of the data.
The CO2 data, the historical temperature records, and the majority of the current temperature tracking data are being treated with a level of precision that is simply not supported by the actual data collection methods. And the resulting analysis is driving trillion dollar policy decisions that should not be based on data that was intended for far more pedestrian uses.
I certainly don’t see anything nefarious about this current data point correction, but it does seem illustrative of the larger problem.
The Australian CSIRO runs an atmosphere monitoring station at Cape Grim, Tasmania, in the path of the ‘roaring forties’. I have searched for results, but they seem to release only a ‘yearly’ figure, and the latest I could find was for 2005! If there was access to their daily measurements then we could compare them with the Mauna Loa results. Maybe this shows that the Mauna Loa people are braver than the Cape Grim ones! Of course, the CSIRO is a powerful advocate of AGW – with recent funding cuts they probably see it as an important income earner.
As usual, these corrections appear when the values seem lower than normal, not when they appear to be higher than normal. Higher than normal is “evidence for AGW”, not an indication that a correction might be needed.
I have a few questions that I’m afraid will not be answered.
How many times in the past have these adjustment algorithms been run?
How long has Dr. Pieter Tan been responsible for adjustments?
Did his predecessor instruct in the necessity of these wholesale adjustments?
Are there any records of previous adjustments?
Did Dr. Keeling initiate a protocol that required regular adjustments?
Would it be worthwhile to use the way way back machine to set up more blink comparators?
This may be slightly paranoiac, but still would be good to know the truth.
Thanks all have enjoyed every comment,
Mike Bryant