UPDATE: I received a reply tonight from Pieter Tans, who is the manager for the MLO data, it is another error in presenting the data, similar to what happened with GISS in October, a monthly data value was carried over. In this case, November to December. – Anthony
From: “Pieter Tans” <Pieter.Tans@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 7:24 PM
To: “Anthony Watts ” <awatts@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: Questions on currently posted 2008 MLO data
> Anthony,
>
> The posted December figure is an error. It will probably be fixed
> tomorrow. The error does not appear on my computer. Our web site is
> run by a separate server dedicated to communicate outside the firewall.
> At this moment I don’t know why it repeated the November value for December.
>
> Sorry about this mishap.
>
> Pieter Tans
The year end CO2 data for the Mauna Loa Observatory is out, and it shows that the trend of Co2 increase has slowed. This year saw the lowest increase in the annual mean growth rate ever in the Mauna Loa Co2 Record: 0.24 parts per million.
Whether this is real, a data error, or something else remains 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 pledged to make improvements to the process. They now have a change log, but there is no mention of the December 2008 data in it.
Here is the graph recently posted by MLO. Notice the two dips in 2008.
The blue line represents the mean value, while the red line is the monthly values. Note that the red line shows seasonal variance related to earth’s own processes that emit and absorb CO2. In the case of the 2008 value of 0.24 ppm/yr it comes on the heels of 2007’s strong year of 2.14 ppm/yr which by itself isn’t that remarkable, being only the seventh highest year in the record.
What is interesting though is the correlation of lower CO2 to a cooler 2008, suggesting that natural mechanisms, particularly the oceans, played a role in the the lower Co2 value for 2008. There are also other likely drivers of this change. For the layman reader, this is essentially the “soda pop effect”. As anyone knows, warm soda pop tends to ‘fizz’ vigorously, while cold soda pop is more tame. This is because colder water can absorb more Co2 than warmer water, and warmer water releases it more easily, especially when agitated. Lesson here, and citing from experience; don’t leave a 12 pack of Coke in your car on a hot summer day. 😉
Here is a graph of Carbon Dioxide solubility in water versus temperature:
Here is the entire annual mean growth rate MLO data set:
year ppm/yr
1959 0.95
1960 0.51
1961 0.95
1962 0.69
1963 0.73
1964 0.29
1965 0.98
1966 1.23
1967 0.75
1968 1.02
1969 1.34
1970 1.02
1971 0.82
1972 1.76
1973 1.18
1974 0.78
1975 1.10
1976 0.91
1977 2.09
1978 1.31
1979 1.68
1980 1.80
1981 1.43
1982 0.72
1983 2.16
1984 1.37
1985 1.24
1986 1.51
1987 2.33
1988 2.09
1989 1.27
1990 1.31
1991 1.02
1992 0.43
1993 1.35
1994 1.90
1995 1.98
1996 1.19
1997 1.96
1998 2.93
1999 0.94
2000 1.74
2001 1.59
2002 2.56
2003 2.25
2004 1.62
2005 2.53
2006 1.72
2007 2.14
2008 0.24
Here a copy of the CO2 values of the last three months:
| Month | Mean | Interpolated | Trend(seasonally corrected) |
| 2008 10 | 382.98 | 382.98 | 386.34 |
| 2008 11 | 384.11 | 384.11 | 386.19 |
| 2008 12 | 384.11 | 384.11 | 385.03 |
Source data from MLO is here
Note the identical months of November and December. It could be a GISS October2008 kind of carryover error, it could also be real. The global values for December 2008 are not yet out. Mauna Loa is only one of many CO2 reporting stations.
If the data is real, there is a dead stop in the monthly numbers, which results, when seasonally corrected, in a considerable decrease, not seen in previous Decembers through the entire record.
As MLO points out:
“The last year of data are still preliminary, pending recalibrations of reference gases and other quality control checks.”
As I previously mentioned, some reasons could be cooling of oceans. In particular the Pacific where we’ve had a La Nina event. See this guest post from Dr. Roy Spencer on how the oceans could be driving the observed Co2 changes. The other possibility is the global economic crisis. This has led to lowered consumption of fossil fuels, particularly gasoline, which saw a significant drop in miles driven this past year due to high prices and other economic uncertainties.
Most probably it is a combination of events or possibly an error. Stay tuned.
h/t to Werner Weber and many other people who notified me
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The oldest records used chemical means to measure CO2 percentage. I wonder has anyone done chemical measurement concurrent with the Mauna Loa series? There might be a calibration difference.
I am sure this is from a decline in Google searches in 2008. As Fox News reported, Google searches increase CO2 emissions. I wonder if we can get some data to compare. Perhaps people are now using Yahoo more often?
The November and December data is identical.
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt
REPLY: Yes I said that in the article. – Anthony
Climate 101 question from a layman: Does the annual drop in CO2 on this chart result from the winter cycle in the Southern Hemisphere (which has a far greater percentage of ocean surface than the NH)?
If so, this in itself shows the importance of the oceans in CO2 production.
it would be interesting to overlay el nino years on top of the co2 data. i suspect that many of the biggest increases would turn out to have come in el nino years.
I wonder how long it will take till the “correct” this erroneous figure.
morganovich (11:59:22) :
it would be interesting to overlay el nino years on top of the co2 data. i suspect that many of the biggest increases would turn out to have come in el nino years.
They do. Decreases in temp respond the same way. As this chart shows, CO2 growth changes pretty much instantly with temperature. No lag either as you can see (chart is time coherent). The 1998 El Nino shows up pretty dramatically with the CO2 growth rate, I’m sure others show up as well.
http://home.comcast.net/~naturalclimate/CO2_growth_vs_Temp.pdf
It’s obviously an error. In that it is totally obvious it is and I can’t believe you made a post about this.
REPLY: Errors in data presented for public consumption deserve vetting don’t you think? Or should we just ignore them? – Anthony
I suspect the figure will be adjusted / corrected in the near future. As it is I would love to write about it and work with it but will abstain until the final number is established. In the meantime I have added the data to my graph just to see how the visual looks.
http://penoflight.com/climatebuzz/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/CO2NewGraph1.jpg
How long before Algore claims “victory” in the battle against rising CO2 (which resulted in the latest decade of cooling which justifys more taxation and regulation).
The temperature has dropped and he needs an explanation……
Of course! We’ll simply post decreasing CO2 levels!
See, it’s working! We can manage the temperature of the Earth!
Can we expect anything less from the man that invented the Internet?
I think this curve will not be corrected in order to show a continuous good correlation with temperatures
If it turns out to be correct, the climate alarmists will no doubt try to pin it on the economic downturn. As usual, they’d be wrong, since our contribution of C02 is only a measely 3%. They would also be likely to say the decrease in C02 is what is causing the current cooling, which they’d be wrong about as well, of course, but these days, they seem willing to grasp at any straw, no matter how flimsy in a futile effort to keep the AGW myth alive.
oostpoortschool,
I opened your graph and laughed outloud…….frightened the dog at my feet.
Yes, that’s very dramatic. I believe that you’re correct and we’ll see an “adjustment”.
An interesting read on CO2 and how it gets measured or at least they think it’s CO2 they measure.
http://www.globalwarmingskeptics.info/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=585&p=4175#p4175
Sorry for the long link.
I’ll point out for Chad that the next lowest value:
1992 0.43
Occurred in the year after the Pinatubo eruption, which did in fact have a cooling effect of the planet.
See: http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1985%20MtPinatubo.gif
So with a cooler 2008, the 0.24 value remains a possibility as being real, or it could also be an error. We’ll find out in a day or two.
If it does turn out to be real, another possibility is that whatever caused the (unexplained) leveling off in the atmospheric CH4 ten years ago is now affect the CO2 concentration, the delay being due to the longer lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Based on previous reports regarding Pieter Tans, chances are better than 99:1 that the numbers are correct as reported. He seems fairly straight-forward, and I’m sure any correction will be in the direction of greater accuracy, rather than PC spin.
“Errors in data presented for public consumption deserve vetting don’t you think? Or should we just ignore them?”
Ignore them, they’ll be corrected within a week or two max anyway.
What are you using the data for that requires any urgency? If that website didn’t exist who would be the worse for it?
Perfection for the sake of perfection is actually a waste of time.
REPLY: Ah, OK the ol’ “close enough for government work” thinking makes it OK then if data is released for public consumption, and then fixed. Why not simply do it right the first time? I can think of lots of venues when this sort of sloppiness in posting data that others use would get people fired, cause product recalls, cause accidents, or get people killed. So why should climate science get a free pass for sloppiness? – Anthony
RE: Bruce Cobb (12:54:10) :
Your comments regarding an explanation from the Al Gore disciples is accurate. They would refer to the economic downturn, reduction in travel, etc. However, although it exists, the amount reduction is not consistent with the CO2 data. If that were the sole reason for variation then back in the 1980s (and before then) there would not have been any increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.
If I am not mistaken David Archibald flat-lined CO2 levels in one or more of his cooling predictions. I have leaned toward a reduction in increase if not indeed an decrease in atmospheric CO2 levels should the climate cools as much as I have submitted that it will.
At some point in the future man will be pleading for more CO2 in order to have, once again, robust and healthy crops. Man needs to prepare for adaptation to climate change regardless of the direction it takes. It is foolish to ignore the cooling potential which is not only real, but more likely than catastrophic warming.
To hansenize or not to hansenize, that is the question.
What are the odds that they would be identical in a month when there are normally very large incerases in concentration? Why, if you already knew this, would you go forward with the sensationalist Gore-like [snip] headline?
Cripes.
OT, but… interesting.
According to Pravda we’re entering an ice age:
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-0
…or if that doesn’t work here’s page 2:
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-1/
Good article. Keep it up Anthony, there always will be people who do not understand the significance of your posts.
Everything about Mauna Loa CO2 measurements is “hot” news.
In the mean time a new CO2 related article: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/01/co2_fairytales_in_global_warmi.html
I thought there was an 800 year or so lag between global temperature fluctuations and atmospheric CO2 concentrations as revealed in the Vostoc ice cores? It seems like an adjustment in atmospheric CO2 trends would take more time. Is that relatively quick correlation just because of the scale of the measurements? In other words small variations or changes of CO2 can correspond to quickly to temperatures changes (no global warming since 1998 and cooling since 2002) but larger CO2 changes take more time as the oceans warm, decelerate warming, or possibly in this case cool. I understand this is because of the capacity of water to store heat and the size and depth of the oceans. I don’t remember seeing what oceanic temperatures are doing and how this may relate.
Gripegut, I believe that while the CO2 uptake response by cooler oceans is extremely rapid, the response of the oceans to a cooler climate regime is likely much much slower, say on the order of 800 years? So when the Earth’s energy balance shifts, it could take 800 years to cool the oceans.
Lesson here, and citing from experience; don’t leave a 12 pack of Coke in your car on a hot summer day. 😉
Years ago, a friend of mine had a wine shop at Jantzen Beach. At least once every summer he had to deal with a customer who had purchased a bottle of champagne and left it in his car…