Source: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html
Al Gore calls for a day of prayer and reflection, and bothering your neighbor:
So please, take this day and the milestone it represents to reflect on the fragility of our civilization and and the planetary ecosystem on which it depends. Rededicate yourself to the task of saving our future. Talk to your neighbors, call your legislator, let your voice be heard. We must take immediate action to solve this crisis. Not tomorrow, not next week, not next year. Now.
Scientific American laments the plants
This measurement is just the hourly average of CO2 levels high in the Hawaiian sky, but this family’s figures carry more weight than those made at other stations in the world as they have faithfully kept the longest record of atmospheric CO2. Arctic weather stations also hit the hourly 400 ppm mark last spring and this one. Regardless, the hourly levels at Mauna Loa will soon drop as spring kicks in across the northern hemisphere, trees budding forth an army of leaves hungrily sucking CO2 out of the sky.
…
In the coming year, Scientific American will run an occasional series, “400 ppm,” to examine what this invisible line in the sky means for the global climate, the planet and all the living things on it, including human civilization.
Sorry, we already beat you to it when it comes to summing up what it means:
Since the world hasn’t ended (just like what happened with Y2K) we can now go forward from here.
T-shirts saying “I survived 400 PPM” will be made available if there’s enough interest in comments.
UPDATE: T-shirts now available due to popular demand. See here:
Patrick says:
May 11, 2013 at 7:52 am
The question is, how much of the “HS” and temp change is a direct CAUSE of emissions of CO2 from human activities?
From the CO2 HS, some 90+ ppmv is directly the result of human emissions, some 8 ppmv may be from the increase in ocean temperatures since the LIA.
From the temperature HS, the reverse may apply: 90% natural and 10% from the extra CO2, but that is a wild guess, not better than the overblown “projections” from current climate models…
It’s true about the Guardian … you can see a huge number of posts (including mine) have been removed… never seen so many censured comments… any comment or interpretation of the facts becomes an instant “untruth”…
Such tactics usually backfire… fools
‘Please sir: I want some more HEAT!!’
‘MORE?? MORE??????????????’
Anthony, Anthony, never before has a boy wanted warmth!!
I’m sure there’s a musical in there somewhere. It’s just that Scrooge wasn’t probably a tax n spend global warmer, was he???
Yeah, that’s typical. Let some highly adjusted American station hit 400 ppm and the world goes crazy, but if some German site hits 570 ppm no one cares. As it did nearly 8 years ago…
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/wdcgg/cgi-bin/wdcgg/quick_plot.cgi?imagetype=png&dataid=200702142853
Bill Illis says:
May 11, 2013 at 7:53 am
Have you ever looked at the Greenland ice core CO2 estimates. Basically, they have been abandoned and are never really talked about because of the nonsense results (or let’s say unexpected results, some plus +300ppms etc).
All ice cores receive dust from their neighbourhood, including seasalt (chlorides, sulphates and carbonates). That is no problem for the Antarctic ice cores, as the carbonates don’t decompose at the neutral conditions and low temperatures at measurement time (and there is far less dust deposit in the inland Antarctic cores).
It is a problem in the Greenland ice core, where the nearby Icelandic volcanoes frequently give highly acid deposits at the summit. That causes in situ CO2 formation and more if the old method (now largely abandoned for CO2 measurements) of melting the sample under vacuum is applied at measuring time. With melting, CO2 levels even increased over time, the longer the test was done, as the reaction goes further and further…
Therefore the CO2 levels from the Greenland ice core aren’t used.
See e.g.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0889.47.issue4.6.x/abstract;jsessionid=AF91AE2541717EC6B3FEC4298102CC39.d03t02
Joel Heinrich says:
May 11, 2013 at 8:48 am
Yeah, that’s typical. Let some highly adjusted American station hit 400 ppm and the world goes crazy, but if some German site hits 570 ppm no one cares. As it did nearly 8 years ago…
The point is that station in the North of Germany is of not the slightest interest for “global” CO2 levels. Depending of wind and time of the day, you can measure any value between 200 and 600 ppmv. Simply because the measurements are too near sources and sinks and without much wind, not evenly mixed with the rest of the atmosphere. If you have tall towers, you will see that with height, the variability is reduced and above a few hundred meters, you will find “background” levels…
Joel Heinrich says:
May 11, 2013 at 8:48 am
Yeah, that’s typical. Let some highly adjusted American station hit 400 ppm and the world goes crazy,
on the top of an active volcano 🙂
sign me up for a tee, too!
Alex Avery
Without question the crazies are running amok….but…..what other re-directions will the left employ to take the heat off of the Obama administration’s troubles? Pay no attention to the foreign policy disasters at the department of State and the White House….look over here…Hey….You!!!!!
Myrrh says:
May 11, 2013 at 7:45 am
Myrrh, as I have repeatedly said, many of the data collected by the late Ernst Beck are completely worthless: the equivalent of measuring temperature mid winter in Siberia one day, months later on a hot asphalted roof on a hot summer day in Rome and some months later mid winter in Oslo and then concluding that there was a “global” peak in temperature.
Interesting are only the CO2 readings taken on seaships and coastal with wind from the oceans, which are all around the ice core values.
“Charles Keeling’s son continues to operate the Mauna Loa facility, and as Beck states “owns the monopoly of calibration of all CO2 measurements”. Since Keeling is a co-author of IPCC reports, the IPCC accepts that Mauna Lea is representative of global CO2 levels.”
The calibration gases are composed by NOAA (but Scripps still has their own calibrations) and tested in several labs over the world. “Global” CO2 levels are taken from different ground level stations, not including Mauna Loa…
Despite numerous 19th century air measurements showing +300 ppm CO2 levels, and despite the fact that many of the youngest ice cores showed higher than expected CO2 values and so were shifted forward 90-100 years from previously-established dates so that they would match the more elevated CO2 levels of 20th century air samples, the ice core record is today generally used to represent pre-1957 CO2 concentrations.
Please, stop that. Many of the old measurements were taken near huge sources and sinks and don’t represent global and not even local CO2 levels (as many were one or a few samples per day within extreme diurnal changes). When some of the early ice core drillings showes extreme values, they also showed contamination with drilling fluid, so not representative for “normal” CO2 levels in the ice core. And the “arbitrary shift” of ice core CO2 levels to match the Mauna Loa data is pure nonsense: there was no shift at all, but the late Jaworowski simply did read the wrong age column of the ice age, not the gas age. CO2 is measured in the bubbles, which in average are much younger than the surrounding ice.
And if you think that stomata data are any better than ice cores data (although stomata suffer from the same problems as the old chemical measurements: taken over land…), why is it that there is not the slightest hint of a peak in CO2 levels around 1942 in the stomata data (or in any other data series), where Beck’s main peak of 80 ppmv can be found?
Yikes 400 ppm! Now we will have to endure the AGW alarmists predicting that aerobic sporting events in track & field are going to suffer decreasing times because the poor athletes will not be getting sufficient oxygen in their lungs!
Ferdinand – There is no such critter as “well-mixed” global.
It’s all local and particular to the local conditions, which may include being brought in by winds because they have none much of their own, but all that means is carbon dioxide is being transported from A to B, the carbon dioxide such places get is from a different source. Our big wind systems do not cross hemispheres.
Keeling was the one claiing there was this mythical “well-mixed” background which he claimed could be measured from anywhere – so he could sit on top of the world’s biggest active volcano surrounded by volcanoes erupting and venting and thousands of earthquakes a year in warm seas over the great hot spot creating volcanic islands where he could choose how much or how little he included in his measurements.
Read how they measure. They first chuck out what they consider too high! They decide the year on year trend by cherry picking from the great volcanic output, which they don’t have a hope in hell of showing how much is man made in that, let alone in the mythical ‘background’ which he is picking up from local downwinds.
The claim is that this a pristine unpolluted by local carbon dioxide site, that they measure from some claimed carrying only “well-mixed background” high above it all trade wind – if that was the case they wouldn’t have to chuck out so much of their data..
Myrrh says:
May 11, 2013 at 10:50 am
Read how they measure. They first chuck out what they consider too high! They decide the year on year trend by cherry picking from the great volcanic output, which they don’t have a hope in hell of showing how much is man made in that, let alone in the mythical ‘background’ which he is picking up from local downwinds.
Please Myrrh, read what they really do at Mauna Loa:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
Nothing to do with cherry picking, but with throwing out the data which are clearly contaminated by downwind CO2 from volcanic vents and upwind depleted in CO2 from the valleys. All the data are still available and can be plotted for your convinience. It doesn’t matter if you include or exclude the contaminated data: the same yearly average and the same trend within 0.1 ppmv. Here are the data of four baseline stations (Barrow, Mauna Loa, Samoa and South Pole):
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/in-situ/
They have the luxury to throw out the contaminated data, simply because they have so many measurements: over 8000 hourly averaged raw data + stdv a year, while the changes are less than 8 ppmv over the seasons as is the case at Mauna Loa (less than 2 ppmv at the South Pole). Even if they took one sample every two weeks (in triplo to avoid sampling errors) as happened a few years at the South Pole, that would be sufficient to see the seasonal curve and to calculate the yearly average and trend.
The Mauna Loa and many other stations (over 70 “background”) all show the same trends over the years, even if some (like the South Pole) have very few outliers:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends.jpg
CO2 global distribution
http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2009/12/091215194218-large.jpg
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2013 at 11:20 am
CO2 global distribution
Indeed, with a scale from 382-390 ppmv, +/- 1% of full scale, while the seasonal changes add and remove +/- 20% of all CO2 of the atmosphere within a few months in each direction. Seems pretty well mixed to me…
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
Indeed, with a scale from 382-390 ppmv, +/- 1% of full scale, while the seasonal changes add and remove +/- 20% of all CO2 of the atmosphere within a few months in each direction. Seems pretty well mixed to me…
Agree, and that is a good reasons why the CO2 can’t be the reason for the North Hemisphere’s excess warming.
http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/GHCN-2011-SurfaceAnomaly_hr.jpg
It is the north. Atlantic that is the driver of the north Hemisphere’s temperature rise
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NA-NV.htm
Sub-marine tectonics/seismicity is the future science of climate change.
Have a good think about it ….N. hemisphere is cooling already ….
vukcevic says:
May 11, 2013 at 1:41 pm
Agree, and that is a good reasons why the CO2 can’t be the reason for the North Hemisphere’s excess warming.
Another reason why the climate models fail: about 90% of all human aerosol emissions are in the NH, thus most of the cooling effect of these aerosols should be in the Northern Hemisphere, but most of the warming (including the heat content of the oceans) is there…
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
May 11, 2013 at 11:17 am
Myrrh says:
May 11, 2013 at 10:50 am
Read how they measure. They first chuck out what they consider too high! They decide the year on year trend by cherry picking from the great volcanic output, which they don’t have a hope in hell of showing how much is man made in that, let alone in the mythical ‘background’ which he is picking up from local downwinds.
Please Myrrh, read what they really do at Mauna Loa:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
Nothing to do with cherry picking, but with throwing out the data which are clearly contaminated by downwind CO2 from volcanic vents and upwind depleted in CO2 from the valleys.
Which is what I said, the claim is that this is a pristine site, poster child pristine site, high up away from all local carbon dioxide production and “measuring pristine uncontaminated well-mixed background”, but all they’re measuring is still the volcanic, they cherry pick at what point they pretend it isn’t volcanic and then claim it is this pristine coming in from the trade winds uncontaminated by local – that’s a logic disjunct.
This is a simple magicians trick.
You, generic, get caught up in the scientific sounding explanation of how they measure and chuck out “volcanic contamination”, and get distracted from the fact that their claim is there is no contamination by local production..
All the data are still available and can be plotted for your convinience. It doesn’t matter if you include or exclude the contaminated data: the same yearly average and the same trend within 0.1 ppmv. Here are the data of four baseline stations (Barrow, Mauna Loa, Samoa and South Pole):
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/in-situ/
And why should I take any other measurements they make seriously? Keeling’s agenda was to show a rise, this is what he produced, by faking it. If he was really measuring pristine well mixed background coming in on trade wind uncontaminated by local production, they wouldn’t need to chuck anyone of it out. This isn’t science.
They have the luxury to throw out the contaminated data, simply because they have so many measurements:
They have the luxury to cherry pick out of all the huge volcanic production which can’t be told from man-made fossil fuel combustion.
They arbitrarily choose what they’ll call volcanic and what they’ll call “man made well mixed background”, and they don’t show any man made signature.
The Mauna Loa and many other stations (over 70 “background”) all show the same trends over the years, even if some (like the South Pole) have very few outliers:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends.jpg
Even after all the years Anthony’s blog has been recording all the temperature scams and much more, at the highest levels, like the Met finally admitting that there has been no temperature rise for 17 years while all that time it has lied and said the temps were catastrophically rising, you think because so many stations are involved that means they are independent?
First it was controlled by Keeling/Scripps and son, now it is globally co-ordinated at government level since it became lucrative/political. Whose agenda is the IPCC’s and that’s what we’ve got. The same ol’ same ol’ corruption of data here as we have with the temperature record and the constant fiddling with other records.
Here, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/jubany.html
Gosh, it’s the Keeling Curve based on data only from ’94..
Jubany is surrounded by volcanic activity ..
The Argentinians have been there since ’53 – where is their data?
And that magic moment of early 90’s when Salinger went to fake the NZ records and the IPCC changed the consensus conclusions of its contributing scientists which said in the ’95 report that no man made signature is discernible.
No man made signature is discernible so no trend rise possible to show and there is no “well-mixed background” anywhere, certainly not on top of the world’s biggest active volcano.
There’s just lots and lots of local environments producing or not and getting from outside or not, this could be averaged out if there was a true representative sample …, but even if that was possible that average would still not be “the well-mixed background” – when you read that an area gets 40 inches of rain a year you don’t think this means it gets 40 inches every day…, or in every part of that area.
Ferdinand Engelbeen
…………
Now you say :
CO2 emitted in the N. Hemisphere is globally well mixed.
Aerosols emitted in the N. Hemisphere globally are not well mixed, they stay there, hmmm … what happened to the CFCs and ozone hole in the Antarctic.
Most of heat content of the oceans is in the N. Hemisphere despite fact that it has only about 30% of the oceans in surface and less in volume.
That is a lot of nonsense and you know it.
I would love a T-shirt!
So we have 400 PPM, give or take. Okay… It’s Spring. It’s May. I’m freezing.
T-shirts now available due to popular demand. See here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/11/the-400-ppm-fud-factory-t-shirts-now-available/
It seems to me one problem with any cores taken from the antarctic ice cap is that the antarctic receives very little precipitation – less than a quarter inch equivalent rainfall annually. The process of trapping gas bubbles in the ice is dependent on the weight of snow above it rather than time. I would think this would temporally smear the the ice core CO2 data making it impossible to see fluctuations within some rather long time periods compared to Greenland ice cores where annual snowfall is much greater.
Additionally, I don’t think that it has been proven that the trapped bubbles are representative of the ancient composition of the atmosphere as the solubility of CO2 in water is radically different than is the solubility of nitrogen and oxygen. Any process that depletes CO2 relative to N2 and O2 during the conversion of firn to ice would also result in a hockey stick.
This must be why I’m hearing so many environmental leaders calling for the rapid deployment of Small Modular Reactors around the world and in China and India…chirp, chip, derp.
vukcevic says: May 10, 2013 at 12:02 pm
…End of the world December 21, 2012
The things you miss when you don’t have cable.
How did it turn out?