Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
Yesterday, in the press release Greenhouse gas benchmark reached, NOAA announced:
Global carbon dioxide concentrations surpass 400 parts per million for the first month since measurements began.
The press release begins:
For the first time since we began tracking carbon dioxide in the global atmosphere, the monthly global average concentration of this greenhouse gas surpassed 400 parts per million in March 2015, according to NOAA’s latest results.
“It was only a matter of time that we would average 400 parts per million globally,” said Pieter Tans, lead scientist of NOAA’s Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network. “We first reported 400 ppm when all of our Arctic sites reached that value in the spring of 2012. In 2013 the record at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory first crossed the 400 ppm threshold. Reaching 400 parts per million as a global average is a significant milestone.
After a few general discussions, the press release ends:
James Butler, director of NOAA’s Global Monitoring Division, added that it would be difficult to reverse the increases of greenhouse gases which are driving increased atmospheric temperatures. “Elimination of about 80 percent of fossil fuel emissions would essentially stop the rise in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but concentrations of carbon dioxide would not start decreasing until even further reductions are made and then it would only do so slowly.”
“…difficult to reverse…”? I’ll let you comment on that.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In my fictional world, atmospheric CO2 concentration pauses for about 15 years, and then declines, despite increasing fossil fuel usage. I amuse myself by imagining the scramble to explain it.
NO, no, no. Over 400 ppm for the first time since they started measurements as Mauna Loa, Hawaii. There have been measurements, direct chemical bottle CO2 measurements since 1810. Isn’t it great how you can slant a statement just by LEAVING OUT THE MOST SALIENT FACTS?
highley7,
Many of the historical measurements were taken at the wrong places: middle of towns, forests, agriculture,… completely worthless to know the real “background” CO2 levels of that time. Measurements taken over the oceans are around the ice core levels… See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
The accelerated modeled warming is incredible with 400ppmv, can’t you feel the incredible physical 7/100th of a degree acceleration ?
It snowed in Montana last night at several locations.
Global warming is therefore falsified.
Well “DUH”, …. I could have, ….at this time last year, …. told those brilliant people at NOAA that the above was going to happen.
And I can tell them something else, too, …. to wit:
The 2014 Maximum Atmospheric CO2 occurred in late May 2014 @ur momisugly 401.78 ppm …. after which it began it bi-yearly decrease.
The 2014 Minimum Atmospheric CO2 occurred at the end of September @ur momisugly 395.26 ppm …. after which it began it bi-yearly increase. ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
The Maximum Atmospheric CO2 for April 2015 was 403.26 ppm, … an 8 ppm ytd increase and still increasing.
The Maximum Atmospheric CO2 on May 02, 2015 was 403.78 ppm, … an 8.52 ppm ytd increase and still increasing.
The Maximum Atmospheric CO2 on May 05, 2015 was 403.95 ppm, … an 8.69 ppm ytd increase and still increasing. http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-Now/weekly-data-atmospheric-co2.html
Now, given the above, … plus the historical Mauna Loa Data Record, ….. I will make the prediction that …..
the 2015 Maximum Atmospheric CO2 will occur on May 19, 2015 @ur momisugly 404.35 ppm …. after which it will began it bi-yearly decrease. And will continue decreasing until the end of September 2015 ….. with a total decrease of approximately 6+- ppm.
Now, …. everyone is free to make their own prediction ……. or place their “bets” that my prediction is totally FUBAR, … whichever.
In reply to:
Ferdinand Engelbeen May 7, 2015 at 11:26 am
William,
I see what the problem is. I am assuming you are capable of solving scientific problems. Perhaps if you asked questions rather than provide your own incorrect answers we might make progress.
Salby analyzed to independent data sources. Salby’s two independent analysis support the same result, the same conclusion.
No less than 66% of the recent increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to natural sources. Salby’s calculation is correct.
You do not understand phase analysis which is the mathematical technique that Sably used to solve the problem.
The planet has started to cool in high latitude regions, due to abrupt change in the solar cycle.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/iphone/images/iphone.anomaly.global.png
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
When the lower latitude regions of the planet and the oceans in particular start to cool atmospheric CO2 will fall, lagging the drop in temperature by roughly a year.
The Bern model’s sinks and sources are not correct. Why is that so?
The Bern model assumes there is no mixing of the top 100 meters of the ocean with the deep ocean.
Accepting the fact that the top 750 meters of the ocean is currently warming (or do you dispute the heat is hiding in the ocean data?) we know the Bern model is not correct.
Your comment ignored the fact that heat is hiding in the ocean which invalidates the Bern model. You instead appeal to name calling to make up for your inability to use logic to support your attempt to cling to the cult of CAGW.
P.S. A scientific cult is the name Feynman gave to groups of scientists that cling to a theory/model that has been disproved by observations.
The anthropogenic 9 GctC/year are moving into a 7500 Gct sink rather into a 1000 Gct sink. That changes the calculation by a factor of 7.5. This explains why the nuclear testing C14 disappeared in 20 years rather than 1000 years if the Bern model was correct.
The concentration of CO2 in the top highly mixed 1000 Gct (100 meters of ocean) is replenished with deep water CO2.
Equilibrium when there is an increase or decrease in temperature of the 100 meter water column is reached when the CO2 content of the entire 750 meter column is reduced or increased for the new temperature.
Do you understand the practical implication of equilibrium for very, very, large reservoirs?
William,
Salby analyzed to independent data sources. Salby’s two independent analysis support the same result, the same conclusion.
You can’t deduce the cause of a trend by looking at the variability around the trend, if one input variable has a lot of variability and little trend and the other causes no detectable variability and has a huge trend.
And the 14C decay rate has nothing to do with the depth of the surface layer: it is the deep oceans which return after ~1000 years which makes that the 14C peak levels are dropping much faster than for a 12CO2 peak.
Dr. Salby used data which doesn’t reflect the cause of the increase in the atmosphere…
The anthropogenic 9 GctC/year are moving into a 7500 Gct sink rather into a 1000 Gct sink. That changes the calculation by a factor of 7.5.
Not at all, it doesn’t matter where the sinks are: the ocean surface, the deep oceans, vegetation, rock weathering. All what matters is that the sink rate per year, every year in the past 55 years is less than human emissions: currently 9 GtC in, 4.5 GtC out, 4.5 GtC increase in the atmosphere (as mass, not original molecules). I have not the slightest problem with not exactly knowing in what reservoirs the 4.5 GtC out will go and how that will be distributed over the different sinks. On the long term most will go into the deep oceans I suppose. That needs time…
You have a problem: can you explain to me what the source of the increase is if not human, and how that fulfills all known observations…
Do you understand the practical implication of equilibrium for very, very, large reservoirs?
William, the equilibrium is between the atmosphere and the surface and the surface only: the upper fraction of a mm of the ocean. Not the 100 meter or 700 meter. Of course the upper fraction of a mm is readily in equilibrium, while the rest of the surface isn’t. CO2 diffusion in water is a very slow process: you need wind speed to mix the water masses and air to have some speed of mixing of the air and skin layer with the upper few hundred meters of water. That makes that only the upper few hundred meters is in fast (1-3 years)equilibrium with the atmosphere, not 700 meter. The deeper layers need much more time to exchange CO2 with the atmosphere as there is hardly any mixing between the two.
If ” CO2 diffusion in water is a very slow process”, and “the deeper layers need much more time to exchange CO2 with the atmosphere as there is hardly any mixing between the two.”
Then why the claim that the “missing heat” is “hidden” in the deep ocean? How does the heat dive into deep oceans while somehow leaving behind the water with the CO2 dissolved in it?
Anna Keppa,
I doubt that much heat is hiding in the deep oceans, but even so (warming by 0.0001 K/year?), heat dissipation may go faster than CO2 migration in relative stagnant waters.
Most CO2 migration between the ocean surface and the deeper waters is from sinking organic and inorganic (shells) debris from bio-life. That is estimated at around 6 GtC/year, based on a few spots where sinking matter is measured.
“Not at all, it doesn’t matter where the sinks are: the ocean surface, the deep oceans, vegetation, rock weathering. All what matters is that the sink rate per year, every year in the past 55 years is less than human emissions.”
Trivially wrong.
At least they acknowledged that there is no chance of halting the CO2 increase. There is no plan to reduce emissions 80% ever until we run out of things to burn. We will just have to live with the consequences if there are any at all. It’s all a grab for more government power with no chance of having any impact on the climate.
If only it were true. Here’s my worry. After peaking at some value (say, 450 or 500PPM) it crashes. Maybe even down to nearly zero. Granted such a crash would take thousands of years. In any case, it may be the end.
400 PPM and accelerating, is that part of the reason why our Clematis plant is exploding with growth? I swear we cut the thing all the way to the ground last year and now it’s completely overwhelming the trellis again. It also has enough buds starting it to perhaps last all the way into June.
Wait a few decades and garden companies will have to start breeding smaller versions of popular varieties because they’ll be getting too big to fit in the usual spots.
Keep the flow of CO2 going 🙂
HAH!! On Aussie MSM, channel 7, a “ticker tape” newsbite at the bottom of the screen says “Pope made honorary globetrotter”!!!
400PPM !!!! We need …………..superObama to the rescue , better warm AF1, AF2 and maybe AF3, which way is Paris ?
What does this mean for 350.org?
They’ll “change” the name to 450.org!
This is excellent news. It will help me save water during this horrendous California drought. Also, this may help mitigate the long term overall decline in CO2 – at least it buys some time. No one really knows where the long term decline is leading. A certain point could be reached, where things move past a certain point of no return. For example, if CO2 were to ultimately dip below 200PPM, would we enter into a death spiral? The longer we can stave that off and study the system, the greater the chance we can anticipate risks and worst case start to craft an exit strategy to the extent one could be created while we still lack credible interstellar travel options.
William,
The above comment is nonsense. Phase analysis is a standard analysis technique to determine cause and effect. To determine what is and what is not forcing.
The rise in atmospheric CO2 does not correlate with anthropogenic CO2 emission. Salby analyzed two independent data sources 1) change in total CO2 Vs change in anthropogenic CO2 and 2) change in C13 and change in C13 from anthropogenic emissions. The results of the two independent analyses support the assertion that not less than 66% of the recent rise in anthropogenic CO2 is due to natural sources, rather than anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
The anthropogenic 9 GctC/year are moving into a 7500 Gct sink rather into a 1000 Gct sink. That changes the calculation by a factor of 7.5.
William:
4.5 GtC is not moving into the atmosphere. Based on the actual rise, 2.5 GtC to 3 GtC in entering the atmosphere. The paradox is anthropogenic CO2 increases year by year, yet the increase in atmospheric CO2 does not. The increase in atmospheric CO2 tracks planetary temperature not anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
.
Do you need glasses? Do you have any training in data analysis? Or is the problem you belong to the cult of CAGW and hence ignore observations that disprove the IPCC hypothesis.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.png
William,
What Salby has found is the steady increasing anthropogenic CO2 emissions is not the source that is causing atmospheric CO2 to increase.
I know what the source is, however, we need a deep core CH4 presentation in this forum to provide a basis for discussion.
The deep CH4 theory was promoted by the late Nobel Prize winning astrophysics Thomas Gold. The deep CH4 theory is that the source of the earth’s atmosphere and ocean is liquid super high pressure CH4 that extruded from the core as it is solidifies. The theory explains why the earth’s atmosphere has six times less heavy noble gases than comets or meteoroids. The competing theory is the late veneer theory where a late bombardment of comets and/or meteoroids created a Venus like atmosphere on the early earth. The late veneer theory fails in multiple ways such at the old continental crust does not exhibit evidence of chemical reactions that occur due to a Venus like atmosphere.
People have no idea that late veneer theory fails to launch. There are new and massive CH4 discoveries such the CH4 is more than twice as much as all oil reserves. The actual amount of commercial CH4 is practically limitless as the CH4 continues to come up from the core so the reservoirs are refilling. This explains why there is massive CH4 movement up through the Australian coal deposits. There should be no connection between black coal and massive CH4 based on the fossil theory. The deep core CH4 theory explains all of the anomalies and paradoxes.
The super high pressure CH4 is the force the moves the ocean floor and the continents. Gold includes 50 observations that confirm that theory is correct. There are another 20 observations from more recent analysis that supports deep CH4 theory.)
Duh.
Do you understand the practical implication of equilibrium for a very, very, large reservoirs?
William,
You are clueless. You do not understand why the fact that there is mixing well past 750 meters invalidates the Bern model.
There is constant movement and exchange of the surface water and the deeper water. The Bern model assume, I repeat assumed that the mixing of ocean water was limited to the top 100 meters.
Obviously as heat is hiding in the ocean down to well past 750 meters, the Bern model’s 100 meter mixing assumption is bogus, incorrect, wrong.
William:
The rise in atmospheric CO2 does not correlate with anthropogenic CO2 emission
You think?
Anthro emissions and rise in the atmosphere:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/acc_co2_1960_cur.jpg
Temperature and rise in the atmosphere:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_co2_1960_cur.jpg
Temperature is responsible for the +/- 1 ppmv (2 GtC) variability, human emissions for the 70+ ppmv rise since 1960. Thus looking at the variability says next to nothing about the cause of the rise in the atmosphere.
4.5 GtC is not moving into the atmosphere. Based on the actual rise, 2.5 GtC to 3 GtC in entering the atmosphere.
Human emissions are 9 GtC/year all moving directly in the atmosphere. Because of 110 ppmv extra CO2 pressure above equilibrium, some 1 GtC/year is pressed extra in vegetation, 0.5 GtC/year is pressed into the ocean surface and 3 GtC/year in the deep oceans. That is measured via the oxygen balance (vegetation) and DIC (ocean surface). Remains 4.5 GtC/year increase in the atmosphere. That is about 2.3 ppmv/year.
Do you need glasses?
I wear glasses, but even without glasses I know to look at ALL the available data, not only the variability which is caused by a process which even is opposite to the long term trend:
– Near all the variability is caused by the temporary influence of temperature on (tropical) vegetation: higher temperatures give more decay/less uptake including by drought.
– The long term trend is opposite to the short term variation: higher temperatures give more uptake by vegetation.
Thus short term variability and long term trend are caused by different processes.
I know what the source is, however, we need a deep core CH4 presentation in this forum to provide a basis for discussion.
Pure nonsense: the CH4 levels in the atmosphere more than tripled in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution (and before, due to increased rice culture for an increasing population). That still is less than 1% of the rise of CO2 if that is completely oxidized in the atmosphere with a half life time of ~10 years. No matter the cause of the tripling.
4.5 GtC is not moving into the atmosphere. Based on the actual rise, 2.5 GtC to 3 GtC in entering the atmosphere.
William, I do not defend the Bern model, never did and never will do. I do look at all the available data: even if there is a temperature increase (of 0.0001°C/year?) in the layer between 200 and 700 m depth, that says nothing about the mixing of CO2 below the upper 200 m “mixed layer”. The clue is in the word “mixed”. CO2 diffusion in water is extremely slow. You need mixing by wind and waves or it will take centuries to reach the depth.
Measurements, that is real observations, not models, show a rapid mixing of the ocean surface layer, down to a few hundred meters (depending of wind speed) with the atmosphere and virtually no mixing of the surface layer with the deep oceans. The exchange rate with the deep oceans is at the edges: cold polar waters sink into the deep and come back some 1,000 years later at the upwelling places near the equator. That is a much slower process…
You do your case no good at all by awarding a fake Nobel Prize to Thomas Gold, as you’ve been told before it didn’t happen and will not.
I went outside and told the good news to all my shrubs
Rounded decimal numbers are as meaningless in science as they are in economics. Even astrologers do not pay special attention to round numbers.
Significant numbers in astrology: e.g. 9, 11 and 22; also 13, 14, 16, 19. In science: Euler’s constant, Euler’s number, Omega, pi, c, 4.6692, the Golden Mean, etc.
Round numbers only matter if artificially imposed. E.g. a century in cricket.
If one can not provide a reasonable, sensible, logical explanation for the “bi-yearly” cycling “signature” associated with the Mauna Loa Data Record (Keeling Curve graph) ….. then one is just “spinning their wheels” and “clouding up” the issue concerning the truth or falsity of CAGW.
http://i1019.photobucket.com/albums/af315/SamC_40/keelingcurve.gif
The reason……
http://www.co2science.org/subject/other/co2amp.php
@ur momisugly Toneb May 8, 2015 at 10:23 am
Toneb,
The above quoted commentary excerpted from your cited reference is little more than “junk science” garbage ….. simply because it is CONTRARY to the biological science of the natural world.
And besides that, it is in direct VIOLATION of my personally stated …. Refrigerator-Freezer Law of Microbial Decomposition of Dead Biomass ….. which is attested to, confirmed and legally demanded …. by the US Department of Agriculture, every Public Health Agency in the US and various other entities. To wit:
Toneb, the dead plant biomass does not decompose and/or emit humongous amounts of CO2 during the Fall and Winter months in the Northern Hemisphere simply because said biomass is either too dry (no moisture) and/or the surface and sub-surface temperatures are below 60 °F, which greatly retards microbial decomposition …. and below 40 °F which puts a halt to all microbial decomposition.
But on the contrary, that microbial decomposition begins emitting humongous amounts of CO2 when the Springtime temperatures warm up to and/or above 60 °F, …. which is usually always 2 to 3 weeks before the new growth in green foliage starts “sucking” any CO2 out of the air.
And that is scientific fact(s) ….. whether you like it or not.
Samuel,
Nothing mysterious with the bi-yearly cycling: it is the recurrent influence of temperature on vegetation in the NH, as the opposite movements of CO2 and δ13C show:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/seasonal_CO2_d13C_MLO_BRW.jpg
Over the full year, organic debris is decaying, more in summer than in winter, but the growth of new leaves in spring and photosynthesis in summer overwhelms the decay rate. The leaves turn to debris in fall and is broken down to CO2 again by bacteria, molds and insects…
@ur momisugly Ferdinand Engelbeen May 8, 2015 at 10:35 am
Ferdinand,
The only reason you persist in MIMICKING the above crapolla …. is that your “junk science” claims are 100% dependent upon your viewing audience believing that the above is scientifically legitimate. If you can keep them “believing in the above”…. then they will likely BELIEVE all of your other garbage.
Well tah de dah, ….. at least you are now obfuscating that claim, …… instead of out-right denying it as you have always done before.
Oh my my, …. so you thought up some new garbage, … HUH?
Ferdinand, how is it possible for those “leafless” tree limbs to be sucking-up the atmospheric CO2 that those “leafless” limbs need for the growth of new leaves in spring?
I guess you will be mimicking that “magic growth moment”, ….. along with your “wintertime insects”, ….. for the next few months, … right?
Are there new data from CO2 satellite?
Just wondering if the concentration is still the highest above Amazon forest…
So atmospheric CO2 fluctuates between 8 ppm to 6 ppm.
Ppm moles to kg. Atmospheric mass = 5.14E18, CO2 44.01 gr/mole, air 28.97 gr/mole.
Atmospheric CO2: 3.05E15 kg
6 ppm = 4.68E13 kg 8 ppm = 6.24E13 kg Difference = 1.56E13 kg
(1.5% of Atmos CO2) (2.0% of Atmos CO2)
Per IPCC AR5 Figure 6.1 fossil fuel, cement, and land use add 8.9 PgC annually.
8.9 PgC = 8.9E12 kg * 3.67 (convert to CO2) * 0.45 (residual in atmosphere) = 1.47E13kg.
FF & Cement = 31% of 6 ppm & 24% of 8 ppm & 94% of difference.
Is the difference due to man’s activities? 1.88 ppm per year? 188 ppm per century?
That’s mid-range RCP 4.5 with low to medium climate impacts. GHG RF of 4.5 W/m^2, just 1.5 times the current GHG RF of 3.0 W/m^2.
Solar ToA is 340 W/m^2, Solar reflected is 100 W/m^2, Solar absorbed is 79 W/m^2, Solar absorbed is 161 W/m^2. Clouds produce -20 W/m^2.
How is it 3.0 & 4.5 W/m^2 have any significance, warrant any concern?
That’s just noise in the data. An afternoon hail storm wipes that right out.
“So atmospheric CO2 fluctuates between 8 ppm to 6 ppm.”
————-
Actually, … “NO”.
Atmospheric CO2 fluctuates 6+/- ppm on a bi-yearly cycle. Up (increase) 6+/- ppm from October to May …. and down (decrease) 6+/- ppm from May to October.
But there is also a 2+/- ppm yearly increase in atmospheric CO2 (due to the long term warming of the ocean waters), ….. and when that is added to the bi-yearly increase of 6+/- ppm the per se YTD (year to date) total increase is 8+/- ppm.
There are two (2) temperatures associated with the surface waters of the oceans. The bi-yearly seasonal change due to summer/winter temperatures of the Northern/Southern Hemispheres …. and the long-term average temperature (global warming/cooling) of all the surfaces waters.
The long-term average temperature of the ocean waters has been slowly increasing for the past 200 years, …. a per se “recovery mode” from the extreme cold of the Little Ice Age.
So where does the anthropogenic 2 ppm per year fit in?
Anyone that believes that there has been or is an “anthropogenic 2 ppm per year increase in atmospheric CO2” …… is highly likely to be taking things back that they never took in the first place.
Here is the yearly increase (column 4) in CO2 for the years 1979 thru 2013
Maximum to Minimum yearly CO2 ppm data – 1979 thru 2013
Source: NOAA’s Mauna Loa Monthly Mean CO2 data base
@ur momisugly ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt
CO2 “Max” ppm Fiscal Year – mid-May to mid-May
year mth “Max” _ yearly increase ____ mth “Min” ppm ___ Bi-yearly ppm cycle
1979 6 339.20 + _________ 9 333.93 _____ 79/80 = -5.27 — +7.54
1980 5 341.47 +2.27 __________ 10 336.05 _____ 80/81 = -5.42 — +6.96
1981 5 343.01 +1.54 __________ 9 336.92 _____ 81/82 = -6.09 — +7.75
1982 5 344.67 +1.66 __________ 9 338.32
1983 5 345.96 +1.29 __________ 9 340.17
1984 5 347.55 +1.59 __________ 9 341.35
1985 5 348.92 +1.37 __________ 10 343.08
1986 5 350.53 +1.61 __________ 10 344.47
1987 5 352.14 +1.61 __________ 9 346.52
1988 5 354.18 +2.04 __________ 9 349.03
1989 5 355.89 +1.71 __________ 9 350.02
1990 5 357.29 +1.40 __________ 9 351.28
1991 5 359.09 +1.80 __________ 9 352.30
1992 5 359.55 +0.46 Pinatubo __ 9 352.93
1993 5 360.19 +0.64 __________ 9 354.10
1994 5 361.68 +1.49 __________ 9 355.63
1995 5 363.77 +2.09 _________ 10 357.97
1996 5 365.16 +1.39 _________ 10 359.54
1997 5 366.69 +1.53 __________ 9 360.31
1998 5 369.49 +2.80 El Niño ____ 9 364.01
1999 4 370.96 +1.47 __________ 9 364.94
2000 4 371.82 +0.86 __________ 9 366.91
2001 5 373.82 +2.00 __________ 9 368.16
2002 5 375.65 +1.83 _________ 10 370.51
2003 5 378.50 +2.85 _________ 10 373.10
2004 5 380.63 +2.13 _________ 9 374.11
2005 5 382.47 +1.84 __________ 9 376.66
2006 5 384.98 +2.51 __________ 9 378.92
2007 5 386.58 +1.60 __________ 9 380.90
2008 5 388.50 +1.92 _________ 10 382.99
2009 5 390.19 +1.65 _________ 10 384.39
2010 5 393.04 +2.85 _________ 9 386.83
2011 5 394.21 +1.17 _________ 10 388.96
2012 5 396.78 +2.58 _________ 10 391.01
2013 5 399.76 +2.98 __________ 9 393.51
The “Max” CO2 occurred at mid-May (5) of each year … with the exception of three (3) outliers, one (1) being in June 79’ and the other two (2) being in April 99’ and 2000.
The “Min” CO2 occurred at the very end of September (9) of each year … with the exception of eleven (11) outliers, all of which occurred within the first 7 days of October.
ps: Iffen you squint one (1) eye …. and close your mind …. then I’m sure one can see an “anthropogenic signature” in the above yearly CO2 ppm increases.
“Anyone that believes that there has been or is an “anthropogenic 2 ppm per year increase in atmospheric CO2” …… is highly likely to be taking things back that they never took in the first place.”
IPCC AR 5 is the referenced believer.
Iffen I squint I can see 2 ppm/yr, but where do I see the gas of man? Is this like one of those third eye pictures?
“but where do I see the gas of man?”
————————-
Well now, in actuality, …. to be seeing it you will have to be looking at or into Ferdinand E’s imagination.