United Nations: The Covid-19 Lockdown CO2 Emissions Fall is “unfortunately (only) short-term good news”

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

More evidence the United Nations would like to make the Covid-19 lockdown permanent.

Fall in COVID-linked carbon emissions won’t halt climate change – UN weather agency chief

22 April 2020
Climate Change

An expected drop in greenhouse gas emissions linked to the global economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic is only “short-term good news”, the head of the UN weather agency said on Wednesday. 

“This drop of emissions of six per cent, that’s unfortunately (only) short-term good news”, said Professor Petteri Taalas, World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Secretary-General, in reference to a 5.5 to 5.7 per cent fall in levels of carbon dioxide due to the pandemic, that have been flagged by leading climate experts, including the Center for International Climate Research. World Meteorological Organization✔@WMO

Once the global economy begins to recover from the new coronavirus, WMO expects emissions to return to normal. 

“There might even be a boost in emissions because some of the industries have been stopped”, the WMO head cautioned. 

Read more: https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/04/1062332

The United Nations simply doesn’t care about the pain ordinary people have endured from the lockdowns, because lockdown laws don’t apply to them. A permanent extension of lockdown laws would not affect the personnel or operations of the United Nations.

Section 11: Representatives of Members to the principal and subsidiary organs of the United Nations and to conferences convened by the United Nations, shall, while exercising their functions and during their journey to and from the place of meeting, enjoy the following privileges and immunities :

(a) immunity from personal arrest of detention and from seizure of their personal baggage, and, in respect of words spoken or written and all acts done by them in their capacity as representatives, immunity from legal process of every kind;

(b) inviolability for all papers and documents;

(c) the right to use codes and to receive papers or correspondence by courier or in sealed bags;

(d) exemption in respect of themselves and their spouses from immigration restrictions, alien registration or national service obligations in the state they are visiting or through which they are passing in the exercise of their functions;

(e) the same facilities in respect of currency or exchange restrictions as are accorded to representatives of foreign governments on temporary official missions;

From THE CONVENTION ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS, 1946

The only risk for the bureaucrats who run the United Nations is that one day it might all come to an end, they might be held to account for their arrogance and incompetence. Thanks largely to President Trump the United Nations is having a few money problems. Let us hope President Trump extends his moratorium on funding the UN WHO to the entire United Nations.

125 thoughts on “United Nations: The Covid-19 Lockdown CO2 Emissions Fall is “unfortunately (only) short-term good news”

  1. Life without fossil fuels, like we had before 1900, was hard and dirty, with life expectancy about 40 years of age, as we lived without the thousands of products from petroleum derivatives for medications, electronics, and transportation. Social Changes with COVID-19 are a prelude to life with less fossil fuels. With COVID-19 we’ve seen extensive self-imposed social adjustments to transportation that are very similar to what will be required to live with less fossil fuels in the future. As we weed ourselves from unrestrained use of oil, we’ll need to lower our demands from the transportation infrastructures and the leisure and entertainment industries to the best of their abilities to conserve oil for where its most needed for society, to make the thousands of products that support lifestyles as well as worldwide sustainable economic development.
    http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/stein-social-changes-with-covid-19-are-a-prelude-to-life-with-less-fossil-fuels/

    • You’re right about life without fossil fuels, but you’re wrong to think that our use of oil is unrestrained. You are also wrong to think that schooling children remotely is very effective.

      • Ha. One of my stepdaughters is a teacher. She’s doing 16 hours a day remote schooling kids and is not finding it effective.
        My three kids on the other hand are rather liking it, but then 90% of their education has been from homeschooling in the first place, and barring one or two exceptions they think their teachers are idiots.
        The one or two exceptions plus the social contact does make school worthwhile for them though.

        They are however rather unusual children

        • Homeschool and remote learning should be celebrated by the climatistas because there are no car trips to school. Of course, the teachers’ unions would be opposed, as would be the “indoctrination brigade.” Wonder how they will square that circle.

      • Not just children. Because it has been six decades since I took calculus, I decided to refresh my memory by auditing some calculus classes at a local community college. In mid-March, my calc’ II class transitioned to online. I can say, from personal experience, that the medium leaves a lot to be desired in its effectiveness. Part of the problem is an attempt, on short notice, to teach the class in the traditional way, without taking advantage of the differences in the medium, and not being sensitive to the drawbacks of the online medium. However, the bottom line is that I find the online teaching approach to be less effective than face-to-face. And, I developed computer assisted instruction material back in the ’70s, and I developed an online geographic information system course for UC Berkeley Extension in the late-’90s. So, I’m no stranger to the technology or pedagogical approach.

    • Oil is at a record low price because it’s overly abundant, so wtf are you talking about?

      • Don’t confuse the ‘command and control’ socialist with facts, Robert. Herr Stein knows what’s ‘most needed for society’…..

  2. The lock down is bad for the Climate Change Mongers at the UN and elsewhere. If the lock down reduces carbon emissions, how are they going to squeeze US and Europe for more money?

    The best thing for them would be less warming while emissions are reduced. The worst thing is no noticeable difference.

      • from the annual graph: oct- feb ; 408-414 ppmv = 14/4 = 3.5ppmv / month

        There’s kink around Feb which seems to push the slope off by about 6 weeks.
        http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html

        I make that about 5.25 ppmv drop , the timing suggests that is almost exclusively China. You really need to wait a year to get a better idea. Maybe someone will then calculate human CO2 emissions.

        Gee, just thinking of all that lack of warming gives me the shivers.

        • As I’ve noted before, they give us our annual “hottest ever” climate porn money shots by manipulating and correcting the data

          I think they will just take the raw data this year, not do the traditional transmutation and the show us how the temperature has dropped.

          I think that is what you need to watch for

      • Guilherme
        With respect to “time-delay” I think that it is unlikely to be more than about a month, at most, because the seasonal changes in CO2 concentration, which are the result of photosynthesis, are quite evident in the record.

        • That drop shows up every March/April due to northern hemisphere spring

          The question is it deeper and longer
          This year

          So watch for “recalibration” of the CO2 instruments

    • (a) immunity from personal arrest of detention and from seizure of their personal baggage, and, in respect of words spoken or written and all acts done by them in their capacity as representatives, immunity from legal process of every kind;

      Bang on! This is the biggest problem with UN, not only no auditing and accountability, the actually are untouchable !! Just like anyone working for a “systemic bank”: outside the law.

      Now what worse idea could you have than to put such an organisation in control of a $100 billion per year slush fund?

  3. Something tells me that the UN would want the lockdown maintained until at least November 3rd of this year. If Trump wins a 2nd term, the UN might want it extended. If Trump does not win a 2nd term, the UN might suggest an end to the lockdown.

    This has nothing to do with politics, so get that idea out of your head folks.

    It’s for our own good of course.

    • Some states are already telling their schools to prepare for remote schooling next year. We’re living in an idiocracy and Chicken Little is mayor.

      • Love it …. or hate it, ….. but remote schooling or remote teaching is a necessary change that society will have to embrace …….. simply because of the horrendous cost of providing buildings, transportation, support services, administrators ……. and one (1) highly paid teacher and one (1) highly paid teacher’s aide for every 15/17 enrolled students.

        Why employ 100 math teachers to teach 100 math classes of 1,700 students …… when one (1) math teacher can instruct 1,000+ math students via “remote teaching” technology …… via large screen classroom TVs, or better yet, via at-home internet connections.

        It is past time that taxpayers are forced to be paying for the costly “babysitting” services required by the parent(s).

        • Exactly, children should not attend school, they should stay home and sit in front of a computer screen while their parents are at work.

          And their sports should consist of computer sports only, otherwise they might get some exercise or something.

          Can’t wait for remote schooling with classes of 1000 or more, think of all the money we’ll save.

          • Government schools were invented by the Prussians so kids could be turned into compliant drones through a decade or more of indoctrination. Why do you think it’s so important to continue that process, when it’s the very thing that has brought us to the current disastrous situation?

          • Klem – April 23, 2020 at 9:29 am

            And their sports should consist of computer sports only, otherwise they might get some exercise or something.

            Right you are, Klem, ….. because they are now allowed much “exercising” at school …… and because Public School sports are extremely expensive, ……. and 98.7% of the students are not permitted to participate in said sports, other than to participate as “spectators” ….. and all those sport related classroom activities and the spectator observing activities contribute to a horrendous loss in classroom studies of critical subject matter,

  4. Thanks, Eric, nothing like starting the day off with a Reality Check! I won’t go into my personal and direct experience with the United Nations, but it is even far worse than an average person can imagine. Wait a minute, aren’t we waiting for this carbon pollution decline to be accompanied by a corresponding temperature decline? Curious minds want to know! Stay sane and safe.

    • My guess it will be exactly the same, otherwise I would expect airports to not need snow ploughs. I haven’t seem any photos of airports with melted snow because of all the jet engines. There just isn’t enough planes to do that. Open flat land with short grass or large areas of dark tarmac on the other hand will be hot on calm sunny days, with or without planes.

      • Heathrow will have a less ‘peaky’ record as the instrumentation next to the high speed exit on the northern runway will not be seeing so much reverse thrust.

        • Not really. They can’t have those weather boxes or equipment blown over by jet blast while they need the equipment close enough to give accurate wind speeds and temperatures. I’ve walked right by there and along the length of that fence and have never noticed warm jet air. The road is too far away from the runway. Even the biased BBC ran an article saying that the jets don’t affect the heating:
          https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44980493
          – “Planes make a negligible difference,” says Professor Williams.
          “Every time you use energy – whether it’s from a plane’s engine, or even just switching on a light bulb or taking a shower – it’s eventually turned into heat.
          “But all of that is a minor influence compared to the effect of the urban heat island.””
          but the Urban Heat Island affect is evident.
          Heathrow – with its large black asphalt runways and airport buildings – will naturally absorb more heat. But London is very built-up, meaning surrounding areas should also be affected in a similar way. This can be shown by comparing the average monthly temperature of Heathrow to nearby Kew, eight miles away.” –
          https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/370B/production/_102719041_chart-weather-gefd6-nc.pngread a rational piece like this in the BBC, but as you can see in the graph, both Kew and Heathrow are identicle.
          Aviations affect on the environemnt is wildly overstated.

  5. An expected drop in greenhouse gas emissions linked to the global economic crisis

    Expected In other words this was written before any such decline in CO2 was seen! Checking Muana Loa records there was a slight leveling off mud-March but by April levels are rising like Normal. Not much if an effect at all.

      • BS. There is massively reduced iatrogenic emission and no visible effect at Mauna Loa, aside from normal seasonal changes. AGW is falsified. CO 2 mixing takes days, not weeks.

      • Ghalfrunt,

        You might want to check how much ocean there is in northern vs Southern Hemisphere before blaming the ocean plankton for the CO2 concentration swings.

        Furthermore, when winter comes phytoplankton doesn’t convert CO2 to O2, it dies and takes the carbon to the bottom where it slowly turns into new oil and gas, for future generations 😀

        O, and if you stop adding something to a system without also reducing how much is taken out by the same amount, then the concentration will drop. If human emissions are the cause of the increased concentration and you significantly reduce the emissions then concentration should go down. If not nature rules!

        Best,
        Willem

        • Furthermore, when winter comes phytoplankton doesn’t convert CO2 to O2, it dies and takes the carbon to the bottom where it slowly turns into new oil and gas, for future generations
          Ermm… If the C falls to the bottom of the ocean, what then happens to the O2?

          • Robh,

            In photosynthesis plants take in CO2, split of the C from the O2, KEEP the C and emits the O2.
            It then uses the C as a building block for all sorts of molecules It needs to live and grow such as sugars, fats etc etc (I’m not doing the process justice here, Biochemistry is really fascinating).

            Anyway, the O2 gets emitted at the beginning and plays no further role in the plankton live cycle.

            Best,
            Willem

          • What drops to the bottom of the oceans is Calcium Carbonate – CaCO3. So all the CO2 goes to the ocean floor. Lots of it. In fact so much that it could even cause the death of normal plants if it were not for other sources of CO2 such as volcanoes and of course the rather transient in geologic terms human industry.

          • https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zpwmxnb/revision/3

            Plants respire all the time, whether it is dark or light. They photosynthesise only when they are in the light.
            Conditions / Photosynthesis v respiration / Overall result
            Dark / Respiration but no photosynthesis / Oxygen taken in, carbon dioxide given out
            Dim light / Photosynthesis rate equals respiration rate / Neither gas is taken in or given out
            Bright light / Photosynthesis rate greater than respiration rate / Carbon dioxide taken in, oxygen given out

      • ghalfrunt
        You contradict yourself. You claim no discernible changes in less than 2 months, yet acknowledge the impact of photosynthesis being evident on a seasonal basis. The annual CO2 decline starts in May when NH plants leaf out.

          • That’s the way I see it. Natural variation is easily more than +/- 2 ppm on almost all time scales. Then there is the natural seasonal variations to consider. It would take a while to show up if all manmade emissions ceased.

            Perhaps something could be gleaned from isotopic analysis over a long enough period.

          • If 0.33 ppm is “noise in the data”, as you assert, the why did you start off referencing the April 2020 and April 2019 daily CO2 levels to two decimal places?

          • Because that is copy/pasted fromthe website.
            If you look back at the record (also on the site), the yearly April to April change varies roughly from 1.5 to 3 ppm.

          • Hey Gordon, those numbers are off of NOAA’s website. Peter Tans, the guy that runs the program, probably never grasped proper use of significant figures from high school or college, or the equivalent in the Netherlands, as I believe he’s from there plus or minus a few meters.

          • I spelled his first name wrong, but wasn’t far off. He spells it “Pieter.” If you ever meet him, ask him about 9-11 and building 7 if there aren’t too many people around.

      • If you have a tank with no leaks (IE infinite residence time), how fast the tank fills will depend on how fast water is being put in it. If you are putting in less water, the tank will fill more slowly.

    • The truly sad thing, is that they might well claim that the global economy crippling resulting in a very minor reduction will be used to substantiate and confirm their madness. Especially since there is little actual effect, they can claim any “slowing” or even “reversal” which should have proved they were full of crap all along, was a result of their sage and strident exhortations. I smell a victory lap coming.

  6. A good independent audit committee could chop billions from this bloated, over-paid, lavishly feted, anti-American (dis)organization. Line by line culling of ideological activities, finding ways to stop holding half the world’s hand, disincentivize dictatorships, incentivize problem solving between dissenting groups, encourage free enterprise development of Third World economies to the benegit of all their citizens …. Sorry, Mugabe, no cash for you! But no. The UN were going to honor him with some ambassadorship.

    • I’m not sure what you mean. In any case, it’s unlikely that any significant change to the natural annual cycle will be observed since our emissions are just a small fraction of natural fluxes.

      • Scissor For some reason I couldn’t reply you your comment about the gentleman from the Netherlands
        I have a good German friend who works for Shell and after a few beer he starts muttering about the Dutch:
        “Wooden shoes, wooden head, wooden listen”
        Priceless

    • It’s the N hemisphere spring and CO2 levels always drop as seasonal plant life starts consuming CO2 at a rate faster than it’s being produced. The signature of the N hemisphere dominates the global response since the N hemisphere has far more seasonal biomass than the S.

      I can predict with absolute certainty that in any future year we will see an decrease in atmospheric CO2 in the N hemisphere spring, followed by an increase in the N hemisphere fall.

      • co2isnotevil – April 23, 2020 at 7:45 am

        It’s the N hemisphere spring and CO2 levels always drop as seasonal plant life starts consuming CO2 at a rate faster than it’s being produced.

        co2isnotevil, ….. you just mimicked a “biological impossibility”.

        The decomposing dead biomass in the N hemisphere’s “spring” (March thru May) begins emitting CO2 into the atmosphere at least 2 weeks prior to any absorption of atmospheric CO2 by the green growing live biomass …….. and will continue emitting the decomposing CO2 into the atmosphere all during the N hemisphere’s “summer” and into “autumn” (Sept thru Oct) for at least 2 weeks after the green growing live biomass has ceased photosynthetic activities.

        The dead biomass in the N hemisphere ceases its microbial decomposing when the temperature is less than 41 degrees F. So, from Sept thru to mid-March, the outgassing of CO2 is highly restricted.

        • Samuel,

          Except that the Mauna Loa CO2 data suggests otherwise. Even if some decomposition is deferred until spring, the consumption of CO2 by new biomass is still far larger. Decomposition may stop above 41F, but even in winter, day time highs can exceed this across large parts of the N hemisphere, plus decomposition is exothermic and can continue even at ambient temperatures less than 41F. Perhaps your claim is true in Minnesota, but not in Texas, California, Florida, Spain, Italy, etc. And BTW, most of the ebb and flow of modern CO2 levels can be traced to agriculture which also accounts for some of the ‘missing’ CO2 emitted by burning fossil fuels.

          The biological signature in Co2 variability is also evident in the ice cores where when the temperature is warmer, there’s more land area covered by forests which require higher steady state CO2 levels to sustain. It also explains the multi-century lag, which reflects the time it takes new forests to establish once land becomes ice free.

          • I wonder how much CO2 is produced by millions of suburbanites burning their leaves each fall?
            I used to collect and burn all of the dead fall from the trees each spring as well.

          • I used to collect and burn all of the dead fall from the trees each spring as well.

            But, but, but, ….. MarkW, …… that was directly contrary to the claim of “wintertime decaying of dead biomass”.

          • co2isnotevil – April 23, 2020 at 9:41 am

            Samuel,

            Except that the Mauna Loa CO2 data suggests otherwise.

            Now get serious, co2isn, …….. the Mauna Loa CO2 data suggests NO SUCH THING. As a matter of scientific fact, …… there is no human “signature” to be found anywhere within the 63 continuous years of ML data. ZIP, ZERO, NADA, NIL, ….. no “signature”.

            Of course, co2isnotevil, …. iffen you close one eye and squint the other you can surely see (hallucinate) said “signatures” occurring 2 or 3 times each and every year since 1958.

            co2isnotevil

            Even if some decomposition is deferred until spring, the consumption of CO2 by new biomass is still far larger.

            Now co2isnotevil, ….. the biology of the natural world is proof that you are simply MIMICING the junk science claims of the proponents of CAGW.

            co2isnotevil, ….. GETTA CLUE, …. both photosynthesis and microbial decomposition requires two (2) things, ….. moisture and warmth, ….. which are common and plentiful during spring and summer, …….. but are not during fall and winter.

            Also, photosynthesis requires sunlight …… whereas microbial decomposition doesn’t. Therefore, photosynthesis of green-growing plants only occurs on sunny days and for only 5 to 10 hours per sunny day, …….whereas, microbial decomposition occurs 24 hours out of every day, day in, day out, as long as there is moisture and warm temperatures.

            And ps, …. DON’T BE FERGETTIN, ….. the fall and winter in all norther latitudes, from Texas to Canada, ….. are noted for being ……. cool/cold and/or dry, which severely restricts ALL microbial decomposition.

            Didn’t you know, co2isnotevil, ….. that the drying (and salting) of food (dead biomass) was the only way of preserving it until the invention of refrigeration?

          • Samuel,

            If you don’t think it’s biology. then justify what you think the cause is with data, logic and analysis as I always do, rather than throw vacuous insults which just weakens your case. You’re acting like an alarmist where your preferred defense is to insult anyone with a different position, rather than present a better alternative.

            The max CO2 concentration occurs late April and the minimum occurs in late October. Backing out the monotonic increase, the adjusted max is mid April and the adjusted min is mid October.

            The global temperature maximum occurs in mid July and the global minimum occurs in late December which is out of phase with what you would expect if the periodic variability was due to the oceans absorbing and releasing CO2. Besides, this would be linear to the temperature and track its sinusoidal rise and fall, which it does not, even if you add a 3 month phase delay.

            The timing is exactly right for the N hemisphere biological sources and sinks of CO2 and since the N hemisphere has more biomass and especially more agriculture than the S, we should expect the residual to express the signature of the N.

          • co2isnotevil – April 25, 2020 at 10:45 pm

            Samuel,

            If you don’t think it’s biology. then justify what you think the cause is with data, logic and analysis as I always do, rather than throw vacuous insults which just weakens your case. You’re acting like an alarmist where your preferred defense is to insult anyone with a different position, rather than present a better alternative.

            Shur nuff, ….. co2is, ….. but your presented data, logic and analysis is simply a “mimicry” of what you were nurtured to believe, …. not what you reasoned out for yourself.

            co2isnotevil, …. I’ve explained my position on the subject, …. to you, … several times, ….. but you avert your eyes and your mind to my presented factual data, logic and analysis …… and then continue with your misnurtured beliefs. And get a clue, …. insulting people is a sure way of getting their attention.

            So, here it is again, ….. part of my (data, logic and analysis) statistics via reliable sources, to wit:

            Increases in World Population & Atmospheric CO2 by Decade

            year — world popul. – % incr. — May CO2 ppm – % incr. — avg ppm increase/year
            1940 – 2,300,000,000 est. ___ ____ 300 ppm est.
            1950 – 2,556,000,053 – 11.1% ____ 310 ppm – 3.3% —— 1.0 ppm/year
            [March 03, 1958 …… Mauna Loa — 315.71 ppm]
            1960 – 3,039,451,023 – 18.9% ____ 320.03 ppm – 3.2% —— 1.0 ppm/year
            1970 – 3,706,618,163 – 21.9% ____ 328.07 ppm – 2.5% —— 0.8 ppm/year
            1980 – 4,453,831,714 – 20.1% ____ 341.48 ppm – 4.0% —– 1.3 ppm/year
            1990 – 5,278,639,789 – 18.5% ____ 357.32 ppm – 4.6% —– 1.5 ppm/year
            2000 – 6,082,966,429 – 15.2% ____ 371.58 ppm – 3.9% —– 1.4 ppm/year
            2010 – 6,809,972,000 – 11.9% ____ 393.00 ppm – 5.7% —— 2.1 ppm/year
            2019 – 7,714,576,923 – 11.7% ____ 414.66 ppm – 5.5% —— 2.1 ppm/year
            Source CO2 ppm: ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

            Based on the above statistics, to wit:

            Fact #1 – in the past 79 years – world population has increased 235% (5.4 billion people) – atmospheric CO2 has increased 37.3% (112 ppm)

            Fact #2 – human generated CO2 releases have been exponentially increasing every year for the past 79 years (as defined by the population increase of 5.4 billion people).

            Fact #3 – the burning of fossil fuels by humans has been exponentially increasing every year for the past 79 years. (as defined by the population increase of 5.4 billion people).

            Fact #4 – a biyearly or seasonal cycling of an average 6 ppm of atmospheric CO2 has been steadily and consistently occurring each and every year for the past 61 years (as defined by the Mauna Loa Record and Keeling Curve Graph).

            Fact #5 – atmospheric CO2 has been steadily and consistently increasing at an average yearly rate of 1 to 2 ppm per year for each and every year for the past 61 years (as defined by the Mauna Loa Record and Keeling Curve Graph).

            Conclusions:

            Given the above statistics, it appears to me to be quite obvious that for the past 79 years (or the 61 years of the Mauna Loa Record) there is absolutely no direct association or correlation between:

            #1 – increases in atmospheric CO2 ppm and world population increases:

            #2 – the biyearly or seasonal cycling of an average 6 ppm of atmospheric CO2 and world population increases;

            #3 – the biyearly or seasonal cycling of an average 6 ppm of atmospheric CO2 and the exponential yearly increase in fossil fuel burning;

            #4 – the average yearly increase in atmospheric CO2 of 1 to 2 ppm and the exponential increase in fossil fuel burning;

            #5 – there is absolutely, positively no, per se, “human (anthropogenic) signature” to be found anywhere within the 61 year old Mauna Loa Atmospheric CO2 Record.

            #6 – this composite graph of 1979-2013 uah satellite global lower atmosphere temperatures and yearly May max CO2 accumulations is literal proof that green growing/decomposing NH biomass and/or near surface air temperatures have little to no effect whatsoever on atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities.

            https://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01b7c92d93fa970b-500wi

          • @ co2isnotevil, …… time for you to be believing the truth, ….. to wit:

            DocSiders – April 26, 2020 at 5:01 am

            As Scripps’ data demonstrates, the CO2 levels continue to rise consistent with oceanic outgassing and counter to the proposition that the Mona Loa CO2 rising trend is anthropogenic.

            The world’s biggest thermometers, the oceans, show a VERY LINEAR rising trend over the last 100-150 years as attested to by EVERY tide gauge trend on earth going back that far.

            The Mona Loa trend line follows the ocean warming that has been ongoing for at least 150 years predating significant anthropogenic CO2 trends by at least 100 years.
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/25/joe-bastardi-has-co2-been-falling-during-the-shutdown/#comment-2977959

          • Samuel,

            What you think are obvious conclusions aren’t supported by your facts. You have an obvious bias against CO2 having any effect and this bias is driving your conclusions. You’re not helping the cause of getting the science right and only feeding the beast by denying an obvious effect, rather than by disputing its claimed magnitude.

            BTW, the CO2 in your composite plot is a running average and not the instantaneous monthly values which are what illustrate the biological signature. In this plot below, the red line is the monthly data and the black line is the smoothed running average that you’ve limited your analysis to. Biology is the only rational explanation for the seasonal variability that your analysis has missed.

            https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_mlo.png

            You’re conclusions attempt to dispute the fact that there’s both a human signature and a biological signature in the CO2 data. There’s no need to deny this as it’s not the error made by the IPCC and its self serving consensus, although they definitely downplay the role of biology. Their initial error was to massively over-estimate the FINITE effect incremental atmospheric CO2 has on the surface temperature by misrepresenting feedback and it was from this primordial error cast as ‘settled science’ back in AR1 that all of their other errors have arisen in order to be consistently erronous.

          • co2isnotevil – April 26, 2020 at 8:22 am

            Cease with your attempted “childish psychology” commentary about my person and talk facts only.

            BTW, the CO2 in your composite plot is a running average and not the instantaneous monthly values which are what illustrate the biological signature.

            co2isnotevil, that composite graph that I cited was not to explain to you what a “running average” was. It was offered for EXACTLY what I said it was for ……”literal proof that green growing/decomposing NH biomass and/or near surface air temperatures have little to no effect whatsoever on atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities.

            So, quit dreaming up such stupid statements and blaming them on me as a means of CYA.

            And co2isnotevil, if you want to prove your silly accusation about “biological signatures” existing in “instantaneous monthly CO2 values” then do it, DO IT, DO IT, …… but do it via use of the Mauna Loa data, to wit:

            NOAA’s complete weekly/daily average Mona Loa CO2 ppm data .. 1974-2020
            ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_weekly_mlo.txt
            NOAA’s complete monthly average Mona Loa CO2 ppm data .. 1958-2020
            ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

            co2isnotevil, …. just DO IT, …. copy the ML data from which ever Record that pleases you …… and “highlight” that portions that you claim are “human signatures”.

            Sam C, …. AB Degrees in Biological and Physical Sciences

          • Samuel,

            The human signature contributes to the monotonic rise in the average we’ve seen during the last century. That’s not to say that it’s all anthropogenic and some of the rise may well be natural, but to the extent that it has a natural component, biology is the best explanation as agriculture captures the CO2 we emit into the biological carbon cycle increasing its steady state concentration. The average temperature has been quite stable for the last few decades, so any temperature dependent ocean absorption and outgassing as the recovery from the LIA has for the most part already been completely manifested. If you have any questions about how quickly CO2 contentations adapt to its atmospheric partial pressure, observe how quickly an open beer goes flat, even in a refrigerator.

            The unambiguous biological signature is the sawtooth variability where the sharp decrease in the N hemisphere spring coincides with the fastest growth of N hemisphere agriculture and the slower rise in the fall coincides with the decomposition of the biomass that contributed to the earlier drop. To the extent that agriculture amplifies the seasonal variability, we can even see a human contribution in the seasonal response.

            Why do you continue to insist that there’s no human or biological contributions to CO2 concentrations? Whether there is or not doesn’t change the alarmist position that mitigation is necessary and it’s this unnecessary mitigation that’s the biggest danger we face. Are you an alarmist operative trying to discredit those of us who believe that understanding the physics is how to understand the climate? Your ‘data’ isn’t very supportive of your claims and most definitely not exclusively supportive, so either you don’t know how to interpret the data or there must be another reason inflicting a bias to your thinking.

            Once more, if you don’t think there’s any anthropogenic or biological influences on CO2 concentrations, then what’s causing the changes we observe? If you can’t explain it any better, then shut up since the noise you’re making isn’t helping. Claiming something is wrong without definitively explaining why or providing a better explanation is how politics works and not how science works.

            As I have said many times, stop denying the obvious and focus on the real problem which is that the pseudo science claiming a large temperature effect from a tiny forcing is nothing but physics defying speculation. No serious skeptical climate scientist will ever accept your claim that CO2 concentrations show no human signature but each and every one concurs with my position that the IPCC drastically over-estimates the ECS. That should tell you something. There’s nothing more to say.

          • co2isnotevil – April 27, 2020 at 10:53 am

            The human signature contributes to the monotonic rise in the average we’ve seen during the last century 63 years.

            There, co2is, …… I fixed the latter part of that for you.

            co2isnotevil, are you really so naïve …… or just deviously dishonest and disingenuous as to actually think you can just tell me (or anyone) that there is a “human signature” in the Mauna Loa CO2 Record and I will believe you without question, ….. without factual evidence ….. and/or without a logical explanation via use of the actual ML data. co2is, you can get by with such devious and dastardly acts with you students if you are a High School teacher or a College instructor, but you possess no “fear factor” authority on this website. So, just DO IT, …. copy the ML data from which ever Record that pleases you …… and “highlight” that portions that you claim are “human signatures”.

            And iffen you “think” you can see a “human signature” in the ML data, then it doesn’t surprise me that you also “think” you can also see a “monotonic rise” in CO2 ppm data.

            The unambiguous biological signature is the sawtooth variability where the sharp decrease in the N hemisphere spring …… and the slower rise in the fall coincides with the decomposition of the biomass that contributed to the earlier drop.

            Unambiguous, …… sawtooth variability (of the Keeling Curve Graph), …… now that was a cutie.

            And getta clue, co2isnotevil, the only time there is ever a, per se, “sharp decrease” or ” sharp increase” in atmospheric CO2 ppm is when there is an active El Nino, La Nina or volcanic eruption, …… which are explicitly denoted in the Mauna Loa CO2 Record, as denoted below, to wit:

            year mth “Max” _ yearly increase ____ mth “Min” ppm
            1979 _ 6 _ 339.20 …. + ….. El Niño ___ 9 … 333.93
            1980 _ 5 _ 341.47 …. +2.27 _________ 10 … 336.05
            1981 _ 5 _ 343.01 …. +1.54 __________ 9 … 336.92
            1982 _ 5 _ 344.67 …. +1.66 El Niño __ 9 … 338.32 El Chichón
            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 La Nina __ 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 El Niño __ 9 … 352.93 Pinatubo
            1993 _ 5 _ 360.19 …. +0.64 __________ 9 … 354.10

            So testify, ….. co2isnotevil, ….. testify, …..tell the world that the above “unambiguous” variety of noted “yearly increases” in atmospheric CO2 is directly the result of human emissions and therefore is proof of a “human signature”.

            It the world doesn’t believe you, ….. your children and students will …… out of fear of their survival at home or at school.

          • Sam,

            Your ‘evidence’ is not at all definitive at precluding a human signature. In fact, it actually supports one far more strongly than it precludes one especially given that the recovery from dangerously low levels at the end of the last ice age has far exceeded expectations based on the recoveries from previous ice ages and is now at a level not seen in many millions of years. Mankind should take credit for this, as it forestalls the inevitable collapse of life on earth as CO2 levels continue their downward spiral as life sequesters CO2 at a rate faster than it can be replenished by natural sources. Where do you think all the fossil fuels came from in the first place?

            I’ll post the plot again that illustrates the seasonal signature in the Mauna Loa data since you seem to have missed it earlier.

            https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_mlo.png

            The red line is the monthly data and it shows about a 7 ppm p-p periodic change that occurs very year. Note the 12 red sample dots per year. The characteristic sawtooth has a rapid fall time and a slower rise time exactly when and why I stated earlier. I encourage you to try and explain it otherwise, but I’m quite sure that there’s no other reasonable explanation.

            While the Mauna Loa data doesn’t go back centuries, we know concentrations were closer to 280 ppm at the end of the LIA (and start of the IR) and it definitely increased significantly prior to the start of continuous measurements. We were only aware of the seasonal signature since the start of these measurements, but the monotonic trend since the LIA was already well established.

            Frankly, denying that atmospheric CO2 levels are affected by burning fossil fuels is silly. Where to you think all that CO2 is going? Climate science still can’t even adequately explain the half of the CO2 that we’ve emitted that’s no longer in the atmosphere as they mostly limit it to ocean intake which isn’t near enough to account for all the CO2 that’s missing. The most reasonable explanation for the shortfall is from photosynthesis as evidenced by the greening of the planet recently acknowledged to have been detected by satellites remotely sensing photosynthesis. None the less, we’re still producing more than the combination of these pathways can accept. Note that this is not a bad thing and it’s actually quite good for many reasons and would still be true even if the IPCC was close to correct about the effect incremental CO2 has on the temperature and of course, they couldn’t be more wrong.

          • co2isnotevil – April 28, 2020 at 10:43 am

            I’ll post the plot again that illustrates the seasonal signature in the Mauna Loa data since you seem to have missed it earlier.

            https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_trend_mlo.png

            co2is, ……. are you truly delusional ……. or just deviously dishonest when engaging in commentary wherein you cannot support you own claims about what is factual science? Or maybe the literal fact is, ….. you actually believe that a human signature is the sane exact thing as a seasonal signature?

            co2isnotevil, …… everyone, everywhere ….. except for you, …… knows for a fact that the Mauna Loa Record and/or the Keeling Curve Graph defines and/or illustrates the biyearly (seasonal) cycling of atmospheric CO2 ……. but no where in either one of them is a human signature to be found, located, observed or pointed out (by the likes of you).

            Here, ….. evil, …… so you can’t plead ignorance again, ……. check out the annual cycle graph that is included on the Keeling Curve Graph.

            The red line is the monthly data and it shows about a 7 ppm p-p periodic change that occurs very year. Note the 12 red sample dots per year. The characteristic sawtooth has a rapid fall time and a slower rise time exactly when and why I stated earlier. I encourage you to try and explain it otherwise, but I’m quite sure that there’s no other reasonable explanation.

            evil, …… in actuality, it is an average 6 ppm summertime decrease in CO2, ….. and an average 8 ppm wintertime increase in CO2, …… with the seasonal flux being an average 6 ppm ….. and the yearly average increase being 1 to 2 ppm as a result of the ocean water recovering from the cold of the LIA.

            The temperature of the SH ocean water is the “control knob” of atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities.

        • Plants go dormant a long time before temperatures drop below 41F. In much of the area south of the Mason Dixon line, winter temperatures rarely drop below 41F, even at night for the entire winter. By the time you get to the Gulf coast, going below 41F might only happen for a few hours a couple of mornings each year.

          • In much of the area south of the Mason Dixon line, winter temperatures rarely drop

            MarkW, ….. for specifics, check out the Planting Zone Map.

            https://d1nw62gticy6e9.cloudfront.net/uploads/Zone-Map-601×400.jpg

            And that map is an EXCELLENT reference for determining the springtime “northly progression” ….. of the microbial decomposition of dead biomass and the greening of the live biomass.

            So remember, the “greening” (atmospheric CO2 intake) begins in January in Zone 9 & 10 …. and progresses SLOWLY northward to Zone 1 in northern Canada and Alaska,

            And given the above FACT …… there is no way for anyone to explain the “steady & consistent” bi-yearly cycling of CO2 that change from “increasing” to “decreasing” in mid-May of every colander year by claiming it is the result of “greening biomass”.

          • “And given the above FACT …… there is no way for anyone to explain the “steady & consistent” bi-yearly cycling of CO2 that change from “increasing” to “decreasing” in mid-May of every colander year by claiming it is the result of “greening biomass”.”

            https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2013/06/04/why-does-atmospheric-co2-peak-in-may/

            “Tim Lueker, research scientist in the Scripps CO2 Research Group, only needs one sentence to explain why atmospheric CO2 peaks in May.

            “Springtime comes in May in Siberia,” he says.

            Let’s take a look at the details of this statement to reveal the processes that drive this annual May peak:……….. “

  7. Stop funding these agencies. If there is no money these “experts” just drift away to somewhere else.

  8. Will there not be the annual NH spring greening effect ? I have a thousand quid which says that this Thunbergian experiment won’t drive CO2 below 400ppm. Any takers? And another grand that Arctic ice will bottom out at over 4 million sq km third week in September. Come on, somebody, make me rich.

    • I won’t take your bet but I asked you something like the following before but I never followed up on it.

      Mauna Loa CO2 concentration is today reported as 415.6 ppm. I say it will fall below 413.6 ppm by year end. Will you or anyone take the other side, i.e. it will not fall below this by year end?

      • Scissor – April 23, 2020 at 7:32 am

        Mauna Loa CO2 concentration is today reported as 415.6 ppm. I say it will fall below 413.6 ppm by year end.

        Scissor, and just what are you calling “year end”, …….end of Sept 2020, ….. or the 31st of December 2020?

        I hafta assume you meant ‘end of Sept 2020” ….. and therefor I hafta agree with your guess of …. “will fall below 413.6 ppm by year end’.

        Atmospheric CO2, .. (April 22 @ 415.60 ppm), …. should still be increasing for another 20 days (mid-May), …. which should top out at about 416.77 ppm before it starts its “summertime” decrease.

        And given the fact that the average bi-yearly decrease is 6 ppm, then the end-of-September CO2 should be about 410,70 ppm ….. or 3.6 ppm less than your guess. 😊

        Mauna Loa data: ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

        • I meant at ANY point between now and 31 December. I didn’t mean that it wouldn’t oscillate as it always does. I want to win the bet after all, just like CdeLion.

          We both know that this discussion would not be understood by the likes of Gore (he thinks its millions of degrees below the surface of the Earth) and possibly even McKibben who (based on Moore’s movie) seems to be a useful idiot.

  9. The fact that Mauna Loa data has not been affected is not astonishing, the fact that no one in the media has commented on it, is.

  10. I don’t know about Mr. Stein, but the governor of Michigan says that abortion is life sustaining.

    When we get out of this immediate crisis, we need to thoroughly vet our leaders to find out who they are really working for and we need to point out the faults in their belief systems. Mr. Stein does not seem to grasp reality with regard to fossil fuels. From what little I’ve seen, he combines facts with incorrect assumptions leading to some absurd conclusion.

    • “I don’t know about Mr. Stein, but the governor of Michigan says that abortion is life sustaining.”

      People like that are such liars. What they really mean is abortion is life-style sustaining.

      • …And where do we find how the ’30 year average’ is calculated?…

        Sum of 30 yrs of annual temperatures divided by 30. Or sum of 360 months of temperatures divided by 360. Hope this helps.

        • Missed the sarc my friend….
          But I’ll take your expert opinion on that in the spirit it was given, add knobs to it and toss it back.

          The fact remains that “their” 30 yr ave is not apparent and the last 5 years are plainly the “hottest” even on the UAH TLT data which is easily the coolest outlier in all the global ave temp series.
          But then again no scepticism is required from denizens when temp trends go in that
          direction.

  11. “Let us hope President Trump extends his moratorium on funding the UN WHO to the entire United Nations.”

    De-funding the UN is probably not going to happen, but de-funding the IPCC/UNFCCC and refusing to allow government scientists to participate in their anti-American scam, while still difficult to accomplish, is more realistic and far more justifiable. As a bonus, government scientists vested in the broken science like Gavin Schmidt might just quit so they can continue to pursue the scam in the private sector on George Soros’s money instead of ours.

    The timing is all wrong, but immediately after the election would be ideal since in 4 years, the benefit of disengaging with the fraudsters will become incontrovertibly apparent when compared to the foolish countries that kept true to the IPCC’s deception combined with the lack of any perceptible warming.

    • “ when compared to the foolish countries that kept true to the IPCC’s deception”

      I think you are talking about us here in Canada and our clown based government

    • It appears that the UK hospitalised deaths have passed the peak and are hopefully on a rapid down-slope. Question is if the lock-down will be lifted when the numbers fall to the low tens from the recent high hundreds. The VE day 75th anniversary would be as good day as any; see graph
      http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/VED.htm

  12. And the bottom line of the UN proposed solution is “Save the planet, kill yourself” ?

  13. As a general rule, nothing the United Nations dictates should be acted upon. It’s really as simple as that.

  14. Dr Spencer among others says that Maune Laue shows no change in the rate of CO² rise.

  15. Eric
    You are reading way too much into the UN’s statement and
    Any drop in CO2 is good news for people who believes in AGW – even luke-warmers can agree that.
    But the drop is only temporary, then it is unfortunate it is not permanent.

    There’s no basis for your frankly crack-pot comment, the UN “would like to make the Covid-19 lockdown permanent”

    • The English language is nuanced and inferential rather than always being literally interpreted. No the warmies don’t actually want to see the blight of Covid on anybody but it’s an ill wind as they say and they do like their compulsion.

      • I disagree
        I think that clearly there are many hoping for a much larger cull, they are almost gleeful about it

  16. Conflation of causes (i.e. motives). This reached its peak with the planned parenthood protocol (e.g. selective-child). But, it’s [socially] justified and popular people’s conception of progress (i.e. monotonic change).

  17. A new phrase that is now being made for after COVID-19 is “The New Normal”. Since it isn’t defined, it can mean anything anyone wants it to mean. The UN and IPCC et al will all certainly be using this new terminology to try and hijack society to their way of thinking, by law and force if necessary, supposedly for our own good. Many nation states are already headed down this path, using these new found powers for their political imposition of their ideology. It was already slowly creeping into existence, but this pandemic has given them powers over other aspects of society that had nothing to do with a genuine health crisis. Long term freedoms take such a long time to develop, but can be taken away so abruptly.

  18. Those arrogant buffoons should know what happened to the Société des Nations (League of Nations) in 1946.

  19. Who, in fact, determined “This drop of emissions of six per cent” stated in the above article?

    I find that percentage hard to believe . . . I would think that it is actually much higher, due to drastic reductions in the transportation industries, the manufacturing industries, and personal & business travel that have resulted from planet-wide lockdowns in attempts to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic.

    If all that we have achieved to date in changing human lifestyles across the industrialized word in the last 3 months has been just a 6% reduction of CO2 emissions, this is clear evidence that humans have zero chance of achieving some approaching even a 25% reduction of CO2 emissions over the next 10 years without totally devastating the world economy.

    Anyone know what person or organization did this calculation, and the specific details involved therewith?

    • Transportation is not that large a percentage of total energy usage and while people aren’t driving to work, until recently they were driving from store to store trying to find stuff. They are also sitting in lines at drive thrus.
      Factories and offices have shut down, however their electricity usage has not dropped to zero. Many lights and AC have to be left on. On the other side, people are at home and using energy there. My electric bill is up compared to last year.

      • MarkW posted: “Transportation is not that large a percentage of total energy usage.”

        In response, “The transportation of people and goods accounts for about 25% of total world delivered energy consumption.” — source https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/pdf/transportation.pdf

        So, I guess this discussion devolves into whether or not 25% is considered “a large percentage”.

        To simply address your other comments, I observe that for some reason the price of crude oil on the international open market dropped briefly below $0 per barrel earlier this week. This, despite the fact that, beyond its primary use for transportation, petroleum is refined into the chemicals bases for a lot of manufacturing raw stock, and that some oil (refined into gas or diesel) is used for power generation.

  20. The UN still bases their CO2 life span in the atmosphere at 100 years. They don’t feel a blip or other reduction will be seen anywhere. With mankind’s contribution being about or less than 3%, this allows them the luxury of saying, see we’re right if no discernible dip is identified.

    • Rhs,

      The CO2 life span is about 50 years, calculated over the past 60 years of data from Mauna Loa. The UN assumes much longer life spans for part of our CO2, but that is based on the Bern model, which assumes a saturation of the sinks (true for the ocean surface, false for the deep oceans and vegetation).
      Human contribution is about 4% nowadays, but as human sinks are near absent (some reforestation), the full increase in the atmosphere is nearly all human.
      Even so a contribution of 4.5 ppmv/year that drops to 3.5 ppmv/year will show up as a drop in yearly increase of around 1 ppmv/year or less than 0.1 ppmv/month. Not even measurable in the Mauna Loa data as the accuracy is around 0.2 ppmv, within a +/- 4 ppmv seasonal amplitude and a +/- 1.5 ppmv natural year by year variability (Pinatubo, El Niño)…

      • It’s good to see that so many here have a higher understanding of this than 97% (+/-) of climate scientists.

      • “Even so a contribution of 4.5 ppmv/year that drops to 3.5 ppmv/year will show up as a drop in yearly increase of around 1 ppmv/year or less than 0.1 ppmv/month. Not even measurable …”.
        But it isn’t spread over a year, surely a sudden drop in CO2 emissions over two or three months must become apparent.
        If not it invites the question: what measures are necessary to have any effect whatsoever?

  21. As I mentioned previously nearly everybody will eventually get this virus dogs cats and perhaps even mosquitoes and no one will even notice except very aged people that are already about to die with exceptions of immunocompromised person ect. Re check today antibody tests in New York estimate to be about 3million from a 3000 random antibody samples so mortality in New York with a supposed high death rate is now estimated to be about 0.5%!! So work out mortality rate in California with 75 Deaths??? but same incidence as New York by antibody tests???? The Lockdowns will not work just delay infection and kill lots more directly over time and through economic consequences ect.

    • A good question might be, will you take a vaccine if it comes out before you catch COVID-19? Why, why not?

    • “As I mentioned previously nearly everybody will eventually get this virus dogs cats and perhaps even mosquitoes and no one will even notice except very aged people that are already about to die with exceptions of immunocompromised person ect. ”

      There are now reports coming out about people in their 20’s and 30’s suddenly being struck with strokes from out of nowhere, while respiratory symptoms are minimal. The Wuhan virus may be destroying organs and creating blood clots in the body before they show any serious respiratory symptoms.

      We don’t know everything we need to know about this virus. We shouldn’t take it lightly.

      • Sounds more like the tendency to redirect deaths toward covid as “that’s where the money” is, as Dillon on various IPCC scientists would attest

  22. The Climate don’t care on damn bit about emissions. It is about the actual CO2 concentration for the GHG effect and the climate change.
    The climate scam and climate pseudoscience of climate models on the other hand is all about emissions and the wealth they economic generate to control and re-distribute.

    March 2020 MLO average was 414.50 ppm. March 2019 was 411.97 ppm. That 2.5 ppm grwoth is exactly what one would expect based on year-over-year grwoth rate with much of 2019 in a weak El Nino/ENSO-neutral climate.
    The wheels of the emissions to CO2 growth correlation bus are about to come off.

  23. This is actually of massive importance and every day that passes and shows C02 concentrations simply following their natural annual cycles is a nail in the AGW coffin – This is a unique moment in our history to study CO2 levels now that the entire world has come to an abrupt standstill
    The Eco loons cannot be allowed to have the argument both ways here!!!!

  24. The good news from the article above is found in:

    “Once the global economy begins to recover from the new coronavirus, WMO expects emissions to return to normal. ”
    “There might even be a boost in emissions because some of the industries have been stopped”, the WMO head cautioned. ”

    Celebrate with CO2.

  25. Daily CO2
    Apr. 22, 2020: 415.60 ppm

    Apr. 22, 2019: 414.14 ppm

    This time is about the seasonal peak, as the Northern Hemisphere starts to green up.

  26. If the idea that human CO2 does not control GW or CC has any merit, atmospheric CO2 won’t respond to the fall off in emissions – let’s see …
    Unless of course the numbers are homogenized to fit the IPCC AGW hype

  27. I was looking into the CO2VID link just yesterday, so my take on it …

    NOAA has added a few lines to its site with the heading “Can we see a change in the C02 record because of COVID-19?” (https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/index.html#co2change)

    To save clicking …

    “There have been many inquiries whether we can see in our CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa and elsewhere the slowdown in CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. That drop in emissions needs to be large enough to stand out from natural CO2 variability caused by how plants and soils respond to seasonal and annual variations of temperature, humidity, soil moisture, etc. These natural variations are large, and so far the “missing” emissions do not stand out, but we may see them as the year progresses. Here is an example: If emissions are lower by 25%, then we would expect the monthly mean CO2 for March at Mauna Loa to be lower by about 0.2 ppm. When we look at many years of the difference between February and March we expect March to be higher by 0.74 ppm, but the year-to-year variability (one standard deviation) of the difference is 0.40 ppm. This year the difference is 0.40 ppm, or 0.33 below average, but last year it was 0.52 ppm below average.”

    Those last few words suggest no unusual trend variation in March.

    2018 and 2019 had about the same levels of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions, both years having the highest levels on record (https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019), mostly due to China.

    I note that CO2 concentrations increased 2.92ppm from 2018 to 2019 (408.52 > 411.44), the third largest annual increase since records began in 1957. Concentration increased 3.41ppm from 2015 to 2016 and 2.97ppm from 1997 to 1998 (1997/98 ENSO – chicken or egg?).

    CO2 concentration in March 2020 was 414.50ppm, compared to 411.97ppm in March 2019 – up 2.53ppm over the 12 months.

    On April 21 the concentration was 416.28ppm, compared to 413.63ppm on April 21 2019 – up 2.65ppm on an annual day comparison basis and 4.31ppm compared to March 2019.

    In the week beginning 12 April, the average concentration was 416.27ppm, which compares to the weekly value a year earlier of 413.63ppm – up 2.64ppm.

    I think it’s much too early to see any influence on CO2 readings after less than two months of emission reductions due to COVID-19, but the very early indications are that despite a month or so of satellite imagery showing a substantial reduction in global atmospheric smog/air pollution, nothing substantial has happened to CO2 trends.

    The World Meteorological Organisation estimates COVID-19 will reduce CO2 emissions this year by 6% (https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-emissions-wmo-1.5540721).

    The NOAA example says a 25% emissions reduction should lower CO2 readings for March by 0.2ppm, which implies that if mankind cut emissions by 100% the readings would be 0.8ppm lower. I suspect this is based on the fact that since 2000, the average increase in February to March CO2 concentration was exactly 0.8ppm – i.e. cut emissions by 100% and there’s no increase in CO2 concentration.

    If the March 2020 concentration of 414.50ppm was reduced 0.8ppm to 413.70ppm, it would still be a 1.73ppm greater concentration than the 411.97ppm of March 2019.

    Since April has had a 74% bigger Mar-Apr than Feb-Mar increase since 2000 (0.80ppm v 1.39ppm), in a couple of weeks the April averages might provide a better indication than March averages as to whether COVID-19 lockdowns are reducing the CO2 concentration trend. However, I doubt that the global lockdown will last long enough to detect any anthropogenic influence or lack of influence amid the noise.

  28. So – for these clowns at the UN, a sign that the global economy is being destroyed is good news?
    That about says it all.
    Chris

Comments are closed.