BBC: 50 years on: The Keeling Curve legacy - ( CO2 -- Global Warming?)

BBC ^ | Sunday, 2 December 2007, 20:13 GMT | Helen Briggs Science reporter, BBC News

[qam1]

The numbers are slightly different at Mauna Loa so I’m not sure where that 2005 would fit on the graph I posted

But I did find the exact #’s for Mauna Loa

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Here are the numbers
1970 0.98
1971 0.88
1972 1.72
1973 1.17
1974 0.82
1975 1.10
1976 0.90
1977 2.08
1978 1.33
1979 1.61
1980 1.84
1981 1.41
1982 0.71
1983 2.18
1984 1.39
1985 1.23
1986 1.51
1987 2.30
1988 2.14
1989 1.24
1990 1.32
1991 1.00
1992 0.49
1993 1.26
1994 1.96
1995 1.98
1996 1.19
1997 1.93
1998 3.00
1999 0.88
2000 1.73
2001 1.63
2002 2.55
2003 2.31
2004 1.58
2005 2.54
2006 1.72

Notice 2005 is less than 2002 with a big dip in between and 2005 is much lower than 1998, so it’s not the highest ever as that press report claims.

If you were to graph them it would look the same as the one I posted and with the same result: NO TREND

Again, if man was causing the CO2 every year the rise in CO2 should be greater than the last.

If you are going to Cherrypick 2005, I’ll do the same and Cherry pick 2006.

How do explain even though Human’s release of CO2 in 2006 was higher than in any previous year, the 2006 rise was less than 1972, 1977, 1980, 1983, 1987, 1988, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2005?

[cogitator]

The statement I responded to was this:

"For example, if pumping out 4000 million tons of CO2 1970 caused the rise of 1.5 ppmv atmospheric CO2, then you would expect that in the year 2000 when we pumped out 7000 million tons of CO2, the atmospheric level should have rose about 26 ppmv that year. But they didn't, it's been holding steady at +1.5ppmv".

The article may have been from 2005, but note that the statement was (paraphrased) that recent years have shown a rate ~double the increase which was observed 30 years ago (which at that time was +1.5 ppmv).

Plus, the reference to a new record is the for concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, not the growth rate of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Again, if man was causing the CO2 every year the rise in CO2 should be greater than the last.

I think you're confusing the growth rate numbers with the concentration numbers. The growth rate numbers are going to be influenced by both natural and anthropogenic factors, and that's why the variability is high. 1998 has a high growth rate because the warm El Nino waters in the Pacific degassed a lot of CO2. The big La Nina in 1999 had a reverse effect. Economic activity year-to-year influences anthropogenic CO2 output (though the Chinese are sure working hard to keep this going up).

But with regard to concentration, the effect is cumulative and so the concentration keeps increasing -- some years more than others.

How do explain even though Human’s release of CO2 in 2006 was higher than in any previous year, the 2006 rise was less than 1972, 1977, 1980, 1983, 1987, 1988, 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2005?

Hard to tell. 2006 started with a weak La Nina condition, switched to a mild (and shorter than expected) El Nino from about May-September, and ended just about in a normal condition. Globally, it was a wetter year than normal:

which according to the report corresponds to "Global precipitation in 2006 was much above the 1961-1990 average, the largest value in five years." (Unfortunately not in the U.S. Southeast, among other places.) More rain means more growth of terrestrial plants -- look at what happened in Texas this spring. As you have correctly pointed out, natural fluxes are bigger than the anthropogenic flux, so slight variations in them will affect the atmospheric CO2 growth rate year-to-year. So with the ENSO phase less important, this might have been a factor.

[AaronInCarolina]

Hard to tell. 2006 started with a weak La Nina condition, switched to a mild (and shorter than expected) El Nino from about May-September, and ended just about in a normal condition.

Your assessment of the most recent El Nino is a little off in your dates. There was no El Nino activity in the May-September time frame. It didn't start cranking up until about October, and lasted until around February of this year. See Operational SST Anomaly Charts for the year 2006 for yourself.

[cogitator]

You're right, I misread my source. This is what I was reading, from the NCDC climate of 2006 summary.

"The year began with ENSO in a weak cold phase (La Niña) which had developed during late 2005, and the presence of these La Niña conditions in the equatorial Pacific contributed to the lower global average temperature this year. By April and May 2006, the near-equatorial SST anomalies had warmed to near-normal in the central Pacific region as the ENSO transitioned to a neutral phase. El Niño conditions developed in September, and by the end of December, sea surface temperatures in most of the central and eastern equatorial Pacific were more than 1.0°C (1.8°F) above average."

Thank you for the correction.

[AndrewWalden]

CO2 is one of the three major volcanic gasses. (the others are SO2 and H2O)
Pu`u O`o, located on the Big Island (about 30 miles from CO2 observatory) has been “degassing” constantly since January, 1983. That is 24 years of nonstop eruption. The VOG (volcanic smog) is very similar to the air in Los Angeles, CA. People Kona side complain about VOG all the time, the trade winds carry it to Kona and then from Kona upslope to...Mauna Loa.
Today 12-4-07 the Kona winds are blowing and the VOG is all over the Hilo side covering Hilo town with a thick haze.
Take a look at the list of CO2 increase measurements and compare those before 1983 to those after 1983. There is a clear difference.
The Mauna Loa observatory claims that they are far from a pollution source are nonsense.
Alos CO2 constantly seeps upward through the rocks of volcanic cones such as Mauna Loa. This kills root systems keeping the upper slopes barren.

[pepsionice]

What I find curious...is that he starts the graph in 1960. One has to assume that this has never leveled off...and scientific logic would declare that there must be a zero-point...where the trend started up....so when? Was it in the 1940s? Was it in the 1920s? Was it in the 1800s? Was it even in the past 3,000 years? He doesn’t seem to want to take on this question.

[cogitator]

Mauna Loa Volcanic Emissions 1958-Present

"Down slope winds sometimes transport these emissions to the observatory, where they are detected as a "noisy" increase above smooth baseline levels for some gases. A volcanic component can be estimated by taking the difference in concentration between periods when the plume is present and periods immediately before and after that exhibit baseline conditions."

and

"The CO2 emission rate follows a very predictable exponentially decreasing trend which is established after each eruption. The slope of these trends have been different for each eruption. Current concentrations of volcanic CO2 (2006) are at their lowest levels since the record began in 1958."

[cogitator]

One has to assume that this has never leveled off...and scientific logic would declare that there must be a zero-point...where the trend started up....so when?

The image above is small, but it's in color. All of the measurements except the red (Mauna Loa) are for CO2 concentrations in ice core bubbles.

[NDNBill]

Pity all the scientifically illiterate actors and politicians, for they know only what they read in the NYT and have no capacity to think for themselves.

[AndrewWalden]

“Current concentrations of volcanic CO2 (2006) are at their lowest levels since the record began in 1958.”

This is tricky because Mauna Loa hasn’t erupted since 1984.
Pu`u O`o is on Kilauea and has erupted non-stop since 1983. They are playing games here.

Here are some details of the Pu`u O`o eruption:
Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year of CO2
concentrations as high as 48.9% CO2 have been measured at Kilauea summit

Good read:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html#reference

[cogitator]

Pu`u O`o is on Kilauea and has erupted non-stop since 1983. They are playing games here.

I don't think they are. Yes, Pu'u O'o is active (I enjoy monitoring its activity). The MLO system is constantly monitoring CO2, and there are recognized conditions when they detect volcanic gases. The constant monitoring establishes a baseline, and volcanic gas "spikes", which are likely short-lived, will be significantly above the baseline.

Also remember MLO is at 11,135 feet. The Kilauea caldera is at 4,000 feet, and Pu'u O'o is below that. You would need some interesting weather to push the Kilauea emissions up to the MLO. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but I'd be willing to stand behind the statement that it doesn't happen very often.

For more information, I'd ask the experts. As an aside, we're due for an eruption of Mauna Loa.

[SunkenCiv]

Warning: Well in Antarctica may pop like a can of Coke
Knight-Ridder Tribune News | August 14, 2003 | Joshua L. Kwan
Posted on 08/14/2003 11:46:58 AM EDT by Dog Gone
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/964070/posts

Cold And Deep: Antarctica’s Lake Vostok Has Two Big Neighbors
Science News Online | 2-8-2006 | Sid Perkins
Posted on 02/08/2006 6:52:36 PM EST by blam
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1574694/posts