2018 Mauna Loa CO2 levels

[gerontocrat]

Mauna Loa September increase more than 2ppm. Latest weekly increase year to year looks more like 3 ppm.

[wolfpack513]

**Edited with official data**

September officially came in at 405.51 ppm.  My estimate was off by .01 ppm.  Year-over-year change of 2.13 ppm.  First time the growth rate has been above 2 ppm since March.  Likely the bottom and soon to be the start of a new upswing.  An October value of 406 ppm brings the running 12-month(red) up.

[wolfpack513]

New weekly value of 405.50 ppm.  Down from the week before but higher than the minimum 405.39 ppm 3 weeks ago.  Also up 2.49 ppm from this week last year.

[wolfpack513]

October is going to finish above 406 ppm.  October 2017 was 403.63 ppm.  Should be the highest YoY change in more than 12 months.

[wolfpack513]

Last week was up 2.58 ppm year over year.   Big upswing the last 4 weeks. 

[wolfpack513]

I calculated 406.10 ppm for October.  That's a year-over-year change 2.47 ppm.  That's the highest monthly growth rate since August 2017.  Pretty clear we've passed the cyclical bottom(typically ENSO related).  I will update graph when official numbers come down.

[Rod]

Thank you wolfpack!  I really appreciate all the work you put into keeping us informed on these numbers, and your graphs are very helpful.   

[gerontocrat]

I had a look at the Scripps Mauna Loa graph and maybe the Scripps calculation for October is going to be higher than Wolfpack's. But the real message from Wolfpack's graph is that rather than climate change being tackled by the world, CO2 ppm increase is accelerating, and the so-called Carbon Budget remaining to avoid the 2 degrees increase is depleting at an accelerating rate.

[silkman]

It's the Keeling Curve full record that tells this story best. Continuous acceleration of growth, not a sign of a downturn during the 2008 crash and no visible impact of Paris.

[wolfpack513]

I should label my chart better.  I use NOAA data so a little different from Scripps.  Acceleration is the reason why made the chart.  I picked the start date based on ENSO, didn’t think about the 2008 recession.  May move the start to 2006.  It matches ENSO and was nearly the peak of the economic bull market. 

[silkman]

These posts have set me thinking about the size of the challenge we face in, first stopping the acceleration in the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere and then reducing it to sustainable levels.

Just pause a moment to consider the immense size of the global industrial endeavour that developed after the Second World War (I was born in 1946 so this is my lifetime). For massively valid humanitarian reasons and initiated by the Marshall Plan, the US led the Western World to economic recovery. This was followed later by SE Asian countries, this time led by Japan, as they drove their own economies by developing the skills to supply the material goods the West felt it needed. With both the Far East and the West heavily dependent on carbon-based energy, much of it supplied by the Middle East, both the atmosphere and the environment inevitably suffered.

The end result, at the big picture level at least, was one of positive progress economically with better standards of living and longer life expectancy - all this at the cost, unknown to the vast majority, of destruction of the natural environment and silent "geo-engineering" of the planet by changing a critical element of the makeup of our atmosphere.

China, under Mao, was slow to this party but in the last two decades it has clearly taken the lead in completing global industrialisation.  In the post war boom years big parts of the world were on the outside looking in, including Northern and Central Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, both of which were increasingly and legitimately threatening to destabilise the existing status quo.

Enter President Xi with his "One Belt One Road" initiative that is clearly the 21st Century equivalent of the Marshall Plan - massive infrastructure investment by China in Northern Asia and Africa to enable them to drive economic growth and at the same time enhance Chinese wealth and influence in the same way the Marshall Plan did for the US in the last Century.

I haven't included Russia in this "brain dump" but it's pretty clear that, understandably sore about the economic success of the other two global powers (US and China), it is unlikely to take a climate friendly approach to the future.

So where does this leave those of us who believe that this silent, stealthy, seeming innocuous change in our atmosphere is the single biggest challenge facing humanity?

The answer is clear. The real and present danger of climate change is scarcely on the radar screen in the context of the tectonics of the global economy and the challenge we face is enormous. To reverse the acceleration of the Keeling Curve, let alone reduce CO2 to sustainable levels, will require a mobilisation of the world economy on the scale that created the problem in the first place but without the short term economic benefits delivered over the last 75 years at the cost of our environment.

It requires altruism, a long term vision and the sort of global leadership that we currently totally lack and I do fear for the futures of my six grandchildren.

[oren]

These posts have set me thinking about the size of the challenge we face in, first stopping the acceleration in the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere and then reducing it to sustainable levels.
...
The answer is clear. The real and present danger of climate change is scarcely on the radar screen in the context of the tectonics of the global economy and the challenge we face is enormous. To reverse the acceleration of the Keeling Curve, let alone reduce CO2 to sustainable levels, will require a mobilisation of the world economy on the scale that created the problem in the first place but without the short term economic benefits delivered over the last 75 years at the cost of our environment.

It requires altruism, a long term vision and the sort of global leadership that we currently totally lack and I do fear for the futures of my six grandchildren.

I think the answers are clear:
A. You are totally justified in your fear. Most probably human civilization's future is doomed.
B. Only (very partial) solutions that do give some short-term economic benefit, or at least do not require heavy altruism, have any chance of being taken up in mass.

This is really beyond the scope of this thread, so I will refrain from further development of these points.

[Shared Humanity]

It requires altruism, a long term vision and the sort of global leadership that we currently totally lack and I do fear for the futures of my six grandchildren.

As well you should.

A good place to carry on this conversation would be here.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1102.0.html

[wolfpack513]

Updated graph with October's 406 ppm value.  I also extended it back to October of 2006.  I chose this year because it was a La Niña transition to weak El Niño year.   It was also near the peak of the bull market/GDP. 

[Bernard]

It's the Keeling Curve full record that tells this story best. Continuous acceleration of growth, not a sign of a downturn during the 2008 crash and no visible impact of Paris.

Indeed. And one of the many savvy graph hackers around could/should come out with a very powerful image based on this, placing so-called significant events dates on this curve like Paris or whatever up-and-downs of the global economy, just to show that so far their impact on this curve is just nihil.  I can have a try, although I'm not a very good graph hacker.

[Pmt111500]

Yep, the ENSO phase is one big natural regulator of this. The effect it has on outgassing and oceanic intake should be taken out of the co2 graph, before trying to attribute anthropogenic influences to parts of the graph.

Some reading here onwards https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,66.msg23919.html#msg23919

Continued on the next page

[wolfpack513]

November is going to be a big growth month.  Likely well over 3 ppm.  The week of the 11th came in at 3.83 ppm year-over-year change compared to the same week in 2017.

[Pmt111500]

November is going to be a big growth month.  Likely well over 3 ppm.  The week of the 11th came in at 3.83 ppm year-over-year change compared to the same week in 2017.

Normal yearly cycle rises commonly during this time of the year as the vegetation on Northern Hemisphere has entered hibernation, the ground microbes decompose much of the production of organic compounds by the plants. Note here that though leaf and other composts work faster than the natural decomposition, the end result is still much the same, the mulch aquired has about the same amount (or maybe a bit more) of organic matter and nutrients than natural decomposition, but in a more consetrated way. The winter (and spring) runoff of nutrients by the rains buries some of this in  the lakes, seas and oceans, hence eutrophication might be locally enhanced, after floods in particular... It's rise from last year that can in part be attributed to humans. (For those who are new to the subject).

Plant growth in the current CO2-enriched atmosphere may also have been strong in the past summer, but this depends very much on the water availability, which at least here was pretty poor. This might mean the relatively high rise from last year is either a result of extra decomposing or if the plants grew badly due water scarcity, the part of anthropogenic input has increased. This might be checked via estimates of NPP (dropping an acronym like i knew much of the subject). Net Primary Production can somewhat be measured from satellites, but I don't know how accurately the instruments on sky can track yearly changes on various areas.

One such tracker is here (no longer updated)
 https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/global-maps/MOD17A2_M_PSN
(Note when the updating of the NASA-graph has stopped (hi, Sc. Pruitt))

Oceanic autotrophs use mainly dissolved CO2 for their growth so variance here cannot be located as well as on land, the intake and outgassing depends more of the temperature of the surface than local productivity I guess. The warmth of tropics mean there's less dissolved CO2 so algal production of organic stuff is concentrated to cooler upwelling areas. Algae also have to fight against the excessive ultraviolet in tropical surface waters, thus they might experience less damage by giving up living on surface and let the red tides take over the habitat in surface...

[wolfpack513]

Of course all of those natural processes are true. But as we know internal variability in rate change differences including ENSO, etc. would be smoothed out in a long enough timeseries.  Unfortunately the 1st & 2nd derivative are both positive: accelerating.

[Sleepy]

_{Early oil industry knowledge of CO2 and global warming
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0349-9}

[J Cartmill]

Geography also provides a smoother time series.
American Samoa is 14.2 S 170 W and near sea level.

[DrTskoul]

_{Early oil industry knowledge of CO2 and global warming
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0349-9}

So did the public, the government and every other industry... after all there were documentaries about climate change during that time ...

[Sleepy]

Absolutely DrTskoul, and what was I during most of these years? A fool.

[wolfpack513]

A lot of empty days in November so I in-filled linearly with neighboring dates.  Could be off from the official release, we'll see.  I calculated 408.05 ppm.  That's a year-over-year change of 2.93 ppm.  That's the highest value since January 2017.  Also the running 12-month red line has begun its cyclical upswing. 

[TerryM]

2.93, Wow!


Will we even get a flat horizontal line before we reach 2 C above pre-industrial, or without civilizational collapse?
Though aware of the need to reduce CO2 for decades, we've instead increased the rate at which they're accumulating.
This inability to cooperate even in the face of extinction is the Achilles heel that doomed our culture, and possibly our species.


It's impossible to claim any progress at all until Dr Keeling's curve has turned back on itself.
How can we possibly explain this to the grand kids?
Terry

[Wherestheice]

2.93, Wow!


Will we even get a flat horizontal line before we reach 2 C above pre-industrial, or without civilizational collapse?
Though aware of the need to reduce CO2 for decades, we've instead increased the rate at which they're accumulating.
This inability to cooperate even in the face of extinction is the Achilles heel that doomed our culture, and possibly our species.


It's impossible to claim any progress at all until Dr Keeling's curve has turned back on itself.
How can we possibly explain this to the grand kids?
Terry

Don’t worry to much. Human emissions should be around zero in a few decades. Oh and getting there will be a ride. Rip 8 billion people

[silkman]

Here's the Keeling Curve:

[TerryM]

Here's the Keeling Curve:

Stretched it out over a few decades and it appears quite different.
A tree as compared to the forest perhaps.


While weekly dots plot wavy charts, the yearly trend increases.
We've known of this for decades and we've done nothing to even slow the rate of increase.


Cambodia was bombed into the stone age - and the curve crept up
Vietnam won her independence - and the curve crept up
The Killing Fields made great theater - and the curve crept up
Oil prices peaked - and the curve crept up
Oil prices crashed - and the curve crept up
Hansen addressed congress - and the curve crept up
The Soviets called it quits - and the curve crept up
China industrialized - and the curve crept up
Russia went flat broke - and the curve crept up
Nicaragua was attacked - and the curve crept up
Oliver North introduced generations of kids to "crack" - and the curve crept up
Russia came back from the dead - and the curve crept up
Poppy Bush pulverized Iraq - and the curve crept up
Hummers began plying NY streets - and the curve crept up
America destroyed Afghanistan - and the curve crept up
Clinton killed 500,000 Iraqi kids - and the graph crept up
"W" shocked and awed Baghdad - and the graph crept up
The banking sector failed  and the curve crept up
Ontario pulled the plug on coal - and the curve crept up
Chavez traded oil for Cuban Doctors - and the curve crept up
Obama obliterated the richest country in Africa - and the graph crept up
Chavez died a "natural" death - and the curve crept up
Obama increased fleet mileage - and the curve crept up
Obama's coup in Honduras sees success - and the curve crept up
Putin forgave Cuba's debt - and the curve crept up
Obama signed the Paris Accord - and the curve crept up
Trump "unsigned" the Paris accord - and the curve crept up
Albertan forests burned and production stopped- and the curve crept up
Ukraine's government was overthrown - and the curve crept up
Crimea went home to Russia - and the curve crept up
The "Southern Line" was halted - and the curve crept up
Poland imported American LNG - and the curve crept up
The Hondurans fleeing the coup show up in Tijuana - and the curve crept up
Americans longevity dropped again - and the curve crept up
Musk's cars clocked a million miles - and the curve crept up
Poland preferred it's own coal to Russian gas - and the curve crept up


It seems as though killing Asians, Arabs and South Americans, even in vast quantities, has little effect on Keeling's curve. Bombing either poor or rich countries back to the stone age appears equally ineffective.
Those driving Teslas or Hummers haven't moved the needle any further than those overthrowing various governments have.
We've spent many fortunes on these schemes and more, and we're further behind than we were when Dr Keeling first began making marks on his chalkboard.


It's not as though we haven't been trying.
But when all you manufacture is bomb sights, soon all your problems look like targets.
Terry

[oren]

Terry, it beats me how you managed to confound warmongering and empire building, Tesla, and this thread's subject.
The Keeling curve does show a (small and temporary) slowdown of its rise rate around the time the Soviet Union broke up (though it's probably related to Pinatubo instead). But the financial crises of 2008 is indeed invisible on the curve, along with all the other historical events you mentioned.
Fleet mileage efficiency and EVs and closing coal plants are invisible on the curve, but hopefully will make a small dent in the rate rise as time goes by. Though I'm pretty sure that had fleet mileage not increased or coal plants not closed the curve would have been worse.
"We've spent many fortunes on these schemes" - on wars yes, way too much, but on clean energy initiatives and other mitigation measures no, far too little.

[TerryM]

Yea
Sorry about the ramble oren.


Started out with a few items, then couldn't find the brake pedal. It's discouraging/infuriating to consider all of the very expensive (in every imaginable meaning of the word) things that we've been engaged in while never stumbling over anything that slowed down our seemingly inevitable race to the cliff.


I'm an old man who packed a bunch of living into my allotted time. If I die tomorrow, it will be with a contented smile on my lips.


But I've dreamt of our species going out into space, colonizing galaxies that would survive the implosion of our sun. Infinite time ahead to learn, invent and explore. It's an atheist's dream of eternity I suppose, and it's a hard thing to leave behind.


Life will go on, probably not mammalian life, but something better adapted to wild temperature swings. Will self aware intelligence rear it's battered head again? who knows. Those 9 brained octopuses might carry our torch. I'd often wondered if they might not be our equal today if they didn't die so young.


Anyway, it increasingly appears that we had our chance at the brass ring, but fell short because of greed.
What a very unappealing epitaph to leave behind.
Terry
edit/ this whole thing belongs in the "Near Term Human Extinction Thread" - My Bad.

[oren]

Terry btw, though somewhat younger, I do share your dreams, and disappointment in them. I guess we should have elected the science fiction writers instead of the politicians. But yeah, this is way outside the scope of 2018 Mauna Loa...

[silkman]

Terry btw...... I do share your dreams, and disappointment in them.

Count me in.

[Juan C. García]

‘We are in trouble.’ Global carbon emissions reached a new record high in 2018.

As nations assemble in Poland for climate talks, the figures suggest there is no clear end in sight to the growth of humanity’s contribution to climate change.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/12/05/we-are-trouble-global-carbon-emissions-reached-new-record-high/?utm_term=.a8e502fdbd56

[Human Habitat Index]

Here's the Keeling Curve:

Stretched it out over a few decades and it appears quite different.
A tree as compared to the forest perhaps.


While weekly dots plot wavy charts, the yearly trend increases.
We've known of this for decades and we've done nothing to even slow the rate of increase.


Cambodia was bombed into the stone age - and the curve crept up
Vietnam won her independence - and the curve crept up
The Killing Fields made great theater - and the curve crept up
Oil prices peaked - and the curve crept up
Oil prices crashed - and the curve crept up
Hansen addressed congress - and the curve crept up
The Soviets called it quits - and the curve crept up
China industrialized - and the curve crept up
Russia went flat broke - and the curve crept up
Nicaragua was attacked - and the curve crept up
Oliver North introduced generations of kids to "crack" - and the curve crept up
Russia came back from the dead - and the curve crept up
Poppy Bush pulverized Iraq - and the curve crept up
Hummers began plying NY streets - and the curve crept up
America destroyed Afghanistan - and the curve crept up
Clinton killed 500,000 Iraqi kids - and the graph crept up
"W" shocked and awed Baghdad - and the graph crept up
The banking sector failed  and the curve crept up
Ontario pulled the plug on coal - and the curve crept up
Chavez traded oil for Cuban Doctors - and the curve crept up
Obama obliterated the richest country in Africa - and the graph crept up
Chavez died a "natural" death - and the curve crept up
Obama increased fleet mileage - and the curve crept up
Obama's coup in Honduras sees success - and the curve crept up
Putin forgave Cuba's debt - and the curve crept up
Obama signed the Paris Accord - and the curve crept up
Trump "unsigned" the Paris accord - and the curve crept up
Albertan forests burned and production stopped- and the curve crept up
Ukraine's government was overthrown - and the curve crept up
Crimea went home to Russia - and the curve crept up
The "Southern Line" was halted - and the curve crept up
Poland imported American LNG - and the curve crept up
The Hondurans fleeing the coup show up in Tijuana - and the curve crept up
Americans longevity dropped again - and the curve crept up
Musk's cars clocked a million miles - and the curve crept up
Poland preferred it's own coal to Russian gas - and the curve crept up


It seems as though killing Asians, Arabs and South Americans, even in vast quantities, has little effect on Keeling's curve. Bombing either poor or rich countries back to the stone age appears equally ineffective.
Those driving Teslas or Hummers haven't moved the needle any further than those overthrowing various governments have.
We've spent many fortunes on these schemes and more, and we're further behind than we were when Dr Keeling first began making marks on his chalkboard.


It's not as though we haven't been trying.
But when all you manufacture is bomb sights, soon all your problems look like targets.
Terry

Terry, will you marry me ? 

[Juan C. García]

Terry, will you marry me ? 

How sweet!
Terry, please answer Yes!
If we cannot have a reduction in CO2 emissions, at least something good will come on this Forum!


 

[TerryM]

Terry, will you marry me ? 

How sweet!
Terry, please answer Yes!
If we cannot have a reduction in CO2 emissions, at least something good will come on this Forum!


 

My wife may also encourage me to accept this wondrous offer. She's not entirely convinced that my increasing maintenance and upkeep costs are sustainable.
Terry

[Juan C. García]

My wife may also encourage me to accept this wondrous offer. She's not entirely convinced that my increasing maintenance and upkeep costs are sustainable.
Terry

The same with my wife and me (even that I haven't received an offer…    ).
Maybe everything ends up in the image posted by Neven.

I've used this quote several times before, but I'll do it again:

Let's keep trying and hoping that we will see a decrease in CO2 emissions in the near future.
[back to topic]

[wolfpack513]

November officially came in at 408.02 ppm from NOAA.  I was only off by 0.03 ppm with my estimate.  That's a growth rate of 2.90 ppm.  Still the highest value since January 2017. 

[oren]

My layman's common sense supports the same rough calculation. If we cut roughly 5 GT of CO2 emissions, CO2 concentration should more or less stabilize. But only a carbon cycle expert can confirm this with confidence.

[gerontocrat]

My layman's common sense supports the same rough calculation. If we cut roughly 5 GT of CO2 emissions, CO2 concentration should more or less stabilize.

My layman's common sense (though perhaps uncommon sense is needed) says history has  CO2 ppm increasing faster as CO2 emissions increase, so why should the reverse not apply? (i.e. the percentage absorbed by the carbon sinks stays the same so CO2 ppm increases at a slower rate).

I looked around but the only stuff I could find was a 2009 paper on the effect of abrupt halts in emissions - http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/4/1/014012/meta

The scary bit in this paper is that if temperatures rise too far, the ocean sink fails.

We analyse the simulated mechanisms in HadCM3LC of the removal of atmospheric CO2 for the three century long model runs following cessation of emissions. In the 2012E0 experiment CO2 was removed from the atmosphere over the subsequent century by a combination of uptake by the land and ocean in a ratio of approx 1 : 2 (23 GtC and 54 GtC respectively, as shown in figure 2). The relatively small degree of climate change that had occurred by this time meant that the terrestrial biosphere was still acting as a carbon sink (due to increased CO2 fertilization of plant growth outweighing any temperature-increased plant or soil respiration). For the ocean, the increased atmospheric CO2 concentration was driving modest absorption. However in 2050E0 and 2100E0 the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere in the century after the emissions were zeroed was driven by a quite different balance of processes. The higher levels of CO2 drove increasing uptake by the ocean, which more than offset any potential reduction due to increasing ocean temperatures (higher temperatures can reduce the solubility of carbon dioxide into the mixed layer and uptake due to mixing of carbon into the deeper ocean, reducing potential `draw-down' of atmospheric CO2 (Prentice et al 2001, Sarmiento et al 1998). However what is noteworthy for these two scenarios is that the warmer global temperature (accompanied by precipitation changes) meant that, averaged globally, the terrestrial biosphere was unable to act as a sink of carbon. There is a modelled net terrestrial loss of 50 GtC and 76 GtC respectively over the 100 years following a cessation of emissions.

[crandles]

I suggest reading
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/how-long-will-global-warming-last/

The ocean is taking up a large part of the emissions. The amount the ocean takes up in short term depends on the partial pressure of CO2 (just the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere) compared to what was already absorbed previously (which depends on past proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere).

The main first order effect therefore, is that if you half the emissions then you also half the amount the oceans take up and this is a rapid effect (like a Edit:month?year in the tropics).

Lots of other effects:
Land also adjusts to CO2 level but doesn't take up as much and may be a bit slower.
Sequestering to deep ocean - biology and water overturning cycle
Rock weathering.

These are getting slower and weaker effects.

Edit 2
See also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_fraction
and other searches for airborne fraction.

The airborne fraction is a scaling factor defined as the ratio of the annual increase in atmospheric CO
2 to the CO
2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.[1] It represents the proportion of human emitted CO2 that remains in the atmosphere. The fraction averages about 45%, meaning that approximately half the human-emitted CO
2 is absorbed by ocean and land surfaces. There is some evidence for a recent increase in airborne fraction, which would imply a faster increase in atmospheric CO
2 for a given rate of human fossil-fuel burning.[2] However, other sources suggest that the "fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades".[3][4]

Changes in carbon sinks can affect the airborne fraction.

This concept exist because it is fairly stable. So cut emissions in half and the ocean and land uptake are also approx cut in half keeping the airborne fraction roughly the same.

Sorry for the bad news. This means cutting emissions in half does not get the job of stabilising CO2 levels done, we need like a 95% cut in emissions eventually rising to 100% in order to stabilise CO2 levels.

[gerontocrat]

Sorry for the bad news. This means cutting emissions in half does not get the job of stabilising CO2 levels done, we need like a 95% cut in emissions eventually rising to 100% in order to stabilise CO2 levels.

Last note from me on this thread on this

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273763195_Long-term_decline_of_the_Amazon_carbon_sink[
b]Long-term decline of the Amazon carbon sink (2015 paper)[/b]

The observed decline of the Amazon sink diverges markedly from the recent increase in terrestrial carbon uptake at the global scale, and is contrary to expectations based on models.

[oren]

Thanks for the bad news crandles. So much for common sense...

[wolfpack513]

I calculated 409.07 ppm for December 2018 from NOAA's CO2 data.  That's a year-over-year change of 2.26 ppm.  Annual growth rate for 2018-2017 was down to 1.97 ppm but that's somewhat expected in a 2nd year La Niña. 

[crandles]

January 04:     410.03 ppm

First day over 410 since ~ end of Jun and likely to be mainly above 410 for next 6 to 7 months.

2018 annual average will be well below 410, but perhaps one more way of saying we have reached 410 level has been reached.

[Tor Bejnar]

likely to be mainly above 410 for next 6 to 7 months

Or, in other words, likely to be mainly above 410 for the rest of my life.

[crandles]

likely to be mainly above 410 for next 6 to 7 months

Or, in other words, likely to be mainly above 410 for the rest of my life.

or any period starting now. 

[gerontocrat]

Jan 19 412.51 ppm

A burp upwards and lots of variation in the last few days c.f. average. Will it last?

[kassy]

There is a 2019 thread now:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2541.0.html

[gerontocrat]

There is a 2019 thread now:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2541.0.html

Moved,

thanks, kassy