2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels

[wolfpack513]

I calculated 410.30 ppm for November 2019 from NOAA Mauna Loa data.  Official data will come down in a few days.

That's a growth rate of 2.28 ppm over November 2018.  Trailing 12-month average is now beginning to dip below the most recent peak.  Looks like 2019 will come in around ~2.90 ppm but of course that depends on the next 4 weeks.

[Hefaistos]

Wolfpack,
thanks for your posts on Mauna Loa CO2.
I have a question on how you make the polynomials in the latest figures
In Reply #279 on October CO2, you have fitted what seems to be a second degree polynomial.
In the November graph you have a polynomial of a higher degree, obviously.
How many months of data go into the polynomials?
Which data do you use, daily, weekly or monthly?
Is there any particular reason that you changed the degree of the polynomial?

[wolfpack513]

Nice catch Hefaistos.  Yea I was playing around with the polynomial and  forgot to make note of it.  I increased it to the 4th degree.  My understanding in this regression is limited and was concerned about overfitting but wanted something other than just linear. 

I use the monthly data from: ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_mm_mlo.txt

 November 2019 was just an estimate based on daily/weekly data until the monthly value comes down. 

[wolfpack513]

**Edit** chart is backwards.  Should say CO2 growth rate lags ENSO by 5 months.

Here's NOAA monthly CO2 growth rates vs Niño 3.4 ONIs.  I lagged CO2 Growth rate by 5 months and seemed to line up with NIÑO 3.4 ONI.

[kassy]

But what does that mean? It tells us that the 3.4 region lags global CO2 by about 5 month?

[nanning]

I thought the lag is living nature emitting more CO2 because of changed weather.
Perhaps also increased fossil fuel burning through increased airco use?
Perhaps I'm getting stupid.

[wolfpack513]

But what does that mean? It tells us that the 3.4 region lags global CO2 by about 5 month?

Whoops brain fart.  I have it backwards.  The CO2 growth rate lags ENSO.  the peaks in CO2 growth rate lag Niño 3.4 by ~4-6 months. 

[Bruce Steele]

Drought causes terrestrial carbon sinks to absorb less atmospheric CO2. Atmospheric CO2 rises as a result
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180829133214.htm

“Using these new satellite observations of water storage, Vincent Humphrey and his colleagues were able to measure the overall impact of droughts on photosynthesis and ecosystem respiration. They compared year-to-year changes in total water mass over all continents against global measurements of CO2 increase in the atmosphere. They found that during the driest years such as 2015, natural ecosystems removed about 30% percent less carbon from the atmosphere than during a normal year. As a result, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increased faster in 2015 compared to normal years. At the other end of the scale, during the wettest year on record in 2011, CO2 concentrations increased at a much slower rate due to healthy vegetation. These results help us understand why atmospheric CO2 growth can vary a lot from one year to the other, even though CO2 emissions from human activities are comparatively stable.”

[KiwiGriff]

  The CO2 growth rate lags ENSO.  the peaks in CO2 growth rate lag Niño 3.4 by ~4-6 months.

As does the  Atmospheric Response to ENSO.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442-16.9.1391
The Nature and Causes for the Delayed Atmospheric Response to El Niño

[Pmt111500]

  The CO2 growth rate lags ENSO.  the peaks in CO2 growth rate lag Niño 3.4 by ~4-6 months.

As does the  Atmospheric Response to ENSO.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0442-16.9.1391
The Nature and Causes for the Delayed Atmospheric Response to El Niño

Yep, that's what happens when Nino dissipates over tropical/subtropical Pacific and warms up the surface widely so exchange to ocean becomes more difficult.

[KiwiGriff]

Enso also effects temperatures on land and rainfall distribution influencing terrestrial uptake by the biosphere .

[Stephan]

Next week last year stayed around 408.5 ppm. At the moment the day-to-day changes are small, therefore an annual increase of slightly above 2 ppm is likely.

My Sunday evening weekly (and in addition today, monthly) CO₂ service.
Week beginning on December 1, 2019:     411.07 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:                 408.47 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:              387.08 ppm
Last updated: December 8, 2019.
This is an annual increase of 2.6 ppm, more than I had expected last Sunday.

The month has finished and here is the monthly average for November 2019:
November 2019:       410.27 ppm
November 2018:       408.02 ppm
Last updated: December 5, 2019
The annual increase of 2.25 ppm is at the lower edge of values we saw this year.

Outlook:
Next week last year averaged at 409.3 ppm, which is a jump from this week last year by about 1 ppm. The daily values are on the rise, therefore an annual increase slightly above 2 ppm should be expected.

[Stephan]

Outlook:
Next week last year averaged at 409.3 ppm, which is a jump from this week last year by about 1 ppm. The daily values are on the rise, therefore an annual increase slightly above 2 ppm should be expected.

My Sunday evening Mauna Loa CO₂ service is ready:
Week beginning on December 8, 2019:     411.32 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:                 409.22 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:              386.90 ppm
Last updated: December 15, 2019

This time I got it right - 2.1 ppm is slightly above 2 ppm. There was no daily average below 410 last week, but some hourly averages lay below this threshold line.

Outlook:
Last year next week has averaged a little bit lower than this week (409.2 ppm). With actually rising CO₂ concentrations I expect an annual increase of around 2.5 ppm.

[Stephan]

Outlook:
Last year next week has averaged a little bit lower than this week (409.2 ppm). With actually rising CO₂ concentrations I expect an annual increase of around 2.5 ppm.

My Sunday evening Mauna Loa CO₂ service (sorry about the delay - I forgot it last night  ) now on Monday noon CET:
Week beginning on December 15, 2019:     411.89 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:                   409.32 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:        -999.99 ppm (which obviously means "unavailable")
Last updated: December 22, 2019

The annual increase is as high as I expected last week.

Outlook:
Next week last year had an average of about 409.1 ppm. With the steady increase I expect this week the annual increase should rise to 2.8 ± 0.15 ppm. A bad sign for a further increase in 2020??

[Stephan]

Outlook:
Next week last year had an average of about 409.1 ppm. With the steady increase I expect this week the annual increase should rise to 2.8 ± 0.15 ppm. A bad sign for a further increase in 2020??

My Sunday evening CO₂ posting is ready now:

Week beginning on December 22, 2019:     412.21 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:                   409.24 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:                388.17 ppm
Last updated: December 29, 2019

The annual increase rose almost back to 3 ppm, a little bit beyond the corridor I saw it in. After two-three weeks of steady and regular slight increase the last week shows heavy ups and downs, mostly on a day-to-day basis, but some days also had a very high noise in the hourly means. But all days had average values, so these changes passed NOAA's quality standards.

Outlook:
Last year next week averaged at 409.6 ppm. The annual increase is hard to predict as this week has been so bumpy. My best guess would be at 2.7 ± 0.3 ppm.

[wolfpack513]

I estimated 411.73 ppm for December 2019 using NOAA data.  That's a growth rate of 2.66 ppm over December 2018.  This puts 2019's annual average growth rate at 2.92 ppm. This will be close to 1998 and just under 2015 & 2016.  Those 3 years of course were associated with high end El Niños.

Official data should come down from NOAA in the next week.  Also, just noticed that technically I did the poll wrong: there's no choice for 2.91 to 3 ppm.  Whoops.   

[Tor Bejnar]

I always presumed you were rounding to the nearest tenth.  Or else, 'no choice for 2.900...01 to 2.9999...9.'

[blumenkraft]

Mathematically you would round to match the target.

If the range is 2.5 to 2.9 the 2.91 is rounded to 2.9.

[Stephan]

Outlook:
Last year next week averaged at 409.6 ppm. The annual increase is hard to predict as this week has been so bumpy. My best guess would be at 2.7 ± 0.3 ppm.

The Sunday evening Mauna Loa CO₂ information is available:
Week beginning on December 29, 2019:     413.09 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:                   409.55 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:                388.67 ppm
Last updated: January 5, 2020

This annual increase (3.5 ppm) is way higher than expected. The individual days show a very high variability with a lot of ups and downs. I have no idea whether the huge fires in Australia have had an influence. Anyway, this is bad news for the climate.

Outlook:
Last year next week had an average of 411.7 ppm. Extrapolating the actual values will result in a 2.3 ± 0.3 ppm increase. From mid January on the values generally rise much higher than in late autumn or December.

[Tom_Mazanec]

https://www.co2.earth/

Daily CO2
Jan. 5, 2020:  413.99 ppm

Jan. 5, 2019:  409.05 ppm

[gerontocrat]

Mathematically you would round to match the target.

If the range is 2.5 to 2.9 the 2.91 is rounded to 2.9.

Or perhaps to make each range clear >=2.5 to 3.0, then >3.0

[crandles]

Or perhaps to make each range clear >=2.5 to 3.0, then >3.0

This might seem clear but what if they announce it is 3.0, do you then get arguments over whether it might have been 2.98 rounded up to 3.0. So you want the rounding to be the same as for the announced result. So the poll error is probably the 2.5 that is in 2.1-2.5 and also in 2.5-2.9.


FWIW, Week beginning on December 29, 2019 has been amended to: 412.95 ppm

[kassy]

So 3,4  annual increase which still qualifies as way higher than expected.

[TerryM]

Does anyone have access to the red graph that shows each year as a wavy horizontal line stacked above previous years?


A poor description for a marvelous graph. Particularly helpful in early January.


Thanks
Terry

[Tom_Mazanec]

Does anyone have access to the red graph that shows each year as a wavy horizontal line stacked above previous years?


A poor description for a marvelous graph. Particularly helpful in early January.


Thanks
Terry

I forget, is early January the peak CO2?

[Mozi]

Does anyone have access to the red graph that shows each year as a wavy horizontal line stacked above previous years?


A poor description for a marvelous graph. Particularly helpful in early January.


Thanks
Terry

Hi Terry, were you thinking of these? From http://folk.uio.no/roberan

[wolfpack513]

My estimate was right on the number from earlier post.   NOAA released 2019’s mean CO2 level: 411.44 ppm.  Up 2.92 ppm over 2018. 

[TerryM]

Does anyone have access to the red graph that shows each year as a wavy horizontal line stacked above previous years?


A poor description for a marvelous graph. Particularly helpful in early January.


Thanks
Terry

Hi Terry, were you thinking of these? From http://folk.uio.no/roberan

Mozi


Thank you so much!
They provide a very easy to visualize picture of the increasing growth of CO2 in the atmosphere, as well as the fluxuations through the year.


Thanks again
Terry

[gerontocrat]

Does anyone have access to the red graph that shows each year as a wavy horizontal line stacked above previous years?
Thanks
Terry

Hi Terry, were you thinking of these? From http://folk.uio.no/roberan

Mozi

Thank you so much!
They provide a very easy to visualize picture of the increasing growth of CO2 in the atmosphere, as well as the fluxuations through the year.

Thanks again
Terry

You can also download the movie at http://folk.uio.no/roberan/t/MLO_weekly.shtml

[TerryM]

Thanks gerontocrat!
Terry

[oren]

Watching the animation, 2016 was a real CO2 bomb, and 2019 looks like a serious contender.

[dnem]

Watching the animation, 2016 was a real CO2 bomb, and 2019 looks like a serious contender.

2019 with no El Nino. Next EN year will not be pretty.

[Tom_Mazanec]

Watching the animation, 2016 was a real CO2 bomb, and 2019 looks like a serious contender.

2019 with no El Nino. Next EN year will not be pretty.

And there is a good chance that will be this year.

[Stephan]

The December 2019 average is available:

December 2019:       411.76 ppm
December 2018:       409.07 ppm
Last updated: January 7, 2020

The annual increase lies at 2.7 ppm

[Sciguy]

The average annual growth rate has been posted at NOAA's website:

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html

The growth rate is 2.22 ppm.  It may change in a few months as quality control on more recent months advances.

For the past five years, the annual average growth rates (in ppm) have been:

2015   2.98
2016   3.00
2017   1.89
2018   2.86
2019   2.22

Edit:  corrected the link to NOAA's website.

[Tor Bejnar]

Per Stephan's post:
Does this mean a majority of the voting public are 'winners'?  [see poll]
Or does it mean, collectively, we (the world's citizens) don't care too much about tomorrow (and, therefore, are 'losers')?


Separately, what is the relationship between the figures Ken posted (e.g., 2019 - 2.22) and the one Stephan posted (2019 - 2.7)?

[oren]

I fail to see how the animation showing 2019 over 2018 as mostly larger than 2018 over 2017, with Ken's figures showing 2.86 for 2018 over 2017, and only 2.22 for 2019 over 2018. One of these sources is wrong.

[Tor Bejnar]

I don't know any details, but a person on Weather Underground's Cat 6 blog just posted

Annual global CO2 increase

2018 408.52 ppm
2019 411.44 ppm

That's an annual increase of 2.92 ppm, the third highest annual increase in the record. The two higher figures were set in the record breaking El Nino years of 1998 and 2016. It's clear that it's just going to keep rising.

This clearly is not "Mauna Loa", but beyond that ...

[crandles]

I found Mauna loa data saying
2018   408.52     0.12
2019   411.44     0.12
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/data.html

2.92 increase.

Annual average is different from Dec to Dec increase
Dec 18 409.07
Dec 19 411.76

[crandles]

Wondered if Ken's 2.22 was a typo and meant to be 2.92 but would seem to be different data:

Year  ann avg     Unc   Increase
2014   398.65     0.12   2.13
2015   400.83     0.12   2.18
2016   404.24     0.12   3.41
2017   406.55     0.12   2.31
2018   408.52     0.12   1.97
2019   411.44     0.12   2.92

[gerontocrat]

I found Mauna loa data saying
2018   408.52     0.12
2019   411.44     0.12
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/data.html

2.92 increase.

Annual average is different from Dec to Dec increase
Dec 18 409.07
Dec 19 411.76

On that link Global only updated to October 2019.
October 2019:       409.09 ppm
October 2018:       406.41 ppm
Last updated: January 7, 2020

[crandles]

Kens numbers are at
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html

Which says
"The annual mean rate of growth of CO2 in a given year is the difference in concentration between the end of December and the start of January of that year.
...
Therefore, we finalize our estimate for the annual mean growth rate of the previous year in March, by using the average of the most recent November-February months, corrected for the average seasonal cycle, as the trend value for January 1. Our estimate for the annual mean growth rate (based on the Mauna Loa data) is obtained by subtracting the same four-month average centered on the previous January 1. Preliminary values for the previous year are calculated in January and in February."

So this is different from annual average increase and also different to Dec avg  to Dec avg.

So which was the poll about? 

[Stephan]

Per Stephan's post:
Does this mean a majority of the voting public are 'winners'?  [see poll]
Or does it mean, collectively, we (the world's citizens) don't care too much about tomorrow (and, therefore, are 'losers')?


Separately, what is the relationship between the figures Ken posted (e.g., 2019 - 2.22) and the one Stephan posted (2019 - 2.7)?

"My" number 2.70 ppm annual increase describes the difference between December 2018 and December 2019 and does not mean the annual increase for the whole year 2019, which composes  of 12 different annual increases, one per each month of the year.

[Sciguy]

Kens numbers are at
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html

Which says
"The annual mean rate of growth of CO2 in a given year is the difference in concentration between the end of December and the start of January of that year.
...
Therefore, we finalize our estimate for the annual mean growth rate of the previous year in March, by using the average of the most recent November-February months, corrected for the average seasonal cycle, as the trend value for January 1. Our estimate for the annual mean growth rate (based on the Mauna Loa data) is obtained by subtracting the same four-month average centered on the previous January 1. Preliminary values for the previous year are calculated in January and in February."

So this is different from annual average increase and also different to Dec avg  to Dec avg.

So which was the poll about? 

Thanks.  I revised my post with the correct link.  Sorry for any confusion.

And as noted, the results are preliminary until quality control on the past few months of data are done.  We have to wait until March for the final results.

[Sciguy]

Wondered if Ken's 2.22 was a typo and meant to be 2.92 but would seem to be different data:

Year  ann avg     Unc   Increase
2014   398.65     0.12   2.13
2015   400.83     0.12   2.18
2016   404.24     0.12   3.41
2017   406.55     0.12   2.31
2018   408.52     0.12   1.97
2019   411.44     0.12   2.92

Note that these numbers are subject to change based on quality control measures.

NOTE: In general, the data presented for the last year are subject to change,
# depending on recalibration of the reference gas mixtures used, and other quality
# control procedures. Occasionally, earlier years may also be changed for the same
# reasons.  Usually these changes are minor.
#

[wolfpack513]

I started the thread/poll and it was for the annual average growth rate at Mauna Loa: January-December 2.92 ppm.  A centered 4-month average may be the technical but not what I had in mind.  I’ll specify next time. 

[blumenkraft]

Posting here because it's the main CO² thread.

Flooding Stunted 2019 Cropland Growing Season, Resulting in More Atmospheric CO2

Link >> https://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2020/03/31/flooding-stunted-2019-cropland-growing-season-resulting-in-more-atmospheric-co2/

[Sciguy]

With the most recent update, the 2019 global growth rate is now listed as 2.62 ppm.  Here are the past five years:

2015   2.97
2016   2.86
2017   2.14
2018   2.38
2019   2.62

Link to the data:

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gl_data.html

For comparison, the Mauna Loa growth rate is now listed as 2.47 ppm.  The last five years are:

2015   2.99
2016   2.99
2017   1.89
2018   2.86
2019   2.47