Atmospheric CO2 Monthly Average For June, 2014 - 401.30 ppm

[hatrack]

http://co2now.org/

[Benton D Struckcheon]

1. Do you troll the inter tubes for the highest number?

Your sources are all over the place. I use the govt, here: http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/index.html
401.14 for June. Not a big diff, but I notice you only ever post when you can find a number that almost invariably is higher than the one the gov't puts out, and your sources are completely different than what I have used for many years to track this. (Comes in useful as an economic indicator too, since CO2 over the shorter term shows economic trends. The longer term trend is towards moderation, but the shorter term is useful for seeing where things are going economically.)
Things are bad enough without jumping around looking for ways to make them look worse.

[NickB79]

2. Mauna Loa has been recording CO2 conc. for over 50 years

If there were ONE source to quote for accurate CO2 data, they'd be it.

[hatrack]

3. No, do you troll this group trying to get banned?

My sources are not all over the place; it's all from Scripps for daily readings -
https://twitter.com/keeling_curve - with very occasional use of the co2now.org graphic for monthly averages.


Oh, and by the way, if you think a difference of .2 ppm is some sort of plot by me to "make things look worse than they are", then you have one seriously distorted sense of proportion. My condolences.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

5. If that's bannable, you need a life. n/t

[GliderGuider]

4. "The longer term trend is toward moderation." Rly?

I took the annual CO2 increase data from ftp://aftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/products/trends/co2/co2_gr_mlo.txt and calculated the decadal averages of the annual increases, for each decade from 1960 to 2000. The results are:

1960-1969: 0.85 ppmv/yr
1970-1979: 1.27 ppmv/yr
1980-1989: 1.61 ppmv/yr
1990-2000: 1.50 ppmv/yr (the decline is due to the 1990-1993 global recession)
2000-2010: 1.96 ppmv/yr

and for the last four years:
2010-2013: 2.25 ppmv/yr

I'm hard pressed to find moderation in those numbers. Levels are increasing well over twice as fast today as they were in the 1960s. A plot of the annual changes makes a good case for a linear increase in the change (i.e. the growth is accelerating).

Now, you may say that it's all China's fault, but China is of course part of the global economy, and there's no sign they are moderating their emissions yet. According to BP's data (my standard source for national energy use and emissions data), Chinese CO2 emissions went up by 4.2% from 2012 to 2013.

As well as your unconscionable slur against a DUer who has been here 12 years longer than you have (2001 vs 2013) and has earned our trust over and over again, you are trying to promulgate an article of faith (i.e. your claim of trend moderation) as fact without presenting any evidence. This is all very bad form, and raises questions about your motives for posting here.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

6. You need to calm down.

I'll answer this when I get an apology. Either a person uses a single, consistent source or he doesn't. He doesn't.

[GliderGuider]

9. Why wait to answer? It's a separate issue.

Unless, of course, you were just blowing a smokescreen with that statement.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

7. AND, just to be crystal clear about this,

the gov't posted its numbers on July 7. That's a week and a half ago. It's not like the info wasn't available. Cherry picking is not an acceptable modus operandi anywhere, including here.

[Nihil]

8. Oh you ARE being crystal clear ...

>> The longer term trend is towards moderation

It is blindingly obvious exactly what you are pal.