What do you think of Anthony Watts' analysis of atmospheric CO2 data?
Essentially the atmospheric CO2 level was abnormally low over a period of about 2 months. Watts used this short-term varation to arrive at several conclusions, such as
"A CO2 residence time of several hundred years seems unlikely now"
So his conclusion was based on March-April data. Now the May and June CO2 data is in, and it looks like this:
Tamino at Open Mind harshly criticizes Watts for basing major conclusions on 2 months worth of data.
So what do you think - is Tamino being too critical, or was Watts' analysis an amateurish confusion of short-term and long-term variation?
"Even if [atmospheric CO2] stays even with last year’s level, this tells us a lot and sheds doubt on these ideas:
1. Anthropogenic accumulation (civilization is still producing CO2)
2. A CO2 residence time of several hundred years seems unlikely now
3. Giegengack’s thesis that if man stopped emitting CO2, the earth would emit more to compensate, the premise being that since man has for the first time “upset the balance” and is pressing CO2 into the earth, then once the balance is restored the earth will resume emitting it instead."