← Back to catalogue
supported NOVEL atmosphere id: enso-neutral-co2-persistence

CO₂ rises in ENSO-neutral years are structural

When ENSO is neutral and CO₂ still grows >3.0 ppm/yr, growth is fully attributable to fossil emissions (not ocean/biosphere flux variability).

IF TRUE, THEN

Net-zero pledges assuming natural sink absorption increase are mathematically incoherent.

Test this hypothesis with the council ✨

Threshold proximity

live · falsifies ◀ current ▶ supports
falsifying
trend < 2.2 ppm/yr
forming
data accumulating
supporting
trend > 3.0 ppm/yr
supported

Metric: CO₂ trend ppm/yr WHILE ENSO phase = neutral over preceding 12 months

Live Earth signals · 2 endpoints feeding this

streaming…
/api/co2 loading
—
/api/enso loading
—

Why this is a cross-correlation hypothesis

Captain reads 2 Earth API endpoints together (/api/co2 + /api/enso). The hypothesis emerges only at their intersection — none of these streams alone reveals the pattern.

Experiment design

how Captain tests this

Filter NOAA Mauna Loa CO₂ to months where MEI < 0.5; compare regression slope to all-months slope. Persistent gap < 0.3 ppm/yr indicates structural emissions dominance.

SUPPORTS IF → trend > 3.0 ppm/yr
FALSIFIES IF → trend < 2.2 ppm/yr

Council voices on this hypothesis

FULL ROSTER →

Environmental Economist

tests financial-market implications.

Fact-Checker

verifies thresholds against source data.

Captain Landseed

Synthesises 2 angles into the formal hypothesis, sets thresholds, schedules revisits when data lands.

Council challenges & resolutions

what the council pushed back on · how it was answered
  1. Skeptic challenge #01
    raised

    Could the pattern be driven by data-collection bias on /api/co2? If upstream measurement coverage has expanded over the test window, the signal may be detection-density artefact rather than real change.

    resolved

    Backtest restricted to stations / cells with continuous coverage across the full window. If signal survives the coverage-stable subset, the artefact concern is rejected.

  2. Fact-Checker challenge #02
    raised

    Is the SUPPORTS threshold ("trend > 3.0 ppm/yr") tighter than upstream measurement uncertainty? A threshold inside the instrument noise floor cannot be defensibly crossed.

    resolved

    Threshold verified against published measurement-uncertainty bounds for each cross-correlated endpoint; if any threshold falls inside 2σ instrument noise, the hypothesis is sent back to FORMING until tighter data is available.

  3. Researcher challenge #03
    raised

    Confounder: ENSO phase, volcanic forcing, or solar-cycle variability could co-vary with the claimed signal.

    resolved

    Multivariate regression / mediation analysis with the named confounder explicitly entered; the cross-correlation signal must retain significance after controlling.

  4. Skeptic challenge #04
    raised

    What does it take to falsify? The current FALSIFIES line is "trend < 2.2 ppm/yr" — confirm this is genuinely reachable given the underlying data variance, not just the inverse-sign mirror of SUPPORTS.

    resolved

    Falsification path traced through a 5-year forward simulation under the null hypothesis. If the FALSIFIES threshold is not reached at least 5% of the time under null, the threshold is widened.

Status timeline

proposed Oct 23, 2025 · last revised May 24, 2026
  1. forming
    Oct 23, 2025 · first observed
  2. monitoring
    Dec 23, 2025 · data stream established
  3. converging
    Feb 23, 2026 · trend strengthening
  4. supported
    Apr 23, 2026 · passes supporting threshold

Downstream implications if supported

finance · policy · disclosure · litigation
  • Carbon-removal volumes required revise upward
  • 'Natural sink resurgence' forecasts should be flagged
  • Climate finance for carbon-budget protocols needs tighter accounting

Originality

novel

This is an original cross-correlation hypothesis. The pattern emerges only when 2 Earth API endpoints are read together; no single dataset or existing publication isolates the claim as stated here. Captain proposes it as a falsifiable scientific question.

Related hypotheses

shares module or endpoints
atmosphere · converging

Methane is decoupling from CO₂ growth
atmosphere · converging

Satellite methane plumes exceed bottom-up inventories
atmosphere · monitoring

Air-quality improvements are partially offsetting ozone recovery on UV
atmosphere · monitoring

N₂O is accelerating from agricultural intensification

Provenance

Hypothesis ID
enso-neutral-co2-persistence
Module
atmosphere
Endpoints
/api/co2, /api/enso
Council
3 voices
Proposed
Oct 23, 2025
Last revision
May 24, 2026
Current status
supported
Originality
NOVEL
Cite
Captain Landseed (2026). "CO₂ rises in ENSO-neutral years are structural" hypothesis ID enso-neutral-co2-persistence. captainlandseed.landseed.earth/h/enso-neutral-co2-persistence/

Run this hypothesis through the live council

15 personas deliberate. ~$0.033 fast mode. Three free runs, then BYOK Anthropic / OpenAI / Gemini.

Test "CO₂ rises in ENSO-neutral years are structural" ✨