Eat that GW believers!

kcdodd · Post by **kcdodd** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:04 pm

Careful there's a hockey stick in that graph. The data was probably tampered with. Fortunately the CO2 data was not from CRU. But that probably just means there is a larger conspiracy at work here.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:21 pm

kcdodd wrote:Careful there's a hockey stick in that graph. The data was probably tampered with. Fortunately the CO2 data was not from CRU. But that probably just means there is a larger conspiracy at work here.

Actually there is quite a bit of discussion over early chemical methods of determining CO2 concentration. Results that did not agree with the 280ppmv "accepted value" were discarded.

And a world wide conspiracy? Probably.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... nmark.html

Luzr · Post by **Luzr** » Wed Dec 02, 2009 10:26 pm

alexjrgreen wrote:
Luzr wrote:Human emissions maybe. Levels seem to follow linear pattern.
Hardly. Historical trends in carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature, on a geological and recent time scale.

Yep. "Observations" part is pretty linear. And that is the period of exponential grow in emissions.

a) Solid CO2 measurements started in 1960.
Older figures are from analysis of the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores.

Yes, but these are not direct measurements.

alexjrgreen · Post by **alexjrgreen** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:18 am

MSimon wrote:Actually there is quite a bit of discussion over early chemical methods of determining CO2 concentration. Results that did not agree with the 280ppmv "accepted value" were discarded.

CO2 levels are higher inside buildings, by about 2-300 ppmv. A chemistry lab likely has Bunsen burners running too...

alexjrgreen · Post by **alexjrgreen** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:21 am

Luzr wrote:
a) Solid CO2 measurements started in 1960.
Older figures are from analysis of the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores.
Yes, but these are not direct measurements.

Direct measurements of air trapped in ice.

alexjrgreen · Post by **alexjrgreen** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:58 am

Luzr wrote:
alexjrgreen wrote:
Luzr wrote:Human emissions maybe. Levels seem to follow linear pattern.
Hardly. Historical trends in carbon dioxide concentrations and temperature, on a geological and recent time scale.
Yep. "Observations" part is pretty linear. And that is the period of exponential grow in emissions.

Check the data...

Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Mauna Loa

1959-1968 - 8.10 ppmv increase
1999-2008 - 18.75 ppmv increase

Non-linear.

seedload · Post by **seedload** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 2:11 pm

MSimon wrote:Actually there is quite a bit of discussion over early chemical methods of determining CO2 concentration. Results that did not agree with the 280ppmv "accepted value" were discarded.

MSimon,

While I agree with your being skeptical about the coming climate catastrophe, I also notice that you tend to highlight EVERY skeptical bit of 'evidence' as meaningful. It is a trait I also sometimes share, but I am really trying to fight it. I think it is disingenuous to not use a critical eye to look at skeptical evidence while at the same time being hyper-critical of all AGW supporting science.

I think the bit of discussion this board had based on that paper, which I read but can't remember any more, was probabably not worth our time. I believe that the speculations in that paper of CO2 levels in the 400's or even 500s (I think that is what I remember) in the last couple centuries are very thin. I base my opinion on three things: (1) there is no apparent physical mechanism for those levels of CO2, (2) it is old research that is unreliable despite the notability of those who conducted it, and (3) Volstak and CO2 measurments started at Mona Loa present a very reasonable picture of what CO2 has been doing recently. Futher discussions about the splice point won't really change my mind on that last point.

On the topic of your praising all speculation without critical thought (my opinion), I also think that you may have come to some conclusions about solar contributions to recent warming that are (again my opinion) misplaced. I think a lot of people are using the wrong TSI data for these speculations. Specifically, I have been convinced that using Hoyt or Lean data is incorrect. Svalgaard is better. The difference being that Svalgaard data shows consistent minimums, which quite frankly just makes sense for the way the Sun works. Check out this site for more discussion, specifically about how the use of the wrong TSI data hurts AGW supporters cases. http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/ ... en-it.html. But I think this also must be true of its-the-sun-stupid AGW skeptics who are using the wrong data as well. Also, check out Svalgaards paper.

The Tisdale site is an interesting one. Specifically, his writings about ENSO and his correlations of ENSO to step wise increases in temperature are fascinating.

Seeing the obvious correlations between PDO and ENSO and global temperatures, I think this is where skeptics should focus their energies. To me, "It's the water, stupid" makes the most sense. Specifically, we have very little understanding of how heat energy is stored up in the oceans and released and the cycles of this release. Also, we have very little understanding of how these cycles affect other water like clouds and water vapor as well as atmospheric patterns. Water is the key to this and not nearly enough energy is going into truly understanding water and its role in our recent warming.

Regards

rcain · Post by **rcain** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:06 pm

(aside: quite informative roundup of the data debates on the bbc site - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8389706.stm )

seedload · Post by **seedload** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:15 pm

alexjrgreen wrote: 1959-1968 - 8.10 ppmv increase
1999-2008 - 18.75 ppmv increase

Non-linear.

You are wrong, Alex.

CO2 is indeed increasing by a little bit more each year than the increase of the year before (on average). If this year the increase is 2ppm, then, on average, the increase to CO2 next year will be 2.0142 ppm. The mean of the increase to the increase (acceleration) is 0.0142 ppm/y2. The acceleration does appear to be linear since mona loa started measuring. If anything it has actually trended down a bit.

Anyway, using the actual numbers, CO2 will get to like 650 in a hundred years time.

To get to your 7000 number, you have to change the 0.0142 ppm/y2 to a 1.42 ppm/y2 acceleration. You need to make a TWO ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE adjustment to what is actually happening to get you your 7000ppm number.

You are wrong.

Now, please stop this insanity.

regards

Luzr · Post by **Luzr** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 7:54 pm

seedload wrote:
alexjrgreen wrote: 1959-1968 - 8.10 ppmv increase
1999-2008 - 18.75 ppmv increase

Non-linear.
You are wrong, Alex.

CO2 is indeed increasing by a little bit more each year than the increase of the year before (on average). If this year the increase is 2ppm, then, on average, the increase to CO2 next year will be 2.0142 ppm. The mean of the increase to the increase (acceleration) is 0.0142 ppm/y2. The acceleration does appear to be linear since mona loa started measuring. If anything it has actually trended down a bit.

Actually, we were speaking about levels, not acceleration. So I have to admit I was wrong.

Accidentally, so was Alex - if acceleration is linear, then levels rise quadratically, right?

kcdodd · Post by **kcdodd** » Thu Dec 03, 2009 11:44 pm

x = (at^2)/2, a = ct -> x = (ct^3)/2

Jccarlton · Post by **Jccarlton** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 12:41 pm

It turns out we have no way of knowing how much CO2 is actually in the air:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/ ... ies_d.html
Something to do with all the monitoring stations being downwind from active volcanoes. So the Keeling curve has, as I have suspected for some time, measured nothing more than the increasing activity of Mauno Loa.

alexjrgreen · Post by **alexjrgreen** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 1:27 pm

Historical CO2 record from the Law Dome DE08, DE08-2, and DSS ice cores

From 1010 to 1825 the 75 year average CO2 level meandered around between 275.3 and 284.3 ppmv.

After 1825 the level rose exponentially:

In the 75 years between 1825 and 1900 it rose 12.4 ppmv to 296.7

In the 75 years between 1900 and 1975 it rose 32.7 ppmv to 329.4

Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide - Mauna Loa

In only 25 years between 1975 and 2000 it rose 38.67 ppmv.

seedload · Post by **seedload** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:19 pm

Jccarlton wrote:It turns out we have no way of knowing how much CO2 is actually in the air:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/ ... ies_d.html
Something to do with all the monitoring stations being downwind from active volcanoes. So the Keeling curve has, as I have suspected for some time, measured nothing more than the increasing activity of Mauno Loa.

Wow. This is silly. There are a lot of stations and all of the stations are in pretty tight agreement. I guess all of the upwind volcanos and oil industry plants are working in unison.

Some serious thought to our skeptisism is in order here. Doubting that CO2 is going up is pretty silly, IMHO. Almost as silly as predicting 7000 ppm CO2 in a hundred years despite all evidence to the contrary.

regards

alexjrgreen · Post by **alexjrgreen** » Fri Dec 04, 2009 2:44 pm

seedload wrote:Almost as silly as predicting 7000 ppm CO2 in a hundred years despite all evidence to the contrary.

Using the ice core figures above, rate of increase rose by 2.64 times from 12.4 ppmv / yr to 32.7 ppmv / yr in the 75 years between 1900 and 1975.

At that rate we reach 7,000 ppmv in 2350.

More recent figures get us there by 2200.

EDIT: That should be 12.4 ppmv / 75 years and 32.7 ppmv / 75 years as above.

The dates to reach 7,000 ppmv are unchanged.