Eat that GW believers!

[rcain]

Phil Blait, from BadAstronomy.com, about the Global Warming emails... http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... -followup/

This has become so politicized it’s hard to know what’s right and what’s wrong.

couldnt agree more. that has to stop. we want our science back.

[jmc]

Have we ever tested the atmospheric effect in a laboratory? I.e. by placing a sphere filled with temperature probes covered in a material that lets in visible but scatters infra-red then shone a laser on it?

[Luzr]

MSimon, "hide the decline" comes from the oft-quoted 1998 Nature paper describing the decline in the Briffa proxy tree ring data. What happened was that there was an obvious divergence post-1960 which did not meet the measured results.

Now, the proxy data before that was very accurate, indeed, you can correlate this with other data sets and it is extremely accurate. And this is if you go by temperature measurements with good old mercury level devices.

So the scientists have a choice, 1) say that the proxy data going forward post-1960 is accurate and that *all temperature data and all other proxies and all other data is inaccurate*, which destroys all previous proxy data, mind you, or 2) say that the decline is due to an unknown anomaly that has yet to be discovered.

Which is the scientific thing to do? You report on the data, that's all. Conclusions are incidental. Would you really have them throw out *all other data* over this one divergence

Short answer: YES.

If the reason is unknown, proxy data is useless. With divergence problem, you cannot reliably claim "unprecented warming".

The worst thing you can do is to mix actual temperature in the same graph and either do not comment this act at all or comment it in smallest script possible somewhere else.

or would you rather they actually do science?

Doing science would mean you realize something is wrong and you have to get back to research before claiming anything.

[seedload]

My point is that pre ~1945 the CO2 was going as t^2 (constant acceleration), and since then its going as t^9 (t^7 acceleration).

Forgive me. I don't really understand what you are trying to say. It might be my poor understanding of your terminology or poor use of terminology by me.

Anyway, I get the following formula for CO2 from Mauna Loa

CO2f = CO2i + (Vi)(dT) + (Acc)(dT^2)
Where
CO2f = final CO2
CO2i = initial CO2
Vi = initial velocity
dT = delta T
Acc = Acceleration of 0.0143 ppm/year^2

For example if:
Ti = 1959 years
Tf = 2008 years
dT = 49 years
Vi = 0.71 ppm
CO2i = 316 ppm
then
CO2f = 385 ppm

Here is the formula (BLACK) plotted against actual mauna loa data (RED). The second plot is a projection.



So, I can't for the life of me figure out where you get t^7 acceleration from. I can't really figure out why any of what I am posting is in doubt.

t^2 or linear acceleration.

[Luzr]

My point is that pre ~1945 the CO2 was going as t^2 (constant acceleration), and since then its going as t^9 (t^7 acceleration).

Forgive me. I don't really understand what you are trying to say. It might be my poor understanding of your terminology or poor use of terminology by me.

Anyway, I get the following formula for CO2 from Mauna Loa

CO2f = CO2i + (Vi)(dT) + (Acc)(dT^2)
t^2 or linear acceleration.

BTW, you got basically the same number as IPCC...

[alexjrgreen]

I can't really figure out why any of what I am posting is in doubt.

If you use fifty years of data to predict 250 years into the future, I'm going to be sceptical.

Draw a graph of the logarithm of the CO2 level against time. The gradient of the graph gives you the index of the power law satisfied by the data.

[seedload]

If you use fifty years of data to predict 250 years into the future, I'm going to be sceptical.

I wonder if he gets the irony.

[alexjrgreen]

If you use fifty years of data to predict 250 years into the future, I'm going to be sceptical.

I wonder if he gets the irony.

Compared to using 200 years of data to predict 200 years in the future? Do you see the difference?

[MSimon]

If you use fifty years of data to predict 250 years into the future, I'm going to be sceptical.

I wonder if he gets the irony.

Compared to using 200 years of data to predict 200 years in the future? Do you see the difference?

Excuse me. Until the records are sorted out and compared to the original data and then corrections openly made it would seem obvious that we currently have zero years of reliable data.

In fact the 4 temperature data sets are intermixed and agree rather well. If only one set of data was cooked there should be an odd man out. And that is just for temperature.

Has the CO2 data been cooked? We would have to see if any of the "Team" were working on the CO2 guys. That could take a while. One thing we do know is that there were a lot of high readings from about 100 or more years ago that were thrown out. Why? Because they didn't match other data. It would be helpful if the reasons for the "outliers" were explained other than "doesn't match" so we will pick the ones we like.

Now wasn't that the same reason inconvenient tree rings were left out of the samples? Because they didn't get the right results? Yes it was.

My friend. What we have here is not science. Torturing the data until it gives the "right" answer has all the earmarks of fraud.

The time is passed for secret climate science.

[seedload]

If you use fifty years of data to predict 250 years into the future, I'm going to be sceptical.

I wonder if he gets the irony.

Compared to using 200 years of data to predict 200 years in the future? Do you see the difference?

Using pre-1945 proxy data to invent a trend that doesn't exist and has no physical explanation? Do you see the stupidity?

[seedload]

Has the CO2 data been cooked? We would have to see if any of the "Team" were working on the CO2 guys.

You know, Msimon. I think the CO2 data from mauna loa is probably pretty good. What I question is the correlation to temperature that is so heavily mentioned. The correlations to ground based temperature is 0.91. The correlation to satellite temperatures is 0.67. To me, this suggests that potentially, ground based temperature has been adjusted to better fit the co2 curve.

An odd thing. I compared CO2 to temperature in the following ways. Temp to CO2 level, Delta temp to CO2 increase (velocity), and Delta Temp to Delta CO2 increase (Acceleration). For instrumental temp the correlations were .91, .72, .69 respectively. For satellite temps, the correlations were .67, .73, and .79 respectively. Something is amiss.

The satellite correlations suggest that temperature changes seem to correlate better to CO2 growth rates than to overall CO2 levels, while the instrumental record seems to have the opposite indication, that overall temperature correlates better to overall temperature than to growth rates. The satellite record leans toward a temperature causing CO2 changes conclusion while the instrumental data leans towards a CO2 causing temperature changes conclusion. Odd isn't it.

regards.

[alexjrgreen]

I wonder if he gets the irony.

Compared to using 200 years of data to predict 200 years in the future? Do you see the difference?

Using pre-1945 proxy data to invent a trend that doesn't exist and has no physical explanation? Do you see the stupidity?

It's not proxy data. It's a direct measurement of CO2 levels in air trapped in bubbles in the ice.

The physical explanation is simple: ever more humans burning increasing amounts of fossil fuels.

[Skipjack]

Phil Blait, from BadAstronomy.com, about the Global Warming emails... http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... -followup/

I see there is fellow follower of Mr Plait and the JREF here
I do agree with Phil on a lot of things, though not everything (e.g. Constellation).
In case of AGW, I am a little more reserved. I feel like there is insufficient data to predict the behavior of such a complex system.
Alex, you are assuming that the increase in CO2 will continue at whatever rate. This is a false assumption. You always have to include the reasons why the increase was there. E.g. certain nations had an improvement of their economic situation, resulting in advanced industrialization and therefore more CO2 output by them. Now the lower the level of development the less these people care about CO2 output and environmental problems in general. However since they are still developing their output is still increasing. At some point their economic and social development will have cought up sufficiently that they will be able to implement measures to stabilize the problem. At this point their population growth will hopefully stop as well.
Until this point their CO2 output will increase, but their curve will actually flatten down. Right now we are still seeing the effect of their growth (and of others that are about to make progress). 100 years from now, their situation will be very different.
Besides, technology does not sleep. We have only recently begun to implement energy saving measures in developing nations. It will take a while until they show an effect.
Anyway, I have not seen anything but a linear growth by about 1ppm between 1900 and 1978, that is the data that was available to me.
Up until 1900 the growth was indeed slower, according to this data set atleast. But this is a rather hard jump and after that it has been more or less stable. It is not a gently increase that it would have to be, if it was exponential, as you are saying.

[alexjrgreen]

I wonder if he gets the irony.

Compared to using 200 years of data to predict 200 years in the future? Do you see the difference?

Excuse me. Until the records are sorted out and compared to the original data and then corrections openly made it would seem obvious that we currently have zero years of reliable data.

Only if you're cherry-picking the data.

Assuming bad faith on behalf of everybody is poor science here. A dryly expressed note of caution would serve your purposes much better.

Has the CO2 data been cooked? We would have to see if any of the "Team" were working on the CO2 guys. That could take a while. One thing we do know is that there were a lot of high readings from about 100 or more years ago that were thrown out. Why? Because they didn't match other data. It would be helpful if the reasons for the "outliers" were explained other than "doesn't match" so we will pick the ones we like.

CO2 levels are generally higher indoors, and likely to be higher in chemistry labs with Bunsen burners running.

You need to check how the air samples were taken. Several of the chemistry lab determinations agree with the ice cores, so there seems a proper basis for debate.

[alexjrgreen]

Alex, you are assuming that the increase in CO2 will continue at whatever rate. This is a false assumption. You always have to include the reasons why the increase was there. E.g. certain nations had an improvement of their economic situation, resulting in advanced industrialization and therefore more CO2 output by them. Now the lower the level of development the less these people care about CO2 output and environmental problems in general. However since they are still developing their output is still increasing. At some point their economic and social development will have cought up sufficiently that they will be able to implement measures to stabilize the problem. At this point their population growth will hopefully stop as well.
Until this point their CO2 output will increase, but their curve will actually flatten down. Right now we are still seeing the effect of their growth (and of others that are about to make progress). 100 years from now, their situation will be very different.

Given increasing world population and increasing world average per-capita CO2 output, you need to explain why CO2 levels won't continue to increase, rather than the other way around.

Besides, technology does not sleep. We have only recently begun to implement energy saving measures in developing nations. It will take a while until they show an effect.
Anyway, I have not seen anything but a linear growth by about 1ppm between 1900 and 1978, that is the data that was available to me.
Up until 1900 the growth was indeed slower, according to this data set atleast. But this is a rather hard jump and after that it has been more or less stable. It is not a gently increase that it would have to be, if it was exponential, as you are saying.

As you pointed out yourself, a technology change halted the rise of CO2 levels for a while (between 1936 and 1949).

That's what makes your growth calculation from 1900 to 1978 misleading. To get a true picture you would have to model interrupted growth.