While I respect the amount of work done by Beck to look at the historical data, I only can disagree to a large extent with his conclusions. Besides the quality of the measurements themselves, the biggest problem is that most of the data which show a peak around 1943 are taken at places which were completely unsuitable for background measurements. In that way these data are worthless for global background estimates. This is confirmed by other methods which indicate no peak values around 1943. As the minima may approach the real background CO2 level of that time, the fact that the ice core CO2 levels are above the minima is an indication that the ice core data are not far off reality.

I see that I have missed this discussion…

I have had a lot of personal discussions with Beck about the validity of the historical data. While I admire his tremendous work, I totally differ in conclusions.

To make it short: there is very little doubt that humans are fully responsible for the recent rise in CO2 (whatever the historical data were).
But that doesn’t say anything about the effect of that increase on temperature.

For more, very detailed, information about that, have a look at my page:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/co2_measurements.html

PhillpB. “it appears possible that bio activity alone will limit CO2 concentrations, irrespective of human emissions.” I think Ocean Temp is a long term (800 year) reservoir, and flora is a short term (almost immediate) reservoir. There are studies of plant growth relative to CO2 levels, but I’ve never seen a number put on the atmospheric effect.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080724084745.htm

I thought it was already known how much carbon is in the atmosphere.

I read a European? volcanologist’s paper via Googling months back stating that H2O and CO2 totalling upto 20% of the ejecta in mass were required to support a plinian column.

His measurements of outgassing found CO2 to range <<0.05 to 0.5 of the vapor content.

With no plinian eruptions yearly outgassing is supposed to be 0.2 Gtons and is dismissed. My rough calculations (I wouldn’t trust them), however, indicated Pinatubo, a VEI 6, or ca. 16 km^3 would have output 4 Gtons of CO2 at 4*10^-4 crustal proportion.

Note Tambora’s, VEI 7, date of 1815 on Beck’s curve.

[Reply: Here's what you are looking for.~Charles the moderator.]

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm

Several CO2 stations are no longer active. It seems that on my first look, those that showed downward trends have been taken off the active list. At least it looks like that since the data for these downward trending sites seem to end generally around 2000. hmmmm.

July not January 2003. The downwind effects are still apparent and perhaps higher in winter.

Keith

The blue looks the same to me.

All: Note that it is a January depiction when all of the power plants, home heaters, and car engines are working harder for people to stay warm.

Notice the and the NH red areas with higher concentrations downwind off the eastern seaboard and east of the west coast urban areas.

The same is true of the European cities withe a slight deviation for wind direction.

The volcano emissions are supposedly factored out, called “normalized”
data. How they do that and maintain essentially the same record as other stations around the globe is beyond me.

“Though Mauna Loa is an active volcano, Keeling and collaborators made measurements on the incoming ocean breeze and above the thermal inversion layer to minimize local contamination from volcanic vents. In addition, the data is normalized to negate any influence from local contamination. Measurements at many other isolated sites have confirmed the long-term trend shown by the Keeling Curve, though no sites have a record as long as Mauna Loa.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve

I’d include Keeling on the list of original alarmists. What interests me is the consistency of the different stations supposed data (below). Does CO2 mix very well and quickly on a global scale? I’m doubtful.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/other_stations/global_stations_co2_concentration_trends.html

The other thing that comes to mind is that I am wondering if CO2 measures have been completed for all ocean cycles. I think that before models have any hope of being predictive, they will need to take into account observed outgassing/sink periods of ocean decadal cycles and the subsequent changes in CO2 measures near sources.

But the best part is that by the time this stuff gets ironed out, the EU will be dealing with running out of heating fuel for those cold winters and cool summers coming their way. Bad ol’ CO2 will be put on the back burner.

Wow! What a thought! Is CO2 possibly not rising despite massive use of fossil fuels? Is it being “sunk” faster than it can be “sourced”? Does the AGW theory not even have the fact of rising CO2 levels as an input?
Just asking.