Thank you for the clarification Remko.

—

Yes, they were, because they were taken in or very near cities. There CO2-concentration is always much higher than in the average lower atmosphere.

“Perhaps you are making unfounded assumptions about the readership of this blog…”

No, I am responding to specific posts. And perhaps you are making unfounded assumptions about me.

“(which is not uniform – the readership is a diverse group — this is no ducks-in-a-row charade – people here disagree with one another seriously on a whole range of interesting climate issues).”

Correct, and that makes this an interesting place. Why are you suddenly playing ad hominem here?

“If you are going to continue disrupting the harmony here, I’m going to encourage Anthony & the moderators to keep a watch on you…”

Thank you. You should now rest assured knowing this possibility exists. Please return to the subject matter. Please keep up the harmony, you are disrupting it by suddenly taking shots at me!

” – and if you keep it up, I encourage them to consider calling upon you to reveal your identity rather than indulging the twisted shots you are taking from behind the cover of a handle. [Click on the "Policy" link at the top of the page.]”

I have already added my surname to my initials having remembered the policy. RR Kampen or Remko Roderik Kampen is my real name. Misuse of this identification will be punished.

There appears to be some misunderstanding. Perhaps you are making unfounded assumptions about the readership of this blog (which is not uniform – the readership is a diverse group — this is no ducks-in-a-row charade – people here disagree with one another seriously on a whole range of interesting climate issues).

If you are going to continue disrupting the harmony here, I’m going to encourage Anthony & the moderators to keep a watch on you – and if you keep it up, I encourage them to consider calling upon you to reveal your identity rather than indulging the twisted shots you are taking from behind the cover of a handle. [Click on the "Policy" link at the top of the page.]

I wish you wisdom & penetrating insight.

I was sloppy. These years were the peaks, and practically all measurements were higher than ice-core Antarctica (up to 440 ppm).

With the Pettenkofer method they measured a higher value of CO2 concentration as today in 1820, 1860 and 1940.
—

Only in those years?
Where did ‘they’ measure this, in cities perhaps? (investigate and find out ‘they’ did!).
How come these higher concentrations are not found in trapped air in ice caps en elsewhere?

CO2 traps infrared radiation. It is not one of those mysterious unicorn gases that cool when they trap energy. Call that ‘harmless’; it is not without effect.

With the Pettenkofer method they measured a higher value of CO2 concentration as today in 1820, 1860 and 1940. It is known that (much, as in Ma) earlier it was much, much higher, too. And then one has to explain positive forcing, otherwise CO2 is quite harmless. He who calls that “simple” is either a genius, or has not understood anything at all.

I was being ironic.

You wrote: “Perhaps what is needed at this stage in the climate change discussion is an array of naturally catastrophic warming scenarios (to see if it is possible to get alarmists to acknowledge the power & complexity of nature).”

Very little people, even very little ‘alarmists’ would not acknowledge the power and complexity of nature. But sometimes one has to acknowledge that some evolutions in nature are quite simple to understand. And often one has to acknowledge the power of that part of nature called ‘homo sapiens’. Including the power to rise [CO2] in the atmospere to a level that hasn’t existed since the Neanderthaler still belonged to nature.

1) This way it is correct, even from a nitpicking point of view.
2) And that’s precisely why it is an eqation, but not an identity, and a=0 or b=0 or a=b=0 are the solutions.

You are perfectly right. And that means one cannot calculate a precise value for the volume.

Well that’s their opinion, as the reference I gave showed there is data available from ICESat.

For lat=40°:
My result: 0.64 = 64%
Your result: 100*sin(40°)=64 means that part of the earth-surface is 64 times as big as the whole.

Sorry you missed my point, the lhs of the original equation clearly should be something other than ‘sin(lat)’ I would suggest the following:

% of total area = 100 * sin(lat)

Your examples of identities vs equations seem to be mixed up since (a+b)^2=a^2+b^2 is only valid if either a or b is zero.

I would consider a number of km^3 as a “precise value” in this example, if the first digit is correct and the second one maybe not (2 significant figures). The sea-ice extend JAXA publishes
( “The latest value : 5,447,188 km2 (August 31, 2009)” )
is unscientific nonsense being much too exact. I would write e.g.
G = 6.673(10) * 10^(-11) N (m^2) kg(-2)
the (10) in brackets being 1 SD in units of the last digit.
Of course there is a limit to precision as Heisenberg established.

From Webster’s: precise
2) being exactly that and neither more or less (your use of the word)
6) exact in measuring, recording (my use)