Tastes Great, Less Incinerating!

fire_burgerGuest post by Kevin D. Knoebel

How much stupidity is needed to win a Pulitzer? The competition is fierce, apparently certain writers are piling it on high and deep in the attempt.

For example, there is a sterling example of post-modern post-journalistic brilliance that just popped up at Salon by David Sirota, Would we give up burgers to stop climate change? As will be seen, the heaping begins with the subtitle: “A new report suggests that adjusting our diet can slow global warming. Now let’s see if our politics will let us”

The first paragraph is quite revealing:

In case you missed the news, humanity spent the Earth Day week reaching another sad milestone in the history of catastrophic climate change: For the first time, measurements of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere surpassed 400 parts per million, aka way above what our current ecosystem can handle.

On the NOAA/ESRL Mauna Loa Observatory CO₂ measurements page, currently the last released monthly atmospheric concentration mean was March 2013, 397.34 ppm. Where the “surpassed 400” came from is quite unknown, not revealed. And overall not that important, as about now is when the annual cycle is peaking. The annual mean is far more scientifically relevant, and was 393.82ppm in 2012. The 2013 mean will not be breaking 400ppm. There may indeed have been a recent daily measurement above 400ppm, which shows why they use monthly means due to the range of daily variations. It will be quite surprising if the final April mean breaks 400ppm.

And how has the ecosystem responded to the “earth-shattering” increase? Crop yields up, the Sahel is greening, etc. Perhaps the ecosystem is having the equivalent of a surge of manic behavior right before a nervous breakdown. Sure, it looks great now, but soon it’ll all come crashing down. Yup, any decade now. No longer away than the next century, certainly.

BUT, there is hope! A new report, just as it says, done by Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang, former advisers to the World Bank, shows us the way. All we have to do, is give up meat. Bold added:

If you find it demoralizing that we are incinerating the planet and dooming future generations simply because too many of us like to eat cheeseburgers, here’s that good news I promised: In their report, Goodland and Anhang found that most of what we need to do to mitigate the climate crisis can be achieved “by replacing just one quarter of today’s least eco-friendly food products” — read: animal products — “with better alternatives.”

Does this sound like something you’ve heard before? Guess what, it is! The World Watch institute has the report (pdf). It was published at the end of 2009. For 3 ½ years now, this report has been chewed up, digested, rendered into the appropriate final form. Even a major vegan site found their numbers way too high.

Now, suddenly, Mr. Sirota has become aware of this amazing new report which, in the shadow of a nigh-impossible atmospheric CO₂ measurement of currently unknown origin which clearly shows the ecosystem has been broken, gives us the hope of avoiding planetary incineration by switching to great-tasting better-for-us non-animal foods. Which we would gladly do IF we could only overcome the politics!

Forget the Pulitzer, this stuff is GOLD. This is worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize of Journalism. Please, feel free to send your recommendations in to Al Gore, I hear he has some pull with the Nobel Committee.

Also notify the publishers of Roget’s Thesaurus, as Mr. Sirota has revealed two previously unknown synonyms for politics, which is that which must be overcome to avert planetary incineration: physiology and instincts.

107 thoughts on “Tastes Great, Less Incinerating!

  1. I like my hamburger with lettuce, tomato, ketchup, lots of mustard, dill pickles, and a thick slice of cheddar cheese. Cheddar is better I always say. And since I was freezing today, I want two hamburgers today to make my area warmer. And to make sure the planet gets warmer, I will wash it all down with a big glass of fresh milk.

  2. I asked Mr. Sirota why The Planet wasn’t incinerated when the North American Bison covered the Continent.

    When I hear Crickets, I’ll know it is his response.

  3. Anyone who bothers to look up the local CO2 levels around the planet will notice that the 400 ppm level was reached years ago, at least briefly and at least locally. The only meaningful number after that would be a global average value which as we all know, has not risen above 400 in several centuries at least, depending on who’s proxies you believe.

    Aren’t there several thousand chemical test measurements made over the course of a century showing that 400 ppm was routinely exceeded in times past? Ah…the past isn’t what it used to be, even if you were there to measure it. (Kinda like the temperatures in the 1930’s.)

  4. Twelve degrees below normal here In Virginia today. For dinner tomorrow night, I think I’ll get me a nice thick Delmonico, just dripping with blood!!

  5. 400 parts per million simply isn’t enough. It’s basic science that plants grow better and need less water with higher co2. Everyone needs to do their part to increase their carbon footprint for the good of the planet and the people on it.

  6. / You just don’t get it. Ruminants emit methane, much worse than CO2. What the post did not analyze was the deadly AGW effect of more cow farts!/
    Sarc off. How on Gods green earth can anyone take this sort of stuff seriously?

  7. The air you exhale is about 43,000 PPM CO2, so you should stand well back from your sampling device, with no other animal life or industry upwind for a long distance. That is why Mauna Loa is such a good site.

  8. Would I give up hamburgers to prevent climate change? NO. Actually I plan to increase my consumption of hamburgers to save the world from global cooling and I’m doing it willingly with pure and unselfish motives because I want to “save the planet.”

  9. “The air you exhale is about 43,000 PPM CO2″

    Actually people exhale quite a bit of CO. The CO/CO2 ratio of a person is about 1.6%. As we all know, CO is quite poisonous and a GHG so I think the EPA should get in there are regulate breathing, especially the heavy kind.

  10. Melody Harpole says:
    May 5, 2013 at 6:35 pm

    I totally agree. We should all try to emulate Al Gore.

  11. “…aka way above what our current ecosystem can handle.”

    And how, pray tell, does he know what the current ecosystem can handle, not to mention a different, much better ecosystems that can handle it if this one can’t.

    These brainiacs trip overthemselves a salivate evolution anytime the word creationism isn’t tested. Well, welcome to evolution. The climate changes and species adapt or perish.

    Or maybe they actually like the concept of creationism better with the nice in changing Garden of Eden?

  12. “Would we give up burgers to stop climate change? ”

    Presumably, to get to this headline, one has to believe a chain that approximates the following:

    Climate change doesn’t occur naturally.

    Humans cause climate change.

    They do this by putting CO2 into the atmosphere.

    We can stop climate change by putting less CO2 into the atmosphere.

    We can do this be eating less meat.

    .

    How sad for the writer …

    ( … and, by the way, the US bioethanol industry makes enough distillers grain feed to make 33 pounds of burgers per year for every American – more if you remove the vegetarians [not literally, of course])

  13. “Actually people exhale quite a bit of CO. The CO/CO2 ratio of a person is about 1.6%.”
    I find that difficult to believe, Crispin. Do you have a reference for it?

  14. “Would we give up burgers to stop climate change? ”

    Presumably, to get to this headline, one has to believe a chain that approximates the following (alternative ending):

    There are enough dumb f**ks who will somehow put money in my personal coffers by reading this crap … so, as long as that’s the case, I’m going to write it.

  15. Sirota was on talk radio here in Denver for a while. Can’t stand him… If he leaned any more left he’d be touching the ground.

  16. Crispin, no way do people exhale 1.6% of CO2 as CO. That would be over 600-700 ppm. I could believe 1 ppm.

  17. I encourage everyone to roll back on their consumption of meat. Especially baby back pork loin ribs and boneless rib-eye steaks. Special thanks for abandoning lamb chops, and to carry it over to the other white meat, lobster, thank you, thank you for just saying no. I’d also like to see a lot of you cutting back on halibut steaks and fresh cod. I’m on a fixed income and could use all the help possible to reduce demand for this junk food. I can barely afford lump charcoal and the meat as it is.

  18. Re CO2 at 400 ppm – what about greenhouses with 1,000, even 1,500 ppm pumped in to make the veggies grow faster? Why aren’t they burning up? What keeps them warm is not the CO2 in them – it’s the glass that is a far better heat radiation blocker than CO2 ever could be – and heating, if needed in colder weather. And it’s ridiculous to claim that they get catastrophically hot – one would think they wouldn’t be able to grow those veggies in them if they did.

  19. Exhalation & Gas Exchange

    The main reason for exhalation is to rid the body of carbon dioxide, which is the waste product of gas exchange in humans. Air is brought in the body through inhalation. During this process air is taken in through the lungs. Diffusion in the alveoli allows for the exchange of O2 into the pulmonary capillaries and the removal of CO2 and other gases from the pulmonary capillaries to be exhaled. In order for the lungs to expel air the diaphragm relaxes, which pushes up on the lungs. The air then flows through the trachea then through the larynx and pharynx to the nasal cavity and oral cavity where it is expelled out of the body.[1] Exhalation takes longer than inhalation since it is believed to facilitate better exchange of gases. Parts of the nervous system help to regulate respiration in humans. The exhaled air isn’t just carbon dioxide; it contains a mixture of other gases. Human breath contains volatile organic compounds (VOCs). These compounds consist of methanol, isoprene, acetone, ethanol and other alcohols. The exhaled mixture also contains ketones, water and other hydrocarbons.[2][3]

    It is during exhalation that the olfaction contribution to flavor occurs in contrast to that of ordinary smell which occurs during the inhalation phase.[4]

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

    No mention of CO there at all.

  20. michael hart says:
    May 5, 2013 at 7:20 pm
    I find that difficult to believe, Crispin. Do you have a reference for it?
    ———————————————————————————————-
    according to “Biology” by Claude A. Villee (Third Edition, W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia and London, copyright 1957 it works out to about 3.7% by volume , 5.7% by weight , for the average adult , this seems to be somewhere in the ball park as I`ve seen more modern analysis put it at up to 40000 ppm (4%)

  21. R. Shearer says:
    May 5, 2013 at 7:55 pm

    Crispin, no way do people exhale 1.6% of CO2 as CO. That would be over 600-700 ppm. I could believe 1 ppm.

    Easy to believe: When we “test” a continuous atmosphere monitor for alarm function, easiest way is to simply hold your breath, then blow into the receiver: O2 levels drop from 20+% percent immediately to below 15%, CO goes off on high alarm levels, CO2 goes high levels way above 1 ppm…. I won’t go into the rude ways “some” guys try to “simulate” the explosive gasses ….)

  22. R. Shearer says:
    May 5, 2013 at 7:55 pm

    Crispin, no way do people exhale 1.6% of CO2 as CO. That would be over 600-700 ppm. I could believe 1 ppm.
    ————————————————————————————————-
    Pretty damn close for a guess , from an article on US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health database:
    Smokers had a mean breath carbon monoxide concentration of 16.4 ppm and non-smokers had a mean of 1.26 ppm

  23. Some of you that have just made comments on this topic might find this interesting:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/07/21/church-of-the-sacred-carbon/

    This is from last July when a number of us with the urging of E. M. Smith (aka Chiefio) became members of the Church of The Sacred Carbon. Go to the link above and follow the directions for the sacred  “Liberation Of The Carbon” ritual.

    I think comments are still accepted on that post. Are you, Chiefio, available to accept new members?

    Cheers!

  24. Animals on the farm are used for their meat, milk, bone meal, down, eggs, blood, hides, feathers, horns, hooves, and hair. For most people on the planet except us privileged 1% of the globe, those items are irreplaceable in the local economy. Try running a farm in the middle of nowhere without leather. Very hard.

    In addition, animals turn things we don’t or can’t eat into meat and milk and eggs. For a poor peasant woman, her chickens may be the main source of protein for her children.

    As a result, any attempt to take that woman’s chickens from her should be met with the utmost contempt. They are proposing impoverishing the already poor.

    See my posts here and here for a discussion of these issues.

    w.

  25. Sirota apparently writes serial imbecilic comments for Salon. He’s the same guy that wrote that he hoped the Boston bombers would be found to white males. He was wrong about that too. Finding errors in his analyses is too easy to be any fun.

  26. For the first time, measurements of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere surpassed 400 parts per million, aka way above what our current ecosystem can handle.

    Measurements in future will show over 400ppm but paleo records show well over 5,000ppm in the past. As far as I know animals and plants thrived in the Jurassic when co2 was 1,800ppm. During the Ordovician ice age co2 was sometimes 10 times higher than today’s values.Greenhouse growers regularly pump in 1,000ppm to encourage plant growth.

    Here is the past response of a neotropical rain forest to high temperatures and high co2. It thrived.

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1193833

  27. Professor Sirota stated: “Add to this the fact that producing animal protein involves up to eight times more fossil fuel than what’s needed to produce an equivalent amount of non-animal protein, and you see that climate change isn’t intensified only by necessities like transportation and electricity.”

    Now I cannot remember ever having heard that cows, chickens and ducks eat fossil fuel, but surely he must be right in this assertion. The question is, where does the statement come from, and is it true?

    Note that based on his article I consider him entitled to the dignitary of “Professor” just as is “Professor Flannery” our highly esteemed Climate Commissioner.

  28. I viewed the video re the Cow-Pea, and noted that while many increases were given for various aspects of the plant under higher CO2 concentrations, there was no indication of any increase in mass of edible seed or increased protein content. However, the plant is a nitrogen fixer, which means it could be a desirable crop on that ground alone, and has a high protein content in its leaves. Suggest view the Wikipaedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowpea.

  29. The name of this “journal” says it all. Salon.

    Karl Marx had some things right. In this case his contempt for the petit bourgeoisie who spend their lives attempting to imitate the mannerisms of their social superiors.

    This is the class that inhabits AGW – and associated issues – and who think the finest of attainments is to be considered suitable for admission to the “conversation” and the social grooming they take to be the sign of a “superior” status.

    They are of course inherently precarious in their status and so must spend their time constantly updating the nuances of etiquette and gaining feedback from others that they are in fact considered acceptable.

    Thus The Salon. A frisson of excitement that they could actually be associated with something as “classy” and “refined” as a 19th Century – French! – social construction that they have read about in books or have at least seen in a film!

    Since that is all that matters, they exist in a closed loop, feeding off each others desperation to conform, with no proposition too absurd if dressed as a social nicety, no behavior too outlandish if required as fashion, and reliant on directions they can vaguely and incompletely discern coming from the world of their betters.

    This is now taking them over the edge.

    They are on the verge of being objects of mockery and contempt. Not just from those they desperately seek to distinguish themselves from, but also from their superiors who do not have the same compulsions based on fears of exclusion, and can detach themselves from such things much more easily.

    Every step, such as this one, carries them closer to oblivion.

    Their superiors have no intention whatsoever of giving up meat.

  30. Can someone answer me a few simple questions:
    Why are the “official” measurements of land surface temperature, sea surface temperature, and ocean temperature taken all over the globe, averaged (homogenized, pulverized and reduced to a meaningless value called temperature “anomaly”), while the only “official” measurement that is used to assess the global change in CO2 is from one site only, measured on top of a volcano in the middle of the Pacific Ocean? What does the temperature record look like at that site? Does it track with the changing CO2 concentration and has it been rising? Or has it flattened out as well?
    If CO2 is suspected of causing global warming, why aren’t local temperature variations paired with local CO2 concentrations to prove or disprove this? And if the argument is that the CO2 concentration that is important is that of the atmosphere over the local temperature measurement, then why hasn’t someone chosen at least a few representative sites where both temp and CO2 are measured from that site at elevation straight up to as high as a weather balloon can carry the measurement equipment?
    I’m also curious if anyone has ever looked into the relationship between the change in land mass to the big island of Hawaii caused by lava flows from Mauna Kea (and/or any of the other active volcanos in that area) vs the change in CO2 concentration in that region as measured on Mauna Loa? If the tons of lava flowing into the ocean are somehow boiling off CO2 from the ocean or changing the ocean pH, or even directly contributin tons of CO2 to the atmosphere from the gases eminating from the volcanic vents and the lava itself, wouldn’t there be an obvious relationship between the change in land mass vs local CO2 concentration since 1970 to today?

  31. DonV asks (May 6, 2013 at 1:28 am): If CO2 is suspected of causing global warming, why aren’t local temperature variations paired with local CO2 concentrations to prove or disprove this?

    Don, the CO2 at any location causes no detectable warming that can be separated from short and long term trends in temperature from other causes. The only way a temperature rise from CO2 can be detected, in theory, is from the global average temperature. But even that is difficult in reality since the global average temperature is also affected in the short and long term by other factors.

    “…or even directly contributin tons of CO2 to the atmosphere from the gases eminating from the volcanic vents and the lava itself…”

    You put your finger on another problem, the CO2 varies by site according to seasonal vegistation, ocean upwelling, agriculture, and other natural and man-controlled factors. Then the CO2 blows away with the wind, while the same wind brings an air mass with a different temperature. So there would be very little correlation between CO2 and temperature at any site as long as there is wind.

  32. “measurements of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere surpassed 400 parts per million, aka way above what our current ecosystem can handle.”

    Who is this idiot?

  33. Co2 is a well mixed heat trapping gas. AGW tells us that most of the warming will be felt towards the poles and in winter.

    NOAA – May 31, 2012
    “The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Barrow, Alaska, reached 400 parts per million (ppm) this spring, according to NOAA measurements, the first time a monthly average measurement for the greenhouse gas attained the 400 ppm mark in a remote location. “

    WUWT – January 30, 2012
    Bitter cold records broken in Alaska – all time coldest record nearly broken, but Murphy’s Law intervenes

    Barrow Wso Ap … New Record -45F…..Previous Record -45 1879

  34. Cattle actually have a positive impact on global warming.

    First of all, Methane in the atmosphere is flatlining. Cows are contributing nothing really to the near-Zero increase in Methane. Nobody seems to know this.

    Secondly, the pastures that Cows feed on are one of the best Carbon sinks there is. On net, grasslands absorb about 2 Gigatons of Carbon (4.2 Gigatons of CO2) out of the atmosphere each year.

    The idea is not based on factual scientific information.

  35. I gave up burgers many, many years ago, becoming a seafood-only vegetarian, later allowing some poultry back into my diet. I had already dabbled in macrobiotics and vegetarianism. The thing that kicked it off for me, though, was the Great Meat Boycott, I believe it was in ’73. I forget why, but the price of meat suddenly shot up, and a boycott got started. Saving money was a very good motivator, but I was already familiar with the vegetarian lifestyle, and the reasons for it (which, of course, had nothing to do with “carbon”).
    I do wish the Carbon Cultists could shut up about carbon, and how “bad” it is for the planet. But, I guess they just aren’t happy unless they are making people feel guilty. It would help if they weren’t such hypocrites.

  36. Here is an earlier post examining past levels of co2

    Guest Post by David Middleton – December 7, 2012
    ….2) From 1750 to 1875, atmospheric CO2 rose at ten times the rate of the cumulative anthropogenic emissions…

    3) Cumulative anthropogenic emissions didn’t “catch up” to the rise in atmospheric CO2 until 1960…

    The rise in CO2 from 1842-1945 looks a heck of a lot like the rise in temperature from 1750-1852…

    Conclusions
    Atmospheric CO2 concentration records were being broken long before anthropogenic emissions became significant.

    Atmospheric CO2 levels were rising much faster than anthropogenic emissions from 1750-1875.

    Anthropogenic emissions did not “catch up” to atmospheric CO2 until 1960.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/a-brief-history-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-record-breaking/

  37. RACookPE1978,
    Breathing heavily on your carbon monoxide sensor may prove that the alarm works, but that doesn’t mean it is being tripped by carbon monoxide. All sensors are susceptible to interference from other compounds outside of a certain tolerance range.

  38. DonV:

    In your post at May 6, 2013 at 1:28 am you say

    I’m also curious if anyone has ever looked into the relationship between the change in land mass to the big island of Hawaii caused by lava flows from Mauna Kea (and/or any of the other active volcanos in that area) vs the change in CO2 concentration in that region as measured on Mauna Loa? If the tons of lava flowing into the ocean are somehow boiling off CO2 from the ocean or changing the ocean pH, or even directly contributin tons of CO2 to the atmosphere from the gases eminating from the volcanic vents and the lava itself, wouldn’t there be an obvious relationship between the change in land mass vs local CO2 concentration since 1970 to today?

    Oh dear, you have referred to one of the ‘unmentionables’ concerning atmospheric CO2 concentration; viz. effect of changed ocean surface layer pH provided by sulphur emitted from undersea volcanoes centuries ago.

    The anthropogenic emission of CO2 may be the cause of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration, but there are other possibilities and sulphur from undersea volcanoes is one of them.

    Dissolved sulphur from undersea volcanoes would travel with the thermohaline circulation until rising to the ocean surface layer centuries later. This would reduce the pH of the surface layer to alter the equilibrium of CO2 between air and ocean. The effect would be a change to the pH which is independent of the carbonate buffer which sustains CO2 equilbrium between air and ocean surface layer (just as temperature change affects the equilibrium).

    A reduction of only 0.1 in the average pH of the ocean surface layer would be sufficient to have resulted in all the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration recorded at Mauna Loa since 1958. The change in pH, and the required change in ocean surface layer sulphur to provide it, would both be far too small for them to be detected. But it would have induced the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration whether or not the anthropogenic emission existed; n.b. the rise in atmospheric CO2 would be THE SAME whether or not the anthropogenic emission existed.

    The change to atmospheric CO2 would be the same because
    (a)
    with the anthropogenic emission to the air there would be a net flux of CO2
    air –> ocean surface layer –> deep ocean
    but
    (b)
    with no anthropogenic emission there would be a net flux of CO2
    air <– ocean surface layer <– deep ocean
    Almost all CO2 is in the deep ocean.

    Nobody can know if this change to undersea volcanism happened centuries ago, so nobody can know if it is the cause of the rise in atmospheric CO2 (I doubt it).

    But this possibility alone is sufficient to refute the claim that "The rise can only be caused by the anthropogenic emission?" and it is immune to use of the spurious 'mass balance argument' to support that claim.

    Is the rise in atmospheric CO2 anthropogenic or natural in part or in whole?
    I don't know, nobody does. But some people think they know.

    Richard

  39. OK. Sirota’s an idiot. But I think the author is being purposefully obtuse here. What Sirota very simply said, which is vertainly true and which the author gets a little over-exercised about, is that measurements have passed 400ppm. In defference to the author, yes, we’re at the annual peak, the monthly average and the annual average are the truly important numbers and both will be below 400ppm, but measurements have peaked above 400ppm in order for the monthly average to be close to 400ppm.

    There is far more disbturbing material here that deserves more attention than a number.

  40. Taking air samples around Mauna Loa, an active volcano. Getting some pretty high carbon dioxide readings. Imagine that.

  41. “G P Hanner says:

    May 6, 2013 at 6:47 am”

    True. However, the station is at ~4200m above sea level, and as I recall CO2 is pretty thin up there.

  42. Interesting stuff, I would note that the meat in our hamburgers already comes from not very smart vegetarians.

  43. So, instead of a burger we can have the joy of a veggie “burger” or BEANS or simply water.

    I just hope Sirota adopts the water only diet.

    For the good of the planet.

  44. “This is worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize of Journalism. Please, feel free to send your recommendations in to Al Gore, I hear he has some pull with the Nobel Committee.”

    Why did all these scientists get the Peace Prize? Shouldn’t it have been for physics? We haven’t had a dividend of peace through their work – indeed we are engaged in a guerilla world war to save science from the heavily armed verdant forces. I looked up some synonyms for “Green” and got this….

    ” bosky, budding, burgeoning, callow, developing, flourishing, foliate, fresh, grassy, growing, half-formed, immature, infant, juvenile, leafy, lush, maturing, pliable, puerile, pullulating, raw, recent, sprouting, supple, tender, undecayed, undried, unfledged, ungrown, unripe, unseasoned, verdant, verduous, youthful”

    I won’t be trading my juicy cheesburger toute garni for a chartreuse sandwich soon. Won’t the flatulence of a world of vegetarians warm the planet? or even blow it up?

  45. “In their report, Goodland and Anhang found that most of what we need to do to mitigate the climate crisis can be achieved “by replacing just one quarter of today’s least eco-friendly food products” — read: animal products — “with better alternatives.””

    Nutritious food does not harm the environment. High yield cultivars, agricultural advances, and domestic animals such as cows and chickens provide optimal diets with the very least invasion into the wildlife and forests for hunting and cultivation. It is totally irrational to say that cows are bad for the environment or the Earth. It assaults reason and common sense to argue that the children of our country, or of the world, would benefit from less dairy and meat, cheese, milk, and butter; any one with a modicum of understanding and simple decency knows that in fact vitamin A and other micronutrient deficiencies are a far worse specter than trace gases in the atmosphere.

    And it appears we owe a debt of gratitude to the House of Representatives, who refused to fund this doltish, worthless attack on our economy, culture, and diets:

    “House and Senate conferees on the appropriations bill funding U.S. EPA for fiscal 2010 approved an amendment yesterday to block agency efforts to require Clean Air Act permits for greenhouse gases emitted by livestock….Both chambers had already adopted amendments to their versions of the bill that would have prevented EPA from using funds to implement rules requiring livestock producers to obtain Clean Air Act operating permits for the biological emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases.”

    Thank you to those who did the right thing and deflected this pernicious argument against cows, ranchers, and mothers around the world who want to give their children all the milk, cheese, butter, and beef their children need in their growing and maturing years. If it comes to pollution, I suggest what is really toxic is the fear and doubt scientists and politicians try to inject into every thing that is necessary for human life, in order to frighten people who do not know better.

  46. Here’s reading material for those curious about the Mauna Loa CO2 recordings.

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/weekly.html

    Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide &
    Up-to-date weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa
    with a link to:

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html

    About CO2 Measurements

    From pages on the main site one can find the reason for the use of this data series, mostly related to length of record and its isolated location.
    “. . . Mauna Loa constitute the longest record of direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere. They were started by C. David Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in March of 1958 . . .”

  47. richardscourtney says:
    May 6, 2013 at 6:05 am

    DonV:

    Oh dear, you have referred to one of the ‘unmentionables’ concerning atmospheric CO2 concentration; viz. effect of changed ocean surface layer pH provided by sulphur emitted from undersea volcanoes centuries ago.

    Richard: I believe DonV was asking specifically about volcanic activity on/around the island of Hawaii and its effect on CO2 monitoring there. I believe your response is applicable to the volcanic activity in the oceans in general, not just in the vicinity of Mauna Loa.

    The placement of atmospheric CO2 sensors on Mauna Loa was made after extensive consideration of all the factors affecting results. You can start with this write up on NOAH. There are further references off that page. Strange as it may seem, measuring atmospheric CO2 at the top of Mauna Loa is less contaminated by other sources than seemingly better locations.

    Many of the same factors make Hawaii ideal for optical observatories on the top of Mauna Kea.

  48. You are all taking this far too seriously. If you look at Salon you will see that the articles are all focused on showing that the “Eternal Republican” is the cause of all the evil in the world. I am not from the US but Sirota just seems to be saying that only Republicans eat hamburgers. Of course if you elected Democrats the planet would be saved.

  49. Gary Pearse says:
    May 6, 2013 at 8:14 am
    “Why did all these scientists get the Peace Prize? Shouldn’t it have been for physics?”

    They have never discovered anything.
    Except for what wiggles the computer output makes.

  50. Gary Pearse says:
    May 6, 2013 at 8:14 am
    “Why did all these scientists get the Peace Prize? Shouldn’t it have been for physics?”

    Oh, and Gary, calling them scientists does an injustice to the Greenpeace activists and public officials that are part of the IPCC and got the Nobel peace price as well.

  51. ed mister jones says:
    May 5, 2013 at 6:28 pm
    I asked Mr. Sirota why The Planet wasn’t incinerated when the North American Bison covered the Continent.

    When I hear Crickets, I’ll know it is his response
    ===========================================

    When the phone don’t ring, you’ll know who it is.

  52. Sriota: “… measurements of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere surpassed 400 parts per million…”

    WUWTblogger: Aaand, humans emitted 3, no, I’ll even give you 5, percent of that. That means that the U.S. emitted 1 TEN MILLIONTH [http://patriotpost.us/opinion/17763 (by Joe Bastardi)] of the total CO2. So, your point is?

    S: “…we are incinerating the planet …”

    WUWTB: Oh, come on, S! Who in the WORLD is going to take you seriously?

    S: [bares teeth in facsimile of a grin] The Nobel Peace Prize Committee, that’s who.

    WUWTb: Haw, ha, haaaa, whatever. Here. [digs in purse — heh, heh, gotcha ;) — for a “Rewards” coupon for local grocery store and hands it to S] This is, a, uh, a MERIT badge for… uh…. for Most Likely to Succeed in show business. Congratulations, you won.

    S: [brightening] COOL!!! This is a really important award. [skips off merrily in the direction of the MEAT department (of course) happily singing the theme song from his favorite science TV show, “Meet George Jetson!… .”

  53. Coca Cola and Pepsi to blame for catastrophic manmade global warming which is now melting the Arctic and endangering polar bears from their rise in canned and bottled carbon dioxide sales spread around the globe. Carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere from billions of cans and bottles every day.

    Coca Cola’s rise in sales over the same period of catastrophic global warming:

    http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/cocacola.htm

    “During 1886, Coca Cola’s first year, sales averaged a modest nine drinks per day. In 2004, over 1.3 billion beverage servings are sold each day. Although Coca-Cola® was first created in the United States, it quickly became popular wherever it went. Today, they produce nearly 400 brands in over 200 countries. More than 70 percent of their income comes from outside the U.S., making The Coca-Cola Company a truly global company.”

    Their rivals for a hundred years in the war to get bigger sales and spread further around the globe Pepsi now sell in 190 countries.

    Fizzy drinks drive global warming.

    Shouldn’t they be banned?

  54. Newsflash! “Coca Cola and Pepsi to Blame for Catastrophic Manmade Global Warming ” [Myrrh @1538 on 5/6/13]

    Hmm, Myrrh, that’s a frankly sensible idea. Aaaaaand, remember that ad slogan? “Coke is IT” !!!

    And before that, they said it was “the REAL THING.”!!!

    AAAAAND, they mislabeled their bottles in China for awhile (Chinese characters said something like “Drink the stale lizard”), so nobody would drink it so…. THAT’s why CO2 in China wasn’t very much until they finally found out (around 1990) that it was delicious (and safe).

    And Pepsi has had its Burger King franchises ALL OVER THE WORLD selling……. CHEESEBURGERS!!!!!!!!

    AAaack, Myrrh! Who do we call?

  55. Not Mayor Bloomberg. He’s up to his neck trying to save the planet in New York City. From all he’s been up to lately, I think his strategy is to kill NYC in order to save the rest of the world or something like that.

    Mighty decent of him, I’d say. Greater love hath no man… .

  56. Bison!
    I had been a little out of touch with this stuff until one day about 7 years ago I sat with my Mum to watch a show in Aus called ‘Country Hour’. I just could not believe what I was seeing. Here they were, cows with large containers on their backs with ‘scientists’ measuring the emissions!? Then I realised straight away we were in trouble with the common sense factor. Bisons, yes but what about all the animals in Africa. What about the over 100,000 wildebeest who march across the continent every year? Today!
    Where do these people come from?

  57. “ed mister jones says:
    May 5, 2013 at 6:28 pm
    I asked Mr. Sirota why The Planet wasn’t incinerated when the North American Bison covered the Continent.

    When I hear Crickets, I’ll know it is his response.”

    I think you may find. It sort of goes like this….

    Bison is a native species. Their methane GW farts don’t count. Only ‘evil’ humans farming cattle. Only those GW farts count!!!

    The same applies to Wildebeest.

  58. Thanks, mwhite. Excellent article.
    I read it, but I don’t get it. They don’t seem to draw the same conclusions from their data that I do. (Maybe I am not sophisticated or trained in statistics enough to understand their conclusions. That is entirely possible.) I’m kind of bothered though, by what seem to be biases implied from the start.
    First, they indicate that they have data going all the way back to 1958, but only use 1975 on . . .?! Huh? Does the 1958 data some how change the results? (I have a funny taste of cherries in my mouth.)
    Second, I don’t see any hockey sticks, does anyone else.
    Third I see LOTS of negative slopes in the DT/dt data. I also see a lot of very flat lines, OOPS!
    Fourth – curious – I see no overlay graph that plots daily CO2 concentration and Temp vs time. No need to average or slice and dice the data, just a simple graph plotting CO2 and Temp vs time will paint the picture nicely. You’ll see daily variation, annual variation, and any significant short term and long term trends. You’ll see CO2 steadily rising, but Temp NOT keeping pace.
    That graph alone would help one draw the proper conclusions instead of all the bogus statistical manipulation. More importantly one will be able to resolve whether CO2 leads or lags Temp! Ergo what change “causes” the other to change?
    With all the data they must have it would also seem logical that someone would have thought of using a DOE program like Design-Expert from StatEase to look for relationships between Temp, CO2 concentration, air pressure, sunlight intensity (at different wavelengths even), volcanic activity, sea surface temp, ocean pH, relative humidity, cloud cover, sun spot activity, PDO etc. etc. vs time (short term, long term) in an unbiased fashion. Draw “causation” guesses from what the DOE program automatically tells you is the most highly correlated data.

    (PS. I am not a climate scientist. I am an old biochemical engineer. Call me a sceptic. Personally, IMHO CO2 is NOT the evil incarnate that the EPA makes it out to be. This planet badly needs the global CO2 level to increase even more if we are going to feed the world in the next century. We also need a lot more cow and chicken dung for fertilizer for the same reason. And I completely agree with Willis E’s assertion that we and underdeveloped nations need cheap energy to have any hope of improving our/their lot. NOTHING has the energy storage density that fossil fuels have! I, like him, grew up on the other side of the planet. In my case on a remote station on the southern edge of the Sahara. Growing up there, I saw first hand the impact that well bred cows and chickens (both egg/milk and meat producers), diesel engine agricultural equipment, sanitary disposal of human waste and the sanitary use of grey water, the routine use of DDT to kill mosquitos, and simple acts of kindness had on a desperately poor culture. These things were all GOOD and proved their value to the advancement of the society we lived with/in.)

  59. @Don V — “I am an old biochemical engineer. Call me a sceptic. …”

    I’d call you a thorough, thoughtful, intelligent, decent, fellow.

  60. In honor of all this silly thinking, I’m going to have a hamburger for lunch tomorrow. Then I’ll go outside and watch the plants grow faster. ;-))

  61. Mauna Loa measurements are a joke. Keeling went there because he had tons of carbon dioxide to play with from the cherry picked low he and Callendar began with – in less than two years Keeling proclaimed he had detected a trend of rising CO2 from man-made sources. What?

    In less than two years he could establish a trend?
    In less than two years he could tell the difference between man made and volcanic?

    Total and utter codswallop.

    Hawaii is one of the (the biggest?) carbon dioxide producing areas in the world, a hot spot creating volcanic island. The measurements are taken from the top of the world’s biggest active volcano surrounded by active volcanoes, venting, thousands of earthquakes a year in warm seas.

    They cherry pick how much. They arbitrarily decide what they will call volcanic and what they will call man made – all they have done, knowing the high numbers around the world from over a hundred years of measurements, is add a bit every year to get their “Keeling Curve” – to prove this non existant trend he decided he’d found in less than two years on the active volcano.

    Where is the science in that?

    This was deliberate fraud for their anti coal ideology or something, he had never shown how he established that there was a “well-mixed” background, he just announced that it existed and and could be measured anywhere in the world, so he chose sitting on top immense volcanic carbon dioxide production to prove it.

    It’s ludicrous.

    AIRS concluded that to their astonishment carbon dioxide was not at all well mixed, but lumpy.

    They still have not released the top and bottom troposphere measurements they are making from which they concluded this.

    Carbon dioxide is heavier than air so will always separate out and sink in air unless work is being done to change that, and its not always windy and winds don’t cross hemispheres, and, carbon dioxide is a real gas not the imaginary ideal gas AGW uses, so it has attraction and it is very attracted to water in the atmosphere – all rain is carbonic acid, it it continually being washed out of the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide does not readily rise in air because it is heavier than air, most carbon dioxide will be found where it is produced, locally, in local wind and weather systems. Plants breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide just as we do, they only reverse this in photosynthesis for a few hours a day.

    There is no such thing as “well mixed background”. Keeling was making up the figures and his son continued in his father’s footsteps with the Scripps measuring.

    Some background from Timothy Casey, looking at how they deliberately downplay volcanic input, and can’t and don’t tell man made from volcanic, and more:

    http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/

    And, carbon dioxide cannot trap heat. It is physically impossible. It has a heat capacity even less than oxygen and nitrogen; carbon dioxide practically instantly releases any heat it absorbs.

    Water can trap heat, it has a huge heat capacity and takes in vast amounts of it before it shows any change in temperature – that’s how we get the Water Cycle cooling the Earth from the 67°C it would be without water.

    That’s why a pan of water is a simple air conditioning system, the water taking the heat out of the room, and conversely, why in damp climates heating a room is more efficient by using a dehumidifier to extract the water.

    And, we do not exhale carbon dioxide because it’s a waste product, we exhale what we don’t use for the transport of oxygen. We produce our own to keep optimum levels in our lungs. Each lungful of air contains around 6% carbon dioxide, it is dangerous to drop much below that.

    When someone is hyperventilating for some reason, he is expelling too much carbon dioxide too quickly for his body to replace and his body will go into defence mode – will limit breathing in to conserve carbon dioxide levels in the lungs because without sufficient carbon dioxide in the lungs oxygen can’t be utilised by the body. The immediate remedy for someone ‘gasping for air’ is to give them carbon dioxide; take one paper bag and breathe in and out in this until the lungs are again at optimum carbon dioxide levels. Every out breath contains 4% carbon dioxide.

    http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/11Phl/Sci/CO2&Health.html

    ” Furthermore it’s administered in the form of medical gas (1% to 10%) for many medical conditions to stimulate respiration. For example, people with asthma require from 3% to 5% for therapeutic effect.

    Studies suggest that a lower level than this but somewhat higher than present atmospheric levels would prevent the attacks in the first place and prevent subclinical symptoms associated with asthma such as anxiety, insomnia, immune dysfunction and excessive sensitivity to pain. CO2 levels higher than 5 per cent are used for extreme cases such as for treating victims of asphyxiation and to stimulate breathing of newborn infants as well as speeding recovery of patients who have been anesthetized.

    ı The majority of us have some degree of lung impairment, which affects the more critical function of the lungs in regulating the proper level of CO2 in the alveoli (tiny air sacs). Metabolic syndrome alone includes approximately 20 – 30 % of adults in the U.S. and Europe. Then there are smokers, asthmatics, and people with miner’s lung, emphysema and scarred lungs due to previous bouts of pneumonia, old people, and many more conditions. Furthermore, a wide range of medical conditions and infectious diseases manifest in pulmonary symptoms. All these conditions can require medical gas because the present atmospheric level is not optimum and appears to lack a safety margin for people with lung impairment. Breathing is a tricky business. We have to breathe fast and deep enough to get the O2 we need but not so fast as to hyperventilate and lose control of our blood’s CO2 balance (pH). Over the last 50 million years the O2 level and CO2 level have both dropped as well as atmospheric density, which puts us into the same predicament as the mountain climber who must acclimatize to a higher altitude. Even healthy mountain climbers reach a level at which they cannot further adapt. People with lung impairment are like the climber who has reached that level. Either an increase in the O2 level or an increase in the CO2 level would be a benefit. It is for good reason that people hospitalized are fitted with air tubes to their nostrils providing them very high levels of oxygen and carbon dioxide. (Typically, 4.5 times the oxygen but, more importantly, 130 times the carbon dioxide that is in the atmosphere)”

    We are Carbon Life Forms. We around around 20% carbon and the rest mainly water. Carbon dioxide is our food source through plants able to create carbon out of visible light and carbon dioxide and water.

    The Mauna Loa and the mythical “man made well mixed background measurements” are as fake as the Hockey Stick and One Tree Yamal and UHI science frauds.

  62. oops, sorry. There should have been a close bold after “And, carbon dioxide cannot trap heat.”

  63. Myrrh, there is too much misinformation in your post to go through it all. Starting with an easy one: your notion of hyperventilation and CO2 in the lungs is backwards. The best way to induce hyperventilation is to increase CO2 levels, see http://jp.physoc.org/content/240/1/91.full.pdf for example. Basically there is some kind of sensor in the lungs that senses too much CO2 and increases the breathing rate.

    As for CO2 sinking to the ground, there is no evidence for that at all. See http://www.tellusb.net/coaction/index.php/tellusb/article/viewFile/16216/18126 for example.

  64. eric1skeptic says:
    May 7, 2013 at 4:56 am
    Myrrh, there is too much misinformation in your post to go through it all. Starting with an easy one: your notion of hyperventilation and CO2 in the lungs is backwards. The best way to induce hyperventilation is to increase CO2 levels, see http://jp.physoc.org/content/240/1/91.full.pdf for example. Basically there is some kind of sensor in the lungs that senses too much CO2 and increases the breathing rate.

    This is saying exactly what I said, lack of carbon dioxide in oxygen causes hyperventilation:

    7. These experiments show that an afferent vagal reflex originating
    from the lungs causes tachypnoea, when a dog, on ‘bypass’, inhales low
    concentrations of CO2 in 02.”

    When a dog inhales low concentrations of carbon dioxide in oxygen, rapid breathing results (tachypnoea). What is happening is that the body which needs sufficient carbon dioxide in the lungs to function properly (6-6.5%), will begin hyperventilating because it is desperately trying to stay alive so stops it being lost in big breaths. That’s why they give carbon dioxide to asthma patients, and so on.

    That’s why the quickest cure for hyperventilation, which may look as if the body isn’t getting enough oxygen, but is the body trying to conserve carbon dioxide, is to breathe your own carbon dioxide back in. If you don’t have a paper bag handy, cup your hands.

    We produce our own carbon dioxide for this, we don’t get it from the atmosphere because there isn’t enough in the atmosphere to keep us alive. We need carbon dioxide to get oxygen to our blood.

    And more, on that page I posted have a read of what it says about athletic fatigue – the body needs bicarbonate of soda – if it isn’t getting it, using too much in exersion, it will take the blood carbon dioxide as an emergency measure, this prolonged will create problems for breathing..
    Essential if you’re into heavy training sessions to understand this, carbon dioxide regulates our pH balance.

    “Making Sense of it all while keeping it simple

    The two most immediate concerns when treating patients in intensive care are their blood gasses and their blood electrolytes. Marathon runners frequently pass out and can even die because they did not replenish their electrolytes that were depleted through excessive sweating. One of these electrolytes (bicarbonate) acts as a buffer in the blood to regulate the blood’s pH but can be depleted in an attempt to compensate for blood gases. (The reverse can also happen as respiration can change and become distressed in an attempt to compensate for bicarbonate.)”

    http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/11Phl/Sci/CO2&Health.html

    As for CO2 sinking to the ground, there is no evidence for that at all. See http://www.tellusb.net/coaction/index.php/tellusb/article/viewFile/16216/18126 for example.

    Good grief, where does it say that? Fetch it, quote it.

    Carbon dioxide is a real gas: it has mass, volume, weight under gravity – it is under gravity heavier than the gas air which is our atmosphere, which is around 98% nitrogen and oxygen.

    Therefore, it can’t do anything else but sink through air, it will not readily rise in air anymore than the dust on your desk.

    In the real world real gases separate out by weight; in the real world oxygen and nitrogen and carbon dioxide are condensable gases, because they have volume which expands when heated becoming less dense and therefore lighter and condenses when cooled becoming more dense and therefore heavier, that’s how we get our winds which are convective currents; because in the real world as still taught in traditional physics, we know why hot air rises and cold air sinks.

    I’m sorry that you have been educated by the AGWScienceFiction meme production department, but that’s the fact, the reality of the world around you. We do not have empty space populated by ideal gas with no mass zipping through at great speeds under their own molecular momentum, we have a heavy real gas ocean of air, the volume of it weighing 14lb on every square inch – that’s a ton on your shoulders. A heavy mass of real gas air where the movement of molecules is constrained by the volumes of the other gas molecules around them.

    Carbon dioxide separating out is a well known hazard in the real world in certain situation, in mining, around volcanic activity, and in breweries. If you’re thinking of brewing your own beer in a cellar you should know this.

    Carbon dioxide is heavier than air, this means it will not readily rise in air – it cannot “diffuse into the atmosphere rapidly under its own molecular momentum to mix thoroughly by bouncing off other such imaginary idea gases”

    http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2005/05_06_02.html

    “Don’t daydream in low-lying places in Kilauea caldera
    “Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a colorless, nearly odorless gas that is denser than air.”
    “Because CO2 is heavier than air, it doesn’t readily rise into the atmosphere and, instead, tends to pool in low areas.”

    eric1skeptic says:
    May 7, 2013 at 5:40 am
    BTW, please critique what Keeling wrote, e.g. http://tellusa.net/index.php/tellusa/article/viewFile/9366/10974 rather than some made-up notion of what he did.

    What he did was begin with an unrealistic figure which he got from Callendar cherry picking data, from that point on nothing he did has any value. Basing all carbon dioxide measurements on faked data premise is like expecting to understand temperature variations in the Holocene by using the Hockey Stick which eliminated MWP and LIA and created a dramatic rise using faked temperature records.

    You show, how Keeling told the difference between man made and volcanic, and when you realise he couldn’t and didn’t then you read that paper again. And read how they make the measurements at Mauna Loa, but arbitrarily deciding what is volcanic and what man made when they can’t tell them apart.

  65. Myrrh asks “Good grief, where does it say that? Fetch it, quote it.”

    From the paper: “Our data indicate that, on average, some exchange occurs through the inversion and there is a gradual increase in CO2 at levels >200 m during the night, though on many nights this does not occur and mixing ratios above the inversion remain fairly constant”

    In other words, CO2 doesn’t sink because the depleted CO2 below the inversion is not replaced by the higher CO2 from above the inversion. Furthermore there in an increase with altitude.

    If you need me to fetch from the Keeling paper, just let me know.

  66. eric1skeptic says:
    May 7, 2013 at 9:26 am
    Myrrh asks “Good grief, where does it say that? Fetch it, quote it.”

    From the paper: “Our data indicate that, on average, some exchange occurs through the inversion and there is a gradual increase in CO2 at levels >200 m during the night, though on many nights this does not occur and mixing ratios above the inversion remain fairly constant”

    In other words, CO2 doesn’t sink because the depleted CO2 below the inversion is not replaced by the higher CO2 from above the inversion. Furthermore there in an increase with altitude.

    As with the paper you didn’t understand which agreed with me and wasn’t saying what you said it was saying, you’re incapable of reading this one. And you lack the courtesy to apologise for your misreading and admit you’re wrong.

    Look at some pictures from http://www.tellusb.net/coaction/index.php/tellusb/article/viewFile/16216/18126, go to page 405 – what do you see? That carbon dioxide levels increase with height? Look again, the highest flasks are at the bottom, for obvious reasons, movement of increases in CO2 levels from the plant respiration and so on will be greater at lower levels, because carbon dioxide is heavier than air.

    I have looked at a fair amount of such studies, I have yet to find one which shows carbon dioxide levels increasing with height. This one is no different. Look at the ppm at these different flask levels and bear in mind what they’re saying about summer and winter to understand the differences.

    If you really think there are studies showing carbon dioxide increases with height, fetch.

    If you need me to fetch from the Keeling paper, just let me know.

    If you’d like to then do so.

  67. Myrrh, I looked at page 405. You are correct that CO2 mostly decreases with height in that picture (although it said the opposite in the text I quoted above). But since CO2 doesn’t sink more in summer daytimes than the rest of the year, it is clear that the large gradient comes from production of CO2 by green plants on summer nights (via respiration). During the summer daytime the 51m line dips below the other two lines (times are in GMT). That is due to photosynthesis using up the available CO2.

    More importantly the 123m curve rises during the night, along with the 496m curve (albeit a lot less). That means the released CO2 mixes up through the atmosphere, efficiently to 123m and not very efficiently to 496m. When I say not very efficient, I mean with respect to the diurnal CO2 cycle, and thus the 496m CO2 stays more constant over the day.

  68. eric1skeptic says:
    May 7, 2013 at 2:24 pm
    Myrrh, I looked at page 405. You are correct that CO2 mostly decreases with height in that picture (although it said the opposite in the text I quoted above).

    All it was saying was that there was some ‘leakage’ into the level above the temperature inversion at night, below which there was a build up from respiration, plants breathe out carbon dioxide – hot air rises cold air sinks – carbon dioxide is a real gas therefore it will expand when heated becoming less dense and rise as do nitrogen and oxygen, the build up is from being trapped by the inversion as at the boundary it will cool and sink, but note, >200 metres doesn’t mean the levels are rising greater above that, the bulk is still below the inversion layer at 150m.

    But since CO2 doesn’t sink more in summer daytimes than the rest of the year, it is clear that the large gradient comes from production of CO2 by green plants on summer nights (via respiration). During the summer daytime the 51m line dips below the other two lines (times are in GMT). That is due to photosynthesis using up the available CO2.

    Which is how visible light from the Sun doesn’t convert to heat, but to chemical energy, sugars…

    More importantly the 123m curve rises during the night, along with the 496m curve (albeit a lot less). That means the released CO2 mixes up through the atmosphere, efficiently to 123m and not very efficiently to 496m. When I say not very efficient, I mean with respect to the diurnal CO2 cycle, and thus the 496m CO2 stays more constant over the day.

    These numbers are trace of trace the higher up you go. But if you find this interesting you have to know how real gases act from their properties and processes. AGW’s ideal gas doesn’t have any properties so it doesn’t have any convection, and convection has to be understood to know what they are saying here, see 3.1 for example.

    There will be local convection as warm gases become less dense and rise and cooled higher will then condense and sink which convection currents are called winds, these are volumes (packets) of gases on the move, but convection currents can also come in from way outside the area; they note that one of the stations is 80km from the Atlantic to the SE which moderates the climate at the station. Inshore/offshore winds is a good place to start to see how differential heating of volumes of air create winds as land heats up quicker than water (water has a very high heat capacity so takes longer to heat up and so longer to cool down).

    The colder volumes of air over water will be heavier and denser because colder than the volumes of air over land which are heating up quickly and becoming less dense lighter than air and rising creating an area of low pressure, weighing less, and the colder denser volumes from the high pressure over the ocean will sink flowing beneath the adjacent low pressure area over the land. Hot air rises cold air sinks. Winds flow from high to low.

    Gases are fluids as are liquids, this is also what happens in the ocean as hot water becomes less dense and rises and colder volumes sink flowing beneath, here the convection currents are called currents.

    Put that together with heat always flows from hotter to colder and and you’ve got the basics of meteorology in the ocean and atmosphere – the land and water at the equator is heated intensely and flows towards the poles from where cold volumes of air and water flow back towards the equator in the great circulation currents. Add in the Earth’s spin and land mass for the general patterns and differential heating through the year and you can plan a voyage from Egypt to India and a few months later back again, your sailing ship laden with spices blown back by the wind.

  69. Myrrh, your description of the prevailing weather sounds appropriate and I would say that your description (plus some more details) is what determines the “global average temperature”. Just for completeness I will paste the names that Keeling says he got data from (not just Callendar)

    “The extensive sampling reported here was made possible through the generous coopera- tion of the United States Weather Bureau whose personnel carried out the sampling at Little America, the South Pole, Mauna Loa Observatory, and Arctic ice floes “A” and “B”; the 55th Weather Reconnaissance Squadron of the United States Air Force who collected the samples from aircraft; and Dr. Norris W. Rakestraw and Mr. Lee Waterman whocollect- ed samples from Downwind Cruise. Special thanks are due Messrs. Charles E. Williams and Jack C. Pales who operated the continuous recording instruments and w h o reduced the data to preliminary tabular form at Little America and Mauna Loa Observatory, respec- tively; and to Maj. George T. McClelland, Maj. Bernard M. Rose, Lieut. H. T. Fukuda, and Capt. J. D. Sharp for special effort in plm- ning and executing the sampling from aircraft.”

    from http://tellusa.net/index.php/tellusa/article/viewFile/9366/10974

  70. On Thu, May 2, 2013, I sent an email to Alison F. C. Bridger, Professor & Chair, Department of Meteorology and Climate Science, San Jose State University:

    “It isn’t funny, it isn’t clever. Burning books is sick, and that kind of sickness spreads. You should be ashamed of yourselves.”

    Professor Bridger responded today:

    “Thank you for sharing your concerns. The Department of Meteorology and Climate Science has removed the material in question from its website, and regrets what was clearly an ill-conceived attempt at satire. Please be assured the university does not condone book burning for any reason.”

  71. Good for you, Bladeshearer (re: 5/7/13 @ 1859).

    Hm. Somebody else who wrote to SJSU got that same EXACT response from the President of the U.. — even the same misuse of the term “satire.” [I think they posted their experience on the SJ Book Burning thread] But, I’m sure they took your “concerns” to heart — NOT.

    I was handed THIS from a very reliable anonymous source [;)] —

    MEMORANDUM TO ALL SJSU STAFF —

    Smoking marijuana in the faculty lounge is now absolutely prohibited.

    President Whatever

  72. eric1skeptic says:
    May 7, 2013 at 5:49 pm
    Myrrh, your description of the prevailing weather sounds appropriate and I would say that your description (plus some more details) is what determines the “global average temperature”. Just for completeness I will paste the names that Keeling says he got data from (not just Callendar)

    In the conclusion AIRS came to, that carbon dioxide was contrary to expectations lumpy and not at all well-mixed, they said they would have to go away and learn something about winds..

    What data papers Keeling then uses to apparently give credibility to his claims is neither here nor there, he makes assumptions which are not credible.

    “The content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,
    in contrast to oxygen, nitrogen, and the
    rare gases, has been found to be significantly
    variable (GLUECKAU19F5, 1).N ew data indicate,
    however, that the degree of variability is
    smaller and the variations are more systematic
    than previously believed (STEPANOV1A9,5 2,
    SLOCUM, 1955, FONSELIUS ET AL., 1956,
    CALLEND1A95R8,, BRAY1, 959)”

    He begins with the truth, that carbon dioxide has been found to be significantly variable, of course it is, as he notes further on carbon dioxide production areas in the northern hemisphere show the greatest variabilty because that’s where the plant life is to generate it, as we saw on the NOAA/CMDL graphics – in winter the plants go to sleep and nothing much is happening – and the southern hemisphere is vast ocean. But he then goes on to claim that the variations have been found to be smaller than previously believed and mentions Callendar in the mix of papers – Callendar has been proved to be a cheat in cherry picking, and without a great deal of time and effort I can’t get the other papers to see what they actually said.., the context.

    What does he go on to comparing next after admitting that there is local contamination at all 3 continuous monitoring stations? Fig 1 – the variability in the northern hemisphere including the butt end of the heavily contaminated by volcanic activity of Mauna Loa with data gathered by plane at height – what does this really show?

    “At Mauna Loa Observatory,
    Hawaii, a less prominent variability has
    been found in approximately half of the records.
    Ths is attributed to release of carbon dioxide
    by nearby volcanic vents; combustion on the
    island associated with agricultural, industrial,
    and domestic activities; and lower concentra-
    tion of carbon dioxide in the air transported to
    the station by upslope winds. The values reported
    here are averages of data for periods of
    downslope winds or strong lateral winds when
    the concentration remained nearly constant
    for several hours or more.At La Jolla, California,
    the concentration has been found to be
    highly variable. Highest concentrations occur
    during light winds from the north, from the
    direction of Los Angeles ; lowest concentrations
    when the wind is from the west or southwest
    and of moderate force or greater. Lowest
    weekly values usually do not differ by more
    than -i- I p.p.m. during any month, and, within
    a range of 2 p.p.m., agree with other data for
    the northern Pacific ocean. Monthly averages
    of these data, which presumably indicate nearly
    uncontaminated air, are cited hcrc.”

    Against actual measurements made by plane an arbitrarily chosen number having decided what is great local contamination when much of the records have to be thrown out to get something that fits in with carbon dioxide at height, to give some semblance of credibility.. Jolly dee.

    It presumably indicates not uncontaminated air but fixing a base for further manipulations, claiming a “trend” from less than two years of data. Which is what he did and continued to manipulate from his and his son’s involvement in Scripps by creating an artificial unproven rise from the wealth of variations he had at his disposal. In other words, he continued doing what Callendar had established in order to prove that ‘man made production was the cause of the rise in temperature’ – gosh, where is the man made signal among all the natural carbon dioxide contamination at Mauna Loa that is claimed to be all the rising trend? All it’s measuring is this same local contamination as carbon dioxide settles down within the patterns from its real properties and processes as a gas within the local climate in an arbitrarily decided “averages of data for periods of
    downslope winds or strong lateral winds
    when the concentration
    remained nearly constant for several hours or more”

    – measuring the same carbon dioxide which went up on the way down, “release of carbon dioxide by nearby volcanic vents; combustion on the
    island associated with agricultural, industrial,
    and domestic activities”

    He then confirms the great seasonal variations in areas with plant growth and goes on:

    “Where data extend beyond one year, averages
    for the second year are higher than for the
    first year.”

    Gosh.

    ” At the South Pole, where the longest
    record exists, the concentration has increased
    at the rate of about 1.3 P.P.m. per year.”

    Where was he before moving to Mauna Loa?

    ” Over
    the northern Pacific ocean the increase appears
    to be between 0.5 and 1.2 p.p.m. per year.
    Since measurements are still in progress, more
    reliable estimates of annual increase should be
    available in the future.”

    Oh right, that there will be annual increases has been pre-determined..

    ” At the South Pole the
    observed rate of increase is nearly that to be
    expected from the combustion of fossil fuel
    (1.4 p.p.m.),”

    When it can’t be told apart from volcanic activity?

    ” if no removal from the atmosphere
    takes place (REVELLaEn d SUESS, 1957). From
    this agreement, one might be led to conclude
    that the oceans have been without effect in
    reducing the annual increase in concentration
    resulting from the combustion of fossil fuel.”

    No, what it leads one to conclude is that he is working to an agenda, to create an annual increase using carbon dioxide from every source and claiming it is from man made combustion of fossil fuel.

    See how easy it is to create a trend when you have so much choice and are using all carbon dioxide sources and can’t tell the difference between volcanic and made made fossil fuel, just say that’s what it is. And hey presto, you’ve got another grant from those who want to push the same anti coal agenda. And take control of the monitoring of the stations and keep it in the family..

    All Keeling has done is claim an annual increase and claim it is from fossil fuel combustion when it is clearly showing no such thing.

    Magicians’ tricks, sleights of hand manipulating real and fake data while telling you what you are seeing.*

    Do have a read of Timothy Casey’s page on volcanic measurements – the agenda continued as it was taken up by more powerful vested interests.

    http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/

    There is no way to tell volcanic from the fossil fuel combustion and volcanic activity is deliberately downplayed at the highest science levels to keep the fossil fuel illusion alive, but see how Keeling and the Callendar et al agenda pretended to science from the very beginning, as he has shown sleights of hand in his paper we’re discussing: 3.0 Abusing Doctor Suess: Pulling the Cat out of the Hat.

    There’s lot of history now on this from all kinds of directions as more people with their own agendas saw the possibilities of using this faked science, like Maggie using the emotional energy of the greenies to divert them from their vocal anti nuclear to concentrate instead on the anti carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, as she systematically destroyed the coal industry and became a willing pawn, flattered into the IPCC agenda ‘because of her credentials as a chemist would give her, a mere woman in the male dominated world politics of the day, heavy weight status. Later as did Revelle she tried to correct that, but the bank wagon was rolling on..

    *Couch it enough variety of convoluted scientific sounding jargon and you can prove whatever you want, it’s the deconstruction of this which takes time because so many science fields involved, and the various interested parties have become more determined hence their setting up of the IPCC. In the 95 report the real conclusions of the scientists was excised by Santer, on Houghton’s bidding, from no discernible man made signal to ‘it’s all the fault of man’..

    That’s what the fight here is all about, to reclaim science in education which has been thoroughly trashed by these people.

  73. Myrrh, do you agree that measurements like these: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/jubany.html are accurate? Your Timothy Casey link says:

    “Amundsen Scott South Pole Station appears to be well separated by 1300 km from the volcanic lineation extending along Antarctica’s Pacific Coast (From the Ross Shelf to the Antarctic Peninsula), However, Antarctic volcanoes are not nearly as well mapped as those in more populated regions, such as Japan. In any case, the strong circumpolar winds that delay mixing will inevitably concentrate Antarctica’s volcanic CO2 emissions over the Antarctic continent, including Amundsen Station…”

    I don’t think that analysis can also apply to Jubany station on the peninsula since it is outside the circumpolar winds. In any case please explain why the measurements at Jubany station http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/Jubany_thru_2009_Daily.JPG are rising nearly monotonically, without much annual wiggle that shows up more in the NH. Also explain how a volcanic source would increase CO2 monotonically rather than in bursts.

  74. eric1skeptic says:
    May 8, 2013 at 3:31 am
    Myrrh, do you agree that measurements like these: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/jubany.html are accurate? Your Timothy Casey link says:

    “Amundsen Scott South Pole Station appears to be well separated by 1300 km from the volcanic lineation extending along Antarctica’s Pacific Coast (From the Ross Shelf to the Antarctic Peninsula), However, Antarctic volcanoes are not nearly as well mapped as those in more populated regions, such as Japan. In any case, the strong circumpolar winds that delay mixing will inevitably concentrate Antarctica’s volcanic CO2 emissions over the Antarctic continent, including Amundsen Station…”

    Sigh. And this alleged trend correlates with global temps over this period, how?

    The problem with junk science is the story is never the same, but constantly changing in a futile attempt to keep the scam going – it got into problems at the very first hurdle when they claimed that the Industrial Revolution kick started global warming, that narrative was dropped as it became too much of a talking point that temperature began rising coming out of the LIA, way before the small beginnings of the IR, to date, then they tried moving it to the 40’s because of industrial growth but now having to avoid explaining the decades of cooling which in the early 70’s had all the climate scientists predicting the next LIA leading to the full blown end of Holocene scenario, they say it’s “the great man made fossil fuel combustions from the 7o’s”.

    Where on that neat Keeling curve wannabe is the great decline of carbon dioxide which should show in the decades of cold as AGWScienceFiction claims that carbon dioxide drives temperatures?

    And global temps have not been rising for the last 20 odd years, well known at the highest levels like the Met the AGW meme got pushed regardless – the Met now admits no rise in all that time they were claiming it was. This is science fraud.

    I don’t think that analysis can also apply to Jubany station on the peninsula since it is outside the circumpolar winds. In any case please explain why the measurements at Jubany station http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/Jubany_thru_2009_Daily.JPG are rising nearly monotonically, without much annual wiggle that shows up more in the NH. Also explain how a volcanic source would increase CO2 monotonically rather than in bursts.

    Enough of this, totally irrelevant to my point, there has never been shown from Keeling on that there is any man-made signature, it can’t be told apart from volcanic, and, all they’re doing is including all sources of carbon dioxide in their pretend measurements of their mythical “well-mixed background” anyway. Carbon dioxide is not very well mixed at all, it is lumpy and local.

    Which letters in “science fraud” are you having problems with?

    If you want to continue to detract from the points I’m making, then I suggest you get involved in discussion with posters such as these here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/23/antarctic-peninsula-was-1-3c-warmer-than-today-11000-years-ago/

  75. This was posted in a discussion on Judith Curry’s site:

    http://www.thegwpf.org/belgian-scientists-double-standards-climate-change/

    “Belgian Scientists: Double Standards In Climate Change
    Date: 13/04/13
    István E. Markó, Alain Préat, Henri Masson and Samuel Furfari
    The authors of this paper recently presented their views on climate science at the Royal Academy of Belgium. No French or Belgian newspaper was willing to publish their assessment. Questioning the impact of mankind on climate change is evidently still a taboo in the French-speaking world.

    Double Standards in Climate Change
    István E. Markó a), Alain Préat b), Henri Masson c) and Samuel Furfari d)”

    “..
    The authors of this contribution were recently been granted the honour of presenting their point of view as climate sceptics at the Royal Academy of Belgium. During a series of six well-attended lectures we showed, among other things, that:

    1.The climate has always changed. This was true during ancient times and it has also been true since the beginning of the modern era. These climate changes have always been, and still are, independent of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere;
    2.During Roman times and the Middle Ages temperatures were observed well in excess of those currently experienced. From the 16th till the 19th century a cold period referred to as the “Little Ice Age” predominated. All these changes took place without mankind being held responsible. We believe that the increase in temperatures that occurred during a certain part of the 20th century is the result of a recovery from this cold period. These various events can be explained by a combination of warm and cold cycles of different magnitudes and duration. Why and how this happens is not yet fully understood, but some plausible explanations can be put forward;
    3.The so-called “abnormally rapid” increase in global temperatures between 1980 and 2000 is not unusual at all. There have in fact been several such periods in the past, during which temperatures rose in a similar manner and at comparable rates, even though fossil fuels were not yet in use;
    4.Temperature measurements do not necessarily correlate with a building up or a decrease in heat since heat variations are energy changes subject to thermal inertia. Apart from heat many other parameters have an influence on temperature. Moreover the measurement of temperatures is subject to numerous large errors. When the magnitude and plurality of these measurement errors are taken into account, the reported increase in temperatures is no longer statistically significant;
    5.The famous “Hockey-stick” curve, known as the Mann’s curve and presented six times by the IPCC in its penultimate report, is the result among other things of a mistake in the statistical calculations and an incorrect choice of temperature indicators, i.e. proxies. This lack of scientific rigour has totally discredited the curve and it was withdrawn, without any explanation, from subsequent IPCC reports;
    6.Even though they look formidably complex, the theoretical models employed by the climate modellers are simplified to the extreme. In fact there are far too many (known and unknown) parameters that influence climate change. At the moment it is impossible to take them all into account. The climate system is extremely complex, containing not only chaotic components but also numerous positive and negative feedback loops operating according to various different time scales. Which is why the IPCC wrote in its reports that: “…long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible” (page 774, Third report). This is very true. To this day all the climate predictions based upon these models have turned out to be totally incorrect. Strangely, nobody seems to care;
    7.The relationship between CO2 and temperature, obtained from the Vostok ice cores, shows that a building up of CO2 occurs 800 to 1000 years after an increase in temperature is observed. Hence the increase in the concentration of CO2 is a consequence of the warming of the climate, not its cause;
    8.But the coup de grâce to the “warmists’ theory” – certainly not yet visible in the French and Belgian media – comes from the observation that for the past fifteen years or so the global temperature of the Earth has remained constant. During the same period CO2 emissions have increased by far more than in the past, reaching an unparalleled record this year. Honest climate scientists admit that this observation is an embarrassing inconvenience for their theory. However, attempts to make us believe that the Earth is continuing to warm up persist. Will we have to wait for another twenty, twenty-five or thirty years for the global warming advocates to finally admit that there is no unambiguous correlation between the global temperature of the Earth and human-generated CO2 emissions?
    9.The claim that Hurricane Sandy is due to human CO2 emissions is totally unfounded and has been vigorously contested by numerous meteorologists. This regrettable distortion of the facts has been denounced in an open letter, addressed to the General Secretary of the UN and signed by more than 130 world-renowned scientists, including one of the present authors;
    10.Finally the “abnormal” melting of the Arctic Sea ice, that made the headlines of numerous journals during this summer, was also observed during previous decades. Amazingly the record high increase in Antarctic Sea ice that occurred at exactly the same time has been completely ignored by the very same media. Moreover, no mention has been made of the current, particularly rapid, regeneration of the Arctic Sea ice.
    These ten statements are facts. We would be ready to accept that they could be wrong, if evidence were presented to scientifically disprove them. In the meantime, and in view of the lack of coherence and unreliability associated with the numerous predictions made by the IPCC, it is time to set the record straight. The public and politicians must be informed about the hypothetical character of the predominant ‘consensus’ on climate change, which has been uncritically disseminated in the media for more than ten years. If it ever existed, this so-called “climate change consensus” has now been totally undermined by the facts.”

    In other words, all the claims made to push the AGW narrative are fake fisics and deceptive practices.

  76. Myrrh asks “And this alleged trend correlates with global temps over this period, how?”

    It doesn’t but that wasn’t my question.

    Myrrh says: “Enough of this, totally irrelevant to my point, there has never been shown from Keeling on that there is any man-made signature, it can’t be told apart from volcanic, and, all they’re doing is including all sources of carbon dioxide in their pretend measurements of their mythical “well-mixed background” anyway. Carbon dioxide is not very well mixed at all, it is lumpy and local.”

    What detracts from your point is having no answer to whether the measurements are accurate. CO2 is rising steadily in those measurements and volcanoes is not a suitable explanation unless those volcanoes are increasing worldwide and CO2 is well mixed (something you disagree with). What is relevant to your point is whether you have an explanation of how independent measurements can yield results that look an awful lot like a manmade rise. Obviously there are many of us (myself included) who have heard that explanation for many years and believe that it fits with all of the observed evidence, many measurements = anthropogenic production + uptake. Natural uptake (or production like your volcanoes) is very poorly measured. But anthropogenic production comes from the economic data and many independent measurements are basically in sync. It is possible to have alternative explanations that fit all that evidence, but they have to explain all the evidence. “Fraud” is not an explanation for CO2 measurements unless every scientist who ever measures CO2 commits fraud.

  77. eric1skeptic says:
    May 8, 2013 at 3:08 pm
    What detracts from your point is having no answer to whether the measurements are accurate. CO2 is rising steadily in those measurements and volcanoes is not a suitable explanation unless those volcanoes are increasing worldwide and CO2 is well mixed (something you disagree with). What is relevant to your point is whether you have an explanation of how independent measurements can yield results that look an awful lot like a manmade rise. Obviously there are many of us (myself included) who have heard that explanation for many years and believe that it fits with all of the observed evidence, many measurements = anthropogenic production + uptake. Natural uptake (or production like your volcanoes) is very poorly measured. But anthropogenic production comes from the economic data and many independent measurements are basically in sync. It is possible to have alternative explanations that fit all that evidence, but they have to explain all the evidence. “Fraud” is not an explanation for CO2 measurements unless every scientist who ever measures CO2 commits fraud.

    Where is the data pre the 94 Italian job? It was around that time Salinger went to NZ from CRU to fiddle their temperature records..

  78. As it says on the web page http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/jubany.html 1994 is when they started their measurements. From then until 2009 the CO2 rose steadily. The simplest explanation is that the steady rise came from anthropogenic CO2. A more complex explanation is that they measured wrong some how (e.g. timed uneven measurements to depict a steady rise), an even more complex one is that they faked measurements completely. A look at their paper

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0889.1999.t01-1-00011.x/pdf

    rules out wrong measurement (variation is too small including diurnal cycle).

    It is obvious that taking station temperature records and “homogenizing” them into averages opens the door to all kinds of “fiddling” since urban heating can easily be spread (or worse). But it is not at all obvious how the Italians fiddled the CO2 data. If I am missing something, please suggest specific ways that data from CO2 produced the curves shown above. I am not interested in more abstract CO2 conspiracy theory or unrelated problems in “climate science” which I am well aware of, although you are welcome to provide those to whoever else is left reading this thread.

  79. Myrrh, do you agree that measurements like these: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/jubany.html are accurate?

    How can I? The measurements are only continuous from the Italians from 94. They don’t give the data from the Argentinians, but it is supposedly included on that graph – but they don’t say it is, they just mention them which might lead one to think their data were included – and you expect me to comment on why I think carbon dioxide levels have risen from that graph which shows a line on a graph from what looks like 1958 which is Keeling beginning and the Argentinians were there several years before that.

  80. I am asking narrowly about the paper at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0889.1999.t01-1-00011.x/pdf and just figure 4 (selected daily average CO2 measurements for 1994-1997) and how the data was collected (section 3, p. 716) and filtered. Does it accurately represent the annual cycle and the anthropogenic rise as I suspect, or does the graph show something else (misrepresented, filtered, adjusted, next to volcano, etc) and if so, what specifically is it showing?

  81. Jubany:

    Abstract
    Although Antarctica is still considered as one of the most pristine areas of the world, the growing tourist and fisheries activities as well as scientific operations and their related logistic support are responsible for an increasing level of pollutants in this fragile environment. Soils and coastal sediments are significantly affected near scientific stations particularly by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). In this work sediment and soil were sampled in two consecutive summer Antarctic expeditions at Potter Cove and peninsula, in the vicinity of Jubany Station (South Shetland Islands). Two- and 3-ring PAHs (methylnaphthalene, fluorene, phenanthrene and anthracene) were the main compounds found in most sites, although total PAH concentrations showed relatively low levels compared with other human-impacted areas in Antarctica. Pattern distribution of PAHs observed in samples suggested that low-temperature combustion processes such as diesel motor combustion and open-field garbage burning are the main sources of these compounds.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17570467

    ==============
    Jubany is Argentina’s main scientific station in Antarctica. It is located in a hot spot of biodiversity and one of the areas with most research activities in the Antarctic Peninsula. The station has a laboratory, a cinema and diving facilities. It lies on the coast of the 25 de Mayo Island near stations from our countries.

    Country: Argentina

    Location: 62º14’ Lat. S y 58º40’ Long. W

    Average temperature: -5

    Jubany is located in the southern coast of 25 de Mayo island, in theShetland Islands, where there are more than 10 stations from different countries.

    Although it is one of the less famous Argentinean stations in the continent, it is where the biggest number of scientific activity takes place. There are studies on oceanography, glaciology, biology and ecology amongst others.

    http://www.antartidaurbana.com/bases/argentina/jubany?lang=en

    =========

    ClimateFor tourists, Antarctica is accessible only during the austral summer season from November to March, during which sea ice melts enough to allow access, coastal temperatures can rise up to highs of 14°C (57°F) and there are twenty four hours of daylight. During the winter the sea is impassable. Temperatures can fall to -40°C/F and there are twenty four hours of darkness.

    The above temperatures apply to the islands and coastal regions that tourists ordinarily visit.

    Antarctic Peninsula
    Antarctica’s principal destination, nearest to Tierra del Fuego, with the impressive topography of the Antarctic Andes, island hot springs, the continent’s densest concentration of research stations

    http://wikitravel.org/en/Antarctica

    ======
    Abstract
    In the summer 200001, thermal monitoring of the permafrost active layer within various terrestrial sites covered by lichen, moss or grasses was undertaken at Jubany (King George Island) and Signy Island in the Maritime Antarctic. The results demonstrated the buffering effect of vegetation on ground surface temperature (GST) and the relationship between vegetation and active layer thickness. Vegetation type and coverage influenced the GST in both locations with highest variations and values in the Deschampsia and Usnea sites and the lowest variations and values in the Jubany moss site. Active layer thickness ranged from 57 cm (Jubany moss site) to 227 cm (Signy Deschampsia site)

    http://www.mendeley.com/research/interactions-between-climate-vegetation-active-layer-soils-two-maritime-antarctic-sites-1/

    ======
    Abstract
    Trace-metal contents were recorded for the epilithic antarctic lichens Usnea aurantiacoatra and U. antartica, sampled close to the Argentine scientific station ‘Jubany’ on ’25 de Mayo’ (King George) Island, in the Southern Shetland Archipelago (Antarctica). The corresponding heavy-metal levels have been measured through atomic absorption spectrophotometry, following internationally accepted analytical methods. The results obtained support the hypothesis that an atmospheric circulation of trace metals exists on the assessed area, and the activities developed at the different scientific stations located on this island would be a potential source of heavy metals to the evaluated environment.

    http://www.mendeley.com/research/epilithic-antarctic-lichens-usnea-aurantiacoatra-u-antartica-determine-deposition-patterns-heavy-met-1/

    ================

    So, what have we got so far, suspect, for me, collaboration from ’94, increased use at the stations and tourism, diesel fuel heating and burning rubbish spreading from other stations as do the heavy metal, and mention of a hot spring –

    The South Shetland Islands are a group of over twenty islands approximately 60 to 150 miles (100 to 240 kilometers) north and northeast of the Antarctic Peninsula and 530 miles (850 km) south and southwest of Cape Horn Several of the islands are, or include, active volcanoes. The islands were heavily exploited for seal hunting in the early nineteenth century. Now they include numerous research stations and are popular with antarctic tourists.

    http://www.eoearth.org/article/South_Shetland_Islands

    ==========
    Geology

    Except for Gibbs Island northeast of the Shetland Islands, the rocks of the South Shetlands, southernmost South America, the North and South Scotia Ridge, and the Antarctic Peninsula, are of continental affinity. In terms of global tectonics, it is believed that the American plate of the Atlantic Ocean basin is being consumed in the South Sandwich Trench. Also, it is assumed that the American plate must be moving past the floor of the Scotia Sea along the trench fault following the line of the North Scotia Ridge, and that the segment of the Antarctic plate, lying to the west and the north, is being consumed beneath South America. However, neither the North Scotia Ridge, nor the continental margin of Chile south of the Chile Rise, showed marked seismicity until recently. Earthquakes are common in the vicinity of the South Sandwich Arc.

    The islands of the South Sandwich Ridge, are wholly volcanic, and most are active volcanoes in a seismically active belt to the west of the South Sandwich Trench. This indicates the presence of a fracture zone, connecting the South Scotia Ridge to the mid-Atlantic Ridge. Earthquakes are less common elsewhere in the region. Active and recently active volcanoes occur in the South Sandwich Arc, along the southeast side of the Shetland Islands (Deception, Bridgeman, and Penguin Islands).

    http://www.travelthepoles.com/antarctic/shetlands.html

    ===

    OK, that’s enough. Active volcanic islands.

    Even if not, as I suspect, data is being fiddled in line with the ‘official narrative’ which set up the IPCC which in its ’95 report had the conclusion from the concensus of its scientists doctored by Houghton/Santer to say the opposite – from no discernible man made signal to ‘it’s all the fault of man made fossil fuel combustion and we’re all doomed to fry in catastrophic global warming'; even while they knew this was not the case as the Met Office has now admitted that there has been no rise in temps over the last 17 years, while all the time pushing the narrative that temps were rising catastrophically – then rise in volcanic activity could account for it.

    Which was also a point Timothy Casey made, that stations monitoring CO2 levels [conveniently] placed in such areas..

    The cynicism in brackets my emphasis.

  82. eric1skeptic says:
    May 9, 2013 at 12:40 pm
    I am asking narrowly about the paper at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0889.1999.t01-1-00011.x/pdf and just figure 4 (selected daily average CO2 measurements for 1994-1997) and how the data was collected (section 3, p. 716) and filtered. Does it accurately represent the annual cycle and the anthropogenic rise as I suspect, or does the graph show something else (misrepresented, filtered, adjusted, next to volcano, etc) and if so, what specifically is it showing?

    I can’t access it. But that’s not what you first asked and you haven’t responded to my request for the Argentinian data nor given an explanation for the 1958 beginning of that CO2 Keeling kin curve nor explained why they have made it appear that Argentinian data is being used without giving any of it.

  83. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming.html

    “Over the last few years, there have been very careful studies in Antarctica which clearly show global temperatures rising together with atmospheric carbon dioxide. Global warmers have sent me several of these research papers with the usual “Ah HA!” type comment, but on reading the papers it is clear that the global warmers stopped at the abstract, because what these recent studies show is that Carbon Dioxide levels increased AFTER the rise in global temperature. Let me re-state that. Studies of Antarctic ice show that the Earth would get warmer, and THEN Carbon Dioxide levels would increase. And there is nothing at all mysterious about this. Carbon dioxide is a very unique chemical in that it is more effectively dissolved in liquids in lower temperatures. Normally, air will hold more water when warm, sugar will dissolve in water more quickly when warm, but carbon dioxide will escape from solution as the temperature rises, which is why your beer will soak your shirt if it is too warm when you open it.

    “So, as the sun warms the Earth (as recorded in the ice) carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans and lakes bubbles into the sky like too-warm soda pop fizzing over the top of the glass, and as the Antarctic ice reveals, winds up in the atmosphere.

    “Now, this is not to say that I think we should waste our planet’s resources. Quite the contrary, I think we need to be very careful of what we have, because we are not likely to get a replacement planet any time soon. But the global warming “hype” is exactly that, hype to sell products and policies. If you want to do something about the damage to the planet caused by oil, STOP THE WARS BEING FOUGHT OVER IT!”

    Ho hum, he goes on to say: “Sixteen gallons of oil. That’s how much the average American soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan consumes on a daily basis — either directly, through the use of Humvees, tanks, trucks, and helicopters, or indirectly, by calling in air strikes. Multiply this figure by 162,000 soldiers in Iraq, 24,000 in Afghanistan, and 30,000 in the surrounding region (including sailors aboard U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf) and you arrive at approximately 3.5 million gallons of oil: the daily petroleum tab for U.S. combat operations in the Middle East war zone. [Pacific Free Press]
    The [Iraq] war is responsible for at least 141 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) since March 2003. To put this in perspective, CO2 released by the war to date equals the emissions from putting 25 million more cars on the road in the US this year.[climateandcapitalism.com]”

    There you go, the cause of the rise in carbon dioxide levels, the growth of American air bases around the globe and the wars manufactured by the bwankers/industrial military complex..

  84. And, taking out the obligatory man made fault ozone hole, Antarctic carbon dioxide hasn’t increased in the ocean, while “measurements” have been rising –

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCarbon/page3.php

    “Le Quéré expected to see a steady increase in the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the Southern Ocean between 1981 and 2004 (blue line). Instead, weather station measurements (red line) suggested year-to-year variability, but no long-term increase over time. (Graph by Corrine Le Quéré, University of East Anglia.)”

    “When Le Quéré plugged atmospheric measurements from the Southern Ocean between 1981 and 2004 into her model, she was startled by the result—something far more interesting than the Antarctic Circumpolar Wave. “The Southern Ocean carbon sink has not changed at all in 25 years. That’s unexpected because carbon dioxide is increasing so fast in the atmosphere that you would expect the sink to increase as well,” says Le Quéré. But it hadn’t. Instead, the Southern Ocean held steady, while atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations climbed. Why?”

    Because maybe they hadn’t?

    Keeling programmed in a rise and created the idea of a mythical “pristine well-mixed background which could be measured anywhere”, but easier to measure where guaranteed
    a supply of volcanic production which can’t be told apart from fossil fuel combustion. This was taken over by concerted vested interests with the power and the money to organise the AGW scam which took off in the ’90’s.

    Keeling and his son through Scripps got control of ‘co-ordinating’ carbon dioxide measurements – and just like Keeling pre-determined that there would be an annual rise, so Scripps is now funded to produce the goods for the AGW narrative, an example of the meme regurgitating here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/20/scripps-institution-of-oceanography-cheapens-itself-by-using-the-d-word/

    I particularly liked Steve Goddard’s comment.

    Steve Goddard says:
    January 20, 2010 at 1:17 pm
    “I went snorkeling this summer at The Cove down below Scripps. Sea level was at the same place and the beach was the same size that it has been for my entire life.

    “He should get out of his office sometimes and go down to the beach, instead of getting his education from watching Al Gore flicks.”

  85. “Keeling and his son through Scripps got control of ‘co-ordinating’ carbon dioxide measurements”

    Sounds a bit far-fetched. Another paper by some of the same Italians is here: http://www.avvelenata.it/papers/Sendai_CO2.pdf If you can access that, please tell me how the curve shown in figure 2 with the annual cycle and secular rise is created. The normal explanation is that the annual cycle comes from vegetative uptake and release in the NH (this paper has measurements from the Mediterranean ) plus anthropogenic CO2.

    The paper describes the measurement device and calibration procedures. I don’t know much about the equipment but the techniques seem reasonable. It is hard to imagine how the Keelings might coordinate or control this measurement and many more like it. A much simpler explanation is that the measurements are independent verification of the Keeling measurements.

  86. eric1skeptic says:
    May 9, 2013 at 7:05 pm
    “Keeling and his son through Scripps got control of ‘co-ordinating’ carbon dioxide measurements”

    Sounds a bit far-fetched.

    You can see from Keeling’s first paper that there is nothing in there of any science to support his claim that there is a trend of man made increase, just sleights of hand graphs and information which have no bearing on the claim. A magician’s trick, he simply states there is a rise and that it is man made and that he needs more money to continue tracking that annual rise which he hasn’t shown exists and which he can’t tell apart from any volcanic and other natural all of which is what he is measuring. Or rather, from which he cherry picks a annual rise having created the idea of a mythical “well-mixed background” which even if it existed he has not shown man-made from natural and simply uses all of it to claim it is man-made…

    The rest, is agenda driven environmentalism creating what it wants to see, not by showing any scientific evidence, but by stating that it exists and in confirmation bias finding it. Callendar was a bit of a joke in those early days, even Ravelle stopped using him (Ravelle who shortly before his death changed his story) and Callendar wasn’t picked up again until Hansen ilk got in on the act – and that began to be put in place by the Club of Rome who were looking for a global scare to their own agenda. From this time on all the big oil and nuclear got involved (they set up CRU for example to fiddle temperature records as proved in NZ and in the climate gate emails and the creating of the Hockey Stick and One Tree Yamal) using the environmentalists’ emotional energy which came for free, because the whole scare was built on carbon dioxide actually driving warming. It’s in that mix of cynical manipulation by bankers/corporations and ideological environmentalist fantasists playing politics that this all grew like topsy. So it’s not far fetched, it’s just damned complicated.

    My main interest is how this, and they, changed basic science in the general education system. I couldn’t quite believe what I was hearing was coming from a Phd in physics teaching at university level and began to explore and found it endemic in general education, and this was what was fuelling the scam, a generation brought up on impossible physics – and of course this brings its own complications, when traditional scientists can spot something amiss is their own fields but take “common knowledge” science basics for granted elsewhere because they have no reason to check these basic claims. Like Corrine above, she takes for granted there is this mythical well-mixed background rising inexorably… Or in a discussion going on elsewhere, think that cold water rises and hot water sinks so explains Trenberth’s latest claim that the missing heat is going down to the bottom of the ocean..

    Anyway, understanding the why of it has to take into consideration deliberate and unconscious confirmation bias. These two worth reading for some of the history of science trying to keep this from swamping the system:

    http://american_almanac.tripod.com/globwarm.htm

    Robert E. Stevenson, an oceanography consultant based in Del Mar, California, trains the NASA astronauts in oceanography and marine meteorology. He was Secretary General of the International Association for the Physical Science of the Oceans from 1987-1995, and worked as an oceanographer for the U.S. Office of Naval Research for 20 years. He is the author of more than 100 articles and several books, including the most widely used textbook on the natural sciences. The following report first appeared in 21st Century Science and Technology in the Winter 1996-1997 issue.

    “The science of climate has been buried alive by an avalanche of ideology-based computer models.”
    ….
    “Working Geophysical Scientists” Respond
    I must say, also, that the “working geophysical scientists”–the oceanographers, the meteorologists, the atmospheric chemists and physicists, and the basic climatologists–were all caught by surprise by the vast publicity that spread through the media and popular press from what were clearly speculations–speculations that were publicized, even though there was no suitable scientific research to support the claims. But, how was the the public to know that? Furthermore, it seemed that journalists, editors, and publishers, as well as the electronic media, had turned overnight from reporters into advocates.
    Reputable scientists disagreed that an atmospheric crisis was at hand. Nils-Axel Morner, from Stockholm University, at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in New York, scorned the prediction of rising sea levels. He noted that there was simply not enough water in mid-latitude glaciers to cause such a rise (of several meters), and that a 4° Celsius increase in temperature (the modellers claim for the year 2050) might result in sea level rising 4 inches. Morner got no play in The New York Times the next day, or elsewhere.”
    =====

    http://enthusiasmscepticismscience.wordpress.com/2012/07/01/madrid-1995-and-the-quest-for-the-mirror-in-the-sky/

    “But this human impact is not detected when Callendar claimed to find it. Rather, our Mirror in the Sky pattern at the top of this blog—the one that had such an impact at Madrid—this gives the warming since 1963. [Santer 1995b pdf, also Karoly 1994] That is, the signal only emerges from the depth of those harsh winters—the very year of the Big Freeze—that helped kill off human attribution the first time around. The rejection of earlier attribution is not entirely about diminished data. As the IPCC moved with increasing conviction towards human attributing of the later warming, it simultaneously moved to attribute most of this earlier warming to natural causes [see e.g., TAR p699]. And so, after the false start under Wigley, casting and recasting the argument on new evidence, the IPCC arrived at a consistent vindication of Hansen’s testimonial: the human signal is detectable, but only in the 2nd half of the 20th century. And this is perhaps why you still hear a lot about Hansen’s heroic (but dubious!) attribution argument, and why the pioneering work of Guy Callendar is left out in the cold. Yes Callendar was an outsider, but he also cuts a dismal figure shovelling snow off the human warming theory while it lay buried in the ditch of the Little Cooling.”

    =====
    “Why this pattern analysis failed to gain traction at this time is unclear. Where Callendar was noticed by professional climatologist it was often with derision. Even after sending Keeling off to set up the monitoring station on Mauna Loa, Roger Ravelle would not even let Callendar off first base, refusing to believe that CO2 could have increased as much as Callendar claimed (and as is now confirmed)”

    Note the now confirmed – how? By Keeling following Callendar’s determination to show it.

    Another paper by some of the same Italians is here: http://www.avvelenata.it/papers/Sendai_CO2.pdf If you can access that, please tell me how the curve shown in figure 2 with the annual cycle and secular rise is created. The normal explanation is that the annual cycle comes from vegetative uptake and release in the NH (this paper has measurements from the Mediterranean ) plus anthropogenic CO2.

    The paper describes the measurement device and calibration procedures. I don’t know much about the equipment but the techniques seem reasonable. It is hard to imagine how the Keelings might coordinate or control this measurement and many more like it. A much simpler explanation is that the measurements are independent verification of the Keeling measurements.

    From which: ah, it says copying allowed, but copies in some strange script.

    “1. INTRODUCTION … unprecedented in the last 400,000 years”

    This is from Vostok which clearly shows massive changes in and out of glacials with carbon dioxide lagging behind 800 years. (Gore hid this in his presentation by separating them out and I’ve even seen one presentation of it from Australia which simply flipped it over so it appeared carbon dioxide was driving temperatures. ) So first of all, the very statement they make falsifies the claim that carbon dioxide drives teperatures, if it hasn’t done so for the last 400,000 years, shows it is irrelevant to driving temperatures which we can see from the graph and know were huge rapid rises and dramatic changes into interglacials, which caused gazillions of tons of ice miles high to melt and raised sea levels c350 feet. So what does it matter if carbon dioxide levels are, unproven, “unprecedented” now, even if true? The trace gas has shown no inclination to drive temperatures in the past. Only in the minds of AGW fantasists is carbon dioxide magically driving temperatures 800 years in the future, in their topsy turvy world of cause coming after effect.

    “3. ANALYSIS .. 2. Some general characteristics of the series may be outline: a progressive increase is evident,”

    Fig 2. No it isn’t. It’s showing a temporary increase around 98 after which it appears to be heading back to the lower levels.

    The Met having finally admitted there’s been no increase in temperature for the last 17 years, the anomaly of the 98 El Nino year makes no difference to this, it’s a blip. And so in their fig 2 – even though in 97 they added collection at 2 metres to get the heavier than air carbon dioxide to try and boost their figures – they have nothing to show out of the ordinary in their neck of the woods, or rather ocean, that isn’t accounted for in their premise analysis that “The CO2 growth rate appears to be related to large scale dynamic phenomena, like EL Nino/Sourthern Oscillation (ENSO), and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). In particular, an evident signature of the 1997-98 El Nino event is found on the CO2 record.”

    What would they write now instead of “a high correlation between the global average temperature and the 12-month average carbon dioxide growth rate also exists.”? Knowing that it’s finally been admitted there was no temperature increase since at least 95?

    Callendar cherry picked an unrealistic low number and Keeling turned this into the mythical “well-mixed background which could be measured anywhere” and was determined to show an annual increase, he and his son ran Scripps. This Italian study shows what carbon dioxide they get is what comes in on the winds, particular to their area, so their “local”. There is nothing to suggest that it wasn’t this 100 years ago.

    Which is what AIRS found, though they won’t release top and bottom of troposphere so we can get the picture they saw immediately.., that carbon dioxide is lumpy, it is local. This island producing nothing much of its own is simply getting it in descrete volumes, winds are volumes of air on the move, in which there is a level of carbon dioxide depending on the source of the wind, being carried in the volume of wind.

    The only bright light in studies such as these, if you can read beyond the obligatory pc AGW memes, is that they do tell you what they have done so you can read through the hype. We still have accurate records here, unfortunately not from Keeling and Scripps which set the “standard”, and not in temperature measurements where the AGW agenda spent the majority of its efforts to the point of corrupting past data. A gross insult to the scientists in the past who were dedicated to keeping as accurate records as they could for the benefit of future unknown to them colleagues in science. Planting pears for heirs.

    The original graph you posted is the Keeling Curve, compare with http://sync.democraticunderground.com/112741902

    Where is the Argentinian data, they were there from 1953?

    mwhite posted http://drtimball.com/2011/ernst-georg-beck-a-major-contributor-to-climate-science-effectively-sidelined-by-climate-deceivers/

    “Ernst Beck re-examined the 19th century data as his friend Gartner describes,

    “With his special meticulousness, Beck collected and analysed thousands and thousands of older measurements of the CO2 content of the air and found out that such content has been sometimes higher than today in the first half of the 20th century and also partially in the 19th century.

    “He found the pre-industrial level little different from the current level, and the variability from year to year was much wider than the ice core and Mauna Loa record showed. He put all the data together in Figure 2.”

    But there’s more to this, how does it really compare with air samples? Like barren islands in the middle of the ocean, Antarctica has no vegetation producing its carbon dioxide, what it gets is from volcanic production and surrounding waters and whatever it can glean from the winds. I recall seeing some measurements from Antarctica which didn’t show the the now CSIRO controlled GASLAB Flask Sampling Network which adjusts for storage.. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/csiro/csiro-casey.html

    But where to find unadjusted data from Antarctica now, I don’t know.

    And how to find it among all this confusion?:

    “However, in the topsy-turvy field of climate science, “skeptic” is a term of opprobrium and to be labeled a skeptic is to be dismissed as a hack. Being a skeptic concerning global warming today is akin to being a heretic in the Middle Ages — you may not be literally burned at the stake, but your reputation will be put to flames.In response, many scientists whose research calls into question one or more of the fundamental tenets of global warming orthodoxy, have learned to couch their conclusions carefully.” http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.ie/2008_03_01_archive.html

    “The three peer-reviewed articles show that the Global Climate Models weren’t able to predict climate in 1997. They show that in the next five years, the operators decoupled their models from the ocean and the sun, and converted them into models to support the greenhouse gas catastrophe. They have since restored some solar and ocean effects, but it is a token and a concession to their critics. The GCMs still can’t account for even the little ice age, much less the interglacial warming.” http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html#IV_A

    The build up of arguments and the attacks on any real scientists daring to put their heads above the parapet became very loud and very emotional from the 90’s and deliberate and unconscious biases thrown into the mix kept the whole thing going, even while those who were pushing rising temperatures knew that no such thing was happening, like the Met.. It’s difficult to conceive that these once great institutions got ‘infiltrated ‘ by the this AGW agenda, but it is clear they were. I was shocked when I discovered NASA pages changing even as I was reading them, from giving traditional science basics on light and heat to the fake fisics of the AGW agenda, and this was only a couple of years ago.

  87. The Stevenson website presents wholesale atmospheric CO2 ignorance just like your first post in this thread. He says: “The ocean’s summer warming, or warming by water-mass intrusions, or El Niños, makes the ocean a source of CO2 rather than a sink, as is usually supposed” If oceans are a sink, how come independent measurements show rising levels? Why don’t you simply answer that question? I don’t need links to websites full of mish mashes of misunderstanding, it’s a waste of my time. Just answer the question: what causes the independently measured rise? Is is fraud or fakery? Is it misunderstanding? Is it volcanoes? Are the volcanoes local or global? If volcanoes are global is CO2 well mixed showing similar measurements worldwide? If volcanoes are local, I have same question, why are the measured rises so similar?

    The answer to the 800 year lag is simple: temperature (warming oceans) drives CO2 production. Then CO2 slowly amplifies the original warming from a warming source (e.g. solar) folllowing fast amplification (e.g. albedo changes). Nowadays the fast amplifiers like albedo don’t count which is why the paleo estimates of sensitivity are inapplicable. Also CO2 amplification of warming is minimal and easily countered by many natural effects. For example the rise from glacials is often punctuated by drops back into glacial conditions. CO2 is obviously unable to prevent that.

    In the graphic from your link: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/csiro/CSIROCO2CASEY.JPG What caused the rise and what causes the annual wiggle? Why is the wiggle much smaller in Antarctica than on Mauna Loa? The enthusiasmscepticismscience website says that CO2 is measured accurately. Do you dispute that assessment? Do you think Ernst Beck is a better source than modern assessments? Do you think Beck accounted for diurnal and local variations? He talks about them, but doesn’t account for them, just lists loads of high CO2 measurements without any further analysis of why they were high.

    The Pete’s Place link has nothing original AFAICS. The Glassman paper in your last link is about the only potential alternative explanation that I can see. I am only guessing because he leaves so much out. It could be inferred from his article that the wiggle could be seasonal ocean warming. But that doesn’t explain why the wiggle is stronger in Hawaii which has less of a seasonal variation and weaker in Antarctica which has more seasonal variation. If the wiggle comes from the ocean than the rise would come from ocean warming. However from what I have read, the observed ocean warming (about 1C) only explains about 5-10 ppm of the atmospheric rise. I have not verified those numbers, only read them in several papers. So my question to you would be rephrased: how does a ocean rise of just 1C or so cause an observed rise of 100ppm? Alternatively, what caused the 18 ppm rise in Casey Antarctica (link above) over a 10 year period?

  88. A couple typos in my previous post, so let me ask this way.

    1) Is the steady rise in CO2 caused by (a) volcanoes (b) ocean warming (c) both (d) something else (e) the measurements are wrong (CO2 is not rising steadily). My answer is 1d: anthropogenic emissions. My reasoning is that a steady rise matches steady emissions and rules out uneven temperature changes and mostly rules out volcanic activity which is also uneven.

    2) is the the annual wiggle caused by (a) seasonal ocean warming (i.e. southern hemisphere), (b) NH vegetation (c) both (d) something else (e) the measurements are wrong. My answer is 2b because the wiggle is much more prominent in the NH and matches plant growth and death.

  89. eric1skeptic says:
    May 10, 2013 at 5:17 pm
    The Stevenson website presents wholesale atmospheric CO2 ignorance just like your first post in this thread. He says: “The ocean’s summer warming, or warming by water-mass intrusions, or El Niños, makes the ocean a source of CO2 rather than a sink, as is usually supposed”

    Yet the italian study you got me to read says the same thing, that their carbon dioxide comes in with the El Ninos as they point out is clearly seen in the graph where the spike showed increase in 97/98.

    Carbon dioxide is part and parcel of volumes of air, it is carried in volumes of air which are winds. Winds are volumes of air on the move.

    This is what AIRS concluded – that carbon dioxide is local, lumpy, and that they would need to go and study what winds do.

    The great wind systems which are born from intense heating of land and water at the equator which causes the volumes of the fluid gas air above to be heated which means that it will expand and become less dense and rise and flow to the cold poles, heat flows spontaneously from hot to cold, where these volumes lose their heat and so condense, becoming heavier they sink and flow back towards the equator. That is basic well understood meteorology. The great wind systems do not cross hemispheres.

    If oceans are a sink, how come independent measurements show rising levels?

    “Sink” is a term produced by AGWScienceFiction to avoid real physics of the properties of gases, to avoid mentioning cycles. AGWSF does not have any rain in their carbon cycle, they don’t even have the Water Cycle. Instead, magically in their world, carbon dioxide somehow gets to “sinks”.

    How much do these “independent measurements show rising levels”?

    Why don’t you simply answer that question?

    I’ve been endeavouring to answer to answer all your questions.., I’m spending a considerable amount of my time on this when I should be doing other things.

    I don’t need links to websites full of mish mashes of misunderstanding, it’s a waste of my time. Just answer the question: what causes the independently measured rise? Is is fraud or fakery? Is it misunderstanding? Is it volcanoes? Are the volcanoes local or global? If volcanoes are global is CO2 well mixed showing similar measurements worldwide? If volcanoes are local, I have same question, why are the measured rises so similar?

    As I’ve been trying to explain, it’s a complex mixture of all this.

    The measurements from Keeling/Scripps can’t be trusted, and as I have shown in the example you gave of Jubany, from the rise in vested interests taking over the initial scam this is now co-ordinated at government sanctioned level – which adjusts data. Didn’t you ever follow the Hockey Stick arguments? We need to see unadjusted data to understand what is going on.

    The answer to the 800 year lag is simple: temperature (warming oceans) drives CO2 production.

    Yet you’ve just dismissed this (first para). What caused the warming in the first place? 800 years of warming without any changes in carbon dioxide.

    - Then CO2 slowly amplifies the original warming from a warming source (e.g. solar) folllowing fast amplification (e.g. albedo changes).

    How does a trace gas which is less than 99.95 of the atmosphere with no heat capacity to speak of, it releases any heat gained practically instantly so cannot store it, which is heavier than air and is in all the rain that falls, carbonic acid, so cannot accumulate in the atmosphere, capable of doing this?

    How?

    Nowadays the fast amplifiers like albedo don’t count which is why the paleo estimates of sensitivity are inapplicable.

    What do you mean here?

    Also CO2 amplification of warming is minimal and easily countered by many natural effects.

    What amplification, even if minimal? Carbon dioxide is fully part and parcel of the Water Cycle which cools the Earth.

    For example the rise from glacials is often punctuated by drops back into glacial conditions. CO2 is obviously unable to prevent that.

    Gosh, so how is it driving the dramatic and rapid rises into interglacials from full blown glacials with gazillions tons miles high ice squashing down land?

    800 years before it makes its first appearance.

    800 years, nearly a thousand years it does nothing. While the rapid rise in temperatures are busy melting gazillions tons of ice and raising sea levels 350 ft, it does nothing.

    Carbon dioxide is irrelevant to driving temperatures. You can’t show how it is even minimal.

    In the graphic from your link: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/csiro/CSIROCO2CASEY.JPG What caused the rise and what causes the annual wiggle? Why is the wiggle much smaller in Antarctica than on Mauna Loa? The enthusiasmscepticismscience website says that CO2 is measured accurately. Do you dispute that assessment? Do you think Ernst Beck is a better source than modern assessments? Do you think Beck accounted for diurnal and local variations? He talks about them, but doesn’t account for them, just lists loads of high CO2 measurements without any further analysis of why they were high.

    What don’t you understand about the AIRS conclusion “Carbon dioxide is not at all very well mixed, but lumpy”, i.e. local, and, the so called trend of the Keeling Curve is shown to be an illusion created by the unproven claim of “well-mixed background”?

    The Pete’s Place link has nothing original AFAICS. The Glassman paper in your last link is about the only potential alternative explanation that I can see. I am only guessing because he leaves so much out. It could be inferred from his article that the wiggle could be seasonal ocean warming. But that doesn’t explain why the wiggle is stronger in Hawaii which has less of a seasonal variation and weaker in Antarctica which has more seasonal variation. If the wiggle comes from the ocean than the rise would come from ocean warming. However from what I have read, the observed ocean warming (about 1C) only explains about 5-10 ppm of the atmospheric rise. I have not verified those numbers, only read them in several papers. So my question to you would be rephrased: how does a ocean rise of just 1C or so cause an observed rise of 100ppm? Alternatively, what caused the 18 ppm rise in Casey Antarctica (link above) over a 10 year period?

    The “observed rise of 100ppm” is not proven. Regardless who uses it.

    Callendar cherry picked the 280ppm from two discredited studies and by throwing out everything that didn’t fit – he was a fanatic and became a laughing stock as he kept pushing rising carbon dioxide driving temperatures, which couldn’t be shown man made and a trend contrived by Keeling cherry picking a trend out of the abundance of volcanic , driving temperatures which then dropped dramatically – hence the picture of him shovelling snow. The science world then went into ‘coming into another LIA scare at best, beginning of end of Holocene at worst’. And that lasted until temps again began to rise in the 70’s – by which time there was a powerful monied agenda around which was looking for a global scare to control economy and society. That’s just the simple history of this. When we dissect this all the claims disintegrate into bs fisics and manipulated data, it grew because different agendas came into play at government level which had the power to set up the IPCC to push the fakery.

    And real science and real data gathering has been swamped by this. Science has been corrupted.

    How can you even begin to ask why there’s a wiggle here and not there when all this is in play?

    By ‘coincidence’, the, later than Callendar’s cherry picking of number, ice core data appeared to confirm Callendar – but this was disputed by the world’s leading expert on the subject. The propaganda of the IPCC agenda of AGW had to ignore this – because it was busy creating “consensus” of more ‘evidence’ based on the Callendar cherry picking.

    That’s why they changed the real consensus of the scientists in the 95 report, they changed it from “no man made discernible” to the Houghton/Santer fraud of “all the fault of man made”.

    That’s simply a fact of history.

    If you really want to understand about carbon dioxide and what it can and can’t do and how much or little it is changing, then you cannot ignore this history. You cannot simply take the measurements given by the now IPCC driven agenda at face value. They have proved themselves corrupt re temperature data, the Hockey Stick and One Tree Yamal and UHI and changing past temperarure records and refusing to give unadjusted data, etc. etc., why would you take the data they provide for carbon dioxide at face value when it is siamese twin to their temperature claims?

    For example:

    Stomata:

    1.”Nature’s CO2 meter:

    “A standardized way of counting stomata– called the stomatal index ( SI [%] )– has been found to be a good way to estimate the CO2 content of the atmosphere when the plant was alive. The SI-CO2 relationship varies according to plant species, habitat altitude, and other factors.

    ” Correlation charts are constructed using modern plant specimens by determining their SI numbers and corresponding CO2 concentrations. When SI and CO2 ranges are fully characterized for a plant species, the charts are used as to estimate CO2 levels for related species in the geologic past.

    “To determine plant age Carbon14 methods are usually used to about 40,000 years ago. For older material, other dating methods are used.

    “Because plant stomata numbers do not change after the leaves or needles fall from the parent plant, they make a good indicator or proxy of atmospheric CO2 in Earth’s past. ”

    And:
    2.”PLANT STOMATA

    Stomata are microscopic pores found in leaves and the stem epidermis of plants. They are used for gas exchange. The stomatal density in some C3 plants will vary inversely with the concentration of atmospheric CO2. Stomatal density can be empirically tested and calibrated to CO2 changes over the last 60 years in living plants. The advantage to the stomatal data is that the relationship of the Stomatal Index and atmospheric CO2 can be empirically demonstrated…”

    1.http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html
    2.http://debunkhouse.wordpress.com/2010/03/28/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/

    eric1skeptic says:
    May 10, 2013 at 5:39 pm
    A couple typos in my previous post, so let me ask this way.

    1) Is the steady rise in CO2 caused by (a) volcanoes (b) ocean warming (c) both (d) something else (e) the measurements are wrong (CO2 is not rising steadily). My answer is 1d: anthropogenic emissions. My reasoning is that a steady rise matches steady emissions and rules out uneven temperature changes and mostly rules out volcanic activity which is also uneven.

    You cannot prove they are anthropogenic emissions because you have never shown them distinct from volcanic activity.

    And the volcanic activity has been deliberately supressed, to fit in with the agenda. Read Casey on this:

    You don’t know how much volcanic activity is involved here,

    It is a lie that fossil fuel combustion can be told apart from volcanic.

    – it would need specific fingerprinting to every volcanic source to even begin to tell the difference.

    Keeling simply made the claim that it was anthropogenic to the Callendar/Keeling greenie agenda of the time – but he was measuring volcanic and other local, and he had a huge production of volcanic to adjust from to create his mythical trend.

    2) is the the annual wiggle caused by (a) seasonal ocean warming (i.e. southern hemisphere), (b) NH vegetation (c) both (d) something else (e) the measurements are wrong. My answer is 2b because the wiggle is much more prominent in the NH and matches plant growth and death.

    They haven’t excluded seasonal ‘wiggles’, the adjustments are more subtle than that…

    The adjustments are geared to show a “trend of rising man made” – where are the Argentinian data?

  90. Since the CO2 rise is from volcanoes as you say, the next question is are the volcanoes world wide and CO2 well mixed, or does each independent CO2 measurements get polluted by a nearby volcano and adjusted / cherry picked like the Keelings in Hawaii? Since all these independent measurements show the same smooth rise, I would conclude that worldwide volcanoes are causing it and CO2 is well mixed.

    If you disagree with my conclusion, please show how each of the independent measurements, e.g. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/csiro/CSIROCO2CASEY.JPG (Casey Antarctica) or e.g. http://www.avvelenata.it/papers/Sendai_CO2.pdf (Lampedusa Italy) is polluted by a nearby volcano and how (e.g. in the latter paper) their measurement technique makes that possible. If you know the volcano please point that out, but in the case of Lampedusa, well upwind from Sicily I do not see any relevant local volcanoes.

    As for the wiggle I assume that your theory is that the same adjustment used to produce the rise from nearby volcanic pollution is also used to cherry pick the wiggle. Please show any paper where any measurement technique could produce that result. Alternatively show any paper where any measurement technique could be used to cherry pick a trend and wiggle. You can start with the Lampedusa measurements if you like, under section 2, measurements. I would like know how those scientists cherry picked their measurements so that all independent scientists were able to reproduce the exact same rise and wiggle.

    Your stomata link points to work by Wagner, e.g. http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/33/1/33.abstract Although I only have that as an abstract, it is clear that they are pointing out fluctuations from 300 to 320 ppm, not fluctuations up to 400. The current rise to 400 is well beyond any historical or prehistorical plant stomata estimate. Your second link points to Kouwenberg 2005 and shows a chart with some historical measurements reaching 350 ppm. Still not 400, so the current level is unique.

    I agree with those websites that ice core records are smoothed and cannot capture all the fluctuations. But Greenland ice cores with clear annual layering would have captured anything like the current spike if it had happened in the last 20k years.

  91. For the 350 claim, I only have this: http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm1353/Climate%20Change/LawDomeMLOKouwenberg800.png Searching for Kouwenberg 2005 takes me to Wagner and Kouwenberg 2004 which claims a high end of 320 ppm, not 350. I can’t find the source of the data in the figure above. If you can find it in an academic paper, please link. I don’t need more crappy websites full of misunderstandings and misinformation. Only academic papers such Ernst Beck are acceptable (published in Energy and Environment). But Beck did not account for location and diurnal fluctuations in his conclusions.

Comments are closed.