Mauna Loa hits 400 PPM of CO2, alarmists wail and gnash teeth, Earth survives

mauna-loa-week

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

Al Gore calls for a day of prayer and reflection, and bothering your neighbor:

So please, take this day and the milestone it represents to reflect on the fragility of our civilization and and the planetary ecosystem on which it depends. Rededicate yourself to the task of saving our future. Talk to your neighbors, call your legislator, let your voice be heard. We must take immediate action to solve this crisis. Not tomorrow, not next week, not next year. Now.

Scientific American laments the plants

This measurement is just the hourly average of CO2 levels high in the Hawaiian sky, but this family’s figures carry more weight than those made at other stations in the world as they have faithfully kept the longest record of atmospheric CO2. Arctic weather stations also hit the hourly 400 ppm mark last spring and this one. Regardless, the hourly levels at Mauna Loa will soon drop as spring kicks in across the northern hemisphere, trees budding forth an army of leaves hungrily sucking CO2 out of the sky.

In the coming year, Scientific American will run an occasional series, “400 ppm,” to examine what this invisible line in the sky means for the global climate, the planet and all the living things on it, including human civilization.

Sorry, we already beat you to it when it comes to summing up what it means:

1what_400_PPM_looks_like

Since the world hasn’t ended (just like what happened with Y2K) we can now go forward from here.

T-shirts saying “I survived 400 PPM” will be made available if there’s enough interest in comments.

UPDATE: T-shirts now available due to popular demand. See here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/11/the-400-ppm-fud-factory-t-shirts-now-available/

About these ads

292 thoughts on “Mauna Loa hits 400 PPM of CO2, alarmists wail and gnash teeth, Earth survives

  1. Global temperature down; CO2 up.

    That’s why the tax-grubbing scaremongers are now called catastrophic anthropomorphic “climate change” alarmists (CACCA) instead of CA “global warming” advocates, which isn’t as catchy.

  2. How about smearing chloroplast-bearing cyanobacteria in an attractive blue-green slime across our roofs instead of PV cells? Just add water.

  3. Lawrence Livermore “Fact Sheet” on Co2:

    Carbon dioxide is necessary to sustain life in concentrations of about 0.04 percent of the earth’s atmosphere…

    They go on to repeat boilerplate about the theorized danger of too much Co2, but being near the lower bound of what we need is far from having too much.

  4. “And everyone will remember the day when CO2 passed 400ppm.” Yeah, right.

    As non-events go, it’s right up there with George Washington’s best friend’s cousin’s birthday.

  5. 400 parts per million . . . . jeez, that’s 0.04% of the atmosphere.

    Does this mean that someone will announce that 99.96% of the atmosphere is not CO2?

  6. Not tomorrow, not next week, not next year. Now

    Aren’t you supposed to go from largest to smallest when you use this type of “pleading, wake up people” expression. In other words, “Not next year, not next week, not tomorrow. Now!”. He might as well have stopped with “Not tomorrow” since that also covers next week and next year.

    I’m sure lots of people have seen the graphic that shows the earth, and shows all the water on the earth, depicted as a ball. Could we have one like that for CO2?

  7. IF plants could think and feel, I’m sure they would be upset that we’re a long way from their ideal point of 1,000 to 2,000 PPM. ;-))

  8. There must be a party somewhere celebrating a trace gas becoming “more trace”. I’ll hoist a cup of grog tonight in honor of that party.

  9. Simple, the whole controversy was spawned by computer models so the concentration ought to be in hexadecimal which is only 189 per parts per F0000

  10. (Didn’t Anthony promise us an edit button a while back?)

    REPLY: No, never. Not possible when hosted on wordpress.com as I have explained many many many times. – Anthony

  11. Oh and one other thing. Of the 0.04% of the total atmosphere being CO2 (400 ppm), 96.775% of this total 400 ppm is still naturally occurring. No change. Still the same.

    Why does this totally insignificant 3.225% man-made contribution of atmospheric CO2 continue to make Al Gore rant “Action to solve this crisis. Not tomorrow, not next week, not next year. Now.”

  12. This people are not just idiots. They are retarded.

    It is beyond their capacity to see that trying to generate fear and loathing over a number that is a complete abstraction to virtually everyone on the planet, including “decision makers”, not only will fail, it will consolidate their image as manipulators and cranks.

    Quite apart from the fact that Armageddon has already supposedly been triggered by the previously ominous and devastating figure of 350.

  13. We can laugh, but the fact is that this lends support to AGW alarmism. We hear everywhere (and it seems constantly) that 2010 was the hottest year in the last 150 (with implications that it was the hottest EVER). Many of us don’t deny that information, as we are still recovering from the LIA. While a few organizations are looking for the missing heat, they are looking for the upper extremes the models predicted. The theme has not changed: temperatures are still rising with no end in sight, and potentially will hit that ‘tipping point’ soon where it will run away. It’s not just climate change – it is still global warming. The target is city folk, who have no idea what a plant needs to grow, and that jungles are lush because they are hot. (They are also humid, of course, but so is the Pacific Northwest, and it is no jungle.)

    It is not just the ignorant, however. I have many friends with advanced scientific degrees and no ties to AGW funding who are convinced that the planet is indeed in a warming spiral. They are quick to point out that if solar activity is declining, and the temperatures are still rising, there is a problem, and thank God the sun is quiet or the models would probably be indicating far less than the actual temperatures.

    We do need to maintain skepticism – not only about AGW, but toward some of the posts here. Some of the references don’t seem to support the theme, and followups by the referenced organization frequently state data was taken out of context, or was premature. Those are valid comments.

  14. Y2K? That seems pretty light. I suppose the younger folks might not relate to all the disasters their elders have survived. If memory serves, I’ve survived (so far)

    Impending Ice Age
    Ozone Depletion
    Acid Rain
    Toxic Rain
    Y2K
    Bird Flu
    Swine Flu
    Global Economic Collapse (fossil fuel depletion)
    Global Starvation (population exceeding food supply)
    Impending Warm Age

    I wonder if it is a cycle of some sort? Does Impending Warm Age get followed directly by Impending Ice Age? Perhaps the tee shirt should be in a circle with dates for each and ending in an arrow pointing back to the start?

  15. The plaintive (“fragility”) language and inward-looking appeals to “go out” with the DEMAND of the faithful to act, rather than the confidence to think they will, being carried by the tide of history and common cause, tells all about the current internal workings of the organism known as ALGORE.

  16. I can never understand why a reading of CO2 from Hawaii is so significant due to the smouldering volcano there which surely spews off some CO2 from time to time. Hmmm, I wonder if the question is rhetorical.

  17. Mike M says:
    May 10, 2013 at 11:08 am

    Simple, the whole controversy was spawned by computer models so the concentration ought to be in hexadecimal which is only 189 per parts per F0000

    Or if you start with hex 0x1000000, 0.04% of that gives 0x1A36 per 0x1000000. No promises on the math, but I think I got it right.

  18. So, this is a clear sign of the fragility of the climate models – 400 ppm and no warming? If they had any sense alarmists would shut up in shame.

  19. First time in 3 million years CO2 > 400ppm all over BBC news.
    Just taken the top off a bottle of Newcy Brown in respect, promise that I will restrict the outgassing of CO2 by consuming with vigour, cheers all.

  20. Has it been studied how representative Mauna Loa is of the CO2 of the atmosphere globally?

    Wondering if that is established or just assumed. It would seem to be of some importance to a theory that attaches great significance to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

  21. Publicly, they wail, gnash teeth, and rent their clothing. Privately, of course, it’s high-fives all around and party time, because they figure this will give them added ammunition (which it will), which they so desperately need the rushing onslaught of truth, actual science, and rationality.
    Hold steady. Don’t fire until you see the whites of their eyes.

  22. I’d be interested in a t-shirt but I am worried that the planet might explode in flames before I received it.

  23. True greens will rejoice, while phoney and ignorant will shed a crocodile tear, while they feast on the fruits of the CO2’s abundance.

  24. Al Gore needs to keep ranting so that he can create/sell/invest in “Green” companies and make millions…$$$$… For a man who almost was the President… He seems to have found his “niche” to make a buck… and forget a thing called “reality”.

  25. I think you should sponsor a HUGE cook out – with lots of charcoal (we all bring the meat and beer) to celebrate!

    Guess I will be driving 200 miles to get some of them blue crabs this weekend, for my own celebration!

  26. davidmhoffer says:
    May 10, 2013 at 11:25 am

    Impending Ice Age
    Ozone Depletion
    Acid Rain
    Toxic Rain
    Y2K
    Bird Flu
    Swine Flu
    Global Economic Collapse (fossil fuel depletion)
    Global Starvation (population exceeding food supply)
    Impending Warm Age

    and
    End of the world December 21, 2012

  27. “Levels….will soon drop as spring kicks in across the Northern Hemisphere, trees budding forth an army of leaves hungrily sucking CO2 out of the sky.”

    A note to you “Scientific American” nit wits….trees, and humans, are CARBON lifeforms….nature LOVES sucking CO2 out of the sky….monarch-monopolists LOVE sucking wealth from their serfs….and “armies” destroying lives and properties in staged conflicts, is a favorite technique. I reject this elitist front group’s claim to be “Scientific” or “American”.

  28. My tomatoes are doing quite well this year. Must be the 400 PPM CO2. I’d buy a T with the various disasters on it.

  29. theOtherJohninCalif says:
    May 10, 2013 at 11:23 am
    ————————————

    Actually the Pacific Northwest west of the Cascades and coast ranges is a jungle, if that means “rain forest”. By a jungle is usually meant a tropical rain forest. The climax state of the western Pacific NW is a temperate rain forest. Without humans, even the floor of the Willamette Valley would be covered with towering, old growth western hemlock trees.

  30. I’m getting low on “pithy” tees that insult “warmist’s” mentality! Put me on the list for a tee!

  31. theOtherJohninCalif says:
    May 10, 2013 at 11:23 am

    We hear everywhere (and it seems constantly) that 2010 was the hottest year in the last 150

    According to both satellite data sets, 1998 was the warmest.
    RSS:
    1 {1998, 0.549},
    2 {2010, 0.475},
    3 {2005, 0.33},
    4 {2003, 0.321},

    UAH:
    1. 1998 0.419
    2. 2010 0.394
    3. 2005 0.260
    4. 2002 0.218

  32. 500 or fight! (that was for all of my Canadian brethren).
    In all seriousness, though, I reckon we will never reach 500. We’ll probably be peakin’ shortly, given the way things are trending.

  33. …Can’t type……. …. turning blue…….. Plants taking over computer now……. barely hanging on….. …. love you guys…….

  34. Curiously, the cooling northern hemisphere is part of the reason CO2 levels have temporarily hit 400 as this year’s growing season is very delayed. (at least where I live)

  35. The average is estimated to have reached 300 ppm in 1910. It will take a few more years for the average to attain 400. I’ll be concerned if it got back to 1000 ppm, a true greenhouse level. Some people might get headaches after prolonged exposure to that concentration. But humans don’t suffocate until several thousand ppm, as during the early Paleozoic Era.

  36. T-shirt I’d like to see:
    400 ppm!
    Great for Plants and People.
    No discernable effect on climate.
    What’s not to love?

  37. I find this statement from Scientific American to be sort of, well, weird:

    ‘Regardless, the hourly levels at Mauna Loa will soon drop as spring kicks in across the northern hemisphere, trees budding forth an army of leaves hungrily sucking CO2 out of the sky.’

    Ok, let us think about this. What kind of army is an army of leaves. Did the leaves enlist, or were they drafted in this war against the enemy CO2? Where did they sign up? Or is ‘an army of leaves’ a rather emotional and not particularly artful description. Hell if I know.

    Now, it’s hard for me to imagine leaves ‘hungrily sucking CO2 out of the sky’. So I looked up the definition for the word ‘suck’. Here goes: ‘To draw (liquid) into the mouth by movements of the tongue and lips that create suction.’ Honest, that definition came from the Free Online Dictionary and not from …well, any other source you may think it came from.

    Now, try to think about a leaf, let alone an army of them, wrapping its tongue and lips around the sky and sucking it dry of CO2. Try to imagine that. I can’t. I can imagine other things involved with that word but I certainly can’t imagine that. And I tend to doubt, or at least I hope, that someone writing for the Scientific American can’t really imagine it either.

  38. ALGORES effusion is listed at realclearpolitics.com, having appeared in the Huffington Post.

    Just under it, as the Feature Article for realclearscience, is “Weird things attributed to Climate Change” apparently written by staff at that operation. It is a list. The first on the list is the impact on kangaroo scrotum size.

    ALGORE has competition for public attention. Which will attract more readers? Which will carry more weight?

    The absurdity and insanity is going mainstream!

  39. Yes a Tee would be good.

    Perhaps on the back you could have “Only 400ppm to the next doubling!”

  40. @Tom J says:
    May 10, 2013 at 12:56 pm

    “And I tend to doubt, or at least I hope, that someone writing for the Scientific American can’t really imagine it either.”

    You hope in vain.

    What is urgently needed is a team of anthropologists to start documenting these things.

  41. @John Tillman –
    I assume you know what CACCA means in Italian – and yes, it’s a good characterization of the “new” catastrophist/doomsayer/Chicken Little meme.

    I’ve been in a few REAL greenhouses where the CO2 content was presumably 1000 ppm or better, and didn’t have any problem breathing. So I can’t get too excited about 400 ppm. And I’d willing to bet there’s enough CO2 in the vicinity of Mauna Loa to substantially skew the measurements thereof.

    More stupid scare tactics by the Inconvenient Liar and a once-proud periodical that has sunk to the lowest of lows. How eveil on the one hand, how sad on the other

  42. Look guys, the more they scream and shout about 400ppm then you reply with 15+ years of temperature standstill. That should get some of them thinking.

  43. If 350 ppm is regarded as the desired quantity , how is 0.005 % more deemed a catastrophe ? Co2 must be the most powerful substance known to mann .

  44. Waal, mangle mah coral reef if CO@ ain’t hit 4,000 PM ‘n countin’! Guess we-uns all are a-livin’ on borrowed time… hey, Cletus, break out a case o’ suds.

  45. Heh. How about a two sided t-shirt?

    CO2 graph on the front, and RSS from 1998 to now on the back.

  46. You guys are looking at this wrong way. The atmosphere is actually 99.96% CO2 free! Take that, Algore!

    BTW, Anthony, love having the spell check because I am typing challenged.

  47. TheOtherJohninCalifornia,

    Relax. The 1930’s were far warmer than the 2000s.

    And this chart will help bring you back down to earth.

    Nothing unusual or unprecedented is happening. Relax.

  48. The Moonbat speaks of a “road of idiocy”. It’s a road that he’s intimately familiar with, having logged countless miles on it himself.

  49. Great, that extra .01% of CO2 the past 100 or so years, might make my tomatos grow better up here in Michigan. Provided it doesn’t freeze them this weekend. They are predicting frost on Sunday morning. What ever happened to Al (Jazeera) Gore’s promise of global warming. We’re still waiting here in Michigan.

  50. milodonharlani says:
    May 10, 2013 at 12:12 pm
    theOtherJohninCalif says:
    May 10, 2013 at 11:23 am
    ————————————

    “Actually the Pacific Northwest west of the Cascades and coast ranges is a jungle, if that means “rain forest”. By a jungle is usually meant a tropical rain forest. The climax state of the western Pacific NW is a temperate rain forest. Without humans, even the floor of the Willamette Valley would be covered with towering, old growth western hemlock trees.”

    *******************

    Ummmm…not exactly. It is far too hot and dry in the Willamette Valley for hemlock. Planted hemlock can grow in the valley, but under natural conditions it would be easily out-competed by Douglas-fir, and heat and drought tolerant herbaceous plants.

    LKMiller (aka treegyn1)

  51. I’ve never really understood why CO2 is measured on or near a volcano. CO2 is abundant in and around them even when not errupting. Someone please explain?

  52. milodonharlani says:
    May 10, 2013 at 12:50 pm
    “The average is estimated to have reached 300 ppm in 1910. It will take a few more years for the average to attain 400. I’ll be concerned if it got back to 1000 ppm, a true greenhouse level. Some people might get headaches after prolonged exposure to that concentration. ”

    Some people get headaches all by themselves.
    “CO2 levels above 1000 ppm correlate with complaints of minor health problems such as eye and throat irritation, headache and fatigue. Interestingly, it is unlikely that CO2 is causing these problems. More likely, CO2 levels are high due to poor ventilation in the building and other more toxic gases are also building up. CO2 levels above 5000 ppm are considered an occupational hazard and can cause drowsiness and other problems. Very high levels (above 10 per cent) will result in loss of consciousness.”

    http://www.ehow.co.uk/info_8091324_normal-co2-levels-offices.html

    BTW, a higher CO2 level in your blood promotes oxygen release from hemoglobin and that’s why you let hyperventilating people breathe into a bag to rebreathe their own CO2.

  53. Put me down for a 400ppm t-shirt or two. If you make a polo as well I can wear it to golf. I’m trying to get as many games in as possible before Agenda21 shuts down my pastime.

  54. I’ll take 2 tees. I’d love to send my kids to school in them, just to see if there is any reaction.

  55. Only 1 in 2500 !.
    1 in 2000 would be better for plant life, but that is only 500ppm

  56. Scientific America is following in the footsteps of Business Week. The inside joke was the current mania (dot.com and so on) would crash soon after tBusiness Week ran a special on the mania in question.

    It obvious that the warmists are struggling to distract the discussion away from the fact that planetary temperature rise has stopped.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/

    As the planet resists forcing changes by an increase or decrease of clouds in the tropics reflecting more or less sunlight off into space, rather than amplifies warming, the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will be less than 1C. Plant growth will increase in a response to the higher CO2 levels. Most of the warming will occur at high latitudes where the growing season is limited by the number of frost free days. The biosphere will expand and will be more productive. Sounds like a win-win situation for the biosphere.

    This is a link to a review paper that was prepared by EPA’s own scientist that supports the assertion that the research and analysis does not support the extreme AGW paradigm. The EPA buried the report. The EPA and IPCC of course are completely ignoring the data and logic that indicates the majority of the 20th/21st warming was not due to the rise in atmospheric CO2.

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/endangermentcommentsv7b1.pdf

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/DOUGLASPAPER.pdf

    “ A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
    We examine tropospheric temperature trends of 67 runs from 22 ‘Climate of the 20th Century’ model simulations and try to reconcile them with the best available updated observations (in the tropics during the satellite era). Model results and observed temperature trends are in disagreement in most of the tropical troposphere, being separated by more than twice the uncertainty of the model mean. In layers near 5 km, the modelled trend is 100 to 300% higher than observed, and, above 8 km, modelled and observed trends have opposite signs. These conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.”

    http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf

    “On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications by Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi
    We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. …. … CO2, a relatively minor greenhouse gas, has increased significantly since the beginning of the industrial age from about 280 ppmv to about 390 ppmv, presumably due mostly to man’s emissions. This is the focus of current concerns. However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2.

  57. CO2 at 400ppm is newsworthy, it seems.
    CO2 at 500 ppm will be a far rounder number.
    Watch fire the fireworks then, in the media. But probably not in the physical world.

  58. Can we reset the baseline now please. A nice round number would stop beings such as Gore from getting so easily confusified.

    “A doubling of CO2 from 0.04% (400ppmv) to 0.08% (800ppmv) may raise global temperatures by @1%C.” AAaaah.

    Personally I will still bet that, all other things considered, we will eventually find a CS for a doubling of around about … nearly, approximately, as close as dammit …. 0.0C +/- 0.0001C

    8)

  59. DirkH says at May 10, 2013 at 1:59 pm
    “BTW, a higher CO2 level in your blood promotes oxygen release from haemoglobin and that’s why you let hyperventilating people breathe into a bag to rebreathe their own CO2.”

    Hmm… new scare then.
    Exercise is less efficient in a higher CO2 atmosphere therefore, fossil fuels cause the rise in obesity.

    And it will prove true, too. When countries get mass car-ownership the obesity levels will rise.

  60. “We must take immediate action to solve this crisis. Not tomorrow, not next week, not next year. Now.” So immediately get your checkbook and make out a check for your entire balance and send it by Express Mail to All Gorge, 10 Tobacco Cough Way, Gnashville, Tennessee. The poor boy needs the money as usual.

  61. Bruce Cobb says: May 10, 2013 at 12:50 pm
    “T-shirt I’d like to see:
    400 ppm!
    Great for Plants and People.
    No discernible effect on climate.
    What’s not to love?”

    Like that but how about being more accessible?
    “T-shirt I’d like to see:
    400 ppm!
    Great for Plants
    Let’s recycle and eat the crops.
    No discernible effect on climate.
    What’s not to love?”

  62. Rather than “I survived 400 ppm,” I’d rather see a monster truck or coal-fired power plant with “I did my part to get to 400!”

    More “In yo face.”

  63. M Courtney says:
    May 10, 2013 at 2:10 pm
    “Hmm… new scare then.
    Exercise is less efficient in a higher CO2 atmosphere therefore, fossil fuels cause the rise in obesity.”

    Well, you would probably get away with it in any scientific journal, but it’s not true; your blood is slightly more acidic, this enables hemoglobin to release oxygen faster, and your muscle performance should rise. There are breathing exercises, forgot the name of the guy who promotes them, where you breathe in exclusively through the nose, very deep and long, and release the breath very slowly. I once saw an interview with a guy who was used to breathing in this way, and it was a little irritating, he talked for quite a while, then paused and breathed in through the nose, then talked for a minute again.

    And a healthy grown up has simply enormous lung overcapacity. So you won’t really notice the 1000 ppm. The lungs age irreversibly, that’s why we develop the overcapacity in the first place.

  64. 700ppm .. upward and onward.. Yee-haw !! :-)))

    Let Mother Earth flourish as she once did. !

  65. If my maths is right – and it’s a lo-o-o-ong time since I used Base 8 – decimal 400 ppm is octal 620 parts per decimal million. I hope that’s less scary, Al; they’re octal numbers, that’s all.
    In the UK weeds, and house-trained plants, too – are going gangbusters – now we’ve a bit of Sun and temperatures appreciably above freezing.
    Not the CO2, obviously, as we’re all dead, so I guess it’s the flapping of a fritillary’s wings.

  66. Considering that CO2 levels were measured at levels close to 500ppm during the years covering WWII and quickly fell back post-war, what does this say about residence panics so often bandied about? As far as I can see, there is little that can really be classed as ‘unprecedented’ if anything.

    If you can get an XXL (and a generous XXL at that) I could be tempted to buy a T-Shirt.

  67. Re: “Al Gore calls for a day of prayer and reflection, and bothering your neighbor. . . ”

    Calls to mind a line by R. Emmett Tyrrell: “The liberal’s main goal in life is to annoy his neighbor.”

  68. “‘hungrily sucking CO2 out of the sky’”

    That’s what you do when you have been on bread and water rations for 200,000+ years. . .
    then there becomes nearly enough to have a decent feed. !!

    280ppm was biosphere “survival” amount… war rations, so to speak.

    400ppm.. the plants are now doing ok, they don’t have to struggle so much to get a decent feed.

    700ppm +.. will be a feast ! :-)

  69. GeeJam said in part on May 10, 2013 at 11:14 am:

    > Oh and one other thing. Of the 0.04% of the total atmosphere being
    > CO2 (400 ppm), 96.775% of this total 400 ppm is still naturally
    > occurring. No change. Still the same.

    Since probably sometime in the early 20th century, nature has had
    net effect of removing CO2 from the atmosphere. The increase since
    then is less than man-made CO2 emissions.

    Link to carbon budget figures for 1959-2010:

    http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/global-carbon-budget-2010

  70. I suggest in addition to the T-shirt start a sideline mail order business

    Save the planet !
    Order bottled CO2 at 400ppm.
    Skeptics are not welcome.

  71. vukcevic says:
    May 10, 2013 at 12:02 pm

    davidmhoffer says:
    May 10, 2013 at 11:25 am

    Impending Ice Age
    Ozone Depletion
    Acid Rain
    Toxic Rain
    Y2K
    Bird Flu
    Swine Flu
    Global Economic Collapse (fossil fuel depletion)
    Global Starvation (population exceeding food supply)
    Impending Warm Age
    and
    End of the world December 21, 2012
    *************************************************************************************************
    Don’t forget ocean acidification! It’s no more insane than all the others.

    If I can pay by credit card put me down for a t-shirt (not Paypal).

    Steve T

  72. ‘Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.’

    – C.S.Lewis

  73. milodonharlani said in part, on May 10, 2013 at 12:12 pm

    > Actually the Pacific Northwest west of the Cascades and coast ranges
    >is a jungle, if that means “rain forest”. By a jungle is usually meant a
    >tropical rain forest. The climax state of the western Pacific NW is a
    >temperate rain forest. Without humans, even the floor of the Willamette
    >Valley would be covered with towering, old growth western hemlock trees.

    “Jungle” has another meaning, which appears to me as more accepted
    than as a word for rainforest. A major meaning of “jungle” is dense
    ground-level human-height vegetation, that impairs human movement
    unless it is cut away. Tropical rainforests typically have little of this
    jungle except at edges streams, rivers or lakes.

  74. DirkH says:
    May 10, 2013 at 2:22 pm

    M Courtney says:
    May 10, 2013 at 2:10 pm
    “Hmm… new scare then.
    Exercise is less efficient in a higher CO2 atmosphere therefore, fossil fuels cause the rise in obesity.”

    Well, you would probably get away with it in any scientific journal, but it’s not true; your blood is slightly more acidic, this enables hemoglobin to release oxygen faster, and your muscle performance should rise. There are breathing exercises, forgot the name of the guy who promotes them, where you breathe in exclusively through the nose, very deep and long, and release the breath very slowly. I once saw an interview with a guy who was used to breathing in this way, and it was a little irritating, he talked for quite a while, then paused and breathed in through the nose, then talked for a minute again.

    And a healthy grown up has simply enormous lung overcapacity. So you won’t really notice the 1000 ppm. The lungs age irreversibly, that’s why we develop the overcapacity in the first place.
    *******************************************************************************************

    I think the name of the guy who developed the method you referred to is Dr. Konstantin Buteyko. (The Buteyko Method). Sadly he died a few years back in his late eighties/early nineties and one day will be far better known.
    I can personally vouch for his method for overcoming breathing difficulties, asthma etc. The method is far easier to adopt the younger one is, but it is still a good technique to know even when one is as old as me and struggling to breathe.
    The technique is actually slow shallow breathing (only through the nose) and works by increasing the carbon dioxide in the bloodstream, which as you say improves the release of oxygen from the hemoglobin, reducing that suffocating feeling that most asthmatics know so well.

    Steve T

  75. Donald L. Klipstein says:
    May 10, 2013 at 2:44 pm

    GeeJam said in part on May 10, 2013 at 11:14 am:

    > Oh and one other thing. Of the 0.04% of the total atmosphere being
    > CO2 (400 ppm), 96.775% of this total 400 ppm is still naturally
    > occurring. No change. Still the same.

    Since probably sometime in the early 20th century, nature has had
    net effect of removing CO2 from the atmosphere. The increase since
    then is less than man-made CO2 emissions.

    ###

    BZZT Wrong answer. If your brain was not so overloaded with leftist propaganda, you might have been able to figure out were you went wrong before you made a fool of yourself. Hint: Sources are independent of sinks. Sheesh. Didn’t your mom teach you any DiffEq?

  76. Steve T says:
    May 10, 2013 at 3:17 pm
    ###

    Its lactic acid that causes hemoglobin to release oxygen, as any teleost fish will tell you (its how the swim bladder works).

  77. grumpydenier says:
    May 10, 2013 at 2:33 pm

    Considering that CO2 levels were measured at levels close to 500ppm during the years covering WWII and quickly fell back post-war

    The 500 ppmv were taken at the wrong places: over land where one can measure 600 ppmv during inversion at night and 250 ppm during a sunny day… Not remotely representative for global levels. Think about the quantities involved, if that were global figures: the equivalent of burning 1/3rd of all land vegetation on and regrowing it in a few years time. Even not possible in war times. Measurements taken over the oceans in the previous years show values around the ice core levels for the same periods.

  78. They told us that 350ppm was the safe limit and higher would spell calamity. Today we see the calamity of 15+ years of no statistically significant temperature rise and several years of slight cooling. This is their calamity not ours.

  79. @DirkH & others:
    As I have said many times before, CO2 is now a good candidate for crowd-sourcing, with accurate 1% metering available at less than $200 ($A, but now very close to $US). You can learn a great deal. Cooking a meal? 1200ppm. Might cause a headache, but that could be the possibility of embarrassment rather than the CO2 level.
    Serving it to guests in an enclosed room? Likely to be approaching 1000pmm, especially if you daren’t turn up the AC because you can no longer afford the peak hour charges, or your smart meter/off-peak tariff thingy has already switched it off.
    Take the meter outside, watch what happens when the sun goes down … OMG – 425ppm !!!

  80. DesertYote says:
    May 10, 2013 at 3:20 pm

    BZZT Wrong answer. If your brain was not so overloaded with leftist propaganda, you might have been able to figure out were you went wrong before you made a fool of yourself. Hint: Sources are independent of sinks. Sheesh. Didn’t your mom teach you any DiffEq?

    No, simple elementary school math:

    increase in the atmosphere = human emissions + natural emissions – natural sinks
    human emissions are appr. 8 GtC/yr, based on fossil fuel sales and burning efficiency
    increase in the atmosphere is measured and is about 4 GtC/yr (~2 ppmv/yr).

    Thus the above equation gets for one year:
    4 GtC = 8 GtC + natural emissions – natural sinks
    and
    natural emissions – natural sinks = -4 GtC

    If you can tell me how nature can be the cause of the increase over at least the past 50 years:

    I am very interested…

  81. jc says @ May 10, 2013 at 11:17 am

    These people are not just idiots. They are retarded.

    Wrong diagnosis. These people are malevolent, in pursuit of their own interests. Al Gore doesn’t believe the carp he spews; he makes money from it. The EPA doesn’t care a darn about the environment, just more micro-control of society; a bigger and better funded EPA.

  82. DesertYote says:
    May 10, 2013 at 3:24 pm

    Steve T says:
    May 10, 2013 at 3:17 pm
    ###

    Its lactic acid that causes hemoglobin to release oxygen, as any teleost fish will tell you (its how the swim bladder works).

    ***********************************************************************************************
    Non of my teleost friends will tell me exactly how it works, but a quick bit of research informs me that it is the acidity of lactic acid which causes the hemoglobin to release oxygen into the swim bladder.
    Couldn’t an increase of CO2, which would also create acidity, have the same reaction on hemoglobin in humans. Empirically, I know that the breathing exercises I learnt increase my lung CO2 levels, I don’t know about any effect the breathing exercises have on my lactic acid levels.

    Steve T

  83. Gbees says:
    May 10, 2013 at 1:49 pm

    I’ve never really understood why CO2 is measured on or near a volcano. CO2 is abundant in and around them even when not errupting. Someone please explain?

    Just coincidence, the first measurements with the new CO2 measurement instruments were done at the South Pole. A new meteorological station was opened at Mauna Loa some year later. Keeling expected that most of the time the winds at the stations were the Trade Winds over the oceans, not influenced by the volcanic vents. That indeed was/is the case. The South Pole lacks a few years of continuous measurements (but still had bi-weekly flask samples), therefore Mauna Loa has the longest continuous record.
    See the difference in raw data (including all local influences) for a year Mauna Loa and the South Pole:

    The averages are calculated without the outliers, but show the same seasonal variability and trend.

    See further the interesting autobiography of Keeling about the CO2 measurements story:

    http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/publications/keeling_autobiography.pdf

  84. Ferdinand Engelbeen postulates at May 10, 2013 at 3:46 pm

    increase in the atmosphere = human emissions + natural emissions – natural sinks
    human emissions are appr. 8 GtC/yr, based on fossil fuel sales and burning efficiency
    increase in the atmosphere is measured and is about 4 GtC/yr (~2 ppmv/yr).

    The “carbon budget” of the planet is poorly understood. I see a lot of hand-waving and large error bars.

  85. Nicholas Tesdorf says:
    May 10, 2013 at 4:02 pm

    CO2 levels measured at Cape Grim in January are 391.2 ppm. The missing 8.8 ppm of CO2 must be coming from the volcanoes at Mauna Loa.

    No, opposite seasons and a lag between the SH and the NH:

    here for Samoa and the South Pole in the NH, but I suppose that Cape Grim has the same lag. The lag points to a source in the NH, where most of the human emissions take place and the ITCZ slows down the air mass exchanges between the NH and the SH, including CO2 and aerosols.

  86. Robert of Ottawa says:
    May 10, 2013 at 4:11 pm
    Ferdinand Engelbeen postulates at May 10, 2013 at 3:46 pm

    The “carbon budget” of the planet is poorly understood. I see a lot of hand-waving and large error bars.

    One doesn’t need to know any individual natural CO2 flow, neither the sum of all natural ins and outs to know that nature can’t be the cause of the increase in the atmosphere. Nature was a net sink for CO2, not a source over the past 50 years (at least).

    Human emissioms are reasonably estimated at 8 GtC/yr, based on sales (taxes!), maybe a little underestimated because of under the counter sales (-1 to + 1.5 GtC/yr) and measurements are quite accurate (+/- 0.4 GtC/yr).

  87. I’s like to see the Smiling Flowers from above with “We Heart 400 ppm” underneath.
    You know, only with the heart drawn and not the word heart.
    That’d get my vote.
    cn

  88. Has it occurred to these ‘scientists’ that the number 400 has significance only because of the decimal system? In hexadecimal, we just passed 190 ppm!!! OMG!!! Uh-oh. In binary, we just passed 110010000 ppm!!!

  89. As far as gardening is concerned, I hope the increase in CO2 will somehow offset the cooling trend we’re experiencing, but I’m not convinced. While the gas helps them grow, I doubt there’s enough carbonation in my tomatoes to protect them from early frost.

  90. With the final arctic blast of the year expected to invade the Ohio valley this weekend, smart corn farmers will hold off planting corn a week longer. So where does that put us? According to the USDA:

    “Corn: By May 5, producers had planted 12 percent of this
    year’s corn crop, 57 percentage points behind last year and
    35 points behind the 5-year average. Despite increased
    fieldwork throughout much of the major corn-producing
    region, overall planting progress continued at the slowest pace
    since 1984. In Iowa, producers took advantage of warmer
    early-week weather and planted 6 percent of their crop before
    cold, snowy weather forced them out of their fields toward
    week’s end. Nationally, emergence advanced to 3 percent by
    May 5, twenty-six percentage points behind last year and
    12 points behind the 5-year average. This represents the
    slowest emergence pace on since records began in 1999.”

    All those stark, empty corn fields. Acres and and acres and acres, not using a bit of CO2.

    If Global warming was real, the dip in CO2 levels would start earlier in the spring, in the northern hemisphere, not later.

  91. @Robert of Ottawa says:
    May 10, 2013 at 3:57 pm

    jc says @ May 10, 2013 at 11:17 am

    These people are not just idiots. They are retarded.

    Wrong diagnosis. These people are malevolent, in pursuit of their own interests. Al Gore doesn’t believe the carp he spews; he makes money from it. The EPA doesn’t care a darn about the environment, just more micro-control of society; a bigger and better funded EPA.
    ——————————————————————————————————————–

    I fully agree. Retardation and malevolence are not mutually exclusive.

    In this example though, I think retardation has the upper hand. In any case, apart from the active originators and strategists, there are definitley those for whom retardation is the defining quality, who can be used to cheer for victory. It’s a broad church, at least in relation to the dysfunctional and criminal.

  92. A few years back when I was in pulmonary rehab the pulmonary therapist described an extraordinary young woman, also in rehab at the same time, although I didn’t personally meet her.

    She was a cystic fibrosis patient. Someone is born with that and it is one nasty disease. Years ago, few patients made it past eighteen. Perhaps for most cystic fibrosis patients a lung transplant will be on the horizon. The 5 year survival rate for an LT, at least at that time and probably still is 50%. This 30 year old woman had had one 10 years prior.

    Surprisingly, there actually are living donors for a lung transplant, but that’s a complex three person operation and very uncommon. Almost all donors are deceased. If successful, past 5 years, the life expectancy of the transplanted organ from a deceased donor is generally 10 years.

    With her transplanted organ, beginning to fail after the sustained attack upon it by her immune system, this amazing young woman was staring at another transplant. Amazing? She was also a mother.

    Think hard about all of that. Human beings are not a living creature upon this planet that will easily meet its doom. And think what medical science accomplished for this young woman who had the courage to accept it. I know personally the courage that would take. And I know I don’t have it.

    I’m pretty damn sick and tired of the likes of Al Gore and his worshipers trying to scare us and tell us we’re doomed. That woman clearly didn’t view things that way and she faced adversity the likes of which Al Gore and his minions at Scientific American could never imagine. People cling to life and what modern life can offer. And they will not easily go back in time. So to Al and SA all I can say is; don’t you dare try to drag us back there, let alone pick our pockets while trying to do so.

  93. The truly stupid (as in ironic) thing is man-made climate-apocalypse alarmists are the ones who believe the climate is meant to stay the same, more or less, for now anyway.

    However, those who doubt the AGW hypothesis believe that the climate can and does change, a lot, due to natural cycles. Most of us believe it is changing now, as we speak (to a cooling trend, based on the data that shows despite higher CO2, warming has paused, and also based on analyses of other forcing factors). Not only do we believe it changes, we believe we are unlikely to be able to stop it from changing.

    In fact, we find that idea bordering on absurd.

    And yet you geniuses came up with the term climate change deniers.

    Which is irrational on its face, and well-illustrates your thought processes.

  94. dbstealey says:
    May 10, 2013 at 1:28 pm
    And this chart will help bring you back down to earth.

    http://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/image_thumb265.png?w=636&h=294

    =================
    at first I didn’t get it cause the picture was kind of small. 130 years of GISS temps and you need a magnifying glass to see the change. You would be very hard pressed to notice so little a difference on your average outside thermometer around the house.

    If anything GISS is strong evidence that there is no climate change in 130 years. It is only when you blow the scale up to a fraction of a degree that any change can be seen.

  95. Should I now change my mantra from “toward 700ppm” to

    “Toward 800ppm”

    Unfortunately, I doubt we are ever likely to get there :-(

  96. AFTERTHOUGHT: The hockey-stick graph shenanigans, etc., were designed to make it seem as if climate doesn’t change much.

    It does.

  97. And Fred,,, GISS is the most manipulated temperature series around. Massive adjustments to create the trend from the mid 1900’s .. just to support the cause.

    Well, they can’t adjust much any more because the satellite record would show them up big time.

    … and the temperature has been basically steady ever since.

  98. For the older readers, ring a Bell?: Climate = “99 and 44/100 %” not CO2.

    “Close enough for Government work”.

  99. Christoph, Its only by pulling the 1930-40 down that they can create anything other than a dip through the 1970’s.. The temps now seem to be reasonably similar to the REAL temps of the 19030-40s..

    Up and down goes the temperature, its just come up a bit, just about to start going down a bit.

  100. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    May 10, 2013 at 4:31 pm
    Nature was a net sink for CO2, not a source over the past 50 years (at least).
    =============
    Humans are part of nature.

    What you say was assumed true, based on limited evidence. However, satellite monitoring has shown the industrialized counties to be a net sink for CO2 as they are regrowing their forests. The poor countries of the 3rd world that are burning their forests fuel and farmland and along with the tropical oceans are the net source of increased CO2.

  101. Reminds me of the hype over sequestering. Didn’t good old you know who predict economic Armageddon in the US if it went ahead? Did all he could to punish everyone for failing to toe the line. Just to show everyone how right he had been. How stupid we all had been to not get on-board with his ideas.

    Yet, strangely the sun continues to rise in the morning. Who’d have thunk.

  102. davidmhoffer says:
    May 10, 2013 at 11:25 am
    “Y2K? That seems pretty light. I suppose the younger folks might not relate to all the disasters their elders have survived. If memory serves, I’ve survived (so far)..”

    Thanks David. I survived them too. Maybe we should put this on a tee:

    10 Impending Ice Age
    20 Ozone Depletion
    30 Acid Rain
    40 Toxic Rain
    50 Y2K
    60 Bird Flu
    70 Swine Flu
    80 Global Economic Collapse (fossil fuel depletion)
    90 Global Starvation (population exceeding food supply)
    100 Catastrophic AGW
    110 Goto 10

  103. Up and down goes the temperature, its just come up a bit, just about to start going down a bit.

    Much larger changes happen, Andy.

  104. “Rededicate yourself to the task of saving our future. Talk to your neighbors, call your legislator, let your voice be heard.”
    ===========
    Nicely said, that is why I am here.

  105. I’ll never forget exactly where I was when I heard…

    1. Kennedy was assasinated,
    2. the space shuttle Challenger exploded,
    3. the Twin Towers fell, and
    4. CO2 levels reached 400 ppm!

    On second thought… scratch that last one.

  106. Al Gore: So please, take this day and the milestone it represents to reflect on the fragility of our civilization and and the planetary ecosystem on which it depends. Rededicate yourself to the task of saving our future. Talk to your neighbors, call your legislator, let your voice be heard. We must take immediate action to solve this crisis. Not tomorrow, not next week, not next year. Now.

    Totally agree, Al old chap. Jetsetting alarmists shouldn’t be allowed to jetset any more while spouting alarmism and “do as i say not as I do” rhetoric. There oughta be a law…

  107. These people are not just idiots. They are retarded.

    Wrong diagnosis. These people are malevolent, in pursuit of their own interests. Al Gore doesn’t believe the carp he spews; he makes money from it. The EPA doesn’t care a darn about the environment, just more micro-control of society; a bigger and better funded EPA.
    ——————————————————————————————————————–

    I fully agree. Retardation and malevolence are not mutually exclusive.

    In this example though, I think retardation has the upper hand. In any case, apart from the active originators and strategists, there are definitley those for whom retardation is the defining quality, who can be used to cheer for victory. It’s a broad church, at least in relation to the dysfunctional and criminal.
    —————————————————————————————————————————
    Actually CO2 Zombie Apocalypse describes the alarmist crowd the best.

  108. “John Tillman says:
    May 10, 2013 at 10:47 am
    Global temperature down; CO2 up.

    That’s why the tax-grubbing scaremongers are now called catastrophic anthropomorphic “climate change” alarmists (CACCA) instead of CA “global warming” advocates, which isn’t as catchy.”

    Yeah.

    And if a cooler trend continues. Those of the likes of Al Gore and Co will probably do a U-turn and blame higher CO2 levels for Global Cooling and a new coming Ice Age. The spin will probably go something on the lines of keeping CO2 emissions to 350ppm so as to keep Gaia from freezing over. Since there’s been a lot of $$$ at stake in the whole CO2 based CC scam.

  109. So, were all of you as cynical when Sandy hit New Jersey and New York? Was that a non-event? Or the wild fires, droughts, flooding, or tornados, were they? It’s not helpful to just disregard changes in the climate (or the world for that matter)–it helps to understand those changes. For example, what does 15,000 on the stock market mean? Is it irrelevant, or does it depend on who you are and where you are? In time, all you folks will wonder what the hell you were thinking when things were just beginning to get out of hand. Cheers!

  110. Steven O’Halloran says:

    May 10, 2013 at 8:41 pm
    …..”it helps to understand those changes.”…
    ==========
    Indeed, ask any poker player.
    She plays by Her own rules, no prisoners.

  111. Ferd Berple,

    Always interesting comments from you! Thanks for posting.

    And I just came across this story on Dr Roy Spencer, and Dr Christy, and models, etc. Pretty good, IMHO.

  112. Steven O’Halloran,

    I see you have no familiarity with the climate Null Hypothesis, which has never been falsified.

    The Null says that past climate parameters [temperature, humidity, extreme weather events, etc.] have not been exceeded by the current climate.

    This means that nothing we observe today is either unusual or unprecedented. IOW, it is just normal weather.

    Wake me when a past climate parameter has been exceeded. Until then, worry on your own time.

  113. Steven O’Halloran says:
    May 10, 2013 at 8:41 pm
    So, were all of you as cynical when Sandy hit New Jersey and New York? Was that a non-event?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    All you need do it type “Sandy” into the search box and you’ll find the answer to your question. We discussed for example that the storm track itself shows no warming for the last 70 years:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/05/an-inconvenient-truth-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies-along-sandys-track-havent-warmed-in-70-years/

    We discussed that it was not at all unprecedented:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/02/next-time-somebody-tries-to-tell-you-hurricane-sandy-was-an-unprecedented-east-coast-hurricane-show-them-this/

    We discussed that the US is actually in a hurricane drought:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/01/pielke-jr-on-hurricane-sandy-not-the-new-normal/

    As well as that not only was the storm within normal parameters, but that much of the damage was due to poor planning and design of infrastructure in densely populated areas and a whole host of other issues were dealt with in detail as well. Just one word in the search box Steven, and you can see for yourself.

    Or the wild fires, droughts, flooding, or tornados, were they? It’s not helpful to just disregard changes in the climate (or the world for that matter)–it helps to understand those changes.

    Nor is it helpful to invent changes that haven’t occurred! The next major IPCC report already admits that the global frequency of wild fires, droughts and flooding hasn’t changed in the last century and that tornadoes and hurricanes have not only dropped in frequency and intensity, but that the scientists are now predicting even LESS nor more of them. Type AR5 in the search box, see for yourself.

    If you educate yourself instead of presuming the ignorance of the readership, you just might join our cynicism.

  114. ferd berple: “The poor countries of the 3rd world that are burning their forests fuel and farmland and along with the tropical oceans are the net source of increased CO2.”
    This doesn’t make much sense from a mass balance point of view, unless you are arguing that the growth of forests in the USA fully compensates for the worldwide fossil fuel emissions. In 2010 fossil fuels and cement production were estimated to contribute 33 Gt to CO2 emissions. Land use change is estimated to have contributes less than 1 Gt. The ‘airborne fraction’ of those total emissions is around 50%. This means that half those emissions are being dissolved in the oceans or incorporated into terrestrial biomass. If you want to argue that third world countries contribute *more* through land use change and forestry to the atmospheric CO2 increase than fossil fuel emissions do, then you must also argue that the airborne fraction is very much smaller that 50% (i.e. that is is significantly lower that 25%). Else, you are violating mass balance. But in that case, the oceans would be a huge sink (>75% of >66 Gt anthropogenic emissions), and anthopogenic sources (fossil fuel, cement production and land use change) still would account for the totality of the increase. The tropical oceans can’t provide any positive contribution unless this would be more than offset by ocean intake elsewhere. In any case, the cause of the net increase is almost fully anthropogenic.

  115. Just as the entire world was about to die, mankind saves the day. Hooray…!!
    And to mark this historic event, plants all over the world will be celebrating and thanking mankind for saving them from CO2 asphyxia.

    .

  116. Skeptic’s Hockey Stick Animation
    The 20th century warming is not unusual. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleoclimatic record. All most all of the last 10,000 years has been warmer than the current warmer period.

    Scientific analysis does not support the IPCC general circulation models. The IPCC GCM are not correct (the error is in how the GCM, model clouds in the tropics)

    The IPCC general circulation models require water vapor in the atmosphere to amplify (positive feedback) the CO2 forcing to arrive at 3C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Lindzen and Choi’s analysis of top of the atmosphere radiation emissions Vs changes in the ocean surface temperatures showed that the planet resists rather than amplifies forcing changes. Based on Lindzen and Choi’s satellite analysis a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in less than 1C warming.

    Lindzen and Choi’s analysis’ result (the earth resists forcing change, negative feedback rather than positive feedback) is supported by Idso’s analysis of 8 actual step type temperature changes that occur on the earth to determine the earth’s sensitivity to a change in forcing. The 8 independent step change analysis cases each gave a negative sensitivity for a forcing change (the earth resists the forcing change rather than amplifies the forcing change).
    Using the paper’s calculated sensitivity of 0.1C/(watt/m^2) and the IPCC’s assumed forcing change for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 of 4.5 watts/m^2, the calculate warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is 0.45C.

    http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr/10//c010p069.pdf

    CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change
    Over the course of the past 2 decades, I have analyzed a number of natural phenomena that reveal how Earth’s near-surface air temperature responds to surface radiative perturbations. These studies all suggest that a 300 to 600 ppm doubling of the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration could raise the planet’s mean surface air temperature by only about 0.4°C. Even this modicum of warming may never be realized, however, for it could be negated by a number of planetary cooling forces that are intensified by warmer temperatures and by the strengthening of biological processes that are enhanced by the same rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration that drives the warming. Several of these cooling forces have individually been estimated to be of equivalent magnitude, but of opposite sign, to the typically predicted greenhouse effect of a doubling of the air’s CO2 content, which suggests to me that little net temperature change will ultimately result from the ongoing buildup of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere. Consequently, I am skeptical of the predictions of significant CO2-induced global warming that are being made by state-of-the-art climate models and believe that much more work on a wide variety of research fronts will be required to properly resolve the issue.
    A final set of empirical evidence that may be brought to bear upon the issue of CO2-induced climate change pertains to the greenhouse effect of water vapor over the tropical oceans (Raval & Ramanathan 1989, Ramanathan & Collins 1991, Lubin 1994). This phenomenon has recently been quantified by Valero et al. (1997), who used airborne radiometric measurements
    and sea surface temperature data to evaluate its magnitude over the equatorial Pacific. Their direct measurements reveal that a 14.0 W m–2 increase in downward-directed thermal radiation at the surface of the sea increases surface water temperatures by 1.0°C; and dividing the latter of these 2 numbers by the former yields a surface water temperature sensitivity factor of 0.071°C/(W m–2), which would imply a similar surface air temperature sensitivity factor at equilibrium. By comparison, if I equate my best estimate of the surface air temperature sensitivity factor of the world as a whole [0.100°C/(W m–2)] with the sum of the appropriately-weighted land and water surface factors [0.3 0.172°C/(W m–2) + 0.7 W, where W is the surface air temperature sensitivity factor over the open ocean], I obtain a value of 0.069°C/(W m–2) for the ocean-based component of the whole-Earth surface air temperature sensitivity factor in close agreement with the results of Valero et al.

    http://www.johnstonanalytics.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/LindzenChoi2011.235213033.pdf

    “On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications by Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi
    We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000- 2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are taken into account. … … We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. …. … CO2, a relatively minor greenhouse gas, has increased significantly since the beginning of the industrial age from about 280 ppmv to about 390 ppmv, presumably due mostly to man’s emissions. This is the focus of current concerns. However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1C (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of well mixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5C to 5C and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth. …”

  117. Ahh, the lovely sound of crickets, waiting to gobble up all those lovely greens growing profusely in an abundance of CO2. The world at peace and in harmony…. all except those silly Homo sapiens.

    Red lines crossed, green lines crossed… Does any of it matter when the crickets are singing? They’ll still be doing it 1 million years from now. Will we? If not, it won’t be because we made the oceans boil with too much CO2.

  118. ferd berple says:
    May 10, 2013 at 6:14 pm

    Humans are part of nature.

    Indeed, but the rest of nature is not burning coal, oil and gas buried millions of years ago in the same quantities as humans do…

    What you say was assumed true, based on limited evidence. However, satellite monitoring has shown the industrialized counties to be a net sink for CO2 as they are regrowing their forests. The poor countries of the 3rd world that are burning their forests fuel and farmland and along with the tropical oceans are the net source of increased CO2.

    The satellite image you mentioned was from one month in summer, whenthe NH forests are huge sinks. A film over several years gives a better idea of the CO2 movements. See:

    http://airs.jpl.nasa.gov/news_archive/2010-03-30-CO2-Movie/

    But as human emissions are a small part of the total movements, these are hard to see in the satellite data. Which doesn’t mean that they are negligible, as that are one-way additions while the natural flows are mainly in and out circulation with slightly more sink than source.

  119. There is no way to tell carbon dioxide from volcanic activity from carbon dioxide produced from fossil fuel combustion – none of the claims made from the very beginning by Callendar/Keeling are based on actual measurements of man made. It’s an illusion.

    All they have done is from the beginning is say that it is man made increase while measuring all sources, and, that’s besides Keeling et all fiddling Mauna Loa to show a trend – arbitrarily deciding what is “volcanic” and what is “pristine well mixed background” sitting on top of the world’s biggest active volcano surrounded by active volcanoes in the possibly biggest volcanic hot spot in warm seas, is not science. It is a trick.

    Arbitrarily – COD: arbitrary 1. Derived from mere opinion or random choice; capricious; unrestrained; despotic.

    Callendar chose a ridiculously low figure for the mythical “well-mixed” background they concocted and Keeling created the illusion of an increased “trend”.

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

    Volcanic Carbon Dioxide
    Timothy Casey B.Sc. (Hons.)
    Consulting Geologist

    Uploaded ISO:2009-Oct-25
    Revision 2 ISO:2011-Dec-11
    “Abstract
    A brief survey of the literature concerning volcanogenic carbon dioxide emission finds that estimates of subaerial emission totals fail to account for the diversity of volcanic emissions and are unprepared for individual outliers that dominate known volcanic emissions. DeeDeepening the apparent mystery of total volcanogenic CO2 emission, there is no magic fingerprint with which to identify industrially produced CO2 as there is insufficient data to distinguish the effects of volcanic CO2 from fossil fuel CO2 in the atmosphere. Molar ratios of O2 consumed to CO2 produced are, moreover, of little use due to the abundance of processes (eg. weathering, corrosion, etc) other than volcanic CO2 emission and fossil fuel consumption that are, to date, unquantified. Furthermore, the discovery of a surprising number of submarine volcanoes highlights the underestimation of global volcanism and provides a loose basis for an estimate that may partly explain ocean acidification and rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels observed last century, as well as shedding much needed light on intensified polar spring melts. Based on this brief literature survey, we may conclude that volcanic CO2 emissions are much higher than previously estimated, and as volcanic CO2 contributions are effectively indistinguishable from industrial CO2 contributions, we cannot glibly assume that the increase of atmospheric CO2 is exclusively anthropogenic.”

    They have never, ever, shown man made increase. It is a trick, an illusion. They have never shown man made distinct from volcanic and they have deliberately downplayed the amount of volcanic activity.

    This 400 ppm has been available all the time since Keeling began measurements, his curve is manufactured by adjusting to get it to show a trend of his mythical “well-mixed background” which he couldn’t tell apart from natural – there is no such thing as well mixed background – AIRS concluded it didn’t exist and that CO2 was lumpy – i.e. localised. They have still not released the top and bottom of troposphere measurements which they included to get their conclusion. This is no different from the temperature shenanigans.

    http://www.kickthemallout.com/article.php/Video-Revelle_Admits_CO2_Theory_Wrong

  120. Myrrh says:
    May 11, 2013 at 12:06 am

    There is no way to tell carbon dioxide from volcanic activity from carbon dioxide produced from fossil fuel combustion

    Myrrh, as said several times to you: volcanic CO2 (either subduction or magma) has a higher 13C/12C ratio than the atmosphere. Fossil fuels CO2 have much lower ratios. Thus any substantial release of CO2 from volcanoes (or from the oceans, including deep ocean volcanoes) would INcrease the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere. But we see a firm DEcrease in lockstep with human emissions. Only the release of vegetation decay would have the same effect, but vegetation is a proven net sink for CO2, as can be calculated from the oxygen balance. That a geologist doesn’t know that makes me wonder about his knowledge…

    This 400 ppm has been available all the time since Keeling began measurements, his curve is manufactured by adjusting to get it to show a trend of his mythical “well-mixed background” which he couldn’t tell apart from natural

    Think before you write such nonsense. It is impossible to manipulate the Keeling curve, without including hundreds of people from tens of institutes in a lot of countries. They all find the same increase over time. The only possible way is by manipulating the calibration gases (at 0.005 ppmv/day!), but even there, Scripps still is using their own calibrations, independent of NOAA.
    When Keeling started his measurements, he and his boss Revelle still were thinking that more CO2 would be beneficial. They started measurements long before the 1970’s cooling scare or de 1990’s warming scare. Keeling had no interest in manufacturing a curve, he was only interested to maintain the best observations…

  121. Ferdinand Engelbeen says: May 11, 2013 at 12:46 am
    ………….
    That is all fine, except for one thing, the change in CO2 levels doesn’t change N. Hemisphere temperature, but it could be the other way around.
    What then changes the temperature? you may ask.
    Here is far more credible hypothesis:

    There is a chain of natural variability in the N. Atlantic illustrated here:

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NA-NV.htm

    -Tectonic activity in the N. Atlantic for some unknown reason correlates with sunspot count
    – tectonics continuously varies balance of warm and cold currents to the north and south of Iceland.
    – where there is strong sea-atmosphere interaction, several hundred of W/m2 of heat is released into atmosphere, cooling warm currents before their down-welling.
    – released heat changes atmospheric pressure around Iceland (principal NAO component), altering path of the polar jet-stream.
    – effects of the jet-stream meandering is well understood.

    You may not have bothered to read above, or even less to consider it, but then it is your choice what to think, what to believe and finally preach, but as usual doctrinaire convictions are often devoid of reality.
    And yes
    more CO2 is beneficial to the biosphere, including us humans, regardless of our imperfections either of body or mind.

  122. I’ll have a tee shirt! What colours (for those from other shores this is the correct spelling) and what sort of logo, maybe Josh could do a design would be well worth it.

    James Bull

  123. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    May 11, 2013 at 12:46 am
    Myrrh says:
    May 11, 2013 at 12:06 am

    “There is no way to tell carbon dioxide from volcanic activity from carbon dioxide produced from fossil fuel combustion”

    Myrrh, as said several times to you: volcanic CO2 (either subduction or magma) has a higher 13C/12C ratio than the atmosphere. Fossil fuels CO2 have much lower ratios. Thus any substantial release of CO2 from volcanoes (or from the oceans, including deep ocean volcanoes) would INcrease the 13C/12C ratio of the atmosphere. But we see a firm DEcrease in lockstep with human emissions. Only the release of vegetation decay would have the same effect, but vegetation is a proven net sink for CO2, as can be calculated from the oxygen balance. That a geologist doesn’t know that makes me wonder about his knowledge…

    Shrug – without providing a scrap of evidence that any of the measurements since Callendar/Keeling have ever shown a distinct man made amount. The real consensus scientists of the IPCC 95 was that there was no discernible man made signal, this was changed by Houghton/Santer to say “it was all man made fault”. That there in a nutshell proves that data manipulation in play. You’re part of that generation of confusion.

    Keeling didn’t, and they still don’t, make any of their measurements based on this, they merely chuck out anything they consider “volcanic” because of great amount, and measure when they get an hour or more of “stable” amounts – they include volcanic and natural in that because there is no way they separate it or can separate it.

    If they could separate it they would take all measurements and analyse from all of what is ‘man made’ and what ‘volcanic’ or otherwise ‘natural’ local and what comes in on the wind.

    This is sleight of hand bs ing, there are no man made even attempted.

    “Carbon in the air is made up of 12C (99%), 13C (1%), and 14C (1 per trillion)” http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/met102/docs/global_warming_man_or_myth.pdf
    I don’t know how accurate this is.

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

    “The misuse of the Suess Effect as a fossil fuel fingerprint instead of an empirical standard for the correction of carbon dating contamination, lead to an initially idiosyncratic expansion of this concept by Keeling (1979), who sought to include 13C depletion of vegetation and its effect on the atmosphere. The atmosphere is enriched in 13CO2 by the process of photosynthesis, which favours the assimilation of 12C into plant tissue during growth (Furquhar et al., 1989). This is used to differentiate between terrestrial and oceanic CO2 sources (Keeling et al., 2005), and the concept, proposed by Craig (1954), is actually older than Suess’ original research. Moreover, plant based fossil fuel derivatives are therefore considered to be 13C depleted. Following this line of logic, fossil fuel emissions, being derived from plants, should be 13CO2 depleted as well. However, when the Keeling (1979) article expanded its internal definition of the Suess Effect to include this observation, it was once again to the exclusion of volcanic influence.

    “In point of fact, magmatic carbon is, for the most part, 13C depleted. This is solidly confirmed by numerous studies of deep mantle rocks (Deines et al., 1987; Pineau & Mathez, 1990; Cartigny et al., 1997; Zheng et al., 1998; Puustinen & Karhu, 1999; Ishikawa & Marayuma, 2001; Schultz et al., 2004; Cartigny et al., 2009; Statchel & Harris, 2009) as well as mid-oceanic ridge outgassing (De Marais & Moore, 1984). Moreover, 13C depletion of volcanic emissions is so well known that Korte and Kozur (2010) explore volcanism, amongst other possible causes, in search of an explanation for atmospheric depletion of 13C across the Permian-Triassic boundary. Although many significant carbonates are not 13C depleted, they are eventually subducted along with organic carbon sources depleted in 13C. Nevertheless, the emissions of continental margin and back arc volcanoes that source a significant proportion of their carbon from subducted volatiles, remain 13C depleted (eg. Giggenbach et al., 1991; Sano et al., 1995; Hernández et al., 2001). Thus, as plants continue to enrich the atmosphere in 13C while supplying the 13C depleted kerogen that is subducted into the mantle, volatiles failing to return to the surface may cause the mantle to become increasingly 13C depleted over time. Moreover, the significant proportion of volcanic carbon dioxide that diffuses through the soil (Gerlach, 1991) has its carbon isotope chemistry further contaminated by 13 depleted biogenic soil carbon (Hernández et al., 2001).

    Both tectonic and volcanic CO2 are magmatic and depleted in both 13C & 14C. In the absence of statistically significant isotope determinations for each volcanic province contributing to the atmosphere, this makes CO2 contributions of volcanic origin isotopically indistinguishable from those of fossil fuel consumption. It is therefore unsurprising to find that Segalstad (1998) points out that 96% of atmospheric CO2 is isotopically indistinguishable from volcanic degassing. So much for the Royal Society’s unexplained “chemical analysis”. If you believe that we know enough about volcanic gas compositions to distinguish them chemically from fossil fuel combustion, you have indeed been mislead. As we shall see, the number of active volcanoes is unknown, never mind a tally of gas signatures belonging to every active volcano. We have barely scratched the surface and as such, there is no magic fingerprint that can distinguish between anthropogenic and volcanogenic sources of CO2.”

    “This 400 ppm has been available all the time since Keeling began measurements, his curve is manufactured by adjusting to get it to show a trend of his mythical “well-mixed background” which he couldn’t tell apart from natural”

    Think before you write such nonsense. It is impossible to manipulate the Keeling curve, without including hundreds of people from tens of institutes in a lot of countries. They all find the same increase over time. The only possible way is by manipulating the calibration gases (at 0.005 ppmv/day!), but even there, Scripps still is using their own calibrations, independent of NOAA.
    When Keeling started his measurements, he and his boss Revelle still were thinking that more CO2 would be beneficial. They started measurements long before the 1970′s cooling scare or de 1990′s warming scare. Keeling had no interest in manufacturing a curve, he was only interested to maintain the best observations…

    Callendar/Keeling were pushing ‘man made driving global temps’ as a danger, the environmentalists at the time concerned about smoke pollution, a legitimate worry and the worry that kick started carbon dioxide measurements a couple of centuries earlier, that was Keeling’s agenda, then Callendar linked it to rising temps and and that’s why Callendar became a laughing stock when temps plummeted in the early sixties – pictured shovelling snow.

    There is a mix of agendas here adding to the confusion, but the reason this is all so corrupt is because the monied and powerful at govenment level agenda which created the IPCC was kick started by those who wanted a global scare to manipulate society and economics. Their interests are to make this as confusing as possible.

    Keeling/Callendar/Ravelle had their own agenda. Ravelle changed his story before he died, finally coming to his senses when he saw how his earlier promotion of the fake fisics had screwed up both science and society.

    This is not based on science, it is based on non-scientists abusing science.

    It cannot be understood outside of its history.

    This history starts with Callendar cherry picking a low mythical “well mixed background” and ends with the IPCC screwing ice core data to fit in with that. Their interests are to make this as confusing as possible. But the manipulations began with Keeling/Scripps which his son continued before this was taken control of to the IPCC agenda. The trend is manufactured and man made never shown.

    Show me the AIRS raw data top and bottom of troposphere which they included in their conclusion that to their astonishment “carbon dioxide was not at all well-mixed but lumpy”.

    Don’t keep showing the cherry picked mid troposphere which bears no relation to that conclusion.

    Lumpy is local. Carbon dioxide is heavier than air, it sinks. Carbon dioxide is in all the rain, carbonic acid. It is constantly coming down to the surface and most of this is in local weather, when the wind stops carbon dioxide will fall to the Earth..

    Some will travel on the big wind systems as here: http://www.avvelenata.it/papers/Sendai_CO2.pdf

    Winds are volumes, packets, of the real gas air on the move, they are not an imaginary wooden spoon stirring or the gods at the four corners blowing around the non-existant empty space well mixed ideal gas atmosphere of AGW fisics.

    As they say, this is how they get their carbon dioxide, and the El Nino peak 97/98 clearly shows this.

    The “science” of AGW is corrupted on all levels, which is why their arguments always shift and change.

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

    This is Keeling’s paper – the magicians trick, saying there is a rise and that it’s man made and giving no information to back that up, only a confusion of graphs which prove nothing of his claim.

    [snip – ad hom ~mod] And the future charlatans got on the bank wagon.

  124. I’ll sign up for a XX Large, please! Can paypal it the day you make the announcement, if interest has been high enough.

  125. Global Warming is caused by people like you! Everyday living is destructive to the Environment. One of the most important ways people can help save the environment is to STOP HAVING BABIES. Another very important thing you can do is to euthanize your pet. Our company sells Carbon Credits which are the only hope of saving the planet.

    For the sake of the planet, we need to act before it’s too late.

    Please visit our company’s website for more information. http://greentremayne.com/Carbon_Free_Living.html

  126. Volcanoes are wreaking havoc on the Environment! Instead of outlawing these dangerous sources of pollution, residents in states such as Hawaii and Iceland are seeking to profit through “volcano tourism.” We at GreenTremayne are currently working with our friends in Congress to pass laws that will impose a punitive Carbon Tax on states such as Iceland and Hawaii for their greedy exploitation of the volcano tourist industry.

    If you live in a state with an active volcano, purchasing GreenTremayne Carbon Credits is a great way to make up for your share of damage to the Environment. For more information, visit http://greentremayne.com/Blog.html

    For tips on ways to reduce your Carbon Footprint, visit our company web site http://greentremayne.com/Carbon_Free_Living.html

    Namaste,
    Daphne Tremayne
    Vice President, Public Relations
    GreenTremayne.com

  127. If you think 400 ppm may be a trifle high – or absolutely disastrous – try holding your breath as long as you can then breathing out via a gas measuring device. You can quite easily get 120 000 ppm. But it is not really a good idea to breathe it back in again!

    Saw on the Goggle Box a few yeas ago Dr Jonathan Miller demonstrating the effects of breathing too much CO2. He placed a large paper bag over his head and tightened it up a bit – not too much – around his neck. OK for a short time then he went unconscious, and bloke behind had to reach over the sofa to rip the bag off his head. Recovered quickly. DO NOT TRY THIS YOURSELF!

    Note 400 ppm is a long, long was from 120 000 ppm

  128. This from the NYT piece yesterday:
    “China is now the largest emitter, but Americans have been consuming fossil fuels extensively for far longer, and experts say the United States is more responsible than any other nation for the high level.”
    Yeah. So turn over your ill-gotten gains you liberty-loving, free-market, capitalist SOB’s and pony-up to save the planet.
    Yes. Sign me up for those “T’s” .
    They’ll make great Christmas stocking stuffers beside the roaring fireplace fires (CO2-spewing) of everyone I know.

  129. vukcevic says: May 11, 2013 at 3:09 am
    “That is all fine, except for one thing, the change in CO2 levels doesn’t change N. Hemisphere temperature, but it could be the other way around.”

    You also aren’t considering the mass balance, it seems. The recent atmospheric accumulation (over the last few decades) accounts for about half our emissions. The rest must have gone into the oceans and the terrestrial biomass. You are proposing that increased temperatures might have naturally caused the atmospheric increase (mostly through ocean outgassing, I suppose). Are you suggesting that the Southern oceans have at the same time become huge sinks and absorbed the near totality of our emissions? That would means that just as the Northern Hemisphere became a huge net source (up to 2ppm of CO2, or 16 Gt per year), the Southern Hemisphere became a sink twice as effective (32 Gt per year). And this would have occurred in such a manner as to make our emissions fail to contribute. We must also suppose that the southern ocean would have sunken most of our emissions anyway.

  130. The funny thing is that whether or not man is responsible for the increase in C02 doesn’t really matter except to the Climatists, since the increase is entirely beneficial. I hope we are, but remain skeptical. Maybe once all this manmade climate nonsense dies down, and science can get back to doing what it’s supposed to, then perhaps we’ll know, or at least have a better idea.

  131. Dudley Horscroft says: May 11, 2013 at 4:24 am
    ……………
    Hi Mr. Pierre-Normand
    I said …but it could be the other way around
    You grafted huge tree onto a sapling. I know very little about CO2 oceanic absorption and outgassing, but it appears there are strong indications that CO2 trails temperature rise rather than the other way around.
    It would have been far more productive if you considered what is said in my post
    and illustrated here

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NA-NV.htm

    You may also consider

    where change in GMF a proxy of the Arctic tectonic movements
    but I will leave it to you to take on someone else on the CO2 oceanic absorption and outgassing.

  132. Steven O’Halloran says:
    May 10, 2013 at 8:41 pm
    “. For example, what does 15,000 on the stock market mean? Is it irrelevant, or does it depend on who you are and where you are? ”

    It is irrelevant. The 30 companies used to compute the number change from time to time.
    The current number is not based on all the same companies of a few years ago.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dow_Jones_Industrial_Average

    “The components of the DJIA have changed 48 times in its 117-year history. General Electric has had the longest continuous presence on the index, with its latest addition being in 1907. More recent changes to the index include the following:
    On February 19, 2008, Chevron and Bank of America replaced Altria Group and Honeywell. Chevron was previously a Dow component from July 18, 1930, to November 1, 1999. During Chevron’s absence, its split-adjusted price per share went from forty-four dollars to eighty-five, while the price of petroleum rose from twenty-four dollars to a hundred.
    On September 22, 2008, Kraft Foods replaced the American International Group (AIG) in the index.[5]
    On June 8, 2009, General Motors and Citigroup were replaced by The Travelers Companies and Cisco Systems, which became the third company traded on the NASDAQ to be part of the Dow.[6]
    On September 24, 2012, UnitedHealth Group replaced Kraft Foods following Kraft’s spinning off its North American snack food business.[7]”

  133. At 400 ppm,

    – we probably really have the highest CO2 levels in 2.77 million years.

    I probably have the biggest database of the reliable numbers of anyone.

    But CO2 has mostly been around 280 ppm for the last 24 million years since C4 grasses evolved and changed the mix of how much Carbon is held in vegetation at any one time. Over that time period, temperatures have been 4.0C higher than today and -5.0C from today.

    The sources for this chart are:
    Berner GeoCarb III
    Pagani 2005
    Antarctic Ice Core Composite
    Pagani 1999
    Royer 2006 Composites
    Pearson 2000
    IPCC AR4 2007 – Royer 2008 Composites
    Pearson 2009
    Tripati 2009
    Bao 2008
    Hoenisch 2009
    Pagani 2010
    Beerling Royer 2011
    Bartoli 2011
    Seki 2010

  134. 400ppm!! nevermind that!!. 440GBP a ton is a figure to be concerned about.
    This is the new price for spuds on the market, due to a massive shortfall in harvest from winter cold and erratic growing season temperatures.
    When the army of hungry leaves finally emerge, they will need to get busy sucking up all the CO2 they can get.
    I think the T-shirt should show mobs of cheering Irishmen.

  135. There’s another scenario that could be happening. Underwater vents and volcanoes could have emitted more CO2 recently. This would change the equilibrium balance between the oceans and the atmosphere. The oceans would absorb less CO2 and since MM CO2 is emitted to the atmosphere we would still see the isotope imbalance.

    In fact, anything that changed the ocean CO2 concentration would automatically start a slow march towards equilibrium. Some of those may even be man made. And, land use changes could also be involved.

    While human emissions will also affect the balance, there are many possible factors that we have no way of deciphering with our current historic data.

  136. Bill Illis says:
    May 11, 2013 at 5:49 am

    At 400 ppm,

    – we probably really have the highest CO2 levels in 2.77 million years.

    Very doubtful. I no more believe in the C02 hockeystick than the temperature hockeystick. Agendas abound.

  137. I have been commenting on this over at The Guardian, I cannot believe the Stalinist nature of the moderation. Anything that even remotely dissents from the consensus position is zapped, un believable. Anyone else experiencing the same?

    Might be worth a post Anthony, it is really not on to have that level of censorship on a national newspaper website.

  138. @Jimbo

    Look guys, the more they scream and shout about 400ppm then you reply with 15+ years of temperature standstill. That should get some of them thinking.

    Try that at The Guardian and they simply remove your comment and add you to their pre-moderation list, i.e. ban you from posting.

  139. Richard M says:
    May 11, 2013 at 6:20 am

    Underwater vents and volcanoes could have emitted more CO2 recently. This would change the equilibrium balance between the oceans and the atmosphere.

    Quite impossible, because of the 13C/12C ratio of the (deep) oceans, which is way higher than in the atmosphere and we see a huge drop in 13C/12C ratio, both in the atmosphere and in the ocean surface layer (much larger than over the glacial-interglacial transitions over the past 800 kyr). See:

    The current drop in 13C/12C ratio is about 1/3rd of what can be expected from fossil fuel burning. That is diluted by the continuous (deep) ocean exchanges of CO2 from the equator to the poles and back via the THC. If that was additional to the human emissions, one would expect a 4 times higher increase in the atmosphere (32 GtC/yr or ~16 ppmv/yr) than from the human emissions alone.

    But that is problematic by the mass balance: if humans emit 8 GtC/yr as CO2 and the oceans emit in balance 24 GtC more than they absorb, the difference between 32 GtC extra input per year and the measured yearly increase of 4 GtC (2 ppmv) in the atmosphere must be absorbed by plants (the only other relative fast source/sink). But the oxygen balance only shows a net sink of ~1 GtC/yr by the whole biosphere:

    http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf

  140. Bruce Cobb says:
    May 11, 2013 at 6:38 am

    Very doubtful. I no more believe in the C02 hockeystick than the temperature hockeystick. Agendas abound.

    I know, it is difficult to believe anything that comes from climate science… But in this case, the CO2 HS is real, as good as the reverse HS for the 13C/12C ratio over the same period of 160 years sinds the industrial revolution took momentum.

    The difference with temperature readings is that similar values are measured everywhere from near ground to about 20 km height and from near the North Pole to the South Pole. Except over the first few hundred meters over land, where huge sources and sinks are at work. All values are within +/- 2% of full scale, including seasonal variations and a NH-SH lag.

  141. Surely measurements taken on a volcano are as likely to be right as temperature ones taken with the thermometers in a hot air vent. Even so called extinct volcanoes are nearly certain to still be spewing out through lesser vents.

  142. David Cage says:
    May 11, 2013 at 7:07 am

    Surely measurements taken on a volcano are as likely to be right as temperature ones taken with the thermometers in a hot air vent.

    Sometimes it is better to read what is done to assure that measurements taken are real “background” and not from volcanic vents or vegetation before making comments:

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

    Measurements influenced by local volcanic vents or vegetation from the valley are not used for averaging. They still are available and including or excluding them doesn’t make any difference in yearly average or trend beyond 0.1 ppmv…
    Similar values as at Mauna Loa are measured at the South Pole without any vegetation or volcanoes for thousands of km in the neighbourhood:

  143. @Ferdinand; It isn’t just that it comes from a field which just so happens to need the rise to be a) primarily human-caused, and b) now at a level not seen in 3 million years (i.e. confirmation bias), but the evidence is weak. Historically, C02 levels have risen after a warm period, with a lag time of between 100 to perhaps 800 years. That is just one point, there are others. The point being, the case has not been made. Pounding the table does not make it so.

  144. The 400 t-shirt should have a 19th century date..

    1) http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9195-co2-levels-pre-industrial-revolution
    “The ice core records show a smooth curve and does not include the variability. Eliminating the variability and using the smoothed curve then gives a false indication of actual CO2 atmospheric conditions. When curve smoothing is done, a lot of important information is ignored. Beck also shows that Charles Keeling, deliberately used afternoon readings when they are the lowest at 12,000 feet elevation, and the readings are only pertinent to maritime volcanoes at 12,000 feet and do not represent global actual levels. (Beck, 2008 “50 Years Of Continuous Measurements Of CO2 On Mauna Lea”, Energy and Environment Vol 19, No 7)

    “Charles Keeling’s son continues to operate the Mauna Loa facility, and as Beck states “owns the monopoly of calibration of all CO2 measurements”. Since Keeling is a co-author of IPCC reports, the IPCC accepts that Mauna Lea is representative of global CO2 levels.”

    2) http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html

    “Despite numerous 19th century air measurements showing +300 ppm CO2 levels, and despite the fact that many of the youngest ice cores showed higher than expected CO2 values and so were shifted forward 90-100 years from previously-established dates so that they would match the more elevated CO2 levels of 20th century air samples, the ice core record is today generally used to represent pre-1957 CO2 concentrations. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) places the pre-industrial concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at 280 ppm, based largely on the ice core record, although this has never been otherwise substantiated (7).”

    3) http://drtimball.com/2012/pre-industrial-and-current-co2-levels-deliberately-corrupted/

    Pre-Industrial And Current CO2 Levels Deliberately Corrupted.
    by Dr. Tim Ball on May 9, 2012

    in Data,Government,History,Land,Oceans,Politics,Theory

    “I’ve told this story before but it requires repeating because of awareness of climate science corruption. Even skeptics realize claims of incompetence are inadequate. Official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate science was completely orchestrated for a premeditated result. T.R.Wigley’s 1983 paper “The pre-industrial carbon dioxide level” was pivotal in the evolution of climate science corruption. It was a flawed paper that cherry-picked data to claim pre-industrial CO2 level was 270 ppm. G.S. Callendar did the same thing (diagram), as Zbigniew Jaworowski illustrated in a paper to a 2004 US Senate Committee.”

    =====

    Corruption of the data has been shown, those who think there is none can’t ignore this. It’s not the fault of those pointing out the corruption that any work done in good faith from the ‘official’ figures will have to be reconsidered.

  145. “Ferdinand Engelbeen says:

    May 11, 2013 at 7:01 am

    Bruce Cobb says:
    May 11, 2013 at 6:38 am

    Very doubtful. I no more believe in the C02 hockeystick than the temperature hockeystick. Agendas abound.

    I know, it is difficult to believe anything that comes from climate science… But in this case, the CO2 HS is real,…”

    There is no question there re TOTAL CO2. The question is, how much of the “HS” and temp change is a direct CAUSE of emissions of CO2 from human activities? The answer is, at best not measurable, to none!

  146. Ferdinand or anyone,

    Have you ever looked at the Greenland ice core CO2 estimates. Basically, they have been abandoned and are never really talked about because of the nonsense results (or let’s say unexpected results, some plus +300ppms etc).

    Why this doesn’t appear in the Antarctic ice cores hasn’t really been explained but the assumption is there is some additional chemistry going on in the Greenland ice which distorts the numbers.

    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/gases/co2.txt

    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/grip/gases/gcco2.txt

    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/grip/gases/irlsco2.txt

    And at the base of the ice cores near bedrock, they were getting 100,000+ ppmv estimates

    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/grip/gases/gasbas.txt

    Not trying to start any controversies but that might be fun.

  147. Bruce Cobb says:
    May 11, 2013 at 7:33 am

    Historically, C02 levels have risen after a warm period, with a lag time of between 100 to perhaps 800 years.

    Indeed, the average increase and decrease over the past 800 kyr was about 8 ppmv/°C with a lag of ~800 +/- 600 years over glacial-interglacial tranisitions and several thousands of years for the opposite transition. But this quite good relationship (correl. 0.86) was broken some 160 years ago, by coincidence at the moment that humans started to emit ever increasing amounts of CO2. Not only in quantity, but also depleted of 13C and absent of 14C. See the change in ice cores:

    Thus there was a direct relation between CO2 levels and temperature, with CO2 lagging, but nowadays CO2 is leading, as we are about 100 ppmv above the temperature dictated equilibrium.
    In how far that influences temperature is an entirely different question, where the answer is certainly not given by the current climate models…

  148. “So please, take this day and the milestone it represents to reflect on the fragility of our civilization and and the planetary ecosystem on which it depends. Rededicate yourself to the task of saving our future. Talk to your neighbors, call your legislator, let your voice be heard. We must take immediate action to solve this crisis. ”

    Yes, 400 is such an evil number. The number 666 holds nothing to 400.

    But, how much of that 400 does ALGORE’s lifestyle contribute?

  149. Patrick says:
    May 11, 2013 at 7:52 am

    The question is, how much of the “HS” and temp change is a direct CAUSE of emissions of CO2 from human activities?

    From the CO2 HS, some 90+ ppmv is directly the result of human emissions, some 8 ppmv may be from the increase in ocean temperatures since the LIA.
    From the temperature HS, the reverse may apply: 90% natural and 10% from the extra CO2, but that is a wild guess, not better than the overblown “projections” from current climate models…

  150. It’s true about the Guardian … you can see a huge number of posts (including mine) have been removed… never seen so many censured comments… any comment or interpretation of the facts becomes an instant “untruth”…

    Such tactics usually backfire… fools

  151. ‘Please sir: I want some more HEAT!!’

    ‘MORE?? MORE??????????????’

    Anthony, Anthony, never before has a boy wanted warmth!!

    I’m sure there’s a musical in there somewhere. It’s just that Scrooge wasn’t probably a tax n spend global warmer, was he???

  152. Bill Illis says:
    May 11, 2013 at 7:53 am

    Have you ever looked at the Greenland ice core CO2 estimates. Basically, they have been abandoned and are never really talked about because of the nonsense results (or let’s say unexpected results, some plus +300ppms etc).

    All ice cores receive dust from their neighbourhood, including seasalt (chlorides, sulphates and carbonates). That is no problem for the Antarctic ice cores, as the carbonates don’t decompose at the neutral conditions and low temperatures at measurement time (and there is far less dust deposit in the inland Antarctic cores).

    It is a problem in the Greenland ice core, where the nearby Icelandic volcanoes frequently give highly acid deposits at the summit. That causes in situ CO2 formation and more if the old method (now largely abandoned for CO2 measurements) of melting the sample under vacuum is applied at measuring time. With melting, CO2 levels even increased over time, the longer the test was done, as the reaction goes further and further…
    Therefore the CO2 levels from the Greenland ice core aren’t used.
    See e.g.: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0889.47.issue4.6.x/abstract;jsessionid=AF91AE2541717EC6B3FEC4298102CC39.d03t02

  153. Joel Heinrich says:
    May 11, 2013 at 8:48 am

    Yeah, that’s typical. Let some highly adjusted American station hit 400 ppm and the world goes crazy, but if some German site hits 570 ppm no one cares. As it did nearly 8 years ago…

    The point is that station in the North of Germany is of not the slightest interest for “global” CO2 levels. Depending of wind and time of the day, you can measure any value between 200 and 600 ppmv. Simply because the measurements are too near sources and sinks and without much wind, not evenly mixed with the rest of the atmosphere. If you have tall towers, you will see that with height, the variability is reduced and above a few hundred meters, you will find “background” levels…

  154. Joel Heinrich says:
    May 11, 2013 at 8:48 am
    Yeah, that’s typical. Let some highly adjusted American station hit 400 ppm and the world goes crazy,
    on the top of an active volcano :)

  155. Without question the crazies are running amok….but…..what other re-directions will the left employ to take the heat off of the Obama administration’s troubles? Pay no attention to the foreign policy disasters at the department of State and the White House….look over here…Hey….You!!!!!

  156. Myrrh says:
    May 11, 2013 at 7:45 am

    Myrrh, as I have repeatedly said, many of the data collected by the late Ernst Beck are completely worthless: the equivalent of measuring temperature mid winter in Siberia one day, months later on a hot asphalted roof on a hot summer day in Rome and some months later mid winter in Oslo and then concluding that there was a “global” peak in temperature.

    Interesting are only the CO2 readings taken on seaships and coastal with wind from the oceans, which are all around the ice core values.

    “Charles Keeling’s son continues to operate the Mauna Loa facility, and as Beck states “owns the monopoly of calibration of all CO2 measurements”. Since Keeling is a co-author of IPCC reports, the IPCC accepts that Mauna Lea is representative of global CO2 levels.”

    The calibration gases are composed by NOAA (but Scripps still has their own calibrations) and tested in several labs over the world. “Global” CO2 levels are taken from different ground level stations, not including Mauna Loa…

    Despite numerous 19th century air measurements showing +300 ppm CO2 levels, and despite the fact that many of the youngest ice cores showed higher than expected CO2 values and so were shifted forward 90-100 years from previously-established dates so that they would match the more elevated CO2 levels of 20th century air samples, the ice core record is today generally used to represent pre-1957 CO2 concentrations.

    Please, stop that. Many of the old measurements were taken near huge sources and sinks and don’t represent global and not even local CO2 levels (as many were one or a few samples per day within extreme diurnal changes). When some of the early ice core drillings showes extreme values, they also showed contamination with drilling fluid, so not representative for “normal” CO2 levels in the ice core. And the “arbitrary shift” of ice core CO2 levels to match the Mauna Loa data is pure nonsense: there was no shift at all, but the late Jaworowski simply did read the wrong age column of the ice age, not the gas age. CO2 is measured in the bubbles, which in average are much younger than the surrounding ice.

    And if you think that stomata data are any better than ice cores data (although stomata suffer from the same problems as the old chemical measurements: taken over land…), why is it that there is not the slightest hint of a peak in CO2 levels around 1942 in the stomata data (or in any other data series), where Beck’s main peak of 80 ppmv can be found?

  157. Yikes 400 ppm! Now we will have to endure the AGW alarmists predicting that aerobic sporting events in track & field are going to suffer decreasing times because the poor athletes will not be getting sufficient oxygen in their lungs!

  158. Ferdinand – There is no such critter as “well-mixed” global.

    It’s all local and particular to the local conditions, which may include being brought in by winds because they have none much of their own, but all that means is carbon dioxide is being transported from A to B, the carbon dioxide such places get is from a different source. Our big wind systems do not cross hemispheres.

    Keeling was the one claiing there was this mythical “well-mixed” background which he claimed could be measured from anywhere – so he could sit on top of the world’s biggest active volcano surrounded by volcanoes erupting and venting and thousands of earthquakes a year in warm seas over the great hot spot creating volcanic islands where he could choose how much or how little he included in his measurements.

    Read how they measure. They first chuck out what they consider too high! They decide the year on year trend by cherry picking from the great volcanic output, which they don’t have a hope in hell of showing how much is man made in that, let alone in the mythical ‘background’ which he is picking up from local downwinds.

    The claim is that this a pristine unpolluted by local carbon dioxide site, that they measure from some claimed carrying only “well-mixed background” high above it all trade wind – if that was the case they wouldn’t have to chuck out so much of their data..

  159. Myrrh says:
    May 11, 2013 at 10:50 am

    Read how they measure. They first chuck out what they consider too high! They decide the year on year trend by cherry picking from the great volcanic output, which they don’t have a hope in hell of showing how much is man made in that, let alone in the mythical ‘background’ which he is picking up from local downwinds.

    Please Myrrh, read what they really do at Mauna Loa:

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

    Nothing to do with cherry picking, but with throwing out the data which are clearly contaminated by downwind CO2 from volcanic vents and upwind depleted in CO2 from the valleys. All the data are still available and can be plotted for your convinience. It doesn’t matter if you include or exclude the contaminated data: the same yearly average and the same trend within 0.1 ppmv. Here are the data of four baseline stations (Barrow, Mauna Loa, Samoa and South Pole):
    ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/in-situ/

    They have the luxury to throw out the contaminated data, simply because they have so many measurements: over 8000 hourly averaged raw data + stdv a year, while the changes are less than 8 ppmv over the seasons as is the case at Mauna Loa (less than 2 ppmv at the South Pole). Even if they took one sample every two weeks (in triplo to avoid sampling errors) as happened a few years at the South Pole, that would be sufficient to see the seasonal curve and to calculate the yearly average and trend.

    The Mauna Loa and many other stations (over 70 “background”) all show the same trends over the years, even if some (like the South Pole) have very few outliers:

  160. vukcevic says:
    May 11, 2013 at 11:20 am

    CO2 global distribution

    Indeed, with a scale from 382-390 ppmv, +/- 1% of full scale, while the seasonal changes add and remove +/- 20% of all CO2 of the atmosphere within a few months in each direction. Seems pretty well mixed to me…

  161. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    Indeed, with a scale from 382-390 ppmv, +/- 1% of full scale, while the seasonal changes add and remove +/- 20% of all CO2 of the atmosphere within a few months in each direction. Seems pretty well mixed to me…

    Agree, and that is a good reasons why the CO2 can’t be the reason for the North Hemisphere’s excess warming.

    It is the north. Atlantic that is the driver of the north Hemisphere’s temperature rise

    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NA-NV.htm

    Sub-marine tectonics/seismicity is the future science of climate change.

    Have a good think about it ….N. hemisphere is cooling already ….

  162. vukcevic says:
    May 11, 2013 at 1:41 pm

    Agree, and that is a good reasons why the CO2 can’t be the reason for the North Hemisphere’s excess warming.

    Another reason why the climate models fail: about 90% of all human aerosol emissions are in the NH, thus most of the cooling effect of these aerosols should be in the Northern Hemisphere, but most of the warming (including the heat content of the oceans) is there…

  163. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    May 11, 2013 at 11:17 am
    Myrrh says:
    May 11, 2013 at 10:50 am

    Read how they measure. They first chuck out what they consider too high! They decide the year on year trend by cherry picking from the great volcanic output, which they don’t have a hope in hell of showing how much is man made in that, let alone in the mythical ‘background’ which he is picking up from local downwinds.

    Please Myrrh, read what they really do at Mauna Loa:

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

    Nothing to do with cherry picking, but with throwing out the data which are clearly contaminated by downwind CO2 from volcanic vents and upwind depleted in CO2 from the valleys.

    Which is what I said, the claim is that this is a pristine site, poster child pristine site, high up away from all local carbon dioxide production and “measuring pristine uncontaminated well-mixed background”, but all they’re measuring is still the volcanic, they cherry pick at what point they pretend it isn’t volcanic and then claim it is this pristine coming in from the trade winds uncontaminated by local – that’s a logic disjunct.

    This is a simple magicians trick.

    You, generic, get caught up in the scientific sounding explanation of how they measure and chuck out “volcanic contamination”, and get distracted from the fact that their claim is there is no contamination by local production..

    All the data are still available and can be plotted for your convinience. It doesn’t matter if you include or exclude the contaminated data: the same yearly average and the same trend within 0.1 ppmv. Here are the data of four baseline stations (Barrow, Mauna Loa, Samoa and South Pole):
    ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/in-situ/

    And why should I take any other measurements they make seriously? Keeling’s agenda was to show a rise, this is what he produced, by faking it. If he was really measuring pristine well mixed background coming in on trade wind uncontaminated by local production, they wouldn’t need to chuck anyone of it out. This isn’t science.

    They have the luxury to throw out the contaminated data, simply because they have so many measurements:

    They have the luxury to cherry pick out of all the huge volcanic production which can’t be told from man-made fossil fuel combustion.

    They arbitrarily choose what they’ll call volcanic and what they’ll call “man made well mixed background”, and they don’t show any man made signature.

    The Mauna Loa and many other stations (over 70 “background”) all show the same trends over the years, even if some (like the South Pole) have very few outliers:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_trends.jpg

    Even after all the years Anthony’s blog has been recording all the temperature scams and much more, at the highest levels, like the Met finally admitting that there has been no temperature rise for 17 years while all that time it has lied and said the temps were catastrophically rising, you think because so many stations are involved that means they are independent?

    First it was controlled by Keeling/Scripps and son, now it is globally co-ordinated at government level since it became lucrative/political. Whose agenda is the IPCC’s and that’s what we’ve got. The same ol’ same ol’ corruption of data here as we have with the temperature record and the constant fiddling with other records.

    Here, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/jubany.html

    Gosh, it’s the Keeling Curve based on data only from ’94..

    Jubany is surrounded by volcanic activity ..

    The Argentinians have been there since ’53 – where is their data?

    And that magic moment of early 90’s when Salinger went to fake the NZ records and the IPCC changed the consensus conclusions of its contributing scientists which said in the ’95 report that no man made signature is discernible.

    No man made signature is discernible so no trend rise possible to show and there is no “well-mixed background” anywhere, certainly not on top of the world’s biggest active volcano.

    There’s just lots and lots of local environments producing or not and getting from outside or not, this could be averaged out if there was a true representative sample …, but even if that was possible that average would still not be “the well-mixed background” – when you read that an area gets 40 inches of rain a year you don’t think this means it gets 40 inches every day…, or in every part of that area.

  164. Ferdinand Engelbeen
    …………
    Now you say :
    CO2 emitted in the N. Hemisphere is globally well mixed.
    Aerosols emitted in the N. Hemisphere globally are not well mixed, they stay there, hmmm … what happened to the CFCs and ozone hole in the Antarctic.
    Most of heat content of the oceans is in the N. Hemisphere despite fact that it has only about 30% of the oceans in surface and less in volume.
    That is a lot of nonsense and you know it.

  165. So we have 400 PPM, give or take. Okay… It’s Spring. It’s May. I’m freezing.

  166. It seems to me one problem with any cores taken from the antarctic ice cap is that the antarctic receives very little precipitation – less than a quarter inch equivalent rainfall annually. The process of trapping gas bubbles in the ice is dependent on the weight of snow above it rather than time. I would think this would temporally smear the the ice core CO2 data making it impossible to see fluctuations within some rather long time periods compared to Greenland ice cores where annual snowfall is much greater.

    Additionally, I don’t think that it has been proven that the trapped bubbles are representative of the ancient composition of the atmosphere as the solubility of CO2 in water is radically different than is the solubility of nitrogen and oxygen. Any process that depletes CO2 relative to N2 and O2 during the conversion of firn to ice would also result in a hockey stick.

  167. This must be why I’m hearing so many environmental leaders calling for the rapid deployment of Small Modular Reactors around the world and in China and India…chirp, chip, derp.

  168. vukcevic says: May 10, 2013 at 12:02 pm
    …End of the world December 21, 2012

    The things you miss when you don’t have cable.
    How did it turn out?

  169. Myrrh says “They arbitrarily choose what they’ll call volcanic and what they’ll call “man made well mixed background”, and they don’t show any man made signature.” and “First it was controlled by Keeling/Scripps and son, now it is globally co-ordinated at government level since it became lucrative/political.” and “Gosh, it’s the Keeling Curve based on data only from ’94.. Jubany is surrounded by volcanic activity ..”

    Myrrh, please explain why hundreds of other independent measurements worldwide have the same results. For example, http://www.avvelenata.it/papers/Sendai_CO2.pdf where Lampedusa island in the Mediterranean is not near any volcanoes. After reading section 2, Measurements, please explain how ‘arbitrarily choose what they’ll call volcanic and what they’ll call “man made well mixed background” and arrive at much the same curve as Mauna Loa in figure 2 in the paper. I would like to know specifically how these scientists cherry picked readings to produce the curve shown in figure 2, i.e. how do they produce the rise and how do they produce the wiggle. Please do not answer with more junk websites, analyze this scientific paper or give links to scientific papers.

  170. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    May 11, 2013 at 12:01 am
    ferd berple says:
    May 10, 2013 at 6:14 pm
    Humans are part of nature.
    Indeed, but the rest of nature is not burning coal, oil and gas buried millions of years ago in the same quantities as humans do…
    ===============
    yet humans only emit less than 4% of the total CO2 emitted by nature. the other 96% is not emitted by humans.

    humans are the flea on the back of the elephant wanting to believe they are the ones driving. we exist on this planet as guest of the algae that produce our oxygen. Only 10% of the cells in the human body have human DNA. The other 90% – the ones that aren’t human – they are what keep us alive.

    So next time you look in the mirror keep i mind that 90% of you is not human. It is alien DNA and for all intents and purposes, it is the host. Our 10% of the total is the parasite that lives off this host. Or at best, we are a symbiot. Like algae.

  171. You know when global warming alarmists are just propagandists … because they only talk in ways that demonise Co2… carbon pollution is the catch-cry! They forget earth is actually inhabited by numerous “carbon-based life forms”.

    These propagandists never talk about the numerous positive effects and benefits from having more Co2 in the atmosphere. If they did, they’d find they don’t have a leg to stand on.

  172. vukcevic says:
    May 11, 2013 at 2:10 pm

    Now you say :
    CO2 emitted in the N. Hemisphere is globally well mixed.
    Aerosols emitted in the N. Hemisphere globally are not well mixed, they stay there, hmmm … what happened to the CFCs and ozone hole in the Antarctic.

    CO2 is well mixed, aerosols are not. Only small amounts of CO2 are soluble in fresh water/cloud drops, but most of the human (tropospheric) SO2 is washed out (dry and wet deposit) in only a few days. The ITCZ with its heavy rains and poleward circulation hinders the exchange of air masses (about 10% per year exchange) between the hemispheres and near completely washes out all aerosols. That is the difference between CO2 (and CFC’s, etc…) and aerosols.

    Here the heat content of the NH vs. the SH, after correction for area differences (not area weighted, but based on total area difference), based on the Levitus data:

    Of course, one need to take into account the different ocean currents, which bring heat from the equator to the poles, as is the case for the North Atlantic, but in the Pacific the flow is opposite and the heat content increased there as well, compared to the SH Pacific.

    Thus the models are wrong again: the “huge” effect of cooling aerosols, as implemented in current climate models should be visible mainly in the NH, but the opposite happened…

    What will happen in the future with a lower solar strength will be very interesting…

  173. Myrrh says:
    May 11, 2013 at 2:05 pm

    Myrrh, as eric1skeptic sayd, look at any station where no volcano or vegetation is in the wide neighbourhood and you will find exactly the same curve, only with a small lag between the NH and the SH and different seasonal swings. The South Pole measurements were taken even before Mauna Loa, but lack a few years of continuous measurements, but these were infilled with regular flask samples. There is no volcano and no vegetation for thousands of kms…

    If you really think that someone is manipulating all the data of all stations all over the world with an increase of 0.005 ppmv per day, then you should show me how it is possible to do that and without protest of anyone of the hundreds of people involved, even not after retirement…

    Worldwide CO2 levels are the most reliable and rigorously controlled measurements I know of. One can only hope that one day temperature stations are as firmly quality controlled as the CO2 measurements are.

  174. ferd berple says:
    May 11, 2013 at 11:48 pm

    yet humans only emit less than 4% of the total CO2 emitted by nature. the other 96% is not emitted by humans.

    That is a non-argument: you forget the other side of the equation: 100% of the sinks are natural and 0% of the sinks are human (the few reforestations are negligible compared to deforestation).

    In reality the full equation of the mass balance is:
    4% human emissions + 96% natural emissions = 98% sinks + 2% increase in the atmosphere.
    Thus the net addition by all natural flows together = -2%. Nature is a net sink, not a net source.

    Taking your human body example: if you need 2000 kcal/day and eat 2000 kcal a day, everything is in balance. Now you start to eat an extra 40 kcal a day, every day, that is only 5% of your daily intake. What will happen to your body weight after a year or so (own experience from the past..)?

  175. Lester Via says:
    May 11, 2013 at 3:29 pm

    It seems to me one problem with any cores taken from the antarctic ice cap is that the antarctic receives very little precipitation

    Depends where the ice core is taken. The near coast ice cores like Law Dome receive 1.2 meters ice equivalent per year as snow. The bubbles are fully closed after some 40 years at 72 meter depth. In that period, most of the time, the pores are in open connection with the atmosphere which makes that the average age of the enclosed air is in average about 7 years older that in the atmosphere. The average resolution of these cores is less than a decade. The drawback is that these cores only go some 150 years back in time before reaching bedrock.

    The far inland cores receive far less precipitation and their resolution increases to 600 years (Vostok) and 560 years (Dome C). But they go 420 and 800 kyr back in time.

    Additionally, I don’t think that it has been proven that the trapped bubbles are representative of the ancient composition of the atmosphere as the solubility of CO2 in water is radically different than is the solubility of nitrogen and oxygen. Any process that depletes CO2 relative to N2 and O2 during the conversion of firn to ice would also result in a hockey stick.

    There is an overlap of ~20 years between the Law Dome ice cores and direct measurements at the South Pole: http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/law_dome_sp_co2.jpg
    There is some fractionation of the heavier molecules and isotopes, which increase near the bottom of the stagnant air in the firn (CO2: ~1% over 40 years), for which is corrected for.
    And the smaller molecules (neon, O2) show a small deficit: they seem to escape just before bubble closing. CO2 seems too large to be influenced.

    Measurements of CO2 nowadays are done by crushing the cold ice under vacuum and trapping any water vapour over a cold trap. Alternative, used to measure isotopic compositions, is sublimating all ice just under melting point, freezing everyting over cryogenic traps and measuring all components by cryogenic destillation. Both methods give similar results. So, water is no problem at all.

    There is some very low migration of CO2 in ice cores over long periods, as is (theoretically) calculated from the Siple Dome ice core where some remelt layers were found. That implied that the resolution broadened from 20 to 22 years at medium depth and to 40 years at full depth (~40 kyr back in time). Not a big deal for “warm” coastal ice cores (-22°C). For the much colder inland ice cores (-40°C) like Vorstok and Dome C, that plays no measurable role, not even after 800 kyr…

    More information at:

    http://courses.washington.edu/proxies/GHG.pdf

    http://www.pnas.org/content/94/16/8343.full

    http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3773250

    http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/closeoff_EPSL.pdf

  176. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    May 12, 2013 at 1:28 am

    that is only 5% of your daily intake

    Of course, 40 kcal is 2% of 2000 kcal. There was a time, long ago, that I could perform such calculations error free without calculator/computer…

  177. eric1skeptic says:
    May 11, 2013 at 6:19 pm
    Myrrh says “They arbitrarily choose what they’ll call volcanic and what they’ll call “man made well mixed background”, and they don’t show any man made signature.” and “First it was controlled by Keeling/Scripps and son, now it is globally co-ordinated at government level since it became lucrative/political.” and “Gosh, it’s the Keeling Curve based on data only from ’94.. Jubany is surrounded by volcanic activity ..”

    Myrrh, please explain why hundreds of other independent measurements worldwide have the same results. For example, http://www.avvelenata.it/papers/Sendai_CO2.pdf where Lampedusa island in the Mediterranean is not near any volcanoes. After reading section 2, Measurements, please explain how ‘arbitrarily choose what they’ll call volcanic and what they’ll call “man made well mixed background” and arrive at much the same curve as Mauna Loa in figure 2 in the paper. I would like to know specifically how these scientists cherry picked readings to produce the curve shown in figure 2, i.e. how do they produce the rise and how do they produce the wiggle. Please do not answer with more junk websites, analyze this scientific paper or give links to scientific papers.

    Erik1skeptic – these are two different scenarios, two completely different locations. Mauna Loa is the poster child for the official AGW scare of global warming, there is a history of how it got to be that. By the 90’s it had been taken over by bigger guns than the personal agenda of Keeling and family loyalty, there was a co-ordinated orchestrated plan put into effect which included changing the consensus conclusion of the scientists working on the ’95 IPPC report – their considered opinion was that there was no discernible man made signal, but, the IPPC was created to push the meme that “man made cause of global warming” existed, read the small print. The majority of the scientists brought in by the IPCC didn’t understand that, they thought they were doing work for a real science body with UN ‘kudos’ and taking the question seriously, was made man made responsible?, concluded that no man made signal discernible – find your own damn links to exactly what was taken out. This was deliberately excised by Hougton/Santer and a quickly cobbled together non-peer reviewed garbled nonsense put in to justify the excising of the pukkha science consensus conclusion. Real scientists have resigned from the IPCC when they saw their work was being trashed. This is a fact of history in this now over a century of real science mixed with personal agendas, which is what I am exploring.

    Now, I have shown enough from my own analysis of Mauna Loa, the sleight of hand trickery which it practices, to prove conclusively for myself that the consensus of the real scientists writing the ’95 IPPC report was correct in one aspect of “no man made signal discernible”. I concluded that the first time I read the Mauna Loa description of method and smelled a rat – I spent some time looking at the wind systems and the local abundant carbon dioxide production and saw that their method was merely arbitrarily choosing cut off points for what they then labelled “local volcanic pollution” and what they labelled “pristine well mixed background brought in by the trade winds unadulterated by local production” which measurement of “pristine well mixed background” wasn’t physically possible from the top of an active volcano surrounded by great volcanic production, other active volcanoes, venting, thousands of earthquakes a year in warm seas over a huge hot spot creating volcanic islands, even if such a critter as “well-mixed background carbon dioxide” existed.

    You decide for yourself whether it’s possible or not.. I then began exploring the background history of the Keeling connection and found Timothy Casey’s piece, here’s the link again: http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/

    Not only as I’d previously concluded from looking at the properties and processes of carbon dioxide is there no such critter as “well-mixed background” so they couldn’t be measuring this at Mauna Loa or anywhere else contrary to Keelings unproven claim that it existed and could be measured from anywhere in the world, but there was skullduggery afoot with the claims that a fossil fuel combustion signal was discernible among volcanic production, it isn’t, not without specific fingerprinting to each individual volcanic source and the volcanic sources themselves had been excised from the cursory glance, and, this affected the measurements of other stations claimed to be “pristine” spots for measuring the unproven mythical Keeling “pristine background well mixed carbon dioxide”.

    And as you gave me Jubany as one such “pristine” site I found that it too is surounded by active volcanic production. And, I pointed out that its depiction graph was not only impossible from the data collected which began in 94, but was the Keeling Curve which at cursory glance a) gave the impression it was from data collected by this team but also b) that it included the Argentianian collection data and they had been there from 1953, they didn’t give any of it while giving the impression it was included in the graph; which was the Keeling Curve and nothing to do with Italian data they gave or the Argentianian they didn’t.

    So, you then gave me Lampadusa: http://www.avvelenata.it/papers/Sendai_CO2.pdf

    Which again was set up in the early 90’s as had been Jubany, so it is reasonable to assume for the same reasons and by the same agenda as those who are now in control of the global narrative, who have been shown doctoring the conclusion of the 95 IPCC report, which organisation, look it up for yourself, had itself been set up to show that man made influence was “causing the rise in carbon dioxide” (and therefore to blame for “rise in temperatures”).

    That does not mean that the team at Lampadusa, or Jubany, are producing anything but accurate measurements of what they are finding. But what are they finding? At Jubany it is clear they would have to take into account the surrounding volcanic activity, if they themselves were making the claim that their measurements were of this mythical unproven “pristine uncontaminated by local production well-mixed background carbon dioxide”, as did Keeling and continued from via Scripps before being taken over by the IPPC agenda drivers. I haven’t seen that the team at Jubany have made such a claim and so reasonably assume they are just doing the measurements and their work is presented as such by the now co-ordinating body as their page comes from who produced the trickery of showing the Keeling Curve as if attached to their measurements and who have not shown any previous data from the Argentinians. So, I am not questioning the accuracy of the Lampadusa team’s measurements, but looking at what they have found.

    What I have found is they themselves have said where their carbon dioxide comes from, in the winds. The island itself is barren and though I haven’t checked to see if there is any underwater volcanic activity which as Casey points out has not only been deliberately ignored, but positively claimed is accounted for in the science fraud trickery of underestimation, it is clear from their work that the El Nino brought in an extra amount to what they were finding. I haven’t had the time to explore this in any greater depth. You asked me what I thought and I pointed this out because of the AIRS conclusion that they would have to study wind systems in the transportation of carbon dioxide.

    I also pointed out that they mentioned the added flask at 2metres in ’97, which in true science tradition they were duty bound to mention so they did, which has to be taken into account in their analysis of “rise”. Anyway, without going further into exploring if there is any volcanic contribution to their figures, so going with their own analysis that the carbon dioxide they measure for all practical purposes comes in on the winds, I made the point, perhaps not clearly enough, [that they appeared to understand and so were saying], that the carbon dioxide they were measuring was coming from discrete sources, that they were not measuring “well mixed background”, but carbon dioxide being carried to them within the volumes of winds. As I had pointed out to you in the other study you brought into the discussion, that the local climate of one of the stations was stated to be affected by the winds coming from the Atlantic 80 ks distant.

    Real scientists point out such things, real science knows that the wind doesn’t “ceaselessly turbulently mix up carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to create well-mixed background which is the same everywhere around the globe”, not least because it knows winds don’t cross hemispheres.., we don’t have “the same well mixed temperature around the globe”…, but knows carbon dioxide is carried in the winds themselves from one place to another, because it knows that winds are volumes of the real fluid gas air on the move created out of differential heating of volumes of air. [We were discussing this here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/05/tastes-great-less-incinerating/ ]

    So, what they are saying at Lampadusa, is that if you want to know where their carbon dioxide comes from you have to look to the source which is the winds carrying it in as they say is clearly shown in the spike of 97/98 El Niño.

    Wiggles are produced by natural variation, as we saw in the winter and summer differences of the US study. If there really was such a critter as the claimed “well-mixed background of carbon dioxide that can be measured anywhere” and “these stations in pristine unpolluted by local production show it”, there wouldn’t be any wiggles. Like the elaborate sciency sounding descriptions of the collection method at Mauna Loa, the seasonal variation wiggles distract from closer scrutiny of that claim.

    The “well-mixed everywhere in the same proportion and accumulating for hundreds and thousands of years” is what got me interested in exploring all this, because their AGW explanations of why it was this were just so bizarre and contrary to the properties and processes of real world gases, and, I was being given this information by a PhD in physics who was teaching about gases at university level..

    This fake fisics has been deliberately introduced into the education system, hence all the confusion in these arguments in the mix of people who still have traditional physics in their field, but may or may not know the basics from another field, arguing with AGW fisics which has completely altered the physical composition of the world around us. Only a week or so ago I came across a high school page which said that ‘real gases are different from the ideal but too complicated at this level so ideal better to explain the principles, and even not necessary at university level’ – the difference in gases used to be taught at junior school level, the first thing taught was they would separate out by weight under gravity, carbon dioxide and methane as heavier and lighter than air given as examples.. That’s how determined the interests which took this over in the 70’s, they began by teaching would be unspecialised teachers of juniors garbled fisics and silly proofs to demonstrate, a bottle of scent opened in the classroom and ink poured into water, and by the time these kids got to be PhD’s teaching at university level they believed without question that carbon dioxide and nitrogen and oxygen were ideal gases and would spontaneously diffuse into the atmosphere under their own molecular momentum to at great speeds miles apart from each other in empty space bouncing of each other in elastic collisions and so thoroughly mixing that it would take a great deal of work to separate them out again, like separating out again ink from the water it had been mixed in with..

  178. Myrrh says:
    May 12, 2013 at 2:59 am

    Myrrh, you are hopeless. One can select the Mauna Loa data in such a way that they only use the highest values when the winds blow from the volcanic vents. That would give you an increase of 4 ppmv over the average. The average trend is an increase of ~2 ppmv per year. Thus after only 3 years the trend is already beyond any selection of volcanic enhanced data. We are currently 70+ ppmv over the measurements of 1959. How can that be reached by data selection?

    And how can the South Pole data be manipulated, where hardly any outliers are found? See:

    Further, I obtained my B.Sc. in chemistry begin 1960’s. I was teached that CO2 was a non-ideal gas. But that doesn’t change the fact that CO2 is well mixed within 2% of full scale in 95% of the atmosphere.
    I have been working in a chlorine factory, once helping to develope a computer model to predict the behaviour of a chlorine leak with wind speed, direction and obstacles in the wind direction. In general, the dilution of such a leak is between the second and third power of the distance, as well in width as in height. Chlorine is 60% heavier than CO2. Despite that, it does mix with air and stays there, once mixed.
    And as said before: in a 70 meter column of stagnant air (in firn), CO2 is enriched with about 1% at the bottom of the column after 40 years time. Thus how could CO2 separate from the atmosphere when winds, convection, turbulence mix everything everywhere during the same 40 years?

  179. Tom J says:
    May 10, 2013 at 12:56 pm

    I find this statement from Scientific American to be sort of, well, weird:

    ‘Regardless, the hourly levels at Mauna Loa will soon drop as spring kicks in across the northern hemisphere, trees budding forth an army of leaves hungrily sucking CO2 out of the sky.’

    Tom
    For an alternative view on the reason for the northern hemisphere summer drop in carbon dioxide see Fred H Haynie‘s 2009 pdf presentation Future of Global Climate Change: Fiction and Facts
    My take on Fred’s conclusion “It’s the Arctic Ocean not the Boreal Tiaga wot dunnit”

  180. Philip Mulholland says:
    May 12, 2013 at 6:41 am

    My take on Fred’s conclusion “It’s the Arctic Ocean not the Boreal Tiaga wot dunnit”

    Except that Fred’s conclusion doesn’t fit with the simultaneous increase in 13C/12C ratio in the NH. That is from the preferential use of 12CO2 by plants leaving relative more 13CO2 in the atmosphere…
    Most of the change BTW is in the mid-latitudes, but the Ferrell cell brings the depleted air masses to near the poles.

  181. Keep always in mind that the human contribution is only about 5% of an enormous natural flux moving in many directions. It is pretty meaningless to argue that this 12C is ours and that 13C is not. How would we know who’s 12C it is? Who cares? It mixes very well and it is obviously increasing. We toss our 5% skewed to 12 into the machine and watch it hum. We measure the result and 12 is increasing. That’s all we know.

  182. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    May 12, 2013 at 5:03 am
    Myrrh says:
    May 12, 2013 at 2:59 am

    Myrrh, you are hopeless. One can select the Mauna Loa data in such a way that they only use the highest values when the winds blow from the volcanic vents. That would give you an increase of 4 ppmv over the average. The average trend is an increase of ~2 ppmv per year. Thus after only 3 years the trend is already beyond any selection of volcanic enhanced data. We are currently 70+ ppmv over the measurements of 1959. How can that be reached by data selection?

    Ferdinand, you are missing my point. I am trying to explain the sleight of hand magician’s trick here, initiated by Keeling and continued as the bank wagon acquired different drivers.

    You are being distracted by the data and the sciency explanations from the claim they make which began with Keeling – “that carbon dioxide is a well-mixed gas in the atmosphere and the pristine background can be measured from anywhere”, and, specifically here, that “Mauna Loa is a pristine site for measuring this as it is uncontaminated by local production because it is high on the mountain top without vegetation around it measuring uncontaminated well-mixed background coming in high above all local contamination”.

    If that were true, they would not have to chuck any of their data out..

    What they are measuring is for the most part local volcanic carbon dioxide, even when they have arbitrarily decided what amount to call volcanic and what amount to call their claimed “uncontaminated background coming in high over Hawaii in the trade wind”, it’s all the same, they cannot separate out local.

    And how can the South Pole data be manipulated, where hardly any outliers are found? See:
    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/co2_mlo_spo_raw_select_2008.jpg

    Sorry Ferdinand, I really don’t have time to go into every example, I have explained the skullduggery involved here and it’s for you to tell me how all these places, how all these places, sing from the same hymn sheet to the extent that they they are so sure that none will examine what they are saying, they even blatantly and cynically give the Keeling Curve graph as if it directly relates to the data gathered at Jubany..

    Further, I obtained my B.Sc. in chemistry begin 1960′s. I was teached that CO2 was a non-ideal gas. But that doesn’t change the fact that CO2 is well mixed within 2% of full scale in 95% of the atmosphere.

    As long as you think that carbon dioxide is “well mixed in the atmosphere”, which you clearly do.., then you will keep missing the points I’m making. Your only ‘proof’ that carbon dioxide is “well-mixed” is the data of the stations, which I have gone to some considerable effort to show is not reliable for a variety of reasons.., and you explain it by some mangled sciency sounding stuff which you have picked up along the way and so are apparently deaf to any explanations I give of the real properties and processes of carbon dioxide, like, its 8-10 DAY residence time in the atmosphere in the Water Cycle, which Water Cycle is non-existant in the AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect, like winds DO NOT CROSS HEMISPHERES, etc.

    That you have decided carbon dioxide is “well mixed in the atmosphere after 40 years” is as unreasonable as the claims made by AGWSF that “carbon dioxide stays well-mixed in atmosphere accumulating for hundreds and even thousands of years because it is an ideal gas.” Carbon dioxide is moving up and moving down in convection and in the winds, when they stop and in the rain.

    I have been working in a chlorine factory, once helping to develope a computer model to predict the behaviour of a chlorine leak with wind speed, direction and obstacles in the wind direction. In general, the dilution of such a leak is between the second and third power of the distance, as well in width as in height. Chlorine is 60% heavier than CO2. Despite that, it does mix with air and stays there, once mixed.

    Hmm, we’ve have excellent reports here on WUWT about the gigo of the computer models used by “climate scientists”..

    Instead here’s an example from real life and traditional physics which has to really understand the properties and processes of chlorine gas:

    http://rense.com/general61/SCtraincrashkills8.htm

    “A team from the National Transportation Safety Board arrived to investigate, and the Federal Railroad Administration said it was sending a 9-member team to assist the safety board investigators.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01

    /07/national/07derail.html

    ProMED-mail
    promed@promedmail.org
    “Chlorine gas is moderately soluble in water. It reacts with the moisture in the respiratory system to result in irritation of the respiratory system, the eyes, the nose, and almost any other mucus membrane. The irritation is prolonged in moist conditions. Chlorine may combine with the water to form hypochlorous and hydrochloric acid, which are intensely irritating.

    “Chlorine gas is greenish-yellow and generally heavier than air, so it stays near the ground; without a wind, or in damp conditions, it is not immediately dissipated.”

    Patricia A. Doyle, PhD

    So, like real carbon dioxide heavier than air will sink and attracted to water in the atmosphere will come down in the rain, not like AGWSF’s imaginary ideal gases without mass and therefore no movement from relative weight because not subject to gravity and with no attraction therefore incapable of joining with water in the atmosphere…

    “And as said before: in a 70 meter column of stagnant air (in firn), CO2 is enriched with about 1% at the bottom of the column after 40 years time. Thus how could CO2 separate from the atmosphere when winds, convection, turbulence mix everything everywhere during the same 40 years?

    I have tried to explain that real gases have volume, weight, attraction and subject to gravity are the winds, winds aren’t something stirring up the atmosphere, but are parts of the atmosphere on the move. Winds are volumes of air on the move created by the differential heating of volumes of air, real gases expand when heated and so become less dense under gravity and so lighter than air they rise creating an area of low pressure, and as they rise they take away heat from the surface of the Earth into the colder heights where they give up their heat. In doing so they become colder and so condense, thus becoming more dense under gravity they create areas of cold high pressure and heavier than air will sink displacing air and flow into areas of low pressure: high because heavier, low because lighter – I’ve only just thought of that, it’s a good way to remember it – the mnemonics from meteorology are “hot air rises, cold air sinks” and “winds flow from high to low”. Now you know why..

    This should make sense if you understand real gases under gravity which have volume and which can expand and condense and do so when heated or cooled, and, because they have mass have weight which means they can separate out from the mass volume of air of our atmosphere even at the same temperature when they are heavier or lighter than air, like carbon dioxide and chlorine heavier than air, more dense under gravity, will sink, and methane and water vapour lighter than air, less dense under gravity, will rise..

    This is what convection means, and winds are convection currents. Volumes of fluid gas on the move. They flow from high to low and from hotter to colder, 2nd law, spontaneously, just like water always flows downhill, it takes work to change that. So, our main winds are created by the intense heating of land and water at the equator, from where they rise and flow to the cold poles, where they cool and sink and flow back to the equator, they do not cross hemispheres but stick to their own. Add in the spin of the Earth for the actual patterns created. See a good meteorological site…

    Winds are also local and It is not always windy… Again Ferdinand, I am looking out of my window and this time there is a breeze, a light breeze and moving not just the tops of the trees I can see in my garden but gently moving the lower branches. When the wind stops whatever carbon dioxide is in that volume will begin sinking because heavier than air, it will come to the ground where the plants are waiting for it.. On a day like this I should light a small bonfire to distribute more carbon dioxide around my garden, as they up the levels in real greenhouses in the real world which works from traditional physics, which knows that visible light converts to chemical energy, sugars, not heat, and designs their lamps for photosynthesis accordingly..

    This is a living dynamic Cycle, the Carbon Life Cycle, which includes the Water Cycle – AGWSF doesn’t have any of this. It can’t get winds or rain from its propertyless, processless, massless, non-existant ideal gas world – it can’t even create an atmosphere, but goes straight from the surface to empty space. So there is no sound in their world.

    This difference has to be understood as these arguments are very much confused by the mix of traditional terms misused. The AGW world is physically impossible, they are climate scientists without any climate.

    I hope you can hear what I’m saying.

  183. Myrrh says:
    May 12, 2013 at 9:30 am

    I give up. I have tried a lot of explanations what happens with CO2 in the atmosphere. But if you don’t accept any data that contradict your believe in conspiracies by every person involved in CO2 measurements, then no further discussion is possible.

    About chlorine:

    Chlorine gas is greenish-yellow and generally heavier than air, so it stays near the ground; without a wind, or in damp conditions, it is not immediately dissipated.

    The main point is at the end: without wind it is not immediately dissipated. If there is wind, it is readily dissipated, including higher in the atmosphere, despite that it is much heavier than air. But even so the concentrations in the immediate vicinity of a huge leak (as is a 30-ton leaking wagon) still may be lethal.
    BTW, the dispersion model was tested with small amounts of chlorine with different wind conditions to test the monitors around the factory, to our satisfaction…

  184. gymnosperm says:
    May 12, 2013 at 8:22 am

    Keep always in mind that the human contribution is only about 5% of an enormous natural flux moving in many directions. It is pretty meaningless to argue that this 12C is ours and that 13C is not. How would we know who’s 12C it is? Who cares? It mixes very well and it is obviously increasing. We toss our 5% skewed to 12 into the machine and watch it hum. We measure the result and 12 is increasing. That’s all we know.

    Not so difficult to know where the extra 12C is coming from: There are no other sources of 13C depleted CO2, except land plants decay. But the oxygen balance shows that land plants are currently more sink than source: the “greening earth”. All other natural sources (oceans, volcanoes, carbonate rock weathering,…) are higher in 13C/12C ratio than the atmosphere.
    But there is a firm decrease of the 13C/12C ratio in the atmosphere and in the oceans surface layer, in lockstep with human emissions:

  185. David Harrington says:
    May 11, 2013 at 6:43 am

    @Jimbo

    Look guys, the more they scream and shout about 400ppm then you reply with 15+ years of temperature standstill. That should get some of them thinking.

    Try that at The Guardian and they simply remove your comment and add you to their pre-moderation list, i.e. ban you from posting.

    I did. I have been banned from the Guardian……..over 8 times. :-(

    I’ glad you also noticed the new banning policy over at the Guardian. CIF is now an echo chamber, I gave up in the end.

  186. Myrrh said: So, what they are saying at Lampadusa, is that if you want to know where their carbon dioxide comes from you have to look to the source which is the winds carrying it in as they say is clearly shown in the spike of 97/98 El Niño….Wiggles are produced by natural variation, as we saw in the winter and summer differences of the US study. If there really was such a critter as the claimed “well-mixed background of carbon dioxide that can be measured anywhere” and “these stations in pristine unpolluted by local production show it”, there wouldn’t be any wiggles. Like the elaborate sciency sounding descriptions of the collection method at Mauna Loa, the seasonal variation wiggles distract from closer scrutiny of that claim.

    Myrh, should the annual plant cycle have no effect then? The problem with your “wouldn’t be any wiggles if well-mixed” theory is doesn’t jive with the evidence. The early spring minimum in the NH coincides with minimum NH vegetation and it doesn’t show up nearly as much in the SH which can’t counteract it having a lot less land. Also the earth’s annual temperature wiggle matches up with the CO2 wiggle since earth is at perihelion (closer to the sun) in the NH winter (SH summer). The closeness to the sun produces a warmer global average temperature which produces a greater amount of CO2 in NH winter / early spring. The Italian study (Lampedusa) concluded that there was a strong correlation between global temperature and CO2 with a 3 month lag.

    So there should be a wiggle from those two overlapping causes. If CO2 is well mixed there should be a matching (by date, not amplitude) wiggle most locations. The match is not perfect so mixing is not either. The origin of the sampled air at Lampedusa caused 4-5 ppm variation according to their text. But that is exceeded by the amplitude of the wiggle (10 ppm) and the amount of the rise. So cherry picking measurements using variations of that amplitude cannot explain the wiggle or the rise.

  187. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    May 12, 2013 at 5:03 am
    Myrrh says:
    May 12, 2013 at 2:59 am

    Myrrh, you are hopeless. One can select the Mauna Loa data in such a way that they only use the highest values when the winds blow from the volcanic vents. That would give you an increase of 4 ppmv over the average. The average trend is an increase of ~2 ppmv per year. Thus after only 3 years the trend is already beyond any selection of volcanic enhanced data. We are currently 70+ ppmv over the measurements of 1959. How can that be reached by data selection?

    Ferdinand have you ever tried looking for the amounts of carbon dioxide coming from the volcanic activity in Hawaii?

    Here: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/activity/methods/gas/plumes.php

    Measuring volcanic gases: emission rates
    of sulfur dioxide and carbon dioxide in volcanic plumes

    See if you can find the data for Carbon Dioxide – I can’t, all links go to SO2 pages or page not available.

    To confusion carbon dioxide is often given in percentage terms, http://www.ivhhn.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=84#Volcanic Examples and Incidents

    “Due to the high levels of CO2 required to cause harm, concentrations of CO2 are often expressed as a percentage of the gas in air by volume (1% = 10,000 ppmv). This is in contrast to other volcanic gases.”

    Bearing that in mind: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

    “Examples of volcanic gas compositions, in volume percent concentrations
    (from Symonds et. al., 1994)

    Volcano
    Kilauea Summit

    Tectonic Style
    Hot Spot

    Temperature
    1170°C

    H20 37.1
    C02 48.9
    S02 11.8

    Half is carbon dioxide, 50×10000=?

    I’ve tried http://www.hawaiiso2network.com/ which appears to give links to CO2..

    I’ve tried http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/webcams/parks/havoso2alert/havoaddlinfo.cfm#VolGas

    And I’ve tried others. Please would you find me actual figures for carbon dioxide from all the volcanic activity on Hawaii, this has been monitored for a great number of years, it should be somewhere and you may have access to or know of accurate sources for this information. I just don’t find your 4ppm credible..

    p.s. the IPPC change you requested, I’ve got bookmarked Monckton/Santer here: http://larouchepac.com/node/12823

    Sorry, haven’t had time to get you the actual changes, I’ll have a look for it today.

  188. eric1skeptic says:
    May 12, 2013 at 7:41 pm

    My point is that the claim specifically says that carbon dioxide is rapidly and thoroughly mixed and can’t be unmixed and this is the same all over the globe and this background measurement is what is being measured and it is free of any local/seasonal variations because it mixes rapidly and thorougly. The claim is that high on top of the world’s largest active volcano surrounded by tons of volcanic activity from many nearby volcanoes also erupting, venting, earthquaking, above and below sea which is warm, and hot land so hot gases rise, there is no way that Mauna Loa is not measuring this coming down from its so call “pristine high above it all” station, and calling it non-volcanic is sleight of hand.

  189. sorry – but the 400ppm line does not seem to have been crossed yet , according to the official data of the Keeling Scripps and also NOAA
    – I’ve been following the official tweets from Keeling
    399.73 Thu 9th, 399.40 Fri 10th, 399.46 Sat 11th
    On The 10th th- The BBC quoted the NOAA as above 400 on Thursday which uses the same instruments but something like a different time zone so it’s 24 hours don’t match up with the Keelings
    – yet when I check the NOAA websites stats never went above 400 either !
    Last 5 days of daily average CO2
    May 11 – 399.46 May 10 – 399.28 May 09 – 399.89 May 08 – 399.42 May 07 – 399.59
    – I got there from this tweet
    NOAA Research ‏@NOAAResearch 10 May
    Here’s your daily update from @NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory. May 9 average was 400.03 ppm. http://go.usa.gov/TwNP #climate
    – The tweet says the daily reading was above 400
    so can someone explain why their own website shows the 400ppm line for daily readings has not been crossed.

    BTW I see Weatheraction are arguing it’s all a load of garbage anyway cos there have often been spurts over 400ppm, but this doesn’t show up in the ice core record due to an averaging effect as CO2 spreads across the ice core samples over time. http://twitpic.com/cq8agr/full

  190. Ferdinand – re IPCC 1995 report, some here:

    http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Social/IPCC-Santer.htm

    “Santer also deleted these key statements from the expert-approved chapter 8 draft:

    “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
    “While some of the pattern-base studies discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed] to [man-made] causes. Nor has any study quantified the magnitude of a greenhouse gas effect or aerosol effect in the observed data – an issue of primary relevance to policy makers.”
    “Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”
    “While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification.”
    “When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, `We do not know. “‘
    Santer single-handedly reversed the “climate science” of the whole IPCC report–and with it the global warming political process. The “discernible human influence” supposedly revealed by the IPCC has been cited thousands of times since in media around the world and has been the “stopper” in millions of debates among nonscientists.”

    &

    http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Social/IPCC-95-Ch8.htm

    “Section 8.3.3.3

    deleted: “While such studies help to build confidence in the reliability of the model variability on interannual to decadal time scales, there are still serious concerns about the longer time scale variability, which is more difficult to validate (Barnett et al., 1995). Unless paleoclimatic data can help us to ‘constrain’ the century time scale natural variability estimates obtained from CGCMs, it will be difficult to make a convincing case for the detection and attribution of an anthropogenic climate change signal.”

    Section 8.4.1

    deleted : “While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution-related conclusions, for which there is little justification.””

    Ferdinand, there is no manmade discernible, not even considered in any studies..

    —————————

    stewgreen says:
    May 13, 2013 at 1:46 am

    Someone else who understands what arbitrarily means..: http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/01/12/ice-core-bubbles-and-carbon-dioxide/

    “After the bubbles are encased in solid ice, it was assumed that the relative amount of gases in the bubble could not change, but that is an unwarranted assumption. It has been shown that super-cooled water exists in the bubbles even at very low temperatures. This super-cooled water preferentially dissolves carbon dioxide compared to nitrogen, oxygen, and argon, leaving the gas component depleted in carbon dioxide. Also, at high pressure and low temperature, carbon dioxide is further sequestered in gas hydrates. The very act of drilling to collect ice cores decompresses the ice, and some of the gas hydrates decompose allowing carbon dioxide to escape into the drilling fluid thereby giving uncertain readings. For instance, Neftel et al. (1982) found gas bubbles with carbon dioxide ranging from 237ppmv to 436ppmv from a Greenland core and values of 257ppmv to 417ppmv from an Antarctica core. (They arbitrarily choose the lower values to represent the “true” reading.)”

    This area is full of cherry picking, and hidden data..

  191. Myrrh says:
    May 13, 2013 at 1:12 am

    As I expected already, your quote of the IPCC was about the influence of humans on climate change, adn have nothing to do with the influence of humans on the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere:

    Ben Santer… …admitted last night on Jesse Ventura’s Conspiracy Theory national TV show, that he had deleted sections of the IPCC chapter which stated that humans were not responsible for climate change.

    About volcanic gases: if CO2 reaches the station at Mauna Loa, it gives a lot more variability within an hour than where there is “background” (trade winds) air reaching the stations. If there is a volcanic component, that is also measured as elevated SO2 (and other tracers). These figures, together with wind speed, direction and distance were used to calculate the CO2 emissions from the different upslope volcanic vents. Indeed by a diffusion model, but validated by local measurements at the vents themselves. I don’t find back the study involved, but here some background:

    http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/programs/esrl/volcanicco2/volcanicco2.html

    The following criteria are used at MLO for detection of CO2 from volcanic vents:
    Criteria: CO2 SD 1.0 ppm; wind direction sector 135°-225°; wind speed 1.35 m s-1.
    In 1994 there were 24 hours influenced by volcanic vents, in 1995, 9 hours.

    http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/websites/www.cmdl.noaa.gov/publications/annrpt23/chapter1_1.htm

  192. Myrrh said “this background measurement is what is being measured and it is free of any local/seasonal variations because it mixes rapidly and thorougly”

    The claim is that mixing spreads the seasonal wiggle from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere. In the NH the measured wiggle is 10ppm or more. In Antarctica the measured wiggle is only a few ppm. Obviously mixing is not that thorough, but it is rapid enough to see the same wiggle without lag.

    The specific claim which you seem to be refuting is that the wiggle is a worldwide result of the northern hemisphere’s vegetative cycle. That there really is a measured worldwide wiggle and that it is a result of vegetative growth and dieback. Another contributing factor is perihelion in January of each year which raises the global average temperature (a degree or two C IIRC) and that helps create the peak in April (there are a few months of lag).

    Myrrh said “The claim is that high on top of the world’s largest active volcano surrounded by tons of volcanic activity from many nearby volcanoes also erupting, venting, …”

    The claim is that the same rise and wiggle is measured worldwide. Above you said, re Lampedusa measurements: “That does not mean that the team at Lampadusa, or Jubany, are producing anything but accurate measurements of what they are finding.” and “So, I am not questioning the accuracy of the Lampadusa team’s measurements, but looking at what they have found.” Then you suggest that they are measuring variations in unmixed CO2 that blow in on the wind.

    My question is why would those variations which blow in on random winds all show a diurnal cycle with some variability and all show an annual cycle with very little variability? Why would the annual cycle peak worldwide every April? How could random wind-driven CO2 cause those same observations to be repeated worldwide?

  193. stewgreen says:
    May 13, 2013 at 1:46 am

    BTW I see Weatheraction are arguing it’s all a load of garbage anyway cos there have often been spurts over 400ppm, but this doesn’t show up in the ice core record due to an averaging effect as CO2 spreads across the ice core samples over time. http://twitpic.com/cq8agr/full

    Indeed, the 400 ppmv is a load of garbage, not more interesting than the 10,000th visitor on a exposition… But the ice core samples are better than you think, at least over the past 150 years, a few of them have a resolution (smoothing) of less than a decade. The smoothing is not in the ice after closing the bubbels (there is some minor extra smoothing in “warm”, coastal ice cores, but that is negligible), but when the firn still has open pores with the atmosphere. That ranges from 8 years (Law Dome) to 560 years (Dome C), depending of snow accumulation rate.

    Further, Weatheraction refers to the late Beck’s data, which were taken at completely unreliable sites (middle of growing plants, towns,…) for CO2 levels. Not the best reference:

    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html

    • -Thanks @Ferdinand Engelbeen strange how things tie together I have just a few minutes ago and yesterday been reading your reactions to Salby and to his study still not being published due to “conspiracy” (pity they didn’t put the new Frankfurt video up yet) .
      – “ice core samples are better than you think” ..I don’t think anything yet ..I try to keep an open mind until the end of the game. But weather action cite that spikes have crossed the 400 limit inside the last 250 years and many times before.

      – PLEASE some one tell me I am idiot for understanding why the Twitter feeds of the 2 official Moana measurers have still not given any days for the a readings over 400ppm

  194. Myrrh says:
    May 13, 2013 at 4:40 am

    Someone else who understands what arbitrarily means..: http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/01/12/ice-core-bubbles-and-carbon-dioxide/

    Sorry, but that story is mostly based on the very unreliable thoughts of the late Jaworowski. I had some direct correspondence with him about the reliability of ice cores. Main points: he insists that CO2 levels can migrate from lower to higher levels and that the average age of the enclosed air bubbles is the same as from the surrounding ice. That closed the door for me.

    What he didn’t mention is that the Greenland ice cores are unreliable for CO2 measurements, because of frequent deposits of highly acidic dust from Icelandic volcanoes, which react with the often present carbonate deposits from the oceans in the ice. What he also forgets to mention is that Neftel showed that there was very much variation in CO2 levels where contamination of the ice with drilling fluid was found. The high levels found had nothing to do with the real values in the ice bubbles.

    Further, as Jaworowski’s knowledge seems to have ended in 1992, he obviously didn’t read the 1996 work of Etheridge e.a. on three ice cores at Law Dome with three different drilling techniques (no difference in values). Neither any of the new techniques used to measure CO2: complete sublimation of the ice under vacuum and cryogenic separation of all components. That effectively destroys any clathrates and makes that water is of no hide for CO2.
    See further:

    http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html

  195. eric1skeptic says:
    May 13, 2013 at 6:05 am
    Myrrh said “this background measurement is what is being measured and it is free of any local/seasonal variations because it mixes rapidly and thorougly”

    The claim is that mixing spreads the seasonal wiggle from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere. In the NH the measured wiggle is 10ppm or more. In Antarctica the measured wiggle is only a few ppm. Obviously mixing is not that thorough, but it is rapid enough to see the same wiggle without lag.

    And just how does it spread from the northern hemisphere to the sourthern?

  196. Stewgreen, the official Mauna Loa measurements page doesn’t show 400 http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ and doesn’t look like it will make it this year. Anything else is just hype. The number 400 is also hype since people who use the decimal system and don’t understand it think there is something special about a number like that. Also the media needed something to hype since we have had a lull in warming for a decade or more.

  197. DJ says:
    May 10, 2013 at 12:40 pm

    …Can’t type……. …. turning blue…….. Plants taking over computer now……. barely hanging on….. …. love you guys…….
    —————————————————————–
    Thanks for the laugh there DJ – that was FAF.

  198. http://researchmatters.noaa.gov/news/Pages/CarbonDioxideatMaunaLoareaches400ppm.aspx

    “Once emitted, CO2 added to the atmosphere and oceans remains for thousands of years. Thus, climate changes forced by CO2 depend primarily on cumulative emissions, making it progressively more and more difficult to avoid further substantial climate change.”

    Every time it rains all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is washed out and comes to the surface.

    Water has a residence time in the atmosphere of 8-10 days.

    The AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect Illusion does not have the Water Cycle.

    It has taken rain out of the Carbon Cycle.

    This is a continuous cycle.

    Carbon dioxide is being continually washed out of the atmosphere.

    http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

    “Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the “greenhouse effect”1 — warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.

    “Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as “forcing” climate change whereas gases, such as water, which respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are seen as “feedbacks.””

    Nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide do respond physically to changes in temperature. They expand when heated and condense when cooled.

    That is the nature of gases.

    That’s how we get our winds, convection in a fluid creating convection currents as hot gases rise and cold gases sink. Winds are volumes of atmosphere on the move, they do not cross hemisphere, but stay in their own.

    http://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/physics-terms/expansion-info.htm

    “Steam engines and turbines, rockets, and internal combustion engines are powered by the expansion of gases. Bread rises in baking because heat expands the carbon dioxide gas it contains.”

    When a volume of gas is heated it expands, it becomes less dense, lighter under gravity and so lighter than air it will rise. When it loses its heat it condenses, it becomes more dense, heavier under gravity and so will sink.

    Nitrogen, oxygen and carbon dioxide are therefore “feedbacks”, not “forcers” according to this explanation.

    So what’s doing the forcing?

  199. Ferdinand,

    I disagree. There is enormous 13C depleted production in the oceans from SAR11 and other respiring critters. It may be almost immediately consumed by cyanobacteria in what I have called the nano carbon cycle because pelagic photosynthesis is also carbon limited, but who really knows?

  200. gymnosperm says:
    May 13, 2013 at 8:06 pm

    I disagree. There is enormous 13C depleted production in the oceans from SAR11 and other respiring critters. It may be almost immediately consumed by cyanobacteria in what I have called the nano carbon cycle because pelagic photosynthesis is also carbon limited, but who really knows?

    The d13C level of the deep oceans is between 0 and 1 per mil. The d13C level of the ocean surface is between 1 and 5 per mil, thanks to all biolife that preferentially uses 12C, which in part falls out of the surface into the deep oceans. The atmosphere was at -6.4 per mil but dropped over the industrial age to -8 per mil. Even taking into account the change in 13C/12C ratio at the water-air border and back, any substantial emissions from the oceans should increase the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio, not decrease… See:

  201. Myrrh says:
    May 13, 2013 at 2:29 pm

    Every time it rains all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is washed out and comes to the surface.

    Solubility of CO2 in fresh water is very low. So that is a bold, unsubstantiated statement.
    Further: many rain clouds are below a few thousands meters, but stations like Mauna Loa and near surface at Hawaii show similar CO2 levels, even if Mauna Loa is mostly above the clouds…

  202. eric1skeptic says:
    May 13, 2013 at 4:59 pm
    Myrrh asked “And just how does it spread from the northern hemisphere to the sourthern?”

    Something along these lines: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(1997)054%3C2045%3AIEBSMO%3E2.0.CO%3B2 Basically the winter Hadley cell crosses the equator and mixes air with the opposite hemisphere. It takes a while to mix. So the southern hemisphere wiggle is very subdued and may come mostly from perihelion.

    But Hadley cells are part and parcel of the real world of why the winds don’t cross hemispheres –

    http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/hadley_cell.html

    The flow of volumes of air is from the equator to the poles and back again to the poles, keeping to their own hemispheres. If there was no Earth’s spin this flow would simply be to the poles and back again. Volumes of the fluid gases air which are our atmosphere are heated intensely at the equator and expand becoming less dense therefore lighter under gravity, creating areas of low pressure, and so rise, and flow to the poles. [Heat always flows from hotter to colder spontaneously as water always flows spontaneously downhill; in the 2nd Law spontaneously is implicit, it takes work to change that. AGWScienceFictiion has added the word “net” to the 2nd Law changing its meaning.] The great difference between the hot equator and the cold of the poles makes the heat flow faster. Some on heat flow here: http://www.ftexploring.com/energy/heatflow.htm

    This is heat transfer by convection the method of heat transfer in real gas fluids, compare with heat transfer in solids by conduction and and heat trasfer by radiation not requiring a medium. Our real gas atmosphere is a fluid, gases and liquids are fluids, a heavy ocean of gas air of mainly nitrogen and oxygen weighting 14lb/sq inch, pressing down a ton on your shoulders. Real gases move in that relative to their own weight (carbon dioxide heavier will sink, methane and water vapour will rise) and that changes when heated or cooled as they expand or condense. When the hot lighter volumes of air reach the poles their heat is grabbed by the cold and they lose their heat becoming more dense, now heavier under gravity these cold high pressure volumes sink and flow back to the poles to begin the cycle again.

    Add in the spin of the Earth, the Coriolis effect, to get the patterns of our trade winds, and they do not cross hemispheres. These are powerful winds created by the great heat differential between the poles and the equator. There is insignificant mixing at the equator against this.
    So, as with Mauna Loa, we have to go back to the original claim which is “rapid diffusion of gases in the atmosphere”, so “it takes a while to mix” and “forty years wind turbulence” doesn’t cut it..

    The “rapid diffusion” is based on their claim that these are “ideal” gases not “real” gases. Ideal gases began as an imaginary construct which stripped them of all properties and processes of real gas. Ideal gas are hard dots of nothing, they have no mass on which gravity can act, no volume which Van de Waals pointed out would be useless in calculations. Ideal gases without mass have no attraction but bounce off each other at great speeds travelling under their own molecular momentum miles apart from each other in empty space without the volume of other gases to impede them. They are entirely an artificial construct, imaginary, and are useful in calculation only when when volume and the rest is put back in. No real gas obeys ideal gas “law”. The ideal gas “law” is an imaginary construct like “average”.

    What AGWScienceFiction has done is create an imaginary world from an imaginary ideal gas scenario, brainwashing, there isn’t any other world for it, through the general education system that these are actually real gases and this is how real gases behave. You’ll hear the AGWSF meme in “pressure” arguments, that “gases bounce of the wall of the container”, this comes from explanations of ideal gas behaviour in beginning real world calculations by real scientists who know the difference between real and ideal in their use of the concept “container, but, AGW “warmists” don’t know the difference and don’t know they have no volume to put back in again, so they think this “container” is real. They think this is their imaginary invisible “container” which “like the glass of a greenhouse prevents the radiant heat flow from the Sun from entering at TOA – no longwave infrared from the Sun can enter – and against which from the inside their imaginary massless ideal gases bounce off so creating their “lapse” rates, or whatever convoluted argument they’re having throwing in lots of complicated mathematical equations for their “columns of air”.

    So, they don’t have an atmosphere, they go straight from the surface into the empty space of their ideal gas scenario, substuting an imaginary invisible “container” keeping their ideal gases from flying off into outer space as they rapidly diffuse at great speeds under their own molecular momentum urestrained by the real container, the volumes of real gas air under gravity which constrains the movement of real gas molecules…

    They don’t even know they have no sound in their world because they have taken out all the properties and processes of real gas substituting empty space, they have no volume of gas through which sound can travel. Here’s a good description of how sound travels through the medium of a volume of gas in the real world, teaching real applied scientists who need to make things that work: http://www.mediacollege.com/audio/01/sound-waves.html

    “How Sound Waves Work

    Note that air molecules do not actually travel from the loudspeaker to the ear (that would be wind). Each individual molecule only moves a small distance as it vibrates, but it causes the adjacent molecules to vibrate in a rippling effect all the way to the ear.”

    No “ideal gas diffusing into the atmosmophere of empty space at great speeds under their own molecular momentum miles apart from each other” there…

    So they have no Water Cycle because their gases aren’t bouyant in air, because they have no air for gravity to work on which gives mass weight; no rain in their Carbon Life Cycle because no attraction in their ideal gases; no winds, no weather, no sound, no heat transfer by convection no anything because they have excised the whole real gas atmosphere completely, all of it, from their AGWGreenhouse Effect Illusion.

    So, they have no winds in the fictional ideal gas empty space atmosphere they have around their fanatasy world where their ideal gases diffuse rapidly all around their “Earth” bouncing of each other and their imaginary invisible container at great speeds, therefore, you can’t use real gas winds to argue “well-mixed by turbulence or creeping over a bit at the time” and “southern hemisphere net sink for carbon dioxide produced in the northern hemisphere”, not only because the real rapid winds don’t cross hemispheres and the creeping over at the equator isn’t rapid, but also because the real gas carbon dioxide is heavier than air and it’s not always windsy so it is always sinking to the surface and does not readily rise up into the atmosphere, because, it is heavier than air under gravity, and, because real carbon dioxide has attraction as a real gas and not the imaginary ideal of AGWSF so it is being continually washed out of the atmsophere as rain which is carbonic acid, all rain is carbonic acid, so, there is no hundreds and thousands of years available for it to “accumulate in the atmosphere and become well-mixed”.

    Have I covered all the AGWSF fake fisics memes relevant to this?

  203. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    May 13, 2013 at 11:58 pm
    Myrrh says:
    May 13, 2013 at 2:29 pm

    Every time it rains all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is washed out and comes to the surface.

    Solubility of CO2 in fresh water is very low. So that is a bold, unsubstantiated statement.

    In the real world all natural unpolluted rain is carbonic acid, which is a pH or around 5.6 . Water and carbon dioxide are greatly attracted to each other and hate to be separated, carbonic acid isn’t another name for carbon dioxide..

    This is not “acid rain” in traditional science which means by this extra acidity: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/acidrain/2.html

    “What is acid rain?
    The term “acid rain” is commonly used to mean the deposition of acidic components in rain, snow, fog, dew, or dry particles. The more accurate term is “acid precipitation.” Distilled water, which contains no carbon dioxide, has a neutral pH of 7. Liquids with a pH less than 7 are acid, and those with a pH greater than 7 are alkaline (or basic). “Clean” or unpolluted rain has a slightly acidic pH of 5.6, because carbon dioxide and water in the air react together to form carbonic acid, a weak acid. Around Washington, D.C., however, the average rain pH is between 4.2 and 4.4.
    The extra acidity in rain comes from the reaction of air pollutants, primarily sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, with water in the air to form strong acids (like sulfuric and nitric acid). The main sources of these pollutants are vehicles and industrial and power-generating plants. In Washington, the main local sources are cars, trucks, and buses.”

    “Clean” or unpolluted rain has a slightly acidic pH of 5.6, because carbon dioxide and water in the air react together to form carbonic acid, a weak acid.

    See also: http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/GG/ASK/rain-creek-pH.html – as we’re in the area..

    AGWScienceFiction has taken rain out of the Carbon Cycle (otherwise it would have to explain why it doesn’t have a Water Cycle, without which the Earth’s temperature would be 67°C, and couldn’t claim that carbon dioxide accumulates, etc.), it has replaced the real world dynamic cycle of water which has a residence time of 8-10 days in the atmosphere with its fictional fisics meme of “sinks”. It cannot account how the exchanges between sinks happen because its fisics has taken out the natural properties and processes of matter and energy, so for example, see the last link, we know that rocks are weathered by carbonic acid in the rain, wearing down mountains over geologic time, AGWSF has to exclude it in the atmosphere, has to avoid mentioning it. This is not easy to see if one doesn’t know this, but if one does one can then see how this is avoided in descriptions – hence my mnemonic, “they don’t have any rain in their carbon cycle..

    Here’s an example at university level, a well written piece fully compliant with AGWSF fake fisics..: http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/carbon.htm

    As you were taught the difference between real and ideal you will probably find these tweaks in the piece easier to spot than some others for whom the differences are completely new to them. These are very clever and subtle changes to real physics, using real physics terms but assigning different meanings to them, making up their own terms , changing and taking laws out of context and so on besides the ones I’ve mentioned in my last post to erik1sceptic..

    Most of the confusion in these arguments comes from AGW/CAGWs with their own subtle variations thinking they are each arguming real physics but brought up on AGWSF doctrine, (CAGWs, I was told disparagingly, where the ones claiming there was an invisible barrier like the glass of a greenhouse stopping the longwave infrared from the Sun at TOA, while AGWs with their superior planckian understanding of ‘physics’ claimed the Sun produced insignificant amounts of longwave infrared – as this in the real world longwave infrared is the Sun’s thermal energy in transfer by radiation, thermal infrared, this means that neither group have any direct heat from the Sun. Neither group understands this because they both think visible light from the Sun heats matter, raises the temperature of matter by moving the whole molecule into vibration, which is impossible in traditional physics which knows visible light from the Sun works on the electronic transitional level and not the molecular vibrational of radiant heat, longwave infrared, aka thermal infrared to distinguish it from non-thermal shortwave infrared which isn’t hot and is classed in with Light as Reflective not Thermal.), interacting with some from traditional science which they know well from their own field, but may or may not know the basic traditional physics of other fields, and so will sometimes take AGWSF memes for granted because they have no reason to question them. You have to bear in mind here that this clever manipulation of physics was introduced into the general education system to promote the concept of AGW, it spread rapidly because the emotional energy of the greenie environmentalists which kick started this with Callendar/Ravelle/Keeling became endorsed by political clout. So Gore and the IPCC got nobbled Nobel prizes and the Hansens and the Manns got honoured by great science institutions of meteorology and geophysics – isn’t Landewsky (sp?) now working for the Met?

    Anyway, this isn’t a simple argument about science, it’s horribly complicated by deliberate abuse of science for various reasons and this begins with changing the actual basics on which our understanding of the natural world around is built. All basics have to be re-considered however we acquired them, from general education or from picking them up because they are “well-known”; if we leave the desert before sorting this out traditional science which knows how things work will be lost to the majority.

    Further: many rain clouds are below a few thousands meters, but stations like Mauna Loa and near surface at Hawaii show similar CO2 levels, even if Mauna Loa is mostly above the clouds…

    ..because they’re measuring the same volvcanic carbon dioxide?

    The claim is that this a pristine site for measuring “well mixed background levels” –

    http://www.npr.org/2013/05/13/182654937/atop-a-hawaiian-mountain-a-constant-sniff-for-carbon-dioxide

    “Climate scientists have a good reason to want to get away from it all. To get an accurate picture of the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere, you have to find places where the numbers won’t be distorted by cities or factories or even lots of vegetation that can have a major local impact on CO2 concentrations.”

    Hmm.., it continues:

    “Starting in 1958, scientists from the Scripps Institution for Oceanography have been using an instrument on the top of the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii to measure CO2 in the atmosphere. Aiden Colton, an atmospheric scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, says NOAA now maintains the Scripps Institution’s CO2 analyzer, as well as one of its own.
    “”We sample 24 hours a day on most of our instrumentation,” says Colton. “But what we’re most interested in is the extremely clean air coming down from the troposphere that’s been well-mixed traveling over 2,000 miles in every direction to get here.” The troposphere is where the bulk of Earth’s atmosphere resides. It’s the buildup of carbon dioxide in the troposphere that has climate scientists concerned.
    “The air Colton analyzes comes from intake ports at the top of the 120-foot tower. Taking air from the top of the tower helps ensure it won’t be contaminated with outgassing from the volcano.”

    That is the basic meme, the AGW poster pristine site well away from vegetation and volcanic activity from its vantage high up far and away from the trade winds below creating an inversion layer keeping sampling uncontaminated to get only the globally “well-mixed background” (take your pick, mixed up by winds from all directions or rapidly diffusing at great speeds into the atmosphere as per ideal gas), here it’s turbulent winds).

    And, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.html
    “Because of the favorable site location, continuous monitoring, and careful selection and scrutiny of the data, the Mauna Loa record is considered to be a precise record and a reliable indicator of the regional trend in the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 in the middle layers of the troposphere.

    “The Mauna Loa site is considered one of the most favorable locations for measuring undisturbed air because possible local influences of vegetation or human activities on atmospheric CO2 concentrations are minimal and any influences from volcanic vents may be excluded from the records. The methods and equipment used to obtain these measurements have remained essentially unchanged during the 51-year monitoring program.”

    Meanwhile:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Measuring-CO2-levels-from-the-volcano-at-Mauna-Loa.html

    “The observatory near the summit of the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii has been recording the amount of carbon dioxide in the air since 1958. This is the longest continuous record of direct measurements of CO2 and it shows a steadily increasing trend from year to year; combined with a saw-tooth effect that is caused by changes in the rate of plant growth through the seasons. This curve is commonly known as the Keeling Curve, named after Charles Keeling, the American scientist who started the project.”

    So there shouldn’t be any seasonal spikes from vegetation and they shouldn’t need to take out any volcanic activity from their poster child pristine site high above it all sampling only the the mythical “well-mixed background”.

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

    “In 1957 Dave Keeling, who was the first to make accurate measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, chose the site high up on the slopes of the Mauna Loa volcano because he wanted to measure CO2 in air masses that would be representative of much of the Northern Hemisphere, and, hopefully, the globe. That goal has not changed. We still want to eliminate the influence of CO2 absorbed or emitted locally by plants and soils, or emitted locally by human activities. Dave Keeling also introduced the principle of a rigorous calibration strategy that we still employ today.

    “The observatory is surrounded by many miles of bare lava, without any vegetation or soil. This provides an opportunity to measure “background” air, also called “baseline” air, which we define as having a CO2 mole fraction representative of an upwind fetch of hundreds of km. Nearby emission or removal of CO2 typically produces sharp fluctuations, in space and time, in mole fraction. These fluctuations get smoothed out with time and distance through turbulent mixing and wind shear. etc. etc.”

    So, now it’s changed from “Keeling said the could measure the well mixed back ground from anywhere in the world .. But they don’t get baseline, or they wouldn’t be getting seasonal spikes.

    Do you see the problems with this? I hope I’m explaining it well enough, the basic claim is that this is “global background well mixed uncontaminated by local sources” yet they have seasonal veggie spikes and spend a huge amount of time deciding which is volcanic and which not. It is contaminated it is not a pristine site, it is not capable of measuring what they say it is measuring. I’m with ann v here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/04/under-the-volcano-over-the-volcano/#comment-403525

    Global temperatures are not well-mixed… we wouldn’t be spending small fortunes getting to holiday spots basking in the heat from the Sun..

  204. Myrrh says:
    May 14, 2013 at 8:22 am

    In the real world all natural unpolluted rain is carbonic acid, which is a pH or around 5.6 .

    Sorry Myrrh, you only demonstrate that you have not the slightest knowledge of the chemistry of CO2 in water. CO2 dissolved in water/rain forms carbonic acid, but rain is not carbonic acid, it is 99.7% water with some 0.33% CO2 at near freezing point, even less at higher temperatures. See:

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html

    Of the 0.33% total CO2, there is a little free CO2, a little H2CO3 (carbonic acid), more HCO3- (bicarbonate ions) and some CO3– (carbonate ions). Of all CO2 forms present in rain, less than 1% is CO2 + H2CO3, 90% is bicarbonate and 9% is carbonate. Thus carbonic acid is maximum 0.0033% in rain. Even so, the pH of this mixture is slightly acidic, because the dissolution of H2CO3 into bicarbonates and carbonates increases the H+ concentration.

    So there shouldn’t be any seasonal spikes from vegetation and they shouldn’t need to take out any volcanic activity from their poster child pristine site high above it all sampling only the the mythical “well-mixed background”.

    Now you are talking nonsens: there were 24 hours excluded from the averages influenced by the volcano in 1994. On a total of 8400 measured hours (one hour per day is used for calibration). That is 0.3% of the measurements. Is that the big deal?

    As Mauna Loa measures (semi) global changes in CO2, that includes the huge changes (some 30 ppmv over the seasons) in the NH vegetation over the seasons. Be it that these are partly compensated by the simultaneous changes in CO2 from/to the oceans in opposite direction. The net result is about +/- 8 ppmv over the seasons at Mauna Loa and a much smaller change in the SH, because the SH has far less land vegetation.

    The point is that these are (semi) global changes which must be and are included, because they are part of the (semi) global CO2 levels. Local disturbances like CO2 changes which may occur by upwind conditions from the vegetated valley must be excluded, as these are only of local interest.

  205. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    May 14, 2013 at 10:01 am
    Myrrh says:
    May 14, 2013 at 8:22 am

    “In the real world all natural unpolluted rain is carbonic acid, which is a pH or around 5.6 .”

    Sorry Myrrh, you only demonstrate that you have not the slightest knowledge of the chemistry of CO2 in water. CO2 dissolved in water/rain forms carbonic acid, but rain is not carbonic acid, it is 99.7% water with some 0.33% CO2 at near freezing point, even less at higher temperatures. See:

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html

    Of the 0.33% total CO2, there is a little free CO2, a little H2CO3 (carbonic acid), more HCO3- (bicarbonate ions) and some CO3– (carbonate ions). Of all CO2 forms present in rain, less than 1% is CO2 + H2CO3, 90% is bicarbonate and 9% is carbonate. Thus carbonic acid is maximum 0.0033% in rain. Even so, the pH of this mixture is slightly acidic, because the dissolution of H2CO3 into bicarbonates and carbonates increases the H+ concentration.

    Ferdinand, I can’t work out where you’re getting this, your link doesn’t say anything about it. Rain is acidic from the carbon dioxide dissolved in it, it has a pH or around 5.6-5.8. Bicarbonate is alkaline.. The abilility to give up an H is what makes it an acid.

    I wonder if you’re getting your figures from carbon dioxide in the blood? Carbon dioxide in the body is essential to our health, we produce our own because we need around 6.5% of every lungful of air to be carbon dioxide for the transport of oxygen – hyperventilation isn’t the body not getting enough air, oxygen, but the body desperately trying to conserve carbon dioxide, iirc, 4.5% is the critical level, below that we’re dead. The quickest way to stop hyperventilating is to breathe back one’s own carbon dioxide, paper bag, cupped hands; large doses of carbon dioxoide given to asthma patients. Good page on some of the benefits of carbon dioxide here: http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/11Phl/Sci/CO2&Health.html

    Anyway, Carbon dioxide is also essential in regulating our blood pH – which is where the bicarb comes in. I’ve had a look to see if I could find something more specific, there’s this: http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-carbonic-acid.htm

    “Carbonic acid plays an important role in keeping the body’s pH stable. The normal pH of bodily fluids is around 7.4 and must be kept close to this value in order for the body to function properly. If the pH changes, whether up or down, enzymes can stop functioning, muscles and nerves can start weakening, and metabolic activities becomes impaired. The bicarbonate ion released from carbonic acid serves as a buffer that helps resist changes in pH. This means it can act as an acid or a base as the need arises.

    “Acids are defined as any substance that releases hydrogen ions into solutions. Bases are substances that accept those hydrogen ions. When excess hydrogen ions build up in the body — i.e. the fluids become more acidic — then bicarbonate ions accepts those extra hydrogen ions and keeps the body’s pH at a normal level. In the inverse, if the hydrogen ion levels drop too much — i.e. the fluids become too alkaline — then carbonic acid gives up hydrogen ions in order to keep the blood’s pH normal. This process is also seen during the transport of oxygen and carbon dioxide.”

    The levels are critical in a body and this is when H disassociates. Our bicarb levels are important, this can be upset if we lose too much sweat, see the note about this re marathon runners where again the body tries to keep the balance. I’ve found something else on; this, but just to remind you, from the last link:

    “Carbonic acid even appears as a normal occurrence in rain. As rainwater falls through the air, it absorbs carbon dioxide, producing carbonic acid. Thus, when it reaches the ground, it has a pH of about 5.5. This should not be confused with acid rain which is caused when emissions, such as sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, from burning fossil fuels rises to the air. As it falls, rain absorbs these components, producing acids which can make the pH in rain fall to as little as two.”

    The rain that falls is acidic from absorbing the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, this is from a neutral level of 7 – each number down is ten times more acidic than the last.

    http://www.chemistry.wustl.edu/~edudev/LabTutorials/Water/FreshWater/acidrain.html

    “Natural Acidity of Rainwater
    Pure water has a pH of 7.0 (neutral); however, natural, unpolluted rainwater actually has a pH of about 5.6 (acidic).[Recall from Experiment 1 that pH is a measure of the hydrogen ion (H+) concentration.] The acidity of rainwater comes from the natural presence of three substances (CO2, NO, and SO2) found in the troposphere (the lowest layer of the atmosphere). As is seen in Table I, carbon dioxide (CO2) is present in the greatest concentration and therefore contributes the most to the natural acidity of rainwater.

    Carbon dioxide
    CO2 : 355 ppm
    Nitric oxide
    NO : 0.01 ppm
    Sulfur dioxide
    SO2 : 0-0.01 ppm

    http://web.mnstate.edu/provost/Chem400_4.pdf

    “Biological buffering of blood
    There are three major contributors to regulating the pH of blood. Bicarbonate,
    phosphate and proteins
    Blood pH Must be Kept Close to 7.4
    – Hydrogen ion is extremely reactive and effects many molecules
    which regulate physiological processes
    – Blood pH is set at a slightly alkaline level of 7.4 (pH 7.0 is neutral
    – A change of pH of 0.2 units in either direction is considered serious
    – Blood pHs below 6.9 or above 7.9 are usually fatal if they last for more
    than a short time
    § The bicarbonate system is the most important and is controlled by the
    rate of respiration
    – Carbon dioxide in water reacts to form carbonic acid
    CO2 (g) CO2 (aq) + H2O -> H2CO3
    Carbonic acid
    – The pKa of carbonic acid is 6.35. the pH of blood is 7.4 so the acid
    is greater than 1 pH away from the pKa and it is primarily
    dissociated
    H2CO3 -> H+ +HCO3-
    Bicarbonate
    – Under physiological conditions the equilibrium for the first reaction is far
    to the left, and the combined pKa for the two reactions is 6.4:
    – At first glance this does not look like a good buffer for blood. The buffering
    capacity is poor. To maintain a pH of 7.4 there would have to be a ratio
    of 11 to 1 of bicarbonate to carbon dioxide.
    pH = 6.4 + Log [HCO3-]/[CO2]
    Becuase this is an open system, the CO2 dissolved and the bicarbonate can
    rapidly change
    Changes resulting in loss of carbonic acid are replaced by CO2 dissolving – This is
    an open system
    Normal concentration of carbon dioxide is 1.2 mM and bicarbonate is 15 mM”

    http://greenfieldgeography.wikispaces.com/IGCSE+and+GCSE+Weathering

    Carbonation or solution

    “This is caused by carbonic acid which occurs naturally in rainwater. Although only a very weak acid, it chemically reacts with rocks such as limestone and slowly dissolves them. Areas that have standing rainwater are going to experience higher rates of carbonation, therefore its is less likely to happen in dry countries and on steep slopes. The dissolved rock then gets washed away.”

    http://www.xylenepower.com/Carbon%20Dioxide.htm

    “Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere also directly dissolves in sea water. At present, the CO2 in solution near the ocean surface immediately becomes H2CO3 which then diffuses into the deep ocean where it combines with insoluble exposed metal carbonates such as limestone (CaCO3) to form a water soluble metal bicarbonate solution. The metal bicarbonate solution due to fossil CO2 will accumulate in the oceans until the supply of exposed marine metal carbonate is exhausted. For the metal calcium the relevant chemical equations are:

    CO2(gas) + H2O(liquid) => H2CO3(weak acid)
    H2CO3(weak acid) + CaCO3(limestone) => Ca(HCO3)2(calcium bicarbonate solution)”

    But, your argument here is a distraction, even if all the rain came down as bicarb…, it would be for the same reason that its carbonic acid, that carbon dioxide and water in the atmosphere spontaneously and irresistably join to form carbonic acid which means that all the carbon dioxide around is removed from the atmosphere – every time it rains.

    So, this typical bs from the great scientists pushing AGW http://researchmatters.noaa.gov/news/Pages/CarbonDioxideatMaunaLoareaches400ppm.aspx

    “Once emitted, CO2 added to the atmosphere and oceans remains for thousands of years. Thus, climate changes forced by CO2 depend primarily on cumulative emissions, making it progressively more and more difficult to avoid further substantial climate change.”

    Is what I am arguing against.. It’s impossible; in real world traditional physics this “carbon dioxide accumulation for hundreds and thousands of years” is gobbledegook, fantasy fisics.

    But it is being taught throughout general education and so has dumbed down basic physics for a generation.. And rebuttals that ‘it is only a thousand or so’, or ‘ it is only for a few hundred years’ or ‘it’s only 200′, or ‘only 100′, are equally bs, carbon dioxide cannot accumulate in the atmosphere.

    “So there shouldn’t be any seasonal spikes from vegetation and they shouldn’t need to take out any volcanic activity from their poster child pristine site high above it all sampling only the the mythical “well-mixed background”.

    Now you are talking nonsens: there were 24 hours excluded from the averages influenced by the volcano in 1994. On a total of 8400 measured hours (one hour per day is used for calibration). That is 0.3% of the measurements. Is that the big deal?

    Yes it damn well is a big deal, you’re giving only one figure and they’re constantly having to exclude becasue there is volcanic carbon dioxide being produced all around the Hawaiian islands all the time so what they decide, arbitrarily, to exclude as volcanic is just that, cherry picked, and is in no rational way proof that they are measuring anything but local carbon dioxide production – and the claim is as the man measuring gave it:

    http://www.npr.org/2013/05/13/182654937/atop-a-hawaiian-mountain-a-constant-sniff-for-carbon-dioxide

    “The air Colton analyzes comes from intake ports at the top of the 120-foot tower. Taking air from the top of the tower helps ensure it won’t be contaminated with outgassing from the volcano.”

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/07/us-volcano-hawaii-idUSTRE7260GC20110307

    HONOLULU | Mon Mar 7, 2011
    “Kilauea has been in constant eruption for 28 years”

    “(Reuters) – Scientists were closely monitoring heightened activity at Kilauea Volcano on the Big Island of Hawaii, after a fissure sent lava spewing 65 feet in the air.
    ..
    Kilauea has been in constant eruption for 28 years. But geologist Janet Babb of the U.S. Geological Survey said this weekend’s activity indicates “new episodes in eruptions and further unknowns.”

    “Saturday, one of the volcano’s crater floors, which is named Pu’u ‘O’o, collapsed 370 feet, the Geological Survey said. The event was accompanied by 150 small earthquakes, which were all confined to the volcanic area.

    “Separately, on the volcano’s eastern side, a 535 yard-long fissure in the ground opened, spewing lava 65 feet in the air, the Geological Survey said. Also, another crater called Napau began erupting.”

    “(Reporting by Jorene Barut: Editing by Alex Dobuzinskis)”

    My bold. This is a dramatic hot spot on Earth creating volcanic islands! There are thousands of earthquakes every year, constant venting above and below in the water, in the warm seas all around the islands not just on Big Island, and that’s besides the new volcano being formed at Big Island .

    http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2004/04_02_26.html

    February 26, 2004
    Activity update
    Eruptive activity at the Pu`u `O`o vent of Kilauea Volcano continued unabated during the past week.

    “Two small earthquakes were felt on the island during the week ending early February 26. Both occurred on February 22. The first was located 6 km (4 miles) south-southwest of Pu`u `O`o at a depth of 10 km (6 miles). The magnitude 3.2 shake was felt at Hale Pohaku and Hilo. About 7 hours later, a magnitude 3.5 earthquake shook the west side of the island and was felt from Honaunau to Kalaoa and also on the Hamakua Coast at Papa`aloa. This off-island earthquake was located 45 km (28 miles) west of Ho`okena at a depth of 42 km (26 miles).

    “Mauna Loa is not erupting. The summit region continues to inflate slowly. Seismic activity remains very low, with no earthquakes located in the summit area since early February 19. P Visit our website (hvo.wr.usgs.gov) for daily volcano updates and nearly real-time earthquake information. ”

    Oh gosh, no earthquakes on the summit of Mauna Loa since February 19.., a whole week without an earthquake.

    The initial blurb of course follows the party line, as Casey pointed out..

    How much volcanic activity is there really around all the islands? As I posted earlier – the official site says it has records for carbon dioxide, but all links have been tampered with and get either a blank page or re-direction to sulphur dioxide pages.

    It is not reasonable to suppose they are giving accurate information at Mauna Loa because their claim of measuring “pristine well mixed background” can only be nonsense.

    As Mauna Loa measures (semi) global changes in CO2,

    Ferdinand, I put that comment in to show you how they change narrative to suit, the guy’s obviously embarrassed at having it pointed out that winds don’t cross hemisphere.. the poor sod doing the measring is still giving the original meme – as Keeling really gave it – that these measurements are global because Keeling claimed there was this “well-mixed background which he could measure from anywhere in the world”, he created a myth..

    that includes the huge changes (some 30 ppmv over the seasons) in the NH vegetation over the seasons. Be it that these are partly compensated by the simultaneous changes in CO2 from/to the oceans in opposite direction. The net result is about +/- 8 ppmv over the seasons at Mauna Loa and a much smaller change in the SH, because the SH has far less land vegetation.

    And no different to what it was a hundred years ago.. see Fig 2 http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf

    These measurements were made by people who were real scientists, their method of measuring sound, unlike the studies Callendar cherry picked, and, the comparison Beck makes here are considerable closer to ‘background’ than from the world’s most dramatic hotspot creating volcanic islands measured from the world’s biggest active volcano surrounded by active volcanoes erupting and venting and earthquaking..

    ..constantly.

    The point is that these are (semi) global changes which must be and are included, because they are part of the (semi) global CO2 levels. Local disturbances like CO2 changes which may occur by upwind conditions from the vegetated valley must be excluded, as these are only of local interest.

    “The air Colton analyzes comes from intake ports at the top of the 120-foot tower. Taking air from the top of the tower helps ensure it won’t be contaminated with outgassing from the volcano.”

    “http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf

  206. There’s rather a lot of interesting stuff on this page re Keeling and Vostok, but this particularly re the discussion here:

    http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html

    “[One can’t claim that the Mauna Loa CO2 curves originated by Keeling are not comparable to the Vostok record. A valid question is, how are they comparable? Both data sets are processed, but the published MLO data are also averaged and appear to have been detrended, that is, a little over-processed. (I’d like to have raw data for MLO, including temperature and the wind vector for each reading.) Keeling warned that these MLO data were regional and restircted to a few layers of the troposphere. Climatologist ignore these caveats and simply glue one set of data on the end of another.

    “[Keeling’s data contain a seasonal variation that appears to be a simple, almost noise free sinusoid. This is an improbable result. He suggested that the seasonal variation was due to the carbon cycle of the biosphere, and that the long term, accelerating baseline was due to man. Because we now reason that the residence time of ACO2 is short, and that the great bulk of it (all the natural part) comes from the ocean, there are better models for the Keeling observations.

    “[First, the seasonal part of the Mauna Loa CO2 is closely correlated with temperature. The temperature in Hawaii is well-known to be a product of the ocean. Higher temperatures in the month mean warmer waters, and that means more CO2 outgassing. Simple, and consistent.

    “[Second, here is a novel, alternative conjecture for the MLO data.

    “[Hawaii sits ten degrees or so north and at least ten degrees west of a huge patch of ocean where most of the 107 Gtons/year of CO2 is exhausted into the atmosphere. The patch is about 20 degrees wide, centered roughly on the equator, stretching from the mid-Pacific to South America. Source is the International Geosphere Biosphere Program. See http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/carboncycle.htm, page 3. This area is included in the doldrums, an area of notoriously low wind and low pressure. The CO2 plume from this patch will enter a Hadley cell, rising and splitting poleward, where it then encounters the westerlies (or whatever lies in the tropophere above the westerlies). Thus in summary, Hawaii should lie in the plume of the bulk of the oceanic outgassing!

    “[The CO2 at Mauna Loa should not be well-mixed, and it should have a strong regional component due to the outgassing plume. Variations in the strength of the CO2 measurements might well be accounted for by slow changes in deep ocean currents. If the plume slowly moves across the island, this could account for the rise measured over the last 50 years. We must leave it to the climatologists to make the appropriate calculations.

    “[Man cannot be causing global warming by adding about 1% per year gross to the reservoir of atmospheric CO2, a greenhouse gas with less than one thirtieth the effect of water vapor. The global climate models are wrong, notwithstanding the measurements at Mauna Loa.

    “[RSJ 11/21/06: The MLO data also need to be checked for volcanic influences from other known and unknown undersea volcanoes.]
    Posted by RSJ on behalf of Borat | November 21, 2006 6:30 AM”

  207. This from two months ago with pics::

    http://www.hawaii247.com/2013/03/16/volcano-watch-kilaueas-summit-eruption-in-halemaumau-is-nearly-five-years-old/

    Volcano Watch: Kilauea’s summit eruption in Halema‘uma‘u is nearly five years old

    South winds permitted clear views into the south portion of the Overlook crater, which is often obscured by thick fume. The bright orange area is the location where lava at the surface of the lake sinks back into the system, with spattering and degassing common in this area. A broad ledge of recently deposited lava occupies much of the south portion of the crater. Photo courtesy of USGS/HVO
    (Volcano Watch is a weekly article written by scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey’s Hawaiian Volcano Observatory.)

    It wasn’t too long ago that tour buses shuttled hundreds of visitors a day to the Halema`uma`u parking lot. A short trail led the visitors to the Halema`uma`u Overlook, where they could look out over Halema`uma`u Crater and imagine its former eruptions and the famous lava lake from the 1800s and early 1900s. The screech of a koa`e kea (white-tailed tropic bird) nesting in the crater walls, or shuffling of other visitors, or a gust of wind, might be the only interruption to the tranquil view.

    Things are much different now at Halema`uma`u. The visitor overlook – now closed to the public – has been destroyed. The ground around the overlook is littered with blocks and bits of spatter, a testament to recent explosive events. Gusts of wind whip a plume carrying suffocating concentrations of volcanic gas. A low, constant rumble and occasional crashing rockfalls broadcast that a lava lake is again active in Halema`uma`u.

    The current summit eruption began on March 19, 2008, with an explosive event that created a new opening about 35 m (115 ft) wide, which we call the Overlook crater. During the first six months of the eruption, lava was deep and rarely visible. The Overlook crater produced a handful of small, explosive events that threw rocks and spatter several hundred meters (yards) away from the crater. Throughout 2009, the lava remained deep within the enlarging crater, often spattering from small sources or feeding brief lava ponds.

    The eruption changed in February 2010 when a continuous lava lake appeared. This lava lake has persisted to today with one brief interruption in March of 2011. The Overlook crater has enlarged significantly over time and is now 160 m (520 ft) wide. Over the last year, the lava has crept higher and has recently been about 30-50 m (100-160 ft) below the rim of the Overlook crater. For all its change, the one consistent feature of the eruption is the continuous gas plume, which injects large amounts of sulfur dioxide into the air.

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

    So, from the link I gave earlier if we knew how much sulphur dioxide we could work out how much carbon dioixide…:

    “Examples of volcanic gas compositions, in volume percent concentrations
    (from Symonds et. al., 1994)

    Volcano
    Kilauea Summit

    Tectonic Style
    Hot Spot

    Temperature
    1170°C

    H20 37.1
    C02 48.9
    S02 11.8

  208. Myrrh says:
    May 14, 2013 at 7:01 pm
    Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    May 14, 2013 at 10:01 am
    Myrrh says:
    May 14, 2013 at 8:22 am

    “In the real world all natural unpolluted rain is carbonic acid, which is a pH or around 5.6 .”

    Sorry Myrrh, you only demonstrate that you have not the slightest knowledge of the chemistry of CO2 in water. CO2 dissolved in water/rain forms carbonic acid, but rain is not carbonic acid, it is 99.7% water with some 0.33% CO2 at near freezing point, even less at higher temperatures. See:

    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html

    Of the 0.33% total CO2, there is a little free CO2, a little H2CO3 (carbonic acid), more HCO3- (bicarbonate ions) and some CO3– (carbonate ions). Of all CO2 forms present in rain, less than 1% is CO2 + H2CO3, 90% is bicarbonate and 9% is carbonate. Thus carbonic acid is maximum 0.0033% in rain. Even so, the pH of this mixture is slightly acidic, because the dissolution of H2CO3 into bicarbonates and carbonates increases the H+ concentration.

    Ferdinand, I can’t work out where you’re getting this, your link doesn’t say anything about it. Rain is acidic from the carbon dioxide dissolved in it, it has a pH or around 5.6-5.8. Bicarbonate is alkaline.. The abilility to give up an H is what makes it an acid.

    Yet more nonsense from Myrrh, his lack of knowledge of Chemistry is amazing and yet he still keeps on pounding away about the equation of state of a gas as if he knew something about it and now misinformation on carbonic acid chemistry.

    A drop of pristine rainwater in equilibrium with air at 25ºC containing 375ppm CO2 has the following composition: [CO2] 1.18 × 10−5 mol/l, [H2CO3] 2.00 × 10−8 mol/l, [HCO3] 2.23 × 10−6 mol/l, [H+] 2.23 × 10−6 mol/l.

  209. What could you possibly know about rain? You don’t have rain in the AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect Illusion…

    You don’t have the Water Cycle at all – without water the Earth would be 67°C because the real gas atmosphere of mainly nitrogen and oxygen acts like a blanket keeping the Earth’s heat from being lost to space faster than the Sun’s direct radiant heat, longwave infrared, can replenish it. This is real thermal blanket around the Earth without which it would be -18°C – your priesthood lies about this and says that is the temperature without only its fake greenhouse gases. And ridiculously convinces you that a trace gas which is practically 100% holes in the atmosphere is this blanket.. You wouldn’t know a real gas carbon dioxide if it stared you in the face, all your fizzy drinks are flat.

    There is no way that they are measuring anything but local volatile production of carbon dioxide artificially massaged to show an unrealistic steady rise without even the nous to relate it to real temperatures, because that became the intention of Ravelle/Keeling who saw Callendar made a laughing stock in the early sixties when the temperatures plummeted and he was pictured shovelling vast amounts of global warming off his drive.

    This was the greenie environmentalists’ anti coal agenda and they could blame that when temperatures went up or down, the ice age scare which followed did precisely this. But coal got cleaned up and the arguments became more devious..

    There are many good posts on the Willis discussion of Moana Loa which can’t be ignored:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/04/under-the-volcano-over-the-volcano/#comment-403530

    Ernst Beck says:
    June 5, 2010 at 2:44 am
    Dear Willis,

    I agree, the near ground data listed in my first paper do not reflect background data. Meanwhile I have found additional data which reflect CO2 background at that times. ( e.g. 1890 measured on islands at Baltic Sea or 1935 measured as a vertical profile over Helsinki)
    Near ground concentrations are connected to the CO2 background (or MBL) over the vertical profiles. (please see our latest paper on http://www.realCO2.de: http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/CO2_versus_windspeed-review-1-FM.pdf). We can calculate annual background averages from near ground data.
    You will find a graph of historical CO2 background based on that methods and updated historical station list on http://www.realCO2.de (http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/stations.htm.)
    I have also prepared a new paper on the reconstruction of the CO2 background which is in peer review.

    best regards
    Ernst Beck

    And several put fingers on the irrationalities and inconsistencies in the techniques and concepts of the measuring claims in this highly volcanic area in this strange panegyric to cherry picking data.

  210. Myrrh says:
    May 14, 2013 at 7:01 pm

    In addition to what Phil said, here the reactions of what happens with CO2 when it dissolves in water (I use the = sign where normally arrows in both directions should stand, as arrows give troubles in the HTML language used in WordPress):

    CO2 + H2O = H2CO3 = H+ + HCO3- = H+ + CO3–

    Thus CO2 with water gives carbonic acid. That splits into a hydrogen ion and a bicarbonate ion and further again in another hydrogen ion and a carbonate ions. The relative amounts in equilibrium is what Phil said.

    Thus it is indeed the hydrogen ions which make the solution of CO2 in water slightly acid. Bicarbonate and carbonate ions play no role in it. But bicarbonate and carbonate salts are mostly alkaline, if the salts are made from strong bases, as is the case for sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) and soda (sodium carbonate). In these cases it is the sodium which makes the difference.

    The rest is for tonight…

  211. This is basic meteorology.

    Water and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere form carbonic acid.

    Carbon dioxide is what gives rain its pH of 5.6-8

    Which is acid not alkaline.

    You do not have rain in your AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect Illusion’s carbon cycle, you do not have the Water Cycle at all..

    This shows conclusively that you are scamming pretending science.

    Whatever you have to say will continue to be scamming until you come back to the real traditional physics of the real world of real gases which have volume, attraction, mass and weight under gravity as understood by real scientists who make things work.

    Carbon dioxide cannot accumulate in the atmosphere.

    Every time it rains all the carbon dioxide around comes down to our real Earth’s surface as carbonic acid.

    Carbon dioxide cannot accumulate in the atmosphere because it is heavier than air.

    Real gases are condensable, they expand when heat and contract when cooled.

    Gas that expand become less dense and therefore lighter under gravity.

    Gas that condense become more dense and therefore heavier under gravity.

    Hot air rises, cold air sinks.

    Volumes of hot air rise forming areas of low pressure.

    Because they are lighter than air under gravity.

    Because they weigh less.

    Volumes of cold air sink forming areas of high pressure.

    Because they are heavier than air under gravity.

    Because they weigh more.

    Winds blow from high pressure to low.

    Winds are convection currents, volumes of the real gas air on the move created by differential heating of volumes of air.

    Every wind that blows from high to low flows down and sinks into areas of low pressure.

    All the cold volumes of air sinking to areas of low pressure at the surface are bringing down all the carbon dioxide in those volumes.

    When the winds stop, the carbon dioxide heavier than air will displace the air in the volume it is in and sink to the surface.

    Gases that are lighter than air rise and gases that are heavier than air sink.

    You do not have rain and you do not have winds because you do not have real gases with mass with weight under gravity which separate out under gravity to give us our rain and wind – you do not have any weather at all in your imaginary AGWSF Greenhouse Effect world.

    You do not have any climate.

    You do not have any climate because you do not have the real atmosphere which is a heavy ocean of real gas air weighing down on us 14 lbs every square inch, a ton on our shoulders .

    You have substituted empty space populated by your imaginary massless hard dots of nothing ideal gas without attraction miles apart from each other travelling at great speeds under their own molecular momentum through your empty space bouncing off each other and the imaginary wall of a container you have put around your imaginary earth.

    You are on the other side of the looking glass with Al imagining any number of impossible fisics before breakfast.

    You have no atmosphere at all because you have replaced the real fluid gas atmosphere with empty space.

    There is not an imaginary container like the glass of a greenhouse around the real world, all your gases have escaped to outer space because you do not have gravity..

    You can’t hear this because you have no sound in your world.

  212. Myrrh says:
    May 15, 2013 at 7:16 am
    This is basic meteorology.

    Water and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere form carbonic acid.

    Which dissociates to form bicarbonate ions and hydrogen ions:
    the following is basic chemistry,
    CO2+H2O ⇌ H2CO3 ⇌ HCO3- + H+
    In the present atmosphere at 25ºC that amounts to
    [CO2] 1.18 × 10−5 mol/l, [H2CO3] 2.00 × 10−8 mol/l, [HCO3+] 2.23 × 10−6 mol/l, [H+] 2.23 × 10−6 mol/l.
    As you can see most of the carbon is in the form of dissolved CO2 and the rest as bicarbonate ion, the hydrogen ion concentration is equal to the bicarbonate ion concentration.
    pH= -log(2.23 × 10−6) = 5.65

    Whatever you have to say will continue to be scamming until you come back to the real traditional physics of the real world of real gases which have volume, attraction, mass and weight under gravity as understood by real scientists who make things work.

    Those real scientists and engineers who make things work use use the equation of state for gases at atmospheric conditions: PV=nRT
    The ideal gas laws you despise so much!

    Remaining nonsense deleted.

  213. Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
    May 15, 2013 at 2:33 am

    Myrrh, it happens that I have a B.Sc in industrial chemistry. So I still think I know something of what happens with CO2 and water. Even if it is already some 50 years ago that I learned the equilibria equations (and my memory isn’t anymore what it was at that time).

    Please ask it anybody who you may believe who has some basic knowledge of chemistry and he/she will affirm that what Phil and I said is right.

    I have tried to explain it to you in different ways and as simple as possible. But I fear that your aversion against anything remotely connected to AGW makes you think that it must be wrong by definition.

    Al what you have demonstrated until now is that you don’t have the slightest knowledge of physics of gases or even the most elementary knowledge of chemistry. And you have demonstrated that you aren’t willing to learn anything from people who have that knowledge, only because what they says is not what you believe…

    So, any further response to you is just a waste of my time and I (still) have too many other hobbies to have fun with, without that.

    A last some food for thoughts for you: CO2 is about 30% heavier than air. Helium is about 9 times lighter than air. Despite the huge differences, both substances are found at near constant levels between sea surface and 20 km height. That was measured in 1945:

    http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/students/Q_J_Roy_Meteor_Soc_1949_Brewer.pdf

    The CO2 measurements gave the result that the CO2 content of the atmosphere (0.3 per cent) is substantially independent of height. Following the measurements of Gluckauf and Paneth (1945), who found only very small increases in the helium content of the air up to 25 km, the constancy of the carbon
    dioxide content was expected.

    How is that possible? There were no climate researchers in 1945, only physisists eager to learn what was happening in the atmosphere…

  214. Phil – you don’t have rain. What does it matter to you what it is? Don’t worry about it..

    The real world has rain in its Carbon Life Cycle because water and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere join to form carbonic acid.

    In the real world natural rain is acidic with a pH of 5.6-8.

    In the real world it is the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which gives rain this pH.

    In the real world carbon dioxide is being continually washed out of the atmosphere as carbonic acid, the residence time of water in the atmosphere is 8-10 days.

    There are two reasons why you don’t have rain in your carbon cycle.

    1. Your fantasy world of AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect Illusion has no Water Cycle.

    In the real world the Water Cycle cools the earth from the 67°C it would be without it, but with the rest of the atmosphere in place which is mainly nitrogen and oxygen, think deserts.

    In the real world the thermal blanket around the Earth is the heavy voluminous real gas atmosphere of mainly nitrogen and oxygen, without this, with no atmosphere at all, the Earth would be -18°C

    – compare directly with the Moon which has no atmosphere where the equivalent temperature is -23°C

    2. Your fantasy world fisics of AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect Illusion has pretend gases with no properties and so no processes because they are the imaginary massless ideal gas.

    Pre Van der Waals so it makes no sense you quoting equations with volume, your gases have no volume.

    Just as it is makes no sense you talking about rain, or clouds..

    Your pretend ideal gas molecule which you call carbon dioxide to confuse yourself is called ideal gas, it does not have any other name, only real gases have names.

    Your ideal gas which you erroneously call carbon dioxide has no properties so cannot be part and parcel of any process such as the chemical change which in the the real world of real gases with attraction creates carbonic acid when the real gas carbon dioxide and water meet in the atmosphere.

    Your ideal gas which you erroneously call carbon dioxide does not change chemically in the atmosphere:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm

    “What really governs the warming potential is how long the extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere. CO2 is essentially chemically inert in the atmosphere and is only removed by biological uptake and by dissolving into the ocean.”

    That is the second reason you don’t have rain in your carbon cycle:

    your massless ideal gas without attraction and not subject to gravity which you erroneously call carbon dioxide to your own confusion is chemically inert so cannot join with water to form carbonic acid in your empty space atmosphere.

    Your fantasy world gets funnier all the time. Your imaginary ideal gas massless molecule which you errroneously call carbon dioxide to your own confusion which can rapidly raise global temperatures several degrees at the beginning of interglacial 800 years into its future magically combines with water in the ocean, but not in the atmosphere.

    Gosh, who thought up the fisics for your fantasy world?

  215. Ferdinand, please see my last post to Phil, you’re confusing real world with the fantasy fisics of the AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect world.

  216. CO2 scavenging by rain:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14971458

    Abstract

    The CO2 in the atmosphere is in contact with water vapor and rain droplets forming CO2 x H2O, HCO3- and CO3(2-) . Global precipitation is about 505 x 1015 kg/a. Based on theoretical calculation for unpolluted air and measurement observations, we estimated that 100-270 x 10(12) gC/a are scavenged from the air by global precipitation. This roughly equals carbon emissions from volcanic sources or 2-6 per cent of current CO2 emissions. An inventory-based estimate on carbon removal in northwestern Europe supports the above calculation on global scale. With increasing CO2 concentration in the air, precipitation scavenging may increase.

  217. Myrrh says:
    May 15, 2013 at 1:45 pm
    Phil – you don’t have rain. What does it matter to you what it is? Don’t worry about it..

    Really you should stop now, you’re just making yourself look stupid.

    The real world has rain in its Carbon Life Cycle because water and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere join to form carbonic acid.

    As explained above but apparently beyond you, CO2 and water produce a small amount of bicarbonate ions and hydrogen ions (about 2% of the dissolved CO2 is bicarbonate ion, carbonic acid is trivial by comparison, ~1% of the bicarbonate).

    In the real world natural rain is acidic with a pH of 5.6-8.

    Even a blind squirrel finds a nut!

    In the real world it is the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which gives rain this pH.

    In the real world carbon dioxide is being continually washed out of the atmosphere as carbonic acid, the residence time of water in the atmosphere is 8-10 days.

    A very small fraction of the airborne CO2 is washed out as dissolved CO2, limited by the Henry’s Law coefficient.

    2. Your fantasy world fisics of AGWScienceFiction’s Greenhouse Effect Illusion has pretend gases with no properties and so no processes because they are the imaginary massless ideal gas.

    I don’t know where you get this idea from, ideal gases are comprised of point masses, certainly not massless!

    Pre Van der Waals so it makes no sense you quoting equations with volume, your gases have no volume.

    It makes no difference whether use the ideal gas law or Van der Waals as your equation of state, you get the same result.

    Drivel deleted!

    Your ideal gas which you erroneously call carbon dioxide has no properties so cannot be part and parcel of any process such as the chemical change which in the the real world of real gases with attraction creates carbonic acid when the real gas carbon dioxide and water meet in the atmosphere.

    This doesn’t happen in the gas phase, only when the CO2 is dissolved in the water drop.

    Your fantasy world gets funnier all the time. Your imaginary ideal gas massless molecule which you errroneously call carbon dioxide to your own confusion which can rapidly raise global temperatures several degrees at the beginning of interglacial 800 years into its future magically combines with water in the ocean, but not in the atmosphere.
    The confusion is all yours Myrrh!

  218. Oh, I see what’s happening, AGWScienceFiction has to fill this this up with complex sciency sounding gobbledegook to avoid destroying your fantasy that carbon dioxide can accumulate for hundreds and thousands of years in the atmosphere and you so don’t want to give up this fantasy that you’ll even believe that rain water is a solution of bicarb…

    As I’ve been trying to tell you, AGWSF has changed the properties and processes of real gases and subsituted basic ideal gas, which doesn’t have attraction. [So it can say that “carbon dioxide diffuses into the atmosphere at great speeds bouncing off the other ideal gases in elastic collisions, no attraction, ..and so thoroughly mixing it can’t be unmixed” .]

    The real gas water vapour, I’ve been calling it simply water here because I’ve been talking about both fluids together, the fluid gas water vapour and the fluid liquid water, combines with the fluid gas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to form carbonic acid. This goes on to form rain drops and ice and precipates out – this is what gives normal rain (not acid rain) its mildly acid pH.

    http://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/69687.html

    “Atmospheric Deposition and Acid Rain
    The Problem…
    Acidic deposition, or acid rain, originates from the combustion of fossil fuels. When coal, oil, or other fossil fuels are burned, acid rain precursors–mainly nitrogen oxides (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2)–are emitted into the atmosphere. Once in the atmosphere, NOx and SO2 are transformed into nitric acid and sulfuric acid and fall back to earth through both wet deposition such as rain, snow, fog, cloud water, and dry deposition of acids attached to particles, gases and aerosols. Rain and snow are somewhat naturally acidic due to the combining of carbon dioxide and water vapor in the air, which forms weak carbonic acid. However, the average acidity of rainfall in New York State is up to 30 times greater than the level typically found in rainwater.”

    “Rain and snow are somewhat naturally acidic due to the combining of carbon dioxide and water vapor in the air, which forms weak carbonic acid.”

    As I’ve said, in what to me is your strange world this doesn’t happen because your ideal gas, which you erroneously call carbon dioxide, does not undergo any chemical changes in the atmosphere because chemically inert – as I quoted from SkepticalScience.

    In the real world, the real gases carbon dioxide and water vapour are greatly attracted to each other and spontaneously form carbon acid so rain and snow and fog and dew – that’s how your iron garden furniture rusts.., how mountains are weathered down..

    http://step.nn.k12.va.us/science/ES/req_labs/S07_Acid_Rain.doc

    “BackgroundWater vapor in the air can combine with other gases found in the air. You may be surprised to learn that rain water is slightly acidic. One reason is that water vapor can combine with carbon dioxide gas to form carbonic acid. The natural pH value of rain water is usually between 6.0 and 6.9. Rainfall accumulates in rivers and streams causing a slight acidification.

    “Other gases found in the air can also combine with water vapor to form “acid rain”. For example, gases in automobile exhaust and other gases given off by combustion of fossil fuels can combine with water vapor to form sulfurous acid, nitrous acid, and nitric acid.

    “Carbonic acid is formed when carbon dioxide gas (CO2) dissolves in rain droplets of unpolluted air: CO2(g) + H2O(l) =====> H2CO3(aq) Nitrous acid and nitric acid result from a common air pollutant, nitrogen dioxide (NO2). Most nitrogen dioxide in our atmosphere is produced from automobile exhaust. Nitrogen dioxide gas dissolves in rain drops and forms nitrous and nitric acid: ”

    You cannot say that this is something I’m making up.. Though his pH for rain is a tad high.

    You can of course choose to ignore it, but you are arguing with government and education sources, I expect you as scientists to take me seriously.

    I am trying to show you how the AGW narrative has changed the basic physical properties and processes of the natural world around us which traditional physics is still teaching.

    The AGW claim that “carbon dioixide accumulates for hundreds and thousands of years in the atmosphere” is simply not possible in our natural world where water flows downhill and heat always flows from hotter to colder, spontaneously is a given because this about work, it takes work to change that.

    I posted a link earlier to show how you have no rain in the AGW carbon cycle, if you are seriously arguing with me, and with the two sources I’ve just quoted, I should be grateful you to read it from the point of view of my perspective which comes from traditional physics.

    No rain in the carbon cycle creates as ‘static’ world, the dynamic energy flows are missing from the picture. There are no natural cycles between the “sinks”. For example, because you don’t have water vapour and liquid water combining in the atmosphere the description of weathering of rocks is ‘stilted’, these sinks get carbon dioxide only in the immediate surface around them, you don’t have rain weathering them.

    You don’t notice this ‘flat’ picture, because you haven’t been taught the dynamic processes of winds and rain, these have all been taken out of the picture, the arrows from one to the other as if in a cycle have no dynamic energy flowing in them, all you’ve got left is the arrows – plants for example have their stomata on the underside of their leaves, in the warmth of growing conditions when the land becomes heated this is the direction from which they get their carbon dioxide and water required for photosynthesis. They don’t get it from contact with the “well-mixed” background above them..

    ..unless they’re water lilies..

    Anyway, I think I’ve shown enough of the differences here to give you some idea of the point I’ve been trying to make, if you’re interested in engaging with what I’m actually saying.., otherwise, chow, it’s been an enlightening discussion for me.

  219. Myrrh says:
    May 15, 2013 at 7:27 pm

    the fluid gas water vapour and the fluid liquid water, combines with the fluid gas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to form carbonic acid.

    Myrrh, you only fool yourself. Carbonic acid doesn’t exist in vapour form. It only exists in liquid water and even then only at 1% of all forms of CO2 present in the liquid. The first paragraph is simply wrong, but as you can see in the picture, CO2 gas is dissolving in the liquid water drop and there forms carbonic acid which further dissociates in bicarbonate and carbonate + hydrogen ions, which makes the water slightly acid:

    Carbonic acid is formed when carbon dioxide gas (CO2) dissolves in rain droplets of unpolluted air:
    CO2(g) + H2O(l) =====> H2CO3(aq)

    Note the (l), not (g) after H2O.

    Further, see the message from milodonharlani with the calculations of the amounts of CO2 scavenged by rain out of the atmosphere (confirmed by real world tests): 2-6% of the human emissions per year. Thus rain is only removing a small part of the human emissions, far from scavenging all natural + human CO2 out of the atmosphere.

    And I still am waiting for your explanation of why helium percentages in the atmosphere up to 25 km height only slightly differ from these at ground level, while helium is some 9 times lighter than air…

  220. It’s still water, you’re being confused by arguments created by the AGWScienceFiction’s meme producing department.., water vapour is just a phase of water, it hasn’t become something different..

    Look at my last post link, snow is acidic, it’s still water.

    “This is the perfect illustration of rule (b). Technically and officially, “water” refers to the H2O molecule in any phase (gas, liquid, or solid) … but unofficially by long tradition “water” connotes the liquid unless otherwise specified. Water is normally a liquid.” http://www.av8n.com/physics/vapor.htm

    Water vapour is still H2O.

    That (g) and (l) is redundant.. Just as there is no “net” in the second law, AGWSF put that in for its “backradiation” arguments. [“Spontaneously” is intrinsic to the second law, just like water always flows downhill doesn’t have to be said, “except when work is done to change that..”, so, heat always flows from hotter to colder, just as spontaneously as water flowing downhill. There are not bits of water flowing up to get a net of water always flowing down.. Then of course they try to bamboozle with “quantum” as if “photons” are somehow different from matter.. just as here they’ve made water vapour different from water.. Well, at least you don’t have a problem anymore with ocean acidification…

    I really don’t know how better to explain this is a scam created out of tweaking real physics; misusing terms, giving the properties of one thing to another, taking laws and processes out of context. These are sleights of hand, using all the techniques of magic tricks to con into seeing something that isn’t there..

    Water vapour in the atmosphere is water, carbon dioxide combines with that to form carbonic acid which gives water its pH of 5.6-8 and these combined together go on together in the other phases of water, condensing to liquid, as in rain and fog and clouds, and solid, ice and snow.

    Carbon dioxide also combines with liquid and solid water in atmosphere direct, same thing. Falling rain will be attracting any carbon dioxide it meets – water is the great lover in the natural world readily taking into solution..

    I really do not appreciate you throwing in strawmen arguments about helium which I have neither the time nor the inclination to check out. If these argument “rebuttals” I get from AGW/CAGWs is anything to go by, I will find something in them that shows this has been taken out of context. If you want to use that as an argument, you come up with all the necessary details, otherwise, give it rest..

    As an example, I was not so long ago in a discussion about the heat capacity of carbon dioxide, it is in the real world practically zilch, it releases any heat it absorbs instantly, therefore, it cannot “trap” heat, or “store” heat, it has a lower heat capacity than nitrogen and oxygen.

    (Compare with water which has a very high heat capacity, that is, it takes in a lot of heat energy before it changes temperature which it shows by phase change and it takes longer to heat up than something with a lower heat capacity and takes the same time to give up its heat which is what trapping/storing heat really is – that’s how the great heat of 67°C of the Earth without water comes down to 15°C, by the water evaporating in phase change and taking this great heat into the top of the atmosphere where it releases it to the cold and condenses back to liquid water or ice.

    That’s why a simple air conditioning system in hot countries is to have a bowl of water in the room.., a fountain in the middle of a courtyard, and why a cold damp room heated will still feel cold and damp longer because water takes longer to change its temperature, so, either pump in more heat because you have to heat the water too, or put in a de-humidifier which will extract the water which is swallowing up all the heat.. So, note, cold clouds aren’t radiating heat, they’re still swallowing up what they can if there’s any around to get, and, when they get full up they won’t be radiating it out they will be changing phase, turning back to water vapour and so becoming less dense as they expand and lighter than air will evaporate, rising higher in the atmosphere.).

    So, I was told that carbon dioxide had a higher heat capacity than nitrogen and oxygen and as I knew this was false I asked for the figures – he gave me figures which when I looked up I saw related to temperatures in the thousands of degrees centigrade.., duh, when carbon dioxide’s heat capacity creeps above that of the oxygen and nitrogen – totally irrelevant and out of context, but this is the method AGWSF uses to add confusion to this subject so you think you know what you’re saying by repeating them but they’re only distracting you from what they are trying to hide by using a context not applicable.

    What they are hiding is they have no rain in their carbon cycle.

    All water in the atmosphere absorbs carbon dioxide spontaneously, this is one of the amazing properties of water, there is spontaneous attraction between water in whatever phase it’s in and carbon dioxide and this is what gives all water in the atmosphere in every phase an acid pH, which is how all unpolluted natural rain is acidic, from the attraction between them, from carbon dioxide making water acidic. It is acidic in the atmosphere and acidic on reaching the ground.

    Water vapour is still water and rain does not become alkaline, there is no dissociation into bicarbs. That it can do so, which is what makes it an acid, does not mean that it is what it is doing. Or measurements of the pH of rainwater would not show it to be an acid.

  221. Myrrh says:
    May 16, 2013 at 4:09 am

    All water in the atmosphere absorbs carbon dioxide spontaneously

    Simply said: not at all in gaseous form. It is the reverse: carbonic acid immediately decomposes if another molecule of water passes by. As there is far more water vapour in the atmosphere than CO2, there is virtually no carbonic acid in gas form present:

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

    Theoretical calculations show that the presence of even a single molecule of water causes carbonic acid to revert to carbon dioxide and water.

    Water vapour is still water and rain does not become alkaline, there is no dissociation into bicarbs.

    Again, you are painfully demonstrating your complete lack of knowledge of chemistry: something is an acid in water, if the number of hydrogen ions is higher then 10^-7, or lower than pH 7, where
    pH = – log[H+]

    Thus, you don’t have an acid if there are no (extra) hydrogen ions, which is the case for CO2 or H2CO3, until they are dissolved in water and dissociate (split) into bicarbonate ions and hydrogen ions. It is just the dissociation in water which transforms CO2 via H2CO3 into an acid.
    You are still confusing bicarbonate salts which mostly are alkaline in solution with bicarbonate ions> which do not contribute to acidity or alkalinity.
    If you put a (dry!) pH meter in pure CO2 (liquid or gas) it will not show anything, neither for H2CO3, I suppose, because that is hard to make in pure form.

  222. Myrrh says:
    May 15, 2013 at 7:27 pm
    Oh, I see what’s happening, AGWScienceFiction has to fill this this up with complex sciency sounding gobbledegook to avoid destroying your fantasy that carbon dioxide can accumulate for hundreds and thousands of years in the atmosphere and you so don’t want to give up this fantasy that you’ll even believe that rain water is a solution of bicarb…

    This is absolutely nothing to do with AGW it’s just basic Chemistry! Rainwater is a solution of CO2 in water with about 2% of the CO2 in the form of bicarbonate ion and the same amount of H+ which is what makes it acidic. High school level chemistry.

    As I’ve been trying to tell you, AGWSF has changed the properties and processes of real gases and subsituted basic ideal gas, which doesn’t have attraction. [So it can say that “carbon dioxide diffuses into the atmosphere at great speeds bouncing off the other ideal gases in elastic collisions, no attraction, ..and so thoroughly mixing it can’t be unmixed” .]

    Fundamental Physical chemistry, kinetic theory of gases, absolutely nothing to do with AGW!

    The real gas water vapour, I’ve been calling it simply water here because I’ve been talking about both fluids together, the fluid gas water vapour and the fluid liquid water, combines with the fluid gas carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to form carbonic acid. This goes on to form rain drops and ice and precipates out – this is what gives normal rain (not acid rain) its mildly acid pH.

    Yes you have been sloppy in your use of the nomenclature, CO2 and H2O react in solution i.e. in the liquid phase of water not in the gas phase. (There had been speculation for years as to whether carbonic acid could even exist in the gas phase but it was finally detected in lab experiments conducted at very low temperatures and very carefully warmed up to -30ºC!
    “The Austrian researchers have now demonstrated that carbonic acid can exist in the gas phase and that it is stable at temperatures up to –30 °C. For these experiments, solid carbonic acid was formed by means of acid-base reactions at very low temperatures and then warmed to –30 °C. The evaporating molecules were trapped in a matrix of the noble gas argon and then immediately cooled again. This resulted in a kind of frozen “image” of the gas-phase carbonic acid, which the researchers were able to study by infrared spectrometry.”

    Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2010-12-carbonic-acid-isolated-gas-phase.html)

    “Rain and snow are somewhat naturally acidic due to the combining of carbon dioxide and water vapor in the air, which forms weak carbonic acid.”

    As I’ve said, in what to me is your strange world this doesn’t happen because your ideal gas, which you erroneously call carbon dioxide, does not undergo any chemical changes in the atmosphere because chemically inert – as I quoted from SkepticalScience.

    In the real world, the real gases carbon dioxide and water vapour are greatly attracted to each other and spontaneously form carbon acid so rain and snow and fog and dew – that’s how your iron garden furniture rusts.., how mountains are weathered down..

    http://step.nn.k12.va.us/science/ES/req_labs/S07_Acid_Rain.doc

    “BackgroundWater vapor in the air can combine with other gases found in the air. You may be surprised to learn that rain water is slightly acidic. One reason is that water vapor can combine with carbon dioxide gas to form carbonic acid. The natural pH value of rain water is usually between 6.0 and 6.9. Rainfall accumulates in rivers and streams causing a slight acidification.

    “Other gases found in the air can also combine with water vapor to form “acid rain”. For example, gases in automobile exhaust and other gases given off by combustion of fossil fuels can combine with water vapor to form sulfurous acid, nitrous acid, and nitric acid.

    “Carbonic acid is formed when carbon dioxide gas (CO2) dissolves in rain droplets of unpolluted air: CO2(g) + H2O(l) =====> H2CO3(aq)

    Correct but incomplete, as written this would be neutral, pH 7, acids are acidic because they dissociate to produce H+, the next step is the dissociation into HCO3- and H+.

    You cannot say that this is something I’m making up.. Though his pH for rain is a tad high.

    You can of course choose to ignore it, but you are arguing with government and education sources, I expect you as scientists to take me seriously.

    I don’t care where the material comes from it contains errors, I can’t take you seriously because of the unscientific nonsense you write, your errors on the physics of gases and chemical reactions for instance.

    I am trying to show you how the AGW narrative has changed the basic physical properties and processes of the natural world around us which traditional physics is still teaching.

    What you’re talking about has absolutely not been changed by AGW, it’s basic standard physical chemistry which has been around far at least a century!

    The AGW claim that “carbon dioixide accumulates for hundreds and thousands of years in the atmosphere” is simply not possible in our natural world where water flows downhill and heat always flows from hotter to colder, spontaneously is a given because this about work, it takes work to change that.

    I posted a link earlier to show how you have no rain in the AGW carbon cycle, if you are seriously arguing with me, and with the two sources I’ve just quoted, I should be grateful you to read it from the point of view of my perspective which comes from traditional physics.

    No it doesn’t, the kinetic theory of gases which you are disputing is traditional physics!

    Anyway, I think I’ve shown enough of the differences here to give you some idea of the point I’ve been trying to make, if you’re interested in engaging with what I’m actually saying.., otherwise, chow, it’s been an enlightening discussion for me.

    Actually I get the impression that you’re still on the same track so you haven’t been enlightened at all!

  223. Myrrh says:
    May 16, 2013 at 4:09 am
    Water vapour is still H2O.

    That (g) and (l) is redundant..

    It certainly is not, the conditions for reaction in the two phases are totally different, vastly different concentrations and greater organization in the liquid phase due to hydrogen bonding.
    Water vapour in the atmosphere is water, carbon dioxide combines with that to form carbonic acid which gives water its pH of 5.6-8 and these combined together go on together in the other phases of water, condensing to liquid, as in rain and fog and clouds, and solid, ice and snow.
    Only happens in the liquid phase as the subscript ‘l’ shows.

    Carbon dioxide also combines with liquid and solid water in atmosphere direct, same thing. Falling rain will be attracting any carbon dioxide it meets – water is the great lover in the natural world readily taking into solution.

    exactly, ‘in solution’.
    As an example, I was not so long ago in a discussion about the heat capacity of carbon dioxide, it is in the real world practically zilch, it releases any heat it absorbs instantly, therefore, it cannot “trap” heat, or “store” heat, it has a lower heat capacity than nitrogen and oxygen.

    No it does not, at 25ºC the molar heat capacities are: CO2 36.94, N2 29.12, O2 29.38, H20(g) 37.47 (at 100ºC)

    (Compare with water which has a very high heat capacity, that is, it takes in a lot of heat energy before it changes temperature which it shows by phase change and it takes longer to heat up than something with a lower heat capacity and takes the same time to give up its heat which is what trapping/storing heat really is – that’s how the great heat of 67°C of the Earth without water comes down to 15°C, by the water evaporating in phase change and taking this great heat into the top of the atmosphere where it releases it to the cold and condenses back to liquid water or ice.

    That’s the latent heat at phase changes not the heat capacity, which for the two triatomic gases is similar.
    All water in the atmosphere absorbs carbon dioxide spontaneously, this is one of the amazing properties of water, there is spontaneous attraction between water in whatever phase it’s in and carbon dioxide and this is what gives all water in the atmosphere in every phase an acid pH, which is how all unpolluted natural rain is acidic, from the attraction between them, from carbon dioxide making water acidic. It is acidic in the atmosphere and acidic on reaching the ground.

    As pointed out above totally wrong!

    Water vapour is still water and rain does not become alkaline, there is no dissociation into bicarbs. That it can do so, which is what makes it an acid, does not mean that it is what it is doing. Or measurements of the pH of rainwater would not show it to be an acid.

    That dissociation is exactly what makes it an acid, just like all other acids!

  224. Myrrh says:
    May 16, 2013 at 4:09 am

    an example, I was not so long ago in a discussion about the heat capacity of carbon dioxide, it is in the real world practically zilch, it releases any heat it absorbs instantly, therefore, it cannot “trap” heat, or “store” heat, it has a lower heat capacity than nitrogen and oxygen.

    Not to disturb the other discussion, but I have seen several deep freeze installations working with CO2 as refrigerant. Seems to me that that only is possible if CO2 has a quite good heat capacity…

  225. Myrrh says:
    May 16, 2013 at 11:31 am

    Shrug.

    OK that it is for this time. You have convincingly demonstrated that you don’t know anything about physics of gases and don’t have even the most elementary knowledge of chemistry.

    Not a problem for me, or for you, but worse is that you are not willing to accept anything from people who know what they are talking about on these subjects. It is that attitude that gives all sceptics a bad name.

    See you next time…

Comments are closed.