Reposted in its entirety from Climate Science
By Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. University of Colorado
There was an interesting news article in the Guardian on December 6 2008 by James Randerson titled Explainer: Coolest year since 2000
The article reads
“This year is set to be the coolest since 2000, according to a preliminary estimate of global average temperature that is due to be released next week by the Met Office. The global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, which is 0.14C below the average temperature for 2001-07.
The relatively chilly temperatures compared with recent years are not evidence that global warming is slowing, say climate scientists at the Met Office. “Absolutely not,” said Dr Peter Stott, the manager of understanding and attributing climate change at the Met Office’s Hadley Centre. “If we are going to understand climate change we need to look at long-term trends.”
Prof Myles Allen at Oxford University, who runs the climateprediction.net website, said he feared climate sceptics would overinterpret the figure: “You can bet your life there will be a lot of fuss about what a cold year it is. Actually no, it’s not been that cold a year, but the human memory is not very long. We are used to warm years.”
The Met Office had predicted 2008 would be cooler than recent years due to a La Niña event, characterised by unusually cold ocean temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean – the mirror image of the El Niño climate cycle.
Allen was presenting the data on this year’s global average temperature at the Appleton Space Conference at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, near Didcot, yesterday. The 14.3C figure is based on data from January to October. When the Met Office makes its formal announcement next week they will incorporate data from November. “[The figure] will differ from it, but it won’t differ massively,” said Stott.
Assuming the final figure is close to 14.3C then 2008 will be the 10th hottest year on record. Hottest was 1998, followed by 2005, 2003 and 2002.
In March a team of climate scientists at Kiel University predicted that natural variation would mask the 0.3C warming predicted by the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change over the next decade.”
Lets do a reality check.
The statement that “The relatively chilly temperatures compared with recent years are not evidence that global warming is slowing” mixes up regional and global temperatures changes. Also, there has been no global warming in the last 4 years (at least; e.g. see). Global warming has stopped for the last few years.
The statement that “In March a team of climate scientists at Kiel University predicted that natural variation would mask the 0.3C warming predicted by the Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change over the next decade” is scientifically incorrect. Heating cannot be ”masked”.
As given in the examples below, the news releases provided by the UK Met Office make for interesting reading and show the complexity and difficulty of skillful season climate prediction.
Thus why should there be any confidence in the forecasts regarding climate change in the longer term?
Examples of UK Met Office News releases
1. For example, on April 11 2007, they wrote in a news release “Met Office forecast for Summer 2007″ [to their credit, they do have a readily accessible archive]
“The Met Office forecast of global mean temperature for 2007, issued on 4 January 2007 in conjunction with the University of East Anglia, stated that 2007 is likely to be the warmest ever year on record going back to 1850, beating the current record set in 1998.”
This did not occur.
2. On April 3 2008 they wrote in a news release “A typical British summer”
“The coming summer is expected to be a ‘typical British summer’, according to long-range forecasts issued today. Summer temperatures across the UK are more likely to be warmer than average and rainfall near or above average for the three months of summer.”
On August 29 2008 they published a news release titled “Wet summer could end with a bang” where they write
“The return to unsettled weather will mark the end of the meteorological summer which has been one of the wettest on record across the UK.”
I suppose that rainfall “near or above average” fits what actually occurred but this is hardly a particularly precise or useful forecast.
3. On September 25 2008 they wrote in a news release “Trend of mild winters continues”
“The Met Office forecast for the coming winter suggests it is, once again, likely to be milder than average. It is also likely that the coming winter will be drier than last year.”
They qualified this news release with the article on November 25 2008 titled “A cold start to winter” where they wrote
“The latest update to the Met Office winter forecast suggests that although the coming winter will have temperatures near or above average, it is very likely that December will be colder than normal.”
Now, in addition to a news release on December 9 2008 they published an article ”El Niño gives colder European winters”, which states
Sarah Ineson, climate research scientist at the Met Office says: “We have shown evidence of an active stratospheric role in the transition to cold conditions in northern Europe and mild conditions in southern Europe in late winter during El Niño years”.
The message in th UK Met Office press releases is that, since their is such poor skill with seasonal weather prediction, multi-decadal climate prediction must be a much less precise and accurate science than we have heard promoted by the IPCC and in the climate change press releases given out by the UK Met Office and others.
TonyB (01:40:29) :
Here’s the first Beck graph you posted (that I was commenting on):
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/beck_mencken_hadley.jpg
Now here’s the one you just posted:
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/beck_mencken_hadley.jpg
Notice the difference?
In the first, the blue line is labeled “cumulative man made emissions”. In the second, the same blue line is labeled “annual man made emissions”.
Beck needs to get it straight as to what he is actually graphing! For the record, the second graph is correctly labeled wrt the blue line. As what the purple line on the second graph (“cumulative carbon”) is, I have no idea.
As to my other criticisms, do you consider central england temperatures to be representative of world temperatures?
Here’s my opinion on what Beck has done:
Beck’s contention is that world temperature is driving CO2 levels, and not the other way around. In order to account for the huge variations in his pre-1950 CO2 measurements, he needs to have a temperature record that also shows a great deal of variability. The world temperatures (HADCRU) don’t show that level of variability, so he cherry-picked a subset of the data that does.
WRT the post 1950 section of his graph, he has left out Mauna Loa, the South Pole, and all the other continuous monitoring stations that have come on line since then. He only plots the single most recent (and correct) measurement for 2005.
Why does he completely ignore these extensive data sets (25% of the time period we have CO2 measurements for)???? I think there are two reasons. The first is that the lack of variability in the post 1950 measurements would raise serious questions about the accuracy of his earlier measurements.
The second reason is that having the post-1950 measurements would make it too easy for someone to fiddle with his spreadsheet (as I did), calculate the total CUMULATIVE man-made CO2 emissions, and compare them to the post-1950 CO2 levels. That comparison would show that man-made emissions are more than enough to account for the post-1950 CO2 levels.
If you don’t believe me, go back to the spreadsheet you linked to and do it yourself.
anna v (21:16:12) :
I was asking about peer reviewed papers, not PR. The peer reviewed I found are all Keeling + another author.
Try google. If you think that Keeling and his many co-authors (along with the technicians, grad students, post-docs, etc.) have been fudging data from all these monitoring sites for 50 years without anybody catching on, or ratting him out, then I can’t help you.
BTW, Becks graph shows the most recent (for his graph) Mauna Loa measurement, so he obviously thinks they are right about the most recent CO2 level.
That’s pretty good fudging on Keelings part! To start creating a curve way back in the 50’s that projects right onto our current CO2 levels. He picked his early trend really well!
I have read reference here asking what years were coldest, etc… I don’t know if anyone can recall, but significant weather event happened in the US during the 1996-97 winter for the people of the plains states. I remember this event very well as I was living in Fargo, North Dakota.
It was one of the worst and coldest winters in North Dakota history (recorded). The upper mid-west (most notably North Dakota, South Dakota and Minnesota) saw one of the coldest, wettest and stormiest winters in history. In Fargo, we saw record snowfall accumulation of over 130 inches. We also had the longest stretch of below zero temperature on record (never got above zero for like 5 weeks straight .. brrr). In northern Minnesota, an all time low temperature record was set at something like -73F. We had a record number of blizzards as well, seemed like one every Wednesday and usually on the weekends, almost like clockwork (spent a lot of time at the bars that winter).
After an incredibly harsh winter, they claim the likes of which had not been seen in some 500 hundred years, an El Nino followed that spring and lead to the quickest snow melt in regional history. This turned the plains states into the largest and most widespread flood ever recorded in US history (still stands today) (see: Flood of the Millenium or Google it, the Discovery Channel has also aired an hour special about it).
I don’t know about other cold years, but that was certainly cold and harsh for the plains states. I find it rather funny that our second warmest temperatures happend that very next year in 1998 (1934 is still warmest in my book, period). I remember we had one of the most mild winters of all time that year and a warmer than average summer (but not nearly the hottest for the region).
I guess my point here is this, in my modest 46 years on this plant, living in many parts of the country from the west coast to the east coast, I have seen weather come and go. I have seen weather extremes in both directions. I have seen tornados, been in huricanes, walked in blizards with windchills under -130F (you can freeze your skin in seconds). What I find significant these days, is that I cannot recall any time in my life where weather (and climate) did not dominate human activity. Extremes come and go, trends come and go and man has not, and in my estimation, absolutely can not, do a damn thing to it, or about it (except perhaps screw it up).
My advise to all of you, learn to live WITH the planet and prepare yourself for what the planet will do next, as we are all only here for the ride. AGW is bullshit, it is a scam, and it is already costing us far too much and diverting way too much attention away from real problems that need to be attended to. Please let your voices be heard loud and clear! Get rid of this AGW hysteria crap before it gets rid of us!
Just thought I would share…
Thank you…
Bill Illis (07:39:27) :
The graph you posted (the results of a simple mathematical model, BTW, but I won’t hold that against you 🙂 ) misses a couple of points. First, the climate sensitivity for CO2 doubling refers to the EQUILIBRIUM temperature- we are not at temperature equilibrium yet relative to CO2 levels because the oceans take along time to warm.
Secondly, you must be careful looking at climate and CO2 levels when you go WAY back in time, because the layout of the continents was very, very different, and that has a strong effect on climate.
Chris V
I know there are other factors , but according to the IPCC they are a very major factor indeed. Please explain how constant low co2 levels produce fluctuating temperatures as high as todays.
TonyB
TonyB (01:40:29) :
OOPS! I posted the same graph twice!
THIS is the second graph you posted:
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/man_vs_nature.jpg
Chris V tells us:
I find it interesting that while all his fellow AGWers are busy telling us that human produced CO2 is going to destroy life on earth as we know it so we have to tax everyone and cut CO2 and some how come up with non-CO2 producing energy sources that we do not even understand, Chris is also setting us up to be taxed and vilified for other, as yet, unspecified activities.
However, what is even more interesting is how those many fewer humans during the Holocene climate optimum and other times past when temperatures were like they are today and when the Arctic was ice free during summer could have had so much effect on the climate.
Steven Hill (14:44:35) :
I think that China wants the US Car industry relocated to China – after all they need the jobs over there.
Plus as energy prices are artificially increased in the US, and US Manufacturing becomes increasingly uncompetitive, the global capital markets will simply move the capital to China which is “not buying” into CO2 caps for themselves – just for the western world.
Chris V
Perhaps its my fault, but you have jumped to so many wrong conclusions in your earlier post that it’s best to go back to basics.
Firstly the graphs have nothing whatsoever to do with Beck. I created them. They are part of a series of around 10 all showing different things as my line of thought evolved. You have the first and the last one, so there are a lot of things that were on the first graph that didn’t make it on to subsequent ones. This was either because I was subsequently looking at a different part of a study, or there wasn’t room to put on lots of different bits of information, or I already had found the data I wanted so did not feel the need to repeat it .
The very first graph was originally an exercise in showing Hadley temperatures-I use them a lot because I am British, understand their flaws and realise they are the longest and most reliable dataset we have on this planet.
After graphing temperatures I was curious to see the impact of human co2 having just come across the cdiac/ipcc data. They were inserted directly from source and were never intended to be any more than illustrative . The blue line clearly showed 280ppm pre industrial, rising to 295ppm in 1900, 315ppm in 1958 and 385ppm today. Those milestones are also clearly marked in the notes-the other coloured lines show the various forms of human emissions-coal-petrol etc.
What struck me immediately was that for a large part of the graph co2 didn’t seem to have anything to do with temperatures. This struck me as odd-surely we shouldnt have wildly fluctuating temperatures with a constant low co2 level? As a historian I also realise that the instrumental temperatures- if extrapolated backwards- would rise to even higher and lower levels as they travelled through the MWP, Roman warm periods and the Holocene maximums, thereby further deepening the conundrum
Eventually I ended up with the last graph I posted. This shows actual total human emissions of co2 against natural levels. On to this I inserted the Beck information. The human co2 levels were already shown in context on this graph (the line at the bottom) and I already had the ‘large scale’ humans only graph-the first one- which clearly showed rising levels from 1750 to the present day . So there is nothing missing ‘post 1958’ at all in any of the graphs, its just they are to different scales and show different things, and as human emissions are vastly smaller than natural ones this is going to be reflected in the end result.
With regards to using Hadley, the reason is that -like the Zurich ones- they are reliable and real records. Global ones are extremely compromised and smoothed and massaged so much that they are meaningless unless you are an IPCC author trying to prove a point. As an illustration of this, the only time it is possible to draw a ‘keeling curve’ matching sharply rising temperatures to sharply rising co2 levels, is when global data is used. I have graphed this data on to five temperature data sets from five different countries and none of them remotely show the correlation demonstrated by the IPCC. If Co2 is so reliably measured and well mixed it should be possible to replicate the IPCC graph with any reliable temperature data set from any country-but it isn’t.
Now to go back to Beck. As I say, it seemed to me that in order to explain the fluctuating temperatures on the first graph it was badly in need of additional co2 peaks and troughs. It was only then I became aware of Beck.
I was intrigued but rather sceptical (I am sceptical even of sceptics) As a historian I first researched the background to the readings-scientist, methodology, equipment, weather conditions etc. Then I looked at the history of co2 measurements and discovered learned papers by many people, some of whom I have mentioned here.
I was startled to learn the first relatively reliable co2 measurement was made in the 1790’s and by 1820 they were invariably pretty good. Not surprising really when you consider the quality of the scientists and the rapid way in which they developed their knowledge. They were perfectly well aware of the impact of co2 sources (such as gas lamps) on results and took them into account.
I then researched the background of life in the 1800’s to see why such measurements were being taken, and realised they were commonplace because they were used widely in factories and hospitals as well as for scientific advancement. Curiuously they also seemed to be promoted as a form of public entertainment-people were fascinated by the many scientific discoveries of the age and public talks on all sorts of scientific matters attracted big audiences. I think Faraday demonstrated co2 readings (very high) at his annual Christmas lectures before he became more interested in electricity.
Taking the measurements was considered relatively straightforward-much easier than measuring oxygen content. They were accurate to plus or minus 3%.
As far back as 1859 Gaskell was writing about the co2 levels in cotton factories in the book ‘North and South’ and Florence Nightingale was well aware of the efects of too much co2 in enclosed spaces. ( I have an advert for a gas analyser of a type that she probably used) Patents for mechanical ones were being granted over 120 years ago.
In 1889, Britain formally forced factory owners to keep below 900ppm in factories, but measurements here had been commonplace for thirty years prior to that.
The obviously established nature of the science all set me wondering as to why we hadn’t heard about it, and why the IPCC used ice cores as a proxy. Its bizarre to use such a complex proxy when we have actual direct measurements taken at the time by extremely competent practitioners.
I took the trouble and spent money to get hold of biographies of Callendar and Keeling, and also bought Callendars archives- comprising some 6000 records. This was an eye opener. You are right about cherry picking but entirely wrong as to who was doing it!
If Callendar had taken the average of the thousands of reliable records available to him he would have chosen around 320-340ppm for the 19th century. However he had his theory of AGW that he wanted to prove. Charles Keeling didnt know enough in 1956 to recognise he was being fed incomplete information.
Up till that point I had not read Becks extensive back up information on his web site as I did not want to be influenced by his work. However I then subsequently contacted Beck to ask some questions and I found him to be one of the most open players I have come across in the climate science area. I would say he is a litle naive and of the old school, but utterly meticulous and straightforward in his work. He realised he did not present his initial paper last year as well as he could have done, and as a result some tried to discredit him.
After what amounts to weeks of work looking into this, I would say that Beck is right, and there are thousands of reliable records out there taken by highly competent scientists that illustrate that the co2 levels during the 1800’s were highly variable-as indeed was the climate, ranging from extreme heat to extreme cold.
I would respectfully suggest you read the link to ‘Air and Water’ that I posted yesterday which will give you an insight into the established nature of co2 science. I also have lots of other documentation from the time backing up the information-some of which I have already posted here.
I would close with a repeat of my question which you only partly answered yesterday;
“I know there are other factors , but according to the IPCC they are a very major factor indeed. Please explain how constant low co2 levels produce fluctuating temperatures in the past as high as todays.”
TonyB
@PeteM (13:18:13) :
Hi Pete,
A few questions for you, can you please supply definitive physical evidence that determines the following.
1. The proportion of man made emissions of CO2 that comprises the current CO2 (385PPM) in the atmosphere.
2. The proportion of man made emissions of CO2 that comprises the measured yearly increase (2PPM) of CO2 in the atmosphere.
3. The measured impact in forcing for “Warming” that the above proportions will cause.
4. The measured reductions in CO2 growth if the developed world takes on the proposed CAP and Trade systems without the participation of China and India.
I would just like to know in a measured and defined way, what is the evidential basis for assuming that man-made emissions of CO2 will have a warming impact on the climate, and that current popular mitigations (i.e CAP and Trade) will in fact reduce man-made emissions of CO2 and as a consequence impact on global warming.
The reason that I ask is that I find it untenable to propose replacing a cost-effective (fossil fuels) industrial energy base for a more expensive and less reliable (wind, solar, etc) energy base at great cost.
And given that you seem very confident in the AGW position that man made emissions of CO2 are and will cause global (and catastrophic) warming – I am sure that you must have answers to the above questions backed up by solid, verifiable, objective and transparent evidence of them.
Sorry for all the bolding.
Graeme Rodaughan (12:52:03) :
Steven Hill (14:44:35) :
I think that China wants the US Car industry relocated to China – after all they need the jobs over there.
They can buy the whole thing for a few billion. Ford is 7.26 B market cap and GM is 2.41 B market cap. Cerberus would probably give them Chrysler… So for about $10 Billion they can buy the whole thing (or wait a week and get it for $1 Billion 😉
But then they would have the pension and medical obligations…. Buy it, outsource / relocate key parts to chinese companies, sell some brands to Chinese companies, then bankrupt the US parts in 2 years would probably work great for them… They have reserves measured in $Trillion units… $10 Billion is chump change to them and the strategic value would be large.
Plus as energy prices are artificially increased in the US, and US Manufacturing becomes increasingly uncompetitive, the global capital markets will simply move the capital to China which is “not buying” into CO2 caps for themselves – just for the western world.
Um, I am… Most of my money is flowing into Australia (levered to China) and Brazil, but I”m adding some direct China next week. Oh, and a bit of India too. It takes about 30 seconds and a half dozen key clicks to move tens of thousands to tens of millions of capital out of the US and into {country of your choice}. Methinks our politicians don’t understand this…
Much of the manufacturing base of the country has already physically moved to China. Try, just try, to find things not marked ‘made in China’…
Sidebar: Tata Motors (TTM) in India is planning a car (the Nano) that ought to sell for $2k to $3k. That’s less than the “benefits” costs built into a GM car… and don’t get me started on the sales tax (8%+ in California) on a $40,000 Barge Mobile…
The US Auto industry can only survive as a socialist enterprise with government subsidy for the good of the workers (under present conditions).
As Obama and friends further kill the economy with AGW driven actions and carbon taxes it will only get worse. Cap & Tirade will accelerate the movement of money and economic growth to China, India, & Brazil; nothing more.
TonyB (15:50:24)
If Co2 is so reliably measured and well mixed it should be possible to replicate the IPCC graph with any reliable temperature data set from any country-but it isn’t.
Oohh, nicely done.
Hi E.M.Smith.
With the punctuation “tags” once you switch them on in a post – how do you switch them off??
I feel like the sorcerors apprentice.
TonyB (15:50:24) :
Sorry, I didn’t realize you created those graphs. But my criticisms still stand.
I am very confused now- what exactly does your blue line show? It’s labelled as man made CO2 emissions (in million metric tons), and the numbers seem to be right for that. Now are you saying it’s atmospheric CO2 (in ppm)?
You ARE missing post 1950 data! – the continuous Mauna Loa. etc. measurements of CO2 levels in the atmosphere. You might also want to add the Lava Dome ice core CO2 data- they go from pre-industrial up to the time the Mauna Loa measurements start. For both, you will see a smooth curve, with the rate of CO2 growth increasing with time. The Lava Dome and Mauna Loa measurements agree completely where they overlap. There is no sign in them of the HUGE annual variability your pre-1950 CO2 measurements show.
Why don’t the Mauna Loa or Lava Dome CO2 levels show that variability???? Give me some physical mechanism that explains it. Show me some data that indicates it is even physically possible for world-wide CO2 levels to bounce around by over 100 ppm year to year. Then explain why this physical mechanism suddenly stopped exactly when we started making systematic measurements of CO2.
I can think of some reasons for the difference in variability pre- and post- 1950. What do you think the reason is?
And your use of Central England Temperatures is still wrong. Why should CO2 levels correspond exactly with the temperature in one tiny region of the earth? I think everbody here knows that there is a great deal of variability in temperature trends around the world. CO2 is effecting (or is effected by, in your view) the temps all over the world, not just the temperature in Central England!
Here is an exercise for you, just for grins- add the Mauna Loa CO2 data, the Hadley global temperatures, and the the CUMULATIVE man-made CO2 emissions. What does that graph show?
As to factors that effect global temperature in addition to CO2: Milankovitch cycles, volcanoes, solar irradiance, other GHGs (methane), PDOs, ENSO’s, the layout of the continents….
TonyB (15:50:24) :
> Firstly the graphs have nothing whatsoever to do with Beck. I created them.
> … [much remarkable information]
What a remarkable about of work. Thank you!
Err, What a remarkable amount of work. Thank you! [You have me tongued tied or finger tied or whatever….]
Graeme Rodaughan (17:21:09) :
Hi E.M.Smith.
With the punctuation “tags” once you switch them on in a post – how do you switch them off??
I feel like the sorcerors apprentice.
Leif enlightened me on this: you should use the end signal in front of the puctuation: / . for example I ended the italics above by putting /i within the angular parenthesis ( > < , sometimes funny things happen when trying to illustrate with these thingies)
Chris V
Ah I know why you think information is missing! The point of the exercise on this second graph was solely to show Beck figures-by green dots- up to 1958 when the continous measurements started. The continous measurements are shown on other graphs and were of no interest to me in this context. The single green dot in 2008 on this graph is merely a reference point so the co2/tempscales can be put in the correct place to ensure they are accurate.
The data is from cdiac and is up to the present day and reflects total atmospheric co2 and uses the IPCC figure that 1ppm equals 2130mmt. The only reason the man made emissions- shown as a blue line- looks so insignificant on this graph is that when compared to total co2 emissions they are.
Following on from this one I also wanted to produce a graph showing co2 emissions as a proportion of greenhouse gases overall, but it would have been impossible to see the human emissions line without the use of a mircroscope.
The human emissions scale and the corresponding blue line looks much more significant on the first graph -only intended to be illustrative- because it was the only co2 measure being shown and therefore appears hugely exaggerated.
Co2 is the same all over the world so why should it matter if it is measured against temperature from one tiny corner of the world? They are real temperature figures measured against real co2 levels -as were Zurich. It is only the global temperatures-as artificial a construct as global sea levels-that show the exaggerated rise that allows it to be linked to the Keeling curve.
You ask why the pre 1958 figures show much more variability over a short time? There are three explanations;
A)) Temperatures have been mostly rising since 1958 and so have co2 levels so there is no variability to show. To reinforce that surmise the Beck figures around 1930 to 1950 also show a continous co2 rise that matched the temperature rise, and there was a similar one from around 1870 to 1900. All the co2 levels fall within the amounts that would be expected for the corresponding temperature at the time.
OR B) there is a time lag between temperature change and a co2 reading-if it was 800 years as some say it wouldnt show up in a 50 year graph would it?
OR
C) 90,000 measurements- some taken by world famous scientists- are ALL wrong!
Sorry, I am not being facetious but as a sceptic I need to look at ALL eventualities. Personally, after having done an exhaustive study (as far as can be done without govt funding) of Becks readings I think he is right in the main thrust of his arguements.
You are very welcome to use the data that was attached to the original graph and do what you want with it to reflect whatever answer you are seeking. The second graph is also available in xls format-I didn’t post it as some people seem to have trouble opening it.
I have taken the time to answer your queries openly and honestly so appreciate the answer you gave to my simple question;
“I know there are other factors , but according to the IPCC they are a very major factor indeed. Please explain how constant low co2 levels produce fluctuating temperatures in the past as high as todays.”
your reply;
“As to factors that effect global temperature in addition to CO2: Milankovitch cycles, volcanoes, solar irradiance, other GHGs (methane), PDOs, ENSO’s, the layout of the continents….”
I don’t think the layout of the continents have changed much within the human time scale I am referring to- say the last 10000 years. So you agree that natural factors can have a much greater affect than the IPCC admit? According to them it is co2 that is the driver-not these others which they are mostly dismissive about. So following on from that if all these factors can change temperatures in the past, using co2 as the culprit this time is based on circumstantial evidence and not observed cause and effect?
TonyB
TonyB
I thank you for the lucid explanation of your graphs.
I think what has been happening with CO2 is similar to the hockey stick graph . Calibrations manipulated. It is not that the rise in CO2 is in doubt, it is the calibration with the past that is in question. If the previous centuries have seen as large a number as the present one, the industrial origin of the rise becomes dubious.
I was interested to find this blog. 20 years ago I had a book published on different economic concepts to point the way to a sustainable world economy. Someone who liked the book contacted me this year to suggest that I update and re-publish it as a blog. She set up the blog, and the book is now complete on the blog in a series of postings. There are now also additional pieces on global warming and other subjects. Here is the link:
http://www.economicsforaroundearth.com
With all good wishes,
Charles Pierce
Anna
It is this strange notion of equilibrium and that our tiny input greatly disturbs the natural order of things that I find strange.
Personally I don’t doubt that we might be causing a very tiny input into overall co2 but believe this is entirely lost in natural movements between sinks and sources. If we look back to the past records and examine our overall impact it can be seen in a better context that there is greater variability than is supposed. This is hidden by the naturally rising temperatures and perhaps the way things are measured. There were many more ad hoc measuring points in the past than official ones today.
If Anthony could sell a $69.95 co2 analyser he would make a fortune!
TonyB
anna v (22:23:17) :
Graeme Rodaughan (17:21:09) :
Hi E.M.Smith.
With the punctuation “tags” once you switch them on in a post – how do you switch them off??
As Anna said, just do whatever tag you did, but with a / after the first angle bracket.
Leif enlightened me on this: you should use the end signal in front of the puctuation: / . for example I ended the italics above by putting /i within the angular parenthesis ( > < , sometimes funny things happen when trying to illustrate with these thingies)
One can either get into a remarkable level of quoting, or swap to a metadescription. So, for example, to bold something you would type
OPEN ANGLE b CLOSE ANGEL something OPEN ANGLE SLASH b CLOSE ANGLE
So it all just comes down to putting that one character, the SLASH, into the close set.
If Anthony could sell a $69.95 co2 analyser he would make a fortune!
TonyB
I agree.
I checked with Yahoo and the cheapest I found was 399$ and only up to 2000ppm and on batteries that would last only 30 hours or so.
I wonder the Chinese have not come up with something much cheaper . One gets these thermometers and humidity counters for very low prices and they just sit there telling you what is happening.
TonyB (23:17:54) :
You still don’t get it. Temperature variability on your graph from 1900 to 1950 is about the same as the temperature variability from 1950 to the present, yet the pre-1950 CO2 measurements show WAY more variability than the post-1950 Mauna Loa CO2 measurements. It is clear from your graph that temperature changes cannot be responsible for the pre-1950 CO2 variability you show. What is casuing that difference????????
I know what the reason is- the pre-1950 measurements were collected at different places, by different people, generally in no systematic way. Many have obviously been contaminated by local CO2 sources.
Go back to the book you linked to (“Air and Water”). Look at the CO2 measurements in the tables. The numbers are all over the place- some are higher than 1000 ppm. You will see instances where the same researcher, at the same place, measuring CO2 levels through time, got differences of hundreds of PPM over just a week!
It is physically impossible for CO2 levels in the atmosphere as a whole to vary that much in such a short period of time- that’s as much CO2 as 100 years of fossil fuel burning!
The only reasonable conclusions are 1) the measuring locations used by most of your researchrs were subject to contamination by local CO2 sources; and 2) perhaps the analyses are not quite as accurate as you think.
I find your refusal to add the Mauna Loa measurements to your graph perplexing. They’re easily available. It’s almost like you’re afraid to plot them.
WRT past temperatures, and the things that cause them, you need to go back and re-read the IPCC reports. They are very clear that CO2 is not the only driver of climate, but it is the most important one NOW (last 50 years or so).