Guest post by Kevin D. Knoebel
How much stupidity is needed to win a Pulitzer? The competition is fierce, apparently certain writers are piling it on high and deep in the attempt.
For example, there is a sterling example of post-modern post-journalistic brilliance that just popped up at Salon by David Sirota, Would we give up burgers to stop climate change? As will be seen, the heaping begins with the subtitle: “A new report suggests that adjusting our diet can slow global warming. Now let’s see if our politics will let us”
The first paragraph is quite revealing:
In case you missed the news, humanity spent the Earth Day week reaching another sad milestone in the history of catastrophic climate change: For the first time, measurements of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere surpassed 400 parts per million, aka way above what our current ecosystem can handle.
On the NOAA/ESRL Mauna Loa Observatory CO₂ measurements page, currently the last released monthly atmospheric concentration mean was March 2013, 397.34 ppm. Where the “surpassed 400” came from is quite unknown, not revealed. And overall not that important, as about now is when the annual cycle is peaking. The annual mean is far more scientifically relevant, and was 393.82ppm in 2012. The 2013 mean will not be breaking 400ppm. There may indeed have been a recent daily measurement above 400ppm, which shows why they use monthly means due to the range of daily variations. It will be quite surprising if the final April mean breaks 400ppm.
And how has the ecosystem responded to the “earth-shattering” increase? Crop yields up, the Sahel is greening, etc. Perhaps the ecosystem is having the equivalent of a surge of manic behavior right before a nervous breakdown. Sure, it looks great now, but soon it’ll all come crashing down. Yup, any decade now. No longer away than the next century, certainly.
BUT, there is hope! A new report, just as it says, done by Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang, former advisers to the World Bank, shows us the way. All we have to do, is give up meat. Bold added:
If you find it demoralizing that we are incinerating the planet and dooming future generations simply because too many of us like to eat cheeseburgers, here’s that good news I promised: In their report, Goodland and Anhang found that most of what we need to do to mitigate the climate crisis can be achieved “by replacing just one quarter of today’s least eco-friendly food products” — read: animal products — “with better alternatives.”
Does this sound like something you’ve heard before? Guess what, it is! The World Watch institute has the report (pdf). It was published at the end of 2009. For 3 ½ years now, this report has been chewed up, digested, rendered into the appropriate final form. Even a major vegan site found their numbers way too high.
Now, suddenly, Mr. Sirota has become aware of this amazing new report which, in the shadow of a nigh-impossible atmospheric CO₂ measurement of currently unknown origin which clearly shows the ecosystem has been broken, gives us the hope of avoiding planetary incineration by switching to great-tasting better-for-us non-animal foods. Which we would gladly do IF we could only overcome the politics!
Forget the Pulitzer, this stuff is GOLD. This is worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize of Journalism. Please, feel free to send your recommendations in to Al Gore, I hear he has some pull with the Nobel Committee.
Also notify the publishers of Roget’s Thesaurus, as Mr. Sirota has revealed two previously unknown synonyms for politics, which is that which must be overcome to avert planetary incineration: physiology and instincts.
Myrrh, there is too much misinformation in your post to go through it all. Starting with an easy one: your notion of hyperventilation and CO2 in the lungs is backwards. The best way to induce hyperventilation is to increase CO2 levels, see http://jp.physoc.org/content/240/1/91.full.pdf for example. Basically there is some kind of sensor in the lungs that senses too much CO2 and increases the breathing rate.
As for CO2 sinking to the ground, there is no evidence for that at all. See http://www.tellusb.net/coaction/index.php/tellusb/article/viewFile/16216/18126 for example.
BTW, please critique what Keeling wrote, e.g. http://tellusa.net/index.php/tellusa/article/viewFile/9366/10974 rather than some made-up notion of what he did.
eric1skeptic says:
May 7, 2013 at 4:56 am
Myrrh, there is too much misinformation in your post to go through it all. Starting with an easy one: your notion of hyperventilation and CO2 in the lungs is backwards. The best way to induce hyperventilation is to increase CO2 levels, see http://jp.physoc.org/content/240/1/91.full.pdf for example. Basically there is some kind of sensor in the lungs that senses too much CO2 and increases the breathing rate.
This is saying exactly what I said, lack of carbon dioxide in oxygen causes hyperventilation:
7. These experiments show that an afferent vagal reflex originating
from the lungs causes tachypnoea, when a dog, on ‘bypass’, inhales low
concentrations of CO2 in 02.”
When a dog inhales low concentrations of carbon dioxide in oxygen, rapid breathing results (tachypnoea). What is happening is that the body which needs sufficient carbon dioxide in the lungs to function properly (6-6.5%), will begin hyperventilating because it is desperately trying to stay alive so stops it being lost in big breaths. That’s why they give carbon dioxide to asthma patients, and so on.
That’s why the quickest cure for hyperventilation, which may look as if the body isn’t getting enough oxygen, but is the body trying to conserve carbon dioxide, is to breathe your own carbon dioxide back in. If you don’t have a paper bag handy, cup your hands.
We produce our own carbon dioxide for this, we don’t get it from the atmosphere because there isn’t enough in the atmosphere to keep us alive. We need carbon dioxide to get oxygen to our blood.
And more, on that page I posted have a read of what it says about athletic fatigue – the body needs bicarbonate of soda – if it isn’t getting it, using too much in exersion, it will take the blood carbon dioxide as an emergency measure, this prolonged will create problems for breathing..
Essential if you’re into heavy training sessions to understand this, carbon dioxide regulates our pH balance.
“Making Sense of it all while keeping it simple
The two most immediate concerns when treating patients in intensive care are their blood gasses and their blood electrolytes. Marathon runners frequently pass out and can even die because they did not replenish their electrolytes that were depleted through excessive sweating. One of these electrolytes (bicarbonate) acts as a buffer in the blood to regulate the blood’s pH but can be depleted in an attempt to compensate for blood gases. (The reverse can also happen as respiration can change and become distressed in an attempt to compensate for bicarbonate.)”
http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/11Phl/Sci/CO2&Health.html
As for CO2 sinking to the ground, there is no evidence for that at all. See http://www.tellusb.net/coaction/index.php/tellusb/article/viewFile/16216/18126 for example.
Good grief, where does it say that? Fetch it, quote it.
Carbon dioxide is a real gas: it has mass, volume, weight under gravity – it is under gravity heavier than the gas air which is our atmosphere, which is around 98% nitrogen and oxygen.
Therefore, it can’t do anything else but sink through air, it will not readily rise in air anymore than the dust on your desk.
In the real world real gases separate out by weight; in the real world oxygen and nitrogen and carbon dioxide are condensable gases, because they have volume which expands when heated becoming less dense and therefore lighter and condenses when cooled becoming more dense and therefore heavier, that’s how we get our winds which are convective currents; because in the real world as still taught in traditional physics, we know why hot air rises and cold air sinks.
I’m sorry that you have been educated by the AGWScienceFiction meme production department, but that’s the fact, the reality of the world around you. We do not have empty space populated by ideal gas with no mass zipping through at great speeds under their own molecular momentum, we have a heavy real gas ocean of air, the volume of it weighing 14lb on every square inch – that’s a ton on your shoulders. A heavy mass of real gas air where the movement of molecules is constrained by the volumes of the other gas molecules around them.
Carbon dioxide separating out is a well known hazard in the real world in certain situation, in mining, around volcanic activity, and in breweries. If you’re thinking of brewing your own beer in a cellar you should know this.
Carbon dioxide is heavier than air, this means it will not readily rise in air – it cannot “diffuse into the atmosphere rapidly under its own molecular momentum to mix thoroughly by bouncing off other such imaginary idea gases”
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2005/05_06_02.html
“Don’t daydream in low-lying places in Kilauea caldera
“Carbon dioxide (CO2) is a colorless, nearly odorless gas that is denser than air.”
“Because CO2 is heavier than air, it doesn’t readily rise into the atmosphere and, instead, tends to pool in low areas.”
eric1skeptic says:
May 7, 2013 at 5:40 am
BTW, please critique what Keeling wrote, e.g. http://tellusa.net/index.php/tellusa/article/viewFile/9366/10974 rather than some made-up notion of what he did.
What he did was begin with an unrealistic figure which he got from Callendar cherry picking data, from that point on nothing he did has any value. Basing all carbon dioxide measurements on faked data premise is like expecting to understand temperature variations in the Holocene by using the Hockey Stick which eliminated MWP and LIA and created a dramatic rise using faked temperature records.
You show, how Keeling told the difference between man made and volcanic, and when you realise he couldn’t and didn’t then you read that paper again. And read how they make the measurements at Mauna Loa, but arbitrarily deciding what is volcanic and what man made when they can’t tell them apart.
Myrrh asks “Good grief, where does it say that? Fetch it, quote it.”
From the paper: “Our data indicate that, on average, some exchange occurs through the inversion and there is a gradual increase in CO2 at levels >200 m during the night, though on many nights this does not occur and mixing ratios above the inversion remain fairly constant”
In other words, CO2 doesn’t sink because the depleted CO2 below the inversion is not replaced by the higher CO2 from above the inversion. Furthermore there in an increase with altitude.
If you need me to fetch from the Keeling paper, just let me know.
eric1skeptic says:
May 7, 2013 at 9:26 am
Myrrh asks “Good grief, where does it say that? Fetch it, quote it.”
From the paper: “Our data indicate that, on average, some exchange occurs through the inversion and there is a gradual increase in CO2 at levels >200 m during the night, though on many nights this does not occur and mixing ratios above the inversion remain fairly constant”
In other words, CO2 doesn’t sink because the depleted CO2 below the inversion is not replaced by the higher CO2 from above the inversion. Furthermore there in an increase with altitude.
As with the paper you didn’t understand which agreed with me and wasn’t saying what you said it was saying, you’re incapable of reading this one. And you lack the courtesy to apologise for your misreading and admit you’re wrong.
Look at some pictures from http://www.tellusb.net/coaction/index.php/tellusb/article/viewFile/16216/18126, go to page 405 – what do you see? That carbon dioxide levels increase with height? Look again, the highest flasks are at the bottom, for obvious reasons, movement of increases in CO2 levels from the plant respiration and so on will be greater at lower levels, because carbon dioxide is heavier than air.
I have looked at a fair amount of such studies, I have yet to find one which shows carbon dioxide levels increasing with height. This one is no different. Look at the ppm at these different flask levels and bear in mind what they’re saying about summer and winter to understand the differences.
If you really think there are studies showing carbon dioxide increases with height, fetch.
If you need me to fetch from the Keeling paper, just let me know.
If you’d like to then do so.
Myrrh, I looked at page 405. You are correct that CO2 mostly decreases with height in that picture (although it said the opposite in the text I quoted above). But since CO2 doesn’t sink more in summer daytimes than the rest of the year, it is clear that the large gradient comes from production of CO2 by green plants on summer nights (via respiration). During the summer daytime the 51m line dips below the other two lines (times are in GMT). That is due to photosynthesis using up the available CO2.
More importantly the 123m curve rises during the night, along with the 496m curve (albeit a lot less). That means the released CO2 mixes up through the atmosphere, efficiently to 123m and not very efficiently to 496m. When I say not very efficient, I mean with respect to the diurnal CO2 cycle, and thus the 496m CO2 stays more constant over the day.
Eric 1 Skeptic, you deserve a medal.
Nice job!
eric1skeptic says:
May 7, 2013 at 2:24 pm
Myrrh, I looked at page 405. You are correct that CO2 mostly decreases with height in that picture (although it said the opposite in the text I quoted above).
All it was saying was that there was some ‘leakage’ into the level above the temperature inversion at night, below which there was a build up from respiration, plants breathe out carbon dioxide – hot air rises cold air sinks – carbon dioxide is a real gas therefore it will expand when heated becoming less dense and rise as do nitrogen and oxygen, the build up is from being trapped by the inversion as at the boundary it will cool and sink, but note, >200 metres doesn’t mean the levels are rising greater above that, the bulk is still below the inversion layer at 150m.
But since CO2 doesn’t sink more in summer daytimes than the rest of the year, it is clear that the large gradient comes from production of CO2 by green plants on summer nights (via respiration). During the summer daytime the 51m line dips below the other two lines (times are in GMT). That is due to photosynthesis using up the available CO2.
Which is how visible light from the Sun doesn’t convert to heat, but to chemical energy, sugars…
More importantly the 123m curve rises during the night, along with the 496m curve (albeit a lot less). That means the released CO2 mixes up through the atmosphere, efficiently to 123m and not very efficiently to 496m. When I say not very efficient, I mean with respect to the diurnal CO2 cycle, and thus the 496m CO2 stays more constant over the day.
These numbers are trace of trace the higher up you go. But if you find this interesting you have to know how real gases act from their properties and processes. AGW’s ideal gas doesn’t have any properties so it doesn’t have any convection, and convection has to be understood to know what they are saying here, see 3.1 for example.
There will be local convection as warm gases become less dense and rise and cooled higher will then condense and sink which convection currents are called winds, these are volumes (packets) of gases on the move, but convection currents can also come in from way outside the area; they note that one of the stations is 80km from the Atlantic to the SE which moderates the climate at the station. Inshore/offshore winds is a good place to start to see how differential heating of volumes of air create winds as land heats up quicker than water (water has a very high heat capacity so takes longer to heat up and so longer to cool down).
The colder volumes of air over water will be heavier and denser because colder than the volumes of air over land which are heating up quickly and becoming less dense lighter than air and rising creating an area of low pressure, weighing less, and the colder denser volumes from the high pressure over the ocean will sink flowing beneath the adjacent low pressure area over the land. Hot air rises cold air sinks. Winds flow from high to low.
Gases are fluids as are liquids, this is also what happens in the ocean as hot water becomes less dense and rises and colder volumes sink flowing beneath, here the convection currents are called currents.
Put that together with heat always flows from hotter to colder and and you’ve got the basics of meteorology in the ocean and atmosphere – the land and water at the equator is heated intensely and flows towards the poles from where cold volumes of air and water flow back towards the equator in the great circulation currents. Add in the Earth’s spin and land mass for the general patterns and differential heating through the year and you can plan a voyage from Egypt to India and a few months later back again, your sailing ship laden with spices blown back by the wind.
Myrrh, your description of the prevailing weather sounds appropriate and I would say that your description (plus some more details) is what determines the “global average temperature”. Just for completeness I will paste the names that Keeling says he got data from (not just Callendar)
“The extensive sampling reported here was made possible through the generous coopera- tion of the United States Weather Bureau whose personnel carried out the sampling at Little America, the South Pole, Mauna Loa Observatory, and Arctic ice floes “A” and “B”; the 55th Weather Reconnaissance Squadron of the United States Air Force who collected the samples from aircraft; and Dr. Norris W. Rakestraw and Mr. Lee Waterman whocollect- ed samples from Downwind Cruise. Special thanks are due Messrs. Charles E. Williams and Jack C. Pales who operated the continuous recording instruments and w h o reduced the data to preliminary tabular form at Little America and Mauna Loa Observatory, respec- tively; and to Maj. George T. McClelland, Maj. Bernard M. Rose, Lieut. H. T. Fukuda, and Capt. J. D. Sharp for special effort in plm- ning and executing the sampling from aircraft.”
from http://tellusa.net/index.php/tellusa/article/viewFile/9366/10974
On Thu, May 2, 2013, I sent an email to Alison F. C. Bridger, Professor & Chair, Department of Meteorology and Climate Science, San Jose State University:
“It isn’t funny, it isn’t clever. Burning books is sick, and that kind of sickness spreads. You should be ashamed of yourselves.”
Professor Bridger responded today:
“Thank you for sharing your concerns. The Department of Meteorology and Climate Science has removed the material in question from its website, and regrets what was clearly an ill-conceived attempt at satire. Please be assured the university does not condone book burning for any reason.”
Good for you, Bladeshearer (re: 5/7/13 @ur momisugly 1859).
Hm. Somebody else who wrote to SJSU got that same EXACT response from the President of the U.. — even the same misuse of the term “satire.” [I think they posted their experience on the SJ Book Burning thread] But, I’m sure they took your “concerns” to heart — NOT.
I was handed THIS from a very reliable anonymous source [;)] —
MEMORANDUM TO ALL SJSU STAFF —
Smoking marijuana in the faculty lounge is now absolutely prohibited.
President Whatever
eric1skeptic says:
May 7, 2013 at 5:49 pm
Myrrh, your description of the prevailing weather sounds appropriate and I would say that your description (plus some more details) is what determines the “global average temperature”. Just for completeness I will paste the names that Keeling says he got data from (not just Callendar)
In the conclusion AIRS came to, that carbon dioxide was contrary to expectations lumpy and not at all well-mixed, they said they would have to go away and learn something about winds..
What data papers Keeling then uses to apparently give credibility to his claims is neither here nor there, he makes assumptions which are not credible.
“The content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,
in contrast to oxygen, nitrogen, and the
rare gases, has been found to be significantly
variable (GLUECKAU19F5, 1).N ew data indicate,
however, that the degree of variability is
smaller and the variations are more systematic
than previously believed (STEPANOV1A9,5 2,
SLOCUM, 1955, FONSELIUS ET AL., 1956,
CALLEND1A95R8,, BRAY1, 959)”
He begins with the truth, that carbon dioxide has been found to be significantly variable, of course it is, as he notes further on carbon dioxide production areas in the northern hemisphere show the greatest variabilty because that’s where the plant life is to generate it, as we saw on the NOAA/CMDL graphics – in winter the plants go to sleep and nothing much is happening – and the southern hemisphere is vast ocean. But he then goes on to claim that the variations have been found to be smaller than previously believed and mentions Callendar in the mix of papers – Callendar has been proved to be a cheat in cherry picking, and without a great deal of time and effort I can’t get the other papers to see what they actually said.., the context.
What does he go on to comparing next after admitting that there is local contamination at all 3 continuous monitoring stations? Fig 1 – the variability in the northern hemisphere including the butt end of the heavily contaminated by volcanic activity of Mauna Loa with data gathered by plane at height – what does this really show?
“At Mauna Loa Observatory,
Hawaii, a less prominent variability has
been found in approximately half of the records.
Ths is attributed to release of carbon dioxide
by nearby volcanic vents; combustion on the
island associated with agricultural, industrial,
and domestic activities; and lower concentra-
tion of carbon dioxide in the air transported to
the station by upslope winds. The values reported
here are averages of data for periods of
downslope winds or strong lateral winds when
the concentration remained nearly constant
for several hours or more.At La Jolla, California,
the concentration has been found to be
highly variable. Highest concentrations occur
during light winds from the north, from the
direction of Los Angeles ; lowest concentrations
when the wind is from the west or southwest
and of moderate force or greater. Lowest
weekly values usually do not differ by more
than -i- I p.p.m. during any month, and, within
a range of 2 p.p.m., agree with other data for
the northern Pacific ocean. Monthly averages
of these data, which presumably indicate nearly
uncontaminated air, are cited hcrc.”
Against actual measurements made by plane an arbitrarily chosen number having decided what is great local contamination when much of the records have to be thrown out to get something that fits in with carbon dioxide at height, to give some semblance of credibility.. Jolly dee.
It presumably indicates not uncontaminated air but fixing a base for further manipulations, claiming a “trend” from less than two years of data. Which is what he did and continued to manipulate from his and his son’s involvement in Scripps by creating an artificial unproven rise from the wealth of variations he had at his disposal. In other words, he continued doing what Callendar had established in order to prove that ‘man made production was the cause of the rise in temperature’ – gosh, where is the man made signal among all the natural carbon dioxide contamination at Mauna Loa that is claimed to be all the rising trend? All it’s measuring is this same local contamination as carbon dioxide settles down within the patterns from its real properties and processes as a gas within the local climate in an arbitrarily decided “averages of data for periods of
downslope winds or strong lateral winds
when the concentration
remained nearly constant for several hours or more”
– measuring the same carbon dioxide which went up on the way down, “release of carbon dioxide by nearby volcanic vents; combustion on the
island associated with agricultural, industrial,
and domestic activities”
He then confirms the great seasonal variations in areas with plant growth and goes on:
“Where data extend beyond one year, averages
for the second year are higher than for the
first year.”
Gosh.
” At the South Pole, where the longest
record exists, the concentration has increased
at the rate of about 1.3 P.P.m. per year.”
Where was he before moving to Mauna Loa?
” Over
the northern Pacific ocean the increase appears
to be between 0.5 and 1.2 p.p.m. per year.
Since measurements are still in progress, more
reliable estimates of annual increase should be
available in the future.”
Oh right, that there will be annual increases has been pre-determined..
” At the South Pole the
observed rate of increase is nearly that to be
expected from the combustion of fossil fuel
(1.4 p.p.m.),”
When it can’t be told apart from volcanic activity?
” if no removal from the atmosphere
takes place (REVELLaEn d SUESS, 1957). From
this agreement, one might be led to conclude
that the oceans have been without effect in
reducing the annual increase in concentration
resulting from the combustion of fossil fuel.”
No, what it leads one to conclude is that he is working to an agenda, to create an annual increase using carbon dioxide from every source and claiming it is from man made combustion of fossil fuel.
See how easy it is to create a trend when you have so much choice and are using all carbon dioxide sources and can’t tell the difference between volcanic and made made fossil fuel, just say that’s what it is. And hey presto, you’ve got another grant from those who want to push the same anti coal agenda. And take control of the monitoring of the stations and keep it in the family..
All Keeling has done is claim an annual increase and claim it is from fossil fuel combustion when it is clearly showing no such thing.
Magicians’ tricks, sleights of hand manipulating real and fake data while telling you what you are seeing.*
Do have a read of Timothy Casey’s page on volcanic measurements – the agenda continued as it was taken up by more powerful vested interests.
http://carbon-budget.geologist-1011.net/
There is no way to tell volcanic from the fossil fuel combustion and volcanic activity is deliberately downplayed at the highest science levels to keep the fossil fuel illusion alive, but see how Keeling and the Callendar et al agenda pretended to science from the very beginning, as he has shown sleights of hand in his paper we’re discussing: 3.0 Abusing Doctor Suess: Pulling the Cat out of the Hat.
There’s lot of history now on this from all kinds of directions as more people with their own agendas saw the possibilities of using this faked science, like Maggie using the emotional energy of the greenies to divert them from their vocal anti nuclear to concentrate instead on the anti carbon dioxide from fossil fuels, as she systematically destroyed the coal industry and became a willing pawn, flattered into the IPCC agenda ‘because of her credentials as a chemist would give her, a mere woman in the male dominated world politics of the day, heavy weight status. Later as did Revelle she tried to correct that, but the bank wagon was rolling on..
*Couch it enough variety of convoluted scientific sounding jargon and you can prove whatever you want, it’s the deconstruction of this which takes time because so many science fields involved, and the various interested parties have become more determined hence their setting up of the IPCC. In the 95 report the real conclusions of the scientists was excised by Santer, on Houghton’s bidding, from no discernible man made signal to ‘it’s all the fault of man’..
That’s what the fight here is all about, to reclaim science in education which has been thoroughly trashed by these people.
Myrrh, do you agree that measurements like these: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/jubany.html are accurate? Your Timothy Casey link says:
“Amundsen Scott South Pole Station appears to be well separated by 1300 km from the volcanic lineation extending along Antarctica’s Pacific Coast (From the Ross Shelf to the Antarctic Peninsula), However, Antarctic volcanoes are not nearly as well mapped as those in more populated regions, such as Japan. In any case, the strong circumpolar winds that delay mixing will inevitably concentrate Antarctica’s volcanic CO2 emissions over the Antarctic continent, including Amundsen Station…”
I don’t think that analysis can also apply to Jubany station on the peninsula since it is outside the circumpolar winds. In any case please explain why the measurements at Jubany station http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/Jubany_thru_2009_Daily.JPG are rising nearly monotonically, without much annual wiggle that shows up more in the NH. Also explain how a volcanic source would increase CO2 monotonically rather than in bursts.
eric1skeptic says:
May 8, 2013 at 3:31 am
Myrrh, do you agree that measurements like these: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/jubany.html are accurate? Your Timothy Casey link says:
“Amundsen Scott South Pole Station appears to be well separated by 1300 km from the volcanic lineation extending along Antarctica’s Pacific Coast (From the Ross Shelf to the Antarctic Peninsula), However, Antarctic volcanoes are not nearly as well mapped as those in more populated regions, such as Japan. In any case, the strong circumpolar winds that delay mixing will inevitably concentrate Antarctica’s volcanic CO2 emissions over the Antarctic continent, including Amundsen Station…”
Sigh. And this alleged trend correlates with global temps over this period, how?
The problem with junk science is the story is never the same, but constantly changing in a futile attempt to keep the scam going – it got into problems at the very first hurdle when they claimed that the Industrial Revolution kick started global warming, that narrative was dropped as it became too much of a talking point that temperature began rising coming out of the LIA, way before the small beginnings of the IR, to date, then they tried moving it to the 40’s because of industrial growth but now having to avoid explaining the decades of cooling which in the early 70’s had all the climate scientists predicting the next LIA leading to the full blown end of Holocene scenario, they say it’s “the great man made fossil fuel combustions from the 7o’s”.
Where on that neat Keeling curve wannabe is the great decline of carbon dioxide which should show in the decades of cold as AGWScienceFiction claims that carbon dioxide drives temperatures?
And global temps have not been rising for the last 20 odd years, well known at the highest levels like the Met the AGW meme got pushed regardless – the Met now admits no rise in all that time they were claiming it was. This is science fraud.
I don’t think that analysis can also apply to Jubany station on the peninsula since it is outside the circumpolar winds. In any case please explain why the measurements at Jubany station http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/Jubany_thru_2009_Daily.JPG are rising nearly monotonically, without much annual wiggle that shows up more in the NH. Also explain how a volcanic source would increase CO2 monotonically rather than in bursts.
Enough of this, totally irrelevant to my point, there has never been shown from Keeling on that there is any man-made signature, it can’t be told apart from volcanic, and, all they’re doing is including all sources of carbon dioxide in their pretend measurements of their mythical “well-mixed background” anyway. Carbon dioxide is not very well mixed at all, it is lumpy and local.
Which letters in “science fraud” are you having problems with?
If you want to continue to detract from the points I’m making, then I suggest you get involved in discussion with posters such as these here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/23/antarctic-peninsula-was-1-3c-warmer-than-today-11000-years-ago/
This was posted in a discussion on Judith Curry’s site:
http://www.thegwpf.org/belgian-scientists-double-standards-climate-change/
“Belgian Scientists: Double Standards In Climate Change
Date: 13/04/13
István E. Markó, Alain Préat, Henri Masson and Samuel Furfari
The authors of this paper recently presented their views on climate science at the Royal Academy of Belgium. No French or Belgian newspaper was willing to publish their assessment. Questioning the impact of mankind on climate change is evidently still a taboo in the French-speaking world.
Double Standards in Climate Change
István E. Markó a), Alain Préat b), Henri Masson c) and Samuel Furfari d)”
“..
The authors of this contribution were recently been granted the honour of presenting their point of view as climate sceptics at the Royal Academy of Belgium. During a series of six well-attended lectures we showed, among other things, that:
1.The climate has always changed. This was true during ancient times and it has also been true since the beginning of the modern era. These climate changes have always been, and still are, independent of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere;
2.During Roman times and the Middle Ages temperatures were observed well in excess of those currently experienced. From the 16th till the 19th century a cold period referred to as the “Little Ice Age” predominated. All these changes took place without mankind being held responsible. We believe that the increase in temperatures that occurred during a certain part of the 20th century is the result of a recovery from this cold period. These various events can be explained by a combination of warm and cold cycles of different magnitudes and duration. Why and how this happens is not yet fully understood, but some plausible explanations can be put forward;
3.The so-called “abnormally rapid” increase in global temperatures between 1980 and 2000 is not unusual at all. There have in fact been several such periods in the past, during which temperatures rose in a similar manner and at comparable rates, even though fossil fuels were not yet in use;
4.Temperature measurements do not necessarily correlate with a building up or a decrease in heat since heat variations are energy changes subject to thermal inertia. Apart from heat many other parameters have an influence on temperature. Moreover the measurement of temperatures is subject to numerous large errors. When the magnitude and plurality of these measurement errors are taken into account, the reported increase in temperatures is no longer statistically significant;
5.The famous “Hockey-stick” curve, known as the Mann’s curve and presented six times by the IPCC in its penultimate report, is the result among other things of a mistake in the statistical calculations and an incorrect choice of temperature indicators, i.e. proxies. This lack of scientific rigour has totally discredited the curve and it was withdrawn, without any explanation, from subsequent IPCC reports;
6.Even though they look formidably complex, the theoretical models employed by the climate modellers are simplified to the extreme. In fact there are far too many (known and unknown) parameters that influence climate change. At the moment it is impossible to take them all into account. The climate system is extremely complex, containing not only chaotic components but also numerous positive and negative feedback loops operating according to various different time scales. Which is why the IPCC wrote in its reports that: “…long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible” (page 774, Third report). This is very true. To this day all the climate predictions based upon these models have turned out to be totally incorrect. Strangely, nobody seems to care;
7.The relationship between CO2 and temperature, obtained from the Vostok ice cores, shows that a building up of CO2 occurs 800 to 1000 years after an increase in temperature is observed. Hence the increase in the concentration of CO2 is a consequence of the warming of the climate, not its cause;
8.But the coup de grâce to the “warmists’ theory” – certainly not yet visible in the French and Belgian media – comes from the observation that for the past fifteen years or so the global temperature of the Earth has remained constant. During the same period CO2 emissions have increased by far more than in the past, reaching an unparalleled record this year. Honest climate scientists admit that this observation is an embarrassing inconvenience for their theory. However, attempts to make us believe that the Earth is continuing to warm up persist. Will we have to wait for another twenty, twenty-five or thirty years for the global warming advocates to finally admit that there is no unambiguous correlation between the global temperature of the Earth and human-generated CO2 emissions?
9.The claim that Hurricane Sandy is due to human CO2 emissions is totally unfounded and has been vigorously contested by numerous meteorologists. This regrettable distortion of the facts has been denounced in an open letter, addressed to the General Secretary of the UN and signed by more than 130 world-renowned scientists, including one of the present authors;
10.Finally the “abnormal” melting of the Arctic Sea ice, that made the headlines of numerous journals during this summer, was also observed during previous decades. Amazingly the record high increase in Antarctic Sea ice that occurred at exactly the same time has been completely ignored by the very same media. Moreover, no mention has been made of the current, particularly rapid, regeneration of the Arctic Sea ice.
These ten statements are facts. We would be ready to accept that they could be wrong, if evidence were presented to scientifically disprove them. In the meantime, and in view of the lack of coherence and unreliability associated with the numerous predictions made by the IPCC, it is time to set the record straight. The public and politicians must be informed about the hypothetical character of the predominant ‘consensus’ on climate change, which has been uncritically disseminated in the media for more than ten years. If it ever existed, this so-called “climate change consensus” has now been totally undermined by the facts.”
In other words, all the claims made to push the AGW narrative are fake fisics and deceptive practices.
Myrrh asks “And this alleged trend correlates with global temps over this period, how?”
It doesn’t but that wasn’t my question.
Myrrh says: “Enough of this, totally irrelevant to my point, there has never been shown from Keeling on that there is any man-made signature, it can’t be told apart from volcanic, and, all they’re doing is including all sources of carbon dioxide in their pretend measurements of their mythical “well-mixed background” anyway. Carbon dioxide is not very well mixed at all, it is lumpy and local.”
What detracts from your point is having no answer to whether the measurements are accurate. CO2 is rising steadily in those measurements and volcanoes is not a suitable explanation unless those volcanoes are increasing worldwide and CO2 is well mixed (something you disagree with). What is relevant to your point is whether you have an explanation of how independent measurements can yield results that look an awful lot like a manmade rise. Obviously there are many of us (myself included) who have heard that explanation for many years and believe that it fits with all of the observed evidence, many measurements = anthropogenic production + uptake. Natural uptake (or production like your volcanoes) is very poorly measured. But anthropogenic production comes from the economic data and many independent measurements are basically in sync. It is possible to have alternative explanations that fit all that evidence, but they have to explain all the evidence. “Fraud” is not an explanation for CO2 measurements unless every scientist who ever measures CO2 commits fraud.
eric1skeptic says:
May 8, 2013 at 3:08 pm
What detracts from your point is having no answer to whether the measurements are accurate. CO2 is rising steadily in those measurements and volcanoes is not a suitable explanation unless those volcanoes are increasing worldwide and CO2 is well mixed (something you disagree with). What is relevant to your point is whether you have an explanation of how independent measurements can yield results that look an awful lot like a manmade rise. Obviously there are many of us (myself included) who have heard that explanation for many years and believe that it fits with all of the observed evidence, many measurements = anthropogenic production + uptake. Natural uptake (or production like your volcanoes) is very poorly measured. But anthropogenic production comes from the economic data and many independent measurements are basically in sync. It is possible to have alternative explanations that fit all that evidence, but they have to explain all the evidence. “Fraud” is not an explanation for CO2 measurements unless every scientist who ever measures CO2 commits fraud.
Where is the data pre the 94 Italian job? It was around that time Salinger went to NZ from CRU to fiddle their temperature records..
As it says on the web page http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/jubany.html 1994 is when they started their measurements. From then until 2009 the CO2 rose steadily. The simplest explanation is that the steady rise came from anthropogenic CO2. A more complex explanation is that they measured wrong some how (e.g. timed uneven measurements to depict a steady rise), an even more complex one is that they faked measurements completely. A look at their paper
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0889.1999.t01-1-00011.x/pdf
rules out wrong measurement (variation is too small including diurnal cycle).
It is obvious that taking station temperature records and “homogenizing” them into averages opens the door to all kinds of “fiddling” since urban heating can easily be spread (or worse). But it is not at all obvious how the Italians fiddled the CO2 data. If I am missing something, please suggest specific ways that data from CO2 produced the curves shown above. I am not interested in more abstract CO2 conspiracy theory or unrelated problems in “climate science” which I am well aware of, although you are welcome to provide those to whoever else is left reading this thread.
Myrrh, do you agree that measurements like these: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/jubany.html are accurate?
How can I? The measurements are only continuous from the Italians from 94. They don’t give the data from the Argentinians, but it is supposedly included on that graph – but they don’t say it is, they just mention them which might lead one to think their data were included – and you expect me to comment on why I think carbon dioxide levels have risen from that graph which shows a line on a graph from what looks like 1958 which is Keeling beginning and the Argentinians were there several years before that.
I am asking narrowly about the paper at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0889.1999.t01-1-00011.x/pdf and just figure 4 (selected daily average CO2 measurements for 1994-1997) and how the data was collected (section 3, p. 716) and filtered. Does it accurately represent the annual cycle and the anthropogenic rise as I suspect, or does the graph show something else (misrepresented, filtered, adjusted, next to volcano, etc) and if so, what specifically is it showing?
Jubany:
Abstract
Although Antarctica is still considered as one of the most pristine areas of the world, the growing tourist and fisheries activities as well as scientific operations and their related logistic support are responsible for an increasing level of pollutants in this fragile environment. Soils and coastal sediments are significantly affected near scientific stations particularly by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). In this work sediment and soil were sampled in two consecutive summer Antarctic expeditions at Potter Cove and peninsula, in the vicinity of Jubany Station (South Shetland Islands). Two- and 3-ring PAHs (methylnaphthalene, fluorene, phenanthrene and anthracene) were the main compounds found in most sites, although total PAH concentrations showed relatively low levels compared with other human-impacted areas in Antarctica. Pattern distribution of PAHs observed in samples suggested that low-temperature combustion processes such as diesel motor combustion and open-field garbage burning are the main sources of these compounds.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17570467
==============
Jubany is Argentina’s main scientific station in Antarctica. It is located in a hot spot of biodiversity and one of the areas with most research activities in the Antarctic Peninsula. The station has a laboratory, a cinema and diving facilities. It lies on the coast of the 25 de Mayo Island near stations from our countries.
Country: Argentina
Location: 62º14’ Lat. S y 58º40’ Long. W
Average temperature: -5
Jubany is located in the southern coast of 25 de Mayo island, in theShetland Islands, where there are more than 10 stations from different countries.
Although it is one of the less famous Argentinean stations in the continent, it is where the biggest number of scientific activity takes place. There are studies on oceanography, glaciology, biology and ecology amongst others.
http://www.antartidaurbana.com/bases/argentina/jubany?lang=en
=========
http://wikitravel.org/upload/shared//thumb/d/d9/Antarctica_regions_map.png/450px-Antarctica_regions_map.png
ClimateFor tourists, Antarctica is accessible only during the austral summer season from November to March, during which sea ice melts enough to allow access, coastal temperatures can rise up to highs of 14°C (57°F) and there are twenty four hours of daylight. During the winter the sea is impassable. Temperatures can fall to -40°C/F and there are twenty four hours of darkness.
The above temperatures apply to the islands and coastal regions that tourists ordinarily visit.
Antarctic Peninsula
Antarctica’s principal destination, nearest to Tierra del Fuego, with the impressive topography of the Antarctic Andes, island hot springs, the continent’s densest concentration of research stations
http://wikitravel.org/en/Antarctica
======
Abstract
In the summer 200001, thermal monitoring of the permafrost active layer within various terrestrial sites covered by lichen, moss or grasses was undertaken at Jubany (King George Island) and Signy Island in the Maritime Antarctic. The results demonstrated the buffering effect of vegetation on ground surface temperature (GST) and the relationship between vegetation and active layer thickness. Vegetation type and coverage influenced the GST in both locations with highest variations and values in the Deschampsia and Usnea sites and the lowest variations and values in the Jubany moss site. Active layer thickness ranged from 57 cm (Jubany moss site) to 227 cm (Signy Deschampsia site)
http://www.mendeley.com/research/interactions-between-climate-vegetation-active-layer-soils-two-maritime-antarctic-sites-1/
======
Abstract
Trace-metal contents were recorded for the epilithic antarctic lichens Usnea aurantiacoatra and U. antartica, sampled close to the Argentine scientific station ‘Jubany’ on ’25 de Mayo’ (King George) Island, in the Southern Shetland Archipelago (Antarctica). The corresponding heavy-metal levels have been measured through atomic absorption spectrophotometry, following internationally accepted analytical methods. The results obtained support the hypothesis that an atmospheric circulation of trace metals exists on the assessed area, and the activities developed at the different scientific stations located on this island would be a potential source of heavy metals to the evaluated environment.
http://www.mendeley.com/research/epilithic-antarctic-lichens-usnea-aurantiacoatra-u-antartica-determine-deposition-patterns-heavy-met-1/
================
So, what have we got so far, suspect, for me, collaboration from ’94, increased use at the stations and tourism, diesel fuel heating and burning rubbish spreading from other stations as do the heavy metal, and mention of a hot spring –
The South Shetland Islands are a group of over twenty islands approximately 60 to 150 miles (100 to 240 kilometers) north and northeast of the Antarctic Peninsula and 530 miles (850 km) south and southwest of Cape Horn Several of the islands are, or include, active volcanoes. The islands were heavily exploited for seal hunting in the early nineteenth century. Now they include numerous research stations and are popular with antarctic tourists.
http://www.eoearth.org/article/South_Shetland_Islands
==========
Geology
Except for Gibbs Island northeast of the Shetland Islands, the rocks of the South Shetlands, southernmost South America, the North and South Scotia Ridge, and the Antarctic Peninsula, are of continental affinity. In terms of global tectonics, it is believed that the American plate of the Atlantic Ocean basin is being consumed in the South Sandwich Trench. Also, it is assumed that the American plate must be moving past the floor of the Scotia Sea along the trench fault following the line of the North Scotia Ridge, and that the segment of the Antarctic plate, lying to the west and the north, is being consumed beneath South America. However, neither the North Scotia Ridge, nor the continental margin of Chile south of the Chile Rise, showed marked seismicity until recently. Earthquakes are common in the vicinity of the South Sandwich Arc.
The islands of the South Sandwich Ridge, are wholly volcanic, and most are active volcanoes in a seismically active belt to the west of the South Sandwich Trench. This indicates the presence of a fracture zone, connecting the South Scotia Ridge to the mid-Atlantic Ridge. Earthquakes are less common elsewhere in the region. Active and recently active volcanoes occur in the South Sandwich Arc, along the southeast side of the Shetland Islands (Deception, Bridgeman, and Penguin Islands).
http://www.travelthepoles.com/antarctic/shetlands.html
===
OK, that’s enough. Active volcanic islands.
Even if not, as I suspect, data is being fiddled in line with the ‘official narrative’ which set up the IPCC which in its ’95 report had the conclusion from the concensus of its scientists doctored by Houghton/Santer to say the opposite – from no discernible man made signal to ‘it’s all the fault of man made fossil fuel combustion and we’re all doomed to fry in catastrophic global warming’; even while they knew this was not the case as the Met Office has now admitted that there has been no rise in temps over the last 17 years, while all the time pushing the narrative that temps were rising catastrophically – then rise in volcanic activity could account for it.
Which was also a point Timothy Casey made, that stations monitoring CO2 levels [conveniently] placed in such areas..
The cynicism in brackets my emphasis.
Find a volcano by region: http://volcano.si.edu/world/find_regions.cfm
http://www.volcanodiscovery.com/antarctica.html
And in case of any interest, a comparison of warm and cold summer anomalies : SOUTH PACIFIC WAVE PROPAGATION AND SUMMER TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES
IN NORTHERNMOST ANTARCTIC PENINSULA http://www.wcrp-climate.org/conference2011/posters/C8/C8_Costa_M83A.pdf
eric1skeptic says:
May 9, 2013 at 12:40 pm
I am asking narrowly about the paper at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0889.1999.t01-1-00011.x/pdf and just figure 4 (selected daily average CO2 measurements for 1994-1997) and how the data was collected (section 3, p. 716) and filtered. Does it accurately represent the annual cycle and the anthropogenic rise as I suspect, or does the graph show something else (misrepresented, filtered, adjusted, next to volcano, etc) and if so, what specifically is it showing?
I can’t access it. But that’s not what you first asked and you haven’t responded to my request for the Argentinian data nor given an explanation for the 1958 beginning of that CO2 Keeling kin curve nor explained why they have made it appear that Argentinian data is being used without giving any of it.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming.html
“Over the last few years, there have been very careful studies in Antarctica which clearly show global temperatures rising together with atmospheric carbon dioxide. Global warmers have sent me several of these research papers with the usual “Ah HA!” type comment, but on reading the papers it is clear that the global warmers stopped at the abstract, because what these recent studies show is that Carbon Dioxide levels increased AFTER the rise in global temperature. Let me re-state that. Studies of Antarctic ice show that the Earth would get warmer, and THEN Carbon Dioxide levels would increase. And there is nothing at all mysterious about this. Carbon dioxide is a very unique chemical in that it is more effectively dissolved in liquids in lower temperatures. Normally, air will hold more water when warm, sugar will dissolve in water more quickly when warm, but carbon dioxide will escape from solution as the temperature rises, which is why your beer will soak your shirt if it is too warm when you open it.
“So, as the sun warms the Earth (as recorded in the ice) carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans and lakes bubbles into the sky like too-warm soda pop fizzing over the top of the glass, and as the Antarctic ice reveals, winds up in the atmosphere.
“Now, this is not to say that I think we should waste our planet’s resources. Quite the contrary, I think we need to be very careful of what we have, because we are not likely to get a replacement planet any time soon. But the global warming “hype” is exactly that, hype to sell products and policies. If you want to do something about the damage to the planet caused by oil, STOP THE WARS BEING FOUGHT OVER IT!”
Ho hum, he goes on to say: “Sixteen gallons of oil. That’s how much the average American soldier in Iraq and Afghanistan consumes on a daily basis — either directly, through the use of Humvees, tanks, trucks, and helicopters, or indirectly, by calling in air strikes. Multiply this figure by 162,000 soldiers in Iraq, 24,000 in Afghanistan, and 30,000 in the surrounding region (including sailors aboard U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf) and you arrive at approximately 3.5 million gallons of oil: the daily petroleum tab for U.S. combat operations in the Middle East war zone. [Pacific Free Press]
The [Iraq] war is responsible for at least 141 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e) since March 2003. To put this in perspective, CO2 released by the war to date equals the emissions from putting 25 million more cars on the road in the US this year.[climateandcapitalism.com]”
There you go, the cause of the rise in carbon dioxide levels, the growth of American air bases around the globe and the wars manufactured by the bwankers/industrial military complex..
And, taking out the obligatory man made fault ozone hole, Antarctic carbon dioxide hasn’t increased in the ocean, while “measurements” have been rising –
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCarbon/page3.php
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCarbon/images/southern_ocean_flux_rt.gif
“Le Quéré expected to see a steady increase in the amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the Southern Ocean between 1981 and 2004 (blue line). Instead, weather station measurements (red line) suggested year-to-year variability, but no long-term increase over time. (Graph by Corrine Le Quéré, University of East Anglia.)”
“When Le Quéré plugged atmospheric measurements from the Southern Ocean between 1981 and 2004 into her model, she was startled by the result—something far more interesting than the Antarctic Circumpolar Wave. “The Southern Ocean carbon sink has not changed at all in 25 years. That’s unexpected because carbon dioxide is increasing so fast in the atmosphere that you would expect the sink to increase as well,” says Le Quéré. But it hadn’t. Instead, the Southern Ocean held steady, while atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations climbed. Why?”
Because maybe they hadn’t?
Keeling programmed in a rise and created the idea of a mythical “pristine well-mixed background which could be measured anywhere”, but easier to measure where guaranteed
a supply of volcanic production which can’t be told apart from fossil fuel combustion. This was taken over by concerted vested interests with the power and the money to organise the AGW scam which took off in the ’90’s.
Keeling and his son through Scripps got control of ‘co-ordinating’ carbon dioxide measurements – and just like Keeling pre-determined that there would be an annual rise, so Scripps is now funded to produce the goods for the AGW narrative, an example of the meme regurgitating here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/20/scripps-institution-of-oceanography-cheapens-itself-by-using-the-d-word/
I particularly liked Steve Goddard’s comment.
Steve Goddard says:
January 20, 2010 at 1:17 pm
“I went snorkeling this summer at The Cove down below Scripps. Sea level was at the same place and the beach was the same size that it has been for my entire life.
“He should get out of his office sometimes and go down to the beach, instead of getting his education from watching Al Gore flicks.”